House of Commons
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
Probation professionals perform a critical and invaluable role for our society. We are injecting an additional £155 million a year to recruit more staff, reduce case loads and continue to deliver better community supervision of offenders. We are seeing improvements in performance as that investment beds in, but there is more to do and I continue to monitor things closely.
Chris Evans
I thank the Minister for that answer, but he will know that Napo, GMB and Unison all say that the probation service is facing soaring workloads. Employees are battling under the pressure and sickness rates are high. With many workers off sick, the impact on public safety will be massive. Something must be done. Stepping outside the politics of this, will he commit to working constructively with unions and other agencies to bring about a strategy that will address this critical area of probation?
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who I know takes a very close interest in these matters, and rightly so. I commit to working in partnership with unions and other representative bodies and others to make sure that we have the right support for this service. Let me reassure him that recruitment to the probation service has been very encouraging over the past three years and we have managed to exceed our stretching recruitment targets.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
In July, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation reported that it had found that far too many potential victims of domestic violence are at risk from those on probation due to wide-ranging systemic failures in the service. Furthermore, the chief inspector of the probation service said that things have deteriorated since the 2018 report into the probation service. Is the Minister not concerned that, once again, after 13 years of Conservative rule, things are continuing to get worse for victims of domestic violence?
Damian Hinds
First, may I join you, Mr Speaker, in welcoming the hon. Lady to her place? I look forward to working constructively with her. She raises an important point about the protection of people from domestic abuse from those who are on probation. I can reassure her that we have put in place further measures and, indeed, invested additional money—£1.5 million a year—to support those extra checks into addresses of where offenders may be going, to make sure that there is not that domestic abuse risk.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
We continue to develop opportunities for work and training, both during custody and on release. I am pleased to say that the proportion of prison leavers employed six months after release has increased markedly over the past two years.
Mrs Murray
What help can the Department give to aid the mobility of this potential workforce and get them to where they need to be?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Going to where the job opportunities are is incredibly important; I would mention to her opportunities such as the Jobcentre Plus railcard through the Department for Work and Pensions. We also need to make sure that, at the point of release, prisoners are put in touch with opportunities near to where they live—where they are going to. Although we work with employers large and small, there is a particular value in working with multi-site firms that have locations in many different places.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
There have been seven deaths in Wormwood Scrubs prison as a result of self-harm in the past three years. The first of the inquests into those deaths—that of Luke Clarke—was concluded only last month. It found that inadequate care, fear and confusion contributed to Luke’s death. What is the Ministry of Justice doing to prevent the unacceptable level of self-inflicted and avoidable deaths in prison and what is it doing to speed up the inquest process? I am still waiting for the meeting into the inquest process that I was promised on 27 June by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer).
Damian Hinds
We were talking about employment on release, but what the hon. Gentleman raises is incredibly important. I have visited Wormwood Scrubs. Rates of self-harm are unacceptably high. They vary by place. In the women’s estate, we have a particular issue with self-harm. We are working closely with the national health service, which provides mental health support in prisons. I am absolutely determined that we bring down levels of self-harm.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Prison leavers in employment training are less likely to reoffend. That means that education and training for young offenders in prison is crucial. Will the Minister say why the Government have failed so far to implement a new prison education service? It was promised in their party’s manifesto in 2019. Implementing it in 2025 is too little, too late.
Damian Hinds
I join you, Mr Speaker, in welcoming the hon. Lady to her place and similarly look forward to working with her. I can bring her good news. First, there is an education service operating in every prison, with four contracted providers. We also have additional provision that governors can put in place, but for the new service that she mentions—it was indeed a manifesto commitment—the process is well under way. I look forward to being able to make further announcements before long.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
The crimes associated with VAWG are abhorrent, which is why we have already taken significant action to strengthen the criminal justice system’s response to it, including for example through our end-to-end rape review, driving up prosecutions, and the introduction of new protections for victims through the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Much has been done, but we are ambitious in wanting to go further.
John Cryer
I understand what the Minister is saying, but it takes two years or more for rape cases to come to court, and 69% of victims withdraw from the cases before they come to trial. Has the Minister had the chance to look at our proposal for specialist rape courts in every Crown court in the country?
Edward Argar
I crave your indulgence, Mr Speaker. May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), who shadowed me for some time, and to the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), who also did so? I wish them both well, although given the latter’s election co-ordination role, hopefully not too well.
It remains our priority to deliver swifter access to justice for victims of rape. As the hon. Gentleman says, the experience of attending court is incredibly difficult for them. That is why we have committed to increasing the number of independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers to more than 1,000 over the next three years. In June 2022, we announced our ambitious specialist sexual violence support project in three Crown courts, aimed at improving facilities and technology.
On the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I would urge a degree of caution on those proposals. Listing is a judicial prerogative, and it is important we retain flexibility in the use of the court estate to maximise the use of courts and judges’ time for a range of offences and to meet the needs of the courts.
Debbie Abrahams
The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse recognised the issues with the criminal justice system and said:
“The length of time taken to investigate and prosecute child sexual abuse cases was…a matter of significant concern. Delay within the criminal justice system can add to the harm caused by sexual abuse”.
The experience of a constituent I am helping suggests that is still the case. What mandatory training for court, judicial and other criminal justice is available to ensure that they appropriately support people who have been subject to this abuse?
Edward Argar
It is nice to see the hon. Lady in her place and it is always a pleasure to answer questions from her. She highlights an important issue raised by IICSA and historic and current child sexual abuse. It is worth remembering that the investigation of such crimes can be lengthy because of the complexities of the crimes and of obtaining evidence. While training for the judiciary and courts is a matter for the judiciary and the Judicial College rather than for the Government, we have been investing in training, as have police forces, across a range of specialisms, including handling child sexual abuse cases. It is important that they are handled with sensitivity and with an understanding of the impact that the trauma has had on those who are victims, and indeed also those who are witnesses. She touched on a specific case and I am happy to engage with her outwith the Chamber if that would be helpful.
Ruth Jones
According to the latest research, rape charges are taking longer to be brought forward; the average time a victim has to wait for their attacker to be charged—just charged—is now 400 days, over a year. That is disgraceful, and the situation is getting worse. When will Ministers speed up the process and give women, girls and all victims of rape across England and Wales the justice they deserve?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the importance of timeliness. One of the key aims of Operation Soteria—the new model for investigating rape and serious sexual offences that is being rolled out to all police forces in the coming months—is to improve timeliness. Investigations in this space are, of necessity, often complex and can take a long time. The number of rape convictions is at or around the level it was in 2010. Now, the number of cases passed by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service for charge is up 130%. The number of cases charged is up more than 90%, and the number of cases received in the Crown court is up by more than 120%. Much has been achieved, but she is right to highlight that there is always more that we can and should do in this important space.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
To tackle violence against women and girls, we need a criminal justice system that works. Part of that is having laws that are up to date to deal with the issues that women face today. I had the pleasure of working with my right hon. Friend the Minister on amendments to the Online Safety Bill that will make it a criminal offence to post intimate images online without consent, but he, I and others know that there are still gaps in the law when it comes to the making of those images. Will he give us an indication of when the Government intend to bring forward further legislation, not only to deal with that, but to keep online safety under constant review?
Edward Argar
It has been a pleasure to work with my right hon. Friend on those amendments to the Online Safety Bill, which returns to the Commons today. She is right to highlight the rapidly changing environment that we are legislating for and the need therefore to keep things under constant review. Although she tempts me, I shall resist the temptation to speculate on a forthcoming King’s Speech or any future legislative announcements. What I will say, which I hope will give her some reassurance, is that we have been clear that, as soon as legislative time can be found, the Government are committed to implementing the full package of measures in the Law Commission report.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
The most recent annual prison performance ratings for 2022-23 were published in July. His Majesty’s Prison and Young Offender Institution New Hall was rated a 2, which is a matter of concern. HMP Wakefield was rated a 4, or outstanding.
Simon Lightwood
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons inspected HMP Wakefield last year and had several concerns, including many that remained unaddressed since its previous visit. Those concerns included infrastructure that is in such a poor condition that it needs investment, insufficient healthcare staff, a lack of mental health interventions and too few activity places. The prison leadership and staff continue to do the right thing and should be praised, but when will the Minister play his part and get our prisons back on track?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the inspectorate of prisons reports, which are a very important part of our system and help to hold the Prison Service and us to account. In the case of Wakefield, as he mentions, it was judged a 3, which is reasonably good, for safety, for respect and for rehabilitation and release planning. There was more to do on purposeful activity, which I readily accept is a theme we have seen in a number of reports from different prisons over time, particularly since covid. The inspector also mentioned the strong leadership at the prison and that the prison was settled. We need to continue to make progress, but I join the hon. Gentleman in playing tribute to the leadership at that prison and throughout our Prison Service, and to all the brilliant staff who make it what it is.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and we remain committed to working with our partners across the criminal justice system to try to ensure that court processes are as efficient as possible. We have introduced a raft of measures to achieve that aim, including allowing courts for a third year in a row to sit for an unlimited number of days, with extended use of 24 Nightingale courtrooms. In addition, we have opened two permanent super-courtrooms in Manchester and Loughborough and are recruiting an additional 1,000 judges across all jurisdictions.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. In Suffolk, the backlog of criminal court cases remains stubbornly high, which is not only denying victims justice, but placing a huge burden on the police and costing the local taxpayer a fortune. Working with Suffolk’s police and crime commissioner Tim Passmore, can my hon. Friend produce a comprehensive and bespoke plan that first clears the backlog, and then sets out a long-term strategy for the efficient functioning of the courts in the county?
Mike Freer
I can reassure my hon. Friend that in Suffolk the disposals to March 2023 were up by 23% on the previous quarter, while the outstanding case loads slightly reduced in the same period. That reflects the hard work that is done with our partners to ensure that we get through the case load as fast as possible. We continue to work with the judiciary to identify how we can get the high workload moving more smoothly. Across the Department, and working with our partners, the Crown court improvement group continues to look at best practice and the local criminal justice board will always look at best practice across the country to see what we can do to ensure that his area continues to perform.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister aware that the criminal courts are full of cases relating to joint enterprise, a terrible miscarriage of justice? Will he and the Justice team promise to meet me and the campaigning group JENGbA—Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association—to see whether we can clear the justice system of the many people who should never have been in the courts?
Mike Freer
The hon. Gentleman has campaigned on that issue for some time, and I have met his colleague, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), to discuss it. The data collection does not support the identification of cases relating to joint enterprise, but I understand that the Crown Prosecution is now doing an exercise on better data collection to see whether the issue that he continues to raise, quite rightly, is borne out by the data, and we can see what action we might take to address any injustices.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
As the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) pointed out, chaos in our courts continues. Now, 500 security guards have voted for strike action after a pay offer worth just 38p an hour above the minimum wage. Peter Slator, chairman of OCS, which employs the guards, says in his annual review:
“This was an exceptional year where our colleagues went above and beyond to deliver reliable, high-quality services for our customers around the world in the most challenging circumstances. The reliability and resilience of our frontline colleagues during the pandemic has been exceptional.”
I am sure the Minister will agree that the Government should pay Mr Slator’s company enough for him to deliver fair pay. Will he intervene to stop further chaos in our courts?
Mike Freer
Our courts are not in chaos. [Interruption.] I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman took the time to talk to all partners across the criminal justice system, they would bear that out. All elements of the criminal justice system, in whatever role they play, continue to ensure that it works smoothly. The pay award is a matter for the private sector employer; I will not intervene.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I am pleased to say that the inaugural meeting of the inter-ministerial group on justice is taking place this afternoon, chaired by Lord Bellamy and attended by the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Angela Constance MSP, as well the Counsel General for Wales, Mick Antoniw MS. That new forum has been established by an agreement between the four nations of the UK. It has discussed justice issues of mutual interest.
Jamie Stone
I rise as a convinced devolutionist. In fact, I think I am the only Member of this place whose signature is on the Claim of Right for Scotland. As and when a new law is agreed in Edinburgh or Cardiff, say, what mechanism is in place to ensure that any such new law will not disrupt either England or other parts of the United Kingdom?
Mike Freer
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. We have more recently seen the Scottish Government attempt to railroad the rest of the UK on gender recognition. It is better when our legislatures work in tandem for the benefit of all parties, not when Scotland tries to disrupt other parts of the United Kingdom with ill-thought out legislation.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Government will amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 this afternoon. That 50-year-old piece of legislation controls the shape of Scotland’s criminal justice system to punish drug addiction with the full force of the law rather than treat users, in health settings, as addicts with health conditions. What conversations has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues in the Scottish Government on introducing a safe drug consumption room pilot in Glasgow?
Mike Freer
I am not sure, based on recent reports, that that particular pilot is working well. I will happily ask colleagues to see whether that pilot is working as the hon. Gentleman says it is, but that is not what the newspapers are reporting. The UK Government’s response to it is something for the inter-ministerial group, which is meeting this afternoon.
Chris Stephens
I am a bit confused by the Minister’s response. There currently is no pilot in Glasgow, but perhaps there have been some positive discussions between the Scottish Government and the Government here. Given that there are 100 drug consumption rooms in more than 60 cities across the world, supported by mountains of evidence from NGOs, civil society groups and drug activists, alongside the Lord Advocate’s new policy not to prosecute drug users for possession offences committed within a pilot safer drugs consumption facility, can the Minister give an iron-clad commitment that the Government will not block this life-saving health measure?
Mike Freer
How that legislation is dealt with is a matter for other colleagues, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, if treating drug taking as a health issue is working as he suggests it is, we will learn from that and discuss it with our colleagues in the NHS. The broad principle of it being a health issue is being dealt with by the NHS and the Health Secretary. In terms of legislation, that is a matter for Cabinet colleagues.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
We are building 20,000 modern prison places to help rehabilitate prisoners, cut crime and protect the public, and we continue to invest in prison maintenance, so that existing places remain in use and safe.
Ms Brown
The Minister’s answer is very interesting because, let’s face it, our prisons have been run down for 13 years. Many are so old that they were built before RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—was even a twinkle in somebody’s bank account. If we read the inspection reports, as I have, it is a list of woes. They are draughty, damp, infested, terribly overcrowded and woefully understaffed—hardly likely to enable rehabilitation. It is our communities that endure the consequences, with at least 37% of prison leavers reoffending within 18 months. It is simply not good enough, is it?
Damian Hinds
We continue to upgrade the prison estate. As I say, we are investing in 20,000 new places—the biggest expansion in the secure estate since the Victorian era. At the same time, we have been taking out some of our most overcrowded and unsuitable prisons. In the last financial year, we took out 1,900 places, and we are investing £168 million in custodial maintenance for 2023-24 and 2024-25.
The hon. Lady mentioned reoffending. There is no good level of reoffending but zero, but I am pleased to be able to report good progress on reoffending, which has been coming down as a result of more ex-offenders getting into employment, fewer of them being homeless and more being able to get suitable, good treatment for addiction.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Justice Committee is proposing to hold an inquiry into future prison population and estate capacity, and I look forward to the Minister giving evidence to us about that. He will know that that is prompted in part by concerns that overall overcrowding in the adult male estate is some 23%, and it is much worse in many of the old local prisons. While he is right to draw attention to the Government’s new prison building programme, even if that were all completed on time, there would, according to figures we have seen, be a shortfall in March 2025 of about 2,300 places as against anticipated demand. What is going to be done to deal with that? Should we have a proper conversation with the public about what is a reasonable expectation of what can be done in prisons, what is the best use of prisons and who should be there?
Damian Hinds
On my hon. Friend’s last point, of course we must constantly be having an intelligent, constructive public debate about these matters. On the question of capacity, projections change, and there are many complex factors at play. I look forward, as ever, to being scrutinised by his Committee on that point.
It is important to note that crowding—doubling up in cells—has for a very long time been a feature of our prison system. Crowding overall is 2,000 fewer than it was when we came into government in 2010.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
Between January 2019 and December 2022, we removed 13,851 foreign national offenders from the country. As my hon. Friend rightly suggests, that is all about close working with colleagues, including in the Home Office.
Dr Evans
We have all seen the stories of convicted foreign criminals being pulled off planes at the last minute. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 was brought in to improve the process of returning criminals—to speed up that process and increase the window for removal of foreign national offenders from prison under the early removal scheme. Could my right hon. Friend comment on how that scheme is working, how he expects it to affect the numbers, and how he expects the process to be sped up?
Damian Hinds
As my hon. Friend mentions, under the Nationality and Borders Act, we expanded the FNO early removal scheme window from nine months to 12 months, allowing for earlier removal. We are working closely with the Home Office on that. In May, we also agreed a landmark new deal with Albania, and we are working to negotiate new prisoner transfer agreements with EU member states and other countries.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for that response. It has been reported that the proportion of Northern Ireland’s total jail population who hail from outside the United Kingdom and Ireland is disproportionately high—the figures indicate that it is between 7% and 9% per year. Has the Minister had an opportunity to assess that with the Department of Justice back home?
Damian Hinds
As the hon. Gentleman knows, given the way we are organised, we do not cover the Northern Ireland Prison Service. However, it is very important that we stay in close touch and, although I have not had that specific conversation recently with colleagues in Northern Ireland, there will no doubt be opportunities in the future.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
The sale of Reading Prison is proceeding and, barring any unexpected complications, completion is expected later this autumn.
Matt Rodda
I thank the Minister for his answer, and for meeting me and the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma) recently to discuss this matter. Reading Gaol is a hugely important historic building, and nearly 13,000 people across Berkshire have now signed a petition asking the Government to work with me and the local arts community to turn the gaol into an arts hub. It has taken the Government a long time to discuss the proposed sale with their preferred bidder and no progress—or slow progress—appears to be being made. Will the Minister now reconsider the Government’s approach and work with me, Reading Borough Council and the local arts community to save this wonderful building?
Damian Hinds
The sale is progressing. Of course, any proposed development would be subject to approval from Reading Borough Council’s planning department, and the usual due diligence requirements and so on will apply.
We quite often throw around the term “doughty campaigner” in this Chamber, but I can certainly say that the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), his neighbour, have been incredibly assiduous in their attention to this matter on behalf of their constituents. In turn, I commit to him that we will absolutely stay in touch.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
It is right that those convicted of a crime face up to its consequences by being in court when they are sentenced. On 30 August, the Lord Chancellor announced his intention to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows to enable judges to order an offender to attend court for sentencing, making it clear in legislation that reasonable force can be used to compel attendance and that refusal to comply with a judge’s order will cause the offender to face up to two years in custody.
Gareth Johnson
In 2014, Colin Ash-Smith was convicted of murdering 16-year-old Claire Tiltman in my constituency of Dartford. His final insult to her was to refuse to attend the sentencing hearing, so I welcome the proposed changes to compel defendants to face up to the consequences of their actions. However, can the Minister confirm that there will be an opportunity for judges to hear representations from the prosecution, defence, and security staff before such action is taken?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I hope he will allow me this opportunity to express my sympathy to the friends and family of Claire Tiltman, who lived in his constituency and, in 1993, was tragically murdered. I was glad to see her murderer brought to justice after so many years. Colin Ash-Smith, like Lucy Letby, was cowardly for not attending the sentencing hearing to face up to his appalling crime. Each case is different, so it is important that the court and the judge have discretion in how to make an attendance order, and in reaching that decision—although we are working through the details—we would expect the courts to consider the full circumstances of each individual case, including any representations made by the prosecution or the defence in that context.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
If we want offenders to attend their sentencing, it does rather help if the court is open. Harrow Crown court was closed two and a half weeks ago because of the discovery of crumbling concrete—RAAC—with no indication as yet of any timescale for it to be reopened. Its closure will inevitably exacerbate the backlog of criminal cases in the London area and prevent victims of crime from seeing justice. Could the Minister provide quickly an update on the progress at getting Harrow Crown court modernised, fully repaired and open again?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, particularly for the dexterity with which he got Harrow Crown court in. He is right to highlight that case. I understand that remedial work is under way and that cases listed there have been transferred to other London courts to ensure they still continue to be heard. I understand from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), that the indicative timescale to complete the works is six to nine months.
Mr Speaker
I welcome the shadow Minister, Kevin Brennan. It will be quieter on the Back Benches but no doubt he will make up for it on the Front Bench.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I suspect the Minister might anticipate what I am going to ask him because I am beginning to think the Department should be renamed the Department for Justice Delayed. Labour proposed that we change the law on attending sentencing back in 2022, and just last month the Leader of the Opposition said that we were prepared to amend the relevant legislation if there was no action, so why is it taking so long for the Government to intervene on behalf of victims and their families?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and may I take the opportunity to welcome him to his place? I suspect there will occasionally be to-and-fros across this Chamber, but I hope there will also be opportunities, where we are in agreement, to work constructively together. We have been clear on our intention to bring forward appropriate legislation to reinforce the existing powers the judiciary has in this respect, but it is important that we get this right and that it builds in that degree of judicial discretion, because there may be some circumstances where victims would not wish to see the offender in court for sentencing because it would be deeply distressing or deeply disruptive. So it is important that we get this right. We are determined to do that, but we will work through the detail to make sure it is robust and effective.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
We have recently seen indications of an improving national staffing picture in prisons, with an increase of 700 full-time equivalent bands 3 to 5 prison officers and youth justice workers in the year to June 2023.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but the damning report into HMP Woodhill, just adjacent to my constituency, was clear that staff shortages were a huge factor in the serious issues that prison faces. It is equally well known that HMP Spring Hill and HMP Grendon in my constituency have faced recruitment challenges. In that light, if we cannot staff the prisons that we do have, surely it is unworkable to carry on with my right hon. Friend’s totally unwanted plans to build a new mega-prison in my constituency and that planning appeal should be withdrawn.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in these matters, and rightly so, particularly on behalf of his constituents who are prison officers and other staff in and around his constituency. I can assure him we are working urgently to address the findings and the urgent notification at Woodhill. I think we will come on to that a little later in questions from hon. Friends. The Lord Chancellor will, as ever, be publishing an action plan by the end of the month. We also have active recruitment campaigns in place for Grendon and Spring Hill and are seeking to increase numbers by incentivised recruitment.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I recognise that there continues to be work to be done to improve conditions in some magistrates courts for the users, and that is why we have boosted the capital investment programme to £220 million over the next two years to March 2025 to improve the quality and enhance the resilience of the court and tribunal estate, allowing us to plan major projects much more in advance and with certainty. The improvements will ensure that those on the frontline of the justice system will benefit from buildings that are more accessible and sustainable.
Mr Carmichael
We speak of access to justice meaning the availability of legal advice and representation but, for too many older and disabled people, physical access to justice through the magistrates courts in particular is well-nigh impossible because the buildings themselves are not fit for purpose. Actually, “not fit for purpose” was the term used to describe the magistrates courts in the Secretary of State’s constituency by the former police and crime commissioner. Do we not need more swift action to remedy the problem than the Minister has outlined?
Mike Freer
I took quite a bit of time to read the report from the Magistrates Association on inaccessible courts to ensure that, where we can make reasonable adjustments, we make them, and that where we need to make more substantial investment to make the courts more accessible, particularly to make them compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, we do so and those works are prioritised. We continue to work on new courts, as in Blackpool and the City of London, to ensure that the estate is modernised and we have courts that are accessible and fit for purpose. The point is well made and it is in hand.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
To preserve the independence of the judiciary, the Lord Chief Justice has a statutory responsibility for the training of the judiciary under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and that includes magistrates and their legal advisers. Magistrates, and the legal advisers who support them in court, must complete induction training before hearing cases and, once magistrates are sitting, continuation training is provided on regular cycles. Impartial decision making is woven throughout all the material.
Michael Fabricant
I thank the Minister for his answer. Chris Pincher and I have been working very closely to ensure that the police act strongly and swiftly in Shenstone near Lichfield over constant demonstrations at an Israeli company that supplies arms to the British armed forces. Two people went to trial at a magistrates court in Walsall and they were acquitted. It is reported—we do not know for sure because it is not a court of record—that the judge said
“on the principle of proportionality…their action was proportionate in comparison to the crimes against humanity which they were acting to stop”
by the Israelis. I think that, if it were true, is outrageous. What can be done within the judicial system to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen, if indeed it did?
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the independence of the judiciary. We have to be careful that we do not rely on reports by a third party, perhaps with a vested interest, because these cases are not reported officially. However, if he wishes to discuss any points of law that may lead to an appeal from the prosecuting authority, he can do so and I am happy to work with him and guide him on how that may be taken up with the Attorney General. In terms of any complaints about the behaviour of the judiciary, there is a clearly defined process that I am happy to discuss with my hon. Friend after today’s session.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
At 30 June just over 20,000 people were working in the probation service—an increase of just over 2,300, or 13%, compared with 30 June the previous year.
Theresa Villiers
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Two horrific cases—those of Jordan McSweeney and Damien Bendall—show how vital it is to have effective supervision of recently released offenders. What lessons have been learned from those two cases, and will the Minister provide an update on the action being taken to address problems in the probation service caused by high vacancy rates and consequentially unmanageably large case loads for probation staff?
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and again I express my sincere condolences to the families of Zara Aleena, Terri Harris, Connie Gent and John and Lacey Bennett. We have increased probation staff in the London area by 4.5% over the last year, and that includes 270 trainee probation officers in post. The service has accepted all the chief inspector’s recommendations in respect of the two appalling cases that my right hon. Friend mentioned, and it is implementing robust action plans, especially with regard to improving risk assessments.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
Ministers engage regularly with colleagues in the Welsh Government, including discussions on female offenders and alternatives to custody. Both Governments work closely on delivering the “Women’s justice blueprint for Wales” on female offending.
Liz Saville Roberts
Short sentences for women often do more harm than good, reinforcing trauma and leading to further reoffending. In 2022, two thirds of sentences for immediate custody for women were for less than 12 months. It is anticipated that 1,000 more women will be in prison by 2026. How does the Secretary of State justify the growing female prison population and the use of short sentences, given Wales’s ambition to divert as many women as possible away from prison?
Damian Hinds
The women’s population in prison has come down, and sentencing is a matter for the judiciary and not something in which the Government intervene. It is important that suitable alternatives to custody are available, and I join the right hon. Lady in paying tribute to the people running women’s centres, for example, which do a fantastic job specifically for women, as well as to the broader set of alternative and community sentence options. It is important that we make sure we continue to work on those, including working together with the Welsh Government.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, who has been in Riga attending a Council of Europe meeting, where a political declaration was signed on support for the Ukrainian justice system. He is sorry not to be here for these oral questions, and he has asked me to convey to the House his thanks to the Metropolitan police for their quick work in finding and returning Daniel Khalife to custody. The independent investigation that the Lord Chancellor commissioned must now get to the bottom of this serious breach. Since the last oral questions, the Government have also announced that we will make whole life orders the expectation in sentencing where they can be applied. We have also outlined plans to order the worst offenders to attend court for their sentencing hearings. We want to ensure that the worst offenders receive their sentences in the full glare of the courtroom, and that victims have the opportunity to set out the impact the crime has had on them.
Dame Nia Griffith
With Government spending for housing legal aid falling in the past decade from £44 million to £20 million and the spending for disrepair cases falling from nearly £4 million to just over £1 million, it is not a moment too soon that the Government have begun to restore some legal aid with the housing loss prevention advice service. Due to the Government’s disastrous Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, many housing legal aid providers shut up shop, leaving 42% of the population of England and Wales without a single provider in their local authority area and 84% with no access to welfare legal aid. What recent analysis has the Minister made of legal aid deserts, and what steps is he taking to remedy the situation?
Damian Hinds
We are putting more money into legal aid and criminal legal aid following the independent review. Specifically on housing, which the hon. Lady mentioned, we are injecting an additional £10 million from 1 August.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamp- tonshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who I know takes a keen interest in this issue. The safety of our roads is a key objective for the Government, and protecting all road users is a priority. Like all road users, cyclists have a duty to behave in a safe and responsible manner. While laws are in place for cyclists, they are old and it can be difficult to successfully prosecute offences. That is why Department for Transport colleagues are considering bringing forward legislation to introduce new offences concerning dangerous cycling to tackle those rare instances where victims have been killed or seriously injured by irresponsible cycling behaviour.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the update about Daniel Khalife, but the fact remains that HMP Wandsworth has been a known problem for the best part of a decade, with a litany of failures including overcrowding, staffing and security issues. Khalife is not even the first escape from Wandsworth; there was an incident in 2019, which the chief inspector of prisons said was the result of a “serious security breach”. Why, after so many warnings about Wandsworth, have the Government failed to act?
Damian Hinds
We take these matters extremely seriously. The independent investigation will of course look at the question the hon. Lady raised specifically about the 2019 incident to ensure that lessons were learned. If we look at the independent review of progress from His Majesty’s inspectorate, we see that progress has been made in Wandsworth, particularly on staffing, which I know has rightly been a matter of considerable public interest. There has been an increase of some 25% in staffing specifically at Wandsworth since 2017.
Shabana Mahmood
Years of warnings and years of inaction—I am afraid that rather sums the Government up. On Sunday, the Justice Secretary told us that 40 prisoners have been moved from Wandsworth, claiming that that was out of “an abundance of caution”. Will the Minister tell us how many other prisoners will have to be moved across the whole prison estate as a result of this escape? What the public want to see is not an abundance of caution after the fact of an escape but an abundance of certainty that the prison estate is secure. Is it?
Damian Hinds
It is. The hon. Lady would not expect me to get into a running commentary on transfer arrangements when we are talking about security. I want to reassure her, the House and the public that escapes from prisons are very rare, and much rarer now than they used to be. The number of escapes from prison in the last 13 years—since 2010—is considerably lower than it was in the 13 years before.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue of traffic offences. As part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, there was an increase in the minimum disqualification periods for the serious offence of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs from two years to five years, and an increase from three to six years if there is a repeat offence within three years. The Department for Transport is also currently considering a broader call for evidence on motoring offences. I hope that the very recent report from the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking will be useful to it in that respect. I will ensure that colleagues at the DFT are aware of her interest in this issue.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Damian Hinds
I think the hon. Gentleman has achieved his objective: to get something on the record. I will not comment on ongoing cases, but, speaking more generally, access to justice is at the heart of what we do.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who throughout her time in the House, and particularly while Home Secretary, has always taken a keen interest in supporting victims of crime. It is vital that victims get the compensation they are entitled to, be that from the offender or the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which paid out more than £173 million in 2022-23. The making of a compensation order is a matter for the court, and there is no limit on the amount that a court can order an offender to pay.
In respect of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, His Majesty’s Government are consulting on changes following the report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse alongside previous consultations. It is important that that can be considered fully, but that will be post-passage of the Victims and Prisoners Bill.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
Across the whole tribunal process, the team will constantly monitor who is performing and who is not, and will share best practice. If the hon. Lady would like to write to me with the details of a particular case, I can investigate the particular cause of delay.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the scourge of knife crime and the need for tough sentences. Although sentencing in an individual case is a matter for our independent judiciary, which is able to consider the specific circumstances of individual cases, in legislating on this issue Parliament was clear about its seriousness. That is reflected in average sentences for all types of knife crime, which are up from 6.5 months in 2010 to 8.1 months in 2020. In addition, 87% of those committing repeat offences were given a custodial sentence, including suspended sentences, which are a custodial sentence.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I have a number of constituents whose asylum appeals were allowed by courts and tribunals service, but have now been thrust into limbo while the case goes back to the Home Office for approval. What conversations have Ministers had with their Home Office colleagues on clearing the backlog that is preventing my constituents from getting on with their lives?
Mike Freer
I am always happy to look at individual cases to see if there are specific issues causing a delay. Broadly speaking, I work with colleagues at the Home Office and the Solicitor General’s office to see what we can do to ensure that any delays in the process are smoothed out, so that people do not have to wait for their day in court.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend raises an important point for her constituents. I must stress that the independence of the judiciary is fundamental to the rule of law and the running of the justice system. Therefore, the Department has not and will not conduct a review into how the judiciary undertakes its functions in individual cases. However, I can reassure her that the judiciary ensures that the relevant agencies that it works with undertake their functions smoothly and effectively.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Is it not the case that last-minute cancellations in magistrates courts are largely caused by the inability to recruit and retain legal advisers, who are paid a lot less than other Government legal advisers? What steps will the Minister take to ensure an increase in wages and better terms and conditions for those legal advisers? Will he sit down with the PCS Union to try to resolve this intolerable situation?
Mike Freer
We look carefully at why all cases are vacated; in fact, the biggest cause of vacation is often the non-availability of prosecution or defence counsel, not of legal executives.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
May I put it to Ministers that the nine-month wait for granting simple probate is unfair on people trying to sell their parents’ home? I failed to get the probate service to work, and I have a constituent who has written to the Prime Minister. Will Ministers please sort it out?
Mike Freer
The time taken once all required documents are received is between six and nine weeks. We always advise that no one should take a decision on the sale of a property until probate is granted, but I can reassure my hon. Friend that despite a significant increase in applications, the service is recruiting and training up more than 100 new caseworkers to ensure that it delivers the service that my hon. Friend wants, as do I.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
Last month the United Nations called for an urgent Government review of sentences of imprisonment for public protection. Will the Secretary of State listen to the UN? Can he explain why the number of people with an IPP sentence recalled to prison without committing any further offence has soared in recent years?
Damian Hinds
I can confirm that the Lord Chancellor and I—and us all—are very conscious of the difficulties around IPP sentences, which would not be introduced today. We abolished them, as the hon. Lady knows, but there are people in prison who have been recalled or not released by the parole board because they have not been considered safe for release. Our objective is to help to manage people towards safe release into the community. To that end, our recently announced action plan is central.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
The rehabilitation of offenders is so important in reducing the chances of them committing crime once released from prison, especially if they can get back into work. Could the Minister outline any schemes that help to give offenders the skills they need, and how they can access companies that are willing to give them a second chance in life?
Damian Hinds
My hon Friend is so right. In topical questions, I do not have the time to start to unpack all the different things I would like say, so I will not. Suffice it to say that brilliant companies are providing training opportunities.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I have written to the Secretary of State about the tragic case of my young constituent Gregg McGuire. He has agreed to meet with me and I am very grateful. Does his Department have any plans to reassess the current rules which mean that victims’ families are unable to appeal sentences for those convicted of causing death by careless driving?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I know she is meeting the Secretary of State to discuss this matter and I do not want to pre-empt that meeting. If she wishes, I am very happy to join that meeting with her, or even to meet her separately to talk about this issue if she feels that would be helpful.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you will not believe this, but it is almost six months since I finally secured a meeting with the Justice Minister and the Health Minister, after six cancellations, about what happened to section 4 of my Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019, which empowers coroners to investigate stillbirths. I was assured that the law, passed by this House in February 2019 and with a consultation that closed in June 2019, would be published imminently and progress would be made, but nothing has happened. Is it ever going to happen?
Mike Freer
Yes, it will. Both the Health Minister and I are pushing this as fast as we possibly can.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The scale of the illegal drugs problem in prisons was such that five years ago the Government introduced a programme that cost £100 million. Has the problem got worse or improved in the time since?
Damian Hinds
We are seeing progress. It is a combined approach of drug recovery wings and incentivised subsidised free living, and ensuring that security is able to stop drugs getting into prison through things like x-ray body scanners, which we have deployed in many prisons.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
It is perhaps unfortunate that many members of the public and much of the media only take an interest in prisons when there is an escape, but that is, thankfully, very rare. Will my right hon. Friend join me in hoping to now see a calm and measured public debate about the role of prisons, not least working out ways to improve rehabilitation, which ultimately protects the public.
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is exactly right. He has a long history with this issue since before he reached this House. It is, ultimately, all about rehabilitation, reducing reoffending and helping to keep the public safe.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Over 10,000 women have signed a public letter to the Prime Minister asking him to take action against the escalating campaign of threats and intimidation against women who stand up for women’s rights. Many of these women are particularly concerned that the institutions supposed to protect them are failing to do so, including the criminal justice system. Will the Minister with responsibility for victims be good enough to meet me and representatives of those who organised the letter to discuss this important issue?
Edward Argar
I am always happy to meet the hon. and learned Lady.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The reputation of our justice system depends on the independence, integrity and professionalism of our judges. At the end of this month, the right hon. Lord Burnett of Maldon will retire as Lord Chief Justice, to be succeeded by Dame Susan Carr, who will be the first ever female Lord Chief Justice. Will the Minister place on the record in this House his appreciation, and all our appreciation, of Lord Burnett for the exceptional leadership he has shown to the judiciary throughout his term in office?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know the Lord Chief Justice and I am very happy, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government and all those on the Government Front Bench, to do exactly as my hon. Friend says: to pay tribute to Lord Burnett’s exemplary period as Lord Chief Justice.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I would like to pay tribute to the campaigners who challenged joint enterprise. As a result, the Crown Prosecution Service has now committed to monitor who is prosecuted. I welcome the report at the end of this month, but will the Minister commit to an audit of all joint enterprise convictions, particularly as more black people are disproportionately impacted?
Mike Freer
I can commit to wait until we have seen what the work being done by the CPS uncovers. Once we have data, we can then have a rational discussion on the next steps.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware of the prevalence of the unfounded and unscientific concept of parental alienation within our family courts? It is causing suffering and, in some cases, violence against women and girls. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that the courts recognise the harm of this discredited concept?
Mike Freer
The Department is well aware of the concerns, which is why the matter is currently under review. The results of that review, including publication of all the data and research behind the outcomes, will be published later this year.
Offshore Wind Contracts
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if she will make a statement on the implications for offshore wind of contracts for difference allocation round 5.
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
The first annual contracts for difference auction—the first that we have ever done—was completed last week and delivered a total of 3.7 GW of renewable electricity, with contracts going to a record number of projects. The auction delivered significant quantities of new solar and onshore wind generation, as well as supporting 11 new tidal stream projects and, for the first time, geothermal projects. It was a competitive auction, set against a backdrop of highly challenging macroeconomic conditions that have impacted the sector globally. Given that this was our first annual round, it was to be expected that it would have a lower capacity than the previous biennial rounds, and, because last year’s round was the first for three years, a higher annual element than that record round.
The Government remain committed to offshore and floating offshore wind projects, and this round provides valuable learning for subsequent auctions. Work has already started on allocation round 6, incorporating the results of the recent round, and we look forward to a strong pipeline of technologies being able to participate. The move to annual auctions means that allocation round 6 will open in just six months’ time, in March 2024, which means that there could be minimal or indeed no delay in the deployment of new capacity through that round.
The Government also remain committed to our target of decarbonising the power system by 2035 and our ambitions for 50 GW of offshore wind, including up to 5 GW of floating offshore wind. Our trajectory for meeting these aims, as well as our legally binding carbon budget 6 targets, is not linear. The outcome for one technology in one auction does not prevent us from reaching those goals.
Edward Miliband
What a load of nonsense. No wonder the Secretary of State is in hiding.
This auction is an energy security disaster for Britain, and an act of economic self- harm on the part of the Government. No new offshore wind projects means that families’ energy bills will £2 billion higher and our energy security will be weakened. Worst of all, this was totally avoidable. Ministers were warned again and again about the impacts of higher inflation—in a letter from RenewableUK in March, and again in July—and offshore wind is so much cheaper than gas that they could have raised the price in the auction and it would still have saved billions of pounds for families, but they refused to listen.
First, will the Minister tell us why the Government ignored those repeated warnings? Secondly, he said on Friday that every country was in the same boat, but that is just wrong. Ireland listened to industry and adjusted its price, and had a successful auction in March 2023. Why did the Government not learn that lesson? Thirdly, is not the terrible truth that this episode reveals a much deeper flaw in their approach? For month after month this summer, they claimed that the answer to our energy crisis was more oil and gas, and this is the result. We will now be more dependent on expensive, insecure fossil fuels. We will be more exposed to the whims of petrostates and dictators. Every wind farm that we fail to build makes us more exposed to dictators like Putin, and he knows it.
Bills higher, security worse, jobs lost, climate failure—the Government have trashed offshore wind, the crown jewels of our energy system, raising bills, just as they trashed onshore wind by banning it, raising bills, and just as they trashed home insulation, raising bills. We have seen 13 years of failed energy policy, and all this fiasco shows is that the Conservatives are, quite simply, a party unfit to govern.
Graham Stuart
I was pleased to see the other day that the rumours of the right hon. Gentleman no longer being in his position were not true. It is perhaps understandable in that context that he is so passionate about this highly successful round that has seen 3.7 GW on an annualised basis. I think that is a record round. He was a member of the previous Labour Government who left this country with 6.7% of its electricity coming from renewables. In the first quarter of this year, 48% of our electricity was from renewables. It was this Government, with our contracts for difference system, who transformed the economics of offshore wind. We have 77 GW of offshore wind in the pipeline—more than enough. We have 7.5—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman understandably, given the weakness of his arguments, wants to heckle at all times, knowing how easy it is to dismantle them. He asks me where that capacity is, and I can tell him that 7.5 GW is currently under construction.
As ever, the right hon. Gentleman fails to be on the side of consumers. We moved to an annualised auction precisely to ensure that we could learn the lessons from each round, add them to our industry insight and ensure that we could move forward. The projects take multiple years to be developed, and none of them has disappeared. I predict that, moving on from the triumph of 3.7 GW of renewables, which came through successfully on Friday, allocation round 6 will be more successful still. We will continue to build our reputation as the country that has cut emissions more than any other major economy and that has transformed our electricity generation. He mentioned insulation—how he has the gall, I do not know. We have moved from 14% of homes being properly insulated when he left power to over 50% by the end of this year.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his engagement with this process, particularly with the new technology of floating offshore wind. Three floating offshore wind projects were due to bid in allocation round 5 but none did, due to the low administrative strike price. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Celtic sea, I have repeatedly been told that these projects are part of our future energy supply. Can he outline what steps he is taking to ensure that these projects will float in allocation round 6 and to give confidence to developers in the region?
Graham Stuart
I thank my hon. Friend, who is an absolute champion of floating wind and the economic opportunities it offers for her area and the rest of the UK. I was delighted to speak to her last week and meet her yesterday, and I pay tribute to her efforts. We have the largest floating wind pipeline in the world, based on confirmed seabed exclusivity arrangements. We have around 25 GW already identified, including through the ScotWind leasing round and innovation and targeted oil and gas—INTOG—processes. As she, as a great champion, knows, the Crown Estate is moving forward with its leasing round 5 for up to 4 GW of capacity in the Celtic sea this year. We have been the world leader on floating energy and we are going to stay the world leader. Thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend, I know that we will have support across the House.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Minister failed to point out that 3.7 GW is scarcely half of what was achieved in auction round 5. He also failed to mention, when he was heralding onshore wind, that 90% of that will be found in Scotland. Since 2014, the four auction rounds have yielded 1 GW, 2.5 GW, 5 GW and 7 GW, so a nil return is an utter catastrophe.
The critical need for massive investment in offshore is patently obvious for bills and for the climate, yet this ambition has been thwarted by an incompetent previous Secretary of State and by the Treasury, which knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Can the Minister assure us that the Department will get round the table with industry as a matter of urgency to try to repair this damage? Industry needs a strike price that reflects the not-mutually-exclusive goals of lower bills, net zero, and jobs and investment in Scotland and elsewhere. Can he confirm whether a recovery group for auction round 5 will be convened by him or the Secretary of State to try to get this catastrophe resolved? And where is she?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman and his party never fail to trash this country—[Interruption.] He can heckle all he wishes. I will be meeting industry representatives this afternoon and, as I have said, we will be announcing in two months’ time the price ceiling for the next round—[Interruption.] I am getting heckling, not least from His Majesty’s Opposition, who left us in that parlous situation. We are the world leader in so many of these technologies and we are going to continue to be. If the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) were to recognise the need to attract investment to this country and not talk it down, he might find that Scottish jobs would be even stronger in the pipeline than they are already.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
If any, how much of the completed wind capacity still requires connection to the national grid?
Graham Stuart
Until wind capacity is constructed, it is not normally connected to the grid. That which has not been connected to the grid will need to be connected to the grid.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Energy Security and Net Zero.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
The boom and bust of this fiasco will inevitably have knock-ons for the supply chain. How concerned is the Minister about that? Also, how concerned is he about projects that were built on CfD securities but have not invoked the contracts and are now literally raking in the windfall of that act?
Graham Stuart
I do not quite follow the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I am happy to write to him on that topic.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
West Somerset, as the Minister knows, is ideal for offshore wind. I am interested to know why people did not bid in this round. What were their reasons? What can the Government do to learn the lessons of this round so that people like my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) can make sure that people are bidding in the next round?
Graham Stuart
We typically set out the key auction parameters in November, and those include the ceiling of what we will pay for particular technologies. We do that based on our analysis of supply chain costs, and we also commission external analysis. The most important data of all comes from individual auction rounds, and it is on that basis that we set the price parameters. The industry warned us, as it does every year, that it wants us to pay more. We always have to make a judgment call between making sure that we minimise—[Interruption.] It would be so much easier to give my answer, Mr Speaker, if the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) would stop—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think that, as a man who was always happy to heckle from the Back Benches, the Minister deserves a little bit himself.
Graham Stuart
We set the prices, and we immediately learn from each auction. One of the reasons for having an annual auction is that we can quickly adjust and, as I said, projects can then come into the next round with minimal delay.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The wind farm off Brighton has probably become as iconic as the pier itself, but the reality is that the Government’s failure will delay the construction of more of these beautiful installations around our coast. Is this failure not also a failure of the market-based private investment system that this Government are determined to pursue, rather than a publicly owned and co-ordinated building programme that can work alongside private investment so that we no longer have this failure where nobody bids?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for revealing the true face of where the Labour party is going. We can go back to the days when we had hardly any renewables, and we can allow Great British Energy, or whatever Labour is going to call its creature, to squeeze out private investment and destroy the most successful renewables market in Europe, and to destroy this Government’s progress on tackling the parlous position left behind by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North and his friends. We will continue to be the world leader in cutting emissions, but not if we move to the state-run, left-wing obsessions of colleagues like the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle).
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Offshore wind plays, and will continue to play, a key strategic role in enhancing energy security, achieving net zero and revitalising coastal communities such as Lowestoft. To get back on track, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the criteria applying to round 6 will take account of current economic realities, that appropriate fiscal measures are being considered ahead of the autumn statement and that specific focus will be given to enhancing local supply chains?
Graham Stuart
I thank my hon. Friend, who has been such a consistent champion not only for the power of renewables to meet our environmental challenges but for the economic benefits that come from them. He is absolutely right that the nature of the CfD system is that it learns from the previous auction round, which is the most real data of all, and uses that learning to inform the next round. That is why I am confident that, just as we had a success with 3.7 GW on Friday, AR6 promises to be more successful still.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I congratulate the Minister on turning complacency and chutzpah into a new art form. The ineptitude of Tory Ministers means that this latest CfD round saw the smallest auction return since 2015—a failing that was entirely avoidable. How will he ensure that the UK delivers the 35 GW of new offshore wind capacity that is needed in just six years? Why did Ministers yet again fail to heed the warnings from industry and experts in advance?
Graham Stuart
We have to set the parameters based on the best information we have. As I say, one reason for moving to an annual round is to allow us quickly to learn the lessons of each round. We did not get the wind on this occasion, which I regret, and we will put the real-world prices and learnings from that into the next round. That is the system we have, because we are always trying to make sure that we get the parameters right so that we balance the need to generate additional green energy with the cost to the taxpayer. Understandably, given their carelessness with the public finances and with consumers, the Opposition do not seem to care about that. My job is to balance it, ensuring that we get the generation, and we have 77 GW in the pipeline. We are in position and on track to meet our ambitions, which lead Europe—not that we would know that to listen to the hon. Lady.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I thank the Minister for including geothermal projects in allocation round 5, as that is very welcome. However, I echo everything my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) says about the Celtic sea projects. What will we do differently in round 6? What advice would he give to those in the supply chains, specifically ports, that are trying to submit applications for the FLOWMIS—floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme—funding? What conversations has he had about grid capacity, to ensure that all of this eventually runs smoothly?
Graham Stuart
As ever, my hon. Friend is well-informed. We are working on all those fronts. FLOWMIS applications closed just two weeks ago, and we are working flat out to analyse them. I hope that by the end of the year we will have shortlisted to the primary list and those schemes will move forward to due diligence, as we take forward not only our floating wind deployment, but the supply chain in the south-west, Wales, Scotland and around the rest of the UK. We are working on all those fronts and are determined to do that. As she rightly highlights, seeing our first geothermal projects come through the CfD is fantastic, as are the 11 tidal projects. I pay tribute to all colleagues who have worked so hard to promote tidal energy and make sure that we continue to be a world leader in that as well.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
This is an embarrassment for the Government and shows that we are falling further and further behind in the race for green jobs internationally. We have the lowest growth in these industries among the eight biggest economies. Should the Government not be focusing much more on broadening and increasing the capacity of offshore wind, rather than not listening to industry and making fatal errors?
Graham Stuart
If the Labour party is not nationalising or creating some state-owned behemoth, it wants just to hurl money in the direction of business. Our judgment is to balance those things and I am pleased to say that we have been successful; we have the largest offshore wind sector in Europe. This country and this Government, through the CfDs, transformed the economics from the situation we inherited after the right hon. Member for Doncaster North and his colleagues had been in power.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Delivering on the floating offshore wind project in the Celtic sea is vital for our energy security and decarbonisation. Does the Minister agree that we now need to bolster confidence in this emerging industry? There are two things he can do. Does he agree that a successful allocation of FLOWMIS money to the south Wales ports in order to get this industry moving is vital? Does he also agree that we need to ensure that the Crown Estate’s leasing round at the end of the year is done successfully, but with more than 4 GW of visibility, in order to send a strong market signal to the industry to invest?
Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend is also someone who, through thick and thin, promotes that industry and sees the opportunity it offers Wales. He makes a special bid for the Welsh ports, as I would expect him to do, but he will understand that I can make no comment on that. I entirely agree with him on the importance of the Crown Estate round. Suffice it to say that across Government we have been working flat out, with his and other colleagues’ support, to support the Crown Estate to ensure that we maximise the opportunity in the Celtic sea.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Government’s obsession with oil and gas has left us in this mess. The Department has prioritised new oil and gas licences over support for wind power, which flies in the face of our climate change commitments and our responsibilities to UK citizens—our constituents—to keep energy prices low. Oil and gas will always be more expensive than wind energy. When will the Minister fill the gap of 5 GW of offshore wind that we have now missed out on, which would have saved consumers £2 billion a year? I am not talking about the sixth auction round—I am talking about the fifth one, where we have missed out now.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is completely mistaken. We are working flat out both to reduce demand for fossil fuels in this country and to build up our renewables. I would hope she would celebrate the fact that we have the largest offshore wind sector in Europe.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The Government have long been warned that their focus on CfDs as the primary mechanism for financing new renewables risks undermining investor confidence in infrastructure assets with long lifespans but significant up-front capital costs, such as nuclear and tidal range generation. Following the Government’s decision to employ a regulated asset base model to support the development of new nuclear, will the Minister now commit to looking urgently at the optimum financial model for new tidal range projects, which could make a crucial contribution to the future UK energy mix?
Graham Stuart
The CfD scheme is among the most successful, if not the most successful, of its sort in the world. We always look at ways in which we can improve it. We are looking at bringing in non-price factors as we finesse it, but the Opposition party’s idea of some state-run enterprise, squeezing out private investment, would destroy the opportunities going forward. We need at least another £100 billion to be invested by 2030 and if the Labour party ever did threaten to come into power, it would put all that at risk.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
On Teesside, we have been promised thousands of jobs in the offshore wind industry, but investors are getting a little nervous as a direct result of Government failures to provide the right business environment. What will the Minister do to get the business environment right to deliver the jobs we have been promised, which are being put in jeopardy by Government failures?
Graham Stuart
We are getting that balance right and we will continue to do so. Making sure that we look after the consumer is always my guiding light, and we balance that with getting the generation we need. We have seen companies such as SeAH investing in Teesside and Sumitomo looking at investing in Scotland—
Graham Stuart
As the hon. Gentleman decries this and talks both the area and the nation down, he then tells me that investors are getting nervous. If he were to champion all the successes we have had instead of decrying them, he might find that he would give investors even more confidence still.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I do not agree with the policy that the Minister pursues. His net zero policy is disastrous and has been costly in terms of electricity prices and future planning. However, I feel some sympathy for him today. He is being criticised by those who have highlighted high energy prices for not offering inflated prices to the wind industry, which claims that producing wind energy is getting cheaper but of course wants higher prices. As it was not offered that, it would not bid in the auction. Is the real reason for this not that for the first time he has refused to allow those who bid to walk away from their CfD agreements, to price electricity at whatever price they want and therefore to have inflated profits? Does that not indicate to him that the wind industry knows it cannot produce electricity cheaply and wants the system balanced in its favour?
Graham Stuart
The right hon. Gentleman and I do not see eye to eye on net zero or on the economic benefits of the wind industry. It does offer cost-effectiveness. It has been amazing to see how as it is scaled, it has been able to bring the price down. It was not obvious when we went out into the North sea that we would be able to bring the price crashing down, yet this country led the world in doing that. If he looks at the numbers, I hope he will find that the whole of this House can agree on one thing: offshore wind is an economic way of producing energy, and one that all of us should support.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Last week, the think-tank Common Wealth made the critical point:
“Reliance on market coordination leaves the transition vulnerable to the demands of private capital”.
It is abundantly clear that private capital cannot deliver what is urgently required to stem the climate crisis. In Wales, the Welsh Government know that, which is why, over the summer, they launched the community-owned renewable energy company, Ynni Cymru. Does the Minister agree that that is what is required, and what action is he taking to address this?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for pulling back the veil on Labour’s real policy, which is that it hates private capital, it hates private investment and it would destroy the phenomenal success of this country in generating that. [Interruption.] The Front Benchers can heckle all they like, but that is what their Back Benchers want. That is the policy that threatens the British people and threatens our path to net zero. We must make sure that people such as the hon. Lady never have power in this country.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Scottish Renewables has said that the results are a major blow to the renewables sector in Scotland and should serve as an indication that urgent reform is needed. Scottish Renewables, not a political party but part of the industry, has also said that these disastrous results are bad for Scotland’s energy supply chain, which desperately needs a steady stream of projects to make its own investments in skilling up and in new technology. Will the Minister acknowledge that his and his Department’s failure to listen to warnings from the industry is holding back Scotland’s renewable sector?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her question. Industry always asks to be paid more money. Our job is to make the right judgment call on getting the balance right.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I saw in the newspapers yesterday that astronomers have discovered a water-covered planet in a far away galaxy. I have to disappoint these excited scientists that, from his answers today, the Minister appears to have got there before them. [Interruption.] On another planet, yes.
Seriously though, this setback to the Erebus project in south-west Wales is deeply disappointing. It was the first of its kind in Wales and was supposed to pave the way to a developing industry. I hope the Minister can reassure me that he is taking steps to make sure that, in AR6, projects such as Erebus are enabled to compete successfully and to lead the way for this industry in Wales.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman, not least for his attempt at a gag. I can tell him that what he says is the whole basis of the system—that it learns from each round. The most real economic data that we get is from an auction round. Moving to annual rounds, there will be ebb and flow as the right balance is sought between getting the generation that we require, set against our extremely ambitious deadlines, and not paying too much. That is the balance that we strike. We have 3.7 GW and I imagine that we will do even better next time.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I feel as if I am almost taking my life in my hands, but I do want to commend the Minister for one small piece of good news in this round, which is in relation to the development of marine renewables. The success of the auction for tidal stream development illustrates what would be possible for wave power if it were to be given the same opportunity in AR6. But for tidal stream, does the Minister agree that what is now needed is the 1 GW target for deployment? Will he work with me and other people in the House with an interest in this and the marine renewables sector itself to deliver that ahead of AR6?
Graham Stuart
May I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman? I met him in his constituency when I visited the European Marine Energy Centre and saw for myself some of the projects in the water. I am personally determined to ensure that tidal stream continues to grow. We maintain our global leadership, with a very high percentage UK supply chain as a further positive to it. He tempts me to get ahead of myself on policy, but I cannot do that. However, what we are doing and what our dedicated pot this year did is further strengthen that so that we can get in a position where that might be a realistic policy position to take.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Even with a higher price, offshore wind would help to slash bills. When the Minister saw the Irish Government recognise inflation, up the price and proceed to a successful auction, what discussions did he have with the industry and with Treasury colleagues about the price to be set?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which is a good one. Obviously, we did look at whether intervention, given that prices continue to change after they are set, was the right thing to do. We think that the CfD mechanism—the way that it is operated—is sound and that the best thing to do is to allow that to pass for the year. One reason for having the annual auction was precisely to allow us quickly to adjust, and, as I say, as soon as November, we will be setting the parameters for the next year.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Last November, the Government paid up to £700 million to China General Nuclear Corporation to buy out China’s state-owned nuclear power enterprise from Sizewell C, and we spent the best part of 2022 freeing ourselves from our reliance on Russian oil and gas. Given the failure of this Government to sell offshore wind projects in the latest round, can the Minister please comment on how energy independence from authoritarian states was served by this inability to run an auction?
Graham Stuart
We are now running these auctions every year, and every year, we will be seeking to get the generation that we require at the lowest possible cost to the consumer. I make no apology for doing that. The fact that we have the most successful system, not only in Europe, but globally, is something that should be applauded and recognised.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The Windsor report last month provides a sobering analysis about the scale of new electricity transmission infrastructure required to serve increased renewable generation and consumer demand in a very short space of time. However, as the report finds, there is considerable resistance locally to pylon development, as we are finding out in my constituency. Competence for such development is with the Welsh Government, but will the Minister pull together a working group of Ministers from across the UK and experts to consider the Windsor report, and in particular the advantages of cable ploughing technology, which would underground those cables at a comparable cost to overhead pylons without the visual damage?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive and effective question. He is absolutely right to highlight the challenges of making sure that we have the right transmission and connection infrastructure to facilitate offshore wind. We have to do that in a way that minimises negative impacts on communities, that rewards them for hosting it, and that looks at new technologies and innovations, just as we do in other areas, in order to facilitate that effective connection with minimal negative impact on communities that host.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In light of the disappointing results of the CfD AR5 auction and given that I am always trying to be constructive in my contributions in this House, will Government revisit the exclusion of Northern Ireland renewable projects from the scheme, especially in light of the significant increase in onshore wind and tidal stream projects supported by the AR5? Northern Ireland is perfectly positioned for onshore wind and tidal stream to make a major contribution to energy security and net zero from AR6 and beyond. Will the Minister commit to enable Northern Ireland to be part of AR6?
Graham Stuart
I suggest that it is the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who need to commit to facilitating that in Northern Ireland. Energy is devolved and it is up to them to get the devolved Assembly up and running. If they get devolved government going in Northern Ireland, they will unleash these opportunities. It is not for this Department, which is not responsible for energy in Northern Ireland.
Points of Order
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. St Leonard’s in my constituency is one of the schools affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Last week, we received a ministerial statement from the Secretary of State for Education, but, this week, despite RAAC still being an issue, we have heard nothing from the Secretary of State or a Minister. The issue may be yesterday’s news to some, but it is a very real issue for my constituents, many of whom have written to me to express their anger and anxiety about this avoidable crisis. May I please seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, as to how we can implore the Secretary of State to come back to the House this week—preferably tomorrow when it is well attended— and update us on what her Department is doing?
Mr Speaker
First, I thank the hon. Member for notice of her point of order. As she says, the Secretary of State did make a statement on the subject last week. I have had no notice from Ministers that they intend to make a further statement on this matter this week. However, I am sure that Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard her point of order, and I know that Members would like an update before the House goes off again.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I should say that this point of order comes with a trigger warning. Today BBC News, The Times and others carry shocking reports that female surgeons are sexually harassed, assaulted and in some cases raped by colleagues, and some of the sexual assaults take place in operating theatres while female surgeons perform surgery on anaesthetised patients. The House will also be aware that on 23 May this year it was reported that more than 35,000 incidents of sexual misconduct or sexual violence were recorded on NHS premises in England between 2017 and 2022.
Those reports are just as serious as some of the revelations about sexual misconduct in the Metropolitan police, which rightly led to the creation of the Casey review of the standards of behaviour and internal culture of the Met. But when revelations are repeatedly made about the scale of the same problem in the NHS, they are met with Government inaction. I would be grateful if you could confirm whether the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care intends to make a statement to the House on today’s shocking revelations, or whether he intends to announce an independent inquiry so that we can expose the scale of sexual misconduct in the NHS and put an end to that horrific practice and culture of silence.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of the point of order. I have had no indication from Ministers that they intend to make a statement on this important matter, but I am sure that the Government Front Bench will have heard the point of order. If not, I am sure the hon. Lady will pursue it through other means, and there will be opportunities to do so before the House rises.
Electricity Supply (Vulnerable Customers)
Tuesday 12th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Electricity Supply (Vulnerable Customers) Bill 2022-23 View all Electricity Supply (Vulnerable Customers) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Ofgem to amend the conditions of an electricity supply licence in relation to vulnerable customers; to require Ofgem to establish a fund for the purpose of rectifying dangerous electrical faults for vulnerable customers; to require energy supply companies to inform vulnerable customers about the services available to customers on the Priority Services Register; and for connected purposes.
I rise to propose a Bill that would address a critical issue in our energy sector. The Bill aims to require Ofgem to revise the terms of electricity supply licences with a much-needed focus on vulnerable customers. Specifically, it calls for the creation of a fund by Ofgem to rectify dangerous electrical faults affecting vulnerable customers. Additionally, it would mandate energy supply companies to inform vulnerable customers about their entitlements under the Priority Services Register and related matters.
As the UK moves towards achieving net zero emissions, our homes are undergoing a transformation in how they use energy. We are transitioning away from gas and increasingly adopting cleaner energy systems. Currently, 74% of homes rely on gas boilers for heating, but by 2035, up to 47% of homes could depend on electrically powered technologies such as heat pumps. The shift to electricity is expected to continue in the years ahead. In this transition, it is imperative that we prioritise the safety and well-being of our vulnerable citizens.
Last year in England alone, there were a staggering 2,695 fires caused by home electrical installations, an average of seven fires a day. Those incidents encompassed issues related to electrical distribution within homes and heating systems. Despite support from organisations such as Electrical Safety First, the Gas Safe Charity, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Home Improvement Council and National Energy Action, the Priority Services Register maintained by energy suppliers has fallen short in addressing critical electrical safety concerns for the most vulnerable in our society.
The PSR, administered by Ofgem, serves as a support system for vulnerable energy customers, offered voluntarily by suppliers. It provides assistance tailored to specific requirements. While the types of help can vary among suppliers, they typically include free gas safety checks for customers on means-tested benefits living with children under five years old, those receiving pensions and those who are disabled or chronically ill. That invaluable service has undoubtedly saved lives, and the Bill seeks to extend similar safeguards to the many households across the country using and depending on electricity.
While existing legislation in England, Scotland and Wales mandates electrical safety checks for vulnerable individuals living in the private rented sector, the recent Social Housing (Regulations) Act 2023 has extended these checks to those in the social rented sector, aligning England with Wales and Scotland. However, a significant portion of vulnerable people may still fall through the cracks.
Data from various housing surveys across the UK indicates that in 2021 as many as 10.8 million households could have qualified for the Priority Services Register, marking them as part of a vulnerable household. Furthermore, the elderly population, often eligible for the PSR, predominantly resides in the owner-occupied sector, which lacks mandatory requirements for essential electrical safety protections. The risk of electrical fire fatalities is notably higher for people aged 60 and above, particularly those living alone or in older housing with outdated electrics. This is significantly heightened if they have health conditions such as dementia or Parkinson’s.
Vulnerable people are more susceptible to electrical fires when they lack the financial means to pay for electrical safety checks or are physically unable to respond swiftly in case of a fire. Many of them may reside in substandard housing with outdated electrical systems, potentially in higher-density housing, further increasing the risk of fire spreading to neighbouring properties.
The Bill also addresses the pressing issue of fuel poverty among PSR-registered people. There is a significant overlap between vulnerable individuals on the PSR and those experiencing fuel poverty. The rising cost of living has hit many households hard, but it is incredibly challenging for older and vulnerable groups, particularly regarding energy costs. As of 2022, England alone had 3.26 million households in fuel poverty. In my constituency of Ilford South, 15% of households—more than 6,000 families—are grappling with fuel poverty. Shockingly, cold homes, linked to fuel poverty, contributed to 4,020 excess winter deaths in England and Wales last year: 45 lives lost each day during the winter months. For vulnerable people who already face the difficult choice between heating their homes and having enough to eat, affording electrical system checks is often impossible. That hidden danger compounds the already distressing issue of fuel poverty.
Although the PSR is a voluntary system for energy providers, it includes a requirement for free gas and carbon dioxide checks under Ofgem’s licensing conditions. None the less, concerns have been raised by organisations such as National Energy Action regarding the alarmingly low awareness of available assistance. It is crucial for energy suppliers not only to promote their services, but actively to enrol all eligible people on to the PSR, expanding the reach of these services across the board. In a November 2022 study of eligible PSR customers, Electrical Safety First found that around a quarter of respondents had never checked their electrical installations or were unsure if they had been checked. Some 85% of them supported the idea of the energy sector providing regular electrical checks as a requirement of the PSR, a viewpoint shared by both private and social housing landlords.
Of course, some of the checks may reveal severe and dangerous faults in the electrical systems. The Bill also addresses that concern. It would require energy suppliers, Ofgem and local authorities to have the necessary grant-making capabilities to address those issues. That would ensure that vulnerable people with electrical faults were afforded the same protections as those with gas safety issues.
We have a moral obligation to shield the most vulnerable members of our society from the devastating consequences of fuel poverty and electrical dangers. Today, as the Bill receives its First Reading, we take the first crucial step toward achieving this goal. It would guarantee that, as a statutory minimum, those most susceptible to fuel poverty during this era of rising living costs would receive enhanced electrical safety protections.
We cannot permit millions of people to make the heart-wrenching choice between food, safety, and living in peril. I urge the House to support my Bill today.
Question put and agreed to,
Ordered,
That Sam Tarry, Mike Amesbury, Andrew Western, Olivia Blake, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, Karl Turner, Jim Shannon, Sarah Olney, Chris Loder, Derek Thomas, Sir Peter Bottomley and Alison Thewliss present the Bill.
Sam Tarry accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 365).
Speaker’s Statement
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Colleagues, imminently we will come to the motion on the retirement of the Clerk of the House, and I will look to the Leader of the House to move the motion of congratulations to the outgoing Clerk of the House, Sir John Benger. Just before I do so, I would like to place on record a letter to me from Sir John. He writes:
“You notified the House last February of my intention to retire as Clerk of the House to take up a new role next month as Master of St Catharine’s College Cambridge.
I wanted to thank you, Mr Speaker, for your unfailing support both to me personally and to the House of Commons Administration. You care deeply about the institution of Parliament, but also about all of the staff who work here. I want to record your personal contribution to improving the welfare spaces for many of our staff on rotas working unsociable hours in often difficult conditions. I also want to thank you for placing so high a priority on security for all who work in Parliament—you sat in this Chamber during those difficult hours following the murder of PC Keith Palmer, an event I know which affected you deeply.
May I also thank the deputy speakers who have been a pleasure to work with.
The murders of two honourable Members, Sir David Amess, and Jo Cox, caused us all great sadness. I knew Sir David personally—he served on the Health Committee for all of the six years I clerked it, always enthusiastic, never failing to see the absurdity in life, but, like Jo Cox, a tireless champion of his constituents and of the causes he believed in.
Nowadays, every Member has to deal with more than their fair share of abuse and hostility. But I have to say I have found almost all Members to be passionately committed to changing the world for the better and serving their constituents. I will always remember and appreciate that commitment by Members to public service.
I took up my current role in March 2019 and my main objective was to help implement the recommendations made by Dame Laura Cox in her report following the dreadful accounts of bullying and harassment in Parliament. All Dame Laura’s key recommendations have been implemented, and we should celebrate the fact that our Parliament now leads the world in having an independent process to examine such matters. There is more to be done as we all know, and too much unacceptable behaviour still occurs, but I salute those Members and staff who had the courage to help introduce the ICGS.
My first few months were occupied with the fraught challenges of Brexit, in the context of a minority government, and many of us will remember what a difficult parliament that was. But of course, even greater challenges lay around the corner, with the advent of Covid-19, prompting dramatic changes to how we operate. I am so proud of my colleagues for helping this Parliament to lead the world in sitting in hybrid form, transforming procedures, adapting our physical spaces and rapidly introducing the necessary technology, to achieve this in a matter of days, a truly astonishing achievement.
Here in Parliament we have some of the finest public servants—dedicated, professional and at their best when there is a challenge. But it is their friendship and support, as much as their professionalism that I will remember, and for which I will always be grateful.
Yours sincerely,
John.”
I would now like to take this opportunity to say a few words of my own about Sir John. Hon. Members may not realise this, but John is in fact a northerner, having grown up in Stockport. If you want proof of those northern roots, I suggest you say something derogatory about Manchester United. His continued commitment to the north will then become very clear. The team has been left a little in the shadows by Manchester City of late, and he struggles to stomach that.
John left the north, however, to join the House in 1986, having, on the way, read English Literature at St Catharine’s College, trained as a teacher and completed his doctorate in English at Oxford University. His first role in the then Clerk’s Department was as second Clerk on what was then the Trade and Industry Committee. It was there that he first met the Member of Parliament for Warrington North, one Doug Hoyle. That was not to be the last Hoyle he would work with. Indeed, both as Speaker and before that as Chairman of Ways and Means, I have been privileged to have worked alongside John since he was appointed the 51st Clerk of the House.
John has been Clerk through what by anyone’s estimation has been a challenging period. He provided leadership during the pandemic with the same diligence and focus that he applies to everything he turns his hand to, tempered as always with his signature good humour. He has also been at the helm during many occasions when this House has been at the centre of national and international attention, as it was following the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II just a year ago. It is a credit to his leadership, and of course to all those who work here and support the House, that through all these turbulent times the House of Commons has shown itself in its very best light.
John should be very proud of the progress he has made in improving the culture and environment in which we all work, following the findings of bullying and harassment by Laura Cox in 2018. He has been a personal champion of work on inclusion and diversity in the House of Commons and a mentor for colleagues in and out of Parliament. I know I speak for all those who work here when I thank him for his dedication to those important areas of work.
I will always be grateful to John for the support and sound guidance he has given me over his past four years as Clerk. John has been a friend as well as Clerk of the House. To know John takes a little bit of understanding; he is always dedicated to the House and will always put the House first, but he is more dedicated to Erskine and May, his two cats, who are of a great age at over 18 years, and nothing will stop him leaving to ensure they are fed and well looked after. John’s other speciality is chicken. If I ever hear him say, “I have got to get home, I must put the chicken in”, I am never quite sure whether it is for the family or for Erskine and May.
I know the House will join me today in thanking Sir John for contributing nearly four decades of exemplary public service. I wish him all the very best in his new role as Master of St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. Their gain is our loss, but we wish him well, and I know the House will continue as he would expect.
Retirement of the Clerk of the House
(1 year, 3 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 Mr Speaker be requested to convey to Sir John Benger KCB, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of the House, this House’s gratitude for his long and distinguished service, for his wise contribution to the development of the procedure of the House during testing times and in the face of the unprecedented challenge of the pandemic, for his engaged and inclusive leadership and his professionalism in the discharge of his duties as head of the House Administration, and for the courteous and helpful advice always given to individual honourable Members.
It is a real pleasure to move the motion to give the House the opportunity to pay tribute to Sir John, who leaves this place on 30 September to take up the role of master of St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that Sir John has been an outstanding Clerk and has given an incredible level of service to the House of Commons, not just in this Chamber but throughout the House and the estate—a service spanning 37 years.
Sir John has been Clerk to a number of the busiest and most high-profile Select Committees, including Public Accounts, Treasury and Health. He stayed at the latter Committee for six years while it undertook a number of landmark inquiries on tobacco, the pharmaceutical industries and obesity. He has also worked in a number of procedural teams, including the Public Bill Office and the Table Office, as well as being director of service delivery in the department for information services between 2010 and 2015.
Sir John was appointed the 51st Clerk of the House of Commons in February 2019 following the formal approval of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. In the four years of service since, he has worked with five Leaders of the House: my right hon. Friends the Members for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), for Central Devon (Mel Stride), for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), as well as myself. He knows parliamentary procedure better than almost anyone, and he knows that there is a right and a wrong way to adhere to protocol, but he is also a pragmatist and knows how to help Members navigate procedure when practices need to evolve.
That pragmatism and adaptability were exceedingly valuable as Sir John faced a challenge that none of his predecessors had ever encountered: covid-19 presented incredible difficulties to the business of this House. I think we can now safely say that the House Administration, led by Sir John, rose to meet those challenges with great speed and efficiency. It would have been unthinkable before 2020 but, for the first time, right hon. and hon. Members could make contributions to debates virtually. On 22 April 2020, just a month after the country had locked down, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) asked the first remote question during Welsh questions. There were also experiments with a number of voting styles before the pass reader voting system that we have was settled on.
Sir John has given so much of himself to this House. I thank him, on behalf of us all, for his service and for the care that he has shown us all, as evidenced in the letter that you just read out, Mr Speaker. I do not think that I could have thought any more of him, but having learned that he has given a home to two moggies, I hold him in even greater esteem. I wish him all the best in his new career. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Leader of the House, whom I welcome to her new position.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a real pleasure, as one of my first acts as shadow Leader of the House, to pay tribute to the work of Sir John Benger, who will leave his role as Clerk of the House at the end of the month. I will not take it personally that he is leaving his job only a few days after I started mine. Maybe, given what you said, Mr Speaker, it is because I am a Manchester City fan, but I will discuss that with him offline.
The Leader of the House has rightly paid tribute to Sir John’s long career and the many achievements that he has clocked up over his decades of service to Parliament. Despite not having had the privilege to work much with Sir John directly, I have in my short time in this role heard time and again about his knowledge, generosity and wisdom, which have been invaluable to so many Members.
Sir John’s tenure as Clerk came during a period of extraordinary turbulence for our Parliament. It probably threw up more challenges to the way the House works than any other time in our history. He started with Parliament locked in stalemate, with seemingly no majority on how to deal with the fallout of Brexit. The most obscure parliamentary procedure was dusted off shelves and used in ways it had not been used for decades.
Sir John has always ensured that, no matter how controversial or challenging the debates, he gave fair and impartial advice to Members across the House. As we have heard, covid presented unprecedented challenges for the traditions of how we work. We had to bring our 200-year-old Parliament quickly into the digital age in a matter of hours. Some ways of working were changed for good—perhaps not as many as I would like. I think I asked my first hybrid PMQ in my living room as my children danced in the background—it was a challenging time.
Of course, after the death of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Parliament became a place of national mourning and helped to bring the country together through that difficult time. It was also the epicentre of global interest, with millions tuning into the live feed of Westminster Hall, which does not happen all that often. Parliament and all its staff, under Sir John’s leadership, did our country so proud during that period.
Sir John has also seen many happier events, such as the unveiling of Big Ben after major restoration works—I was amused to find out that the Clerk of the House technically owns Big Ben, as I understand it. He oversaw improvements in welfare facilities, training opportunities and support for House staff, as well as the independent complaints and grievance scheme. Those improvements are rapidly changing the culture in this place and will serve as part of his legacy.
Sir John has worked to move us on to the next stage of restoration and renewal, which will preserve this historic estate into the future. In addition, the Clerk is chief executive officer of the Commons and responsible for around 3,000 staff performing a variety of roles, including, as John himself has described:
“pastry chefs, lawyers, clock winders, security guards, researchers, and even a chaplain and a falconer”.
And if that was not enough, he sits at the Table of the House for at least part of every day, to advise and record decisions.
Those are serious responsibilities, and I am not sure how Sir John has found the time to do them all while maintaining the professionalism, kindness and wisdom for which he is so well known, giving the right advice at the right time, always in confidence. I am sure that colleagues across the House will join me in wishing Sir John the very best at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. They are lucky to have him. We look forward to welcoming Tom Goldsmith from October.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the first three speeches—yours, Mr Speaker, and those of the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House.
One distinguished Under Clerk of the Parliaments—otherwise known as the Clerk of the Commons—was John Hatsell. In Orlo Williams’s great book, “The Clerical Organisation of the House of Commons 1661-1850”, Hatsell is described as attracting the confidence of leading politicians
“by his sympathetic understanding, though he was no sycophant of those in power.”
I think that is the right role for the Clerk and for those they lead in the Clerks department.
Sir John drew the attention of a commentator in the Press Gallery three years ago. A Member of a particular party complained that, if everyone had to stay six feet —or two metres—apart, there would not possibly be room for all SNP Members to perch in their usual seats. The commentator wrote:
“The clerk, with the smallest flash of weariness, said most problems could be resolved by ‘common sense and everyone behaving in a grown-up way’. Common sense and grown-up behaviour? We may need to keep an eye on Clerk Benger.”
They added that Sir John was
“a model clerk: circumspect, bookish, fair…in the best sense, a modest public servant.”
I think that that is the kind of reputation that each person joining the Clerks department would wish to have, whether or not they achieve the highest office.
Sir John was, in his academic life, an expert on Martin Marprelate’s tracts, which basically mocked the Church of England. The style is described as
“a heady mixture of nonsense, satire, protest, irony and gossip, combined with pungent wit, full of the language of the street”—
or unparliamentary language. Were Sir John’s predecessor, Sir David Natzler, here, he would say that the tracts were good preparation for the intrigue, deception and vituperation a member of the House of Commons Commission had to get used to in the old days.
Mr Speaker, let me use the words of your predecessor, John Bercow, who said that the Clerk’s department was
“unstinting, selfless, formidable and…quite exceptional.”
He went on to say that a good Clerk is
“Blessed with a brilliant brain, an understated manner, unfailing courtesy, and an absolute and undiluted passion for Parliament”.—[Official Report, 13 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 921.]
Following his retirement as Clerk, Sir Thomas Erskine May—who, like Sir John, spent time in the Library as well as in the Clerks’ department—went on to become Baron Farnborough of Hampshire, and he held that role for six days before he died, making it the second shortest peerage. I hope that Sir John’s time at St Catharine’s is longer and that, when he gets to Cambridge, he will understand what it is like to be a member of the Denis Thatcher society, married to a person more important than you are. His wife, Professor Susan, is an expert Anglo-Saxonist. I refer those who are interested to her Chadwick memorial lecture in 2017 on uncertain beginnings. I think the Clerk arriving in Cambridge will not be uncertain. As the 40th master of St Catharine’s, I hope he has as good a time as we hope he has had with us, and we thank him for his service.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on behalf of the Scottish National party, to add to the tributes paid to Sir John Benger and congratulate him on his new role as master of St Catharine’s College, Cambridge—his alma mater, as you shared with us, Mr Speaker.
Sir John’s departure marks the end of nearly four decades of exceptional service to the House of Commons in various capacities. Only a handful of MPs have served this institution as long as Sir John has. During his four-year tenure as Clerk of the House, Sir John faced a series of unique and unprecedented challenges. Just a year into his tenure, he was tasked with leading the House service’s swift and extremely successful response to the outbreak of covid-19, ensuring the continued and safe operation of Parliament. Those early lockdowns were, as everyone will recall, a very worrying and uncertain time for everyone, and Sir John’s calm, diligent efforts to navigate the House through the pandemic, including the swift implementation of remote and virtual participation, stand out as some of his most significant achievements.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I want to echo the tributes that my hon. Friend and others are paying to John Benger today. During my time as SNP Chief Whip, he was always a source of extremely valuable advice and, while some of the issues we had to deal with were perhaps easier than others, as my hon. Friend alludes to, his professionalism and courtesy shone throughout it all. I am pleased to have the opportunity to say how grateful I am to him for his service and to wish him all the best.
Deidre Brock
I thank my hon. Friend for that fitting tribute; I know he worked closely with Sir John over the years.
I also pay great tribute to Sir John for overseeing the establishment of the Independent Expert Panel, to determine complaints of bullying and harassment in relation to MPs, implementing the recommendations in Dame Laura Cox’s report.
Another major project during Sir John’s term has been the ongoing restoration and renewal of the parliamentary estate. The Public Accounts Committee warned:
“there is a real and rising risk that a catastrophic event will destroy the Palace before it is ever repaired and restored.”
The evidence that Sir John gave to the Committee earlier this year should be read carefully by all Members of both Houses, especially those who think that this building is perfect and nothing needs to change.
I have not known Sir John for very long on a personal level, so I will admit that I did pop in to see a senior Clerk to gather some of her insights. She described him as a deeply intelligent man with a sharp sense of humour who has a truly passionate love of football. As we have heard, he is a Man United fan, so I am sure he will be hoping for some improvement after a slightly difficult start to the season.
Colleagues who have worked with Sir John closely remark on his rich, eclectic cultural and intellectual interests. That is one of the qualities, perhaps, that has helped him successfully transition between various different roles in this place—for example, at one point moving from the Commons clerking team to the Commons Library.
Sir John drew inspiration from different fields and sectors to inform his work in Parliament. I am told that he was a keen reader of the Harvard Business Review at a time when that was considered unusual, and he engaged with banks and other such organisations to gain insight into improving customer service for Members. Parliament has certainly benefited from that approach. The “MPs’ Guide to Procedure”, which I know Members and staff find enormously helpful and practical, was an initiative that he led on, as well as introducing simple things such as the buddying system for new MPs, which newcomers found invaluable when attempting to navigate the complexities of this place.
I wish Sir John all the best in his new role and his future endeavours, and I warmly congratulate Tom Goldsmith on his appointment as Sir John’s successor. Tom was most recently Principal Clerk of the Table Office, and he has been with the House service since 1996, so he will bring a vast range of expertise and experience to the job. My colleagues and I very much look forward to working with him.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
One of the great virtues of the Clerks—and particularly of the Under Clerk of the Parliaments—is that whether we are the most junior, most recently elected Member or the Leader of the House, we get the best, cleverest advice confidentially. During that difficult time of the 2017-19 Parliament, which Sir John handled brilliantly, people were going in to seek advice to do completely opposite things. Some wanted to smooth Government business through, and others wanted to obstruct it, and each one of us was given good, professional, thoughtful advice and treated without any difference according to seniority or recent appearance in this House. That is a true mark of a good Clerk and of fairness.
To give an example of the complexity of the issues, one that came up was whether a Humble Address fell at Prorogation or not. The first edition of “Erskine May” says that it does. A subsequent edition of “Erskine May”—about the 12th, I think—says that it does not. After that, nobody mentioned it, because we had not had Humble Addresses for 150 years. The Clerks had to work out which it was and how it was, and advise accordingly. Although this is not the occasion for paying tribute to you, Mr Speaker, because I hope you are going to stay in office for a very long time, it has to be said that you then made the very important statement that you would stick to clerkly advice or give a written reason as to why not, reinforcing the importance and independence of the role, because it is a key constitutional role.
Others have mentioned covid and what Sir John did to ensure that the House sat. He turned the whole House around; it was a really remarkable thing. We went away for the Easter recess having no idea how this House would sit when it came back—none at all. We had no idea whether the technology would possibly work, and yet the Clerk was being told that he had to get Parliament back. It was our democratic requirement that this House should sit and sit safely. That was perhaps easy for some of us to say, because it was the Clerk who had the legal responsibility. We must bear in mind the uncertainty of that time; nobody knew how serious or how dangerous the disease was or what its effect might be, but we knew we had to have Parliament back. As we said to him from time to time, “It is all very well, but you, Sir John”—or Dr Benger, as he was then—“are the one who goes to prison if you get it wrong.” He took that responsibility and ensured that democracy carried on.
He has been an innovator and has introduced things in this House. We have mentioned the ICGS, which he was a great driver behind and which has been hugely to the benefit of the House. He also got rid of the wigs. That came as a great surprise to me. I had always known that the Clerks are some of the cleverest people in the world. We know that whenever we go to see them to ask a question on some procedural point. Their wisdom is phenomenal. I thought that this was because they kept their brains warm by wearing wigs, and that without that warmth, the brainpower would not carry on as it had. But I confess, I turned out to be wrong; their brainpower continues without that warmth.
I should have known what a radical our Clerk really is at heart. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) pointed out, his specialist subject was the Marprelate tracts. One of the things that Marprelate was so against was clerical dress—he ridiculed the clothes worn by the clergy—so it is no surprise that, in a radical act, Sir John simplified the dress of the Clerks. We all wish him enormously well. He has been a model of clerkly wisdom and service to this House.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I associate myself with everything you said about Sir John, and also what the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell)—who I welcome to her position—said. I do not intend to repeat everything that everybody has already said, but to warmly and very personally thank Sir John and pay tribute to him.
When somebody has been working in the same field for four decades, they accumulate a huge amount of experience and wisdom, but it can sometimes be the case that they get stuck in the old ways and think things should not change. The great thing about Sir John is that he accumulated all that wisdom and experience, but he was never stuck in the past; he fiercely protected the enduring values of this House, but also showed himself to be an ally of progress and modernisation. I think we all recognise that there is further to go, but he had that remarkable duality of characteristics. He led an absolutely extraordinary team of Clerks; we always need to take the opportunity to say how lucky we know we are to have the Clerks’ advice. It is quite easy to take it for granted, because it is always like that and it has always been like that, but we depend on it so much. I pay tribute to Sir John for his leadership of that Clerks team.
Clearly, Sir John had a brain the size of a planet, but he was never condescending with it: he was always very pleasant, and never pompous. Many people who are that clever cannot resist looking down on those who are not, but he never did that—he was always a pleasure to deal with. I wish him well in his new role at St Catharine’s, and I also hope that he will write his memoirs. As colleagues have said, he has been through an enormous swathe of history from a bird’s-eye point of view, so if he does, I for one will certainly be reading them. Once again, I thank him for his extraordinary service and wish him all the best for the future, and I also wish all the best to his successor.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I too would like to associate myself with your remarks, and with the tributes paid to Sir John Benger by all other persons in the Chamber. It is always an enormous pleasure to know that the Clerks Department, which is so important to the functioning of this House, is in such safe hands.
I will just refer to one or two incidents that have occurred. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) and one or two others referred to what I call the paralysis Parliament between 2017 and 2019, where there was a great deal of fractiousness. Effectively, decisions were taken—sometimes by a coalition, shall we call it, across the Floor of the House—the result of which was that nothing could be done. It was a time of very considerable frustration to many of us, but having such wise Clerks such as Sir John Benger at the front of the ship, guiding us through that period of time, was incredibly important. Of course, we came out of it eventually.
That is as compared with 1986—I am bound to say this, am I not? If I did not, I would regard myself as having walked away from the subject. In 1986, I was told by the Clerks, and also by the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, that I was not allowed to even debate the issue of sovereignty. I tabled an amendment to the Single European Act 1987; I have to confess that I was the only person in the House who had an amendment on the subject. By 2020, the situation had changed so much that the sovereignty amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, section 38 of that Act, went through without any adverse comment, either in this House or in the House of Lords. That is a tribute to the changes that have taken place, and to the guidance and navigation of Sir John Benger and others who allowed those important constitutional changes to take place.
People have spoken eloquently about covid, and I could not agree more. I had not the faintest idea what was going to happen when we all returned to the country, up in Shropshire or wherever it happened to be, and wondered what on earth we were going to do—how on earth were we going to be able to participate? It ran very, very smoothly, and it could only have run so smoothly with the wisdom and judgment of those like Sir John Benger, and Sir John in particular. I also pay tribute to his contribution to the funeral arrangements for Her late Majesty the Queen.
With those thoughts, I simply wish Sir John the very best when he gets to St Catharine’s, Cambridge. When I heard that it was St Catharine’s, I thought for one moment that it might have been St Catherine’s, Oxford, but it was not: it is St Catharine’s, Cambridge. Whichever university he is going to, I wish him the best of luck, and I hope it all works well for him.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Like other speakers, I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, and those we have heard so far today in recognising Sir John Benger and his departure from the House to St Catharine’s. I was elected in December 2019, and my first engagement with Sir John in that first and last sitting week of 2019 was bleary-eyed and tired, here in the Chamber with other new MPs, being privy to the procedures and processes that we needed to follow. I did my best to listen, but I also believe that an MP is not properly an MP in this place until they have stood up at an oral questions session, started to ask their substantive question, and been told by yourself, Mr Speaker, to say “Question number eight—apologies” and sit back down. We all do our best to pay attention to the Clerk and the guidance he and his team give, but sometimes we do not quite manage it.
We of the 2019 intake had been MPs for such a short period of time before covid took place that we were still getting to grips with the way the processes worked. I can certainly speak for my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) by saying that the communications we had from the House via the Clerk ensured that we were as well equipped as we could possibly be as we came back in a virtual environment. It was a very different environment; it is very good that we are back here in this place, but the amendments and adjustments that were able to be made, including those that we have taken forward, are part of Sir John’s legacy.
Since September 2020, I have acted as the Whip for the Liberal Democrats. The Father of the House mentioned that a previous Clerk had “sympathetic understanding”, and I would certainly say that that has been the case for John in relation to me. He has been sympathetically understanding of my sometimes completely daft questions, treated them with respect, and given me the appropriate advice accordingly. I am hugely grateful for that.
We are reflecting on what has happened since Sir John became Clerk of the House. I have reflected on covid, the work that took place to mark the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, and the restoration works that this place requires going forward. However, for me—particularly as a Whip—his longest-lasting legacy will be changing the culture in this place, the things that we do not see. As we recognise that the Clerk’s role is to provide non-political, impartial advice, it behoves us as parliamentarians to think about how we change that culture for the better in much the same way.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is always sad when we say goodbye to a Clerk of the House—exciting when we welcome a new one, but sad when we see a Clerk depart. Sir John has been kind, thoughtful and reflective. This has been a very challenging Parliament, but all Parliaments are challenging, and we would expect the Clerk to rise to that challenge. I will miss him greatly.
People have said that he was wise, and I have benefited from that wisdom on a number of occasions. However, one of his most underappreciated talents was that he did not speak very often and he did not speak very loudly, so when he did speak, he captured the room and people listened. We benefit in our Parliament from the very best Clerks in the world. That is a testament to Sir John’s efforts over his four years leading this place and his team, and to his predecessors. I am sure the next Clerk will deliver a great Parliament and lead a great team.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I rise on behalf of my party, Plaid Cymru, to pay tribute to John Benger for his commitment to this House. We are talking about four decades, and 36 years is a very long time in a workplace. He has served diligently and conscientiously, and during that tenure he has undoubtedly seen some of the highs and lows of parliamentary life. Sir John’s tireless work, whether through Brexit or the pandemic, as we have heard, has ensured an extraordinarily smooth running of this place through what were often the most torrid of times.
I would particularly like to thank Sir John for his work in implementing the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. It has been clear that the welfare of staff has been of the utmost importance to him, and the guidance in this place is a testament to his good work. We are talking about a cultural sea change and how to put that into effect, and seeing its being put into effect here has been extremely interesting. Of course, it is not over—it is not done—but it does change how we handle ourselves and each other. I think that that work is one of the things we will hold on to, and seeing him realise it is one of the things we will remember him for, alongside the technological changes and his own style of working.
I would like to place on the record my personal thanks, and those of my party, for his adept, agile stewardship as Clerk of the House, and of course to wish him the very best for his new position as the master of St Catharine’s College.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I rise to speak as Chair of the House of Commons Procedure Committee, and I wish to associate myself and my Committee with the remarks made so far. I know that we as a Committee agree wholeheartedly with the tributes that have been paid so far.
The Procedure Committee constituted itself on 2 March 2020, and at the end of our agenda, when we got to “Any other business”, somebody asked, “Do you think we should find out something about this coronavirus that people are talking about?” We agreed that we would invite Sir John to come to speak to the Committee privately the following Monday, and he was faced with a Committee of very enthusiastic MPs, all keen to hear about procedure and what we might do with this unknown thing called coronavirus—I see a fellow member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who was there at the time. We heard from Sir John terms such as “social distancing”, and he talked about our sitting, as one would expect from Sir John, “six feet” apart, not “two metres.” He talked about how he would transform this place so that we could continue to sit, and we would have to have spacing between Members and make sure there were lists of speakers. We sat there just astonished, because this was not something anyone on the Procedure Committee had expected we would be facing so soon after being constituted, but we did.
Only a few weeks later, this House went into hybrid form, and introduced new voting systems and new ways of working. It is to the credit of Sir John and you, Mr Speaker, that this Parliament continued to sit throughout the pandemic, because many others did not manage to do so. We continued to sit here, holding Ministers to account, scrutinising legislation and getting business done. That is a great credit to you and to Sir John.
As others have reflected, Sir John’s tenure had three of the great moments in this place—Brexit, the pandemic and the passing of Her Majesty the Queen—all of which he managed, as the chief executive of this place, with such aplomb, so courteously and so wisely. Of course, he was here for the change in culture in this place, and the grievance procedures that have been introduced would be enough for any Clerk’s tenure, never mind doing it in the background of all of the other great things that were happening.
I wish Sir John well. I know he will be fantastic in his new role at St Catherine’s College, Cambridge. I hope he does not have to deal with quite so many momentous activities during his time there and that he can enjoy his time as master. I wish his successor well, and again I hope we have a slightly less frenetic Parliament for him.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
It is a matter of pride for me to contribute to this debate because Sir John is from Stockport, and many people are not aware of the fact. I remember when, after I was elected, I walked through those doors, took the affirmation and signed the register, that he shook my hand and informed me that he was from Stockport and had been to Stockport Grammar, and I was fascinated by that and by his manner. Anyone who interacted with him knew that he was extremely intelligent. Well, he is extremely intelligent—I am speaking of him in the past tense for some reason—as well as very polite and extremely helpful, and he goes out of his way to help people.
I often talk about the north-south divide, the Westminster bubble and all those things, so it is wonderful for me to see that someone who was born and brought up in Stockport and grew up and went to school in Stockport then found his way to the House Service, gave all those years—almost 37 years—of service to this House and rose up through the ranks to become the head of the House Service, which I think is fantastic. I was also interested when I found out that Sir John not only went to Stockport Grammar, but went on a scholarship and then went on to read English literature at St Catharine’s, Cambridge.
Over the last four years I have had several interactions with Sir John, and he was always very polite and helpful. A few months ago, he was supposed to visit my constituency and I was supposed to organise a visit for him to a local school so that he could talk about his journey from Stockport to Westminster and, in the future, back to Cambridge. Unfortunately, that visit hit a snag, so I want to place on the record that the invitation is still open, and I think Sir John has agreed to come back. I have only just found out from your contribution, Mr Speaker, that he supports Manchester United. I assure him that I would be happy to take him to Edgeley, where Stockport County plays, although I cannot guarantee that he will find many Manchester United supporters there.
I wish Sir John the best for the future. People often talk about MPs and Lords when they talk about this place, but it is outstanding Crown servants who are the real engine of this institution. Without people like Dr Benger, our democratic institutions would fail to function. I want to place on the record, on behalf of the people of Stockport, our thanks to him for his service. I wish Mr Tom Goldsmith, the incoming Clerk, the best success in the future. Once again, it is a matter of great pride that someone from the north came down and achieved this status, and I really hope that Sir John will take up my offer of a visit.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure for me, on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, to place on the record our sincere thanks to the Clerk, Sir John Benger, and to pass on our best wishes to him in his new vocation and job at Cambridge.
Sir John was a very active Clerk, as we all know. He was very helpful, appreciative and responsive to us all. As an active participant myself in this House, along with others, I am well aware of his tremendous role, and he may even hold the record for attendance and indeed for participation. Sir John has worked as the head of administration during all those times others have referred to, such as Brexit, the murders of hon. Members of this House and the responses we all took in what were incredibly difficult times, and the murder of Constable Keith Palmer. Those all stick in my mind. I remember our being protected, if that is the right word—I was going to say imprisoned, but we were protected—in this House for a period of time and unable to get out, but that was the best thing. We may not have thought so at the time, but it was the best way to respond.
With the pandemic, obviously for myself and others in this House the question was: how do we handle that? Well, Sir John knew how to handle it. He did it right, and we all supported him. Maybe we personally did not quite understand all the precautions and things that were happening, but we understood the reasons for them, and that was important. There were difficult times and poignant times. Obviously, there was the Queen’s funeral—one of those occasions that I believe only we British can do so well—and I take that on board. There were the heavy times as well, when emotions were high and people’s tempers and what they said were not always conducive to the House behaving in the way it should. However, Sir John was that controlling word, that controlling feature or that controlling character. I do not mean controlling in telling us what to do, but controlling in giving us the type of personality to respond in a good way.
Sir John’s long and distinguished service to this House and its Members has been valued not just by me personally, but by my party and, indeed—I am convinced of this—by everyone in this House. His presence here will be greatly missed. I pass on our sincere desire that God will bless him and keep him in his new role, and that he will enjoy the challenges it brings. We hope that Sir John gets the relaxation he so richly deserves. If he can look after us in this House, he can certainly look after Cambridge.
Mr Speaker
May I, on behalf of Sir John, thank everybody for their contributions? He thinks the world of Lady Susan and their two sons, Matthew and Timothy, but I have to tell you that the real eye-opener for everyone, if you ever talk about it, is his grandson Solly—the apple of his eye. We wish him well, and we wish Tom Goldsmith great success as the new Clerk.
Question put and agreed to,
Resolved,
That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to Sir John Benger KCB, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of the House, this House’s gratitude for his long and distinguished service, for his wise contribution to the development of the procedure of the House during testing times and in the face of the unprecedented challenge of the pandemic, for his engaged and inclusive leadership and his professionalism in the discharge of his duties as head of the House Administration, and for the courteous and helpful advice always given to individual honourable Members.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Before we proceed, I hope that the House will not mind if I abuse my position by expressing my own appreciation for the work of Sir John Benger, and for his friendship, his courtesy and his wisdom. It is greatly appreciated.
Online Safety Bill (Programme) (No. 5)
Tuesday 12th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 12 September 2023 - (12 Sep 2023)
Online Safety Bill
Tuesday 12th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 12 September 2023 - (12 Sep 2023)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)
I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 182.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 349, and Government amendments (a) and (b).
Lords amendment 391, Government amendment (a), and Government consequential amendment (a).
Lords amendment 17, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Amendment (i) to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 17.
Lords amendment 20, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 22, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 81, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Lords amendment 148, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 1, and amendments (a) and (b).
Lords amendments 2 to 16, 18, 19, 21, 23 to 80, 82 to 147, 149 to 181 and 183 to 188.
Lords amendment 189, and amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendments 190 to 216.
Lords amendment 217, and amendment (a).
Lords amendments 218 to 227.
Lords amendment 228, and amendment (a).
Lords amendments 229 and 230.
Lords amendment 231, and amendment (a).
Lords amendments 232 to 319.
Lords amendment 320, and amendment (a).
Lords amendment 321, and amendment (a).
Lords amendments 322 to 348, 350 to 390 and 392 to 424.
Paul Scully
As we know from proceedings in this place, the Online Safety Bill is incredibly important. I am delighted that it is returning to the Commons in great shape, having gone through extensive and thorough scrutiny in the Lords. The Bill is world-leading, and the legislative framework established by it will lead to the creation of a profoundly safer online environment in this country. It will kickstart change where that is sorely needed, and ensure that our children are better protected against pornography and other content that is harmful to them. The Bill will also guard children against perpetrators of abhorrent child sexual exploitation and abuse, and ensure that tech companies take responsibility for tackling such content on their platforms, or be held criminally accountable.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
As I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) will agree, may I say how much we appreciate what the Government have done in relation to the matter just referred to? As the Minister knows, we withdrew our amendment in the House of Commons after discussion, and we had amazingly constructive discussions with the Government right the way through, and also in the House of Lords. I shall refer to that if I am called to speak later, but I simply wanted to put on record our thanks, because this will save so many children’s lives.
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for all their work on this. I hope that this debate will show that we have listened and tried to work with everybody, including on this important part of the Bill. We have not been able to capture absolutely everything that everybody wants, but we are all determined to ensure that the Bill gets on the statute book as quickly as possible, to ensure that we start the important work of implementing it.
We have amended the Bill to bolster its provisions. A number of topics have been of particular interest in the other place. Following engagement with colleagues on those issues, we have bolstered the Bill’s protections for children, including a significant package of changes relating to age assurance. We have also enhanced protections for adult users.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
My hon. Friend will know that Ministers and officials in his Department have worked extensively—I thank them for that—with me, Baroness Kidron, and the Bereaved Families for Online Safety group, on the amendment that will make it easier for coroners to have access to data from online companies in the tragic cases where that might be a cause of a child’s death. He will also know that there will still be gaps in legislation, but such gaps could be closed by further measures in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. His ministerial colleague in the other place has committed the Government to that, so may I invite my hon. Friend to set out more about the Government’s plans for doing just that?
Paul Scully
I thank my right hon. Friend for his work on this, and Baroness Kidron for her work. I will cover that in more detail in a moment, but we remain committed to exploring measures that would facilitate better access to data for coroners under specific circumstances. We are looking for the best vehicle to do that, which includes those possibilities in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. We want to ensure that the protections for adult users afford people greater control over their online experience.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Minister is setting out a powerful case for how the Government have listened to the overtures in this place and the other place. Further to the interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), the former Culture Secretary, will the Minister be clear that the risk here is under-regulation, not over-regulation? Although the internet may be widely used by perfectly good people, the people who run internet companies are anything but daft and more likely to be dastardly.
Paul Scully
This is a difficult path to tread in approaching this issue for the first time. In many ways, these are things that we should have done 10 or 15 years ago, as social media platforms and people’s engagement with them proliferated over that period. Regulation has to be done gently, but it must be done. We must act now and get it right, to ensure that we hold the big technology companies in particular to account, while also understanding the massive benefits that those technology companies and their products provide.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I agree with the Minister that this is a groundbreaking Bill, but we must be clear that there are still gaps. Given what he is saying about the requirements for regulation of online social media companies and other platforms, how will he monitor, over a period of time, whether the measures that we have are as dynamic as they need to be to catch up with social media as it develops?
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady asks an important question, and that is the essence of what we are doing. We have tried to make this Bill flexible and proportionate. It is not technology specific, so that it is as future-proofed as possible. We must obviously lean into Ofcom as it seeks to operationalise the Act once the Bill gains Royal Assent. Ofcom will come back with its reporting, so not only will Government and the Department be a check on this, but Parliament will be able to assess the efficacy of the Bill as the system beds in and as technology and the various platforms move on and develop.
I talked about the offences, and I will just finalise my point about criminal liability. Those offences will be punishable with up to two years in prison.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
Further to that point about the remaining gaps in the Bill, I appreciate what the Minister says about this area being a moving target. Everybody—not just in this country, but around the world—is having to learn as the internet evolves.
I thank the Minister for Government amendment 241, which deals with provenance and understanding where information posted on the web comes from, and allows people therefore to check whether they want to see it, if it comes from dubious sources. That is an example of a collective harm—of people posting disinformation and misinformation online and attempting to subvert our democratic processes, among other things. I park with him, if I may, the notion that we will have to come back to that area in particular. It is an area where the Bill is particularly weak, notwithstanding all the good stuff it does elsewhere, notably on the areas he has mentioned. I hope that everyone in this House accepts that that area will need to be revisited in due course.
Paul Scully
Undoubtedly we will have to come back to that point. Not everything needs to be in the Bill at this point. We have industry initiatives, such as Adobe’s content security policy, which are good initiatives in themselves, but as we better understand misinformation, disinformation, deepfakes and the proliferation and repetition of fake images, fake text and fake news, we will need to keep ensuring we can stay ahead of the game, as my hon. Friend said. That is why we have made the legislation flexible.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I have two things to ask. First, will the Minister spell out more clearly how Parliament will be able to monitor the implementation? What mechanisms do we have to do that? Secondly, on director liability, which I warmly welcome—I am pleased that the Government have listened to Back Benchers on this issue—does he not agree that the example we have set in the Bill should be copied in other Bills, such as the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, where a similar proposal exists from Back Benchers across the House?
Paul Scully
The right hon. Lady raises some interesting points. We have conversed about harms, so I totally get her point about making sure that we tackle this issue in Parliament and be accountable in Parliament. As I have said, that will be done predominantly by monitoring the Bill through Ofcom’s reporting on what harms it is having to deal with. We have regular engagement with Ofcom, not only here and through the Select Committees, but through the Secretary of State.
On criminal liability, we conversed about that and made sure that we had a liability attached to something specific, rather than the general approach proposed at the beginning. It therefore means that we are not chilling innovation. People can understand, as they set up their approaches and systems, exactly what they are getting into in terms of risk for criminal liability, rather than having the general approach that was suggested at the beginning.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The review mechanism strikes me as one of the places where the Bill falls down and is weakest, because there is not a dedicated review mechanism. We have needed this legislation for more than 30 years, and we have now got to the point of legislating. Does the Minister understand why I have no faith that future legislation will happen in a timely fashion, when it has taken us so long even to get to this point? Can he give us some reassurance that a proper review will take place, rather than just having Ofcom reports that may or may not be read?
Paul Scully
I have talked about the fact that we have to keep this legislation under review, because the landscape is fast-moving. At every stage that I have been dealing with this Bill, I have said that inevitably we will have to come back. We can make the Bill as flexible, proportionate and tech-unspecific as we can, but things are moving quickly. With all our work on AI, for example, such as the AI summit, the work of the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence, the international response, the Hiroshima accord and all the other areas that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) spoke about earlier, we will have to come back, review it and look at whether the legislation remains world-beating. It is not just about the findings of Ofcom as it reports back to us.
I need to make a bit of progress, because I hope to have time to sum up a little bit at the end. We have listened to concerns about ensuring that the Bill provides the most robust protections for children from pornography and on the use of age assurance mechanisms. We are now explicitly requiring relevant providers to use highly effective age verification or age estimation to protect children from pornography and other primary priority content that is harmful to children. The Bill will also ensure a clear privacy-preserving and future-proofed framework governing the use of age assurance, which will be overseen by Ofcom.
There has been coverage in the media about how the Bill relates to encryption, which has often not been accurate. I take the opportunity to set the record straight. Our stance on challenging sexual abuse online remains the same. Last week in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Parkinson, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Arts and Heritage, shared recent data from UK police forces that showed that 6,350 offences related to sexual communication with a child were recorded last year alone. Shockingly, 5,500 of those offences took place against primary school-age children. Those appalling statistics illustrate the urgent need for change. The Government are committed to taking action against the perpetrators and stamping out these horrific crimes. The information that social media companies currently give to UK law enforcement contributes to more than 800 arrests or voluntary attendances of suspected child sexual offenders on average every month. That results in an estimated 1,200 children being safeguarded from child sexual abuse.
There is no intention by the Government to weaken the encryption technology used by platforms. As a last resort, on a case-by-case basis, and only when stringent privacy safeguards have been met, Ofcom will have the power to direct companies to make best efforts to develop or source technology to identify and remove illegal child sexual abuse content. We know that this technology can be developed. Before it can be required by Ofcom, such technology must meet minimum standards of accuracy. If appropriate technology does not exist that meets these requirements, Ofcom cannot require its use. That is why the powers include the ability for Ofcom to require companies to make best endeavours to develop or source a new solution.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the companies already say in their terms of service that they do not allow illegal use of their products, yet they do not say how they will monitor whether there is illegal use and what enforcement they take? What the Bill gives us, for the first time, is the right for Ofcom to know the answers to those questions and to know whether the companies are even enforcing their own terms of service.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I thank him for the amazing work he has done in getting the Bill to this point and for his ongoing help and support in making sure that we get it absolutely right. This is not about bashing technology companies; it is about not only holding them to account, but bringing them closer, to make sure that we can work together on these issues to protect the children I was talking about.
Despite the breadth of existing safeguards, we recognise the concerns expressed about privacy and technical feasibility in relation to Ofcom’s power to issue CSE or terrorism notices. That is why we introduced additional safeguards in the Lords. First, Ofcom will be required to obtain a skilled person’s report before issuing any warning notice and exercising its powers under clause 122. Ofcom must also provide a summary of the report to the relevant provider when issuing a warning notice. We are confident that in addition to Ofcom’s existing routes of evidence gathering, this measure will help to provide the regulator with the necessary information to determine whether to issue a notice and the requirements that may be put in place.
We also brought forth amendments requiring Ofcom to consider the impact that the use of technology would have on the availability of journalistic content and the confidentiality of journalistic sources when considering whether to issue a notice. That builds on the existing safeguards in clause 133 regarding freedom of expression and privacy.
We recognise the disproportionate levels of harm that women and girls continue to face online, and that is why the Government have made a number of changes to the Bill to strengthen protections for women and girls. First, the Bill will require Ofcom to produce guidance on online harms that disproportionately affect women and girls and to provide examples of best practice to providers, and it will require providers to bring together in one clear place all the measures that they take to tackle online abuse against women and girls on their platforms. The Bill will also require Ofcom to consult the Victims’ Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, in addition to the Children’s Commissioner, while preparing codes of practice. That change to the Bill will ensure that the voices of victims of abuse are brought into the consultation period.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I am grateful for the amendment, which I think is important. Will the Minister make it clear that he will not accept the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh).
Paul Scully
Indeed, we will not be accepting those amendments, but I will cover more of that later on, after I have listened to the comments that I know my hon. Friend wants to make.
As a result of the amendment, we have also made a small change to clause 98—the emerging category 1 services list—to ensure that it makes operational sense. Prior to Baroness Morgan’s amendment, a service had to meet the functionality threshold for content and 75% of the user number threshold to be on the emerging services list. Under the amended cause, there is now a plausible scenario where a service could meet the category 1 threshold without meeting any condition based on user numbers, so we had to make the change to ensure that the clause worked in that scenario.
We have always been clear that the design of a service, its functionalities and its other features are key drivers of risk that impact on the risk of harm to children. Baroness Kidron’s amendments 17, 20, 22 and 81 seek to treat those aspects as sources of harm in and of themselves. Although we agree with the objective, we are concerned that they do not work within the legislative framework and risk legal confusion and delaying the Bill. We have worked closely with Baroness Kidron and other parliamentarians to identify alternative ways to make the role that design and functionalities play more explicit. I am grateful to colleagues in both Houses for being so generous with their time on this issue. In particular, I thank again my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam for his tireless work, which was crucial in enabling the creation of an alternative and mutually satisfactory package of amendments. We will disagree to Lords amendments 17, 20, 22 and 81 and replace them with amendments that make it explicit that providers are required to assess the impact that service design, functionalities and other features have on the risk of harm to children.
On Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) raised animal abuse on the internet and asked how we might address such harmful content. I am pleased that the changes we have since made to the Bill fully demonstrate the Government’s commitment to tackling criminal activity relating to animal torture online. It is a cause that Baroness Merron has championed passionately. Her amendment in the other place sought to require the Secretary of State to review certain offences and, depending on the review’s outcome, to list them as priority offences in schedule 7. To accelerate measures to tackle such content, the Government will remove clause 63—the review clause—and instead immediately list section 4(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 as a priority offence. Officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have worked closely with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and are confident that the offence of unnecessary suffering will capture a broad swathe of behaviour. I hope the whole House will recognise our efforts and those of Baroness Merron and support the amendment.
You will be pleased to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I will conclude my remarks. I express my gratitude to my esteemed colleagues both here and in the other place for their continued and dedicated engagement with this complicated, complex Bill during the course of its parliamentary passage. I strongly believe that the Bill, in this form, strikes the right balance in providing the strongest possible protections for both adults and children online while protecting freedom of expression. The Government have listened carefully to the views of Members on both sides of the House, stakeholders and members of the public. The amendments we have made during the Bill’s progress through the Lords have further enhanced its robust and world-leading legislative framework. It is groundbreaking and will ensure the safety of generations to come. I ask Members of the House gathered here to support the Government’s position on the issues that I have spoken about today.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Before I address the amendments at hand, let me first put on record my thanks for the incredible efforts of our colleagues in the other place. The Bill has gone on a huge journey. The Government have repeatedly delayed its passage, and even went to great effort to recommit parts of the Bill to Committee in an attempt to remove important provisions on legal but harmful content. For those reasons alone, it is somewhat of a miracle that we have arrived at this moment, with a Bill that I am glad to say is in a much better place than when we last debated it here. That is thanks to the tireless work of so many individuals, charities and organisations, which have come together to coalesce around important provisions that will have a positive impact on people’s lives online.
Today, we have the real privilege of being joined by Ian Russell, Stuart Stephens, Emilia Stevens, Hollie Dance and Lisa Kenevan, who have all been impacted by losing a child at the hands of online harm. I want to take a moment to give my most heartfelt thanks to them all, and to the other families who have shared their stories, insights and experiences with colleagues and me as the Bill progressed. Today, in our thoughts are Archie, Isaac, Olly, Molly and all the other children who were taken due to online harm. Today, their legacy stands before us. We would not be here without you, so thank you.
We also could not have arrived at this point without the determination of colleagues in the other place, notably Baroness Kidron. Colleagues will know that she has been an extremely passionate, determined and effective voice for children throughout, and the Bill is stronger today thanks to her efforts. More broadly, I hope that today’s debate will be a significant and poignant moment for everyone who has been fighting hard for more protections online for many years.
It is good to see the Minister in his place. This is a complex Bill, and has been the responsibility of many of his colleagues since its introduction to Parliament. That being said, it will come as no surprise that Labour is pleased with some of the significant concessions that the Government have made on the Bill. Many stem from amendments the Opposition sought to make early on in the Bill’s passage. Although his Department’s press release may try to claim a united front, let us be clear: the Bill has sadly fallen victory to Tory infighting from day one. The Conservatives truly cannot decide if they are the party of protecting children or of free speech, when they should be the party of both. Sadly, some colleagues on the Government Benches have tried to stop the Bill in its tracks entirely, but Labour has always supported the need for it. We have worked collaboratively with the Government and have long called for these important changes. It is a welcome relief that the Government have finally listened.
Let me also be clear that the Bill goes some way to regulate the online space in the past and present, but it makes no effort to future-proof or anticipate emerging harms. The Labour party has repeatedly warned the Government of our concerns that, thanks to the Bill’s focus on content rather than social media platforms’ business models, it may not go far enough. With that in mind, I echo calls from across the House. Will the Minister commit to a review of the legislation within five years of enactment, to ensure that it has met their objective of making the UK the safest place in the world to be online?
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. It is clear that the Government want to tackle harmful suicide and self-harm content. It is also clear that the Bill does not go far enough. Does she agree that we should support Samaritans’ suggested way forward after implementation? We need the Government to engage with people with lived experience of suicide and self-harm, to ensure that the new legislation makes things better. If it is shown—as we fear—not to go far enough, new legislative approaches will be required to supplement and take it further, to ensure that the internet is as safe as possible for vulnerable people of all ages.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has been a passionate advocate on that point, speaking on behalf of his constituent Joe Nihill and his family for more protections in the Bill. It is clear that we need to know whether the legislation works in practice. Parliamentary oversight of that is essential, so I echo calls around the Chamber for that review. How will it take place? What will it look like? Parliament must have oversight, so that we know whether the legislation is fit for purpose.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I welcome the return of the Online Safety Bill from its exhaustive consideration in the other place. As the Minister knows, this vital legislation kicked off several years ago under the leadership of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), with the ambitious aim of making the UK the safest place in the world to go online. While other countries picked at the edges of that, we were the first place in the world to set ourselves such an ambitious task.
The legislation is mammoth in size and globally significant in scope. Its delivery has been long-winded and I am so pleased that we have got to where we are now. As one of the Ministers who carried the baton for this legislation for around 19 months, I understand the balance to be struck between freedom of speech campaigners, charities and the large pressures from the platforms to get this right.
Sir William Cash
I commend my hon. Friend for her remarks. May I point out that there is a provision in European legislation—I speak as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee—called the data services protection arrangements? They have nothing to compare with what we have in the Bill. That demonstrates the fact that when we legislate for ourselves we can get it right. That is something people ought to bear in mind.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point that out. Much of the European legislation on this was taken from our own draft legislation, but has not gone anywhere near as far in the protections it offers.
We know that the internet is magnificent and life changing in so many ways, but that the dark corners present such a serious concern for children and scores of other vulnerable people. I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on the child protection campaigners who have worked so incredibly hard on this issue, particularly those who have experienced the unimaginable tragedy of losing children as a result of what they have seen in the online world. To turn an unspeakable tragedy of that nature into a campaign to save the lives of others is the ultimate thing to do, and they deserve our massive thanks and gratitude.
I am also grateful to so many of our noble colleagues who have shaped the Bill using their unique knowledge and expertise. I would like to mention a few of them and welcome the changes they brought, but also thank the Minister and the Government for accepting so many of the challenges they brought forward and adapting them into the Bill. We all owe a massive debt of gratitude to Baroness Kidron for her tireless campaign for children’s protections. A children’s safety stalwart and pioneer for many years, virtually no one else knows more about this vital issue. It is absolutely right that the cornerstone and priority of the Bill must be to protect children. The Minister mentioned that the statistics are absolutely horrible and disturbing. That is why it is important that the Secretary of State will now be able to require providers to retain data relating to child sexual exploitation and abuse, ensuring that law enforcement does not have one hand tied behind its back when it comes to investigating these terrible crimes.
I also welcome the commitment to the new powers given to Ofcom and the expectations of providers regarding access to content and information in the terrible event of the death of a child. The tragic suicide of Molly Russell, the long and valiant battle of her dad, Ian, to get access to the social media content that played such a key role in it, and the delay that brought to the inquest, is the only example we need of why this is absolutely the right thing to do. I know Baroness Kidron played a big part in that, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid).
I am still concerned that there are not enough protections for vulnerable adults or for when people reach the cliff-edge of the age of 18. People of all ages need protection from extremely harmful content online. I am still not 100% convinced that user empowerment tools will provide that, but I look forward to being proved wrong.
I welcome the news that Ofcom is now required to produce guidance setting out how companies can tackle online violence against women and girls and demonstrate best practice. I am thankful to the former Equalities Minister, Baroness Morgan of Cotes, for her work on that. It is a vital piece of the puzzle that was missing from the original Bill, which did not specifically mention women or girls at all as far as I can remember.
It is important to stay faithful to the original thread of the Bill. To futureproof it, it has to be about systems and processes, rather than specific threats, but the simple fact is that the online world is so much more hostile for women. For black women, it is even worse. Illegal activity such as stalking and harassment is a daily occurrence for so many women and girls online. Over one in 10 women in England have experienced online violence and three in 10 have witnessed it. We also know that women and girls are disproportionately affected by the abuse of intimate images and the sharing of deepfakes, so it is welcome that those will become an offence. I also welcome that controlling and coercive behaviour, which has been made a recognised offence in real life, will now be listed as a priority offence online. That is something else the Government should take pride in.
I thank Baroness Merron for bringing animal welfare into the scope of the Bill. All in-scope platforms will have proactive duties to tackle content amounting to the offence of causing unnecessary suffering of animals. I thank Ministers for taking that on board. Anyone who victimises beings smaller and weaker than themselves, whether children or animals, is the most despicable kind of coward. It shows the level of depravity in parts of the online world that the act of hurting animals for pleasure is even a thing. A recent BBC story uncovered the torture of baby monkeys in Indonesia. The fact that individuals in the UK and the US are profiting from that, and that it was shared on platforms like Facebook is horrifying.
In the brief time left available to me, I must admit to still being a bit confused over the Government’s stance on end-to-end encryption. It sounds like the Minister has acknowledged that there is no sufficiently accurate and privacy-preserving technology currently in existence, and that the last resort power would only come into effect once the technology was there. Technically, that means the Government have not moved on the requirement of Ofcom to use last resort powers. Many security experts believe it could be many years before any such technology is developed, if ever, and that worries me. I am, of course, very supportive of protecting user privacy, but it is also fundamentally right that terrorism or child sexual exploitation rings should not be able to proliferate unhindered on these channels. The right to privacy must be trumped by the need to stop events that could lead to mass death and the harm of innocent adults and children. As my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said, that is also against their terms of service. I would therefore welcome it if the Minister were to make a couple of comments on that.
I also welcome the changes brought forward by Baroness Morgan of Cotes on the categorisation of harm. I, too, have been one of the long-standing voices over successive stages of the Bill saying that a platform’s size should not be the only measure of harm. Clearly, massive platforms, by definition of their reach, have huge potential to spread harmful content, but we know that online platforms can go viral overnight. We know there are some small but incredibly pernicious platforms out there. Surely the harmful content on a site should be the definer of how harmful it is, not just its size. I welcome the increased flexibility for the Secretary of State to set a threshold based on the number of users, or the functionality offered, or both. I would love to know a little more about how that would work in practice.
We were the first country in the world to set out the ambitious target of comprehensive online safety legislation. Since then, so much time has passed. Other countries and the EU have legislated while we have refined and in the meantime so much harm has been able to proliferate. We now need to get this done. We are so close to getting this legislation over the finish line. Can the Minister assure me that we are sending out a very clear message to providers that they must start their work now? They must not necessarily wait for this legislation to be in place because people are suffering while the delays happen.
I put on record my thanks to Members of this House and the other place who have worked so hard to get the legislation into such a great state, and to Ministers who have listened very carefully to all their suggestions and expertise. Finally, I put on record my thanks to the incredible Government officials. I was responsible for shepherding the Bill for a mere 19 months. It nearly finished me off, but some officials have been involved in it right from the beginning. They deserve our enormous gratitude for everything they have done.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. Thirteen Members wish to participate in the debate. The winding-up speeches will need to start shortly before 5 pm, and the Minister has indicated that he has quite a bit to say. I therefore suggest a self-denying ordinance of between seven and eight minutes following the speech from the Scottish National party spokesman. It is up to colleagues, because we have not imposed a mandatory time limit at this stage, but if Members are sensible and not greedy, everyone should get in with no difficulty.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak during what I hope are the final stages of the Bill. Given that nearly all the Bills on which I have spoken up to now have been money Bills, this business of “coming back from the Lords” and scrutinising Lords amendments has not been part of my experience, so if I get anything wrong, I apologise.
Like other Members, I want to begin by thanking a number of people and organisations, including the Mental Health Foundation, Carnegie UK, the Internet Watch Foundation, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and two researchers for the SNP, Aaron Lucas and Josh Simmonds-Upton, for all their work, advice, knowledge and wisdom. I also join the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) in thanking the families involved for the huge amount of time and energy—and the huge amount of themselves—that they have had to pour into the process in order to secure these changes. This is the beginning of the culmination of all their hard work. It will make a difference today, and it will make a difference when the Bill is enacted. Members in all parts of the House will do what we can to continue to scrutinise its operation to ensure that it works as intended, to ensure that children are kept as safe as possible online, and to ensure that Ofcom uses these powers to persuade platforms to provide the information that they will be required to provide following the death of a child about that child’s use of social media.
The Bill is about keeping people safe. It is a different Bill from the one that began its parliamentary journey, I think, more than two years ago. I have seen various Ministers leading from the Dispatch Box during that time, but the voices around the Chamber have been consistent, from the Conservative, Labour and SNP Benches. All the Members who have spoken have agreed that we want the internet to be a safer place. I am extremely glad that the Government have made so many concessions that the Opposition parties called for. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd on the inclusion of violence against women and girls in the Bill. She championed that in Committee, and I am glad that the Government have made the change.
Another change that the Government have made relates to small high-risk platforms. Back in May or June last year I tabled amendments 80, 81 and 82, which called for that categorisation to be changed so that it was not based just on the number of users. I think it was the hon. Member for Gosport who mentioned 4chan, and I have mentioned Kiwi Farms a number of times in the Chamber. Such organisations cannot be allowed to get away with horrific, vile content that encourages violence. They cannot be allowed a lower bar just because they have a smaller number of users.
The National Risk Register produced by the Cabinet Office—great bedtime reading which I thoroughly recommend—states that both the risk and the likelihood of harm and the number of people on whom it will have an impact should be taken into account before a decision is made. It is therefore entirely sensible for the Government to take into account both the number of users, when it is a significant number, and the extremely high risk of harm caused by some of these providers.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech, but it is critical to understand that this is not just about wickedness that would have taken place anyway but is now taking place on the internet; it is about the internet catalysing and exaggerating that wickedness, and spawning and encouraging all kinds of malevolence. We have a big responsibility in this place to regulate, control and indeed stop this, and the hon. Lady is right to emphasise that.
Kirsty Blackman
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. Whether it involves a particularly right-wing cause or antisemitism—or, indeed, dieting content that drags people into something more radical in relation to eating disorders—the bubble mentality created by these algorithms massively increases the risk of radicalisation, and we therefore have an increased duty to protect people.
As I have said, I am pleased to see the positive changes that have been made as a result of Opposition pressure and the uncompromising efforts of those in the House of Lords, especially Baroness Kidron, who has been nothing short of tenacious. Throughout the time in which we have been discussing the Bill, I have spoken to Members of both Houses about it, and it has been very unusual to come across anyone who knows what they are talking about, and, in particular, has the incredible depth of knowledge, understanding and wisdom shown by Baroness Kidron. I was able to speak to her as someone who practically grew up on the internet—we had it at home when I was eight—but she knew far more about it than I did. I am extremely pleased that the Government have worked with her to improve the Bill, and have accepted that she has a huge breadth of knowledge. She managed to do what we did not quite manage to do in this House, although hopefully we laid the foundations.
I want to refer to a number of points that were mentioned by the Minister and are also mentioned in the letters that the Government provided relating to the Lords amendments. Algorithmic scrutiny is incredibly important, and I, along with other Members, have raised it a number of times—again, in connection with concern about radicalisation. Some organisations have been doing better things recently. For instance, someone who searches for something may begin to go down a rabbit hole. Some companies are now putting up a flag, for instance a video, suggesting that users are going down a dark hole and should look at something a bit lighter, and directing them away from the autoplaying of the more radical content. If all organisations, or at least a significant number—particularly those with high traffic—can be encouraged to take such action rather than allowing people to be driven to more extreme content, that will be a positive step.
I was pleased to hear about the upcoming researcher access report, and about the report on app stores. I asked a previous Minister about app stores a year or so ago, and the Minister said that they were not included, and that was the end of it. Given the risk that is posed by app stores, the fact that they were not categorised as user-to-user content concerned me greatly. Someone who wants to put something on an Apple app store has to jump through Apple’s hoops. The content is not owned by the app store, and the same applies to some of the material on the PlayStation store. It is owned by the person who created the content, and it is therefore user-to-user content. In some cases, it is created by one individual. There is no ongoing review of that. Age-rating is another issue: app stores choose whatever age they happen to decide is the most important. Some of the dating apps, such as match.com, have been active in that regard, and have made it clear that their platforms are not for under-16s or under-18s, while the app store has rated the content as being for a younger age than the users’ actual age. That is of concern, especially if the companies are trying to improve age-rating.
On the subject of age rating, I am pleased to see more in the Bill about age assurance and the frameworks. I am particularly pleased to see what is going to happen in relation to trying to stop children being able to access pornography. That is incredibly important but it had been missing from the Bill. I understand that Baroness Floella Benjamin has done a huge amount of work on pushing this forward and ensuring that parliamentarians are briefed on it, and I thank her for the work that she has done. Human trafficking has also been included. Again, that was something that we pushed for, and I am glad to see that it has been put on the face of the Bill.
I want to talk briefly about the review mechanisms, then I will go on to talk about end-to-end encryption. I am still concerned that the review mechanisms are not strong enough. We have pushed to have a parliamentary Committee convened, for example, to review this legislation. This is the fastest moving area of life. Things are changing so dramatically. How many people in here had even heard of ChatGPT a year and a half ago? How many people had used a virtual reality headset? How many people had accessed Rec Room of any of the other VR systems? I understand that the Government have genuinely tried their best to make the Bill as future-proof as possible, but we have no parliamentary scrutiny mechanisms written in. I am not trying to undermine the work of the Committee on this—I think it is incredibly important—but Select Committees are busy and they have no legislative power in this regard. If the Government had written in a review, that would have been incredibly helpful.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a very good speech. When I first came to this House, which was rather a long time ago now, there was a Companies Act every year, because company law was changing at the time, as was the nature of post-war capitalism. It seems to me that there is a strong argument for an annual Act on the handling and management of the internet. What she is saying is exactly right, and that is probably where we will end up.
Kirsty Blackman
I completely support the right hon. Member’s point—I would love to see this happening on an annual basis. I am sure that the Ministers who have shepherded the Bill through would be terrified of that, and that the Government team sitting over there are probably quaking in their boots at the suggestion, but given how fast this moves, I think that this would be incredibly important.
The Government’s record on post-implementation reviews of legislation is pretty shoddy. If you ask Government Departments what percentage of legislation they have put through a post-implementation review in the timeline they were supposed to, they will say that it is very small. Some Departments are a bit better than others, but given the number of reshuffles there have been, some do not even know which pieces of legislation they are supposed to be post-implementation reviewing. I am concerned that this legislation will get lost, and that there is no legislative back-up to any of the mechanisms for reviewing it. The Minister has said that it will be kept under review, but can we have some sort of governmental commitment that an actual review will take place, and that legislation will be forthcoming if necessary, to ensure that the implementation of this Bill is carried out as intended? We are not necessarily asking the Government to change it; we are just asking them to cover all the things that they intend it to cover.
On end-to-end encryption, on child sexual exploitation and abuse materials, and on the last resort provider—I have been consistent with every Minister I have spoken to across the Dispatch Box and every time I have spoken to hon. Members about this—when there is any use of child sexual exploitation material or child sexual abuse material, we should be able to require the provider to find it. That absolutely trumps privacy. The largest increase in child sexual abuse material is in self-generated content. That is horrific. We are seeing a massive increase in that number. We need providers to be able to search—using the hash numbers that they can categorise images with, or however they want to do it—for people who are sharing this material in order to allow the authorities to arrest them and put them behind bars so that they cannot cause any more harm to children. That is more important than any privacy concerns. Although Ministers have not put it in the Bill until this point, they have, to their credit, been clear that that is more important than any privacy concerns, and that protecting children trumps those concerns when it comes to abuse materials and exploitation. I am glad to see that that is now written into the Bill; it is important that it was not just stated at the Dispatch Box, even though it was mentioned by a number of Members.
Damian Collins
The draft Bill was published in April 2021, so it is fantastic that we are now discussing its final stages after it has gone through its processes in the House of Lords. It went through pre-legislative scrutiny, then it was introduced here, committed to the Bill Committee, recommitted, came back to the House, went to the Lords and came back again. I do not think any Bill has had as much scrutiny and debate over such a long period of time as this one has had. Hon. Members have disagreed on it from time to time, but the spirit and motivation at every stage have never been political; it has been about trying to make the Bill the best it can possibly be. We have ended up with a process that has seen it get better through all its stages.
Picking up on the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and others, the question of ongoing scrutiny of the regime is an important one. In the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee—the Joint Committee that I chaired—there was a recommendation that there should be a post-legislative scrutiny Committee or a new Joint Committee, perhaps for a limited period. The pre-legislative scrutiny Committee benefited enormously from being a Committee of both Houses. Baroness Kidron has rightly been mentioned by Members today and she is watching us today from the Gallery. She is keeping her scrutiny of the passage of the Bill going from her position of advantage in the Gallery.
We have discussed a number of new technologies during the Bill’s passage that were not discussed at all on Second Reading because they were not live, including the metaverse and large language models. We are reassured that the Bill is futureproof, but we will not know until we come across such things. Ongoing scrutiny of the regime, the codes of practice and Ofcom’s risk registers is more than any one Select Committee can do. The Government have previously spoken favourably of the idea of post-legislative scrutiny, and it would be good if the Minister could say whether that is still under consideration.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, echoing the comments of Members on both sides of the House. He is absolutely right that, as well as the scale and character of internet harms, their dynamism is a feature that Governments must take seriously. The problem, it seems to me, is that the pace of technological change, in this area and in others, does not fit easily with the thoroughness of the democratic legislative process; we tend to want to do things at length, because we want to scrutinise them properly, and that takes time. How does my hon. Friend square that in his own mind, and what would he recommend to the Government?
Damian Collins
The length of the process we have gone through on this Bill is a good thing, because we have ended up with probably the most comprehensive legislation in the world. We have a regulator with more power, and more power to sanction, than anywhere else. It is important to get that right.
A lot of the regulation is principle-based. It is about the regulation of user-to-user services, whereby people share things with each other through an intermediary service. Technology will develop, but those principles will underpin a lot of it. There will be specific cases where we need to think about whether the regulatory oversight works in a metaverse environment in which we are dealing with harms created by speech that has no footprint. How do we monitor and scrutinise that?
One of the hardest challenges could be making sure that companies continue to use appropriate technology to identify and mitigate harms on their platforms. The problem we have had with the regime to date is that we have relied on self-reporting from the technology companies on what is or is not possible. Indeed, the debate about end-to-end encryption is another example. The companies are saying that, if they share too much data, there is a danger that it will break encryption, but they will not say what data they gather or how they use it. For example, they will not say how they identify illegal use of their platform. Can they see the messages that people have sent after they have sent them? They will not publicly acknowledge it, and they will not say what data they gather and what triggers they could use to intervene, but the regulator will now have the right to see them. That principle of accountability and the power of the regulator to scrutinise are the two things that make me confident that this will work, but we may need to make amendments because of new things that we have not yet thought about.
Sir William Cash
In addition to the idea of annual scrutiny raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), does my hon. Friend think it would be a reasonably good idea for the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport to set up a Sub-Committee under its Standing Orders to keep any eye on this stuff? My hon. Friend was a great Chairman of that Select Committee, and such a Sub-Committee would allow the annual monitoring of all the things that could go wrong, and it could also try to keep up with the pace of change.
Damian Collins
When I chaired the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, we set up a Sub-Committee to consider these issues and internet regulation. Of course, the Sub-Committee has the same members. It is up to the Select Committee to determine how it structures itself and spends its time, but there is only so much that any one departmental Select Committee can do among its huge range of other responsibilities. It might be worth thinking about a special Committee, drawing on the powers and knowledge of both Houses, but that is not a matter for the Bill. As my hon. Friend knows, it is a matter of amending the Standing Orders of the House, and the House must decide that it wants to create such a Committee. I think it is something we should consider.
We must make sure that encrypted services have proper transparency and accountability, and we must bring in skilled experts. Members have talked about researcher access to the companies’ data and information, and it cannot be a free-for-all; there has to be a process by which a researcher applies to get privileged access to a company’s information. Indeed, as part of responding to Ofcom’s risk registers, a company could say that allowing researchers access is one of the ways it seeks to ensure safe use of its platform, by seeking the help of others to identify harm.
There is nothing to stop Ofcom appointing many researchers. The Bill gives Ofcom the power to delegate its authority and its powers to outside expert researchers to investigate matters on its behalf. In my view, that would be a good thing for Ofcom to do, because it will not have all the expertise in-house. The power to appoint a skilled person to use the powers of Ofcom exists within the Bill, and Ofcom should say that it intends to use that power widely. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that Ofcom has that power in the Bill.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is very kind of you to call me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to your good self, to the Minister and to the House for arriving rather tardily.
My daughter and her husband have been staying with me over the past few days. When I get up to make my wife and myself an early-morning cup of tea, I find my two grandchildren sitting in the kitchen with their iPads, which does not half bring home the dangers. I look at them and think, “Gosh, I hope there is security, because they are just little kids.” I worry about that kind of thing. As everyone has said, keeping children safe is ever more important.
The Bill’s progress shows some of the best aspects of this place and the other place working together to improve legislation. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) both mentioned that, and it has been encouraging to see how the Bill has come together. However, as others have said, it has taken a long time and there have been a lot of delays. Perhaps that was unavoidable, but it is regrettable. It has been difficult for the Government to get the Bill to where it is today, and the trouble is that the delays mean there will probably be more victims before the Bill is enacted. We see before us a much-changed Bill, and I thank the Lords for their 150 amendments. They have put in a lot of hard work, as others have said.
The Secretary of State’s powers worry my party and me, and I wonder whether the Bill still fails to tackle harmful activity effectively. Perhaps better things could be done, but we are where we are. I welcome the addition of new offences, such as encouraging self-harm and intimate image abuse. A future Bill might be needed to set out the thresholds for the prosecution of non-fatal self-harm. We may also need further work on the intent requirement for cyber-flashing, and on whether Ofcom can introduce such requirements. I am encouraged by what we have heard from the Minister.
We would also have liked to see more movement on risk assessment, as terms of service should be subject to a mandatory risk assessment. My party remains unconvinced that we have got to grips with the metaverse—this terrifying new thing that has come at us. I think there is work to be done on that, and we will see what happens in the future.
As others have said, education is crucial. I hope that my grandchildren, sitting there with their iPads, have been told as much as possible by their teachers, my daughter and my son-in-law about what to do and what not to do. That leads me on to the huge importance of the parent being able, where necessary, to intervene rapidly, because this has to be done damned quickly. If it looks like they are going down a black hole, we want to stop that right away. A kid could see something horrid that could damage them for life—it could be that bad.
Kirsty Blackman
Once a child sees something, they cannot unsee it. This is not just about parental controls; we hope that the requirement on the companies to do the risk assessments and on Ofcom to look at those will mean that those issues are stopped before they even get to the point of requiring parental controls. I hope that such an approach will make this safer by design when it begins to operate, rather than relying on having an active parent who is not working three jobs and therefore has time to moderate what their children are doing online.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Let me just illustrate it by saying that each of us in our childhood, when we were little—when we were four, five or six—saw something that frightened us. Oddly enough, we never forget that throughout the rest of life, do we? That is what bad dreams are made of. We should remember that point, which is why those are wise words indeed.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
This Bill may well have been with us since April 2021 and been subject to significant change, but it remains a Bill about keeping people safer online and it remains groundbreaking. I welcome it back after scrutiny in the Lords and join others in paying tribute to those who have campaigned for social media platforms to release information following the death of a child. I am pleased that some are able to be with us today to hear this debate and the commitment to that issue.
This will never be a perfect Bill, but we must recognise that it is good enough and that we need to get it on to the statute book. The Minister has helped by saying clearly that this is not the endgame and that scrutiny will be inherent in the future of this legislation. I hope that he will heed the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), who encouraged him to set up a bespoke Committee, which was one of the recommendations from the initial scrutiny of the Bill.
I will confine my remarks to the Government’s Lords amendment 263 and those surrounding it, which inserted the amendments I tabled on Report into the Bill. They relate to the sharing of intimate images online, including deepfakes, without consent. I wish wholeheartedly to say thank you to the Minister, who always listens intently, to the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who has recently joined him, and to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. They have all not only listened to the arguments on intimate image abuse, but acted. The changes today are no less a testament to their commitment to this Bill than any other area. Focusing on children’s safety is very important, but the safety of adults online is also important. We started on a journey to address intimate image abuse way back in 2015, with the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, and we have learned to provide that protection much better, mostly through the work of the Law Commission and its report on how we should be tackling intimate image abuse online.
The Bill, as it has been amended, has been changed fundamentally on the treatment of intimate image abuse, in line with the debate on Report in this place. That has created four new offences. The base offence removes the idea of intent to cause distress entirely and relies only on whether there was consent from the person appearing in the image. Two more serious offences do include intent, with one being sending an image with intent to cause alarm and distress. We also now have the offence of threatening to share an image, which will protect people from potential blackmail, particularly from an abusive partner. That will make a huge difference for victims, who are still overwhelmingly women.
In his closing comments, will the Minister address the gaps that still exist, particularly around the issue of the images themselves, which, because of the scope of the Bill, will not become illegal? He and his colleagues have indicated that more legislation might be in the planning stages to address those particular recommendations by the Law Commission. Perhaps he could also comment on something that the Revenge Porn Helpline is increasingly being told by victims, which is that online platforms will not remove an image even though it may have been posted illegally, and that will not change in the future. Perhaps he can give me and those victims who might be listening today some comfort that either there are ways of addressing that matter now or that he will address it in the very near future.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
As we reflect on the Bill today, it is important to say that it has been improved as it has progressed through the Parliament. That is due in no small measure to Members from across the parties—both here and in the other place—who have engaged very collegiately, and to individuals and groups outside this place, particularly the Samaritans and those who have lived experience of the consequences of the dangers of the internet.
People from my constituency have also been involved, including the family of Joe Nihill, whom I have mentioned previously. At the age of 23, Joe took his own life after accessing dangerous suicide-related online content. His mother, Catherine, and sister-in-law, Melanie, have bravely campaigned to use the Online Safety Bill as an opportunity to ensure that what happened to Joe so tragically does not happen to others. I thank the Minister and his team for meeting Joe’s mother, his sister-in-law and me, and for listening to what we had to say. I recognise that, as a result, the Bill has improved, in particular with the Government’s acceptance of Lords amendment 391, which was first tabled by Baroness Morgan of Cotes. It is welcome that the Government have accepted the amendment, which will enable platforms to be placed in category 1 based on their functionality, even if they do not have a large reach. That is important, because some of the worst and most dangerous online suicide and self-harm related material appears on smaller platforms rather than the larger ones.
I also welcome the fact that the Bill creates a new communications offence of encouraging or assisting self-harm and makes such content a further priority for action, which is important. The Bill provides an historic opportunity to ensure that tackling suicide and self-harm related online content does not end with this Bill becoming law. I urge the Government to listen very carefully to what the Samaritans have said. As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister asked, will the Government commit to a review of the legislation to ensure that it has met the objective of making our country the safest place in the world in which to go online? Importantly, can the Government confirm when the consultation on the new offence of encouraging or assisting self-harm will take place?
As I mentioned in an intervention, it is clear that the Government want to tackle harmful suicide and self-harm related content with the Bill, but, as we have heard throughout our discussions, the measures do not go far enough. The Samaritans were correct to say that the Bill represents a welcome advance and that it has improved recently, but it still does not go far enough in relation to dangerous suicide and self-harm online content. How will the Government engage with people who have lived experience—people such as Melanie and Catherine—to ensure that the new laws make things better? Nobody wants the implementation of the Bill to be the end of the matter. We must redouble our efforts to make the internet as safe a place as possible, reflect on the experiences of my constituents, Joe Nihill and his family, and understand that there is a lot of dangerous suicide and self-harm related content out there. We are talking about people who exploit the vulnerable, regardless of their age.
I urge all those who are following the progress of the Bill and who look at this issue not to make the mistake of thinking that when we talk about dangerous online suicide and self-harm related content, it is somehow about freedom of speech. It is about protecting people. When we talk about dangerous online material relating to suicide and self-harm, it is not a freedom of speech issue; it is an issue of protecting people.
Sir William Cash
Has the hon. Gentleman noted, I hope with satisfaction, that the Government yesterday and today have made statements on a strategy for preventing suicide nationally, and that what he is saying—which I agree with—will be implemented? It has just been announced, it is very important and it is related to the Bill.
Richard Burgon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is important that the Government have announced a strategy: it is part and parcel of the ongoing work that is so necessary when we consider the prevalence of suicide as the leading cause of death among young men and women. It is a scourge across society. People should not make the mistake of thinking that the internet merely showcases awful things. The internet has been used as a tool by exploitative and sometimes disturbed individuals to create more misery and more instances of awful things happening, and to lead others down a dangerous path that sometimes ends, sadly, in them taking their own lives.
I thank the Minister for his engagement with my constituents, and the shadow Minister for what she has done. I also thank Baroness Kidron, Baroness Morgan and hon. Members who have engaged with this issue. I urge the Government to see the Bill not as the end when it comes to tackling dangerous online content related to suicide and self-harm, but as part of an important ongoing journey that we all work on together.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I rise to speak to Lords amendment 231 on visible identity verification. I will not press the amendment to a vote. I have had several discussions with Ministers and the Secretary of State, and I am grateful for their time. I will explain a little more.
The dry nature of the amendment masks the fact that the issue of identity verification—or lack of it—affects millions of people around the country. We increasingly live our lives online, so the public being able to know who is or is not a real person online is a key part of the UK being the safest the place to be on the internet, which is the Bill’s ambition. Unfortunately, too often it feels as though we have to wade through nutters, bots, fake accounts and other nasties before coming to a real person we want to hear from. The Bill takes huge steps to empower users to change that, but there is more to do.
Hon. Members will recall that I have campaigned for years to tackle anonymous abuse. I thank Stroud constituents, celebrities and parents who have brought to me sad stories that I have conveyed to the House involving abuse about the deaths of babies and children and about disabled children. That is absolutely awful.
Alongside a smart Stroud constituent and Clean Up The Internet—a fantastic organisation—we have fought and argued for social media users to have the option of being verified online; for them to be able to follow and be followed only by verified accounts, if that is what they want; and, crucially, to make it clear who is and is not verified online. People can still be Princess Unicorn if they want, but at the back end, their address and details can be held, and that will give confidence.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Umberto Eco, the Italian philosopher, described the internet as the empire of imbeciles, and much of social media is indeed imbecilic—but it is much worse than that. My hon. Friend is right that the internet provides a hiding place for the kind of malevolence she has described. Does she agree that the critical thing is for the Government to look again at the responsibility of those who publish this material? If it were written material, the publisher would have a legal liability. That is not true of internet companies. Is that a way forward?
Siobhan Baillie
I am interested in that intervention, but I fear it would lead us into a very long discussion and I want to keep my comments focused on my amendment. However, it would be interesting to hear from the Minister in response to that point, because it is a huge topic for debate.
On the point about whether someone is real or not real online, I believe passionately that not only famous people or those who can afford it should be able to show that they are a real and verified person. I say, “Roll out the blue ticks.”—or the equivalents—and not just to make the social media performs more money; as we have seen, we need it as a safety mechanism and a personal responsibility mechanism.
All the evidence and endless polling show that the public want to know who is and who is not real online, and it does not take rocket science to understand why. Dealing with faceless, anonymous accounts is very scary and anonymous abusers are terrifying. Parents are worried that they do not know who their children are speaking to, and anonymous, unverified accounts cannot be traced if details are not held.
That is before we get to how visible verification can help to tackle fraud. We should empower people to avoid fake accounts. We know that people are less likely to engage with an unverified account, and it would make it easy to catch scammers. Fraud was the most common form of crime in 2022, with 41% of all crimes being fraud, 23% of all reported fraud being initiated on social media and 80% of fraud being cyber-related. We can imagine just how fantastically clever the scams will become through AI.
Since we started this process, tech companies have recognised the value of identity verification to the public, so much so that they now sell it on Twitter as blue ticks, and the Government understand the benefits of identity verification options. The Government have done a huge amount of work on that. I thank them for agreeing to two of the three pillars of my campaign, and I believe we can get there on visibility; I know from discussions with Government that Ofcom will be looking carefully at that.
Making things simple for social media users is incredibly important. For the user verification provisions in this Bill to fulfil their potential and prevent harm, including illegal harm, we believe that users need to be able to see who is and is not verified—that is, who is a real person—and all the evidence says that that is what the public wants.
While Ministers in this place and the other place have resisted putting visible verification on the face of the Bill, I am grateful to the Government for their work on this. After a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, we are reassured that the Bill as now worded gives Ofcom the powers to do what the public wants and what we are suggesting through codes and guidance. We hope that Ofcom will consider the role of anonymous, inauthentic and non-verified accounts as it prepares its register of risks relating to illegal content and in its risk profiles.
Dame Maria Miller
I pay tribute to the way my hon. Friend has focused on this issue through so many months and years. Does she agree that, in light of the assurances that she has had from the Minister, this is just the sort of issue that either a stand-alone committee or some kind of scrutiny group could keep an eye on? If those guidelines do not work as the Minister is hoping, the action she has suggested will need to be taken.
Siobhan Baillie
Absolutely. Given the fast nature of social media and the tech world, and how quickly they adapt—often for their own benefit, sadly—I think that a committee with that focus could work.
To wrap up, I thank MPs from across the House, and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your grace today. I have had help from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) in particular, for which I am very grateful. In the other place, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Stevenson, Baroness Morgan, Baroness Fall and Baroness Wyld have all been absolutely excellent in pushing through these matters. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, and thank everybody for their time.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
As others have done, I welcome the considerable progress made on the Bill in the other place, both in the detailed scrutiny that it has received from noble Lords, who have taken a consistent and expert interest in it, and in the positive and consensual tone adopted by Opposition Front Benchers and, crucially, by Ministers.
It seems that there are very few Members of this House who have not had ministerial responsibility for the Bill at some point in what has been an extraordinarily extensive relay race as it has moved through its legislative stages. The anchor leg—the hardest bit in such a Bill—has been run with dedication and skill by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who deserves all the praise that she will get for holding the baton as we cross the parliamentary finish line, as I hope we are close to doing.
I have been an advocate of humility in the way in which we all approach this legislation. It is genuinely difficult and novel territory. In general, I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her Ministers—the noble Lord Parkinson and, of course, the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully)—have been willing to change their minds when it was right to do so, and the Bill is better for it. Like others who have dealt with them, I also thank the officials, some of whom sit in the Box, some of whom do not. They have dedicated—as I suspect they would see it—most of their lives to the generation of the Bill, and we are grateful to them for their commitment.
Of course, as others have said, none of this means that the Bill is perfect; frankly, it was never going to be. Nor does it mean that when we pass the Bill, the job is done. We will then pass the baton to Ofcom, which will have a large amount of further work to do. However, we now need to finalise the legislative phase of this work after many years of consideration. For that reason, I welcome in particular what I think are sensible compromises on two significant issues that had yet to be resolved: first, the content of children’s risk assessments, and secondly, the categorisation process. I hope that the House will bear with me while I consider those in detail, which we have not yet done, starting with Lords amendments 17, 20 and 22, and Lords amendment 81 in relation to search, as well as the Government amendments in lieu of them.
Those Lords amendments insert harmful “features, functionalities or behaviours” into the list of matters that should be considered in the children’s risk assessment process and in the meeting of the safety duties, to add to the harms arising from the intrinsic nature of content itself—that is an important change. As others have done, I pay great tribute to the noble Baroness Kidron, who has invariably been the driving force behind so many of the positive enhancements to children’s online safety that the Bill will bring. She has promoted this enhancement, too. As she said, it is right to recognise and reflect in the legislation that a child’s online experience can be harmful not just as a result of the harm an individual piece of content can cause, but in the way that content is selected and presented to that child—in other words, the way in which the service is designed to operate. As she knows, however, I part company with the Lords amendments in the breadth of the language used, particularly the word “behaviours”.
Throughout our consideration of the Bill, I have taken the view that we should be less interested in passing legislation that sounds good and more interested in passing legislation that works. We need the regulator to be able to encourage and enforce improvements in online safety effectively. That means asking the online platforms to address the harms that it is within their power to address, and to relate clearly the design or operation of the systems that they have put in place.
The difficulty with the wording of the Lords amendments is that they bring into the ambit of the legislation behaviours that are not necessarily enabled or created by the design or operation of the service. The language used is
“features, functionalities or behaviours (including those enabled or created by the design or operation of the service) that are harmful to children”—
in other words, not limited to those that are enabled or created by the service. It is a step too far to make platforms accountable for all behaviours that are harmful to children without the clarity of that link to what the platform has itself done. For that reason, I cannot support those Lords amendments.
However, the Government have proposed a sensible alternative approach in their amendments in lieu, particularly in relation to Lords amendments 17 and Lords amendment 81, which relates to search services. The Government amendments in lieu capture the central point that design of a service can lead to harm and require a service to assess that as part of the children’s risk assessment process. That is a significant expansion of a service’s responsibilities in the risk assessment process which reflects not just ongoing concern about types of harm that were not adequately captured in the Bill so far but the positive moves we have all sought to make towards safety by design as an important preventive concept in online safety.
I also think it is important, given the potential scale of this expanded responsibility, to make clear that the concept of proportionality applies to a service’s approach to this element of assessment and mitigation of risk, as it does throughout the Bill, and I hope the Minister will be able to do that when he winds up the debate.
Sir William Cash
My right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned Ofcom several times. I would like to ask his opinion as to whether there should be, if there is not already, a special provision for a report by Ofcom on its own involvement in these processes during the course of its annual report every year, to be sure that we know that Ofcom is doing its job. In Parliament, we know what Select Committees are doing. The question is, what is Ofcom doing on a continuous basis?
Sir Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. One difficult part of our legislative journey with the Bill is to get right, in so far as we can, the balance between what the regulator should take responsibility for, what Ministers should take responsibility for and what the legislature—this Parliament—should take responsibility for. We may not have got that exactly right yet.
On my hon. Friend’s specific point, my understanding is that because Ofcom must report to Parliament in any event, it will certainly be Ofcom’s intention to report back on this. It will be quite a large slice of what Ofcom does from this point onwards, so it would be remarkable if it did not, but I think we will have to return to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and others have made about the nature of parliamentary scrutiny that is then required to ensure that we are all on top of this progress as it develops.
I was talking about what I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to say when he winds up the debate. I know he will not have a huge amount of time to do so, but he might also confirm that the balancing duties in relation to freedom of speech and privacy, for example, continue to apply to the fulfilment of the safety duties in this context as well. That would be helpful.
The Government amendments in lieu do not replicate the reference to design in the safety duties themselves, but I do not see that as problematic because, as I understand it, the risks identified in the risk assessment process, which will now include design risks, feed through to and give rise to the safety duties, so that if a design risk is identified in the risk assessment, a service is required to mitigate and address it. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that.
We should also recognise that Government amendment (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 17 and Government amendments (b) and (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 81 specifically require consideration of
“functionalities or other features of the service that affect how much children use the service”
As far as I can tell, that introduces consideration of design-related addiction—recognisable to many parents; it cannot just be me—into the assessment process. These changes reflect the reality of how online harm to children manifests itself, and the Government are to be congratulated on including them, although, as I say, the Government and, subsequently, Ofcom will need to be clear about what these new expectations mean in practical terms for a platform considering its risk assessment process and seeking to comply with its safety duties.
I now turn to the amendments dealing with the categorisation process, which are Lords amendment 391 and the Government amendments arising from it. Lords amendment 391 would allow Ofcom to designate a service as a category 1 service, with the additional expectations and responsibility that brings, if it is of a certain scale or if it has certain functionalities, rather than both being required as was the case in the original Bill. The effect of the original drafting was, in essence, that only big platforms could be category 1 platforms and that big platforms were bound to be category 1 platforms. That gave rise to two problems that, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, we have discussed before.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who made a characteristically thoughtful speech. At the outset, I want to put on record my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and also my chairmanships of the all-party parliamentary groups on digital identity and on central bank and digital currency, which includes stablecoins. I also put on record the fact that I am the father of an eight-year-old girl and a nine-year-old girl, who have both just got iPads, and I am very aware of the need to protect them as all other children in the UK.
I just want to say that I have had good engagement with Ministers during the progress of this Bill through all of its stages, and I want to thank them and their teams for that. I also want to say that I really welcome what is now in the Bill to progress what I talked about in this place at the last stage it was discussed, which was the effect of algorithms and all of those design features that are part of the addiction we have heard several Members talk about as a potential harm. I think it is really good that that is in the Bill, and it is really good that the tech companies are being forced to think hard about these things.
My amendments—they are proposals for amendments rather than ones I realistically thought we would adopt through votes today—were designed to address a couple of potential shortcomings I saw in the Bill. One was the potential chilling effect on innovation and in the use of really important services that are user-to-user services from a technical point of view, but are not involved in the transmission of the content we are trying to deal with as the main objectives of this Bill. So it was very welcome to hear my hon. Friend the Minister speak at the Dispatch Box about the Government’s intention not to cover the sorts of services to do with data exchange and multi-party computation—some of the more modern methods by which the internet of things, artificial intelligence and various other types of platform run—which are not about making content available that could be a risk in the context we are talking about.
The other shortcoming I was trying to address was this idea, coming back to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, of the potential for the introduction of systemic weaknesses and vulnerabilities into the core systems that all our communications, many of our services, Government services and others rely on day by day for their secure operation. I think he made a very interesting point about the need to think through the precise legal impact that the potential uncertainty about some of those issues might have on the operation of those systems.
I am trying to introduce amendments—for example, amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 189—essentially to provide clarification. This is particularly important when we are thinking about the remote access powers or the remote viewing of information powers in Lords amendment 189, which is why I have proposed an amendment in lieu. It is incredibly important that what we do in this Bill does not create the really fundamental weaknesses that could undermine the security that we and all of our systems rely on for their core operations.
I was also trying to address people’s understandable desire for their data not to be potentially accessible by an unauthorised third party. That type of systemic weakness, which could be introduced by doing the access process in the wrong way, is something we need to think carefully about, and I hope the Minister will say something about intent in respect of that at the Dispatch Box.
I do not want to take too much more time because I know that lots of other Members wish to speak, but the place where I got these ideas, particularly around systemic weakness, were powers in Australian law that are there to provide protection from exactly that type of application of the regulations. I know officials think that Lords amendment 189 does not present such a systemic risk, because it is about viewing information remotely rather than having access to the system directly, but I think that needs more clarity. It actually states:
“view remotely—
information…in real time”
which could potentially be interpreted as requiring that type of access.
On proportionality—this is my last point—we must think about the concept of necessity within that. We must try to strike the right balance—I hope we will all try to do this—between wanting to encourage tech firms to divulge how their systems work, and give people, including the Government, tools to say when something is not working well and they want to opt out of it, while also ensuring that fundamental operative things that are used in cryptography and computer systems to communicate with each other securely, are not inadvertently undermined.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Let me start, like others, by saying how extraordinarily pleased I am to see the Bill return to the House today. I put on record my enormous gratitude to the many people who have worked on it, especially the families of those who have lost loved ones, organisations such as the Internet Watch foundation, of which I have been a champion for over a decade, the Mental Health Foundation, the many Ministers who have worked on this, and especially the Secretary of State, who continued to work on it through her maternity leave, and those in the other place. It was wonderful to be at the Bar of the other place, listening to Baroness Kidron, and others, when they spoke, and I thank her for being here today. I also particularly wish to thank Baroness Morgan and Lord Bethell.
A few months ago at the beginning of the year I went to one of those meetings that all MPs do, when they go and speak to politics students in their own sixth form. They normally throw loads of questions at us, but before I let them throw questions at me, I said, “Listen, I have a question I need to ask.” As a Back Bencher in this place we get asked to work on so many different issues, so I grabbed the white board and scribbled down a list of many issues that I have been asked to work on, both domestically and internationally. I gave the students each three votes and asked them what they wanted my priority to be. The issue of tackling online pornography, and the impact it was having, was way up that list.
I thank the Children’s Commissioner for the work done with young people to identify and understand that risk more. Our research asked 16 to 21-year-olds when they had first seen online pornography, and 10%—one in 10—had seen online pornography by the age of nine, and 27% had seen it by the age of 11, so more than one in four. Fifty per cent.—that is half; that is every other one of those young people—had seen online pornography before they turned 13.
It is also the case that the type of pornography they have been seeing is increasingly more violent in nature, and that is changing young people’s attitude towards sex. Young people aged 16 to 21 are more likely to assume that girls expect or enjoy sex involving physical aggression such as airway restriction—strangling—or slapping, than those who do not see such pornography. Among the respondents, 47% stated that girls expect sex to involve physical aggression, and 42% said that most girls enjoy acts of sexual aggression. Some 47% of respondents aged 18 to 21 had experienced a violent sexual act. The Children’s Commissioner also asked these young people where they were watching pornography, and the greatest number of young people were watching that pornography on Twitter—now X—not pornography platforms.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I have three more speakers. I ask that colleagues bear that in mind so that I can bring in the Minister.
Sir William Cash
I would like to mention a very long journey in relation to the protection of children, because to my mind that is right at the heart of the Bill’s social value. I think it was Disraeli who said:
“The youth of a nation are the trustees of posterity.”
If we get it right in the early stages of their lives and we provide legislation that enables them to be properly protected, we are likely to get things right for the future. The Bill does that in a very good way.
The Bill also reflects some of the things in which I found myself involved in 1977—just over 45 years ago—with the Protection of Children Bill when Cyril Townsend came top of the private Member’s Bill ballot. I mention that because at that time we received resistance from Government Ministers and others—I am afraid I must say that it was a Labour Minister—but we got the Bill through as the then Prime Minister James Callaghan eventually ensured it did so. His wife insisted on it, as a matter of fact.
I pay tribute to the House of Lords. Others have repeatedly mentioned the work of Baroness Kidron, but I would also like to mention Lord Bethell, Baroness Morgan and others, because it has been a combined effort. It has been Parliament at its best. I have heard others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), make that point. It has been a remarkably lengthy but none the less essential process, and I pay tribute to those people for what they have done.
In retrospect, I would like to mention Baroness Lucy Faithfull, because back in 1977-78 I would not have known what to do if she had not worked relentlessly in the House of Lords to secure the measures necessary to protect children from sexual images and pornographic photography—it was about assault, and I do not need to go into the detail. The bottom line is that it was the first piece of legislation that swung the pendulum towards common sense and proportionality in matters that, 45 years later, have culminated in what has been discussed in the Bill and the amendments today.
I pay tribute to Ian Russell and to the others here whose children have been caught up in this terrible business. I pay specific tribute to the Secretary of State and the Minister, and also the Health Secretary for his statement yesterday about a national suicide strategy, in which he referenced amendments to the Bill. Because I have had a lot to do with him, I would like to pay tribute to Richard Collard of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, who has not been mentioned yet, for working so hard and effectively.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for her work to help get the amendments through. The written ministerial statement came after some interesting discussions with the Minister, who was a bit surprised by our vehemence and determination. It was not chariots of fire but chariots on fire, and within three weeks, by the time the Bill got to the House of Lords, we had a written ministerial statement that set the tone for the part of the Bill that I discussed just now, to protect children because they need protection at the right time in their lives.
The NSPCC tells us that 86% of UK adults want companies to understand how groomers and child abusers use their sites to harm children, and want action to prevent it by law. I came up with the idea, although the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) gave us a lot of support in a debate in this House at the time, and I am grateful to her for that. The fact that we are able to come forward with this legislation owes a great deal to a lot of people from different parts of the House.
I very much accept that continuing review is necessary. Many ideas have been put forward in this debate, and I am sure that the Minister is taking them all on board and will ensure that the review happens and that Ofcom acts accordingly, which I am sure it will want to. It is important that that is done.
I must mention that the fact we have left the European Union has enabled us to produce legislation to protect children that is very significantly stronger than European Union legislation. The Digital Services Act falls very far short of what we are doing here. I pay tribute to the Government for promoting ideas based on our self-government to protect our voters’ children and our society. That step could only have been taken now that we have left the European Union.
Research by the NSPCC demonstrates that four in five victims of online grooming offences are girls. It is worth mentioning that, because it is a significant piece of research. That means that there has to be clear guidance about the types of design that will be incorporated by virtue of the discussions to be had about how to make all this legislation work properly.
The only other thing I would like to say is that the £10-million suicide prevention grant fund announced yesterday complements the Bill very well. It is important that we have a degree of symmetry between legislation to prevent suicide and to ensure that children are kept safe.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I will follow on from the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who talked powerfully about the impact of online pornography, particularly on children who see it.
Sadly, online pornography is increasingly violent. Many videos depict graphic and degrading abuse of women, sickening acts of rape and incest, and many underage participants. I also want to refer to the excellent study by the Children’s Commissioner, which revealed that the average age at which children first encounter pornography online is just 13 years old, and that there are 1.4 million visits to pornography sites by British children each and every month. As my right hon. Friend said, that is rewiring children’s brains in respect of what they think about sex, what they expect during sex and what they think girls want during sex. I think we will all look back on this widespread child exposure to pornography in a similar way to how we look back on children working down mines or being condemned to the poor house. Future generations will wonder how on earth we abandoned our children to online pornography.
Ending the ready availability of pornographic content to children and criminalising those who fail to protect them should surely be the most important goal of the Online Safety Bill. Indeed, that was most of the aim of part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, which was never enacted. Without the Government amendments tabled in the Lords last week, which I strongly support, the Online Safety Bill would have been in danger of missing this opportunity. As my colleagues have done, I want to thank the Secretary of State and Ministers for their engagement in what has been a cross-party campaign both in this place and the other place, with Baroness Kidron and Lord Bethell leading the way, along with charities and the campaigning journalist Charles Hymas at The Daily Telegraph, who did a fantastic job of reporting it all so powerfully. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who has taught me all I ever needed to know about how to negotiate with Government.
We now have these brilliantly strengthening amendments, including, significantly, an amendment that will criminalise directors and managers if they do not comply with Ofcom’s enforcement notices in relation to specific child safety duties. That is really important, because we are talking about the wealthiest companies in the world. Just having fines will not be enough to generate the kind of culture change at board level that we need. Only potential jail terms, which have worked in the construction industry and the financial services industry, will do what it takes.
Lords amendments 141 and 142 make pornography a primary priority harm for children. Importantly, user-to-user providers, as well as dedicated adult sites, will now be explicitly required to use highly effective age verification tools to prevent children accessing them. The wording “highly effective” is crucial, because porn is porn wherever it is found, whether on Twitter, which as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said is the most likely place for children to find pornography, or on dedicated adult sites. It has the same effect and causes the same harm. It is therefore vital that tech companies will actually have to prevent children from going on their sites, and not just try hard. That is an incredibly important amendment.
Sir William Cash
Does my hon. Friend agree that what has really put their teeth on edge most of all is the idea that they might go to prison?
Miriam Cates
My hon. Friend is completely right. The impact of not taking responsibility for protecting children has to go to the very top.
Lords amendment 105 would compel Ofcom to submit its draft codes of practice within 18 months. That is an improvement on the previously lax timescale, which I welcome—along with the other significant improvements that have been made—and I repeat my gratitude to the Minister and the Secretary of State. Let us not pretend, however, that on Royal Assent our children will suddenly be safe from online pornography or any other online harms. There are serious questions to be asked about Ofcom’s capabilities to enforce against non-compliant porn sites, and I think we should look again at part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, which would have allowed the British Board of Film Classification to act as the regulator.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on the excellent efforts she has made over a long period to highlight these matters. Does she agree that this is not the end but only the beginning of the first days of ensuring that we have proper digital access protection for not only children but adults who have access to digital devices?
Miriam Cates
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. What he says is entirely correct.
The key to this does, of course, lie in the implementation. One of the capabilities of the BBFC is to disrupt the business model and the payment provision of the adult online industry. I ask the Minister to consider whether he can direct Ofcom to examine the way in which the BBFC deals with offline and streamed pornography, and whether Ofcom could learn some lessons from that. There is still a disparity between the kind of pornography that is allowed offline, on DVD or streamed services, and the kind that appears online. Offline, certain acts are illegal and the BBFC will not classify the content: any act that looks non-consensual, for example, is illegal and the material cannot be distributed, whereas online it proliferates.
The Bill should have been the perfect vehicle to expand those rules to all online services offering pornographic content. Sadly, we have missed that opportunity, but I nevertheless welcome the Government’s recently announced porn review. I hope it can be used to close the online/offline gap, to insert verification checks for people appearing in pornographic videos and to deal with related offences. Many of those people did not consent and do not know that they are in the videos.
We also need to take account of the complete lack of moderation on some of the sites. It was recently revealed in a court case in the United States that 700,000 Pornhub sites had been flagged for illegal content, but had not been checked. Pornhub has managed to check just 50 videos a day, and has acknowledged that unless a video has been flagged more than 15 times for potential criminal content, such as child rape, it will not even join the queue to be moderated and potentially taken down. The children and the trafficked women who appear in those videos are seeing their abuse repeated millions of times with no ability to pull it down.
The Bill has been controversial, and many of the arguments have concerned issues of free speech. I am a supporter of free speech, but violent pornography is not free speech. Drawing children into addiction is not free speech. Knowingly allowing children to view horrific sex crimes is not free speech. Publishing and profiting from videos of children being raped is not free speech. It is sickening, it is evil, it is destructive and it is a crime, and it is a crime from which too many profit with impunity. A third of the internet consists of pornography. The global porn industry’s revenue is estimated to be as much as $97 billion. The Bill is an important step forward, but we would be naive to expect this Goliath of an industry to roll over and keep children safe. There is much more to be done which will require international co-operation, co-operation from financial institutions, and Governments who are prepared to stand their ground against the might of these vested interests. I very much hope that this one will.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I want to speak briefly about Lords amendments 195 and 153, which would allow Ofcom, coroners and bereaved parents to acquire information and support relating to a child’s use of social media in the event of that child’s tragic death. Specifically, I want to speak about Archie Battersbee, who lived in my constituency but lost his life tragically last year, aged only 12. Archie’s mum, Hollie, was in the Public Gallery at the beginning of the debate, and I hope that she is still present. Hollie found Archie unconscious on the stairs with a ligature around his neck. The brain injury Archie suffered put him into a four-month coma from which, sadly, doctors were unable to save him.
To this day, Hollie believes that Archie may have been taking part in some form of highly dangerous online challenge, but, unable to access Archie’s online data beyond 90 days of his search history, she has been unable to put this devastating question to rest. Like the parents of Molly, Breck, Isaac, Frankie and Sophia, for the last year Hollie has been engaged in a cruel uphill struggle against faceless corporations in her attempt to determine whether her child’s engagement with a digital service contributed to his death. Despite knowing that Archie viewed seven minutes of content and received online messages in the hour and a half prior to his death, she has no way of knowing what may have been said or exactly what he may have viewed, and the question of his online engagement and its potential role in his death remains unsolved.
Lords amendment 195, which will bolster Ofcom’s information-gathering powers, will I hope require a much more humane response from providers in such tragic cases as this. This is vital and much-needed legislation. Had it been in place a year ago, it is highly likely that Hollie could have laid her concerns to rest and perhaps received a pocket of peace in what has been the most traumatic time any parent could possibly imagine.
I also welcome Lords amendment 153, which will mandate the largest providers to put in place a dedicated helpline so that parents who suffer these tragic events will have a direct line and a better way of communicating with social media providers, but the proof of the pudding will obviously be in the eating. I very much hope that social media providers will man that helpline with real people who have the appropriate experience to deal with parents at that tragic time in their lives. I believe that Hollie and the parents of many other children in similar tragic cases will welcome the Government’s amendments that allow Ofcom, coroners and bereaved parents to access their children’s online data via the coroner directing Ofcom.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness Kidron, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) and to the Bereaved Families for Online Safety group, who have done so much fantastic work in sharing their heartrending stories and opening our eyes to what has been necessary to improve the Online Safety Bill. I also, of course, pay tribute to Ian Russell, to Hollie and to all the other bereaved parents for their dedication to raising awareness of this hugely important issue.
If I could just say one last thing, I have been slipped from the Education Committee to attend this debate today and I would like to give an advert for the Committee’s new inquiry, which was launched on Monday, into the effects of screen time on education and wellbeing. This Bill is not the end of the matter—in many ways it is just the beginning—and I urge all Members please to engage with this incredibly important inquiry by the Education Committee.
Paul Scully
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contribution to the debate today and, indeed, right through the passage of this complex Bill.
First, let me turn to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh). I understand that the intention of his amendments is to restrict the reach of the new online safety regulatory regime in a number of ways. I appreciate his concern to avoid unnecessarily burdensome business, and I am sympathetic to his point that the Bill should not inhibit sectors such as the life sciences sector. I reassure him that such sectors are not the target of this regime and that the new regulatory framework is proportionate, risk-based and pro-innovation.
The framework has been designed to capture a range of services where there is a risk of significant harm to users, and the built-in exemptions and categorisations will ensure it is properly targeted. The alternative would be a narrow scope, which would be more likely to inadvertently exempt risky science or to displace harm on to services that are out of scope. The extensive discussion on this point in both Houses has made it clear that such a position is unlikely to be acceptable.
The amendments to the overarching statement that would change the services in scope would introduce unclear and subjective terms, causing issues of interpretation. The Bill is designed so that low-risk services will have to put in place only proportionate measures that reflect the risk of harm to their users and the service provider’s size and capacity, ensuring that small providers will not be overly burdened unless the level of risk requires it.
The amendment that would ensure Ofcom cannot require the use of a proactive technology that introduces weaknesses or vulnerabilities into a provider’s systems duplicates existing safeguards. It also introduces vague terms that could restrict Ofcom’s ability to require platforms to use the most effective measures to address abhorrent illegal activity.
Ofcom must act proportionately, and it must consider whether a less intrusive measure could achieve the same effect before requiring the use of proactive technology. Ofcom also has duties to protect both privacy and private property, including algorithms and code, under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Ian Paisley
I thank the Minister for engaging with us on access to private property and for setting up, with his officials, a consultation on the right to access a person’s phone after they are deceased or incapacitated. I thank him for incorporating some of those thoughts in what he and the Government are doing today. I hope this is the start of something and that these big digital companies will no longer be able to bully people. The boot will be on the other foot, and the public will own what they have on their digital devices.
Paul Scully
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the access of coroners, families and others to information, following the sad death of Molly Russell. Again, I pay tribute to Ian Russell and all the campaigners. I am glad that we have been able to find an answer to a very complex situation, not only because of its international nature but because of data protection, et cetera.
The measures I have outlined will ensure that risks relating to security vulnerabilities are managed. The Bill is also clear that Ofcom cannot require companies to use proactive technology on privately communicated content, in order to comply with their safety duties, which will provide further safeguards for user privacy and data security.
Damian Collins
Will the Minister make it clear that we should expect the companies to use proactive technology, because they already use it to make money by recommending content to people, which is a principal reason for the Bill? If they use proactive technology to make money, they should also use it to keep people safe.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend absolutely nails it. He said earlier that businesses are already collecting this data. Since I was first involved with the Bill, it has primarily been about getting businesses to adhere to their own terms and conditions. The data they use should be used in that way.
The amendment to the definition of “freedom of expression” in part 12 would have no effect as these concepts are already covered by the existing definition. Changing the definition of “automated tool” would introduce untested terms and would have an unclear and confusing impact on the duties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil also asked for clarification of how Ofcom’s power to view information remotely will be used, and whether the power is sufficiently safeguarded. I assure the House that this power is subject to strict safeguards that mean it cannot be use to undermine a provider’s systems.
On Third Reading in the other place, the Government introduced amendments that defined the regulator’s power to view information remotely, whereas previously the Bill spoke of access. As such, there are no risks to system security, as the power does not enable Ofcom to access the service. Ofcom also has a duty to act proportionately and must abide by its privacy obligations under the Human Rights Act. Ofcom has a stringent restriction on disclosing businesses’ commercially sensitive and other information without consent.
My hon. Friend also asked for clarification on whether Ofcom will be able to view live user data when using this power. Generally, Ofcom would expect to require a service to use a test dataset. However, there may be circumstances where Ofcom asks a service to execute a test using data that it holds, for example, in testing how content moderation systems respond to certain types of content on a service as part of an assessment of the systems and processes. In that scenario, Ofcom may need to use a provider’s own test dataset containing content that has previously violated its own terms of service. However, that would be subject to Ofcom’s privacy obligations and data protection law.
Lords amendment 17 seeks to explicitly exempt low-risk functionality from aspects of user-to-user services’ children’s risk assessment duties. I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that the current drafting of the Government’s amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 17 places proportionate requirements on providers. It explicitly excludes low-risk functionality from the more stringent duty to identify and assess the impact that higher-risk functionalities have on the level of risk of harm to children. Proportionality is further baked into this duty through Ofcom’s risk assessment guidance. Ofcom is bound by the principle of proportionality as part of its general duties under the Communications Act 2003, as updated by the Bill. As such, it would not be able to recommend that providers should identify and assess low-risk functionality.
The amendment to Lords amendment 217 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) would introduce a new safeguard that requires Ofcom to consider whether technology required under a clause 122 notice would circumvent end-to-end encryption. I wish to reassure him and others who have raised the question that the amendment is unnecessary because it is duplicative of existing measures that restrict Ofcom’s use of its powers. Under the Bill’s safeguards, Ofcom cannot require platforms to weaken or remove encryption, and must already consider the risk that specified technology can result in a breach of any statutory provision or the rule of law concerning privacy. We have intentionally designed the Bill so that it is technology neutral and futureproofed, so we cannot accept amendments that risk the legislation quickly becoming out of date. That is why we focused on safeguards that uphold user rights and ensure measures that are proportionate to the specific risks, rather than focusing on specific features such as encryption. For the reasons I have set out, I cannot accept the amendment and hope it will not be pressed to a vote.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) would create an additional reporting requirement on Ofcom to review, as part of its report on the use of the age assurance, whether the visibility of a user’s verification status improves the effectiveness of age assurance, but that duplicates existing review requirements in the Bill. The Bill already provides for a review of user verification; under clause 179, the Secretary of State will be required to review the operation of the online safety regulatory framework as a whole. This review must assess how effective the regulatory framework is at minimising the risk of harm that in scope services pose to users in the UK. That may include a review of the effectiveness of the current user verification and non-verified users duty. I thank my hon. Friend also for raising the issue of user verification and the visibility of verification status. I am pleased to confirm that Ofcom will have the power to set out guidance on user verification status being visible to all users. With regard to online fraud or other illegal activity, mandatory user verification and visibility of verification status is something Ofcom could recommend and require under legal safety duties.
Let me quickly cover some of the other points raised in the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), a former Minister, for all her work. She talked about young people and the Bill contains many measures, for example, on self-harm or suicide content, that reflect them and will still help to protect them. On the comments made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and indeed the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), whom I am glad to see back in her place, there are a number of review points. Clause 179 requires the Secretary of State to review how the Bill is working in practice, and there will be a report resulting from that, which will be laid before Parliament. We also have the annual Ofcom report that I talked about, and most statutory instruments in the Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Bill refers to a review after two to five years—Ministers can dictate when it takes place within that period—but that is based on allowing a long enough time for the Bill to bed in and be implemented. It is important that we have the ability to look at that in Parliament. The UN convention on the rights of the child principles are already in the Bill. Although the Bill does not cite the report by name, the EU convention principles are all covered in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) did an amazing job in his time in my role, and before and afterwards as Chair of the Joint Committee responsible for the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Online Safety Bill. When he talked about scrutiny, I had the advantage of seeing the wry smile of the officials in the Box behind him. That scrutiny has been going on since 2021. Sarah Connolly, one of our amazing team of officials, has been involved with the Bill since it was just a concept.
Damian Collins
As Carnegie UK Trust observed online, a child born on the day the Government first published their original internet safety strategy would now be in its second year of primary school.
Paul Scully
I do not think I need to respond to that, but it goes to show does it not?
My hon. Friend talked about post-legislative scrutiny. Now that we have the new Department of Science, Innovation and Technology, we have extra capacity within Committees to look at various aspects, and not just online safety as important as that is. It also gives us the ability to have sub-Committees. Clearly, we want to make sure that this and all the decisions that we make are scrutinised well. We are always open to looking at what is happening. My hon. Friend talked about Ofcom being able to appoint skilled persons for research—I totally agree and he absolutely made the right point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) talked about cyber- flashing. As I have said, that has come within the scope of the Bill, but we will also be implementing a broader package of offences that will cover the taking of intimate images without consent. To answer my right hon. Friend’s point, yes, we will still look further at that matter.
The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) talked about Joe Nihill. Will he please send my best wishes and thanks to Catherine and Melanie for their ongoing work in this area? It is always difficult, but it is admirable that people can turn a tragedy into such a positive cause. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) made two points with which I absolutely agree. They are very much covered in the Bill and in our thinking as well, so I say yes to both.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) talked about pornography. Clearly, we must build on the Online Safety Bill. We have the pornography review as well, which explores regulation, legislation and enforcement. We very much want to make sure that this is the first stage, but we will look at pornography and the enforcement around that in a deeper way over the next 12 months.
Sir Jeremy Wright
It has just crossed my mind that the Minister might be saying that he agreed with everything that I said, which cannot be right. Let me be clear about the two points. One was in relation to whether, when we look at design harms, both proportionality and balancing duties are relevant—I think that he is saying yes to both. The other point that I raised with him was around encryption, and whether I put it in the right way in terms of the Government’s position on encryption. If he cannot deal with that now, and I would understand if he cannot, will he write to me and set out whether that is the correct way to see it?
Paul Scully
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Indeed, end-to-end encrypted services are in the scope of the Bill. Companies must assess the level of risk and meet their duties no matter what their design is.
Vicky Ford
Can the Minister confirm whether the letter I received from the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) is accurate?
Paul Scully
I was just coming to that. I thank my right hon. Friend for the rest of her speech. She always speaks so powerfully on eating disorders—on anorexia in particular—and I can indeed confirm the intent behind the Minister’s letter about the creation and use of algorithms.
Finally, I shall cover two more points. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) always speaks eloquently about this. He talked about Brexit, but I will not get into the politics of that. Suffice to say, it has allowed us—as in other areas of digital and technology—to be flexible and not prescriptive, as we have seen in measures that the EU has introduced.
I also ask my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) to pass on my thanks and best wishes to Hollie whom I met to talk about Archie Battersbee.
Alex Davies-Jones
On the small high-harm platforms that are now in the scope of the Bill, will the Minister join me in thanking Hope Not Hate, the Antisemitism Policy Trust and CST, which have campaigned heavily on this point? While we have been having this debate, the CST has exposed BitChute, one of those small high-harm platforms, for geoblocking some of the hate to comply with legislation but then advertising loopholes and ways to get around that on the platform. Can the Minister confirm that the regulator will be able to take action against such proceedings?
Paul Scully
I will certainly look at that. Our intention is that in all areas, especially relating to children and their protection, that might not fall within the user enforcement duties, we will look to make sure that the work of those organisations is reflected in what we are trying to achieve in the Bill.
We have talked about the various Ministers that have looked after the Bill during its passage, and the Secretary of State was left literally holding the baby in every sense of the word because she continued to work on it while she was on maternity leave. We can see the results of that with the engagement that we have had. I urge all Members on both sides of the House to consider carefully the amendments I have proposed today in lieu of those made in the Lords. I know every Member looks forward eagerly to a future in which parents have surety about the safety of their children online. That future is fast approaching.
I reiterate my thanks to esteemed colleagues who have engaged so passionately with the Bill. It is due to their collaborative spirit that I stand today with amendments that we believe are effective, proportionate and agreeable to all. I hope all Members will feel able to support our position.
Amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 182.
Lords amendment 182, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments (a) and (b) made to Lords amendment 349.
Lords amendment 349, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 391.
Lords amendment 391, as amended, agreed to.
Government consequential amendment (a) made.
Lords amendment 17 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 17.
Lords amendment 20 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 22 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 81 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (c) made in lieu of Lords amendment 81.
Lords amendment 148 disagreed to.
Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 148.
Lords amendments 1 to 16, 18, 19, 21, 23 to 80, 82 to 147, 149 to 181, 183 to 348, 350 to 390, and 392 to 424 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 171, 180, 181, 317, 390 and 400.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 20 and 22;
That Paul Scully, Steve Double, Alexander Stafford, Paul Howell, Alex Davies-Jones, Taiwo Owatemi and Kirsty Blackman be members of the Committee;
That Paul Scully be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Mike Wood.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Dangerous Drugs
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 404 / Noes: 36 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 5 September, be approved.
The order proposes an amendment to paragraph 1(a) of part 3 of schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to bring nitrous oxide under the control of that Act as a class C drug. In September 2021, following increasing reports of the harms associated with the use of nitrous oxide, the Government commissioned the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to undertake an independent assessment of it. The Government requested that the ACMD include in its assessment a recommendation on the appropriate legislative control of the substance. I thank the ACMD for the updated harms assessment that it published in March 2023. Its work has been helpful, and we are grateful for the time it spends advising the Government on this and other issues. The ACMD report did not recommend the control of nitrous oxide under the MDA, but it did note concerning health harms such as nerve damage.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
On health harms, does the Minister acknowledge that the amendment is just tinkering with an Act that does not address the health harms of drugs? Does he agree that a wider review of the Act, which is half a century old, is needed to take drug dealers off the streets, tackle sinister organised crime, and treat those with addiction issues with compassion?
Chris Philp
I do not agree that the amendment is tinkering; it is an important measure, as I will outline in just a moment. On action against drug abuse more generally, we have a whole 10-year drug strategy that we are a year and a half into. It includes tough enforcement at the border and action to disrupt criminal gangs who deal drugs—we had a record level of drug seizures recently. In addition, we are investing record sums in drug treatment—£582 million extra over a three-year period—and increasing the number of treatment places by 54,000, so there is a comprehensive programme of work, both on enforcement to break drug importation and drug gangs, and, critically, on treatment to help people out of addiction and into a better life.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for clearly outlining the Government’s intentions. The amendment deals very specifically with nitrous oxide, and I welcome it. The Government have recognised the need to make changes. I would like more stringent drug controls—as, I think, would the Minister—but, bearing in mind the Government’s intentions, and the intention of some Members to divide the House, can the Minister confirm that the amendment will not place more onerous conditions on those who need to use nitrous oxide, such as dentists? Will they be outside its scope? At the same time, the need for the law is clear.
Chris Philp
Yes, I can provide that assurance. I will expand on this later, but those who are using nitrous oxide for legitimate purposes, which includes the catering industry, the dental sector, research and even semiconductor manufacture, will be outside the scope of these restrictions.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the control of harmful drugs more generally. It is important to control harmful drugs, particularly where they are very addictive and cause health harms. We have seen in cities in North America that have liberalised their drug laws substantially, such as San Francisco, Portland and some Canadian cities, that it has resulted in widescale public health problems.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I knew that the Minister was going to bring up Portland at some point. There has been a clarion call to the extreme right wing to clamp down on drug policies, but we have to look at Portland in its entirety. Yes, it decriminalised drugs, but it also cut back all its support services drastically and had a fentanyl crisis at exactly the same time. That created a perfect storm for the damage that has been done there. We would not want to undermine some of the good work that has been done there as well.
Chris Philp
Well, if we look at the centre of San Francisco at the moment, it is not a very happy sight. The de facto decriminalisation of drugs and, indeed, the failure to police certain criminal offences such as shoplifting has led to disastrous outcomes, and I am determined that we do not see the same in our jurisdiction. I do accept that treatment is very important, which is why we are investing all that extra money in treatment.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Minister talks about problems in San Francisco. Does he agree that this legislation will also help to stop the havoc that nitrous oxide is wreaking in our coastal communities, in particular by tackling the increased availability of these higher-harm larger canisters? Last summer, Southend police confiscated 400 on one day. I welcome this motion, and I thank the Minister for engaging with me and other Members across the House and listening to our concerns.
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. The campaigning that she has done, on behalf of her Southend constituents, is an important part of why we are moving this motion. I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) in his place. I recall a Westminster Hall debate just a few months ago in which he and other colleagues raised the harms that nitrous oxide was doing in their communities. People may sometimes wonder about the value of Westminster Hall debates, but I can honestly say that the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Southend West (Anna Firth) and for Wyre Forest and others were instrumental in bringing about this change.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning that Westminster Hall debate. Does he agree that campaigners such as Dr David Nicholl, an eminent neurosurgeon in Bromsgrove, were also instrumental? He was responsible for raising with me and many colleagues the unbelievable harm that this does to children, who think that, because it is called laughing gas, it is amusing, but it actually causes profound neurological problems for those who use it too much.
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is right to point to Dr Nicholl’s work, and I thank him again for his campaigning on this issue, without which we possibly would not be here today taking this legislation through Parliament. The evidence we have seen about the neurological damage caused in particular by large-scale consumption of nitrous oxide is very worrying. Neurological units around the country have seen cases of people who have been paralysed and suffered really quite serious consequences. The numbers are not enormous, but they are extremely worrying, and the severe cases, including paralysis, are deeply concerning. I agree completely with what my hon. Friend just said.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: until recently, I was an acting consultant addiction psychiatrist. On the point about other uses of nitrous oxide—legitimate medicinal and industrial uses—moving it away from the psychoactive substances regulations to the Misuse of Drugs Act puts a number of limitations on its use in its current settings. What consultation has my right hon. Friend or his Department done with the medical sector as a whole, and also with other commercial providers or users of nitrous oxide, in advance of laying these regulations before the House?
Chris Philp
We have conducted further engagement and consultation with the ACMD and others in industry to understand the implications of this move. I am jumping ahead a little, but we intend to table a further statutory instrument that will take effect alongside this one, which will make it clear that the sale and use of nitrous oxide for legitimate purposes will not be criminalised in any way—it will continue to be permitted. The definition of legitimate use will be very broadly drawn in that SI, because nitrous oxide is used for a wide range of medical research and commercial purposes, and we are not going to try to comprehensively list those purposes. A wide-based exemption for legitimate use will be put in place to make sure that we do not unintentionally stymie either medical research or commercial use of this drug.
It is worth saying that the use of nitrous oxide is quite widespread. Among those aged 16 to 24—
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Could we have a little clarity on those two SIs? Does that mean that there is going to be a period in which otherwise legitimate uses will be illegitimate until the new SI is in place, and is that new SI needed because people came forward and said, “Whoops, you’ve missed this use”? I am not quite sure how the two SIs are going to interact.
Chris Philp
No, there will be no gap, and it is not unintentional or inadvertent; it is just likely that we will have to amend the way schedule 5 to the 1971 Act works in order to create this new category, essentially to accommodate nitrous oxide. The two SIs will be implemented on the same day—there will be no lacuna or gap. That is just how we have to sequence the secondary legislation under the Act.
Let me return to the question of prevalence. Some 230,000 young people inhaled this harmful substance in the year ending June 2022. It was the third most misused substance among that age group and, as we have discussed already, there is evidence that it has harmful neurological effects, particularly when consumed in quite large quantities.
Beyond that, we know that nitrous oxide has a significant effect on antisocial behaviour—indeed, we announced the measure for which we are legislating today in the antisocial behaviour action plan. Again, I thank parliamentary colleagues for raising the impact that nitrous oxide has had on their communities. It is fuelling antisocial behaviour and having an impact on the decent, hard-working majority who want to use their local park or go down their local high street without being harassed by antisocial behaviour or seeing the little silver canisters littered all over the place. To give an illustration of the scale of the problem, after the Notting Hill carnival a couple of weeks ago, it is estimated that 13 tonnes of those nitrous oxide canisters and others were collected from the street by the clean-up crews. That is an extraordinary amount.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
How many tonnes of beer cans were collected?
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the consumption of beer does not, generally speaking, lead to severe neurological damage and paralysis in the way that the consumption of large amounts of nitrous oxide does.
Dr Poulter
I do not wish to be disobliging to the Minister, but the ACMD was very clear that it did not believe that the medical harms of nitrous oxide pose anything like the significance of those caused by many other street drugs, or indeed alcohol. Alcohol-related brain damage causes much more neurological harm than many street drugs do, so I think it would be helpful for the Minister to correct the record on that point.
Chris Philp
I have referred to the ACMD advice before, and the ACMD did note the anecdotal reports of severe paralysis caused by excessive nitrous oxide consumption to which I have referred already. On this occasion—rarely, but not uniquely, disagreeing with ACMD advice—the Government, as we are entitled to do, took a broader view. We thought about the association with antisocial behaviour and about the fact that among 16 to 24-year-olds nitrous oxide is the third most used harmful substance, and that is why we took the step we did. Of course, I acknowledge that, as my hon. Friend said, alcohol can have an adverse effect as well, but we feel that in this particular case the misuse of nitrous oxide merits action. Many Members have raised concerns about the effect it has had in their communities, and we are responding at least in part to the concerns that Members have raised.
Nitrous oxide is currently regulated under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. It is not, of course, currently an offence to possess nitrous oxide; it is only an offence under the PSA to knowingly or recklessly sell it for personal consumption. So by controlling nitrous oxide as a class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act, it will not just be an offence to recklessly or intentionally sell this substance for personal consumption, but be an offence to possess it except for the legitimate use exemptions I mentioned earlier. As I said in response to my hon. Friend’s earlier intervention, we will be bringing through a further SI to set out the definition of those legitimate uses. As I said a moment or two ago, those will be extremely wide-ranging to make sure we do not inadvertently stymie legitimate commercial, medical or research use.
In summary, it is clear that drug misuse ruins lives. In the case of nitrous oxide, it also contributes significantly to antisocial behaviour. The Government have listened to the public and to parliamentarians who have been speaking for their constituents, and that is why we are taking this action.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Minister.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Nitrous oxide causes significant problems in our communities. As we have heard, it is the third most misused substance among 16 to 24-year-olds, it leads to antisocial behaviour, and the litter associated with it is a blight on our streets, parks and pavements. We know from our own mailbags that our communities are sick of having to literally and figuratively pick up after the problem that nitrous oxide creates. We feel that what the Government are proposing is a relatively minor change to how we approach this, and we do not intend to stand in the way, but I do have a number of questions that I hope the Minister can address.
It has to be said that, as a psychoactive substance, nitrous oxide is already covered by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. In practice, that means it is already an offence to produce it, supply it, offer to supply it, possess it with the intent to supply it, import it or export it on a similar basis. The only thing that is not an offence is the possession of it outside custody. That is in practice what will be different as a result of this instrument, so I would say, as I did at the beginning, that this is relatively modest.
I am glad that the Minister has addressed the points relating to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, because it is important when the Government diverge from what their independent advisers tell them—which they are of course able to do—that they explain why they are doing so. The Opposition’s view is that we would have given greater weighting to the creation and impact of antisocial behaviour than the ACMD did in its report, which is why taking action is reasonable.
The ACMD did raise other points, and the Minister has covered them to some degree, but I want to get some greater clarity, starting with the legitimate use of nitrous oxide. We heard a couple of answers from the Minister—originally that there would be no change, but later that there would be a follow-up statutory instrument to make sure there is no change. Those two things are slightly different. I think I heard him say that they will come into force on the same day, so there will be no interregnum, but I would be grateful for more clarity if he is willing to say that that is the case.
The ACMD report also discussed a tighter definition of nitrous oxide so that lawful activities are not disrupted. The Minister, in his response, seemed to indicate that he was minded to do that. Could he say what the timeline might be? It also raised the crucial point about the move from the 2016 Act to the 1971 Act, and that the impact of that ought to be kept under review. Can he confirm that will be the case, because we do need to know that this will not excessively criminalise certain groups, especially young people?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
It is clear that the 1971 Act is vastly out of date and has many adverse consequences in its application. I wonder whether those on the Labour Front Bench would welcome the idea of our committing to review the use of that Act and to update and modernise it. I am not saying we should scrap it, but we definitely need to investigate its use. That would give me some reassurance and enable me to do what those on the Front Bench are asking later on.
Alex Norris
I am afraid that I am going to disappoint my hon. Friend by not setting such a broad policy while debating a statutory instrument on a narrow bit of policy, but I know he will continue to make his case to me and my colleagues ahead of the election down the road.
Let me address the point about the diversionary work. From what I understand from the impact assessment, the Government envisage a relatively small minority of those caught in possession being charged, with the others instead having conditional cautions, community resolutions or diversionary activities. I would be keen for the Minister to state what he has based that assessment on, and how he thinks it is likely to work in practice.
The Minister, I think rightly and importantly, has coupled this issue with that of antisocial behaviour, so we must take a reckoning of the Government’s broader record on antisocial behaviour. They have had 13 years. The Minister talks about the antisocial behaviour action plan and the pilot programmes in 10 police forces, but that is less than a quarter of all forces. We have seen from the Minister and his colleagues a complete failure to reverse the cuts to neighbourhood policing, and we still have 10,000 fewer neighbourhood police officers and police community support officers than we did eight years ago. Half the population say that they rarely see the police on the beat, and that proportion has doubled since 2010. It is clear that the Government’s plans are too modest to meet this challenge.
Chris Philp
I welcome the shadow Minister to his place. Will he join me in expressing pleasure at the fact that we now have record numbers of police officers? As of 31 March, there are 149,566 in England and Wales, which is about 3,500 more than we have ever had at any time in history.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that intervention and for the Minister’s kind words of introduction. As he says, I am new to this parish, but if I were in his seat and not mine, I might be a little less gleeful about there being 10,000 fewer neighbourhood police officers and PCSOs than eight years ago, and about the fact that the people of this country, whom we serve, are twice as likely to say that they rarely see police on the beat than when this Government started in 2010. That should perhaps be a point for reflection, rather than the grandstanding that we saw.
People will ask—it is important that the Minister addresses this—what non-legislative actions are being taken alongside this statutory instrument to ensure it is effective. On enforcement, this provision has important implications for our police, and I would be keen to know the Minster’s assessment of the overall readiness of those who are already busy, and who we will be asking to enforce this ban. What training does he think it will take to be effective? Again, we must see this record in its historical context to know where we are building from. The Government have weakened powers over the last decade, and brought in powers that have not been used, such as the community trigger. They have abandoned the major drug intervention programmes that the previous Labour Government left, they have slashed youth service budgets by £1 billion and they have let charges for criminal damage halve. We did not hear from the Minister what sort of broader preventive actions he intends to implement alongside this statutory instrument to make it effective.
We see in the independent report that standalone publicity campaigns are likely to have limited effectiveness, so what more thoughtful, community-level approaches are going to be used? Labour Members have set out a full comprehensive plan, with 13,000 extra neighbourhood officers and PCSOs, paid for by savings that have been identified by the Police Foundation, but which Ministers are refusing to make. We would introduce new respect orders for repeat offenders, hotspot policing to tackle drug dealing, and strong action on fly-tipping. Those are the sorts of things we could align alongside the decisions being taken today to make sure that they are actually meaningful. Otherwise there is a risk, which the Minister will have to reflect on, that people think the Government are chasing headlines, rather than chasing change. To conclude, we will not stand in the way of this instrument today, but it must be seen for what it is: a small intervention when we need much bigger ideas.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for laying out the reasons for this SI. I recognise the impact on communities up and down the land of this particular substance, not least in littering and antisocial behaviour. I am anxious, as I am sure is the Minister, that if we are going to introduce this new measure, we do it properly. I have a couple of questions for the Minister about the impact of this instrument, particularly on the criminal justice system.
Looking at the impact assessment, I am surprised by the relatively low number of individuals it is envisaged will be put through the system. As the Minister will know, if we are to have an impact, there has to be a significant deterrent effect. If we are to have a deterrent effect, there has to be a sense in people’s minds that there is a very high probability of their being caught and that when they are caught, there will be a swift and certain consequence. Can he reassure us that the police are gearing up to deal with the numbers—even the relatively low numbers in the impact assessment—and that he has an ambition to go beyond those numbers? I know he does not want to do something that is merely performative, but that he wants to have an impact on this issue. We want to see fewer and fewer of these ampoules on the street and, indeed, fewer and fewer young people in particular using this substance.
If the Minister hits his ambition, what impact will that have on the criminal justice system overall? The estimate is that we will put, I think, a total of 500-odd people in prison for possession of this substance. As far as I can see, that is small against a background number that is running into the hundreds of thousands. Nevertheless, that will have an impact on the prison system. The thousands who will be going through the magistrates courts will obviously have an impact there. The police cost per capita of an arrest, charge and disposal of any kind by my calculation comes in at about £880, which seems light to me. Can the Minister reassure us about the cost, the capacity in the system and the ability for police forces to do this properly?
When this SI lands, will we see some action out there on the street? I am concerned we will see broadly what happened after the Blair-Brown reforms to cannabis possession. If the House remembers, at the tail end of that particular period in our political history, the notion was brought in of a cannabis warning, and then a cannabis penalty of 90 quid for police to hand out for pure possession. What happened was that we saw a bit of a bump in numbers, and then it tailed off, because the police realised there was little effect and it was not cost-effective to do it. The numbers diminished over the years.
As the Minister will know, a White Paper last year looked at a different set of consequences for possession, but in the absence of a response to that White Paper, I am keen to hear from him what the plan will be once the SI is in place, because as he and I both know, the policy is not the product; the product is what happens out there on the street. We are holding out a promise to our communities up and down the land that they will see fewer of these ampoules and less antisocial behaviour as a consequence. I hope there is an action plan.
My second point is to ask about unintended consequences. One of the characteristics of my youth in Liverpool in the 1970s and 1980s was the groups of young people gathering together to sniff glue. It was a horrible thing to do and obviously had a serious impact on their brains. The chemicals are even more noxious than this particular substance, so how will the Minister ensure that there is not a diversion towards those kinds of substances and the resumption of glue-sniffing in parks and playgrounds instead of taking this gas? If he can reassure me on both those points, I will be happy to support the SI.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before I call Alison Thewliss, I point out that, as Members can see, there is a bit of interest in the debate. I will not impose a time limit, but I intend to call the Minister no later than 6.30 pm. If there are to be Divisions, they will come when the Minister sits down.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is pretty unusual that I come to a debate entitled “Dangerous Drugs” where I have direct experience of having taken some of those dangerous drugs, because I live a very quiet life. However, for many in the Chamber—women in particular—nitrous oxide will have been better experienced as gas and air, which, when used under medical supervision, is generally a very safe drug, although my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) would tell us that she had a collapsed lung as a result of her use of it. It is not something to be taken lightly, but I would certainly dispute whether it is a dangerous drug.
As the Minister pointed out, nitrous oxide is not an uncontrolled substance. Non-legitimate use for psychoactive effects is currently controlled under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs points out that production, supply and importation is illegal. There is an offence to supply if the person knows or is reckless as to whether it will be used for psychoactive effects. In 2015, the advisory council did not advise control under the Misuse of Drugs Act, and in March 2023 it advised exactly the same, so I am curious as to why the Minister was so light on his reasons for ignoring his expert advisers, who have looked at this in great detail. We are hardly in the realms of evidence-based policy. He has decided that he must do something, and that this is something. That is why we are here.
We do not dismiss the public nuisance of these substances. We have all seen the silvery capsules littered in the street—they are a particular hazard to cyclists—and in parts of my constituency I have also seen some of the larger canisters discarded, but all of that could be said for other drugs. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) said, we see beer cans littered all over our streets regularly. In parts of my constituency we see syringes littered about the place, and the Government do nothing about it because they do not want people to have safe consumption rooms to take their drugs. Somehow uniquely, the Government seem concerned by the small canisters and the public nuisance of nitrous oxide.
Nothing that the Minister said has given me any reassurance on that. He said nothing really about the supply of these substances, because clearly they are being sold to people against the current legal framework, which is illegal. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister on summing up how many people have been arrested, charged and jailed for supply of this substance under the current rules. If it is zero, he has a bit of a cheek coming here and asking us to agree to further legislation.
What conversations has the Minister had with social media companies? One of my members of staff, Mhairi Love, saw an advert on Facebook for nitrous oxide being sold online. Again, how many prosecutions have happened for that supply for entirely illegitimate purposes, which would fall under the current legislation and be prosecutable?
Mark Garnier
The hon. Lady makes a very important point about how it is easy to get hold of this stuff. These little canisters can be bought in corner shops, and they can also be bought by the pallet-load for £18,000, which would keep an entire festival going for the weekend. She is right that those people should be arrested for supplying it, but it is also important to ensure that we limit the market to buy it, and if we clamp down on the market where people buy it, that will dry up the supply.
Alison Thewliss
That is not how the market works. We have had the Misuse of Drugs Act for 50 years and it has not stopped anybody from taking heroin, cocaine or anything else. Those drugs are quite moreish and people tend to keep taking them regardless of the legislation put before them to deter them. It does not work. What we need to do is go after the suppliers, but from what the Minister said it seems to me that the Government have no intention of doing that.
The Minister also talked about the broad legitimate use and the regulations he will bring forward on that. Without seeing them, it is difficult to see how effective this will be. If that legitimate use is incredibly broad—it must be to allow people to continue to buy the substance to run their cafés and produce whipped cream—he will find it very difficult to continue that enforcement game. We have no sight of those regulations tonight, so I argue that it would be irresponsible of the House to pass this statutory instrument without having seen the other part of the equation.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Is there not a danger that the “broad uses” clause will mean that good, middle-class white people, with houses where they can consume this drug in private, will be able to continue to do so and poor, working-class young people in parks, possibly predominantly black, Asian and minority ethnic, will end up being criminalised, as with many other drugs?
Alison Thewliss
That is a legitimate question and a legitimate risk, but I do not see it in the Government’s impact assessment.
There is also nothing about the preventive actions that the ACMD talks about in its report. There is nothing about a public health campaign, education or wider knowledge of the health impacts of the drug, which the ACMD recommends that the Government take forward. There are things such as B12 deficiency, nerve damage, incontinence and erectile dysfunction, but the Government are not promoting a plan of how to disseminate that information to people.
I worry—as do the neurologists who have written to the Government with their concerns about further regulation and criminalisation—about stigmatising people who have used this substance and want come forward and get support. Criminalisation will make them less likely to come forward. By criminalising, the Misuse of Drugs Act dissuades people, particularly women, from coming forward for help. The Government have said nothing tonight or in the impact assessment about whether people are less likely to come forward for medical support for having used the substance if they are criminalised.
Furthermore, if kids are using the drug, what support services do the Government intend to put in place to tackle addiction in that age group? If that is a problem, what is the Government’s specific response for addiction support for young people who abuse the drug? The Minister had nothing to say on that whatsoever.
Let me come to the position of Scotland on this issue. The Scottish Government responded to the ACMD report on the use of nitrous oxide and were crystal clear, saying:
“The Scottish government has and will continue to promote a public health approach, rather than continuing the failed war on drugs. It is our view that banning nitrous oxide will further criminalise people for their drug use, serving only to heap additional harms on vulnerable individuals, our young people and communities while doing little to improve the health of these individuals.”
The point about health is absolutely crucial. The Government have said nothing about the health impacts of the drug and intervening on it. What they have outlined in the impact assessment is the cost. They say, in an incredibly vague paragraph on page 15:
“Total costs across all monetised set up and ongoing costs are estimated to be between £19.6 to £178.1 million…with a central estimate of £67.9 million…over the 10-year appraisal period.”
That is an incredibly wide range. The Government, again, are not explaining exactly why they should pass the legislation. They also say at the top of page 19:
“There is limited evidence available to estimate how nitrous oxide misuse may change following the intervention.”
They want to spend tens of millions of pounds and they do not even know whether the intervention will have an impact.
Framing this issue under the Misuse of Drugs Act does not recognise tackling addiction as a public health issue. It is a public health issue. We cannot arrest our way out of a public health issue. It does not tackle the reasons why people are taking this drug in the first place, not does it tackle supply or public health. The Home Affairs Committee recently concluded in its report on drugs that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 require reform. The report says:
“We recommend that the UK Government reform the 1971 Act and 2001 Regulations in a way that promotes a greater role for public health in our response to drugs, whilst maintaining our law enforcement to tackling the illicit production and supply of controlled drugs.”
This SI does nothing about production and supply, and nothing about public health.
We are here tonight because the Government have decided that something must be done, and this is something. The Scottish National party opposes this SI and will vote against it tonight. It criminalises people at unclear cost. There is no sense of tackling the source, reducing demand or treating this as a public health issue. It is bang on form—if I may say so, Mr Deputy Speaker—that the Labour party is going along with this unevidenced drivel. In Scotland, we want a humane drug policy. We have a caring and compassionate human rights-informed drug policy for Scotland, but we do not yet have the powers to implement it. Until such time as the Scottish Government have full control over all our powers as a normal independent country, we seek the devolution of drug laws to allow us to deal with them as a public health issue, as they should be.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). I do not disagree with much of what she said. I believe the Government will achieve very little through these measures, except perhaps to cause considerable disruption to industry and the medicinal use of nitrous oxide. I am far from convinced by the changing reassurances given by the Minister at the Dispatch Box in that respect.
I once again draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a practising NHS psychiatrist. Until recently, I was working as an acting addictions consultant psychiatrist and I have dealt with the misuse of drugs extensively throughout my medical career.
I believe in an evidence-based approach to policymaking. This issue has been examined by the ACMD at the request of the Government. The ACMD suggested very clearly that this was not the appropriate legislative vehicle to deal with nitrous oxide. It made that recommendation for two reasons. First, we already have the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, so if we want to deal with the illegitimate sale and supply of nitrous oxide there is already legislation in place to do that. Secondly, we have other laws that can be used, for example to deal with the unacceptable littering that sometimes occurs with the canisters used in the recreational use of nitrous oxide.
Mark Garnier
Is my hon. Friend aware that the ACMD was asked many years ago to opine on exactly this point and it was chased up by two Home Secretaries to try to get a response? It was not until this statutory instrument was first talked about earlier this year that the ACMD got around to answering the Government’s request to make a judgment.
Dr Poulter
I am aware that it takes some time to compile ACMD reports. The reason is that the ACMD likes to look at the evidence in the round. There are a number of issues to look at here, such as harms of use. There is relatively limited evidence and data to suggest that nitrous oxide is substantially more harmful than many of the substances we use daily, such as caffeine. Using caffeine to great excess has very profound and immediate health consequences, as does alcohol. The point was made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) about the Notting Hill carnival and the number of beer cans and other forms of rubbish left there. If we look at the social and health harms of alcohol, which is a legal drug and one that is misused legally, they are considerably more profound than what we are talking about or indeed many other street drugs.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend clarify to the House what his conclusion is on this matter? Is he saying that he opposes the measure, or is he saying that if the measure goes ahead he wants the Government to keep the matter under review?
Dr Poulter
If the House divides this evening I will be voting against the measure for the further reasons I am about to outline.
I think it would be helpful to remind the Minister what the ACMD actually said with regard to legislation:
“Based on this harms assessment, the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 remains the appropriate drug legislation to tackle supply of nitrous oxide for non-legitimate use. There is, however, a need for enforcement of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 to be supported by additional interventions designed to reduce health and social harms. Based on this harms assessment, nitrous oxide should not be subjected to control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 for the following reasons”.
Those reasons have been drawn out to some extent during the debate, but they are neatly summarised by the ACMD in its recommendations to the Government in its report.
First,
“Level of health and social harms”,
which is relatively limited, and
“current evidence suggests that the health and social harms are not commensurate with control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.”
Secondly,
“Proportionality of sanctions: the offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 would be disproportionate for the level of harm associated with nitrous oxide and could have significant unintended consequences.”
Thirdly,
“Impact on legitimate uses: control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 could produce significant burdens for legitimate medical, industrial, commercial, and academic uses. The current scale and number of legitimate uses that stand to be affected is unknown but is estimated to be large.”
I think it is fairly clear that the Government did not carry out a proper impact assessment before bringing this measure to the House.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank my good friend for allowing me to intervene. Does that mean that he thinks we should do nothing at all?
Dr Poulter
No, I do not think it means we should do nothing. I think that if we believe, as I think many of us do, that we should control the illegitimate supply of nitrous oxide, we should look at existing legislation, such as the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, which was designed and taken through its stages by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning). This point was discussed at some length during its passage. The focus was not on criminalising use and the potential users, but on controlling the supply: a clear distinction was drawn. The Minister may correct this view, but the ACMD made it clear in its report that better enforcement of that existing legislation to control illegitimate supply would be a much better and more proportionate way of dealing with the issue at hand, and the same was suggested more broadly in the evidence supplied to the ACMD while it was compiling its report.
So there is already a legitimate means of dealing with this, but unfortunately there is the potential for unintended consequences, and I was not reassured when the Minister said earlier that the Government would introduce another measure—which no one in the House has seen as yet—to ensure that there would be no such unintended consequences. If a Government are introducing two good pieces of legislation, they should introduce both of them together so that the House can consider them in the round. My concern is that primary legislation such as the Misuse of Drugs Act is tightly drawn, and unless it is amended, it is difficult to introduce another measure to sit beneath it and mitigate its provisions. I am therefore not reassured by the Minister’s comments, but in any event it is not good or effective government not to present the two measures at the same time so that we could consider the issues in the round.
Because I believe that there is already legislation in place which needs to be better enforced to deal with illegitimate supply, and because I do not believe that the Government have given adequate weight or consideration to the potential unintended consequences for legitimate users of nitrous oxide—which the Minister effectively admitted in his opening comments—I believe that the Government are in the wrong place at present, and that it would have been better to produce a proper impact assessment of the legitimate uses to sit alongside this measure before bringing it to the attention of the House. For all those reasons, I will vote against the order if it is put to a vote.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
To my constituents nitrous oxide is an irritant, manifesting itself in the plethora of canisters that we see clustering in certain places—seemingly in never-ending numbers, judging by the number that my constituents and I collect during our litter picks. However, for users of nitrous oxide there is a far more serious side. Picking up on the comments by the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), it seems obvious that the powers of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 have not been effective, because we are here today talking about this. I have come to a different conclusion to him, though, on what we should do with this regulation.
We know from investigations by the likes of Sky News that it is very easy to acquire this drug. It was described as being as “easy as buying bread”. It is probably cheaper at the moment as well. The Sky News investigators found that age verification was skipped and that balloons were offered in accompaniment to cannisters, so there was no pretence at all that those sales were for legitimate purposes. That ease and the apparent openness about the intended use of the gas is astonishing, especially given that someone can end up with a seven-year prison sentence for selling it, but with just 31 and 49 reported convictions in 2020 and 2021 respectively, it is clear that only a tiny fraction of the transgressions are leading to action.
More than this, it is failing the predominantly young people who are consuming the substance. It appears that the potential side effects of the drug are underappreciated. To many, it is considered harmless and short-lasting, but there is mounting evidence that there are significant issues, particularly for those who regularly consume large amounts of the drug. I have spoken to the families of those who have been affected. Between 2001 and 2020 there were 56 registered deaths involving nitrous oxide, most of which have taken place in the last decade. While that figure is relatively low compared with benzodiazepines, for which over 2,000 deaths were registered in the same period, the fact that some of those heavy users have developed myeloneuropathy, which causes damage to tracts of the spinal cord and nerves, should not be overlooked.
Medical professionals have warned of a notable increase in the numbers of people requiring medical interventions as a result of using the drug. Data released by the London Ambulance Service showed an almost 500% increase in the number of incidents related to nitrous oxide between 2018 and 2022, with more than a tripling in the number of calls between 2021 and 2022. If those trends in London are being reflected across the country, we are in the middle of a rude awakening about the consequences of this so-called safe drug. Certainly, my constituent whose son was admitted to hospital after rupturing his lung following inhalation of nitrous oxide would attest to the need for greater awareness of the risks of taking it. She has certainly done her bit in highlighting her son’s hospitalisation, but it really should not be up to her to point out the dangers of nitrous oxide.
There is also the impact of nitrous oxide usage on communities. As we have heard, it causes a significant amount of litter and environmental damage. Constituents are fed up with having to see collections of small containers littered in parks and on street corners. In my constituency, users are now graduating to the larger canisters, which are even more unsightly and presumably cause far more damage than the little canisters. Constituents are fed up with the antisocial behaviour that often comes along with this, and there is also a danger when people drive vehicles having inhaled nitrous oxide. According to the ACMD, that misuse when driving accounted for 20% of the deaths associated with nitrous oxide in the last half century.
I support the Government’s motion today but there are questions that have been left unanswered, which many Members have picked up on. I know that various options are being considered for the licensing regime, which the Minister talked about. It is clear to me that just classifying nitrous oxide under these regulations without dealing with the licensing regime will not be sufficient. It will just criminalise those using it instead of tackling the problem of those supplying the drug for non-legitimate purposes, which appears to account for the majority of sales. Those glaring loopholes have raised concerns.
One of my constituents whose family have been impacted worries that this is a knee-jerk reaction from the Government and that they have not properly considered the views of healthcare professionals, addiction services and those with lived experiences. She also has concerns about unintended consequences as a result of this legislation. It would have been extremely helpful if we had had full details of the licensing regime when we were considering this statutory instrument today. This legislation is only going to work if we have a properly enforced licensing regime that is effective in dealing with non-legitimate sales. If we are going to support this motion, we need to be assured that there will be an effective licensing regime coming off the back of it.
Of course, we are cognisant of the fact that criminalising this substance must be accompanied by other measures, such as increased community policing. The impact assessment states:
“investigation costs to the Police have not been estimated.”
Surely, if use remains as ubiquitous as it is now, it will have a huge impact on police resources, unless users are given a free pass. Given that thousands of kids are currently inhaling nitrous oxide without any police intervention at all, I wonder what the approach will be to enforcement, unless we expect the cells to clog up.
Paragraph 58 of the impact assessment states:
“It is estimated that between 8 and 63…additional prison places will need to be built.”
This implies that there will be some enforcement action, and it comes with a price tag of between £2 million and £15.8 million, which is not an inconsiderable figure. Can the Minister advise us on where these new prison places will appear? It looks like this will lead to at least some people ending up in prison.
There also needs to be a campaign to increase awareness of this new criminal liability, because young people have been inhaling nitrous oxide without any criminal consequences. That campaign needs to be accompanied by a better awareness campaign on the dangers of inhaling nitrous oxide, be it criminalisation or hospitalisation. People who see it as a bit of harmless fun need to know that there are consequences.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I refer the House to my outside interests on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I bear the scars of being on the Treasury Bench in 2016 when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) alluded to, I took through the primary legislation on what most people called “legal highs” or synthetic drugs. We had many a debate, like we are having this evening, on how far that legislation should go and what it should contain. I learned an awful lot during the Bill’s passage—I took it all the way through—about certain habits and certain uses of certain products. We discussed nitrous oxide, and at the time I was comfortable with it being exactly where it was until today.
I agree with many colleagues on both sides of the House that the enforcement envisaged when we passed that legislation has not materialised in quite the way we would have liked. Corner shops were selling legal highs and, sadly, there were some really tragic deaths. People were not only hospitalised but long-term hospitalised, and parents lost young children, so we had to pass that legislation. Alongside this statutory instrument we should have more enforcement, although I know that not everyone in the House agrees.
Local government could do more, and it is asking for these powers. My constituents are fed up to the hind teeth with their parks and streets being turned into dumps. I have many beautiful parks in my constituency, and I recently spoke to the gardeners responsible for looking after Gadebridge Park. I was astonished when they told me of the sheer quantities of these little capsules—we also have some degree of the larger ones coming through now. I stand to be corrected, but do not think these little capsules are for commercial use. They are specifically manufactured for the predominantly young people who think nitrous oxide is safe, which is massively dangerous. When we had the debates back in 2016, we heard that the same language was being used to indicate that legal highs were safe. Nitrous oxide, or “laughing gas” as it is called by those who want to undermine the argument we are making today, is not safe. It is dangerous. Some people using it will feel, at the stage they have been using it now—God knows what will happen further down the line—that it is okay and has had no effect on them. However, like others who have spoken this evening, I have heard from my constituents of instances where nitrous oxide has had a devastating effect on their young children. It appears that younger and younger children are using this product and it is becoming increasingly freely available.
I support this measure and will go through the Lobby in support of it, but legitimate questions have been raised in the House today. If we pass legislation, we have to feel that it is going to make a difference and be enforceable. I do not quite know how my local police force in Hertfordshire is going to be able to enforce this. I do not know how it enforces the legislation, which I voted against, on people smoking in their car if there is a young person there. We all know that that legislation was right and logical, but it is almost unenforceable and there have been almost no prosecutions. So there is a lot more work to be done, and the Minister is going to have some of the scars that I had on my back as a result of this, but what we are doing is right. Let me go back to the issue of advice. Ministers get advice from many different places—colleagues, experts, their civil servants and their special advisers—but at the end of the day they have to make the decision. On the decision that this Minister has made, there will be work to be done when we bring the further secondary legislation through, and we might need to amend primary legislation in the distant future. We have heard from both Front Benchers that there is no intention to do that imminently, which will disappoint some in the House this evening. However, it is right to concentrate on what we can do today in this House to protect our constituents and their loved ones, and I hope that this legislation will do that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As I said, I will be calling the Minister at 6.30 pm, if not before. Three Members wish to speak. If you could all help one another so that everybody gets in, that would be really useful. I call Ronnie Cowan.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I was delighted to hear that there were moves afoot to change the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, because if ever a piece of legislation needed changing, it is the 1971 Act—it is followed closely by the Gambling Act 2005, but that is for another day. There are so many things wrong with the 1971 Act. It was bad legislation in its day and for more than 50 years it has ensured that people are criminalised, stigmatised and ostracised. It has created divisions in society and led to unnecessary pain and suffering. That should not be a surprise to anyone, because that is what it was designed to do. It was never intended to provide support for those harmed by drugs. It was never based on compassion. It was never meant to address the issues associated with recreational drug use. Therefore it comes as no surprise that in the past 50 years things have simply got worse.
Sadly, today, rather than righting some of the wrongs by decriminalising or legalising drugs, and rather than striving for drug consumptions rooms, safe consumption facilities, naloxone provision, medication assisted treatment, education and support, we are being asked to make matters worse. We are being asked to turn a blind eye to the evidence and learn nothing from the misclassification of cannabis; instead, we now want to persecute more people with the continued aim of arresting our way out of a drugs crisis. It is widely acknowledged that given the many legitimate uses of nitrous oxide, enforcement will be a nightmare. Currently, the Government have three licensing proposals but are still in consultation over which to adopt. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that in his response. Quite why we are pursuing the reclassification before we have sorted out the licensing is beyond me. In the meantime, we are being asked to remove this regulated substance and create a marketplace for criminals to fill with who knows what—it is absolutely bonkers. As Steve Rolles said in Conservativehome:
“Empowering”—
and enriching—
“criminal groups will fuel violence and anti-social behaviour, not reduce it.”
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I am a bit sceptical, as we are talking about nitrous oxide use as though it is a much harder drug. A lot of the kids taking it, certainly those in Wolverhampton, are not hardened drug users, but young people who do not think they are doing anything wrong. They do not hear about the medical risks, and this drug is so cheap and so widely available. Surely the Government are doing the right thing in nipping this in the bud so that these young people do not go down the road of falling in with the wrong crowd and continually moving on to harder drugs.
Ronnie Cowan
My point is that the Government are not nipping this is in the bud. What will happen here is that they will hand this over to the criminal fraternity, and kids who want to take drugs will continue to take drugs, but now we will not know what they are taking and it could be doing them more harm. Meanwhile, they will be arrested and given a criminal record, which will live with them for the rest of their days. That is not helping the situation at all.
I was just going to say that this change will result in people being arrested and convicted. That conviction will lead to stigma and damage employment opportunities, housing, personal finance, travel and relationships. That is what we have been doing for 50 years, and that has been a rolling success, has it not? There is little or no evidence that says that this action will address—[Interruption.] Does the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) want to intervene?
Ronnie Cowan
There is little or no evidence that says that this action will address the problem. Can the Minister provide me with one example—just one—over 50 years where arresting someone for personal possession and giving them a criminal record has helped reduce the misuse of drugs? As has been highlighted already in this debate, the problems of antisocial behaviour and littering can be addressed through existing legislation properly applied.
This change is driven by the Government’s desire to be seen to be coming down hard on crime and, by doing so, they are ignoring evidence from their own expert body, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, along with the Royal Society of Medicine, the World Health Organisation and the United Nations. The focus should be on education, not punishment.
This change does nothing to address the question of why people fall into addiction, or indeed why they take drugs in the first place. It does nothing to reduce criminality; it just pushes it on to the consumer. It does nothing to make people safer. It creates a vacuum for criminals to fill. It is a wolf whistle to the “hang ’em high” brigade and it is typical of the lack of long-term strategic planning that is required. There are no short-term solutions; no magic wand exists.
Finally, continuing to bolster a policy that has not worked for 50 years will only add to the misery and pain that has already been inflicted. It is time to think outside the box and radically overhaul this Act and make it fit for the 21st century, where drug harm is a health issue and not a matter for the criminal justice system.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Having had a Westminster Hall debate on exactly this subject a few months ago, I do not propose to take up too much of the House’s time. I just want to thank the Minister for listening to that debate and actually taking action as a result.
I got involved in this matter as a result of being lobbied by BBC Hereford & Worcester and Dr David Nicholl, a Liberal Democrat councillor in Bromsgrove, who is a neurologist. He highlighted for me the damage that nitrous oxide does to kids. He likened it to an electrical appliance that has had the insulation stripped off the wiring inside it and then expecting that electrical appliance to carry on working. This is what it does to your nerves and it is a huge problem for people who take it.
There has been a lot of debate this afternoon about the fact that the measure will criminalise people and that we should be attacking the suppliers rather than the users. At the end of the day, if something is called laughing gas and is said to be a harmless drug—a harmless and safe high—that misleads people into thinking that it is perfectly safe to take. But it is not perfectly safe; it has profound implications for people’s health. It is absolutely terrible. The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) made the important point that we are going to be criminalising people. Ultimately, of course, some people will be criminalised, but is it not worth a small number of people being criminalised to act as a deterrent for the majority who—
Ronnie Cowan
It has not been proven to be a deterrent. Look at the numbers that we have across the United Kingdom. Has arresting people and criminalising them ever been proven to be a deterrent?
Mark Garnier
It is always very difficult to prove a negative. I take the hon. Member’s point, but I am happy that we will be providing a deterrent for kids of the generation of my children; that is what I care about. I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for listening, incredibly grateful to Dr David Nicholl, a neurologist, for giving me scientific evidence to support his campaign, and incredibly grateful to BBC Hereford & Worcester.
As with all these issues, we are reminded of particular communications that we have from constituents. When I was preparing for my Westminster Hall debate, I received an email from somebody who wanted to talk about her brother. He was a very talented sportsman who was possibly going to play rugby for England. He was also a talented investment banker—I know we do not always like investment bankers—with a very good career ahead of him in the City of London. He found nitrous oxide, thinking it was a harmless high, but within a year he had committed suicide as a result of the damage he had done to his system. If we know that is a possible outcome, I do not think it is right to do anything other than send a very strong message that this is a dangerous drug. Criminalising it sends that message to try to put people off using it.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise with great scepticism about this measure, because it is using an Act that is fundamentally flawed. The 1971 Act does not work. It does not work in criminalising people or in reducing drug use, drug deaths or drug harms. In fact, the evidence across comparable countries, especially Portugal and other southern European countries, is that the Act increases the harm for people. It drives people away from getting treatment and support.
I am also sceptical about the slight moral panic. That is not to dismiss the marginal cases of horrible and acute harm for those affected, including death in the worst circumstances—by the way, we have caffeine deaths in this country—and heart, lung and neurological problems. As the Minister said, this is the most widely taken drug by young people, but the harms caused do not even rank in the top 50 harms caused to young people. The idea that this drug is causing great harm is just not true.
Most people use this drug. I have used it at the dentist. People have used it in hospital settings. But most people use the drug recreationally, harmlessly and acceptably. My view is that that is fine. I have not used the drug recreationally, but I have been in rooms where top judges from the High Court, lawyers, senior politicians and celebrities have used these kinds of drugs, and other drugs, and it causes them no harm. The police do not come knocking at their doors, because the usage is behind closed doors by wealthy people, predominantly white, who are out of sight and out of mind. The state does not mind.
This classification will target poor people, young people, and predominantly people from ethnic minorities. We know that is the case because that is what has happened with all other forms of drug taking, where large numbers of people from different demographics take the drugs but the laws criminalise a specific set of demographics. That is the fundamental problem with the 1971 Act—it targets people and communities, rather than helping them get off the drugs they are addicted to or to move to a safe space. This measure will make things worse.
The measure will also make things worse in terms of gangs and criminal syndicates. It should come as no surprise: the Conservative Government has been giving get-out clauses to criminal gangs for the last 10 years in many other sectors, through bungs to their mates or legislation that allows dodgy dealings. But this measure will move this trade underground. It will suddenly mean that a premium can be charged on this particular drug. It will mean that people will not know what is in the canisters safely. It will mean more deaths and it will mean profits for criminal gangs—they will go laughing to the bank. The people who really want this measure are the gangs. The people who really want the continuation of the 1971 Act are the gangs. I want the Government and my party to stop being the cheerleaders of gangs and criminals, because while they continue to cheerlead for the 1971 Act, that is what they are.
Let us look at the evidence of what the Government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs says: that this drug has no effect on crime whatsoever at the moment. There is no evidence that it causes or exacerbates crime, although there is some minor evidence that it causes antisocial behaviour. I suggest to hon. Members that the antisocial behaviour is not really caused by laughing gas; it is caused by the fact that there are young people hanging around park and benches with nothing better to do, because youth services have been slashed in this country and billions of pounds taken out of support services. People who live in miserable accommodation, who do not have living rooms to sit in because they live in horrible, filthy bedsits, who are out on the streets in the evening trying to while away the hours and take the edge off their often miserable and difficult lives, because they are in absolute poverty or they have other social issues around them, and there is no one in the state to support them—that is what is antisocial. Yes, for the person in their nice big house who does not want to be disturbed in the evening it is a bit of a frustration, but those things can be dealt with, just as we deal with many other issues.
The same argument can also be made on littering; it is a reason, surely, to move to producer responsibility, where we have stamps and marks on the canisters so we can see who is supplying those canisters and ensure that suppliers of those canisters are punished properly. Many of my constituents think we should do that with the plastic cups strewn on our beaches, because we do not know which bar has given them out and not picked them up. I agree with that. I think that for waste and recycling we need to move to a completely different model, but that is not a model of criminalising young people.
This measure is criminalising young people, because the only change here is to criminalise young people. If there was a way to stop this substance being produced, if there was a way to ensure that people can enjoy themselves—personally, I do not have a problem with people enjoying themselves with drugs—but in a safe way that does not cause antisocial behaviour, I would be all for it. However, I am afraid that all this measure will do is exacerbate the situation.
Personally, I would like not to have a vote on this measure today, because I think it would be better for the Government to go away and rethink it, given the cross-party opposition to it, and to find a way forward. If there is a vote, I am afraid I will, very reluctantly, not to be able to support the Government on this.
Chris Philp
This has been an interesting and wide-ranging discussion, and I will try to conclude relatively briefly. I start by thanking the shadow Minister for his support for this measure in principle; it is good to start off on this note of cross-party consensus, which I hope will continue for the remainder of his tenure in his new role. He asked some questions, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), about plans for enforcement and the resources that will be dedicated to this issue. I can confirm that it is something we expect the police to be focusing on.
The shadow Minister also asked about the antisocial behaviour action plan. It is true that we are starting with pilots in just 10 force areas doing the antisocial behaviour hotspot patrols, but in April of next year that will expand to all 43 police forces across England and Wales, backed by around £43 million pounds of extra new funding to make sure those ASB hotspot patrols are out and about, both dealing with antisocial behaviours more widely and looking specifically at the issue of nitrous oxide consumption.
There were a number of questions about prison places. We are in the process of building more than 20,000 extra prison places. We expect this measure to have a significant deterrent effect on the consumption of the drug. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) said, reducing consumption will reduce the incentive to supply the drug as well. We expect it to be enforced.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) for his work on the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. Some Members asked about the action that followed, and I think my right hon. Friend can take pride in the fact that 332 retailers stopped selling psychoactive substances as a result of his legislation, and that there have been at least 230 prosecutions under that Act, which, of course, covers nitrous oxide. I think I said earlier that it regulates nitrous oxide, but it would be more accurate to say that it covers it.
There has been some discussion about the ACMD. I put on the record again my thanks to that council for its work advising the Government. We almost always follow the ACMD’s advice, although there have been occasions, including under the last Labour Government, when the Government have taken a slightly broader and different view, for reasons that many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and the shadow Minister, have outlined. We have taken a slightly different and broader view in considering the social harm and our concern that the harm and paralysis the substance causes may get worse if its use is allowed to spread, but we have also consulted the ACMD on how we will go about implementing the legislation. We have done a public consultation on implementation, and the report was published on 5 September, making it clear that there will be a wide-ranging exemption for legitimate use.
Some Members asked about legitimate use. We will amend the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 to make it clear that legitimate use is any use that does not involve inhalation by a human. Inhalation by a human for research and medical purposes will, of course, be lawful. I hope that that gives the little extra clarity that Members asked for.
A couple of Members referred to people who consume the substance medically. Of course, when people consume nitrous oxide at the dentist’s or in the context of giving birth, they are being supervised by a medical professional. In the case of giving birth, an anaesthetist is typically supervising the administration of the drug. That is necessary because it is potentially very harmful.
A few comments have been made about the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 more widely. I do not propose to go into that in detail, save to say that if we consider jurisdictions where they have taken an incredibly permissive view, such as San Francisco, it has not resulted in more people going into treatment; it has led to a significant increase in deaths as a result of drug overdoses, particularly from synthetic opioids, and to widescale disorder on the streets. I do not accept the thesis that we can have treatment only if we liberalise drug laws and have out-of-control public consumption, as in some American cities. We do not want that happening in this country. That is why a combination of going after drug supply at the border and going after criminal gangs is important, combined with the funding of treatment, which we are doing with an extra £582 million for treatment over three years, and record police numbers. We have 149,566 police officers—more than ever before.
The measure, which I hope we will vote through this evening, will help us to combat antisocial behaviour across the country. It will protect people—particularly young people, but adults as well—from the medical harm that the drug can do. It is a critical part of the Government’s battle against antisocial behaviour. I commend the order to the House.
Question put.
Business without Debate
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
18:49 - The House divided: - Ayes: 278 / Noes: 148 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now have a number of motions, which I am going to take separately.
Delegated Legislation
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Council Tax
That the draft Mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner Elections, Recall Petitions and Referendums (Ballot Secrecy, Candidates and Undue Influence) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 6 July, be approved.—(Jacob Young.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Local Government
That the draft Representation of the People (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 6 July, be approved.—(Jacob Young.)
Question agreed to.
Police
That the draft Representation of the People (Postal and Proxy Voting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 6 July, be approved.—(Jacob Young.)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 9 to 12 together.
Motion made, and question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Northern Ireland
That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 4 September, be approved.
Representation of the People
That the draft Representation of the People and Recall Petition (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 4 September, be approved.
Consumer Protection
That the draft Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 10 July, be approved.
Northern Ireland
That the Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointment Functions) Regulations 2023 (SI, 2023, No. 776), dated 10 July 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10 July, be approved.—(Jacob Young.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union
That the draft Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 4 September, be approved.—(Jacob Young.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until tomorrow (Standing Order No. 41A).
Restoration and Renewal Programme Board
Resolved,
That this House
(1) notes the report from the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords Commission on the membership of the Restoration and Renewal Programme Board, HC 1792, dated 6 September 2023; and
(2) appoints Dr Michèle Dix as an external member of the Board.—(Sir Charles Walker, on behalf of the House of Commons Commission.)
Committees
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 15 to 22 together.
Ordered,
Business and Trade
That Alan Brown be discharged from the Business and Trade Committee and Douglas Chapman be added.
Defence
That Dave Doogan be discharged from the Defence Committee and Martin Docherty-Hughes be added.
Foreign Affairs
That Drew Hendry be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Brendan O’Hara be added.
Health and Social Care
That Martyn Day be discharged from the Health and Social Care Committee and Amy Callaghan be added.
Justice
That Stuart C McDonald be discharged from the Justice Committee and Chris Stephens be added.
Procedure
That Owen Thompson be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Kirsty Blackman be added.
Treasury
That Douglas Chapman be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Drew Hendry be added.
Women and Equalities
That Ms Anum Qaisar be discharged from the Women and Equalities Committee and Kirsten Oswald be added.—(Sir Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Petitions
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition about the proposed closure of ticket offices at Levenshulme and Gorton train stations, which will lead to difficulties for many railway passengers and the loss of vital jobs, and is likely to prevent people from using public transport. The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to prevent the closure of Levenshulme Station and Gorton Stations’ ticket offices.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Manchester Gorton,
Declares that Levenshulme Station and Gorton Station’s ticket offices are vital for residents of the area; notes that by closing these ticket offices, vital jobs will be lost; further declares that ticket offices are helpful for the older population and those with disabilities, who may have difficulty using ticket machines; further declares that this loss may prevent people from wanting to use trains in the future.
The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to urge the Government to prevent the closure of Levenshulme Station and Gorton Stations’ ticket offices.
And the petitioners remain, etc. ]
[P002853]
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition from the constituents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk regarding the dynamic pricing strategy, which, along with secondary ticket selling, is a disgraceful, exploitative practice that rips off many of our constituents and even denies them access to events. The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to acknowledge these problems and reconsider introducing further regulation in this area, or support an inquiry into the practices of ticket sales and distribution companies operating in the UK.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk,
Declares that there is frustration with the dynamic pricing strategy and secondary ticket selling within the UK market; acknowledges the unfairness of increasing prices to an unreasonable level and reselling of tickets at grossly inflated prices; notes the recent publicised problems with entry to events that these practices cause; and believe that urgent action should be taken to mitigate these issues.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to acknowledge these problems and reconsider introducing further regulation in this area, or support an inquiry into the practices of ticket sales and distribution companies operating in the UK.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002854]
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition about the closure of Reddish North station ticket office. Its closure, alongside the proposed closure of neighbouring ticket offices used by my constituents, including those at Guide Bridge, Heaton Chapel, Gorton and Belle Vue stations, and other local stations such as Levenshulme, Mauldeth Road and Burnage, will cost jobs and make our railways less accessible. The petitioners therefore
“request the House of Commons to urge the Government to prevent the closure of Reddish North ticket office.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Denton and Reddish,
Declares that Reddish North’s ticket offices are vital for residents of the area; notes that by closing this ticket office, vital jobs will be lost; further declares that ticket offices are helpful for vulnerable customers and those who may have difficulty using ticket machines; further declares that this loss may prevent people from wanting to use trains in the future.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government to prevent the closure of Reddish North ticket office.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
RSE Curriculum: Northern Ireland Schools
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to address this most important issue today in the House. I do so with the support of my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party, including our leader, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and the deputy leader, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who unfortunately have a prior engagement.
Let me say at the outset—this is no slight on the Minister responding—that it is disappointing yet not surprising that neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister of State is in this place to respond today. Once again, that shows a lack of connection with the issues that matter. Although the investment conference in Belfast is important, so too is the very foundation stone of our society, our children and their education.
One thing I have learned in my time in politics is that Governments mess with children’s education at their peril; they do not meddle in issues where parents are—and should be—first educators; and they certainly do not do it without consulting and engaging with parents, teachers and boards of governors. Parents in Northern Ireland are genuinely angry and fearful. Teachers feel vulnerable and fearful, yet this Government continue on a track of potential wide-reaching changes to the teaching of relationships and sex education in post-primary Northern Ireland schools, with no consultation, little scrutiny and no care for the devolution settlement.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
This change is imposing a teaching regime on schools that many parents object to. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most sinister aspects is that teachers, who will have strong convictions about some of these issues, will be forced by law to teach the subject within the parameters set down by the Government?
Carla Lockhart
As a former teacher, my right hon. Friend knows only too well the impact that the change will have on teachers, which I will refer to throughout my speech.
I am proud to have stood in this House time and again to be unequivocal in my opposition to these liberal and irresponsible agendas. I am proud to sit on these Benches with my DUP colleagues, who have consistently voted against the regulations. My party has and will continue to oppose, unpick and expose them for what they are. I pay tribute to my colleague Diane Dodds, our education spokesperson at Stormont, who has done a deep dive with us into the detail of the changes, exposing the wrongs of this latest RSE legislative change.
We on the Democratic Unionist party Benches will be working with parents, teachers and boards of governors to ensure that our children and young people are protected, that their innocence is protected, that teachers can exercise conscience and remove themselves from teaching something they do not agree with, and that boards of governors have the flexibility and ability to protect the ethos of their schools.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
The hon. Lady is giving an excellent speech. Does she agree with me that it is not only contrary to the spirit of devolution—education is, of course, a devolved matter—to impose this on Northern Ireland, but that, given the controversies that have surrounded RSE in Great Britain and the inquiry the Government have launched because of those controversies, it seems absurd to implement this right now when the inquiry is still ongoing?
Carla Lockhart
I want to get into that, in detail. The law on RSE in England changed three years ago and since then public concern has been building steam. Mistakes have been made, so much so that, as the hon. Lady says, the Government have had to bring forward their review of RSE and appoint an external body to assist the Department for Education here in its review.
What concerns me now is the risk of the same errors being repeated in Northern Ireland. I am asking the Government to take steps to ensure that we have a credible approach to RSE in Northern Ireland, which parents, teachers, schools and our community as a whole can have confidence in. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State has got off to a very bad start with his approach to introducing the regulations with a lack of consultation, scrutiny and the pretence of CEDAW—the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women—being used to justify the move.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
My hon. Friend must have been delighted at the turnout of over 1,000 schoolteachers, boards of governors and political representatives in her constituency last night, campaigning on this issue of letting kids be kids. Is that not the important message? As she rightly said, interfere in the education of our children at your peril. It will not be tolerated by people across the community in Northern Ireland. Is that not the message the Secretary of State should hear loud and clear?
Carla Lockhart
Absolutely. Parents, teachers and boards of governors are angry, frustrated and really concerned. That has been demonstrated through meetings held locally in Northern Ireland.
I am about operating in the realms of reality. I am not about platitudes or throwaway lines that will be forgotten. I am about protecting our children and young people. I come asking the Government to listen to the concerns and to make amends. The changes as per the Northern Ireland RSE 2023 regulations are deeply concerning. They will change RSE teaching in Northern Ireland in post-primary schools, forcing the teaching of contraception and abortion. That, coupled with the long-term agenda of implementing the RSE progression framework, has invoked so much anger and genuine concern.
When it comes to teaching about abortion, the Government have sought to reassure us that it should take place in
“a factual way that does not advocate, nor oppose, a particular view on the moral and ethical considerations of abortion”.
But such assurances are impossible to deliver. The very act of teaching about abortion is not morally neutral. It normalises it, presenting the subject—the taking of innocent human lives at their most vulnerable stage—as a mere moral dilemma about which people may be free to disagree, whereas for those who are pro-life, human lives are at stake. Further, it diminishes the value of life because if young people are taught about the legal availability of abortion and how to access it, they are more likely to do so in greater numbers. We have seen that in England and Wales since the Abortion Act 1967 was introduced. Indeed, the widely used Sexwise RSE resource in England and Wales even teaches girls that they can go and do it privately without their parents knowing—so much for assurances on parental consultation.
The Secretary of State also sought to assure us that education on so-called
“sexual and reproductive health rights”
should be “scientifically accurate”. Again, I would point out that this is a cause of significant contention. For example, many people in Northern Ireland and many scientists would contend that an unborn baby is, scientifically, a human being. The Education for Choice website, recommended as an RSE resource in England and Wales, asserts that
“before the limit of viability…the foetus is not considered a human being”.
Such a claim is highly contentious and, I would suggest, neither neutral nor scientific. The point is that it is not possible to be neutral on this issue, where science and ethics are interwoven. It is highly likely that resources in Northern Ireland will therefore end up being biased, as in England and Wales. In short, these are matters which should be left to parents, not schools. RSE is not just like any other school subject. It deals with issues on which there are a wide range of views and perspectives. It is a highly sensitive topic that involves very personal issues, and it is critical for parents, teachers and school governors across Northern Ireland to feel confident that the regulations and the guidance now being drawn up recognise that. They need to know that the Government will ensure that schools understand the sensitivity of the topic, and approach it appropriately and in a way that respects the range of views that exist.
Unfortunately, in recent times it has seemed that one view is not respected: that of the Christian, or of the citizen who values life and respects others. The pro-life view is scorned—the view that those who do not want to get pregnant should not have sex, the view that teaches faithfulness in relationships, and the view that subscribes only to the fact that a boy is born a boy and a girl is born a girl and there are not more than 100 different gender ideologies, and that it is ludicrous that people can now identify as cats, dogs and foxes. I say this not to provoke but because these are the views of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland and throughout this United Kingdom, and unfortunately they appear no longer to be welcome.
The vote on the amendment relating to RSE in Northern Ireland took place on 29 June, and the Secretary of State announced the result that evening in a speech at the PinkNews Belfast summer reception. Let me say seriously that if the aim is to give stakeholders in Northern Ireland confidence that RSE will be balanced and not partisan, objective and not ideological, and sensitive to the communities that schools serve, that was an odd choice.
The position of school governors must be respected. A major part of their role is to safeguard the ethos of schools and ensure that a school serves its local community, and to do so they need a degree of flexibility and freedom to make decisions on the school’s approach and policy. That cannot be dictated in detail from Belfast, still less from Westminster. Indeed, a large proportion of schools in Northern Ireland were not established by Government but by the Churches, and were later transferred—not sold—into Government hands on the understanding that they would continue to provide an education in accordance with their Church foundations. Of course I understand that the Government can now make law on the education that takes place in those schools, as they have now done in respect of teaching on contraception and abortion, but it is crucial for teaching to be handled in a sensitive and balanced manner that does not disempower governors in their important role. That is my first ask: for school governors to have the autonomy that will allow them to produce RSE policy in line with the school ethos.
Most young people in Northern Ireland grow up to form healthy relationships. Many form the stable families that are so important to the upbringing of children, providing the care, personal knowledge and understanding that only a parent can give. Safeguarding is important, and we are right to be alert to the very tragic cases in which parents present a risk of real harm to their children, but those cases are extremely rare—they are the exception to the universal rule that parents make the best parents, not the state—so parents must be given the power to make the final decisions.
Miriam Cates
As I said earlier, the hon. Lady is making an excellent speech, and I entirely agree with her that parents should have the power to make the final decisions about what are particular and personal values for each individual family, but does she agree that part of the problem is the fact that parents cannot make those decisions? Given that many of the materials concerned are not available for parents to view, how can they know whether they want to exercise their right of withdrawal?
Carla Lockhart
The hon. Member has done an immense amount of work in this regard, and she speaks about the issue in a very educated way. She is absolutely right: parents should be at the heart of this.
The consultation that is currently open in Northern Ireland asks about balancing parent and child rights, but, with respect, that is not how it works. Parents have rights to empower them to do their job of caring for their child. It is parents who are the first and best guardians of their children’s rights, and their role must therefore be safeguarded.
At present in Northern Ireland, it is common for schools to allow parents to remove their children from RSE, but it does not happen frequently, because affording that ability to parents discourages schools from adopting radical and controversial approaches. Schools want to avoid pushing parents into making the decision. When schools empower parents in this way, it builds trust and confidence on both sides in the school’s delivery of RSE.
The Education Department in Northern Ireland is currently carrying out a public consultation on rights of withdrawal. The plan emphasised in that consultation is to afford a statutory right of withdrawal only from the new statements introduced into the minimum content order, thereby narrowing the ability of many parents in Northern Ireland to withdraw their children from any part of RSE that they are concerned about. I urge the Minister to ensure that this does not happen. My second ask is therefore that the guidance will not restrict parents’ ability to withdraw their children from all parts of RSE about which they have a concern.
Most teachers are highly professional, care deeply about their job and the children, families and communities they serve and are conscientious in following school policy and instructions from school leaders, but teachers also have their own views and sensitivities. The UK Supreme Court has recognised that no one should be compelled to express a view with which they fundamentally disagree, yet regrettably some of the teaching resources produced by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment present as fact opinions that many teachers disagree with. While there are safeguards built in currently allowing for ethos to be upheld by the board of governors, thus protecting teachers, there is no clarity on whether those safeguards extend to the changes that will be implemented in January 2024.
Quite frankly, when we do a deep dive into the resources and materials that could make their way on to our children’s desks, it is scary; it is worrying. I want to put on record my thanks to the many boards of governors and schoolteachers who have held the line and resisted forcing down pupils’ throats ideologies that their parents and communities do not support. Therefore, my third ask is to make provision for teachers with conscientious objections to refuse to teach something they do not agree with.
The statutory guidance for schools that will be issued in January will be crucial, yet no draft of this guidance has been provided as part of the consultation, and nor does the consultation provide any clarity on the scope or detail of its content. This is simply not good enough. Therefore, my fourth ask is that this is made available.
I stand in this place today not only as a parliamentarian, but as a mum and as a board governor of three schools. And I stand here on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, who do not support what is being done by this Government, who want protections for their children and who want the classroom to be a safe space, not a space that forces on their children opinions and ideologies that are not in keeping with their views.
Before I left home this morning, I dressed my little boy for school—Charlie, aged four. I entrusted him into the care and keeping of his new school, safe in the knowledge that the school he attends promotes and supports a Christian ethos. My nieces and nephews travelled to their post-primary schools, where a Christian ethos is upheld and the teaching of RSE is measured, balanced and does not promote some of the most bizarre and liberal views. I do this for them, for every child and young person in Northern Ireland, and for every teacher and board governor who wants to protect. I ask the Secretary of State to stop meddling. Stop, stop, stop this agenda of devaluing life and radically changing the very bedrock of our society, our children and their education.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
Let me start by thanking the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing tonight’s debate on an issue that I know she feels very strongly about. The Secretary of State is disappointed that he cannot respond himself, but unfortunately this debate has coincided with the Northern Ireland investment summit, where he is busy showcasing Northern Ireland’s innovation and potential to investors from around the world. As a result, I am making my somewhat improbable Dispatch Box debut.
Relationship and sexuality education for children in the United Kingdom is a sensitive issue and I recognise and respect the fact that there are strongly held personal views on the issue across the House. In responding for the Government, I seek to continue in the spirit of respect that has characterised the hon. Member’s remarks. Let me start by outlining why the Government have acted.
Earlier this year the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland laid the Relationships and Sexuality Education (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. In doing so, he was acting to implement the clear will of Parliament with respect to sexual and reproductive health education in Northern Ireland. When passing the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, this Parliament, by an overwhelming majority in a free vote, voted to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to implement in full the recommendations of the United Nations committee on the elimination of discrimination against women.
Miriam Cates
What legal authority does CEDAW, a committee of unelected officials from other countries, have over UK law? In what other point of UK law does it have the authority to tell us what to do?
Robert Largan
The authority comes not from CEDAW, but from an overwhelming majority of this House, in a free vote, for that statutory duty.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that at that time there was minimal opportunity for debate and confusion about the vote itself? That is no way to impose legislation on Northern Ireland from this place.
Robert Largan
Given that the vote took place before I was a Member of this House, it is difficult for me to comment. I will state only that the result was 332 Ayes to 99 Noes.
That legislation thereby placed a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to make age-appropriate, comprehensive and scientifically accurate education on sexual and reproductive health and rights a compulsory component of the curriculum for adolescents in grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland, and to monitor its implementation. This is a specific and unique duty, which colleagues will recall also placed the Government under a duty to establish abortion services in Northern Ireland. The regulations to deliver on this decision of Parliament were passed in the House of Commons, again by an overwhelming majority, on 28 June 2023.
The Secretary of State did not take lightly the decision to bring forward this legislation. It has always been the Government’s preference that, because education is a devolved matter, the Department of Education in Northern Ireland should update the curriculum. The Government gave it every opportunity to act, but regrettably it did not do so.
It is widely acknowledged that there is a problem with how sexual education is being taught in schools in Northern Ireland. Indeed, a recent report from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission recommended that a standard level of RSE throughout all schools be introduced.
Sammy Wilson
The Minister comes to the nub of the issue. One of the criticisms was that, when they were teaching it, people were introducing some values into their teaching. The objection was that faith schools and Christian teachers, because they believe certain things, brought those values into their teaching. These regulations are designed to prevent people and schools from reflecting those values in their teaching and in the curriculum. That is the crux of the issue, and it should not be the case in a free society.
Robert Largan
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. It is the Government’s view that educating adolescents on issues such a contraception and access to abortion should be done in a factual way that does not advocate or oppose a particular view on the moral and ethical considerations of abortion or contraception.
Nearly four years have passed since the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act, and adolescents in Northern Ireland are still not receiving comprehensive and scientifically accurate education on sexual and reproductive health and rights, and the Government have therefore acted to implement the will of the House. In doing so, the Government have sought to ensure that the education provided is broadly in line with that already provided in England with regard to contraception and abortion—these regulations do that.
The regulations passed earlier this year amend the curriculum for key stage 3 and 4 pupils—11 to 16-year-olds.
Robert Largan
I will make some progress, if that is okay.
The regulations make age-appropriate, comprehensive and scientifically accurate education on sexual and reproductive health and rights a compulsory component of the curriculum in Northern Ireland. This covers prevention of early pregnancy and access to abortion.
In recognition of the fact that education in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, the Secretary of State has sought to ensure that the Department of Education in Northern Ireland has led in determining the content and delivery of this education—they are the experts. The regulations place a duty on that Department to issue guidance by 1 January 2024, and to place a duty on the board of governors and principal of every grant-aided school to have regard to the guidance.
As I noted at the beginning of my remarks, this Government recognise the sensitivity of this topic. Some parents may wish to teach their child about sex education or make alternative arrangements for sex education to be provided in line with their religious background or their belief about the age at which their children should access sex education. Let me assure hon. Members that in recognition of that the regulations also place a duty on the Department of Education in Northern Ireland to make regulations about the circumstances in which a pupil may be withdrawn from such education, or elements of that education, at the request of a parent. That mirrors the opt-out approach taken in England and Scotland.
Sammy Wilson
The Minister has used the word “sensitivity” on a number of occasions during his speech. Does he accept that advising someone on the killing of a child is one of the most sensitive issues that there could possibly be, yet, according to what the Secretary of State has said, what CEDAW has said and what these regulations will result in, any teacher who has a deeply held view that killing a child is wrong will be prevented from saying so to the children they are trying to guide?
Robert Largan
On the point of teacher opt-outs, it is important to stress that this will be a matter for the Department of Education in Northern Ireland, as it has overall responsibility for education in Northern Ireland. It will be part of its consultation, which I will be coming to in a moment, and the guidance that is published next year. On teacher opt-outs, it is also worth pointing out that a large majority of the schools in Northern Ireland outsource their relationship and sexuality education to third-party providers.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
Thank you for indulging me on this, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that the “Government recognise the sensitivity” of this matter and he then used the words “some parents may wish to”. How does he reconcile that with the fact that scrutiny in the other place said that there had been insufficient consultation with parents? Does he not think that some stronger legislation may have been brought forward, if that was deemed appropriate, following proper consultation with parents?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
By the way, you should first have apologised for not being present throughout the entire debate.
Robert Largan
I will be coming to that report from the other place shortly.
Robert Largan
I am very short on time; I have only three minutes. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would like to make some progress.
Ian Paisley
The Minister should accept that he is very popular tonight on his debut at the Dispatch Box.
As my colleagues have said, the mechanics of teaching sex, the mechanics of an abortion and the mechanics of contraception are one thing; this is about the teaching of values. Going through life, as we all know, is about one thing: relationships—relationships with each other, how we build those relationships, whether they become sexual, and whether they take place in a loving environment. When those values are removed, what happens to the things that we believe in passionately? It is, “You can have an abortion because it is an inconvenience to have a child.” That is where the problem comes. Can the Minister give us an assurance that values will be allowed to be kept, so that at the centre of all our relationships we have value?
Robert Largan
I am not sure that was quite the short intervention that the hon. Member promised. I reiterate what I said earlier about the need to have the education done in a factual way. But that does not exclude parents being able to teach those values to their children, which surely would be the most primary thing when it comes to this.
The Department for Education has confirmed that it intends to have the opt-out regulations in force on the same day as the guidance on the updated curriculum, which is 1 January next year. On 1 September, the Department for Education launched a consultation on the guidance and the opt-out regulations. This will run for 12 weeks, until 24 November. I encourage hon. Members who feel strongly about this to engage in that consultation. Northern Ireland Office officials will continue to work closely with the Department for Education as it works towards implementation of the curriculum.
Hon. Members have noted in this debate that the House of Lords brought the regulations to the special attention of the House as a result of their concerns about the decision not to publicly consult on them. The Secretary of State has already addressed the issues in a subsequent debate on those regulations, but I just reiterate that, in line with the Government’s statutory obligations under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and in consultation with the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, the Government completed an equality assessment screening, the outcome of which did not indicate the need to consult publicly on the policy. The Secretary of State’s duty is clear that it requires topics such as abortion and contraception to be compulsory curriculum components. A public consultation would not change this requirement. As I have mentioned, there is the consultation now open on both the guidance and the opt-out provisions.
In closing, I reiterate that the Government have only stepped in where necessary on this issue to deliver on a statutory duty. In bringing forward these regulations—
Robert Largan
I am afraid that I am out of time.
In bringing forward these regulations, the UK Government did not set a new policy direction, but rather gave effect to a decision taken by Parliament in 2019 by an overwhelming majority in a free vote. The Department for Education in Northern Ireland—
Draft Mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner Elections, Recall Petitions and Referendums (Ballot Secrecy, Candidates and Undue Influence) Regulations 2023
Draft Representation of the People (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) Regulations 2023
Draft Representation of the People (Postal and Proxy Voting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2023
Draft Representation of the People and recall Petition (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner Elections, Recall Petitions and Referendums (Ballot Secrecy, Candidates and Undue Influence) Regulations 2023.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Representation of the People (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) Regulations 2023, the draft Representation of the People (Postal and Proxy Voting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2023 and the draft Representation of the People and Recall Petition (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
Rachel Maclean
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir James.
The Chair
Order. It is very kind of you, but I am not Sir James—perhaps one day; you never know. Unless you know something that I do not, just Mr Gray will be fine.
Rachel Maclean
Thank you for correcting me, Mr Gray. Clearly there is something wrong with the universe; let us hope that it is now listening to my plea. It is a pleasure both to serve under your chairmanship and to bring forward these important regulations.
The Government are committed to protecting the integrity of our democratic process, and we have delivered on that commitment. Last year, Parliament passed the Elections Act 2022, which includes safeguards to prevent individuals from exploiting the absent voting process and stealing votes. Today I am delighted to bring forward five statutory instruments that flow from that Act. I will talk through each instrument in detail, turning first to the draft Representation of the People (Postal and Proxy Voting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
The Elections Act introduced a requirement to reapply for a postal vote at least every three years in Great Britain, as a result of which identifiers—in particular, the elector’s signature—will also be updated. This will help electors to stay alert about arrangements they have in place, ensure that a person’s eligibility to vote by post is reviewed on a regular basis, and reduce the risk of redundant postal ballots being issued. I appreciate that it will mean a change for long-term postal voters, but empowering them to stay informed and in control of- their vote is a positive step. The measure will help prevent voters from being unduly pressured into having a postal vote and using it under duress. To make the transition as smooth as possible, this statutory instrument allows existing long-term postal voters’ arrangements in Great Britain to continue until 31 January 2026, giving them more time to make a fresh application under the new system. Electoral registration officers will be required to make those whose postal vote is due to expire aware in advance and outline the new application process.
The instrument also introduces a limit to the number of electors for whom a person may act as a proxy. That limit is four, of which no more than two can be domestic electors—that is, an elector who is not registered as an overseas or service voter. The regulations will update all relevant prescribed forms to make sure the new limits are set out. Two of the instruments that I will turn to shortly will implement this limit in Northern Ireland. There is a concern that under existing arrangements, electors can be coerced into appointing a proxy to control how they vote. The new arrangements will ensure that the scope for fraud is reduced by limiting the number of electors that a person may act as a proxy for.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify a point? Is there any Government evidence to prove that there has been interference with proxy and postal voters? It seems to me that the change to the legislation is based on something. Is there any tangible evidence?
Rachel Maclean
That is a valid question. The hon. Gentleman will recall that there have been multiple parliamentary debates in both Chambers on the principles of the Elections Act. That Act was passed by both Houses and we are now implementing these detailed proposals. I refer him to those debates for much more information than I am able to provide in this narrowly focused Committee.
The regulations also introduce an identity check at the point of application or reapplication for a postal or proxy vote, mirroring similar checks that are already in place in Northern Ireland. The elector will be required to provide their national insurance number, which will be checked against Department for Work and Pensions data. Where the elector cannot provide that information, they will need to give a reason as part of the application. Where an individual does not have a national insurance number, the electoral registration officer may request other specified documentary evidence or an attestation to demonstrate their identity.
In addition, we are committed to ensuring that our elections are modern and accessible by creating a new digital route for electors in Great Britain to apply online to vote by post or by proxy. The new digital system will remove the reliance on cumbersome paper-based processes and will operate similarly to the register to vote service, passing absent vote applications on to the relevant electoral registration officers for processing. The revisions of postal and proxy rules will apply to all elections reserved to the UK Government in Great Britain, as will the online application service.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
We already have this digital process in Northern Ireland, as the Minister knows. It is very good, but there is an issue; when someone loses their digital number, it is not like resetting a lost password on a computer—the person actually has to make contact with the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland and it can take days before that digital number is returned to them. Is there any way of speeding up that process or enabling instantaneous access to a digital number, given that if it is the day before the election, that person essentially loses their vote?
Rachel Maclean
I thank hon. Gentleman for raising that very relevant point. Of course, all of us in this place are deeply concerned with those practicalities of voting. We have all been knocking on doors and have all experienced glitches in systems, which is why we are making improvements. I am sure that he will be aware that I am not normally the Minister leading on this policy area. I am standing in for the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), who is unfortunately not well today, but I am happy to pass that request to her to see whether she can continue to work with him and the devolved Administration to tackle some of the problems that he has rightly raised.
The proxy voting rules will also apply in Northern Ireland and the digital service will be introduced in Northern Ireland at a later time. Two of the instruments that I bring before the Committee—the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2023 and the draft Representation of the People and Recall Petition (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023—make provisions that are specific to Northern Ireland elections. It is necessary to split the provisions into two instruments, as Northern Ireland local elections changes must be made by a separate Order in Council. In addition to implementing the proxy voting limit to a maximum of four people, and a number of smaller measures to ensure consistency across elections and recall petitions, the two statutory instruments relating to Northern Ireland also make two Northern Ireland specific changes.
The Elections Act places a duty on the chief electoral officer to provide dates of birth lists to polling stations in Northern Ireland for the purposes of checking a voter’s or proxy’s exact date of birth in specific circumstances. These instruments ensure the protection of the sensitive personal information that the lists contain, so that only the police and the courts may access them. In a further Northern Ireland specific measure, the existing provisions allowing retention of entries on the Northern Ireland register following a canvass is being extended. This will avoid a cliff-edge loss of electors from the register. Data checking has given the chief electoral officer a high degree of confidence that the voters concerned are entitled to remain on the register, and the Electoral Commission is supportive of extending the period of retention.
I turn to the EU voting and candidacy rights instrument, the draft Representation of the People (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) Regulations 2023. The Elections Act amended the franchise to reflect the UK’s new relationship with the EU and protect the rights of UK citizens living in EU countries, and this moved us to the principle of a mutual granting of rights through agreements with individual EU member states. Qualifying EU citizens from EU member states that have bilateral agreements with the UK will have the right to vote and stand in relevant elections.
We also preserve the existing rights of all EU citizens who choose to make the UK their home prior to the end of the implementation period. As such, EU citizens with retained rights will continue to have the right to vote and stand. [Interruption.] I would like to add for the record that it is good to welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Vauxhall to her place. I know she has missed my opening remarks, but she can refer to Hansard to see what has been read into the record. The long-standing voting rights of Irish citizens remain unchanged. Likewise, the voting rights of Maltese and Cypriot citizens, as Commonwealth citizens, are not affected by these changes.
On ongoing registration, this instrument provides for a new registration process for EU citizens, which includes clear information about the new eligibility criteria for electors. Persons applying under the retained rights criteria will have to make a legal declaration that they have been legally resident in the UK since the end of the implementation period. Registration officers will be able to accept that declaration as sufficient evidence of eligibility, or if they deem it necessary, they will be able to require further information and evidence from the individual to make a determination.
Electoral registration officers have a legal duty to ensure that the electoral register remains accurate, so the instrument requires them to conduct a one-time review to determine the eligibility of all registered EU citizens. The bespoke eligibility review process is designed to be fair and transparent for review subjects, and to minimise burdens on registration officers. As far as possible, it has been based on, and benchmarked against, existing practice and processes.
Initially, registration officers will use data already available to them to confirm an elector’s continued eligibility without the need for an elector to take any action. Where a registration officer is unable to confirm eligibility using existing data, the instrument requires them to contact the elector to request the information necessary to determine eligibility. In the event of no response, a registration officer must make at least three attempts to contact the elector in writing and at least one attempt to contact the elector in person before they may determine them to be ineligible. All those reviewed will be notified of the franchise change and the review outcome, with the contents of all review communications prescribed for consistency.
Where a person is deemed ineligible and removed from the register on the basis of non-response, they will be invited to reapply if they believe they are eligible to do so. We anticipate that the end-to-end review process will take up to three months to complete. Registration officers will have a nine-month implementation window, from 7 May 2024 to 31 January 2025, to undertake the one-time review. The SI requires registration officers to report on the operation of the review process to the Electoral Commission upon completion.
The instrument will apply only to polls that are reserved to the UK Government. That includes UK parliamentary elections, all local elections in England, and police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales. A separate instrument will apply the franchise changes to Northern Ireland elections, and that was laid in the House on 4 September.
I turn to the draft Mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner Elections, Recall Petitions and Referendums (Ballot Secrecy, Candidates and Undue Influence) Regulations 2023. This instrument is largely technical in nature and updates the relevant electoral conduct rules to implement measures in the Elections Act 2022 and the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023.
The Elections Act updated the existing offence of undue influence for reserved elections and referendums, including UK parliamentary and local government elections, and all elections in Northern Ireland. The revised offence better protects voters from improper influences to vote in a particular way, or to not vote at all. It also provides clearer legal drafting to assist authorities in enforcing the offence. The purpose of the regulations is to apply the updated offence to police and crime commissioner elections, recall petitions, local authority referendums and neighbourhood planning referendums.
Political intimidation and abuse have no place in our society, which is why part 5 of the Elections Act introduced a new disqualification order aimed at offenders who intimidate those who participate in public life. The order introduces a five-year ban on standing for or holding public office. The Elections Act also extended the powers of returning officers to hold a nomination paper invalid where a candidate is disqualified under the new order, and requires candidates to declare that they are not disqualified under the order. The changes applied to Northern Ireland, local and UK parliamentary elections.
The Act also amended the relevant vacancy rules, including for UK parliamentary elections, to reflect the timing of vacancies occurring as a result of the new order and to ensure that those disqualified vacate office. The SI replicates the changes for nomination for police and crime commissioner elections as well as local and combined authority mayoral elections, and updates the vacancy rules for combined authority mayors.
In addition, the Elections Act introduced a new measure to permit greater flexibility in the use of commonly used names by candidates on nomination and ballot papers. The change means that candidates can use their middle name as a commonly used name and amends the existing rules for UK parliamentary elections, elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly and local elections in Northern Ireland. The instrument makes the same change to the conduct rules for local and combined authority mayoral elections in England, and police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales. It also amends the nomination paper completed by candidates at those polls to reflect the new provisions.
I now turn to the provisions concerning the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023; I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow)—I had thought he was behind me, but in fact he is not in the room—for his work on this important new measure. The 2023 Act introduced two new offences: the first, for a person to be with another person at a polling booth; and the second, for a person to be near a polling booth while another person is at that booth—with the intention, in both cases, of influencing that other person to vote in a particular way or to refrain from voting. The Act, which applies to UK parliamentary elections and local elections in England, as well as elections in Northern Ireland, aims to provide polling station staff with a firmer basis on which to challenge suspected inappropriate behaviour in polling stations.
The provisions complete the implementation of the Act by extending the new offence to police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales, MP recall petitions across the UK, and local government, council tax and neighbourhood planning referendums in England. I hope that, in setting out the details of these three statutory instruments, I have enabled the Committee to appreciate their careful and considered design. I commend them to the Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise for my lateness, Mr Gray; as a London MP, I will be contacting the Mayor of London about Transport for London services. I also apologise to the Minister for having missed part of her introduction, but I thank her for it.
For the sake of brevity, I shall speak to all the regulations together. We do not seek to refight the battles that took place over aspects of the regulations during the passage of the Elections Act 2022. However, as the new shadow Minister, I put on the record that I share the concerns outlined by my predecessors during those debates—particularly the ones about time limiting absentee voting methods and the confusion that those may cause voters who rely on an absentee ballot to cast their vote.
The Minister will be pleased to note, though, that we welcome the first set of regulations. I share her concerns. Undue influence or any practice involving intimidation have no place in our voting system. If we want to call our elections free and fair, we must act proactively and clearly to stop those who seek to unfairly influence how others vote. It is right that we update the definition of “undue influence” to accommodate a modern understanding of the phrase in the statute book. The current law was brought into force 40 years ago, and 100% of the respondents to the White Paper “Protecting the Debate” agreed that a clearer definition should be adopted.
In addition, we welcome provisions to ensure that disqualification orders are effectively enforced and that those served with them cannot stand in relevant elections. We also support the implementation of the Ballot Secrecy Act to the elections in this regulation. Alongside that, we welcome clarity on whether a commonly used name can be used on nomination papers. We understand the need to update the law to comply with section 15 and schedule 8 of the Elections Act on EU citizens’ voting rights. Those provisions are, of course, brought into force by the second statutory instrument laid before us today, which would amend our franchise in line with our exit from the EU and the lack of voting rights as part of the withdrawal agreement.
As a principle, Labour believes that people who contribute to society, work hard and pay their taxes should have some sort of say in decisions being made for their community. This is about not just who can vote, but devolving power to communities so that they have a say over local decisions. Current rights give EU citizens the power to vote and stand in local elections, regardless of immigration-based eligibility criteria. However, we do recognise that the status quo around decision making cannot continue following our departure from the EU, and we will not oppose the regulation today.
Finally, the third statutory instrument would bring in changes regarding postal and proxy voting, otherwise known as absentee voting. As I previously stated, we have issues regarding the implementation of a three-year time limit on postal voting, which this instrument helps to bring into force, as set out in the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001. I note that the Minister has stated some timelines, but I think it is fair to say there will likely be some confusion for many who are accustomed to the current voting system, and that the unexpected lapse could inadvertently result in them becoming disenfranchised. I understand that the regulations will bring in a requirement to notify the absentee voter about the expiry of a postal vote and when it will come to an end, but that may not be enough. The Minister mentioned some dates—May 2024, to 2025. Will she also clarify how the work will be carried out? I fear that the changes could be easy for people to miss.
The changes will place an increased workload on election workers, who do a fantastic job up and down the country, making sure that our elections are run smoothly. The Association of Electoral Administrators is already struggling due to the litany of recent changes combined with the staffing crisis, and there are concerns that these new requirements could make the situation even worse. I urge the Government to think carefully about those concerns and to ensure that our elections continue to run smoothly.
As called for in Labour’s new clause 16, tabled during Committee stage of the Elections Bill, we welcome the modernisation of the absentee voting system via a new online digital system, as this will help to increase the accessibility of postal and proxy voting, enfranchising people across the country by providing easier access to the absentee voting system. However, the devil will be in the detail when it comes to the implementation of the new online system. Will the Minister briefly update us on its progress and inform the Committee when it will be ready to launch?
The final two amendments relating to Northern Ireland are uncontroversial implementations of the Elections Act 2022, and we do not seek to oppose them.
Ian Paisley
Protecting the democratic framework of our country is essential, so these are welcome measures. I am delighted that the both the Government and the Opposition recognise the importance of tightening up the regulations to protect the integrity of the electoral system.
I notice that there is a reliance on data protection in the Northern Ireland measures. Obviously, that has been brought to the fore in recent weeks by the massive data leaks that we have had in Northern Ireland. I am sure it will come as a shock to the Committee that the advice being given to police officers in Northern Ireland and to general staff who work in police offices includes that the best way to protect their identity is to remove themselves from the electoral register. That is appalling. We have to do some work to ensure that people know that they can register to vote and have their name removed from the publication of the register so that they are protected. Advising people that they should remove themselves totally from the electoral register is really worrying in this day and age. They should not be encouraged to do that; they should be encouraged to stay on the electoral register and exercise their democratic franchise as they so choose.
At the last general election—I made this point to the Minister earlier—thousands of people were denied a vote because of problems with digital registration, and that needs to be sorted out. It is not an avalanche of a problem, but we have identified where the problem rests and it should be fixed. We have made representations to the Electoral Office of Northern Ireland about the confusion and lack of awareness caused by the digital registration number process, and have made representations to the commission and to that office regarding the high numbers of those refused postal applications due to missing DRNs or digital registration numbers for the past couple of elections. People lose passwords; it is a natural thing. Maybe they are only voting once every five years, and do not realise how important it is to protect and keep that DRN safe for future elections. We have asked the Electoral Commission to make that number more readily and easily available to a registered person if they do happen to lose it, as losing that number should not be allowed to stand in the way of them exercising their democratic right.
Generally, we welcome the tightening up of the regulations. I am sorry that there is nothing in them regarding an electoral identity card. I know that parties here oppose that, but it was imposed in Northern Ireland by the last Labour Government, and it is an excellent system. Having an electoral identity card allows people immediate access to their vote and parties here should genuinely consider such provision at a future time.
Rachel Maclean
It is a pleasure to respond to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Vauxhall, and the hon. Member for North Antrim. I thank the shadow Minister for her constructive remarks, and for her general support for our shared aim of ensuring that our elections are free and fair and that we protect them from abuse by anyone who wants to disrupt them—surely a vital task in this day and age.
The shadow Minister asked some detailed questions about the portal for the online voter application system. I assure her that we have worked closely with everybody involved in getting that up and running, but she is right to say that we need to be concerned about and get right the practical impacts. The digital service will go live when the regulations come into force. It is currently undergoing significant testing before it goes live, as we need to learn lessons from the process and ensure that it is fit for purpose. I set out in my earlier remarks how existing postal voters will transition to the new arrangements. The objective is to make applying for an absent vote more efficient for both electors and administrators; there is no difference in the principle of applying to register to vote, which we all agree and accept has been an established feature of our democracy for a long time.
It is important that the message goes out from this place that the measures will not—and there is no evidence that they will—disadvantage anybody who wishes to take part in our democracy. The provisions have been agreed on by both Houses and it is important that we send that message again today. We believe that these processes will bring time-saving benefits to administrators, and that may bring a welcome reduction in costs for those services. We anticipate that administrators will be required to process fewer paper forms as a result of the availability of the online application route. I assure the shadow Minister that grant funding was provided to local authorities in August to initiate the implementation phase of the policies, and further grant funding will be provided in April 2024 ahead of the May 2024 elections. Although we do not think the funding will be insufficient, but if it is—for example, if application volumes are higher than anticipated—local authorities will be able to apply for further funding via a justification-led bid process later in 2024.
I commend the instruments to the Committee and thank Members for their consideration of them.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (FRANCHISE AMENDMENT AND ELIGIBILITY REVIEW) REGULATIONS 2023
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) Regulations 2023.—(Rachel Maclean.)
DRAFT REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (POSTAL AND PROXY VOTING ETC.) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2023
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Postal and Proxy Voting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.—(Rachel Maclean.)
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 12th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 View all Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 September 2023 - (12 Sep 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I have a few preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. I remind people to switch electronic devices to silent, please. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sitting.
The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available in the room, shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection list shows the order of debates; decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
The Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group will be called first. Other Members will then be free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of the debate on a group, I will again call the Member who moved the leading amendment. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or to seek a decision. Any Member who wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote needs to let me know.
Clause 1
Disapproval of foreign state conduct prohibited
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out
“must not have regard to a territorial consideration”
and insert “must not act”.
This amendment would remove the reference to a “territorial consideration” in the legislation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 31, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out from “that” to “influenced” in line 7, and insert “is”.
This amendment is to probe the use of a subjective, rather than an objective, test to establish whether a decision-maker has contravened clause 1.
Amendment 23, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment would remove the reference to a “territorial consideration” in the legislation.
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out “or territory”.
This amendment clarifies that considerations for the purposes of section 1 must relate to the foreign countries, rather than territories within foreign countries.
Amendment 32, in clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 20 to 22.
This amendment is to probe the impact of the legislation on individuals, such as those working within public authorities.
Clause stand part.
Ms Qaisar
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George.
Antisemitism is on the rise across the UK and the globe. It is a disgusting stain on society, and something must be done to eradicate it completely. There must be strong and meaningful legislation to tackle it so that Jewish people feel and are safe. That is something that I and my SNP colleagues want to see, but frankly it is also something that people across the House want to see. Sadly, however, the Bill is not an appropriate approach.
Last week we heard from Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director of Human Rights Watch, who said:
“I have never read a piece of legislation that is as badly worded as this. It is ambiguous and runs a coach and horses completely through ESG responsibilities and business and human rights responsibilities. I think it is a very pernicious and worrying piece of legislation”.––[Official Report, Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2023; c. 86, Q124.]
The Bill is in need of significant amendment to tackle some of the fundamental flaws in its current form. Some clauses need to be scrapped altogether. The language in clause 1 creates ambiguities around the objectives of the Bill; it is so poorly drafted that it is difficult to determine what the Bill seeks to accomplish. Of particular concern is the phrasing relating to “a territorial consideration” in clause 1(2). As drafted, it could be interpreted in such a way as to focus the Bill solely on limiting disagreements among decision makers on territorial matters, rather than on the foreign and domestic actions of foreign states. That means that if a decision maker were to make an investment or procurement decision based solely on the domestic actions of the foreign state that did not relate to a territorial issue, the view could be taken that it was not covered by the Bill.
In written and oral evidence, Richard Hermer KC explained that if a decision maker refused to buy goods from China based only on its track record on human rights, they would not be covered by the Bill. If, however, the same person refused to buy goods from China because of its forced labour impacting cotton in Xinjiang, that decision would be covered by the scope of this Bill. That interpretation of clause 1 creates obvious issues around the Bill’s applicability. We therefore ask the Government to accept amendment 22.
Clause 1 also seeks fundamentally to reduce the autonomy of local councils and the devolved nations to take a stance on human rights matters. The measures that seek to remove the ability of local government to take a stance based on the political and moral actions of a foreign state mark a dangerous step in reducing autonomy to speak out in support of human rights. Political discourse in debates over foreign policy matters to everyone. It is legislated here in Westminster, but it enriches society when people are involved in the discussions. Central Government sit upon policy, legislation and agenda, but it is a cornerstone of democracy that people at a localised level be able to have discussion and debate around human rights, which is inevitably linked to foreign policy.
I am not calling for foreign policy to be set by local government, but as a society we benefit when local government makes decisions based on human rights. We saw that in the 1980s, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West and I brought up repeatedly last week. In 1981, Glasgow City Council stood up against apartheid in South Africa. Glasgow was the first city in the world to award Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city. Five years later, St George’s Place in the city centre was renamed Nelson Mandela Place. In 1993, Nelson Mandela visited Glasgow. In the city chambers, he proclaimed:
“While we were physically denied our freedom in the country of our birth, a city 6,000 miles away, and as renowned as Glasgow, refused to accept the legitimacy of the apartheid system, and declared us to be free.”
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
As a Scot, I am very proud of the actions of Labour-led Glasgow City Council in changing the name of St George’s Place and in being the first city to give Nelson Mandela freedom of the city. I have looked at the Bill, and I cannot see anything in it that would have prevented Glasgow City Council from doing that; I agree that there are things in it that have a chilling effect on local government and public institutions, but I am not quite clear how relevant the hon. Lady’s reference to the Bill is.
Ms Qaisar
Essentially, I want to talk about the impact that a local government can have when people at a localised level can outline how they feel about human rights records. This Government should take heed of that, because at that time it was Thatcher’s Government who imposed sanctions on apartheid South Africa and maintained close links with political leaders in apartheid South Africa.
I have tabled a number of amendments to clause 1. I have spoken at length about amendment 22. Amendment 31 is intended to probe the use of a subjective rather than objective test to establish whether a decision maker has contravened clause 1. In reality, there are so many amendments that could be made to clause 1. That is not just my view; we heard it from numerous witnesses during our evidence sessions last week and from multiple organisations that have submitted written evidence. The Minister should really go back and start from scratch.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George, and to speak to amendment 3, which stands in my name.
We have now moved to the short but important process of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, which is itself short but important, with just 17 clauses and a schedule. In the high-quality Second Reading debate, we saw the significant strength of feeling among Members across the House. Frankly, there was not an even party political divide, which always makes things a bit more interesting. I suspect that colleagues’ mailbags, like mine, have been full of strong views from their constituents.
On Second Reading, the Opposition tabled a reasoned amendment setting out our significant concerns about the Bill, which very much start with clause 1. It is a long-standing Opposition position that we do not support boycott, divestment and sanctions-type activity against the state of Israel. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said on Thursday, we are implacably imposed to it. I cannot improve upon that sentiment, which is also the view of the Government. It should not have been hard, if that was what the Government wanted, to build consensus around a proportionate set of regulations that would tackle the issue. Instead, clause 1 and the Bill generally are needlessly broad, with sweeping powers and far-reaching effects. Whether consciously or not, that has created an undesirable degree of division.
The Opposition do not think it wrong, in itself, for public bodies to take ethical investment and procurement decisions, given that there is a long history of councils, universities and others taking a stance in defence of freedom and human rights. After all, it is local ratepayers’ money, and it is reasonable for them to want a say in how to spend or invest it. Similarly, the money in a pension fund belongs not to the Secretary of State but to its members, so it is reasonable for members of funds, through their trustees, to wish to express their views on how the money is invested. We know that that is also the Government’s view, because they have carved out a wide range of exceptions in the schedule. It is clearly not in debate that there ought to be a degree of local say on such activity.
However, it is important to say, at the start of our line-by-line scrutiny, that there is a significant difference between legitimate criticism of a foreign state’s Government and what some have sought to do in recent years. There are those who have sought to target Israel alone, hold it to different standards than others and create hostility towards Jewish people in the UK. That is completely wrong, and we fully support efforts to tackle antisemitism in this country. However, this solution is not sufficient. In its unamended form, clause 1 will go far beyond what we are seeking to resolve and will create a series of problems along the way.
My amendment 3 seeks to clarify the ambiguous wording that a public body may not have regard to a “territorial consideration” when making procurement and investment decisions. As the then shadow Secretary of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy)—and I asked on Second Reading, is that supposed to mean that public bodies may refuse goods from a nation state such as China because of a general disregard for human rights, but may not refuse cotton goods from a territory such as Xinjiang state because of concerns about genocide of the Uyghur population? Or does it mean, as I suspect it may, that all actions of all foreign Governments are beyond the scope of local decision makers unless excepted in the schedule? Perhaps it is illustrative of where we are in the process of reviewing the Bill that that remains in doubt. We have seen doubt in the written evidence, and obviously doubt was felt at Second Reading, too. We need greater clarity in the Bill.
My amendment 3 is a probing amendment. I will not seek to divide the Committee on it, but I hope that it will provide an opportunity for the Minister to give clarity. I think we know that the Government mean that it is not territory-only boycotts that are out of scope, but rather that all boycott-type activity, where it disapproves of foreign conduct, is out of scope. I hope to hear that from the Minister.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts. My amendment 3 would have the same effect as her amendment 23 and is similar to amendment 22, so the same arguments stand.
I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about amendment 31. It relates to the important debates we had in our evidence sessions about the reasonable observer test, which I struggled with a little. When I asked the witness panel about that, we heard slightly mixed evidence. I was willing to accept it as a term of art which would be well known to the courts and therefore not likely to provide another issue for litigation, but that point seems to be in doubt. I hope that the Minister can be clear about why this approach has been chosen.
I have no doubt that this legislation is heading straight for the courts. That was obvious from written and oral evidence and the Second Reading debate, and it will be obvious throughout our line-by-line discussions. Our debates in Committee will be germane to court proceedings as well, so it is important to have the greatest possible clarity in the Bill and in our discussions.
Finally, amendment 30 relates to a matter that I shall address in detail when we debate clause 4 stand part.
Conceptually, the Bill stands up and is easy enough to understand when we think about public bodies as entities in their own right. However, it swiftly starts to disintegrate when we consider that those entities are made up of a person or persons. I thought that there were some admirable logical gymnastics on that point from the Minister during our evidence sessions. She said that on one day a person might be a councillor, a trustee or a Mayor, and thus the decision maker, but that on another day, in another context, they might no longer be and would therefore not have their freedom of expression fettered. I am not sure that that is credible, but I suspect that the Minister will want to speak to that point, so I hope to hear some greater clarity on it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George, with other hon. Members from all parties. The Bill is an important piece of legislation that has been brought to this place to fulfil a manifesto commitment to ensure that the UK speaks with one voice internationally, and to promote community cohesion within the United Kingdom. We have 17 clauses and one schedule to discuss in four sittings.
Amendments 22 and 23 would remove the references to “territorial consideration” from the Bill. I am not sure that this is what the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts intended, but the amendments would broaden the scope of the Bill. In its current form, the Bill will prohibit only territorial considerations
“that would cause a reasonable observer of the decision-making process to conclude that the decision was influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”,
but the amendments would mean that when a public authority is making a procurement or investment decision, all considerations influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct would be captured, not just territorial considerations—unless, of course, they were also excluded in the schedule.
The condition of “territorial consideration” in the ban means that the Bill only bans certain boycotts or divestments that “specifically or mainly” have regard to a country or territory. It does not currently, for example, prohibit public authorities that have an environmental policy for their procurement or investment decisions that is universal rather than country-specific. The amendments would arguably prohibit such policies, which is not the intention of the Bill.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that if the amendments are agreed to—obviously colleagues have proposed them on a sensible basis to probe the intention of the Bill—one of the risks, given that there are all sorts of territorial claims all over the world, is that countries that are occupying territories might be brought into scope if this change is made? The reality is that it should be the foreign policy of the Government that determines whether such decisions are taken, not individual authorities.
Felicity Buchan
I completely agree that foreign policy should be determined by Government. I would like to point out the definition of a territorial consideration in clause 1(3):
“A ‘territorial consideration’ is a consideration that relates specifically or mainly to a particular foreign territory.”
Foreign territory is defined in clause 1(5) as
“a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.”
For the avoidance of any doubt, “territorial” does not apply simply to territories; it also applies to countries.
Amendment 3 would exclude “territory” from the Bill’s definition of a foreign territory. In his evidence to the Committee, Richard Hermer KC raised a concern about the term “territorial consideration”, and I understand that the hon. Member for Nottingham North has tabled the amendment to address that concern. I have already explained the importance and purpose of territorial consideration, so I will not repeat it. I understand that Mr Hermer’s concern is that the terminology indicates that the clause applies only where there is a territorial dispute, but that is not the case. As Jonathan Turner noted in evidence to the Committee, there is nothing in this wording that suggests that the clause will apply only where there is a territorial dispute. If that is the reasoning behind the amendment, it is unnecessary.
Unless I am mistaken in my understanding of the reason for the amendment, it seems to be intended to attempt to reduce the scope of “territorial considerations” in the ban. In other words, it appears to intend for public authorities to be permitted to have regard to considerations relating to a territory when making an investment or procurement decision, even if that decision is influenced by the moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but there are difficulties with the drafting of the clause, and one criticism is that it seeks to apply a subjective rather than an objective test. However, will she clarify the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham North? The disapproval of foreign state conduct, which the Bill refers to, includes disapproval by individuals and by public organisations collectively, but it would also apply to individuals in such organisations. Will the Minister therefore outline the Government’s intent, because there is some confusion about the way the Bill is drafted?
Felicity Buchan
I will go on to address that, but to give the hon. Gentleman a simple answer now, if an individual is talking on behalf of a local authority, that is captured by the Bill. If a council leader makes a statement on behalf of the local authority, that is captured. If a councillor, or indeed a council leader, makes a statement but is not representing the local authority, that is not captured. The issue is whether it is “on behalf of”.
Chris Stephens
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Let us be clear: a council leader or any councillor who is being interviewed by a journalist or on television would have to say, “This is my personal opinion. I am not speaking on behalf of the local authority,” and would have to hope that that was not edited out before the interview hit the newspapers or the television. There is a bit of difficulty around this issue. Given the Minister’s answer, I wonder whether the Government could go away and look at the clause, because I think they will find themselves in great difficulty on this issue.
Felicity Buchan
I was going to explain that, but I will give the condensed version: we will put it into the explanatory notes. We will give further clarity in those notes.
Amendment 32 could cause confusion about whether the ban may or may not be breached as a result of the political and moral disapproval of individuals who make decisions on behalf of a public authority. The drafting of the Bill clarifies the position: where an individual makes a decision on behalf of a public authority, that will be seen as the public authority’s decision, so the public authority will be subject to enforcement action, not the individual.
The Bill needs to be clear that decisions that involve disapproval by individuals who make a decision on behalf of a public authority are in scope; otherwise, it would bring into doubt situations such as a council voting for a local authority to conduct a boycott or indeed any decision taken by a group that makes decisions for a public authority, such as a board or committee. The ban would be ineffective and easy to circumvent if such decisions were not covered.
It might also be helpful if I explain how the ban affects individuals. Anyone acting in an individual capacity is not caught by the ban in clause 4 on making a statement of intent to boycott or divest, unless the individual is making that statement on behalf of the public authority. I gave the example of the councillor. I know that that has been a point of confusion for members of the Committee so, as I said, I will clarify the point in the Bill’s explanatory notes.
In addition, when an individual or groups of individuals make a decision that is caught by clause 1, or a statement on behalf of a public authority caught by clause 4, the individuals are not personally liable: the public authority is. The public authority would be the subject of any enforcement or court action. In evidence to the Committee, Dr Alan Mendoza confirmed that that position is laid out clearly in the legislation and that the European Court of Human Rights would agree. The Government remain strongly committed to the UK’s long and proud tradition of free speech and to article 10 of the European convention on human rights.
I hope that that reassures the Committee, especially in the light of the additions to the Bill’s explanatory notes. The scope of the Bill is strictly limited to the actions of public authorities, and only affects individuals when they make statements or take action on behalf of public authorities. Therefore, for the reasons that I have set out, I respectfully request that the amendments be withdrawn.
Ms Qaisar
Amendments 22, 31, 23 and 32, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West and me, include probing elements, as well as changes to the legislation, because on the face of it the Bill simply does not make sense. As I said in my opening statement, that is not just my opinion, but the opinion of various different organisations in written and oral evidence. The Bill is so poorly drafted.
The Minister took a lot of time to talk about clause 4, but at this point I want to concentrate on clause 1; we will come to clause 4 later. The Bill will have an impact on the autonomy of local authorities. For years, indeed for decades, local authorities and local councillors at the very local level—I keep using “local”, because that is vital—have played a role in the protection and promotion of human rights. It is important for that to be protected.
The Bill, if passed, will have an impact not only on local authorities but on universities, which is vital because they play an essential role: they gather knowledge, free from interference, to educate people in skills and in thinking critically and independently. Some of my amendments to later provisions in the Bill come back to the importance of universities and how the Bill contradicts previous legislation introduced by the UK Government.
The Bill is, as I say, drafted poorly. I still do not understand the part of the Bill that talks about “a reasonable observer”. That is why we tabled the probing amendment 31. These are subjective, not objective tests. The Minister essentially needs to go back to the drawing board. The SNP is looking to divide the Committee on amendment 22.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment, and Amendments 16 and 17, seek to remove Scotland from the extent of this Bill.
Amendment 16, in clause 17, page 10, line 38, leave out “Scotland”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 1, in clause 17, page 10, line 39, at end insert—
“(1A) Section 1 does not apply to decisions made by—
(a) Scottish Ministers, unless a motion has been passed by the Scottish Parliament indicating its consent to this Act;
(b) Welsh Ministers, unless a motion has been passed by Senedd Cymru indicating its consent to this Act;
(c) a Northern Ireland department, unless a motion has been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly indicating its consent to this Act.”
Amendment 17, in clause 17, page 11, line 19, leave out “Scotland”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Clause stand part.
Ms Qaisar
Scotland has its own legislative framework under the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, along with associated regulations and guidance. That legislative framework places duties on certain contracting authorities to demonstrate how the social, economic and environmental aims of procurement have been considered in a consistent manner, as required by the sustainable procurement duty under the Act. For example, a contracting authority is required to include a statement of its general policies on the procurement of fairly and ethically traded goods and services in its procurement strategy.
I have tabled a number of amendments in this group. Essentially, they can be summed up by this: Westminster might have the powers of reserved matters, but Scotland is a devolved nation. Scotland has its own Parliament and its own Government; it is not for Westminster to turn around and tell Scotland what she should do, because that Parliament was elected democratically by the people of Scotland. Devolved Governments, including the Scottish Government, make their own public procurement decisions. That is one manner in which they can encourage companies to behave in a way that is in line with human rights, including labour rights and environmental concerns.
Efforts made by devolved nations will be hampered by this Bill. We heard that last week from the Scottish Trades Union Congress. During evidence, Roz Foyer spoke about the Fair Work First scheme, which gives guidance for organisations seeking an award through public sector grants, contracts and other funding. Essentially, it is the Scottish Government’s approach to contracting. Scotland does not have the power to legislate on employment law—yet—but through programmes such as Fair Work First we have wide-ranging guidance and a number of benchmarks that contractors are held to in order to receive public money.
As I say, Scotland cannot implement laws in relation to employment, but it uses the right to implement and use money accordingly. Roz Foyer ended her point with something absolutely crucial. She said:
“I believe that is a very legitimate way to create a landscape of better employment rights and good practice, both domestically and internationally, and that work would be severely undermined by the current proposals.”––[Official Report, Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Public Bill Committee, 5 September 2023; c. 71, Q113.]
It is unprecedented that the Bill would prohibit Scottish Government Ministers from taking moral or political objections towards foreign state conducts into account when making procurement and investment decisions. A key concern is that the Bill alters the Executive competence of Scottish Government Ministers. Therefore, earlier this year, they lodged a legislative consent memorandum within the Scottish Parliament, as the Minister knows. Scottish Ministers have the ability, to the extent permitted by procurement legislation, to consider the country or territorial origin or other territorial considerations in a way that indicates political or moral disapproval of a foreign state when making decisions about procurement or investment.
An example, which the memorandum talks about, is the position taken by Scottish Government Ministers in relation to procuring goods from Russian suppliers following the invasion of Ukraine. That was the correct thing to do. If the Bill passes it will restrict, if not entirely remove, that ability and alter the executive competence of Scottish Ministers.
As we know, clause 4, which I will refer to later on, would make it unlawful for Scottish Ministers to even state that they would have acted differently if it were not for the provisions of the Bill. The Scottish Government’s memorandum outlines three principal decisions as to why they should not give their consent to the Bill, and I want to outline them. When the Committee hears the Scottish Government’s rationale, our reasons for tabling the amendments will be clear.
First, can the Minister provide some clarity? It is not clear what problem the UK Government seek to address by including Scottish Ministers within the scope of the Bill. [Interruption.] Hear me out. I know the Minister will probably turn around and say, “Scottish Government Ministers have to listen to the UK Government because we have reserved powers on matters of foreign policy.” However, we struggle to understand this. The Scottish Government have always acted responsibly and in line with the UK’s international commitments. Scotland is not an independent country—yet—so the argument that a decision of the Scottish Government in relation to a particular procurement or investment process may be mistaken by overseas Governments for an alternative UK foreign policy lacks credibility. It just does not make sense.
When I join international delegations, I will talk about the good work that the SNP’s Scottish Government are doing. For example, people are quite interested in the baby box—a groundbreaking piece of policy that gives every single baby born in Scotland a box. Please bear with me, Chair, as this will come back to the Bill. When I am abroad and I talk to people about the SNP’s baby box, they understand that the legislation is from Scotland; it is not UK-wide. People might not understand the intricacies of devolved and reserved matters—as a former modern studies teacher I take great pride in explaining this to people—but they do understand that foreign policy is set by the UK Government. It is not clear what the Bill seeks to address by including Scottish Government Ministers.
Secondly, the Scottish Government take a value-based approach to international engagement. I know that because up until my promotion to SNP levelling-up spokesperson last week, I led on international development for the SNP—I will give myself that shout-out. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thank hon. Members. I know that at the heart of the Scottish Government, international activity creates opportunity at home, broadens horizons, attracts high-quality investment and ultimately benefits the people of Scotland. While the Scottish Government will always meet the obligations placed upon them by international law and treaties, people in Scotland quite rightly expect that decisions should not be made in an ethical or moral vacuum.
Thirdly, the Scottish Government memorandum talks a lot about clause 4 and I will speak about that later. However, I would be interested to hear from the Minister about this. I still do not understand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West said, what a Scottish Government Minister needs to say when on television or giving a quote to a newspaper. Do they have to turn around and say, “I am talking as a Scottish Government Minister”, “I am talking as an SNP MSP,” or “I am talking as an individual”? We need some clarity from the Minister on that.
The Scottish Government, of course, recommended that the Scottish Parliament does not give consent to the Bill. I urge the Minister to take heed. My amendments are all in regard to Scotland and understanding why Scotland has been included in this. Can the Minister take heed and pay attention to that?
Chris Stephens
It gives me great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts, who is taking over as the levelling-up spokesperson after this Committee. I want to support her amendments for several reasons. First, procurement is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. That is clear, as we heard in the evidence sessions in the questions asked not just by myself but by my Labour colleagues around the effects of procurement in the devolved Administrations.
There is real concern that the Bill seems to override the devolved Parliaments in this area. The devolved Parliaments clearly and correctly suggest that they would want to use their procurement in an ethical way. The problem that we have, of course, is that witness after witness was saying, and those speaking on behalf of the Bill were saying, “It’s up to the Westminster Government to dictate foreign policy.” Well, that gets us only so far. Every local authority that I can recall in Scotland in the lead-up to the Iraq war had a vote on whether it supported the war. Will this Bill seek to stop that sort of activity? Witnesses said last week that this would have stopped what Glasgow District Council did in 1981 in relation to South Africa.
Half a billion years ago, the land masses now known as Scotland and England joined up physically. They are playing a football match tonight. I am quite nervous because Scotland do not do too well against the lesser nations when it comes to football, as we know, but we will see what happens tonight.
We have to be very clear here. The Scottish Parliament was reconvened in 1999. Devolution was approved overwhelmingly by the people of Scotland. I do not think that the people of Scotland will take too kindly to a Westminster Government who seek to impinge on the devolved matters and devolved legislation of the Scottish Parliament.
Wayne David
Thank you, Sir George; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I would like to speak to amendment 1 and make it clear that it is to clause 17 but there is an opportunity to discuss it at this time because it deals with the issue of devolution. As is very clear, the Bill applies to the whole United Kingdom, but for it to operate in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, certain legislative consent motions have to be agreed under the Sewel convention. That is because the Bill impinges on at least some of the competencies of the Ministers of the devolved institutions. That is made clear by the Library note. There is an impact on the devolution settlement, and it has to be worked through within the context of that settlement.
Amendment 1 makes the process clear, to avoid any misunderstanding. As we know, there have been constitutional debates, even arguments, between the Government here in Westminster and the devolved institutions, particularly the Scottish Parliament. This amendment simply sets out what is legally the case. It is not a contentious amendment. It simply puts in black and white what is the reality and should be adhered to by all parties. The Government had advance notice of the amendment, and there has been some discussion of it. I urge the Government, given that they are adhering to the idea of mutual respect between the institutions of the United Kingdom, to accept amendment 1. It is uncontentious; it is Government policy. It makes clear what the devolved settlement is in reality.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point. Does he support the position that I laid out, which is that procurement is viewed very seriously by the devolved Administrations and there is concern that the Bill seeks to interfere negatively in that?
Wayne David
Many aspects of procurement and other aspects touched on in this Bill are in part devolved to the various institutions. We have a complex mosaic in the UK: the devolution settlements for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are different in several respects. Nevertheless, the overriding fact is that there is definitely an impingement on devolution powers, however they are defined in the circumstances, and the Sewel convention is needed to ensure that there is common agreement on what is being done by central Government.
I refer in particular to the Northern Ireland situation, because we have received written evidence from the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Local Government Officer Superannuation Committee, David Murphy. He makes the point that as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, there is the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, which effectively devolves public sector pensions in large part to the Northern Ireland Assembly. He goes on to conclude, after having described the arrangements:
“It is our understanding that in the absence of the NI Assembly sitting it will not be possible to obtain a Legislative Consent Motion for the proposed legislation.”
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, it might be helpful to point out that if Members want to be called, they should bob. That way I will be able to work out the sequence of the debate.
Felicity Buchan
I shall begin by addressing amendments 15, 16 and 17. The amendments would remove references in clause 17 that extend the Bill to Scotland. The amendments also remove a reference to Scotland in clause 3. Scottish Ministers are currently named on the face of the Bill so that they can only be exempted from the ban via a change to primary legislation. The amendment would allow Scottish Ministers to be exempted from the ban via secondary legislation.
The Bill’s provisions apply to all areas of the UK. The provisions apply to all public authorities, as defined in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, across England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. First, it is absolutely essential that the Bill extends to public authorities across the entirety of the UK. Foreign policy is a reserved matter. The Bill ensures that the UK speaks with one voice internationally. It will safeguard the integrity and singularity of the UK’s established foreign policy, which is set exclusively for the whole of the United Kingdom by the United Kingdom Government.
Secondly, as we heard extensively in the oral evidence sessions, boycott, divestment and sanctions policies are divisive and undermine community cohesion. We have seen examples of actual or attempted BDS activity in public authorities in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is crucial therefore that the legislation applies across the UK to prevent such divisive behaviour in any of our communities.
Ms Qaisar
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being very generous with her time. She has set out that UK foreign policy is a reserved competency. I am interested to seek clarity and understanding on that, as I cannot remember a time when the Scottish Government have taken a different stance to the UK Government on UK foreign policy. Is the Minister able to outline one of those stances?
Felicity Buchan
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we do not have any public authorities, whether that is Scottish Government Ministers, Scottish local authorities or English local authorities, taking different foreign policy decisions.
Felicity Buchan
Let me continue, please. I will come on to address a few of the points in relation to procurement and divestment when it represents political and moral disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts on a few points. As for Glasgow City Council changing the name of a street, nothing in the Bill changes the council’s ability to do that.
Felicity Buchan
No, I want to continue to make these points for the sake of clarity and address some of the issues.
Similarly, a Scottish Government Minister could say they oppose the Iraq war. The Bill applies when investment and procurement decisions are based on moral and political disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct.
Chris Stephens
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know she is trying to clarify the situation, but I am afraid that those of us who are Glaswegian and proud of our Glaswegian roots are concerned that the Bill will prevent the actions that Glasgow took in the 1980s from happening again. The Conservative Government’s policy in the 1980s was against sanctions in South Africa, and Strathclyde Regional Council, City of Glasgow District Council and other Scottish local authorities decided to take investment and procurement decisions against the apartheid state of South Africa. City of Glasgow District Council was allowed to rename a street and give someone the freedom of the city, but would it have been able to take the decision to disinvest from apartheid South Africa had the Bill been in place in the 1980s?
Felicity Buchan
If Government sanctions exist, they continue to exist. The Bill is specifically to prohibit divestment and procurement decisions.
I want to address the point made by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts in relation to Russia. I give her my assurance that we will look to introduce a statutory instrument to exempt Russia and Belarus from the provisions of the Bill.
Amendment 30 would remove the decisions of Scottish Ministers from the scope of the Bill, and a carve-out for the decisions of Scottish Ministers would be inserted into clause 2. It is not clear whether the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts intends for the amendment to be read alongside amendments 15 to 17. Clause 2 applies the ban in clause 1 only to public authorities, as defined in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The clause also carefully defines decisions in scope only as those related to a public authority’s investment and procurement functions, which is the point I keep coming back to. I would like to reiterate my response to amendments 15 to 17 by saying it is absolutely essential that the Bill extends to public authorities across the entirety of the UK. That will include Ministers, Departments and agencies in the devolved Administrations, who have also faced pressure to engage in BDS activity.
As I have said, foreign policy is reserved, so it does not trigger a legislative consent motion. However, as the ban applies to the Ministers of the devolved Administrations, this may alter their Executive competence. We have therefore formally engaged the legislative consent process, and I look forward to discussing the Bill further with my counterparts in the devolved Administrations. The Government are not seeking legislative consent for the rest of the Bill’s provisions, as the other provisions do not trigger the legislative consent process.
I was asked specifically about how the Bill affects Northern Ireland. Given the continued absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, a legislative consent motion cannot be secured currently. It is important that the Bill applies in Northern Ireland to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland benefit from these important protections. UK Government officials will work with counterparts in Northern Ireland to discuss the Bill’s contents and provisions, along with the Bill’s devolution analysis. We are hopeful that when the Assembly is restored, it will be able to consider and support a legislative consent motion for the Bill.
Felicity Buchan
Let me continue.
The Government will continue to uphold the Sewel convention and make sure that the interests of the devolved Administrations, and of people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, are taken into account. I will address amendment 1 and see whether that answers the question raised by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. The amendment suggests an addition to clause 17 to make legislative consent a legal requirement. Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments would be captured by the Bill only once that consent is granted by each of the devolved legislatures.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North suggests an amendment that would undermine the principle that the UK Parliament is sovereign. It is not appropriate to write such a political convention to seek consent into the legislation as a legal precondition for the Bill to apply to devolved Ministers. Furthermore, the codification of the Sewel principles, which are already written in statute, is unnecessary. The Lords Constitution Committee recently reported on the issue, stating:
“We do not believe it would be desirable to involve the courts in adjudicating…on the meaning and application of the convention, which are best resolved through political deliberation.”
For those reasons, I ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.
Wayne David
I thank the Minister for her response. First, as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, my understanding of what she has said is that the legislation will not be applicable in large part until the Northern Ireland Assembly is reconvened and has had an opportunity to discuss with central Government a legislative consent motion. That is my understanding of what she has said. Will she confirm that?
Secondly, on the Sewel convention, it is unfortunate that the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment, because it simply reiterates the reality and provides clarification. I accept that in the Government’s mind it could be a questioning of the sovereignty of Parliament, but I do not think an accurate reading of the amendment will in any way suggest that. It recognises that the legislative consent motion process is well established. The Sewel convention needs to be firmed up, and this is one step in ensuring that the partnership of nations in the United Kingdom is made firmer, not weaker.
Felicity Buchan
On the Sewel convention, as I have said, we do not think it is appropriate that that is put into legislation. We feel that that is a political deliberation, but, clearly, the Government are supportive of the Sewel convention. In light of our support of the Sewel convention, we will do everything to work with the devolved Administrations, as we always do in order to try to get an LCM.
On the specific point about Northern Ireland, I want to correct your interpretation of what I said—
Felicity Buchan
My apologies, Sir George; I meant that I wanted to correct the interpretation of the hon. Member for Caerphilly of what I said. The measure will extend and apply to Northern Ireland by virtue of the fact that this is a foreign policy and it is a reserved matter, but we want to work to get the legislative consent motion, which might take time in Northern Ireland because it will require the Assembly to be in place.
Ms Qaisar
We have all spoken about how foreign policy is reserved, but public procurement and the use of taxpayers’ money is a devolved competence. It is completely correct that Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland attempt to use the leverage of public procurement to incentivise companies to behave sustainably with regard to human rights, labour rights and the environment. That is correct and right.
I am a little confused by the Minister’s contribution and would appreciate clarification. I made an intervention and she was very generous with her time. My question was whether she was able to explain a time when the Scottish Government had not been in line with the UK Government on foreign policy. As far as I am aware, the Scottish Government have always acted responsibly and in line with the UK’s international commitments. Why, therefore, have Scottish Ministers been included on the face of the Bill when the Minister is unable to explain that point?
I also seek clarification on the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West. My hon. Friend raised the point—we have spoken quite a bit about Glasgow City Council today—that after renaming the street and inviting Nelson Mandela to come and speak, would they have been able to disinvest? As far as I understood her contribution, the Bill would have stopped disinvestment in South Africa. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister, if she can give it. I would like to divide the Committee on my amendment.
The Chair
Amendment 1 will be taken later, but it is helpful that that intention has been signified. We are now on amendment 30.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Chris Stephens
On a point of order, Sir George. There was some confusion because of the number of amendments in the group. Could you clarify that some of the amendments we have debated are to other clauses, and that there will be Divisions when we get to those clauses? It would help Members if you could explain that.
The Chair
That is indeed a point of order. The remaining amendments in the group will be taken either in the next clause or later, when we come to clause 17, because they are consequential on the lead amendment.
Clause 3
Exceptions
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
This amendment would remove provisions allowing Ministers to amend the Schedule, via regulations, to add a description of decision or consideration, or amend or remove considerations added under previous regulations.
Clause 3 makes a number of exceptions, set out in the schedule, to the proposed ban on decisions made by public bodies in respect of foreign states—that is, it allows for certain conduct to be in scope for ethical decision making, such as environmental concerns. We support the principle of excepting certain powers from the Bill, and Members will not be surprised to hear that we are pleased to see labour rights there. However, the clause then bakes in a rather unacceptable and significant power grab by the Secretary of State over the ethical procurement decisions that a public body may wish to make.
Looking around the room, I see some Members who have been here longer than me and some who have been here for a bit less time, but I bet everyone will agree that one thing we were not told before we came here was that while we thought we would be talking about great matters of state, we would end up talking about Henry VIII regulations. Whatever happens, all roads lead to this bit of the Bill. I am continuing that unbroken streak, though perhaps not at length, as this argument is made frequently.
Clause 3(2) will provide the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office with the power to amend this vital schedule in which the exceptions are laid out. That is an eccentric and totally unacceptable and unnecessary provision. This Parliament is rightly spending lots of time on this legislation. We have taken oral and written evidence from witnesses and will have multiple debates in the Chamber. We have convened this Bill Committee and will go through the Bill line by line, and then this process will be repeated in the other place. That is so we get the provisions right.
What we are being asked to do in the light of clause 3 and the schedule is to divine whether we think the range of exceptions is right. Is it broad enough? Is it too broad? Should we add any more? Should we take any out? That is the purpose of Parliament and parliamentary scrutiny. Yet we are being asked to put a provision in the Bill that the Secretary of State can just change that anyway via secondary means. That creates an unacceptable imbalance between the Executive and the legislature.
The problem is best understood in contrast to subsection (5) because that is a mirroring provision. It allows the Secretary of State to add or remove countries from the list of places that public bodies may boycott. We have not sought to amend that, because we know from recent painful experience that foreign affairs have a habit of moving on, and there must be an opportunity for the Government of the day to make changes swiftly. That is entirely reasonable in the case of foreign affairs and entirely unreasonable in the case of exempted activities, because they will not change quickly. Environmental and labour concerns are anchor issues that will dominate debates long after all of us are gone. The Secretary of State and the Government more generally do not need the power to vary that quickly.
If we do not accept the amendment and we accept what is in the Bill, what all colleagues—Opposition and, frankly, Government Back Benchers too—are being told is, “Do all the due process, but don’t worry; we will just change it later if we fancy it”. That is not good enough in a parliamentary democracy, and we should delete the provision today.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I will make just a short contribution, if I may. I associate myself with the comments of our shadow Minister. The matters covered by the Bill relate to issues of fundamental importance: the interpretation of UK foreign policy and the ability of public bodies to respond. We live in uncertain times, and the UK’s position as an influential country on the world’s stage will understandably need to change in response to events in many areas of instability. In those circumstances, it would be fundamentally wrong for Ministers to reserve to themselves the power to amend the schedule in the Bill without returning to Parliament and giving MPs and, indeed, interested parties the opportunity to scrutinise and, where necessary, object to it. That is why I support amendment 4.
Steve McCabe
I will speak briefly about subsection (7), and in particular about amendments 5 and 6, tabled by my colleagues. As I understand it—
Felicity Buchan
Amendment 4 would remove the power granted to the Secretary of State to amend the schedule so as to make exemptions to the ban for certain bodies and functions and certain types of considerations, and to amend or remove regulations made under those powers.
The power is necessary to ensure that the ban can evolve over time and operate as intended. The Bill rightly applies to the full range of public authorities. That is necessary to ensure that we have a consistent approach to foreign policy and to stop public authorities being distracted from their core duties by divisive debates and policies. In the event that the ban has unintended consequences for a public authority and impacts on its ability to deliver its core functions, however, this power will allow the Secretary of State to exempt the body, or a function of that body, from the ban via a statutory instrument. The exercise of the power will be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses.
The power will also allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain types of considerations from the ban. That may be necessary if the Secretary of State needs to react quickly to international events. In the drafting of this legislation, my officials have been careful to ensure that the Bill applies only to appropriate bodies and types of considerations. However, the Government may also decide that a certain consideration should be made exempt from the ban so that the Bill can operate as intended. The Secretary of State requires the power so that he can respond effectively to potential unintended consequences that the Bill might have on a public authority without the need for primary legislation. If that had to be done through primary legislation, a public authority might have its ability to carry out public functions hindered for an extended period. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Nottingham North to withdraw his amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that answer, but I am afraid that the Minister has rather made the Opposition’s case for us. It is deeply concerning to hear that the purpose of the provision is about anxiety in Government concerning the possibility of a bundle of unintended consequences that could hinder a public body’s activities for a number of months, as has been said. That is the reality—we have said that from start to finish. This thing will set a fire. This thing will roll in ways that we cannot conceive of, because it is so broadly drawn and, in places, so erratically drawn. That is a reason for not proceeding with the Bill in this form, and for coming back together to produce—as we are all keen to—something that is less broad and wide-ranging, but delivering a solution to the problem that we are seeking to tackle.
The Minister’s argument is not for retaining subsection (2), but for revisiting the provisions. I therefore hope that, having said that, she will reflect on the fact that she discussed the great anxiety about the unintended consequences of the Bill. That is what we should be addressing, instead of just giving yet more powers to Secretaries of State to act as they wish. I will press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 3, page 2, line 40, at end insert—
“(4A) Section 1 does not apply to a decision which has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights.
(4B) A Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights—
(a) is a public authority’s policy criteria relating to disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights; and
(b) must be applied consistently by the public authority to all foreign countries.
(4C) Within 60 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish, and lay before Parliament, guidance on the form, content and application of Statements for the purposes of this section.
(4D) Public authorities must have regard to the guidance referenced in subsection (4C) when devising a Statement.”
This amendment would exempt public bodies from the prohibition in section 1, where the decision has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights. A Statement may not single out individual nations, but would have to be applied consistently, and in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State.
We heard on Second Reading, and again today, that the Government want to put disapproval of the conduct of foreign states and their territories beyond the scope of competent activity for local public bodies, in order to stop public bodies taking partial and potentially harmful stances. However, this Bill is akin to using a nuclear weapon to crack that nut. We have just heard from the Minister that the Government are so concerned about the unintended consequences the Bill may have that they are having to reserve the powers to change it quickly later, lest a public body be shut down for a number of months. The Committee just accepted that change, but it is yet another power grab by the Secretary of State and it is heavy-handed in its enforcement.
Amendment 2 sets out an alternative approach. We have been clear from the outset that it is possible to achieve what both the Government and the Opposition wish to achieve but without the overreach of the Bill in its current form. Amendment 2 would allow a public body to produce a document that sets out its policy on procurement and human rights and for that to be developed in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. This is a relatively long-held Opposition policy. Indeed, it is similar to an amendment I tabled to the Procurement Bill many months ago. It is vital that procurement decisions made with regard to human rights issues be applied across the board, not just to prevent unethical actions against specific states but to ensure that common actions have the greatest impact.
Such a statement of ethical policy would thus ensure consistency in how contracting authorities—or public bodies more generally—decide on such matters, and inconsistent application would be prohibited. The practical effect would be to make it unambiguous that if a public body does not wish to procure goods from Russia because of President Putin’s abhorrent human rights abuses in Ukraine, the law will be on its side. If the same body does not wish to procure services from Xinjiang because of the appalling treatment of Uyghur Muslims, the law will be on its side.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. In our evidence sessions, we heard very powerful testimony from Uyghur society and the Uyghur people, who said that we really need to look at this part of the Bill. Does he also agree that it is very interesting that witnesses on the Government’s side support disinvestment for China, for the very reasons that he has just outlined?
Alex Norris
I agree. After hearing that testimony, I reflected on one of the things that I love the most about my country—I think about this quite a lot—which is that we stand up for people who need it, whether by providing shelter or by never walking on the other side of the road. I see things through that prism. I think it is a really fundamental British value, and I am concerned that we will lose some of that. Of course, significant matters of foreign policy are the reserve of the Government of the day, but the issue should not just be left to Government Ministers. The outpouring of support for Ukraine, both in my city and across the country, showed that people take that seriously and want to have a role and a say—they want to be part of that process. That is part of building common cause, but I fear that this goes too far and will squeeze some of that out.
Our amendment 2 makes our approach to the matter very clear. If a public body acts only against a particular state—for instance, the world’s only Jewish state—while not applying the same approach to human rights abuses everywhere, such actions would be illegal. Our amendment would not just ensure that there are consistent decisions and that communities are not singled out; it would also strengthen our country’s commitment to stand against human rights abuses all over the world.
Our country has always defended the fundamental, inalienable human rights of all people. Procurement and investment decisions are part of that, and we should not shirk that role when it is the right thing to do. The amendment would ensure that public bodies could still play their part and that the contemptible actions of those who target one state while looking the other way when abuses are committed elsewhere are finally prohibited.
As I said on Second Reading, our amendment could be technically deficient—I am never sure whether we are supposed to admit that in Parliament, but it is clear anyway. If it is technically deficient—after all, I drafted it, and am perfectly willing to say that it is the work of a human being—we are more than willing to work with the Government to find something that works in both principle and substance. I hope to hear from the Minister that there is willingness to meet us a little bit on this, so that we can tackle the problem that we are all trying to address.
Kim Leadbeater
I rise to speak briefly but strongly in favour of amendment 2. The UK should be a beacon for human rights, not just here at home but in our foreign policy and our relations with other states. That can be done only on the basis of a consistent application of the principles we seek to uphold. It is not hard to do that when human rights abuses are committed by countries we are in conflict with. However, we must be ready to apply the same standards to countries we regard as allies and friends. That is not always easy, but if we fail to do so, we open ourselves up to accusations of double standards and hypocrisy.
Felicity Buchan
Amendment 2 would exempt decisions from the ban that have been made in accordance with a statement of policy relating to human rights, produced by a public authority. The Secretary of State would be required to produce guidance on the content of any such statement, to which public authorities would be required to have regard.
Seventy-five years on from the signing of the universal declaration of human rights, the UK remains steadfastly committed to an open international order, a world where democracy and freedoms grow and where autocracy is challenged. We put open societies and the protection of human rights around the world at the heart of what we do. That includes our membership of the Human Rights Council, robust action to hold Russia to account over its actions in Ukraine and at home, calling out China in Xinjiang, leading the call for the special session on the human rights implications of the conflict in Sudan, and our global human rights sanctions regime.
We continue to work with our partners, civil society and human rights defenders to encourage all states to defend democracy and freedom and to hold those who violate human rights to account. Our annual human rights and democracy reports are an important part of that work. This Government, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers and officials continue to defend individual rights and freedoms, including through regularly raising concerns with other Governments. Our resolve to ensure that everyone can enjoy their rights is unwavering.
The international rules-based system is critical to protecting and realising the human rights and freedoms of people all over the world. We work through the multilateral system to encourage all states to uphold their international human rights obligations and to hold those who violate human rights to account. We are all in agreement that human rights abuses have no place in public supply chains.
I am concerned, however, that this amendment would give public authorities too much discretion to apply blanket boycotts. I also believe that the amendment is unnecessary because of the work that the Government are already doing in the Procurement Bill, which I will address in more detail.
The Procurement Bill already contains a robust regime for the exclusion of suppliers that are unfit to hold public contracts. That Bill sets out a wide range of exclusion grounds that target the most serious risks to public procurement, including modern slavery and human trafficking. The Cabinet Office has strengthened the way in which these terms are defined, so that suppliers may be excluded where there is sufficient evidence that they are responsible for abuses anywhere in the world, whether or not they have been convicted of an offence.
We have mirrored in this Bill the exclusion grounds in the Procurement Bill that pose the most significant risk to public procurement as exceptions to the ban, including for modern slavery and human trafficking. This means that public authorities will be allowed to make a territorial consideration that is influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct in so far as it relates to one of the considerations listed in the schedule.
Moreover, there is guidance to help contracting authorities to address human rights risks, and there is well-established practice throughout the procurement process. That detailed and thorough guidance includes sections on managing risks from new procurements and assessing existing contracts, taking action when victims of modern slavery or human rights abuses are identified, and supply chain mapping, and it includes useful tools and training.
For the reasons that I have set out, this amendment is unnecessary, but I am also concerned that it would give authorities too broad a discretion to apply blanket boycotts. The amendment would allow authorities to exclude suppliers from entire nations without proper consideration of whether a supplier itself had had any involvement in the abuse. To exclude suppliers based solely on where they are located conflicts with the open principles of our procurement regime and would in some cases be contrary to the UK’s international obligations, such as non-discrimination requirements set out in the World Trade Organisation agreement on Government procurement.
As I have previously stated, foreign policy is a matter for the UK Government and not an issue for public bodies. It is not appropriate for public bodies to be producing their own policies on human rights in relation to other nations. This amendment would undermine the intentions of the Bill, leaving public authorities distracted by questions and debate about their human rights statements and the foreign policy that lies behind that. Many public authorities with no interest or expertise in such debates would come under pressure to produce statements or to explain why they did not have one. The discretion for public authorities, even acting within Government guidance, would mean a multitude and divergence of foreign policies across our public institutions and a confusing picture on the international stage of what the elected Government’s foreign policy was. My concern is that, were this amendment to be agreed to, every local authority and public body would feel the need to produce such a statement even though they felt that they had no expertise in human rights. I am concerned that it would increase the level of dissension and community friction rather than in any way lessening it.
I just want to clarify that nothing in this Bill affects private individuals and private companies and their ability, clearly, to boycott or divest.
Chris Stephens
That is the double standard in the Bill: private companies can do what they like, but public bodies cannot. If I understand the Minister’s line of argument, she is concerned that this amendment could be used or abused by local authorities, but proposed new subsection (4C) specifically gives the Government the power to stop any blanket boycott. That somewhat negates her arguments.
Lastly, does the Minister agree with the position of any local authority that wishes to disinvest from China and Xinjiang in particular because of its treatment of the Uyghur Muslims?
Felicity Buchan
The hon. Gentleman alludes to the difference between how we treat private and public bodies. There is a very good fundamental reason for that: we want there to be one UK foreign policy and we do not want other public bodies to be making up their own foreign policy or statements on such matters, whereas a private individual or private company is entitled to invest or divest as they see fit.
Bob Blackman
Our public bodies include people from countries all over the world, some of whom may have expertise relating to a particular country. Under this amendment, if they highlighted human rights abuses in a specific country it could result in their public authority introducing a policy that is totally different from that of all other public authorities. Does my hon. Friend agree that such a risk should not be put in the hands of local authorities?
Felicity Buchan
That is a very good point. This amendment carries the risk of allowing a multitude of different statements on human rights, without any consistency, resulting in the community friction that we all desperately seek to avoid. That is why we are looking to boycott the BDS movement.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. To address the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow East, the circumstance he outlined could happen now, of course. Part of the reason we are here and that legislation in this space is important is that it does not happen in that way, does it? As we heard in the evidence sessions, it almost exclusively tends to be targeted at Israel. I do not think there is any evidence to suggest that local expertise is causing a thousand flowers to bloom across public bodies. Actually, amendment 2 would protect against that because it would give local authorities tools to say, “Look, we can only do this if we can engage in it across the piece, and we don’t think that that is core business.”
The Minister has expressed her concerns about distractions for local authorities. I know from my time in a local authority, during which we pushed back against a boycott of Israel, that these things flair up over a short period, a lot of energy goes into them, and it would have been much better to have had a fixed point. The amendment reserves the right of the Secretary of State to set out the form, so there would be no wild variance across all public bodies. It would give them a fixed point to anchor to, which would take a lot of pressure off the leaders of public bodies.
I am grateful to the Minister for making those points, but the reality is that we are in slightly different positions. I still hold out the hope—and I will be actively working on this between now and the final stages of this Bill—that our positions will become closer. At this point, however, given that the gap has not closed during this debate, I will have to press my amendment to a Division. We want to send a clear message that there are other ways of achieving this very important purpose.
Wayne David
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 3, page 3, line 10, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment removes the existing stipulation that the power to exempt a country or territory from section 1 may not be used in respect of Israel.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 6, in clause 3, page 3, line 11, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
This amendment removes the existing stipulation that the power to exempt a country or territory from section 1 may not be used in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Occupied Golan Heights.
Wayne David
In its present form, the Bill will introduce a blanket prevention of public authorities’ ability to take into account human rights—the Government would say foreign policy—when making certain decisions. There can be exceptions; we have heard the Government mention Belarus and Russia. Yet for Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights to be exempted, it is not enough for a Secretary of State to bring forward a statutory instrument; primary legislation will be required.
We have a fundamental problem with the clause, which is the conflation of Israel with the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights. Israel is a sovereign state; the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights are areas that have been occupied since 1967, and the occupation is deemed illegal under international law. In fact, it is not simply international law; the Government themselves have—until now, it seems—held that position very firmly. Let me quote from a fairly innocuous document, the Government’s guidance on overseas business risk, which was only published in February 2022:
“The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements: The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights have been occupied by Israel since 1967. Settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
That has been the Government’s position, clearly and consistently expressed.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman presents a very powerful position. Members on the Opposition Benches have been told by the Government that the Bill should comply with Foreign Office policy. It seems that the Government are now deviating from Foreign Office policy. It should not be one rule for the Government and one rule for every other public body, should it?
Wayne David
There might well be something in what the hon. Gentleman suggests. There is, to be honest, a not-too-subtle change in the Government’s emphasis and in their exposition on this matter. Equating Israel and the occupied territories is unique in any British legislation, let alone any Government statement; it questions the long-standing position of the United Kingdom supporting a two-state solution based on 1967 lines.
There is also the question of international law. In his first written submission to the Committee, Richard Hermer KC cited the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In his second written submission, he also made reference to the United Nations.
I respectfully remind the Committee that the UK is a founding signatory of the charter of the United Nations and is obliged to comply with Security Council resolutions. Security Council resolution 2334 very clearly expresses the concern about Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; I want to emphasise that point. Operative paragraph 1 of the resolution states very clearly that the Security Council
“Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace”.
Operative paragraph 5 imposes an international-law obligation on all states to ensure that they treat the OPT differently from Israel. It states that the Security Council
“Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”.
In summation, clause 3(7) is incompatible with international law, for two very solid, basic reasons. First, it gives special protection to goods and services from both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Moreover, it gives greater protection to illegal settlements in the OPT than it does to any other state in the world except Israel. That is quite incredible. If that does not suggest a change in Government policy, what on earth would? It seriously draws into question the Government’s commitment to international law—if that doesn’t, I don’t know what does.
Secondly, clause 3(7) fails to differentiate between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I do not want particularly to be in this Committee to make history: I want the Government to say, “Yes, we are being consistent. We have said this all along. We are not nudging Parliament to a change in policy. We are reaffirming where we stand.” That is the right decision to make. I am pleased to say that there has been genuine consensus in Parliament on the issue of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I do not want to see that consensus being weakened, and I certainly do not want to see it being shattered. I fear that this legislation is the thin end of the wedge.
Bob Blackman
One concern that needs to be looked at is cause and effect. When there have been attempts to put pressure on companies that trade with the occupied territories, it is often Palestinians themselves who lose their livelihood as a direct result. One reason I think this is so important is that it is for the Government to decide this, not for individual public authorities.
The other issue that needs to be on the record is that the occupied territories have been the occupied territories for thousands of years. There has never been a state of Palestine. It has always been occupied by someone. We could go back to the days of the Israelites arriving from Egypt; we could go through the Roman occupation; we could go through the Ottoman empire; we could go through Jordan occupying it until ’67. The reality is that they have never had the ability to exercise authority over themselves. It is very important, when decisions are made on procurement, that we consider all the causes and the direct effects of a decision being made to disinvest from the occupied territories. We owe it to the Palestinians to safeguard their livelihoods and interests. That is one reason why clause 3(7) is so important: it protects them from unintended, although possibly well-meaning, consequences from particular public authorities.
Steve McCabe
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly about all three paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of clause 3(7). It is one of the more contentious parts of the Bill. I am not sure that I doubt the Government’s good intentions over it, but I doubt whether it will have the effect that the Government seek. If I can echo what the hon. Member for Harrow East suggested, for slightly different reasons, I also think it may have unintended consequences.
Kim Leadbeater
Regrettably, no Palestinian voices were called to give oral evidence to the Committee—I wish they had been—but a number of respected and representative organisations have submitted written evidence. If we take notice of only one objection that they raised, although that would be a mistake because they raised a number of really valuable points, it should be this: the Bill should not treat Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Golan Heights on an equal basis. The exclusion raises serious questions about the UK’s commitment to a just two-state solution and its alignment with established international law principles governing the status of the territories, which—as noted in international law, norms and consensus—are illegally occupied territories. We should take note of such serious concerns, which is why I support amendment 6.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jacob Young.)
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 12th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 View all Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 September 2023 - (12 Sep 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 6, in clause 3, page 3, line 11, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
This amendment removes the existing stipulation that the power to exempt a country or territory from section 1 may not be used in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Occupied Golan Heights.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The amendments were tabled by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. We are discussing the part of the Bill that got the most comment on Second Reading. It had the most written submissions and witness statements, and considerable time was spent on this issue during the evidence sessions.
The hon. Member is trying to improve the Bill, which is a dog’s breakfast, so it is sometimes difficult to come up with the requisite amendments to try to sort it out. [Interruption.] If anybody wants to make an intervention, I am more than happy to take one. We are trying to amend the Bill so that it is acceptable to everyone. May I remind everyone that a number of Conservative Members were very exercised about this part of the Bill on Second Reading? We need to spend some time on this proposal to see whether we can come up with solutions, because there are real problems with clause 3(7) remaining in the Bill.
I remind Members of the exchange I had with the hon. Member for Caerphilly. It looks like we have a UK Government who want all public bodies to comply with their Foreign Office policy, but this area of the Bill appears to be in defiance of that policy. Why do I say that? Only a couple of days before Second Reading, Foreign Office Ministers made the position very clear during Foreign Office questions: they viewed the occupied territories as being illegal under international law. However, it is now being suggested in the Bill that a public body will not be able to disinvest from or boycott the occupied territories or the Golan Heights. There is a contradiction there, and the Government really need to look at that. It looks as though they are changing their Foreign Office policy through a piece of domestic legislation, and that is not the appropriate place to do it.
I sympathise with what the Trades Union Congress said about this issue: the Government are getting themselves into all sorts of difficulties. For example, they will be aware that the International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into the situation in Palestine, which covers crimes that are alleged to have been committed since 2014. Under their statute, the UK Government have obligations under that investigation, and there is a real concern that they are not acting consistently to uphold international law in this regard. There are real concerns that the situation, whereby Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories and the Syrian Golan Heights for more than 50 years, is in violation of international law and, significantly, numerous UN resolutions. The UN resolutions are important; a Foreign Office Minister referred to them prior to Second Reading.
I remind the Committee that in presenting the Second Reading, the Minister and the Secretary of State made their position clear. As is stated in the Hansard reports of those debates, they said that they thought the Bill would not impact on the UK Government’s position in relation to the occupied territories and the Golan Heights. But I am afraid that my reading of the situation, which is shared by many others, is that that is exactly what it does. I will support amendments 5 and 6.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I draw the Committee’s attention, as I did in the evidence sessions, to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will not take up too much of the Committee’s time, but a point needs to be made on this important amendment and to be heard time and again. It relates to why Israel should be so significantly named, as apart from any other territory or country, in the Bill. For a start, Israel is a democracy in the middle east—a quite rare democracy in that region—the democratic values of which we need to seek to uphold.
More fundamentally, we should ask ourselves what the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is. In the written and oral evidence given to the Committee, we heard clearly not that the movement is just a little bit against Israel—it does not just have some sort of mild disagreement with Israel or the Government of the day in Israel—but that the leaders of the BDS movement explicitly talk about wanting the destruction of the state of Israel. Israel is the target of the BDS movement. Its leaders have repeatedly rejected a two-state solution, which has broad agreement across all the political parties here in the United Kingdom and in many other democracies around the world. The co-founder of the Palestinian BDS National Committee explicitly goes further, and states his opposition to Israel’s right to exist as a state of the Jewish people.
That is why we need such explicit recognition in the Bill, which I hope will go on to become an Act. It will protect our allies in Israel and stop the malign forces in the BNC membership, which includes a coalition of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—organisations that we in the United Kingdom proscribe. That is why I will vote against the amendments and seek to see the Bill pass through the Committee unamended.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
Amendments 5 and 6 would remove from the Bill the references to Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Golan Heights. All Committee members can agree that BDS is a pernicious movement that does nothing to promote peace in the middle east and sows division and hatred in the UK.
Last week, we heard passionate testimonies from representatives of the Jewish community in the UK on the impact of anti-Israel boycotts and divestments on community cohesion and their links to antisemitism. The witnesses set out that the statistics clearly demonstrate the link between antisemitism here in the UK and the situation in Israel: the months with the highest levels of antisemitic incidents in the UK correspond to the months in which conflicts have happened in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That is why most of us on the Committee agree that we need to legislate to ban public authorities from engaging in such BDS campaigns.
We have seen that BDS campaigns pursued by public authorities often target the settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. For example, in 2014 Leicester City Council passed a motion that stated:
“Leicester City Council resolves, insofar as legal considerations allow, to boycott any produce originating from illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank”.
In 2021, a UN special rapporteur wrote to all local government pensions scheme committee chairs urging them to divest from companies that conduct business in the Israeli settlements. I think we can all agree that we should send a clear message that such campaigns should not be allowed, and the Bill provides that clarity.
For those reasons, it is vital that should a future Government choose to allow public authorities to engage in boycotts or divestments against Israel, it is done through a change to primary legislation and is thus subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. That is the only reason that Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Occupied Golan Heights are named on the face of the Bill. The addition to the Bill is simply about ensuring that we use the most appropriate parliamentary procedure for a decision that would have a harmful impact on community cohesion in the UK.
Several Members referred to UK Government foreign policy. I will make it absolutely clear that the Bill does not in any way legislate for the UK’s foreign policy with regard to Israel. The Bill will not prevent the UK from imposing sanctions or otherwise changing our foreign policy on any country in the future if it is deemed appropriate by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The Bill does not change our policy on the middle east. Our position on the middle east peace process is and continues to be clear: we support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel, living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees.
I will also make it clear that the UK believes very strongly in the importance of complying with international obligations under the UN charter and in compliance with Security Council resolutions. As I stated on Second Reading, the view of the UK Government is that the Bill is compliant with international law and our obligations under UN Security Council resolution 2334. For those reasons, I respectfully ask hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I accept what she says about the Government’s commitment to a two-state solution, and so on, but that does not take away from the fact that substantive elements of the Bill, at the very least, place a serious question mark over that commitment. That is objectively true.
As Opposition Members have made clear many times, we are opposed to the BDS movement and all that it stands for, but this is not about that. The question before us is: what is the best way to tackle that? We believe that the best way to do so is on a cross-party basis by getting people together and creating a political consensus that will hold firm and endure. That is where we stand, and that is the basis of our opposition to the Bill.
It is also extremely important that we reiterate our commitment to international law. Again, I hear what the Minister says, and I do not doubt her sincerity for one moment, but there is nevertheless an opinion among those in the legal community that this legislation substantially questions our commitment to international law, and we are extremely concerned about that.
It is important that we conduct this whole debate in a constructive and friendly way, as I believe we have done so far. It is very important that whatever the outcome of our final deliberations and whether or not the Bill becomes an Act, it is nevertheless extremely important that we collectively reaffirm our commitment to peace and stability between Israel and Palestine.
Chris Stephens
I beg to move amendment 18, in the schedule, page 13, line 5, at end insert—
“(2) Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in breaching international law, where that breach of international law is directly related to the decision.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 14, in the schedule, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
“11 (1) Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as it relates to genocide.
(2) That includes a consideration related to the possibility of genocide having taken place or taking place in the future.
(3) In this paragraph, ‘genocide’ has the same meaning as in the International Criminal Court Act 2001.”
This amendment adds genocide as an exemption to the application of section 1.
Amendment 19, in the schedule, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of genocide as determined under international law, where that crime of genocide is directly related to the decision.”
Amendment 20, in the schedule, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of ethnic cleansing as determined under international law, where that ethnic cleansing is directly related to the decision.”
Amendment 21, in the schedule, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of apartheid as determined under international law, where that crime of apartheid is directly related to the decision.”
That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.
Chris Stephens
I rise to speak to speak to amendments 18 to 21; we support amendment 14. The provisions of clause 1 are referred to in part 2 of the schedule under “International law” and consideration given to the possibility of the United Kingdom being
“in breach of its obligations under international law.”
The Bill’s constraints are therefore relaxed to deal with those circumstances. I hope that the Committee has a unanimous view that a person or body engaged in breaching international law should not gain any financial, economic or other reward from such breaches. Amendment 18 would embed that view into the Bill. That is why I and my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts tabled it.
Regarding genocide, my colleagues and I refer the Committee to a lengthy list of countries identified by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as human rights priority countries, several of which stand accused of genocide. The Bill would be improved by recognising that crime and the need for the international community, including the United Kingdom, to act against it when and where it has occurred. I therefore commend amendment 19 to the Committee. For broadly the same reasons, it is appropriate that we introduce amendments dealing with ethnic cleansing as well.
Regarding apartheid, I referred earlier in the debate to Scotland’s concerted fight against apartheid in South Africa. Sadly, that crime was not eradicated with the fall of that racist regime, and it has reappeared around the globe many times since then. I believe that the Conservative party was on the wrong side of history when it came to take a stand on apartheid South Africa; with this Bill, it appears to be choosing to continue that shameful legacy. We must learn from the past and make decisions for a better future. I therefore commend the amendments in my name, and in the name of my hon. Friend, to the Committee.
Wayne David
I rise to speak to speak to amendment 14. As we have heard, this Bill is not country or nation specific. It applies as much to Myanmar, North Korea and China as it does to Israel. The Government say there will be exemptions; Belarus and Russia have been mentioned, but unfortunately no others, and that is one of the profound weaknesses in the Bill. There are also other non-nation exemptions—financial and practical matters, bribery, competition law infringements, the environment and so on—but, crucially, there is no reference to genocide.
In June, 19 leading Uyghurs wrote a letter to The Times in which they expressed their serious concerns about the Bill. Last week, we heard evidence from the UK director of the World Uyghur Congress. In what I thought was a very moving session, the director told us that she strongly opposed the Bill and made it clear that it was not just her own view, but the view of the entire Uyghur community she represented.
There can be no doubt that the Uyghur minority in China are victims of grave and systematic human rights abuses. The Government have correctly described these abuses as “barbarism”. The UN has said that the crimes may well constitute crimes against humanity, and the US Administration have said that what we are seeing is genocide. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Government accept the amendment, and in so doing demonstrate that they stand foursquare behind the Uyghur community.
The Chair
I have to say, Mr Blackman, that your timing is not that good today. We will take this as an intervention.
Bob Blackman
I have every sympathy with a view of taking action against nations that commit genocide, but the hon. Gentleman and I know that when we have tried to get the Government to classify certain human rights abuses as genocide, we get met with the legal definition of genocide. His amendment deals with just genocide, and not any other human rights abuses. Therefore, unless an international body classifies crimes against humanity as genocide, his amendment will have no effect whatsoever.
Wayne David
I am a normal person, not a lawyer, and I am open to suggestions about what would be a legally tight definition. The important thing is that if the amendment were passed, I am sufficiently confident that His Majesty’s Government would draw up the correct legal definitions to ensure that the political views the Committee had expressed were made real. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but there is room for co-operation and hopefully a conclusion on this issue.
Felicity Buchan
I will address amendment 18 first and then the others. Amendment 18 would allow public authorities to choose not to procure from or invest in a company if that would give financial, economic or other benefit to a party that has breached international law.
The UK believes strongly in complying with its obligations under international law. That is why the Bill contains an exception to the ban for considerations that a decision maker reasonably considers are relevant to whether the decision would place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under international law. Nothing in the Bill breaks international law, nor would it compel any public body to take a decision that would put the UK in breach of international law; but judgment on whether a body is guilty of a violation of international law is not a decision for public authorities. That should be determined by a competent court. I was slightly beaten to that point by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. Where there has been a judgment that a party has breached international law, the Government will review their response accordingly. Again, it is not the place of public authorities to do so.
The Bill already contains an exception to the ban for considerations relating to labour market misconduct, including modern slavery and human trafficking. That means that public authorities will be able to continue having regard to territorial considerations that are relevant to a breach of international treaties banning forced labour. We recognise that modern slavery often occurs in the supply chains of countries that are not party to international treaties on forced labour and that are unlikely to prosecute the perpetrators. Therefore, the Procurement Bill makes explicit provision for a new exclusion ground that does not require a conviction to disregard bids from suppliers that are known to use forced labour or perpetuate modern slavery.
Amendments 14, 19, 20 and 21 would add an exemption to the application of clause 1 for considerations relating to genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid. Apartheid is considered a crime against humanity. Although ethnic cleansing is not recognised as an independent crime under international law, the practice of ethnic cleansing may constitute genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. If genocide or a crime against humanity were ruled to have occurred by a competent national or international court—that is the important point—after consideration of all the evidence available in the context of a credible judicial process, it would send a strong signal to the international community. The Government would take any such ruling very seriously and consider their response, which could include the potential use of sanctions.
It is the long-standing policy of successive British Governments that judgment as to whether genocide or a crime against humanity has occurred is for a competent national or international court. It is not for the UK Government, and it is certainly not for public authorities to decide. For those reasons, I ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.
Chris Stephens
I am afraid we are not convinced by the Minister’s reply, and we will push some amendments to a vote. The amendments themselves refer to international law. Indeed, the Labour party’s amendment 14 defines genocide as having the same meaning as described under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, so that should allay some of the fears voiced by Government Members. For completeness and tidiness, I will push amendments 18, 20 and 21 to a vote and I will yield amendment 19—
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I have an absolutely simple question. I do not know whether the hon. Member knows the answer, but I have been wondering about this. I do not think any of us here would object to the idea of having some genocide provision, and I am conscious that my colleagues have referred to the International Criminal Court. Does the hon. Member know whether the situation affecting the Uyghurs at the present time would be caught by that provision?
Chris Stephens
I cannot give my good friend a definitive answer to that, but it certainly should be looked at. We could argue that what is happening is also ethnic cleansing. As the hon. Member knows, I have reiterated this a number of times. I have Uyghur Muslim constituents and their situation is very difficult. I end up in tears when they tell me what is going on in China. I am in tears when they tell me that they are trying to get family members here so that they can have some sort of a family reunion. Certainly somebody should look at whether it is ethnic cleansing or genocide. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
I wish to push amendments 18, 20 and 21 to a vote, and I will yield to Labour colleagues if they wish to push amendment 14 to a vote.
Wayne David
Yes, we will be pushing amendment 14 to a vote. On the legal basis, we have expressed an opinion here, but of course the Government have constant legal advice during the passage of a Bill, and sometimes that legal advice is changed or modified in the light of representations and circumstances. I hope that that will happen here and that the Government will accept the need for definitions to be provided, provided we can unite around the objective of ensuring the word “genocide” is included.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, at end insert—
“(4) Nothing in this section requires any act or omission that conflicts with the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would ensure that any act or omission under the “gagging clause” in clause 4 would not conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), in particular, Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) and Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the ECHR as incorporated by the HRA.
Ms Qaisar
Clause 4 is simply unworkable and not practical. During my contribution, I will outline the rationale for my amendment, but I wish to put on record that the SNP will not support the clause.
Amendment 24 inserts the proposed words to ensure that any act or omission under the clause would not conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998 and particularly with article 10 of the European convention on human rights, on freedom of expression, and article 9, on freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as incorporated by the HRA. Freedom of expression has long been seen as a cornerstone of democracy and the foundation for the rule of law. The ECHR gives political speech a high form of protection because of its crucial role in democracy. Any attempt to make it unlawful for public officials to be influenced by the political speech of others, or even to appear to have been so influenced, undermines freedom of expression. Public officials, in accordance with international law, have the qualified right to freedom of expression. That can be denied only under tightly prescribed conditions, which are not met in this legislation.
Amnesty International has outlined that the clause puts the UK at risk of breaking article 10 of the ECHR, which is protected under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Bill sets out a quasi-judicial review process and an enforcement regime that can be used to prevent or punish the making of statements. Both of those would amount to an interference with article 10 rights, in so far as they do not meet the necessity test. The ECHR considers that interference with the right to freedom of expression may entail a wide variety of measures, such as a formality, condition, restriction or penalty.
That raises the question of whether the proposed legislation’s interference with article 10 rights can be justified as being for a legitimate aim, which is defined in the ECHR as
“in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
None of those aims appears to apply in this case. Although the Government state in their impact assessment that the Bill is intended to
“prevent divisive behaviour that undermines community cohesion”,
they provide no specific examples, stating:
“The number of actual or attempted boycotts or divestments inconsistent with UK foreign policy is relatively low”.
In that context, interference with free speech appears to be disproportionate, given the importance of this right.
Clause 4 has baffled me. I will present the Minister with a hypothetical scenario, and I would appreciate clarification of it, if she would indulge me. Let us say, for argument’s sake, that a company based in Xinjiang that is complicit in poor factory working conditions is line for a contract with the Scottish Government. Non-governmental organisations have raised human rights concerns and, unrelated to that, the Minister in charge of procurement is invited on to “Question Time” that night, where a member of the public asks about the company. In my understanding of the Bill—I would appreciate clarification on this—the Minister cannot say the company will not be awarded the contract because of its poor factory working conditions. That is because, under the Bill, Ministers cannot make decisions based on territories, and the Scottish Government Minister would not be allowed to say that their choice would have been not to award the contract to that Xinjiang-based company—they might want to say that, but they would be unable to do so because of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Act. However, the Minister could say that the contract would not be awarded to a company based in China because of general concerns about poor human rights records, not specific to Xinjiang.
Something else baffled me. That question was asked in a public forum, so let us say for argument’s sake that an MP and a councillor are also on the panel. My understanding is that, even if the Bill was clear that “decision maker” referred only to a public authority, its wider chilling effect is likely to engage article 10. That is because individuals who might influence the decision maker’s position would be heavily deterred from expressing views that could then be interpreted as influencing the decision maker based on political or moral disapproval.
Steve McCabe
I have to say that I agree with that last comment—I think clause 4 is unworkable, and it adds nothing to the Bill. It is a bit like clause 3(7). If anything, it undermines some of the intentions behind the Bill. Not surprisingly, it has been referred to as a gagging clause. It is virtually Kafkaesque, because it is coming a bit close to thought control. We are asked to accept that a person is not only prevented from doing something that contravenes clause 1 but that they are to be prevented from saying that, if it were perfectly legal to do so, they would want to do it. It would appear that they are not allowed to think that either. As I understand it, the Government say that the justification—this is an honourable aim—is that they are trying to protect community cohesion.
I ask hon. Members to pause for a second and work out how many people they know, and what institutions, would argue that community cohesion is being protected and safeguarded by these measures. The clause might prevent a person from saying that they intend to contravene clause 1 or that they would implement decisions that would, effectively, contravene clause 1 if it were legal to do, but it does not prevent them from saying a whole series of other abusive and offensive things about the state of Israel or anywhere else. In fact, it gives them a licence to say all those other things, and there is not a thing that can be done about it, provided they stay within the limits of existing law. I cannot see how this restriction is going to protect community cohesion. It is likely to have the opposite effect and to give those who do not share the Minister’s objectives on BDS a licence to look for ways to be abusive and offensive and still stay within the limits of the law.
I share the Minister’s desire to protect community cohesion and, as I have said, her overall objectives on the Bill, but I ask her to reflect on whether the proposals will really have the effect she seeks or whether it might be smarter to withdraw what is a pretty dysfunctional clause and go back to the drawing board to see whether there are more practical ways in which we could unite on protecting community cohesion.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the passionate and high-quality contributions from the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. I rise to address the issue of whether clause 4 should stand part of the Bill, because the Opposition believe that it should not. As we have heard, this is the so-called gagging clause, and colleagues will remember the significant discomfort about this provision on both sides of the House on Second Reading. It takes the Bill far beyond the existing consensus on combatting BDS actions that target specific states and into the realms of placing serious restrictions on freedom of expression.
Having listened carefully throughout our proceedings, I still cannot understand why the Government are so attached to clause 4. The road it takes us down is not helpful, and it will only muddy the waters in terms of what the Government seek to do. Let us be clear what clause 4 does. As we have heard from colleagues, it prohibits public bodies—yes, the entity but, in reality, the people who make it up—from making a statement that they would breach clause 1, were they able to, as a result of moral or political disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct. It is one thing to say that they cannot do it; now, they cannot even say that they would wish to—they cannot even talk about it.
We have heard the Minister’s qualification, and I will turn to it shortly. However, we must assess what is on the face of the Bill, which is a really bizarre limit on freedom of expression and contrary to the British values on which we pride ourselves. I know that there are Conservative colleagues who pride themselves on being free speech champions—indeed, it is a big part of what they do in this place and online—and I say to them that this may well be their moment to prove that.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who spoke so powerfully on Second Reading about her experiences fighting the British National party and about why this clause cannot stand. She said:
“arguments are never won by suppressing democratic debate”.—[Official Report, 3 July 2023; Vol. 735, c. 615.]
I agree. That is a lesson that politicians on both the left and the right are still wrestling with—certainly in the online space—and need to learn.
There is also a wider problem. This is part of a broader range of efforts by the Government to curtail free expression—a legislative programme that has whittled away at the civic space over many years. That includes the Trade Union Act 2016, the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, the Public Order Act 2023 and more. The Bill adds to those as yet another unacceptable fetter on free expression. There is consensus to make progress on the Bill, but clause 4 is a particular sticking point.
We have heard from the Minister, in the evidence sessions and today, some admirable attempts to clear this up. She has said that this is a very narrowly understood restriction and that individuals who may be a decision maker on one day can talk in a personal capacity on another, when they are not making the decisions. I think that fails on three fronts.
First, that is not what it says on the face of the Bill. Clause 4(1) states that a statement of intent to “contravene section 1”, were that permissible, is not allowed and, at line 15, the words “(in whatever terms)” are added. I cannot square “in whatever terms” with what the Minister has said. If someone was on a television programme, could they have a disclaimer and set aside the “in whatever terms” provision? I do not think those two things sit together, and I feel confident that an enforcement authority relying on judicial review for oversight would fall back on what is on the face of the Bill, rather than what we have heard.
Secondly, I would argue that a person who is a decision maker because they lead a local authority, is a cabinet member or is even, perhaps, a member of the council or a Mayor is always a decision maker. I do not think that they can just turn it off or on. I do not think that saying that is credible. I know that when people overreach in what they say on social media or in the media more generally, they might try to disassociate themselves from it in an attempt to shield their colleagues, but I do not think they get much shrift in that. Never mind when we get to the conflation where—we have current precedent—a leader of a council is a Member of Parliament. We also have recent and multiple examples, including one that lasted a significant period, where a Member of Parliament was also an elected Mayor. Are they fettered from talking about foreign policy in debates in this place? Can they take off those hats? I do not believe that they credibly can.
Finally, and this is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, we heard on Second Reading, and we have heard in Committee, that the purpose of the clause is to stop decision makers adding to or creating a situation where a community, particularly a minority one, is made unsafe. This is important, and the evidence from the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews brought that home. What the Minister has said in Committee, however, is that a decision maker could essentially say whatever they want, up to the point of advocating a boycott, and avoid that harm. As my hon. Friend says, it implies that a person can stand up and say anything they wish, in the most inflammatory terms, but that would not make people feel or be less safe. All that would do that would be the final phrase, “And I think we should boycott them.” I would say that the 200 words of inflammatory speech—of conspiracy theories and racist or hateful language—is where the harm is.
The clause does not add anything to the Bill, which leads us to our problem. We are being asked by the Government simultaneously to accept that the provision is broad enough to be impactful and to protect from harm, but narrow enough, as the Minister says, to apply in only a very small number of cases at a very small moment in time. I would say that those two things cannot be true together. The clause does not have to exist for the Bill to operate, which is why I believe we can safely vote against it without harming the overall goal.
Bob Blackman
Can I just put a contrary argument about the logic and flow of the Bill as planned? First, we have to look at clause 1. We are talking about individuals who are making decisions about placing contracts and buying goods and services from organisations that are affected by foreign policy. That is the first decision. Only the people in that position are affected in this way.
I am not a lawyer, either, but this is how I read the situation. A person cannot say, “I am going to break the law.” We cannot have an individual making a decision standing up and saying that. It clearly would be a contravention of the Bill and would be quite logical, and that is why we have clause 4(1)(a). If the person was to say, “If it were lawful to do so, I would act in this way,” that would create problems in community cohesion. We have seen that in what Leicester wanted to do, which is a prime example of what could happen if this clause is not included. From what I have heard, saying that this is about people in a representative democracy, whatever their guise, muddies the waters. The BDS movement focuses on Israel, the occupied territories and the Golan Heights, and it is targeting public authorities of all types.
Steve McCabe
The hon. Gentleman and I share a lot of common ground on various foreign affairs issues. I have been reflecting on what he is saying. He and I both take the view that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be banned, and we would like to see the Government act urgently on that. In the absence of a ban, if we were to go one step further and think of other ways in which we might be able to impact on the IRGC, would it be outrageous to say, “If it were legal to do so, I would do this and this”? Why would that be a breach?
Bob Blackman
I could call the hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend because we co-operate on many issues. As representatives we can speak out and ask for a change in the law, but it is not right for us to lobby organisations, individuals and public bodies to break the law. That is what is covered in the clauses. With respect, I think the wording could be cleverer or better. I am one of those individuals who passionately believes in free speech. I passionately believe that people in a democracy and elsewhere should be allowed to say what they believe. I share the sentiments expressed on Second Reading by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who has fought the British National party. Whenever we see extreme views with which we all disagree, we need to expose them in public and defeat them in an argument, rather than push them underground. My clear concern is that people could undermine community cohesion inadvertently. They probably would not mean to do so. There is no issue with making statements and having debates in councils, Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. The issue is one of breaching the law in terms of procurement, including of goods and services.
Chris Stephens
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. Does he not concede that there is a real problem with the language in clause 4(1)(b), which states
“that the person would intend to act in such a way were it lawful to do so”?
That is a rather baffling sentence, is it not?
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but that is what I have said. In due course, perhaps on Report, the language may need to be tidied up. However, the intention is clear. The decision maker should not be saying, “If I was able to do it, I would make this decision.” I do not think it helps the public body or decision making if primary legislation passed through this House says that that would be unlawful. That would not help community cohesion and it would not protect public bodies against being accused of making decisions based on particular views rather than on their coherent procurement needs. I will conclude with that.
Chris Stephens
I know you are a seasoned political veteran, Sir George—it is always clause 4 that causes a problem, isn’t it? It is always clause 4, and the problem with this clause 4 is that it is the thought police clause. The difference is—[Interruption.] I have been rehearsing that one. I made that wisecrack privately to Sir George the other day, so yes. But this is the thought police clause. The normal police come for someone if they commit an act that is criminal, but the thought police are different. They act if someone “intends” to act in a particular way. Under the Bill, the authorities do not need to demonstrate any proof of intent to publish a particular kind of statement. That is impossible to do in the normal world, so let us just rely on telepathy to find out someone’s intent.
It gets worse, and I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East for taking my intervention. In clause 4, entitled “Related prohibition on statements”, subsection (1)(b) proposes that even
“were it lawful to do so”,
any alleged intent to do so would be a criminal act. You need only consult George Orwell on this, Sir George—prove me wrong if you can—because he says, “Yes, this is the Thinkpol, whose job is to monitor the citizens of Oceania and arrest all those who have committed thoughtcrime in challenge to the status quo authority of the Party and the regime of Big Brother.” Fortunately, there is an escape clause for the Government in clause 4, which states:
“This section does not apply to a statement by a Minister of the Crown”.
Lucky them—but not anybody else.
The convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, better known as the European convention on human rights, was opened for signature in Rome on 4 November 1950—only two years after George Orwell published his book “1984”. The world had just come through a period in which freedom of expression had been brutally suppressed. The ECHR, to which the UK is still a signatory, defines freedom of expression thus:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”
The purpose of the Bill is therefore to break an international convention and undermine a fundamental human right. Why would any Government do that? Is it because this is the red meat that the Tory party is throwing to people—a policy that actively restricts moral and political freedom of expression on human rights, environmental protections and workers’ rights? Are they playing to a narrow audience with dog-whistle policies? We can end this dystopian farce here and now.
Witness after witness, even the witnesses who support the Bill and support the Government’s position on the Bill, said—all of them—that they had difficulties with this clause and how it could possibly be enacted and enforced. We need to take account of that, and I ask the House to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts. If not, we certainly need to remove clause 4.
Felicity Buchan
I shall start by explaining why we do not support amendment 24, and I will then explain why we feel strongly that clause 4 needs to stand part of the Bill. I will address a few of the specific questions, but I will do so at the end, because I think it is important that hon. Members see the logical flow of the argument.
Amendment 24 seeks to ensure that none of the provisions in clause 4 will conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998. This amendment is unnecessary, as the Government’s assessment is that all the provisions in the Bill are consistent with the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, including article 10, the right to freedom of expression.
The purpose of the European convention on human rights, which the Human Rights Act implemented into domestic law, is to regulate the relationship between the state and the individual and specifically to protect private persons’ fundamental rights from potential interference by the state. This includes private persons’ article 10 right to freedom of expression. Public authorities, which form part of the state or perform the state’s functions, are the potential perpetrators of ECHR violations and therefore do not have these rights. Public authorities do not have the rights; the rights are to protect private individuals and private bodies against state interference. This assessment was supported by several of the witnesses that the Committee heard from last week, and that is why we believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
Clause 4 prohibits public bodies from publishing statements indicating that they intend to engage in activity prohibited by this Bill. That includes statements indicating that the public body would have acted differently were the legislation not in place. It is important that we focus on public bodies, because this does not restrict the rights of individuals. We talked earlier about the difference, and the simplest way to express that is that if an individual is speaking on their own behalf, they are speaking as a private individual. However, if I say that I am speaking on behalf of my university or my local authority, then I speak on the behalf of a public body.
Academic freedom has been mentioned. If I am a university professor, which I am highly unlikely ever to be, I can say whatever I want. If, however, I stand up and say, “I, Felicity Buchan, speaking on behalf of Imperial College,” which is in my constituency, that is representing the view of Imperial College, as opposed to that of Felicity Buchan.
Ms Qaisar
The Minister is being generous with her time. If the councillor in the hypothetical scenario I gave wanted to make a point, would he have to say, “I am Joe Bloggs. I just so happen to be a councillor. I just so happen to be the leader of the council,” or can he say, “I am a councillor Joe Bloggs and I just so happen to be the leader of the council.” I still do not understand.
Felicity Buchan
I will go into detail on it. Give me one minute and I will go through all those scenarios.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
As Members of Parliament, we are always having to declare our interests if we think there is going to be a conflict. I asked a question yesterday about veterans’ health. I am the honorary president of the Royal British Legion. When discussing such topics, particularly when in front of the media, we know exactly where there could be a conflict of interest and therefore make the determination that it should be declared. We should therefore allow the legislation to stay as it is, because the distinction is clear between speaking on behalf of a public body and speaking as an individual elected to represent a point of view.
Felicity Buchan
I agree. That is the distinction between representing a public body and speaking as an individual, even if someone is an elected councillor.
Felicity Buchan
I am going to go into the detail on some points, and then I will take questions.
This clause does not impact an individual’s freedom to express a view. It is clear that declarations of boycotts and divestments are divisive and undermine community cohesion. These types of policies have no place in public bodies. We have seen examples of public bodies making declarations to boycott and divest as far as the law allows. Recent cases of declarations of anti-Israel boycotts that are not intended to be implemented, such as in Leicester, Swansea and Gwynedd councils, have been strongly opposed by Jewish groups. Such declarations are harmful even where the law does not allow boycotts and divestments. Therefore, such declarations cannot be made under the clause.
We heard repeatedly in evidence that a declaration stating, “We would boycott were it legal to do so,” is enough to trigger community friction and antisemitism issues. For instance, in 2014, Leicester City Council passed a motion targeting the activity of the Israeli state with a boycott
“insofar as legal considerations allow”.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for the case that she is making. We agree with everything she said about that hateful speech, but the problem is that she just said, a minute before, that so long as a person essentially walks out of the council building, or says, “I am talking in an individual capacity”, despite being the leader of the council, they can say all those things and there is no protection under the clause. What meaningful advantage does the clause actually provide?
Felicity Buchan
This very much has the advantage of preventing Leicester City Council from making such a declaration. So anyone representing the views of Leicester City Council and saying, “I am standing here giving the views of Leicester City Council” is not allowed to do that.
Let me move on to exact circumstances. Under the clause, individuals, including councillors, are not prevented from making statements of their personal opinions freely in their own capacity. Councillors are not a public authority and, therefore, they will not be prevented from expressing their support for or voting in favour of a BDS motion. For example, representations made by councillors during a debate that indicate that they would be in favour of their local authority engaging in boycotts or a divestment campaign will not be captured by the clause. It will apply only to statements made on behalf of a local authority. Therefore, if a local authority published the minutes of a debate or a meeting in which a councillor said that they would be in favour of their local authority engaging in such campaigns, this would not be captured.
As I have promised, I will make that distinction clear in the Bill’s explanatory notes. We want this to be very clear. There is a real concern that recent declarations of anti-Israel boycotts, even when they are not implemented in practice, have driven and contributed to rising antisemitism.
Steve McCabe
I want to return to the example that the Minister cited relating to a personal or public persona. She said that if Felicity Buchan said something in a personal capacity, that would be fine, but if she said it as a professor or representative of an organisation, that would not. If Felicity Buchan were an extremely well-known, recognisable public figure, which she may well be one day, is it considerable that her personal persona would be divisible from her public persona in any credible way that courts or the wider public would recognise?
Felicity Buchan
The Bill is not distinguishing between personas, individual or public. It is a sentiment that I am giving as an individual, as opposed to doing so as leader of my council or head of my university, representing my university. It is about the distinction between the individual and the public body.
I am coming to the end of my remarks. We will put that distinction into very clear guidance in the explanatory notes.
Chris Stephens
It is important that we get to the bottom of this. There is a real enforcement difficulty here. Some newspapers are not always friendly to my party, some are not friendly to the Labour party, and some, believe it or not, are not friendly to the Conservative party. A newspaper could come up with a scenario in which it was quoting someone directly and giving the impression that that was their view on behalf of a public body, without expressing that that person was speaking in a personal capacity. That is a real difficulty. Of course, the other difficulty is that the Felicity Buchan we are referring to is a Minister of the Crown, so anything that Felicity Buchan says is completely exempt under the clause.
Felicity Buchan
On the point about what a newspaper may or may not infer, clearly for there to be enforcement it needs to be proved. We will go on to talk about enforcement later, but I think there is a clear distinction between stating something in a personal capacity and representing one’s institution. On that basis, I recommend that the amendment be rejected and that clause 4 stand part of the Bill.
Ms Qaisar
I thank hon. Members for all their comments. I agree with Opposition Members that clause 4 needs serious reworking or simply removal from the Bill. As has been mentioned, and as we heard in our evidence sessions, the clause marks a dangerous attack on the article 10 right to freedom of expression set out in the Human Rights Act. We must ensure that the Bill does not impede the rights of individuals freely to express their views.
I am sorry, but I am not reassured by the comments in the impact assessment and from the Minister that the Bill requires such strong provisions preventing freedom of expression. I am surprised that the Government have sought to include such provisions in the Bill. They seem to have failed to acknowledge that the clause has the potential to engage individuals’ human rights, as is proven by the lack of a human rights memorandum to accompany the legislation. I remind Government Members that this Government claim to be a bastion of free speech.
Ms Qaisar
The hon. Member says, “Hear, hear,” yet I imagine that he is about to vote for a clause that restricts free speech. I am somewhat perplexed.
This Government have passed legislation designed to protect academic freedom and have even appointed a supposed free speech tsar, yet the Bill seems to go against that. Clause 4 has the potential to shut down academic debate and limit academic freedom, which is integral to the higher education sector across all four nations. I am not convinced whatsoever by this clause. I will push amendment 24 to a vote, and I will vote against the clause in its entirety.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 6, page 4, line 28, at end insert—
“(3A) In relation to a decision or statement made by, or for the purposes of, a local authority, the enforcement authority is the Office for Local Government.”
This amendment changes the enforcement authority for local authorities from the Secretary of State or Treasury to the Office for Local Government.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 9, in clause 6, page 4, line 38, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment removes the provision allow the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office to amend this section so as to change the enforcement authority in relation to a particular description of decision or statement.
Clause stand part.
Alex Norris
Clause 6 sets out the enforcement authorities for the Bill’s provisions. Subsection (2) sets out that the enforcement authority is the Secretary of State or the Treasury, unless otherwise stated. Subsection (4) states that for any decision or statement made by an English higher education provider, the enforcement authority will be the Office for Students. On the face of it, that seems a fairly benign set-up for enforcement, but it creates a distinction in how the Bill treats different public bodies, on which I would like to press the Minister.
On the one hand, the Bill is saying that enforcement against higher education providers will be given over to a third actor, the Office for Students. On the other hand, it is saying that local government will be policed by national Government instead. Amendment 8 tries to put those things on a more consistent footing and to say that there should be less variance in enforcement. The amendment puts forward the Office for Local Government as a more suitable authority for enforcement of the Bill’s provisions in relation to local government.
I hope that the Minister will cover this issue in her response, because I do not know why there is divergence. She can put me right if I am wrong, but I fear that this is a continuation of central Government’s heavy-handed manner with regard to local authorities. Part of the problem with our approach is that we get devolution when local leaders get the answer “right”, but not so much when central Government disagree with them. Adding clause 6 to the Bill unamended will continue the trend of the Government wishing to keep the reins on local government. Given that they have already chosen to use the Office for Students, surely aligning that with the Office for Local Government would make an awful lot more sense.
Amendment 9 is similar to my amendment 4 on Henry VIII powers. The Government are reserving the ability to change the enforcement authorities as they wish under subsection (6). Amendment 9 seeks to delete that provision and ensure that we can set out, through normal parliamentary processes, who will enforce the legislation. Local councils are not going to change that much, and public bodies generally are not going to change that much, but the Government need emergency powers to vary the enforcement agency. If the Government wish to do things a certain way, they should put that in the Bill, and if they wish to change it they should return to Parliament through primary processes.
Felicity Buchan
I urge the Committee to reject the amendments. Let me explain why.
Amendment 8 would establish the Office for Local Government as the enforcement authority in relation to a decision or statement made by local authorities, except where specified otherwise. We have carefully considered the most appropriate enforcement authorities across the sectors that are covered by the Bill; for example, the Pensions Regulator has an existing role in regulating the administration and governance of the local government pension scheme. Although we are expanding some powers, the enforcement authorities listed in the Bill already have an existing role in enforcement for those public authorities. That is not the case for the Office for Local Government, which the hon. Member for Nottingham North is proposing.
The Office for Local Government is not envisaged as an enforcement authority for anything. It is intended to provide data and analysis about the performance of local government and to support its improvement, but it is not envisaged to have a role in regulating local government’s activities. It would therefore not be appropriate for it to have an enforcement role against local authorities in this context. Furthermore, Oflog is an office of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and, as such, does not have a statutory basis. The effect of amendment 8 would therefore be to keep responsibility with the Secretary of State.
Amendment 9 would remove the power given to the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office to change the enforcement authorities in relation to a decision or statement captured by the Bill. The Bill will provide a power for the Secretary of State and other enforcement authorities to issue compliance notices, and to investigate and fine public bodies, where there is a breach of the ban. Public bodies subject to the ban will also be susceptible to judicial review if they break this law.
We have carefully considered the most appropriate enforcement authorities across some of the sectors covered by the Bill, such as the Pensions Regulator. For higher education providers on the register of the Office for Students, the Office for Students should be the responsible enforcement authority. As the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State or the Treasury should be the enforcement authority for all other public bodies subject to clauses 1 and 4. Ministers of the Crown are not subject to the additional enforcement regime but are subject to judicial review.
In time, the most appropriate regulators for each of the sectors covered by the Bill may change. The Bill provides the necessary flexibility, via the power given to the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office, to update the respective enforcement authorities if they change. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Nottingham North to withdraw his amendments.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. I do not intend to press either amendment to a Division, but I will make a couple of points in response.
The Minister mentions that Oflog may not sit elegantly with the Office for Students, because the Office for Students has an existing role doing this type of activity, whereas Oflog does not. However, Oflog was only established in June, so of course it does not have a similar record or similar experience, but that is a person-made thing that could be changed. The Minister also says that Oflog was not envisaged as an enforcement authority, but I cannot believe that the Office for Students was ever really envisaged to be an enforcement authority either.
Similarly, the default enforcement authority in the Bill is the Secretary of State. I do not think that many people go to the ballot box imagining the capacities of different Secretaries of State to kick doors in; I hope not, anyway, because they certainly would not cast a ballot for me. I am therefore not wholly convinced that that is a brilliant argument against the amendment.
I also cannot accept the final point that the most appropriate agency may change in time. If that were the case as a result of the disestablishment of the Office for Students, say, that would itself require primary legislation, and the enforcement agency would be changed routinely as part of that. I do not think that Ministers should have the ability to change enforcement agencies on a whim—because one agency does not give the answers they want, for example—but I think there is a real risk of that. However, I do not think that that is enough to divide the Committee at this point, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jacob Young.)
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
PANS and PANDAS
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered PANS and PANDAS.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Dowd. I will refer to paediatric acute-onset neuro- psychiatric syndrome—PANS—and paediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections—PANDAS—as PANS/PANDAS throughout. Before I begin my speech, I welcome members of the all-party parliamentary group on PANS and PANDAS who are here and those Members who supported the Backbench Business debate application that brought us here. Most importantly, I welcome representatives from PANS PANDAS UK and medical specialists who are here to watch the debate; they will be available to meet MPs in room W3 afterwards.
I acknowledge that there may well be a significant variation in knowledge of the conditions PANS/PANDAS in the room. On the one hand, we are joined by experts and many MPs, including me, who know a little or something about the condition through our casework and campaigning, but I would not be surprised, Mr Dowd, if you did not know what we are here to discuss. The reason that that would not surprise me is because it is also the reason that we are here today: despite becoming increasingly widespread among children and young people, there is little awareness of or treatment for PANS/PANDAS. I hope that colleagues will bear with me if I briefly set out what PANS/PANDAS are.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. She mentioned that awareness is crucial. A family in my constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has been living through what has been described as a living hell—it is a really heartbreaking story—since their daughter first had symptoms back in January. Awareness is low across the country, including in the medical profession in, and the APPG will undoubtedly help with that. I am sure that we are all rallying to raise awareness and support and get awareness out there across the country.
Wendy Chamberlain
A “living hell” is certainly how it has been described to me in conversations that I have had, not only because of the symptoms themselves and dealing with them, but because of the lack of support compounding that distress.
I will outline what PANS/PANDAS are. PANS is a condition in children and young people that can result from an initial mild infection such as chickenpox or covid. PANDAS is a specific sort of PANS that stems from strep. While the initial infection might be mild, in some cases it triggers a misdirected immune response and/or a brain inflammation that causes the rapid onset of severe symptoms, which can include obsessive compulsive disorder, tics, severely restricted food intake, anxiety, aggression, depression, memory deficiency, poor cognitive function and behavioural and developmental regression. These changes can and do take place literally overnight. Understandably, the impact of those symptoms on a child and their family is monumental. We do not need to be parents ourselves, although many of us here may be, to understand how utterly distressing it must be to have a formerly healthy, happy child suddenly find themselves unable to leave their bedroom, dress, eat, wash, talk to others or attend school and to see them vanish as the illness takes over. Sadly, that distress is compounded and worsened many times over by the lack of available support for patients and their families, as PANS is often not even suggested, considered or acknowledged.
Globally, PANS/PANDAS are recognised and treatment pathways have been set up. The World Health Organisation has explicitly acknowledged the conditions in its latest guidance. However, as things stand, there is neither NHS nor National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on the diagnosis or treatment of PANS/PANDAS in any part of the UK. That leaves patients subject to an unfair and arbitrary lottery. All the evidence suggests that the best treatment is early diagnosis and a two-week course of antibiotics. If that window is missed, antibiotics may become less effective and other treatments are needed.
However, in the UK, without those pathways the vast majority of children are given inappropriate and ineffective treatment for their symptoms, rather than for the underlying cause. That often involves long waits for mental health treatments from child and adolescent mental health services, which I think we all know and recognise are overburdened. In a survey carried out in 2020 for PANS PANDAS UK, 95% of parents said that their GP had not suggested PANS/PANDAS as a diagnosis. Often, they can suggest no diagnosis at all; families must then research and fight for treatment themselves. The reality is that, after months of seeing their child suffer without any explanation, families end up turning to private healthcare, but that it only an option for a few. It is only at that point that a diagnosis is forthcoming.
I suspect that I am like most MPs, in that I became aware of PANS because a constituent approached me for support with her local NHS doctor. In the run-up to this debate, I had the privilege of speaking to some of the children and young people who sit on the PANS PANDAS UK youth advisory board, who shared their experiences with me. Their experiences of being diagnosed are all different, with only one exception: they were all negative. If any of them are watching today, I want to thank them for being able to talk to me about their experiences. It was really important to hear directly from them, and I thank them very much for that.
One of the children on the board talked about the fact that the doctors really did nothing for her. Every time she went to the hospital, she was made to feel like a mystery. Because the doctors did not understand what was wrong with her, it felt as if they were just going to leave it and give up. Another child told us about being sent from place to place, with no medical department taking responsibility. She went through waiting list and waiting list, with no resolution, as the symptoms continued and worsened.
It is really important to remember that the initial recommendation on diagnosis is for two weeks of antibiotics. As a parent, I find it quite difficult to understand why that is not being pursued by GPs, because it treats the initial infection if it is PANS/PANDAS. It would prevent the symptoms from deteriorating further, which might lead to someone needing more mental health support. Frankly, if it is not PANS, the antibiotics will not work and we will be able to rule that out pretty quickly.
Almost all the children I spoke to had received private treatment and given up on the NHS, but private diagnosis and treatment plans are often rejected by local GPs and health boards. One child remembers a doctor saying that he would refuse to treat an American illness. Another was refused ongoing treatment because the consultant did not believe that PANS was real. Many children have their medications stopped when their parents move back to NHS care; indeed, this is something I am supporting one of my constituents with now, with NHS Fife newly refusing to provide prescriptions for privately recommended medication. That is despite the fact that my constituent’s child has had both an NHS and private diagnosis. Imagine being a child and going through the trauma of this change in your life and condition—it is terrifying—then being told by the adults treating you that they do not believe that what you are experiencing is real or exists.
There is a lack of direction from the top. I have asked before about the implementation of the World Health Organisation guidelines that will formally acknowledge PANS/PANDAS and its treatments within our domestic health systems, and I have been told it will take some time. In the meantime, children are suffering needlessly, as are their families. We have to consider the wider impact on the siblings of children experiencing this condition.
I understand that the Minister might not want to pre-empt the independent medical process relating to the NICE guidelines, but if she would confirm her position that PANS/PANDAS is as real as having a broken leg or the flu, I really believe that that would be a significant step. I hope that that will not be a difficult ask.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing the debate. I wonder whether they agree that clinical evidence and lived experience across the whole of the UK must inform the evidence base that clinicians and NICE make, and that that must be based on the reality experienced by our constituents who are suffering from PANS/PANDAS. Through this debate, I hope the hon. Member will be able to force that through not just to Ministers, but to the civil servants who are advising them and the clinicians who say that this condition does not exist.
Wendy Chamberlain
I am conscious that we need to deal with the medical profession in relation to this condition, but we must be able to do things as parliamentarians, and the Government must be able to do things too. Obviously, I am standing here as a Scottish MP, as is the hon. Member. It is about ensuring that there is parity of treatment across the UK.
As I say, I hope it will not be a difficult ask for the Minister to say that PANS/PANDAS is real, because I am privileged to have sight of a letter that she sent earlier this year to another Member, which confirmed such a position. In that letter she noted the common practice of treating infections with antibiotics and that PANS/PANDAS could be treated successfully in that way if caught early enough. I am sure she will also be aware of the PANS/PANDAS working group statement that was issued earlier this year.
The working group consisted of representatives from the British Paediatric Neurology Association, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, and the British Paediatric Allergy, Immunity and Infection Group, as well as parents, social workers and campaigners. The statement is an important step. It signposts clinicians to the international peer-reviewed treatment guidance in the absence of peer-reviewed treatment guidance domestically. The position appears to be the same as the Minister set out in her letter. I therefore ask her to use her time today to confirm that to the House and pledge to make a written statement to the same effect. The power of such a statement in the face of doctors refusing to believe in your child’s illness would be literally life changing and potentially life saving. As I have said, as a Scottish MP I would want to see parity of support in Scotland. I hope that when the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), speaks in the debate she will agree to take forward a request from me to the Cabinet Secretary for health to ensure that we see that parity of care in Scotland.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member on the preparation that went into this debate and the information that she sent round to colleagues. One issue that seems to be present in the condition is the crossover with autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and pathological demand avoidance and other types of autism. It would be useful to hear more from her about how the symptoms can sometimes be confused.
Wendy Chamberlain
I accept that the presentation of the symptoms can and does give clinicians pause for thought. The very severe onset of symptoms is clearly very different from other mental health conditions that develop over a period of time. As I say, when a patient presents with those symptoms to a GP there is an opportunity to take the antibiotic step that would allow PANS/PANDAS to be ruled out at an early stage, if that is not the condition that they have. Today’s debate is aimed at raising awareness so that we can separate out the different conditions. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) for taking part in the debate.
I hope the Minister will be able to take such vital steps today. Looking to the future, I think we all want to see NHS and NICE guidance and proper research into the conditions and their treatment. I am sure the Minister and her officials have regular meetings with representatives from the NHS, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Can she ensure that PANS is discussed in those places, that awareness is raised and that there is home-grown leadership? Medical conditions do not have nationalities and, with political will, there is no reason why the UK cannot be a world leader in treating this one.
I want to look at aspects of dealing with a health condition that do not just stem from medical diagnosis and treatment. I hope the Minister regularly speaks to colleagues from other Departments where their remits cross. There is a remit for the Department of Health and Social Care in building the hospitals, but it is the Department for Transport that makes sure there are roads to get people to them. It is the Minister’s Department that comes up with a cancer strategy, but the Department for Work and Pensions sets the policy on statutory sick pay and disability benefits. In this case, although she has an incredibly important role in ensuring the recognition and treatment of PANS/PANDAS, we need to look at the other impacts on a child who is so poorly.
The first and most obvious point is that a child who is too poorly to get dressed is probably unlikely to be in school. If they are in school, flare-ups of the condition—one of the symptoms is difficulties with cognitive processing—can mean dropping behind. When I recently asked children on the youth board about that, I was told that universally before they were ill they had loved school and had been doing well there. In fact, a survey carried out by PANS PANDAS UK this year found that, pre-onset, only 9% of patients were below the expected academic standard for their age group. After onset, the figure soared to 53%.
As with treatment, support from the school is a lottery for families. Most schools and teachers do not know what PANS/PANDAS is and have no idea how to support students with it. I have spoken to families of children who have been out of education for over a year because they have been too ill to go to school. I have spoken to others who say that the support is so poor that they have moved to home schooling. Others count themselves as lucky, because the special educational needs department has been open to supporting them.
One girl on the youth board told me that the SEN department at school was her safe place, that it was really calm, and that her teachers had researched the condition and made allowances for her school work. That should not be the exception in children’s experience—it should be what we aspire to for all of them. Not being in school is a reality for many children with PANS/PANDAS, particularly if they are not receiving the proper medical support to help them get better.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Given that we do not know how many children are undiagnosed, is it possible that many of them could be in hugely expensive specialist education for children with autism or ADHD with high student-staff ratios that is wholly inappropriate for them and would not be needed if they had been diagnosed and treated?
Wendy Chamberlain
It comes back all the time to this root issue: recognition and treatment of this condition mean that outcomes on every level are much better, not only for the individual children and their families, but from a wider societal perspective. When I asked the youth board what it thinks needs to change to help other children with PANS, one of the main responses was more support and information for schools. I know that that is not the Minister’s portfolio, but given the overlap I trust that she will be able to raise that with her colleagues.
Childhood and adolescence are important times in someone’s development, not just educationally but socially. Childhood and teenage friendships are a vital part of how we mature and learn to navigate the world, and never more so than when facing a terrifying illness. It was difficult to hear children on the youth board talk about losing their friendships because as adults there is so little we can do, but I felt that it was important to ask the question because it is fundamental to children growing up. One child told me that they lost most of their friends when they transitioned to secondary school and how hard it was to make new friends when people only see how they act when their illness is in control. Another talked of how they lost all their friends seemingly overnight—they simply became a taboo subject that other children and their families did not talk about.
There were other more positive stories. One mum told me how her daughter’s friends would come and sit outside her bedroom door to try to convince her to come out and that when her daughter finally got the right treatment, her friends were some of the first people there, literally running up to their house to see her. They told her that they felt they had her back, and within a week they were out having fun together. As a parent, I am the first to acknowledge that there is nothing we can do to make children be friends with each other, but when we talk about appropriate treatment and support in school, it is these friendships that are also at stake.
I want to focus on the children and young people who suffer so much with PANS/PANDAS, but of course we need to think about their families too. Putting aside the strains and stresses experienced by a parent who witnesses their child being so ill, caring for them and having to fight battle after battle for treatment, they might face the choice of accepting a prescription for anti-psychotic medication for their 9-year-old child or social workers deciding to remove that child from their care.
Financially, this illness has a huge impact, whether through parents stopping work to care for their child or through seeking private treatment. The PANS PANDAS UK 2020 parents survey found that less than 20% of parents had experienced little or no financial impact. Almost a quarter estimated a financial impact of over £10,000, while over 8% estimated that it was over £100,000. An additional quarter simply said, “substantial” without putting a figure on it. Considering that a substantial financial impact is relative, that might be enough to put a family on the poverty line, whether the actual figure is £1,000 or £100,000. What about those children where private medication or support is simply not an option? The reality is that, at the moment, money matters for someone with a child who has PANS/PANDAS. Without NHS guidance and diagnosis and with so many families relying on private healthcare, we have absolutely no way of knowing how many children are going undiagnosed, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) referenced.
What we do know is we are seeing a crisis in mental health conditions among our young people. Anxiety is skyrocketing, as are compulsive behaviours and tics. We cannot rule out the likelihood that the PANS/PANDAS cases that we know about are just the tip of the iceberg. We need urgent research, treatment and diagnosis to be universally available so that it does not matter where a child lives or what their family means are; their chances for support are the same.
I pay tribute to the support that PANS PANDAS UK and the wider community have given me, but also to families and children around the country. I would like to end by returning to the reflections of some of the children I met; they are so brave. They talked about how confusing and scary it was to suddenly have voices in their head. They talked about the panic of suddenly having to touch the same item in their bedroom over and over again—of not knowing what was happening, of sharing that with anyone in their family, or of having a brain that could not focus. This is their message to adults in Government, and to all of us here today: what is happening to them is not a choice. They care about school, their friends and their lives. They are not naughty children. If after this debate even just one more person understands that, that would help. This is not just a healthcare problem; it is a political problem, a societal problem, and one that increasingly needs urgent attention.
Several hon. Members rose—
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I was going to remind hon. Members to bob if they wanted to speak, but you have all bobbed, so thank you. I want to bring the Front Benchers in from 10.28 am.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for bringing this important debate to the House.
As already detailed, PANS and PANDAS can change a family’s life overnight. That is exactly what happened to my constituent Neil Gilson and his family. His son Jack was 18 months old when he caught tonsilitis, and an otherwise innocuous childhood illness turned their life upside down. Jack went from being a normal and happy little boy to one who was aggressive and anxious. He struggled playing with his friends, would go days without wanting to leave the house, and would not speak a word for long periods of time. His illness was not limited to his mental health but affected his physical health, too; he lost his fingernails and toenails and had very little energy. Neil describes it as,
“it was like there was no-one there”
some days—far from normal behaviour for a young boy.
For years, Neil and his wife sought a diagnosis. Various behaviours were put down to Tourette’s syndrome, an allergy or even just normal behaviour for his age, but one morning, Neil heard a news story about PANS and PANDAS that matched Jack completely. His doctor had never heard of the condition, but after an appointment with a specialist and a course of antibiotics, they had their son back in just two weeks. That is what makes PANS and PANDAS so shocking. It is an inflammation of the brain that can be quickly and effectively treated with a course of antibiotics, but it is so little known that it is impossible to say how many parents’ concerns are being put down to other causes simply because their GP has never heard of PANS and PANDAS. Will the Minister bring in training and guidance, so that obtaining a diagnosis is no longer a matter of chance, and work to raise awareness among healthcare professionals and those involved in childcare, so that families do not have to go through years of anxiety and all the problems that come with an unwell child.
I pay tribute to Neil’s fantastic work in raising both awareness and money for PANS and PANDAS. Since 2019, he has swum marathon distances in Loch Lubnaig and in 2021 became the first person to swim across the Bristol channel from Swansea to Ilfracombe. He attempted to swim the 70 km length of Lake Geneva this summer; he was 56 km in when he developed hypothermia and had to be pulled out by his team, but he has vowed to try again next year. Regardless of the distance, Neil has raised a fantastic amount of money and awareness and will change the lives of many children like his son Jack.
I hope that us coming together today and highlighting the cases in our constituencies will in itself help to raise awareness, so that early access to those antibiotics is more widely available to children who may have PANS and PANDAS.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve in this debate under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing this important debate and the Backbench Business Committee for finding time in the parliamentary timetable.
I also pay tribute to PANS PANDAS UK. The charity has been working tirelessly to raise awareness, provide support to parents and push for change. They are not professional politicians or lobbyists, but simply parents who are fighting for a change, and I thank them for all their work.
As the former co-chair of the APPG on PANS and PANDAS, I am glad that the condition will now find itself inked into the pages of Hansard. Too many young people and children across the UK are suffering from this awful, life-altering condition and are not getting the support that they deserve. In many cases, had that support been available when they first exhibit changed behaviours, it would have drastically improved their recovery—for some, almost immediately.
Like many in the Chamber today, I am here because about seven years ago a couple in my constituency contacted me about their child; a previously outgoing, bright, happy and lively child suddenly had a switch flipped and became ridden with anxiety, was unwilling to leave the house, and suffered from extreme OCD. More recently, another constituent had an experience similar to that described by the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby): the doctors did not know what it was. At our first APPG meeting, we saw video evidence from parents about the sudden changes: tics, eating disorders, extreme anxiety, and violent or introverted behaviour. As a parent I found that harrowing to watch, and I can only imagine the anguish and difficulty it must cause for families up and down the country.
For many, there is then a struggle to get treatment as they face the brick wall that is too often formed in the NHS, the near impossibility of getting speedy and helpful treatment, GPs who are not aware of the condition, and a chronic lack of awareness even in specialist units. Professional demarcation lines mean that too often the psychiatrist and neurological specialist will not realise that the cause is a strep infection or similar, which can be sorted fairly quickly. All that is coupled with a scepticism of some, who do not believe or accept that it is a condition. Remember when that happened with myalgic encephalomyelitis? We know of children with the symptoms of PANS/PANDAS who have gone through years of agony and been told to go to therapy. If they finally get lucky and win the lottery for treatment, they are often prescribed amoxicillin—a common antibiotic, which we gave our kids every time they had an ear or throat infection. It makes a huge difference, often almost immediately—within a week or two. Sadly, when those who have had PANS or PANDAS for months or years are finally diagnosed, they often need more complex and thus more expensive treatment, and it is a long haul to recovery.
My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater), who is unable to be here today, asked me to share the experience of a constituent whose child had PANS. Once the support and help was in place, the child started to recover; they are now thriving, and are starting college this month. With the right treatment and support, children can thrive and succeed, but getting the diagnosis is key.
I welcome the working group that has been set up by stakeholders, including PANS PANDAS UK and various royal colleges. It recommends that all NHS trusts develop comprehensive cross-speciality and multidisciplinary team provision to review and treat children with acute-onset neuropsychiatric symptoms and that children should receive a full medical evaluation. As we have heard, the quick test for whether a child has PANS/PANDAS or something else is to start a course of amoxicillin or a similar antibiotic. If symptoms improve, they have PANS/PANDAS; if they do not, that is the point to move on to more complex diagnostics and treatment to try to work out what the cause is. I hope that change will result from that recommendation.
As we have heard, families are too often forced to get private treatment—spending a small fortune for something they should have been able to get on the NHS. Of course, many of our constituents do not have the money for private treatment, and too many cases—we do not know how many—remain undiagnosed. The formation of the working group shows that we have made some progress since 2019 and 2020, when we first raised the issue in Parliament. In the meantime, more children and families are being affected, and more lives are being ruined and turned upside down because PANS/PANDAS is not being treated quickly and properly.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister and hope that she can tell us what her Department is doing with regard to the working group’s recommendations. I very much hope that she and her officials do not put it into what the former Member for Norwich South called the “too difficult box”.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my colleague on the APPG, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), on securing the debate and on giving such a comprehensive account in her opening remarks. I also acknowledge the work that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) has done on the matter here in the House.
As the chairman of the APPG on PANS and PANDAS, I also extend my gratitude to the organisation PANS PANDAS UK. I have had the privilege of working closely with Vicky and the team, and have seen at first hand their tireless efforts as the only charity in the UK that supports children and families living with the conditions. Their advocacy and community support work continue to prove invaluable for patients, carers and healthcare professionals alike.
Like most of us here in Westminster Hall this morning, I was first made aware of PANS PANDAS UK when a constituent contacted me to discuss their case. Separately and much later, a dear family friend contacted me to say that her daughter had also been affected. I recognise many of the descriptions given by the hon. Member for North East Fife of the circumstances that they had to deal with at home. In my speech today I will set out three key issues that have become apparent to parents and interested professionals over the years: first, the misinterpretation of symptoms; secondly, the subsequent misdiagnoses; and, thirdly, the significant problems that such misdiagnoses cause for children with these conditions.
First, according to a survey by PANS PANDAS UK, 95% of GPs do not know about these conditions, and 19% of affected parents said that their paediatrician was aware of these conditions but considered it too controversial to diagnose a child with any of them. As a result, many children with PANS and PANDAS receive multiple diagnoses, often of more widely recognised conditions with overlapping symptom profiles, including anxiety disorders, sensory processing disorders, ADHD and Tourette’s syndrome; some 31% of children with PANS or PANDAS are diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder. That shows a clear lack of appropriate training for health professionals and means that the wide-ranging symptoms of these conditions are not being recognised as potentially linked to one of these conditions.
Secondly, continued misdiagnoses cause significant delays in the identification of PANS and PANDAS and the provision of effective treatment. Currently, there is no specific test that will prove or disprove the existence of the conditions, so a diagnosis must be made on the basis of an analysis of the patient’s medical history, a review of their current symptoms and a physical examination. Laboratory work and additional testing can be ordered to identify an infectious trigger, rule out other diagnoses and inform treatment plans, but all of that relies upon a clinician’s basic awareness of these conditions.
PANDAS is listed in the international classification of diseases by the World Health Organisation, and two sets of international peer-reviewed treatment guidelines exist. In fact, it is international clinicians currently working in this field who emphasise the importance of early diagnosis of PANS and PANDAS to reduce the risk of patients developing disabling chronic neurological conditions. Understanding the symptoms and detecting them early is crucial to patient outcomes.
Thirdly, we cannot underestimate the strain that these conditions place on parents, families and the children affected. Many families across the UK struggle to access any healthcare provision at all for these conditions on the NHS. In the same PANS PANDAS UK survey of parents that I referred to earlier, 47% of respondents said they had not received any treatment from the NHS and 37% said that, as a result, they have had to seek private healthcare Too often, access to adequate health provision for families depends upon a parent’s ability to carry out research and advocate for their child, and then fund private assessment and treatment.
As we have heard, the misdiagnosis and misinterpretation of symptoms has led to children being sectioned or admitted to psychiatric hospitals, and subjected to treatments that are ineffective, inappropriate or harmful. Families who have been rejected for referrals, or bounced between doctors and psychiatrists who are reluctant to consider a PANS PANDAS diagnosis or who are unaware of the conditions, must either watch their children deteriorate or somehow scrape together enough money to consult someone who has appropriate experience in the field. Private and overseas treatment must not be the only viable option for appropriate care in a nation that rightly prides itself on having an inclusive and accessible health service.
It is evident that significant change is needed in the UK to ensure that children receive timely and accurate diagnosis and the appropriate treatment and support that they need. We know that the underlying cause of PANS and PANDAS is suspected to be an abnormal immune and inflammatory response to infection, so my first request is that research into post-infectious disorders is given adequate funding and is accelerated across the UK. That is necessary if we are to see an improvement in the training and guidelines given to clinicians regarding these conditions.
Secondly, as the PANS PANDAS working group, we are pressing for the swift development of a UK-wide consensus on the treatment of children presenting with acute-onset neuropsychiatric symptoms. As I have already highlighted, without appropriate training and guidelines, UK clinicians are currently ill-equipped, so thirdly, we need to prioritise the development of clinical pathways to ensure that children and families do not continue to suffer as so many have suffered already.
I thank the UK Health Minister who is here today, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), for her interest and I invite her to meet members of the APPG, PANS PANDAS UK and representatives of parents to hear their experiences first hand. Listening to the experience of patients is the first step in ensuring both that they receive the support they deserve and that we can secure the changes that are needed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is indeed a pleasure to speak in this debate.
First of all, I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing this very important debate and for, as always, setting the scene so well. She and I may be from different political parties, but when we clearly agree on social issues, I am more than pleased to come here and support her. I added my name, as did others, to early-day motion 948, submitted by the hon. Lady to highlight the issue of PANS and PANDAS. It is a reminder that the census estimated that between one in 200 children in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are subject to this condition. The numbers are not minuscule; it resonates across the whole UK.
PANS and PANDAS are two related paediatric disorders that can have a profound impact on a child’s life. Those who have spoken before have outlined examples and interventions to illustrate the case being made so well. There is currently no uniform recognition or treatment for the condition, as the hon. Lady set out in her introduction. Although the World Health Organisation guidance recognises the condition and recommends treatment with antibiotics, that has yet to be adopted by the NHS. The Minister knows I have a fondness for her as a Minister. I know she does well and that her instinct is to respond well and to answer the questions that we ask. I look forward to hearing her response.
The NHS not recognising these conditions leaves families devastated as they struggle for treatment. Some families have said that they have been referred to CAMHS as an alternative to NHS treatment. That is not always the most appropriate treatment, by the way, but at least there is some response. Others have outlined the symptoms that PANS and PANDAS can include. We probably have all recognised them in our constituency cases, whether it be OCD, tics, restricted food intake, development regression, anxiety, depression, irritability—even hallucinations and delusions. Those are so great that they cannot be ignored.
The hon. Member for North East Fife sent us some information at our request, which we appreciate. That illustrates the issue the hon. Lady wants to put forward, so we can support her from a constituent’s point of view. When I read what the hon. Lady’s constituent, who is suspected to have PANS and PANDAS, had said, there was a real disconnect given that health is devolved.
The hon. Member for North East Fife referred to the comments of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), which I know, without even hearing those words, will also support the points of view that we are putting forward today. The devolved nations must now fight harder for an approach.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Briefly on the devolved nations, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that we need to work with our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, MSPs, with Members of the Senedd of Wales and, if it deigns to sit, Stormont, where MLAs need to reform themselves to make appropriate health policy for devolved nations.
Jim Shannon
I absolutely do think that. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. At the end of my contribution, I was going to ask for that very thing. The hon. Gentleman has reminded me and the House of the importance of all the devolved nations working together, in tandem and alongside the Minister here at Westminster.
The symptoms of PANS and PANDAS can make education and school life difficult for children and young people. I know education is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I believe there is a need for the two Departments to work in tandem. Schools have a duty to support children and young people with medical needs, and that wee bit of extra support must be there for our young people. PANS PANDAS UK has been providing free and online CPD-accredited training for a wide range of professionals, including educational psychologists, specialists and support teachers. That is indeed a much welcomed step.
Will the Minister reaffirm what the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire said in his intervention: ensure that at Westminster the evidential and factual base and the information that the Minister has in her Department is shared with the devolved Administrations? I believe that sometimes here at Westminster, the Government should drive the policy for the devolved nations. I know that matters are evolving and that responsibility lies with the devolved nations, but the Government will not find us wanting. They will not find the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly wanting when it comes to working collectively to make life better for our constituents.
We are discussing a devastating condition, which impacts children and their families. The NHS must do more to support parents in learning how to cope with it, and research must be better funded to assist with diagnosing the condition. There is much more to do to support those with the disease.
I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife for raising the matter today, and every right hon. and hon. Member who has contributed through speeches and interventions, and those who will contribute shortly. I look forward to the shadow Ministers’ contributions and particularly to that of the Minister. I say to her that the eyes of all of us will be upon her as the Minister, and upon the Government, looking for the response that we hope to receive.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for bringing the debate to the Chamber.
Like all Members who have spoken, I am grateful to the PANS PANDAS UK charity for its definition of paediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome. It helpfully describes it in a leaflet as a syndrome that
“involves a misdirected autoimmune process that affects or weakens the blood/brain barrier. The region of the brain primarily affected is basal ganglia which is responsible for the following functions: movement, cognitive perception, habit, executive, ‘logic based’ thinking, emotions and the endocrine system.”
It is useful to put that helpful definition on the record.
I have been in correspondence with the Department on behalf of my constituents on this matter for a while. I had a helpful letter from the Minister on 16 May, for which I am grateful. I was pleased that, in that letter, she informed me that the World Health Organisation had recently added PANS and PANDAS as a discrete disease entity to its international classification of diseases in its 11th revision, ICD-11. The Minister went on to say that the NHS would need NICE to step forward with recommendations and a proper research base. I was therefore disappointed to read in a follow-up letter from NHS England on 26 June that:
“There is currently no specific prescribed service for this condition”,
even though it is an internationally recognised disease. The letter continued:
“It is not NHS England’s role to develop clinical guidance”.
The letter stated that that rested with NICE.
The helpful House of Commons briefing on the debate draws our attention to the fact that a lot international work has been done on this issue. In 2013, there was a PANS consensus conference at Stanford, one of America’s leading universities. There were therefore the beginnings of an international clinical consensus a decade ago. More recently, in April 2021, guidance was issued for the Nordic countries. The link is available in the House of Commons briefing pack. I have read the guidance in advance of the debate, and it covers Sweden, Denmark and Norway, though I note that there was UK research input into the study. It is clear about the definition and the recommended courses of treatment.
I commend PANS PANDAS UK, as all colleagues have done, for the two excellent information leaflets. One is titled “GP Information Leaflet”. After the debate I will be sending physical copies of that very good leaflet to all nine GP surgeries in my constituency. Doctors are very busy people, and they may have done their training a while ago, when this condition was not taught in medical school. They cannot know everything. Sending out that leaflet will be my small effort to ensure that GPs in my constituency have the best information.
I am grateful to Dr Andrew Curran, consultant paediatric neurologist, who is quoted in the leaflet saying:
“By the time parents get to me, they have usually diagnosed their children already and they are usually right!”
There is much helpful information in the leaflet, but I think this is its most important advice:
“Initiate treatment immediately—do not wait for test results”.
From what I understand, that would be provision of the relevant antibiotics.
As the hon. Member for North East Fife said, we must also be aware of the impact of PANS/PANDAS on the whole family. Another PANS PANDAS UK leaflet gives very good tips on how to support a child with the condition. It makes the point that these children are ill, not naughty. Is that not a terrible thought—that they might have been treated as naughty when they are actually ill? There is also information about supporting the parents, who will be under huge strain, and the siblings of children with PANS and PANDAS—we must remember them. It is a really practical, helpful leaflet. It makes the point that these families may have to cancel plans at very short notice and that their friends and family need to understand that, be supportive and make allowances.
I want to finish by reading out a short email that I received yesterday from parents in my constituency who have a child with PANS/PANDAS, because I think they put it really well. I will change the child’s name, but the email reads as follows:
“Sophie is currently in a PANDAS flare, she managed to get 2 hours of sleep last night, her anxiety was overwhelming and she broke out in hives, subsequently missing a day of school. The issue is, there is no one to turn to unless the private route is taken which costs thousands of pounds. Even then the NHS and schools are, the majority of times, not willing to accept the diagnosis as it’s been sought privately.”
Obviously, many people cannot remotely afford private treatment. The email continues:
“CAMHS…have discharged Sophie, there is just no support for these poor children and families suffering with PANS PANDAS.”
Sophie’s parents express hope that this debate
“will start the ball rolling to get the support we so desperately need in regards to a NHS treatment pathway and support in schools so that PANS PANDAS are recognised in their own rights as an illness which has a severe detrimental effect on children with the condition, not only on their mental health but also on their physical health.”
That is so well-written and powerful and makes the point extremely well. I hope the Minister has listened and will respond appropriately.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Thank you for allowing me to contribute to the debate, Mr Dowd. I apologise for being late; I was in an important Delegated Legislation Committee, but I am extremely pleased that the debate is happening and I thought that it was important to try to get here to hear everything that has been said.
I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing this debate to raise awareness of PANS/PANDAS, which sadly continues to be a poorly understood and widely ignored condition. Public awareness of this extremely serious condition remains incredibly low, despite the best efforts of campaigners, who I think we all agree do a brilliant job. Parents and children have to deal with the often severe symptoms of PANS/PANDAS, which are wide-ranging—that is clear from what has been said today—and can cause immense disruption that is difficult to live with. They also face barriers across our health system to get the support they need, as a result of the condition not being fully recognised, or perhaps not being taken as seriously as it needs to be.
I freely admit that I was not aware of the condition until relatively recently, when a constituent approached my office in relation to a child suffering from what she believed to be PANS/PANDAS. The child had been a happy, healthy, normal toddler but, following a bout of chicken pox at a young age, began displaying a number of unusual and alarming symptoms, almost out of nowhere. The symptoms persisted for the next seven years, curiously flaring up with each new infection. Symptoms include high levels of anxiety, aggression, reversion of speech and language, issues around food, obsessive behaviours, and losing the ability to write, among many other things.
Things came to head during the pandemic, when the child contracted covid alongside an infection in his nose. During the nine months that the infection persisted, the child could barely perform the most basic functions. They would get extremely upset and be troubled by persistent anxiety, or become aggressive, angry and destructive. They lost the ability to write, could hardly speak and struggled to eat. That resulted in a sustained period out of school and, as I am sure everyone here can imagine, immense strain and stress on the child and the rest of the family, as they struggled to control the symptoms and feared what could be causing such erratic and disruptive behaviour.
After nine months, the child finally underwent a procedure to remove the infection from his nose, followed by a course of antibiotics. Remarkably, within a week, he was back in school, reading, writing, socialising with classmates and showing every sign of once again being a happy, healthy child.
It is clear from that experience that PANS/PANDAS, or indeed any kind of infection inducing neuroimmune disorder, would be a strong candidate for diagnosis, yet the family have struggled to get the disorder recognised by clinicians and the NHS, never mind getting anywhere near a diagnosis and a treatment plan. A lack of clinical guidelines means that few clinicians across the NHS have even heard of the disorder. As a result, the tests and support the family so desperately need have not been forthcoming. That is despite the condition’s being recognised by countries across the world and by the World Health Organisation.
The struggle to get a proper diagnosis continues for my constituent. It has been suggested to them that the child may be autistic, but that simply does not stack up with the reality of the symptoms and the circumstances in which they appear. A false diagnosis would prolong the issue, potentially causing more complications, further hardship and distress for a family in desperate need of help and support.
My constituent has been forced to resort to seeking the advice of a private doctor here in London. The cost of travel from my constituency in the north-east, accommodation and the appointment itself is immense, and it is made worse by the pressures of the cost of living crisis. Incurring the cost of treatments that have been shown to be effective for fighting PANS/PANDAS is completely out of the question for my constituent and, I am sure, many other affected families across the country.
It is clear from this testimony and hundreds of others that it is time the NHS began to take the condition seriously and get families the support they need. On PANS/PANDAS Awareness Day back in 2020, PANS PANDAS UK claimed that 42% of paediatricians had never heard of PANS/PANDAS, 47% of people with the condition received no NHS treatment, and 95% said their GP did not suggest PANS/PANDAS when presented with their symptoms.
I am not here to chastise the NHS, which does a fantastic job under extremely difficult circumstances. There is an easy solution that can be worked towards to help the NHS to diagnose and treat patients more efficiently, while getting families the support that they desperately need. That would not only help patients and families to get on with their lives, but save us millions of pounds in the long run. Treatments could reduce the need for extra support and care for children and young people experiencing severe symptoms at a relatively low cost, reducing the strain on the NHS and adult social care budgets.
As more and more stories emerge of children suffering from PANS/PANDAS, it is only a matter of time until we can no longer pretend that the condition does not exist or can be explained away elsewhere. Let us put an end to that as soon as possible, get support to the families who need it and reduce the strain on schools, the NHS and social care services, which are all left to pick up the pieces.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting, and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing, this really important debate. I also thank PANS PANDAS UK for its briefing and for the work that it is doing to make more people aware of this terrible condition.
The hon. Member, in her very interesting speech, covered all the various things that families suffer when their children have PANS or PANDAS. It is terrifying for me, as a mother and grandmother, to listen to the horrifying stories from across the Chamber. I am a frequent visitor to Westminster Hall, but I have scarcely ever heard things more profoundly distressing or more echoed across the Chamber. There is a united presence here, and we really need to hear something from the Minister today.
I will not rehearse everything that the hon. Member for North East Fife and other Members said, but the fact that families are having to turn to private healthcare is really upsetting. I know from personal experience how difficult it can be to raise awareness of lesser known conditions and illnesses; I work closely with Sarcoma UK. Let me say this to the folk in the Public Gallery: “Keep at it—keep raising awareness. You have people on board here, in Parliament, and you just need to keep plugging away.”
Anything and everything that we say here today is important, and I know the importance of cross-party support. As the hon. Member for North East Fife knows, I am not in government, but my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) has been in touch with Scottish Ministers. I will also speak to our health spokesperson and I too can write to the Scottish Health Minister on this issue.
I understand how difficult it is for GPs to know everything. I am well aware that, with regard to sarcoma, I was very lucky that my husband’s condition was picked up by our GP. He has had only two cases of that in the last 40 years he has been in practice. For PANS and PANDAS, we need to get the message out there through training and by taking up the very good suggestion by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) that we should all send leaflets to our local GPs. As we say in Scotland, many a mickle makes a muckle. Even if we do only small things, we need to push forward with this.
I urge clinicians to recognise the condition, as that will help to ensure that NHS boards and trusts, and the equivalent in England, provide the necessary support. I also urge all parties—I can only do this in relation to Holyrood, for Members outwith the UK Parliament—to gain a better knowledge and understanding and really push the Scottish Government from that angle as well. I am sure that the hon. Member for North East Fife would agree that if folk, and MSPs especially, know about this condition, that will empower them to challenge the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network to ensure that people move this issue forward.
I think it is really important that the Minister responds to the points that have been raised. There are many people in this room—especially behind me in the Gallery—who want to hear what she has to say. Families across the UK need NHS help in their distress and for their children. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, and it is my pleasure to speak for the first time in my new shadow ministerial role.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), and thank her for championing this important issue, which she has eloquently raised. She has previously raised it on a number of occasions, and has in particular talked about her constituent, the nine-year-old girl who I believe is still facing this incredibly challenging condition. The hon. Member spoke on behalf of her constituents today, as other people in the debate have. She has been a champion on the issue by talking about how the conditions affect people—from raising it in Prime Minister’s questions and her work on the all-party parliamentary group on PANS and PANDAS, to securing today’s Westminster Hall debate. I thank her for her work.
I also thank everybody who has contributed to the discussion. They have also spoken passionately about their affected constituents. For example, the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) talked about her constituent Jack. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) talked about the chronic lack of awareness and about how getting a diagnosis is key, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar). I commend the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for his leadership in taking the time to circulate literature to GPs, who I am sure will find that information useful. I also echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery): this debate raises further awareness about the condition.
As hon. Members have mentioned, PANS and PANDAS are a set of conditions that result in an inflammation of the brain, which gives rise to an array of symptoms such as OCD, tics and dietary restrictions. It is a cruel condition that can affect a child overnight and out of the blue. The conditions are often misdiagnosed and blamed on bad behaviour or poor parenting. The symptoms can manifest suddenly and bring about profound life changes, as we know not just from the data but from the stories shared by hon. Members in the debate. I found it particularly concerning that as little as 10% of NHS doctors have heard of the condition. That means many children are being misdiagnosed and mistreated. The charity PANS PANDAS UK estimates that approximately 8,500 children experience the disorders. I send my sincere empathy to everyone who faces those challenges and all the families affected.
Those who need treatment and support face major barriers. There is currently no guidance for PANS and PANDAS written or endorsed by bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, NHS England or the royal colleges. As Members have mentioned, those barriers result in many families being forced to seek expensive private treatment to prevent further suffering.
Recent years have seen a number of important developments on the issue. In April 2021, the British Paediatric Neurology Association published a consensus statement that recognised the lack of high-quality scientific studies and urged
“further research so that robust treatment guidelines may be formulated.”
I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether she is aware of that and what engagement she has had with the British Paediatric Neurology Association on the matter. Late last year, the PANS PANDAS working group, in collaboration with the BPNA and others, began the process of developing standards of care, pathways and service models, which it hopes will assist all primary and secondary clinicians. The working group has also recommended that all NHS trusts develop a comprehensive cross-speciality and multidisciplinary team provision to support patients.
On top of that important work and collaboration is the effort made by campaigners to raise awareness of this issue. I thank all campaign groups, families, Members present and members of the public who have signed petitions or written to their Member of Parliament to bring this issue out of the shadows. Having heard from Members of different parties about the disease, the research and the stories of those affected, it is important that the Minister provides clarity about the Government’s position. She confirmed in an answer to a written question earlier this year that her Department had had no discussions with NHS England on the adequacy and consistency of treatment pathways for children living with PANS and PANDAS. Could she please confirm today that the situation has changed? It is also important to know what discussions are being held in the Department and with stakeholders on the development of care pathways for children and young people living with this condition. Finally, what steps is the Department of Health and Social Care taking to ensure that children and young people living with PANS and PANDAS receive effective, patient-centred care?
We must also consider the wider issues. The Government must acknowledge their failures over 13 years to support our health and care providers up and down the country. Patients face day-long waits in A&Es, a record number of workers are off sick, and millions are on waiting lists. In fact, not only are the Government failing on the Prime Minister’s pledge to cut NHS waiting lists, but they have presided over a disastrous decade of growing waiting lists and waiting times. Children suffering from PANS and PANDAS may have to wait many months for their first NHS paediatrician appointment. As stories from the PANS PANDAS UK charity have shown, that is exactly what is happening. Christopher’s parents say:
“The soonest NHS paediatrician appointment was 8 months away, so we arranged to see a private specialist who could help us. This was the best thing we ever did. We came away with answers to what was happening and a care plan, which our GP follows. At present we are still waiting for our first NHS paediatrician appointment.”
The reality is that we need a Government who will build an NHS that is fit for the future. Labour’s first goal is to deliver an NHS that is there when people need it. This includes doing all we can to get waiting lists down and getting people treated on time, just like under the last Labour Government. We have a 10-year plan for change and modernisation, which will include one of the biggest expansions of the NHS workforce in history. We also plan to put individual care and mental health treatment—an issue that has been in the shadows for too long—at the heart of our mission.
Labour’s approach will be different, especially for children and young people. A Labour Government will treat mental health as seriously as physical health. We plan to recruit over 8,500 more mental health professionals to cut waiting times for treatment. We will provide access to specialist support in every school, and every community will have an open-access mental health hub for young people. With Labour, more care will be delivered on people’s doorsteps, out of hospital and in the community. Most importantly, we will focus on prevention and a move towards transformational new technologies. It is Labour that has a plan and a mission to build an NHS that is fit for the future and there for people when they need it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and to respond to this debate. To be clear, I can respond only on healthcare services in England, and not on behalf of Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, because health is a devolved issue. I can, however, give a commitment to hon. Members that I am happy to work with colleagues in the devolved nations on this very important issue.
I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), to her place. It is slightly disappointing that she chose to be so political—I thought we had quite a good cross-party consensus in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for providing the opportunity to raise awareness of paediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome, or PANS, and paediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections, known as PANDAS.
We have heard from Members how important the issue is. I thank them for describing the experiences of their constituents and the issues that they have faced. I recently met the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on PANS and PANDAS, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), to discuss the lack of guidance on diagnosis, treatment and assessment for children who suffer from either of those conditions, and about the lack of awareness across the medical profession in all parts of the health service. I absolutely agree that we need more research and evidence to improve our understanding of the conditions and to better support the families affected.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister will have heard the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who talked about taking it on himself to send leaflets to his GPs to raise awareness. Does the Department have a mechanism for alerting all GPs to these conditions, which seem to be relatively unknown? If so, could GPs be encouraged by her Department to consider prescribing amoxicillin or a similar antibiotic at a very early stage, because that seems to be an almost risk-free option?
Maria Caulfield
The Department does not regularly write to GPs because the NHS is operationally independent, but NHS England does and we can certainly speak to NHS England colleagues. They send out regular bulletins on a range of issues to GPs, so I will speak to my primary care colleagues to see whether that is possible. We do not have enough information at the moment about how many children in the UK are affected by PANS and PANDAS. In the US, scientists have suggested that the prevalence there could be as high as one in 200 children.
We have specifically talked about the United Kingdom and England today. Although there is a classification now by the World Health Organisation, very few countries issue guidance on the diagnosis, treatment, assessment and management of PANS/PANDAS, because the scientific evidence is so sparse. When I met my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy, we talked about how we can get that evidence base so that we can issue guidance to primary and secondary care providers. We know that symptoms tend to come on suddenly.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) about the example of Jack and the difference that a diagnosis made. It is often following an infection that children who are healthy and developmentally on track suddenly start exhibiting OCD or other neuropsychiatric symptoms. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) is correct that very often a course of antibiotics can improve and tackle some of the symptoms that parents say can change a child overnight such that they can no longer attend school and are suddenly plagued by anxiety and other neurological symptoms.
PANS and PANDAS require a clinical diagnosis based on specific signs and symptoms observed by a clinician. There are currently no lab tests or biomarkers that specifically diagnose those conditions. There is also an element of excluding other diagnoses in the process of diagnosing PANS and PANDAS. That means other illnesses or diseases are considered first rather than assuming it could be PANS and PANDAS.
Although there are currently no national or European clinical guidelines on assessment, investigations or diagnosis, a multidisciplinary team referral often helps speed the process up. That is why we need our primary care colleagues to be aware that this could be the cause of symptoms and to get those referrals in as quickly as possible.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the Minister for her response. She mentions the fact that there is no lab test that can diagnose PANS/PANDAS, but is that not true for other neurological conditions that I mentioned, such as ME and some of the ongoing conditions that people are experiencing from long covid? Sometimes a lab test does not exist because of the nature of what caused the symptoms. Perhaps the medical profession and NHS England need to think slightly outside the box in their search for answers.
Maria Caulfield
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. NHS England has been happy to work on such issues with the working group. It is embarking on work to roll out a nationwide surveillance study designed to identify the signs and symptoms because, again, it is probably unlikely that we will reach a definitive test that will ever give us a diagnosis, and it is about matching symptoms with a diagnostic criteria. NHS England has committed to doing that, and the Department is happy to support it in its work.
There is the issue about how quickly antibiotics should be prescribed and dispensed, but while one antibiotic may work for one child, it may not work for another, and it is sometimes a case of trial and error before the appropriate treatment is found. Although there is an evidence base for the treatment of symptoms, such as obsessions, compulsions and tics, it is recommended that children and families affected should be offered evidence-based treatments. That is why we absolutely need to build that research base to provide evidence-based guidance to clinicians, whether they are in primary or secondary care. At the moment, NICE says that it does not have the evidence base to put that guidance together, whether that relates to psychological treatments or to medications such as antibiotics. The commitment I can give today is to push and work with the working group, organisations and Members in this place to try to develop that research base.
Robin Millar
I have been struck by a couple of things in the debate—one is the cross-party consensus, but another is the uniform distress that Members have relayed. On the point the Minister just made about whether treatment is psychiatric or medical, one of the key points is that PANS/PANDAS is often confused as being psychiatric when it is an infection that has proven susceptible to treatment with antibiotics. That is the kind of basic step forward that we are hoping for today.
Maria Caulfield
I absolutely agree. I acknowledge that while the symptoms mimic a mental illness, there is very often a physical cause for those developments. That is why we need to build that evidence base with research to back the guidance that we can give to clinicians who, as colleagues have said, may not be aware of the condition or how to manage it.
Training on PANS is now included in the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health curriculum. In April 2021, the British Paediatric Neurology Association issued a consensus statement with the faculty of child and adolescent psychiatry at the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Following concerns about variation in how it was being interpreted across the UK, the new PANS PANDAS working group, as we have heard today, which is being supported by NHS England, issued a statement recommending the development of appropriate service models and pathways back in February. I am keen that we support the working group in its important work bringing the key organisations together so that we can get that consensus out to clinicians in the field.
The work that the working group has done highlights that all children presenting with acute onset neuropsychiatric symptoms should receive a full medical evaluation and signposts clinicians to existing international peer review treatment guidelines. As I have said, while NICE currently has no plans to issue guidance, should the evidence base develop further, and should there be an opportunity to do that, we would look to update clinical policy. NHS England would then consider the development of care pathways for those living with PANS/PANDAS. The key is building that evidence research base.
We have the evidence to sufficiently demonstrate that PANS and PANDAS are discrete disease entities. I hope that answers the question by the hon. Member for North East Fife on whether we recognise that. We absolutely do, but we do not have the evidence and research base on assessment, diagnosis, treatment and management. However, the Department is funding research into rare diseases through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, which is spending over £1 billion a year every year on research particularly into rarer conditions. It welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, which would include PANS and PANDAS. Applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards made on the basis of importance to the topics of patients, health and care services.
The National Institute for Health and Care Research does not just provide funding; it will also provide guidance, whether for academics, clinicians, researchers, the working group, charities or any other organisation. I am happy to organise introductory meetings with the National Institute for Health and Care Research. It has met other groups to explore the types of research it would support and that would build an evidence base. I strongly encourage researchers with an interest in this area to come forward with proposals so that we can develop that evidence base and make real inroads.
Other countries are not necessarily leading the way. Not many countries have international guidance on the issue. I cannot remember which hon. Member referred to this, but the UK and the devolved nations have an opportunity to take a lead, build that evidence base and develop guidance on that basis.
I assure colleagues that I am committed to ensuring that those with PANS and PANDAS get the care they need. We need more high-quality research into these conditions. That is the only way we can get better outcomes for patients. I am happy to meet both the APPG and the working group to take this forwards, because there is an opportunity to develop our knowledge, increase awareness and ultimately to have better outcomes for those children affected.
Wendy Chamberlain
I echo the thanks given to all Members who have taken the time to attend. I do not want to suggest that the shadow Minister, the SNP spokesperson and the Minister did not want to attend, but it is striking that Back-Bench Members, including some who may not have been aware of the condition until recently, wanted to be here because, having been contacted by constituents, they now have a particular interest in the issue.
The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), who chairs the APPG—the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) was the previous chair—talked strongly about how symptoms are misinterpreted, which results in misdiagnosis or lack of diagnosis. MPs found out about this due to constituents getting in touch because of the stigma. I have engaged with my constituent and we have spoken about potentially speaking to the local newspaper. Indeed, we had an approach from a local television news broadcaster who said that they would be desperate to speak to the family. However, the stigma of this condition and the need to protect the child, who is not getting the support they need from medical professionals, are so strong that they feel that they cannot speak out publicly. I am therefore very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee that we have had the opportunity to do that.
The Minister’s response has been encouraging. If there is anything that I as a Scottish MP can do in relation to the Scottish Government, I am keen to help. We have ICD-11 from the WHO, and now we need to move forward as quickly as possible to build that evidence so as to give us everything we need, including the NICE guidance.
I intend to do the same as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). When the Minister writes to NHS England, I hope she will repeat her quote, which is in Hansard, that the Government recognise this condition. One of the challenges, certainly from the perspective of first-line practitioners, is that while people might get the support they need from their regular GP, another GP at the surgery might provide a completely different response. We should not need NICE guidance to address such inconsistency and lack of support—we should seek to address that now. I thank everyone again for their time.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered PANS and PANDAS.
Offshore Wind: Public Ownership
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the level of public ownership in the offshore wind sector.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. When a natural bounty is discovered, it is only right that a nation and its people should benefit from it, not simply corporations and investors. The fruits of land and sea should benefit all, not just the few. Scotland has been fortunate, blessed first with North sea oil and now renewable energy, in particular offshore wind, a further natural resource offering great opportunities and at such an extent that it should be transformative. A recent Prime Minister even used the phrase, the “Saudi Arabia of wind”.
Other nations have shown what can and should be done. Scotland discovered oil at the same time as Norway, but now Scots can look only with envy, not just at the standard of living of their Nordic counterparts but at the Norwegian oil fund. Now valued at $1.4 trillion, it is suggested that it owns, on average, 1.5% of every listed company in the world. The British National Oil Corporation was sold off, while Equinor, owned by the Norwegian state, goes from strength to strength. Funds that should have seen Scotland bloom were instead used by Thatcher to smash organised labour and by New Labour to wage illegal wars. That must not happen with offshore wind. The people of Scotland must benefit, not just multinationals.
Norway has shown what should be done with oil and gas. Denmark is showing what can be done with offshore wind by taking a 20% stake in every new offshore wind development—this is not North Korea, but a European democracy. It has not seen investors flee. This also shows that public ownership does not have to be just a state energy company operating sites, desirable as that is, but can include actions such as this, which ensure that people and their nation gain from their natural resources—benefits for the many, not exploitation by the few.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. The private sector will invest some £60.8 billion across the UK over the next five years in developing and operating offshore wind projects. Does the hon. Member agree—from the way he is talking, I think he does—that whether investment is public or private, all devolved nations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must benefit from any potential funding and that that would ensure a boost in jobs and increased sustainability for the renewable energy sector?
Kenny MacAskill
Of course; this should benefit our people. As I said, it is not just down to state energy companies, desirable though that is. This has to be done through the private sector, but as Denmark and Norway have shown, the state can take a share and state companies can be involved. That should be happening here, but the UK Government remain wedded to a privatisation route that has created a dysfunctional energy sector that we are all now paying for.
A Scottish energy company was promised by the Scottish National party and then shamefully abandoned. It must be delivered. Publicly owned and state companies are operating in the UK and the Scottish offshore wind sector. The absurdity is that they are neither Scottish nor from the UK. They are foreign state firms operating in Scottish and UK waters, delivering profits not for Governments in Edinburgh or London, but furth of these shores and with the wealth benefiting lands far from here.
Let me narrate the situation at the Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farm. Despite the Gaelic name, it is located in the firth of Forth, between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey). Pillars and turbines are now visible, and the energy is coming ashore at Innerwick, just along from where I reside in Dunbar. That is all good, we might think, but who owns it? It is operated by two state-owned companies. One is EDF Energy, the French state-owned energy company that also happens to own Torness nuclear power station just along the road and adjacent to where the energy comes ashore. State ownership is not opposed, it seems, so long as it is someone else’s.
The other organisation is the Electricity Supply Board, or ESB, which is the majority publicly owned energy company of the Republic of Ireland. The Irish consul general in Edinburgh tells me that ESB’s investment in the firth of Forth is that state company’s largest ever investment outwith Ireland. We have the perversity that the wealth and profits that are generated will not come to Edinburgh or London and will not benefit Scottish or UK citizens. Instead, they will flow to Paris and Dublin, and the citizens of Ireland and France will reap the benefit that nature bestowed upon us.
Of course, big energy multinationals are also involved: SSE, Scottish Power, which in fact is owned by Iberdrola from Spain, and BP, among many others. However, state-owned firms from other lands are also there and many of them are significantly bigger than the Irish Electricity Supply Board—I do not intend to denigrate ESB—which has done well to provide for Ireland’s people. It is a lesson that Scotland must learn. As in so many other aspects, our Irish cousins, although blessed with less, have delivered so much more.
Neart na Gaoithe is not alone in this charade, where a Government opposed to state-owned energy companies allows foreign state-owned energy companies to profit and perhaps even plunder with abandon. It is a dereliction of duty and the price is paid not just in the loss of profits, but in the scandalously high prices paid by struggling families who are trying to power their homes. Many of them live in places where they can see the turbines off their shores or where they are in the lea of those turbines that operate on the land—energy-rich Scotland, fuel-poor Scots, indeed.
It is not only France and Ireland that receive a warm welcome, despite the Government’s political antipathy towards a nationalised energy sector. Research by the House of Commons Library has disclosed that in UK offshore waters, the state-controlled Danish company Ørsted and the Norwegian state operator Equinor own the largest shares of UK offshore wind, at 20.4% and 9.2% respectively. UK public entities own 0.03%.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I will make two points and then I would like to put a couple of questions to the Minister. Today’s debate is very—
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. This is an intervention on the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), not on the Minister, and you will have to keep the intervention short as well.
Beth Winter
Okay. I will address the questions to the hon. Gentleman.
Hon. Members will agree that this debate is timely, following the confirmation last week that there were no bids for new offshore wind development in the latest auction round, which means that the Government are criminally behind the curve when it comes to reaching 50 GW of offshore wind power generation by 2023. That has resulted in delays for the Erebus wind farm in my country of Wales. First of all, does the hon. Gentleman agree that last week’s announcement demonstrated that—
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry—you will have to sit down, please. An intervention is made to ask a question of a Member; it should not be a small speech. It has to be very short, because the debate is only for half an hour. An intervention is not an alternative method of making a speech—it has to be a question.
Beth Winter
Okay. In terms of the future of wind energy and renewable energy in my country of Wales, does the hon. Gentleman agree that now is the time that the Crown Estate and its administration is devolved to Wales, as it is in Scotland, so that we can disburse the moneys as we see fit?
Kenny MacAskill
I think that where Scotland goes, Wales should follow. It is remiss that Wales does not have control over the money coming from the Crown Estate, and I certainly hope that Wales follows Scotland in that regard, as indeed the UK should in the establishment of a state energy company. The hon. Lady’s point is well made and correct.
I am concentrating on Scottish waters, where the Scottish Government’s ScotWind auction sold offshore wind farms at absurdly low prices, compounding the perversity of failing to deliver a state energy company, yet Scotland’s offshore wind resource has six state companies operating within it.
Along the A1 from Innerwick in Cockenzie, in my East Lothian constituency, energy will land from the Inchcape wind farm, which, again, is in the firth of Forth. Inchcape is owned by Red Rock Power, which is a European subsidiary of SDIC Power from Beijing. SDIC Power Holdings Co. Ltd is a listed company on the Shanghai stock exchange, but it is a state-controlled enterprise, with the Chinese Government holding more than 49% of its shares. The UK Government frown not just on public ownership, but on communism, yet it is fine for a state-owned company from communist China to benefit from Scotland’s offshore resource. You couldn’t make it up!
There are three more. Further north, Aberdeen offshore windfarm, off the Aberdeenshire coast, has 58 turbines turning and is owned by Vattenfall, thus generating wealth for the Swedish people. Vattenfall is 100% owned by the Swedish state. That shows that not just communist countries, but even ones with conservative Governments benefit from state ownership.
Sited further north of Peterhead is Hywind, a development in which Masdar holds a 25% stake, with 75% held by Equinor. Equinor is a Norwegian state energy company that benefits its people through the gas and oil resources in Norwegian waters, but adds to that through expansion into Scotland’s offshore wind. Again, Hywind is a joint enterprise, with two state-owned companies co-operating to exploit Scotland’s natural resource. Masdar, also known as the Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company, is a UAE Government-owned company, which is securing Abu Dhabi’s future, not Scotland’s.
In those fields—some already operating and others being developed—we have the absurdity of foreign state ownership of Scotland’s natural resource, and it is costing us. The organisation Common Wealth, in its paper “Power to the People: The Case for a Publicly Owned Generation Company” noted in 2021 that
“our energy bills combined with Contracts for Difference payments contributed £2.56 billion in payments to offshore wind generators owned by foreign state entities.”
Meanwhile, we are told that ownership does not matter, although it matters to the Governments of Sweden, Norway, France, Ireland, China and the UAE. They seem to see the benefit of not just managing their but our natural resource. Why? Because it underpins energy security, provides affordable energy for households and businesses, supports a just transition from fossil fuel to renewables, and allows for investment in technologies. All that helps hard-pressed households, boosts indigenous business and creates a more vibrant and competitive economy. It need not be outright ownership, welcome though that would be; as Denmark shows, a stake can be taken, allowing the nation and its people to benefit and prosper from their natural bounty.
It is about not just slippage of profits and wealth to foreign shores, but loss of control and influence over our natural resource. The evidence shows that we are losing out in more ways than simply the profit. Scotland is losing the turbine manufacturing. A few turbines are to be built at Nigg, but meanwhile hundreds of commissioned orders are going elsewhere. Yards such as Arnish and BiFab lie empty, even when proximate to the site. Not one turbine for a Forth field will be constructed in Scotland. Assembly is a poor substitute for manufacture, seeing lower profit and requiring less skilled labour. Every firth in Scotland should be manufacturing turbines and expanding to meet growing need, yet other than at Nigg, they lie idle and our folk face unemployment and our land a loss of skills.
Benefits from the supply chain is a mantra from the UK Government, shamefully echoed by their Scottish counterparts, but it is not borne out in practice. In my constituency, where the turbines offshore are visible and the horizon will change irrevocably, no work is being generated. What should benefit current and future generations instead sees folk unable to heat their homes and youngsters struggling to access skilled employment. Local business have not benefited and new businesses in the sector are not being created, either to deal with the offshore work, or to provide onshore opportunities through long duration battery storage or hydrogen production.
Let us look one of the sites owned by foreign state companies to confirm that. Neart na Gaoithe, which is owned by EDF from France and ESB from Ireland, is seeing the work go elsewhere. The turbines are being produced at Siemens in Humberside, albeit assembled in Dundee, with the foundations laid by Saipem from Italy. They are being taken out to the field by Fred. Olsen Renewables, and the cabling is being done by DEME Offshore from Belgium. Where are the contracts for Scottish businesses and the work for local folk?
There should be a Scottish state energy company and it should operate and take a share in all the fields that are being developed. Other nations do it and, as I have shown, are doing it in our waters. Denmark, with both its company and its public stake, is showing what can be done, just as Norway showed what could be achieved with an oil and gas bounty. Scotland has lost out on the former but must not do so with the latter. The bounty from the energy off our shores must benefit our people, not just corporations or even state companies from other lands.
The great Scottish comedian Billy Connolly penned a song, “Sergeant, Where’s Mine?”, describing the plight of a soldier with life-changing wounds reflecting on the prospectus the recruiting sergeant had first given him. Lying in his hospital bed he says:
“Oh Sergeant, is this the adventure you meant
When I put my name down on the line
All that talk of computers and sunshine and skis
Oh, I’m askin’ you, Sergeant, where’s mine”.
Well, all I’m askin’ you Minister, where’s ours? All that talk of the “Saudi Arabia of wind” and the work and the jobs, where are they? And when other nations, whether they are Ireland or France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway or China, have a share of our natural bounty, oh Minister, where’s ours?
I conclude by asking the Minister to confirm that his Government will neither oppose a state energy company nor Scotland seeking to take a share in its natural wealth. The absurdity of an energy-rich Scotland yet fuel-poor Scots must end. We demand a share and a stake in our natural bounty.
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your—as ever—sartorially elegant chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) on securing this important debate, and the hon. Members who have taken part in it.
The hon. Gentleman gave a well-constructed, well-researched and thoughtful speech from the particular political perspective from which he hails, and I thank him for it. He will be aware of the important role that offshore wind and other renewables play in delivering secure, domestically generated energy, and the boost that provides for economic growth across the UK. He is right that we must harness the opportunities of offshore wind for Scotland and maximise the benefits for our nations—whether that is Wales, Scotland, England or Northern Ireland.
Where the hon. Gentleman and I differ is on how best to exploit that opportunity from where we start. This Government believe that a state-owned model is not the best approach. I am sure that, if we had allowed some new state company to come in and dominate our offshore wind sector, we would never have seen the 70% reduction in the cost of offshore wind that we have seen over recent years. It was the contracts for difference framework that we created, which allowed companies from all over the world, state or non-state, to come in, that transformed the economics of offshore wind and opened up the potential for not only the UK but the whole world of this important technology in tackling net zero.
The UK market is open to offshore wind investment, whether from state-backed or privately owned developers, and it has been extremely effective. The success of CfD has been in leveraging private capital to support wider public benefits. Our market-friendly approach has transformed the economics, as I said.
The UK encouraged an estimated £50 billion of new investment in low-carbon sectors in 2021 and 2022 alone. We currently have 14.2 GW of installed offshore wind capacity, the most of any nation in Europe. The hon. Gentleman made many references to different countries, but we have more of it than anybody else, and we drove its changing economics by taking a competitive approach rather than a protectionist, state-run approach that would never have delivered such a transformation.
We are committed to our ambition of reaching 50 GW by 2030, including up to 5 GW of floating offshore wind. We have not only the world’s largest operational wind farm project—Hornsea 2 off the Yorkshire coast, which is named after a town in my constituency—but the second, third and fourth largest projects.
Graham Stuart
I will make a little more progress, if I may.
Properly regulated markets that incentivise private capital—or indeed state capital—to invest in the energy system provide the best outcomes for consumers. Market competition is the most effective driver of efficiency, innovation and value. Private ownership of energy assets improves performance and reliability, and offers consumers greater choice and higher standards of products and services.
Our free market approach means that we have a highly competitive offshore wind market, which benefits from the expertise and experience of developers from all over the globe. It has enabled significant decarbonisation of our energy system, with dramatic drops in the cost of renewables. In 2010, when Labour left power, this country had a paltry 6.7% of its electricity coming from renewables. That was shameful. In the first quarter of this year, nearly 48% of our electricity came from renewables. Ten or 11 years ago, nearly 40% of our electricity came from coal. Next year, that will be zero, again because of our market-friendly policies, which would be at risk were His Majesty’s Opposition to have their ideas for state-run energy companies wrecking one of the most successful markets in the world. All over the country people are benefiting from the growth of the sector, and the cheap, secure, low-carbon electricity it produces.
Scotland has already benefited from the opportunities in offshore wind. It is a shame the hon. Member for East Lothian could not bring himself to recognise any of that. With its strong winds and plentiful coastline, it has made a significant contribution towards our offshore wind ambitions: so far, 3 GW is operational or under construction, and more than 40 GW of capacity is in the pipeline. The opportunity is enormous. The Scottish taxpayer already benefits from the Crown Estate Scotland seabed leasing. All net profit from offshore wind leasing rounds and rent is passed on to the Scottish Government for public spending.
We welcomed the recent announcement of a potential £200 million investment in high-voltage direct current manufacturing in the highlands by Sumitomo of Japan, which could create up to 150 jobs. The offshore wind industry has also supported the revitalisation of ports from Wick to Dundee. A huge range of diverse companies in Scotland already benefit from the offshore wind industry’s growth: crane manufacturers, consultants, underwater operations experts, turbine maintenance specialists and more. We know that opportunity will only expand as we grow the industry further.
The UK, as I have said, leads the world in floating offshore wind, a new technology that opens up access to new, deeper areas of seabed. The Hywind Scotland project was the world’s first floating windfarm. Combined with the Kincardine project, also in Scotland, it has given the UK one of the largest amounts of operational floating capacity anywhere in the world, at 80 MW. The UK has the world’s largest floating wind pipeline, with around 25 GW already identified, including through the ScotWind leasing round and INTOG processes. That represents a huge opportunity for the Scottish economy, especially from installation and lifetime maintenance activities, which are best undertaken locally.
I suggest to the hon. Member for East Lothian that, if he is as passionately committed as he suggests to jobs and benefits for Scotland, he should not be sending a message that we want to deter foreign investment, but signalling that we welcome it.
Graham Stuart
I will in a moment, if time allows.
To achieve our deployment ambitions and secure high-quality local jobs, we must continue to build a robust and competitive UK offshore wind supply chain. We are focused on maximising the economic opportunity arising from our transition to clean energy. Our significant strengths, including in wind energy and innovation, mean we have an essential role in building those supply chains, as demonstrated by this Government’s investment to date.
Through the offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme, the UK Government have made available funding to support investment in major port and manufacturing infrastructure. We have seen more than £500 million invested by SeAH Wind and JDR Cable Systems in manufacturing facilities, which will create or safeguard up to 1,200 jobs. I want to see similar investments in Scotland. That is why we continue to work with industry as it develops a long-term industrial growth plan for the sector, following the publication of Tim Pick’s recommendations.
Government backing attracts the private investment needed to deliver net zero. That includes research and development, where we are supporting innovation in floating wind technology through the floating offshore wind demonstration programme. That uses £31 million of Government funding, alongside £30 million from industry, to keep the UK at the cutting edge of offshore wind innovation. We are not stopping there. Just two weeks ago, applications closed for the Government’s floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme, which will provide up to £160 million to kick-start investment in port infrastructure projects needed to deliver our floating offshore wind ambitions.
The hon. Member for East Lothian gave a passionate speech effectively opposing the world’s investing in our renewable energy, and in offshore wind in particular. I caution him to think again, send out a more positive line to the world and recognise the huge investment opportunities here.
Kenny MacAskill
Does the Minister recognise that everything that he has said about private sector investment can and does happen in Denmark, but Denmark has taken a 20% stake on behalf of the Danish people, as Norway has done for oil and gas? None of what the Minister has suggested is impossible in Denmark, and it is happening. Does he accept that?
Graham Stuart
Denmark’s situation, size and industrial history are very different from the UK’s. What I am saying is that the UK is a European and, indeed, a world leader. We have decarbonised more than any other major economy on earth, and we believe that it is making us the best possible investment environment. We do not see the advantages of taking the state stakes that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
It remains essential that communities most affected by offshore wind and its associated infrastructure can benefit from its deployment. We recognise, for example, that regional distribution charges particularly impact the north of Scotland. That is why our cross-subsidy scheme provides more than £100 million annually to protect electricity consumers in the far north. It is worth £60 a year to every household in the north of Scotland.
We also want communities and individual families that are not involved directly in the industry to see benefits. That is why we have recently consulted on proposals for community benefits for transmission network infrastructure, including in Scotland, because we are essentially rewiring the whole UK economy as we make this transition. We must do it at speed, but in a way that has community support and in which we recognise the impact on host communities. Developing transmission infrastructure, particularly between Scotland and England, will be key for unlocking the full potential of renewable energy, and offshore wind in particular. It will mean that we can get electricity from where it is generated to where it is needed.
Hon. Members will have seen that the first annual contracts for difference auction completed last week. I am delighted that it delivered a total of 3.7 GW of renewable electricity. Contracts have gone to geothermal projects for the first time. There are record numbers of tidal stream projects, in which Scotland is a major player; I was delighted to visit the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney and see so much of the significant work going on there. We also saw a doubling of onshore wind from last year’s record auction, and new solar. We hoped that offshore wind would be successful in this round, but we recognise that the challenging macroeconomic pressures felt by the industry around the world impacted its ability to come through the round successfully.
We are reflecting carefully on the results of allocation round 5 so that we make appropriate adjustments for AR6. That is how it works: we get data by trying to understand supply chain costs and commissioning research, but the most valuable data of all is actual behaviour in real auctions. That information will come into adjustments for AR6 to ensure that our evidence base reflects the true market environment. At the same time, value for money for the consumer through a competitive process remains an important feature of the CfD scheme, and I make no apology for always prioritising protecting the consumer. With annual auctions now in place, the allocation round is due to open in about six months, meaning that there is an opportunity to gain a contract with minimal delay to deployment for projects that were not successful this time.
This Government have made real progress in delivering the ambitions set out in the British energy security strategy and our “Powering up Britain” plan. We are committed to achieving our ambition of 50 GW of offshore wind by 2030. It has a vital role to play in delivering a decarbonised power system by 2035, subject to security of supply, and achieving our legally binding 2050 net zero commitments. We need to celebrate what we have done to date and recognise that most of the growth is not in the past, but in the future. The opportunities for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are immense, and we should work collectively to ensure that we attract investment and create as many jobs as possible in this country supporting the transformation of our energy system and our spearheading of the global move to net zero, which is so important to us and future generations.
Question put and agreed to.
Flying Schools
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered flying schools.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I am grateful to colleagues who have come along to contribute. On the face of it, this is quite a niche subject, but it has implications beyond constituencies, such as mine, that contain flying schools.
My interest is primarily because of Shoreham airport in my constituency—Shoreham airport, not Brighton City airport as it was somehow re-christened at some stage. It is the oldest commercial airport in the United Kingdom, founded in 1910, and the oldest purpose-built airport in the world still in operation. It mostly operates leisure flights. It has an art deco terminal building, often used for films and by air-related businesses. It encompasses helicopter training and fixed-wing pilot training.
Shoreham was known for its air show until the tragic air crash of 2015, in which 11 men sadly lost their lives and which I have raised before in the House. It was the end of what had been a very successful air show over the previous 28 years. Shoreham has had a flying school there since 1913, most recently operated by Flying Time Aviation Ltd, which was founded in 2006 but ceased trading in May this year. At its height, Shoreham was responsible for something like 6% or 7% of all the pilot licences granted in the United Kingdom. It was a very important place for people learning to fly.
As I said, my interest goes beyond Shoreham airport and my constituency. There are implications in what has happened there and elsewhere for the future of integrated flying schools across the country and the future capacity of the United Kingdom to train pilots sufficiently. No fewer than three major flying schools have gone bust in the last 10 months alone. The first, back in May, was the FTA flying school in Shoreham, which employed more than 12 instructors and had 160 students, typically paying up to £90,000 for a full pilot training course.
In November last year, Bournemouth Commercial Flight Training, the flying school at Bournemouth airport, founded in 2002, ceased trading. Tayside Aviation, based at Dundee airport—I am very pleased to see the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) here—founded in 1968, ceased trading in April 2023, just before Shoreham. It was a large training school, employing around 45 instructors, with 140 students. It offered pilot training for RAF pilots as well. This is a national issue. It is not just about Shoreham airport, which otherwise is a perfectly well-run airport.
Looking at the figures, we can see the looming problem. Back in 2015, around 2,500 commercial pilot licences were issued in this country. The prediction for this year is down to 500. We are losing a lot of capacity, and those three flying schools alone are responsible for a large chunk of that capacity. Hundreds of students are finding themselves seriously out of pocket because their flying school has gone down either before they started their course, having paid their fees up front, or mid-way through the course.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
One of my constituents is affected by this issue. He paid significant fees up front for flight training, and that money has seemingly been lost. It is an issue that the Department for Transport needs to address. More broadly, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, the aviation industry, which is central to this country’s trade and connectivity, will start to suffer if the problem is not properly fixed.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and near neighbour from Crawley who represents Gatwick airport. I know he can with us today only briefly due to a sitting of the Foreign Affairs Committee. One of his constituents contacted me, along with many other people from other constituencies who had relatives or were themselves being trained at Shoreham airport, then found themselves out of pocket with very serious financial implications. I will come on to what we need to do about that. It certainly has implications for capacity in the airline industry in the UK. If anybody knows about that issue, it is my hon. Friend, who represents one of the largest airports in the country. There is an angle whereby some of the commercial airlines may be able to help.
I am going to read out correspondence from some of those affected by Shoreham who contacted me. I invited a number of them to come and meet me in my constituency; we had a roundtable to hear some of their experiences and plan a way forward. It is my fault if Members have been contacted, because I encouraged people to contact their MPs to tell them about their experiences. That way we could get as many hon. Members as possible to put pressure on the transport authorities and others to look at the immediate problem, as well as address the longer-term implications and the weaknesses in the system.
I have also been working with the British Airline Pilots’ Association, which has been lobbying the Government for changes in the regulation of flight training schools, particularly to protect students who have made a big financial commitment and are, for all intents and purposes, completely unprotected. That is unlike the situation if they were at a university paying fees, or had other financial investments or obligations, which would be covered under Financial Conduct Authority provisions. The point I am making is that if someone is on a pilot training course, it is little different from any other form of tertiary education, yet it is treated completely differently from training on other expensive courses, such training courses for medics and lawyers. Pilot training is one of the most expensive training courses.
One potential protection that has been suggested, not least by the Minister and the Civil Aviation Authority, is that someone paying their fee could do so by credit card. The trouble is, many of the flying schools do not take credit cards. If someone has to pay £90,000 up front, not many people have got a limit on their credit cards that would allow them to pay it in one sum. That is not a facility that is open or practical for many potential students.
I wrote to the noble Baroness Vere in the Lords, who is the Minister responsible for aviation. I am grateful to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), for covering her position today. I am afraid that it took some months and a bit of chasing to secure a meeting, but I am glad to say we have now secured one for a few weeks’ time, and I will be taking a delegation along with representatives from BALPA to see Baroness Vere.
A statement from the BALPA interim general secretary, Miranda Rackley, rightly noted that there is no public funding for pilot training:
“Flight schools going bust is financially devastating to hard-working students who deserve to have their money better protected from flight school failures. Pilot training is amongst the most expensive training of all professions, and unlike other careers such as law and medicine, there is no student funding available…Many trainees resort to family support to fund their training, such as remortgaging family houses. Government needs to step up and protect students that are so vital to the future of the UK aviation industry.”
BALPA has given a number of examples, and I have some direct examples too. A couple from Worthing, in my constituency, had to raise £90,000 for their daughter to train as an airline pilot. The 19-year-old signed up with FTA at Shoreham, and had to make a downpayment of £10,000 and pay a further £4,500 each month. In late May the school went out of business, which left her parents with losses of £45,000. That is a lot of money.
I can give other examples. Somebody wrote to me to say that their son
“was extremely keen on training to work for an airline. Because of that I remortgaged my house to fund him and almost paid for entire lessons in advance. Now I have no money left to support him financially for his dream job, and I am stuck in a predicament in how to move forward with my son’s education”.
Somebody from East Sussex said:
“My son was a student pilot at FTA in Shoreham, which has gone into liquidation. We have lost over £80,000.”
Somebody from London said:
“I paid a deposit to start training with them”
—Flying Time Limited—
“due to Covid and the changing of the schools schedule they were not able to provide lessons. When I asked for a refund they said they will get back to me and a week later they sent an email informing me the school is closing. It’s extremely sad and I’m not sure what to do or where to start as I want to continue with lessons.”
A constituent said:
“I have now been offered a place at one of the big ATO’s to continue my flight training as the FTA Global syllabus has been approved by the CAA and my training records have been reviewed by the training team at the ATO. So I am now in a situation that I am out of pocket”
—but could be transferred elsewhere—
“and the only way to get back into training without significant time off (due to being recent on training) is by gaining some sort of financial assistance. There is also a time frame I would need to start the training hence why us students would really need assistance from the government.”
There is a particularly poignant one from a Newcastle resident, who said that
“we have lost £50,313 that we had paid into my son’s training. Since a very young age all my son wanted to do was to be a pilot. He is unable to go into the RAF as he has corrected vision…and so we focused on the commercial training route. I have worked for the NHS for the last 27 years and you can imagine we are not rich people. We are hardworking and will give anything we can to enable my son to become a pilot. My husband…used some of his pension money to help…pay the school fees…It is astounding to realise that someone can pay in so much money for their education only to lose it all and that there is no route for any recompense.”
Their son
“will no longer be able to become a pilot as we cannot financially afford to fund a full course again. The failure of FTA has devastated my son and he no longer knows how to move forward in any career path.”
Here is another one from Uxbridge:
“I am a pilot student who was learning an integrated course at Flying Time Aviation limited in Shoreham-by-Sea. The course cost around £78,140, excluding the accommodation and cost of living”
On top of the fees, students have to fund living away from home and their general living expenses as well, which are not taken into consideration. The letter continued:
“The payment was made in 12 monthly instalments after paying an initial deposit of £14,190. On May 22nd, I received an email from the director of FTA informing us about the closure of FTA. I had assumed that the company would have the decency to give back what they owed to the students... However, it was made clear that no refunds would be made at all at the meeting held the next day. This has not only left me but more than 170 students in debt…I received an email last week from the liquidation company, which shows that the company owes me £65,500…however, with the company being extremely in debt, the chances of me and the rest of the fellow students receiving their money back are slim to none…we were only informed about the severity of this situation on the day they ceased trading.”
Finally, somebody from Kent said:
“I am one of the many who have been affected by this closure and have lost considerable amount of money and time—roughly £16,000 and only up until June to finish my flight training”.
There is a time consideration as well. People have 18 months under CAA regulations from the start of their course to the end and the examinations to complete that course. If people have started the course and cannot find or fund an alternative, they are right back where they started and that money has gone completely to waste.
I have taken up the case with Baroness Vere and the CAA, and they have both written back to me. The problem is that the CAA has oversight only of safety considerations and the quality of pilot training for flying schools, and has nothing to do with the finances or their sustainability, but surely the two are linked. There is growing evidence that the cash-flow problems that flying schools have had were leading to corners being cut, which could lead to compromised levels of safety, so financial sustainability is an important consideration in ensuring that flying training schools offer the full, safe and regulated pilots course that those students pay for.
Why do flying schools find themselves in this parlous situation? There are a number of reasons. First, they were hit hard by the pandemic. There was some support for them from the Government, but clearly flying training was not a priority at that time; indeed, much of it stopped for quite a long period. Secondly, flying schools are very dependent on fuel prices, which have rocketed because of events in Ukraine. The third consideration is that, perhaps uniquely in Europe, flying training courses in this country are subject to VAT, which is a large premium on top of already large fees. That does not happen in most if not all other European countries, where flying training is quite rightly treated as being educational, so is not subject to VAT.
I would like the Minister to comment on that last point. Does he think that flying training is a form of education and training, which the Government quite rightly encourage? If so, can he say why it is being treated as just any other sort of consumer item on which people are liable to pay VAT? That does not seem right.
There is also a Brexit element, which I am sure will greatly encourage the hon. Member for Dundee West. That is because previously flying training schools would only pay regulation fees to the CAA, but now, in some cases, if students have European pilots’ licences they will also pay fees to the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, or EASA. However, there is a Brexit bonus for pilots, which you, Sir Robert, will be glad to hear. Now that the UK has left the European aviation system, pilots are able to hold both a UK licence and a European licence, which was not possible previously under European regulations.
As a result of all these factors, many flying schools have had cash-flow problems, leading to claims that they have been demanding money up-front from students in order to keep themselves afloat. In the case of the FTA at Shoreham, it is claimed that it now has debts in excess of £5.5 million, including a £1-million debt to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, much of which will be accounted for by VAT liability. However, the FTA’s planes are all mortgaged and it has precious few assets, so it is highly unlikely that there will be anything left for the students who paid up-front or who are partway through their course; they will have to find a new flying school to transfer to, if they can afford to raise the necessary funds to do so.
As I have said, there is the added complication that this issue is time-limited, which is where I think the CAA has a far greater role to play. There are concerns that the CAA has not been as proactive as it might have been in trying to find solutions for some of the students at FTA, including reconsidering the way that exams are held and considering whether there can be any flexibility in that regard, particularly for those people whose course was delayed because of the pandemic; earlier, I cited the case of one such student.
There are also serious questions to be asked of the owners of FTA, who apparently were in touch with the potential receivers back in January, and there was also a reorganisation of debt liabilities to a new company, even though FTA was still taking up-front fees from students virtually up to the day on which it went under. As I have said, those students are not covered by basic Financial Conduct Authority protections, and the advice from the CAA and Ministers has been that they should pay with a credit card which, as I have also said, is not very practical. Consequently, those students are not covered by the protections in section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 that other credit card purchases would attract. The FTA flying school in Shoreham was a key academy, offering a European flying licence, and it looked like one of the safer and more sustainable flying schools. Consequently, its closure has shocked the industry and clearly other flying schools remain vulnerable.
When I wrote to the Minister, Baroness Vere, her response, as I have said, was that
“the extent of the CAA’s regulatory oversight of flight training organisations is limited to ensuring each organisation complies with specified safety requirements, including suitable training to an agreed safety standard.
The CAA has no direct regulatory oversight of the financial health of a flight training organisation or of the individuals operating within that business, and any proposals to grant these powers to the CAA would first require the Department to consider amending existing legislation, through its rule-making programme, to introduce such powers. In this regard, any changes to the scope of the CAA’s role and functions would likely require a process of developing and consulting on new draft regulations, new regulatory guidance, training for CAA inspectors and the establishment of a framework for regulatory oversight and insurance of the initial and ongoing financial resilience of flight training organisations.”
Right—let’s do it, because, as I have said, all of that will be needed before long if we are still to have a flying school business left in this country in the future.
BALPA contends that the CAA has a statutory responsibility, under retained EU law, to operate an ongoing oversight programme for UK-approved flight schools, which includes requiring “evidence of sufficient funding”. BALPA does not believe that, to date, the CAA has discharged that responsibility diligently or at all, and I agree. There is a financial oversight aspect of the CAA’s regulatory role. Clearly, demanding fees up front to keep operations afloat does not smack of flying schools having sufficient funding. The CAA needs to step up and step in.
BALPA has been working with students to introduce protections to avoid some of the disastrous financial consequences that have befallen students at Bournemouth, Shoreham and Dundee. Specifically, it has brought in its finance fairness charter, under which it asks that, as dedicated approved training organisations, flight schools
“commit to a fundamental principle of not accepting advance payments or deposits from cadets that exceed”
a certain amount
“for training services. This financial limit aims to assure cadets while promoting fiscal responsibility.”
Additionally, it asks that ATOs
“pledge to furnish cadets with comprehensive information regarding payment alternatives if available, further underscoring transparency in line with these commitments”
and
“pledge to extend the convenience of payment by credit card without imposing any undue surcharge providing the cadet with additional consumer protection.”
The BALPA charter adds:
“Transparency is paramount. ATOs undertake the commitment to furnish cadets with accessible information pertaining to their training programs, associated costs, payment protocols, refund mechanisms, and all pertinent terms and conditions.”
That seems perfectly sensible to me, and I hope the Minister will consider taking it up with the CAA. One person who has been caught up in all this wrote to me, referring to the
“seemingly disinterested attitude the CAA has taken towards investigation of misuse of Student monies”,
with the CAA just rolling out the excuse that that does not come its remit, when many of us think that it does.
“For many pilot hopefuls,” BALPA says,
“the costs involved in attaining the necessary qualifications have meant going to extreme measures to secure the funding required, including re-mortgaging family homes”—
I have given examples of that—
“taking out multiple un-secured loans, maximising limits on credit cards and/or borrowing sums of money from family, far exceeding any normal student borrowing.”
It adds:
“In the UK, a trainee professional pilot is not viewed in the same way as a student in any other field or profession. In 99% of cases in the UK, a trainee professional pilot does not even qualify for student status.
For too long, trainee pilots have been viewed and treated as customers. They are students in education, investing in their futures and they are the future of the UK’s aviation industry.”
I wholly agree.
There is another issue, which I referred to briefly: VAT. Interestingly, this point was raised by the now Defence Secretary in a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in June 2018, when he was on the Back Benches. He asked the Chancellor,
“with reference to Strategic Review of General Aviation, published by the Civil Aviation Authority in July 2006, whether his Department has conducted a review of whether the current VAT treatment applied to flight training places UK flying schools at a competitive disadvantage to those based in other countries; and if he will make a statement.”
The Treasury replied:
“The government does not hold information on tax revenues that can be broken down to assess the impact of tax on flight training.”
This is not a new issue and many senior colleagues have raised it in the past. I cannot stress enough the financial impact that these closures have had on students who have saved or begged families hard to train as pilots to fulfil their dreams. Why do we not treat flying schools like any other places teaching students in tertiary education, rather than treating students as consumers of a product that happens to be a training course? Why is flight training subject to VAT in this country, unlike anywhere else in Europe?
Having said that, the consequences of the recent closures go far beyond the implications for individual students who find themselves severely out of pocket and need protections. BALPA says that we also need new protections to help secure the training pipeline of commercial pilots to aid forward planning for airlines. We need those new protections to prevent the loss of foreign investment from airlines investing in the UK’s highly experienced flight training industry. We used to be the pride of the world and many foreign pilots would come here for their training. We need new protections to support smaller airfields across the country that support thousands of skilled jobs, including flight instructors, engineers and air traffic controllers.
Today, I received a note from Airlines UK, which makes some interesting observations. Of the 15,295 holders of CAA-issued commercial pilot licences aged between 18 and 64, only 2,954 are under 30, while 3,500 are between 51 and 64. We have an ageing population of pilots who are already trained and working. In the last decade, the total number of UK commercial pilot licence holders fell by 10% and the number under the age of 30 fell by 4%. Airlines UK therefore supports many of the proposals made by BALPA, including that we should remove
“VAT from pilot and air traffic control officer training”;
that we should
“enable student and/or other self-funded options to be used for courses to qualify as a pilot”;
and that there should be an update of the apprenticeship levy
“to enable employers to overcome existing barriers to use apprenticeship funding for pilot and ATCO training.”
We should bring together people from the Department for Education, the Department for Transport and the Treasury, BALPA, and the rest of the airline industry, which plays a role because it is the beneficiary of pilot training—the bigger airlines do not tend to pay for some of this training, but I think they have a role too—to find an immediate solution for those prospective pilots left severely out of pocket, and to introduce financial protections to ensure that that is highly unlikely to happen again, and to ensure that there is oversight of financial sustainability and that the CAA, or an alternative body, can regulate the future of flight training schools.
Without that, we will have an awful lot of students who find themselves at a loose end, unable to fulfil their dreams of becoming the pilots that this country desperately needs. There will also a big confidence issue for pilot training in the United Kingdom. Other countries send their students to this country to train, but people from our own country who want to train as pilots will not be able to do so in the United Kingdom, either because of a lack of capacity or because it is too risky, so they will go abroad and decide to stay and work there, and we will lose them.
There is a severe risk to the UK airline industry unless this situation is sorted out urgently, and that is my ask of the Minister and his colleagues. This issue has big implications for the flying industry in the United Kingdom and a big implication for a lot of the students represented by hon. Members here today. It cannot be ignored any more. I hope that in our forthcoming meeting with the Minister she will be able to progress some urgently needed solutions to the problem.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for raising this matter and putting on the record so skilfully the perplexing and, in many respects, heartbreaking saga that students are going through.
Although this is not a registered interest, I declare that my son is a trainee pilot. Thankfully he is not in one of the schools that have been mentioned in this debate. He has nearly completed his training. He is currently in the United States of America finishing his night school training for jet aircraft and hopes sometime next year to be a pilot flying the skies around the United Kingdom and Europe. I wish him all the best, because I am immensely proud of him for the job that he has done.
Considering the points that have been raised in the debate, I feel for the parents and the students. The sagas described by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham are personal lives; they are the stories of young kids who dared to dream, who wanted to get their jet licence, who wanted that as their career, and whose mothers and fathers sacrificed everything for them. We heard about parents putting houses on the line and remortgaging to facilitate that for their children, because they believed in them, and then that being cruelly snatched from them. There is no chance that they will get to start again, get a refund, or get picked up and taken on by another school. Their stories are heartbreaking.
I know that the Minister is a passionate man and that he will care about those individual stories. They are the lives of young people. They are the future of our nation’s aviation sector. If we do not put this right, we will suffer consequences down the line—and very quickly. One airline has something like 500 pilot vacancies over the next two years. Those must be filled. Anyone who has recently been at any of our local airports will know of the delays and the lack of crew availability, and the problems that those things cause. We need to fix that now, because we are an island nation that relies on aviation not just for passenger travel but for cargo travel and postal access. As a nation that relies on aviation, we will feel the consequences if the matter is not fixed immediately.
Pilots are necessary to our economy, and the training pipeline put in place by a number of these schools is crucial for economic growth and development. The smaller airfields across the United Kingdom where a number of these pilots initially trained will also feel the impact and could be damaged. A number of private and smaller airfields across Northern Ireland, which have been the incubator for young pilots, are at risk, and it is the same for smaller airlines and airfields across the rest of the United Kingdom.
A number of things need to be done, but it is important to reiterate this point. As a parent who had to pay the deposit for my kid’s training, I could not pay it on a credit card. There was zero protection. It was an eye-watering amount: the first deposit was just shy of £15,000, and in some instances deposits are not refundable. People are really staking a lot on these companies. I remember going around the banks with my son and saying, “Can this young lad get a loan? I believe in him.” No—he was not getting a loan for a pilot’s licence. I took him to inquire about whether he could get a student grant. He is a student—he is doing a degree alongside his pilot’s licence—but no, he could not have a student grant at all, for any part of it. Mummy and daddy would have to pay for that. It is a big decision when you put your house on the line and say, “I’ll remortgage the house to get that person the career that they need.”
As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham indicated, when training is cruelly snatched from kids in circumstances like this, it not only wrecks their lives, dreams, hopes and aspirations, but it devastates their parents. The fact that the money paid in for the student cannot be protected needs to be fixed. There are no refunds for an aviation course after the first £10,000. As I said, the initial payments are eye-watering—and those are just the fees. My son trained at Gatwick for the first nine months, so he had to live in London. He had to pay fees, living costs and all the rest of it. Other kids across the United Kingdom are faced with the same thing: they have to come down to Gatwick or one of the other big airports, live near it and pay their fees and living costs. They get zero support, whereas other students get reduced rates, railcards and all sorts of other things. Trainee pilots do not benefit from any of that, and they have to pay for food and board on top of all those fees. Banks will not give a loan without an asset being put up.
A number of asks have been outlined, but I want to ask the Government to look at incorporating trainee pilots into the student loan system, so that they can get a loan that is paid off more easily. They will move into a bracket whereby they are able to pay off such loans, so they should be regarded as worth backing. They will probably be able to pay off the loans more quickly than students who do an arts degree. Trainee pilots do a necessary qualification that takes them into a sector that the economy actually needs. Something should be put in place to allow the Government to say that the student loan system can be used for trainee pilots. That is a reasonable ask, and it is something the Government should look at.
I agree that the civil aviation sector must do much more. After all, all pilots are trained initially by civil aviation, and it is civil aviation that they benefit. Something must be done, not necessarily to step in and save flying schools that have become failed businesses, but to save the students, help them to progress in a much better way, and help them get what they are entitled to: a very expensive but very beneficial thing called a commercial pilot’s licence for jet aviation, which is essential for our economy. I appeal to the Minister to look at the points that were raised by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, to see whether there is some way we can help students who are directly affected by the flying school closures, and to look at the wider picture for aviation students going forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on leading it, setting the scene extremely well and outlining the issues.
I give special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), whose son is training to be a pilot, and I hope that one day we will both be in a plane of which he is the pilot. We look forward to that accomplishment. My hon. Friend put forward our request that trainee pilots be part of the same system as students, because it is a simple system and easier to regulate. The wherewithal to do that is already there. Being a pilot seems to be a vocation. If we do not make preparations now, we could find ourselves in a position whereby we might not have the number of pilots we need.
As someone who flies twice a week to get to the House, I have the greatest respect for our pilots and airlines. It is important that we do more across the UK to better support and fund flying schools for trainee pilots, so today’s debate is very important. I want to make a case and give some specifics for Northern Ireland, as I always do.
My constituency, which is rich and diverse, has its own flying clubs to train pilots, and we are fortunate to have them training at this very moment. One of the flying schools in Strangford is called the Ulster Flying Club, located in Newtownards. I have had a relationship with it throughout the years I have been a councillor, a Member of the Legislative Assembly and an MP. The club holds open days every year and other events, and it is very much an integral part of the community. It trains trainee pilots to be pilots.
I know of one constituent who just completed 10 flying lessons when he was only 13. That was because a provisional pilot’s licence was available. It is often the first step in becoming a commercial airline pilot. It is just fantastic that so many training grounds offer an opportunity in aviation for those of all ages who are interested. My own son was interested at one time. It may have been a “flight of fancy”, if I can use that terminology, but at one time he wished to be a pilot. I think what put him off was the cost factor. Also, he met his future wife and she had different ideas. It was one or other of those things that changed his opinion, but the fact was that the opportunity to be a trainee pilot at Ulster Flying Club in Newtownards was one of the options considered.
Whether a provisional pilot’s licence or a pilot’s licence is purely for leisure and recreation or because of professional interest, it is great that such openings are available for our young people. I encourage them all to take up the opportunities. I congratulate the Ulster Flying Club in Newtownards on its clear commitment to try to make that happen for all—not just for the constituents of Strangford but for those further afield. I was in contact with the British Airline Pilots’ Association ahead of this debate, and it made me aware of its role in protecting young, aspiring pilots and supporting the aviation industry in general.
To be specific, I agree that we must have better financial protection for trainee pilots, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham set out so well in his introduction. In 2023, three UK flying schools have collapsed, which is devastating not only for the aviation industry but for the trainee pilots, who in some cases have paid tens of thousands of pounds in advance fees. The hon. Gentleman gave a number of examples of that. One that I read about in the information I was sent was of a young girl who had paid some £90,000, which is an incredible loss. It is quite unsustainable for any young person and for the family—the bank of mum and dad—to stand over that. They then have to face the fact of the vocation they had chosen not being achievable.
There is absolutely no doubt that we as policymakers in this place have a responsibility to support young people in their career choices, especially one where the financial aspect is so huge. The smaller airfields—such as the one in my constituency of Strangford—support thousands of skilled jobs, including those of engineers, air traffic controllers and trainee instructors. All these things have to be paid for. I am very fortunate that the Ulster Flying Club has such member strength and is so strong. It has lots of adult pilots who have their licences and it has a strong youth section as well. But it takes money to keep it all going, so we must invest in these facilities and not risk their closure altogether.
BALPA has recommended that the Government regulate such that an ATO’s ongoing approval requires it to take advance payments or deposits from consumers in instalments no greater than £5,000, or perhaps 5% of the total course cost at a time. That is something to look at. I look to the Minister to consider these proposals and see whether something can be done. Can this be regulated? Can it be done in a different way? Clearly, if action is not taken, we have a severe problem. As stated by other Members, the financial burden is just huge, and to ask a young, aspiring pilot to risk that after the closure already of three schools is a massive ask for anyone and for their family.
I have always been a big supporter of encouraging young people to pursue their dreams in terms of their careers. We as parliamentarians in this House and also as parents—as a grandparent in my case—have a duty, I believe, to encourage our young people to do so. How many times have we been at a careers event, or how many times have we been speaking in a school, where we have encouraged young people to achieve their goals? If they have a dream—a goal that they wish to achieve—we encourage them to reach out and grasp it. If we say that, we have to mean it in this place as well, which is why we look to the Minister for help.
We have the second largest national aerospace industry in the world—after the United States—here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Whether our flying schools are teaching young people to fly purely as a hobby or preparing them for a life in which they are flying planes for some of the biggest airlines globally, this industry must be supported by the Government in order to ensure that young people—our future and, indeed, the Government’s future—are not let down but have the financial means to learn, without the worry of closure.
I very much support what has been put forward. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and look forward to those of the shadow Ministers. We look to our Minister for a response that gives us the reassurance that we can then give to our constituents.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for securing this debate that allows us to discuss what is a wide-ranging and important topic, given the number of flying schools that have closed over the past 12 months and the impact that has had on those affected by the closures. Unfortunately, like others who have already spoken, my constituency of Dundee West has direct experience of that, and its situation has many parallels with what other Members have described.
With great sadness, Tayside Aviation in Dundee, one of Scotland’s leading flight schools for more than 50 years, went into administration and ceased trading in April. At the time of the school’s collapse, around 60 trainee pilots were either participating in or enrolled in training, with fees paid in advance. As we have heard, unlike for most other career paths, student loans cannot be used to fund flying training. The likelihood of the payback of student loans from a pilot career is arguably greater than many others, and that anomaly needs to be fixed.
Furthermore, pilot training is uniquely subject to VAT in the UK, whereas it is exempt in other countries. That is astonishing, because it is about education. We are taxing those who often take loans from their parents an extra 20%, on top of fees that could be upwards of £70,000 or £80,000. The Minister will surely agree that we need a level playing field. Charging VAT limits the number of people who can afford flying as a career path and increases the numbers who choose to train abroad, thus reducing the viability of training schools in the UK.
The costs associated with flight training are very significant and have to be wholly met by the trainee pilot. They encompass tuition fees, aircraft rental, exams and licences. For many aspiring pilots, realising their dream of taking to the skies comes with a hefty price tag. The closure of Tayside Aviation left numerous trainees in a dire situation after investing significant sums of money in their training, only to see their dreams shattered.
It has been reported that some students have lost upwards of £50,000, with no indication of whether they will receive any of it back and their future career ambitions now in jeopardy. In one instance, a trainee made a £6,000 payment to Tayside Aviation just five hours before the company went bust. Although some who paid using credit cards have been successful in clawing back some of their moneys, most will receive very little of what they paid. Many families were in contact with me about their individual cases, and I share deep concern and sympathy for those who, for instance, had to remortgage homes to fund their training and were subsequently affected by the business’s collapse.
The lack of financial regulation in the flying school industry exacerbates the financial risks. Unlike many other educational institutions, flying schools are not subject to the same level of oversight and financial protection measures, which begs the question: why? Trainee pilots are left without adequate safeguards to protect their investments when a flying school faces financial difficulties. In the case of Tayside Aviation, trainees are left with uncertainty, struggling to recover their investments and unsure of where to turn for support. In a recent letter to the Transport Secretary, it has been noted that the potential sum owed to the customers of now-defunct flying schools is estimated at around £4 million.
Furthermore, the schools often required advance payments because of the elevated risk of insolvency. Disturbingly, anecdotal reports suggest that certain flying schools refuse to accept credit card payments for such advances, as we have already heard, leaving consumers without the protection afforded by the Consumer Credit Act. This concerning situation underscores the need for greater financial safeguards and transparency in the aviation education sector to protect the rights and investments of aspiring pilots.
Although flight schools fall under the regulatory purview of the Civil Aviation Authority, it is crucial to note that that oversight primarily covers safety measures and the quality of pilot training. It does not extend to monitoring financial stability or providing protections for would-be pilots. To enhance consumer protection and financial transparency in the aviation education sector, it has been suggested by representatives of BALPA, Wings Alliance, Flyer magazine and Bristol Groundschool that the CAA should consider implementing specific requirements as part of a flying school’s approval process. Requirements could include limiting advance payments from consumers to a maximum of £5,000 and mandating the availability of credit card payment options without additional surcharges. Sounds perfectly reasonable, surely?
Additionally, the CAA should conduct a comprehensive review of its oversight procedures for flying schools, aiming to ensure full compliance with retained EU law. Furthermore, the establishment of a dedicated consumer protection scheme, akin to the ATOL—air travel organisers’ licence—scheme for package holiday customers, could be explored to safeguard the funds of student pilots and provide them and their families with greater financial security.
The demise of Tayside Aviation has been of detriment not only to its trainees but to the city and its wider economy. Tayside Aviation supported 22 full-time jobs and delivered the RAF air cadet pilot scheme. The collapse also threatens to undermine a key project in the Tay cities deal. Tayside Aviation played a pivotal role in the Tay cities initiative to establish an aviation academy for Scotland. The project aims to cultivate a proficient workforce comprising aircraft engineers, air traffic controllers and emerging pilots. With a budget of over £8 million, the initiative seeks to enhance infrastructure and foster the seamless integration of aviation education and training at local, regional and national scales.
The lion’s share of the investment is designated for Perth College and its subsidiary, Air Service Training Ltd. An allocation of £2 million was specifically earmarked for the Dundee campus of the aviation academy for Scotland, to be operated by Tayside Aviation. The Dundee campus would have a primary focus on delivering comprehensive training programmes for aspiring pilots and future air traffic management professionals. It is therefore imperative that a flight school at Dundee airport is re-established. I firmly believe that the facilities there remain an attractive proposition for any prospective buyer, including airlines looking to train their own pilots.
Moreover, the viability of the airport itself is dependent on its regular use, through flying clubs, education and training and the maintenance of commercial passenger routes. Bearing that in mind, the UK Government must recognise how vital it is that the public service obligation for flights between Dundee and London is renewed at the end of next month, when the current contract ends. Historically, the PSO has been funded by the UK Government, the Scottish Government and Dundee City Council. The case for the continuation of the PSO has been accepted, which has allowed the competitive tender process to commence. However, no confirmation has been given in respect of future funding for the PSO. The total tender amount is expected to increase, so it needs to be affordable for all parties.
The PSO underpins the wider activity at Dundee airport and is vital to its future success and connectivity. It makes the city and the region more attractive to investors, businesses and tourists. Analysis has shown that the economic benefit brought by the PSO has the potential to be six times the cost of the PSO contract. First, in principle, do the UK Government continue to support the Dundee-to-London PSO? If so, do they recognise the importance of the Tayside Aviation flying school, alongside the route, to the future of Dundee airport?
Secondly, subject to detailed assessment of tenders received, will UK Government funding for the PSO continue at the same level and increase if necessary? Given that it is a PSO route, what further steps can the UK Government take to support the viability of connectivity between Dundee, Scotland’s islands and the rest of the UK?
Furthermore, recognising the importance of the PSO to the operations at Dundee airport, is there scope to explore further revenue funding to support the PSO through the Tay cities deal, as part of a wider Dundee airport project, should there be a funding deficit? I have written to the Minister responsible for aviation to request an urgent meeting to discuss this issue and to look for a way forward for both the flight school and the PSO, so that they can secure a future at the airport. I would be grateful if the Minister could address those points.
Finally, with flying schools closing, airports and routes at risk, and the number of UK commercial pilot licence holders down 10%, we do not want to be in the same situation as the USA, where regional air services have been decimated by pilot shortages and more than 100 small communities have lost some or all of their air services in the last two years.
Our airports and airlines and the people who work for them are vital for domestic and international connectivity, which we value so highly. The loss of flight schools does not involve simple cases of enterprises going out of business. The closures are devastating to the careers of potential pilots, who have had to invest huge sums of money that are not expected of those in other professions. Flight schools are crucial to the aviation industry and, as outlined, critical to the success of smaller airports throughout the country. It is essential that would-be pilots are supported properly and that flights schools are regulated properly, enabling trainees and the industry to have the confidence and certainty to succeed.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert.
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on the powerful personal testimony that he brought to us of constituents and others affected by the closure of flight schools. I also congratulate the hon. Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on their testimonies. For one moment, I thought the Democratic Unionist party was getting on a biblical stage—the tale of two sons, like Cain and Abel, one becoming a farmer and the other a shepherd. One will become a pilot and, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, I wish that son well in his endeavours.
We are in this debate because two flight schools have closed, one at Dundee airport and the other at Shoreham airport—I say that before I am admonished by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, as my notes call it Brighton City airport—which is a sad loss of the jobs for trainers and staff. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, we have a world-class aviation sector in the UK, and we want to keep it that way.
The closure of those valuable facilities most severely impacted the aspiring student pilots who were just setting out on their careers. The closures left them and their families seriously out of pocket, as we have heard. Commercial pilot training can cost up to £150,000 and is not currently eligible for student funding, which is available for other professions such as law and medicine. With no mechanism for student finance, many aspiring pilots take extreme measures, such as multiple loans and—when they can—credit cards, borrowing from friends and families or, as Baroness Vere said as Aviation Minister back in 2019, relying on the bank of mum and dad to get through training.
In May this year, the Government published a report called, “Addressing the cost of pilot training”, which was a fascinating 62-page read in preparation for this debate—
Mike Kane
I thank the Minister for his support on that.
The report highlights the fact that the lack of diversity and the barriers to access are something we all agree on. This is in no way data, but in my capacity as shadow Aviation Minister I attend many events and conferences, and I am still surprised at the lack of diversity in the industry. I get the irony of somebody who looks like me saying that.
To return to the collapse of the two flight schools, the amounts owed to the individual students affected is about £4 million, with an average individual loss per student of some £90,000. That money is unlikely ever to be recovered, as some flight schools do not take payment by credit card—as has been pointed out—so the consumer protections afforded by that method of payment have not been possible. In addition to that, the students are unsecured creditors, so there is no legal requirement for them to be repaid the money—morally, however, that is another issue.
In the decade since 2007, the average cost of initial pilot training in the UK increased by about 54%. Various academic and industry studies undertaken on pilot recruitment have noted that of the thousands of potential pilots who start flight training every year, about 80% leave. The failure to fund tuition fully is cited as a major reason for the drop-out rate.
Research commissioned by the Department for Transport showed that increasingly dynamic market conditions in the light of covid-19 meant:
“Training organisations and airlines suffered financially from lack of operation during the pandemic and lockdowns”.
There is little doubt that being unable to operate would impact on such businesses. For example, Lufthansa Aviation Training suspended its training from the beginning of the pandemic. Interestingly, Lufthansa was able to offer all its 850 students full refunds. I wonder whether the chaos in the sector and the refusal by the Government to offer a sector-specific deal might have added to the knock-on effects we see now.
The heavy reliance on self-funding creates barriers to entry to the pilot profession, disproportionately affecting some demographic groups more than others. Only 6% of pilots worldwide are women, and just 4% are from BAME communities. How can that be? I would be interested to find out the figures for children of a traditional working-class background who cannot rely on the bank of mum and dad. Kids like me ruled out ever becoming a pilot, because there was not, and clearly still is not, a route for working-class children and children with no access to credit who were unwilling or unable to go into debt to fund the training. If I may, I will quote Baroness Vere again: back in 2019, she said that
“social mobility is a fundamental right and it should not be that some people are blocked out of entire careers just because they don’t have the ‘Bank of Mum & Dad’”.
The cost of learning to fly not only plays a key role in limiting the pool of talent that the profession can draw on, but hampers the diversity of the pilot community. There was an attempt to address diversity in the pilot workforce with the creation of a first officer apprenticeship, which is a level 6 qualification that involves training as a co-pilot over a two-year period. Although the scheme is welcome, it is flawed by its very design. Industry sources have said that the £27,000 funding cap is not sufficient to cover flight training. Furthermore, apprentices cannot be asked to take on debt to supplement their training, which puts the onus on the airlines. There are restrictions on bonding apprentices to training providers, but airlines are likely to be unwilling to invest sufficient sums of money in a person who might leave immediately on qualifying. Almost by design, the scheme is flawed.
Moreover, there is a concern that the cost of training to secure a pilot’s licence in the UK may begin to put UK airlines at a competitive disadvantage relative to counterparts in the European Union, where pilot training is less expensive. Other changes have an impact on that situation: since the UK exited the EU, potential non-UK candidates now require settled status to live and work in the UK. In addition, those undergoing pilot training in the UK will be required to sit additional exams to get additional licence approval, which has additional cost and time implications for students. Taking those matters into consideration, there is a real concern that trainees will opt out of a UK licence and fly on an EU licence only, which will significantly reduce the pool of pilots available here. A 2020 study shows that the emerging shortage of qualified pilots is a high priority for airlines. Respondents to the flight operations survey noted upcoming pilot shortages as a top five focus, and 22% said it was their leading focus.
The collapse of the schools only serves to highlight a number of issues in flight schools and wider issues with pilot training: flight schools’ operating models, funding for aspiring pilots, lack of diversity in the workforce and the complexity of the first officer apprenticeship scheme, which by its own construction and in its current format is destined to fail. There is much to be done to ensure that the job of a pilot is open to all, not just to those with a well-resourced bank of mum and dad. I look forward to the Government’s acting on the recommendations of their own report, “Options for addressing the cost of pilot training”, and ensuring a pipeline of talent from all demographics.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Sir Robert. I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) on retaining his place in the shadow Transport team. It has been an interesting debate, and I am grateful to colleagues for their contributions. Aviation is a very important sector and is a matter of local importance in the constituencies involved.
Let me start by reiterating the apology that my noble Friend Baroness Vere gave to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I know that she and he are to meet in a matter of days, and I look forward to that being a constructive and engaging conversation. I am delighted to respond to his concerns in this debate. As he will know, the Government regard the aviation sector as an important strategic asset. It contributes at least £14 billion to our GDP every year and supports some 230,000 jobs across all regions of the country. We recognise the sector’s importance both geographically and economically.
It is important to focus, as hon. Friends have done, on the dire impact of training operators’ failures on the students involved. There is a tremendous human cost, which has been brought out well during this debate. I have a particular sense of identification with it because I have a pilot’s licence myself, although tragically it has long since fallen out of use. It was paid for not by the bank of mum and dad but out of my own earnings, in case Opposition Members were wondering. I am the son of a pilot, the brother of pilots, the nephew of a pilot and the grandson of a pilot, so I have a very considerable personal understanding of the issues involved, as well as the ambition, inspiration and joy that flight gives young men and women across this country, as it has done for generations. I fully recognise the point that the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East made about the increasing importance of a relentless focus on improving diversity in the sector. He is absolutely right about that, in every dimension.
Having said that, what we have here, as far as I can tell, is the disorderly liquidation of three local aviation training operators. That carries with it tremendous disruption and difficulty, and it exacerbates the impact because an individual can literally turn up one day or—as colleagues’ constituents have done—receive an email saying that the institution to which they have confided their hopes, their dreams and a lot of money has gone, completely unexpectedly and without any notice, into liquidation. They may, and in many cases will, receive back none of the money that they have already contributed.
When we think about the wider picture, however, it is important to put things into perspective. May I offer the Chamber a correction to a number that has been used? In 2023—I am advised by civil servants that this is true—there were 11,675 applications for training across all licences in aviation. We are talking about terrible local impacts on a relatively small number of people so far and three failures of ATOs among some 270 registered flight schools across the UK. That is not to derogate for a second from the tremendous importance and extreme sadness and in some cases grief that has been inflicted; it is only to say that making general rules on the basis of a relatively small portion of the whole sector is something that one needs to bear in mind. When we think about the enormous sums that have been lost in some cases, we are talking about people who are in commercial licences at the very top of the pyramid and are therefore as close as one could be to potential long-term gainful employment.
I will come on later to what the CAA is doing and the suggestions that have been made, but let me just pick up on a couple of points that, rightly and importantly, have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. He is right that the pandemic had a difficult impact on the aviation industry generally and on the training sector. As he will recall, the Government made every effort, at considerable cost to the taxpayer, to support institutions, companies and individuals throughout the air transport sector. That amounted to something like £8 billion of pandemic-related support and included support through loan guarantees; support for exporters; the Bank of England’s covid corporate financing facility; the coronavirus job retention scheme, for which I was responsible; the Treasury’s furlough scheme; and the airport and ground operations support scheme. A tremendous amount of specific support for the sector was given during what was a completely unexpected and dramatic change in our business, social, personal and economic arrangements. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on that; he is also right that fuel prices have gone up, which will have had the effect of driving prices upwards.
However, as a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I do not share my hon. Friend’s view that a cut to VAT would be the answer to the problem. There is a very simple reason for that. There are many cases of sectors in the UK economy that have called for VAT cuts. In a very small number of cases, because VAT is by design a broad-based tax, reductions have been made to levels of VAT. Very often, they have not been passed on as any kind of saving to the end user; they have gone to support the margins of the company. In the training operator business there may be some value in that, but it is the normal course of things that in a competitive private sector industry there will inevitably be organisations that for various reasons do not manage themselves effectively, or go bust for other reasons.
Tim Loughton
I am slightly disappointed by the Minister’s comment. This is not a huge mass industry; it is not beyond the wit of a regulator or of the Treasury to ensure that VAT savings are directly passed on, or else the companies would not be eligible. Even if the Minister will not consider this for the future, does he not think that there is a moral case for students who have lost their fees and are severely out of pocket at least to be refunded the VAT element that they paid, which has gone or may still go to the Treasury for a service that they have not received?
Jesse Norman
I am not making policy from where I stand; I was speaking as a former Treasury Minister about the general attitude towards VAT and the general problem that no Government of any stamp can compel a private company to pass a saving on to consumers. Indeed, whether or not savings are passed on is itself a function of the competitive conditions in the sector. I will come on to what the CAA can do later in my remarks, but although I understand my hon. Friend’s concern about the cost of VAT, let me remind him that the taxpayer will be a significant loser from the failure of these companies. I recognise a certain strength in his point about individual students being recognised; if he wishes to raise that point with the Treasury or with Baroness Vere, he is very welcome to do so. However, the general policy, as far as I am aware, is the one that I have enunciated for the Government.
Chris Law
I am trying to reflect on what the Minister has said about VAT, and specifically on one of the clear points that has been raised. We are at a competitive disadvantage because we charge but no other country in Europe is charging. If we look at the decline in flying schools and the issues with financing to go and study in the first place, and then someone is being asked to pay 20% on top, what is to stop any young aspiring pilot from saying, “Wait a minute, I’ll just go to Europe where I won’t have this extra 20% surcharge”?
Jesse Norman
Of course individuals are welcome—and will want—to consider all the options under all circumstances, but I have not accepted the hon. Member’s narrative that the sector is in decline. We have had three important local failures of flying schools, but in general the sector has rebounded remarkably well from the pandemic. I would not accept that it is in decline; in fact, in many ways it has made a robust recovery.
In his own remarks, the hon. Gentleman highlighted the failure of Tayside Aviation. As far as I understand it, however, it would absolutely have been within the power of the Scottish Government not to change VAT, but to provide some grant intervention to Tayside Aviation had they wished to do so, either as an education provider or under the heading of industrial strategy, both of which are devolved areas. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to comment on whether the Scottish Government had considered that, either as a matter of intervention at the time or now, in order to support Tayside Aviation if it wished to get back up as a trading entity.
The hon. Gentleman does not respond. Let me press on. The question is what we can do to support students under the very difficult circumstances in which they have found themselves. The CAA has responsibility for flight safety rather than for the financial wellbeing of the flight schools. Nevertheless, I think it has understood and recognised that there is every benefit to the UK in seeking to retain the value of students’ training so far. It has therefore enabled the transfer of training records to other ATOs so that, wherever possible, training is not lost. It also lies within the CAA’s power to extend the 18-month period in which students can restart their training; it can do so on a case-by-case basis for anyone caught out by exam timescales or other aspects.
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East mentioned first officer apprenticeships. I do not share his rather negative approach. This is an important development, which can itself be further built on. It may not provide the full total towards the training, but it is a very substantial contribution. It remains available to sponsors of apprenticeships, beyond the individual students, to support—as they do in other industries—students who wish to complete the training under that framework.
It is also important to say that treating ATOs as higher education providers would carry costs to them. They would be required to register as higher education providers with the Office for Students. There would be a number of regulatory burdens that ATOs might wish to take on, but they might very well decide that they did not want to submit to them. Some of those would address the issue of concern here, for example through student protection plans, compliance with consumer protection laws, Ofsted inspections, quality and standards assessments and the like. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham may wish to pick up that point with my noble Friend Baroness Vere when he sees her. It is a matter of empirical investigation whether ATOs would be interested in registering as higher education providers with the Office for Students and whether they would treat it as a competitive trading advantage.
Ian Paisley
I understand and appreciate the Minister’s Treasury background. Does he accept that the student loans scheme is an investment in the value of what an educated person brings to society? We recognise the value of an arts degree, which we relate to salary, and that is very commendable. We recognise that for a pilot, it relates not the school they go to, but to the individual. A pilot will be in the higher echelons of earning, probably from day one, in a jet company. Surely the Government recognise that giving them a soft loan under the student loans scheme would be of great benefit to society, because society would get the money back more quickly. Is that not of value?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that interesting question. I have already talked about one scheme that has a similar approach—not a loan scheme, but an apprenticeship scheme. However, for a loan as he has described, the problem, which I have raised, would be the need to register with the Office for Students. As one goes up the flight training tree, one gets further away from basic education and closer and closer to a commercially valuable proposition that it is in the interest of companies in the aviation sector to support and finance. There may well be other things that can be done.
Ian Paisley
It is not unlike a doctor or a lawyer as they get further up the commercial tree in their training—it has that cross-application. A pilot may be training in instrument rating and instrument readings, which is a skill like an engineering skill.
Jesse Norman
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting and somewhat philosophical question. I do not intend to get enormously technical on this issue, but the reason why, in the case of doctors, for example, this support has been given is that historically these doctors then go and work for the majority—perhaps all—of their careers in the NHS, in the discharge of a public function. If doctors left immediately to go and join commercial medical organisations, which an increasing number are, it might well be that, in some cases, from a public sector perspective, the philosophical question whether or not they should be supported by the taxpayer would be raised. I think we are in the same space of discussion; that is interesting.
I will say a couple of other things, if I may. Of course, the Department is working with industry and the Education and Skills Funding Agency on the first officer apprenticeship, as I mentioned. That, I think, has an important role to play in this.
Let me just pick up one other little thing that was just raised by colleagues before I close. The hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) raised the question of PSOs. Of course, that does not directly have anything to do with this debate, but it is important. Let me just say that the Government recognise that PSOs are important to meet regional connectivity and levelling-up objectives. As I understand it—and I think he said—Dundee City Council has recently undertaken a tender for a new contract on the route from the end of October, and the Department has said that it will consider the application. It is obviously not appropriate for me to prejudge that in a debate today in Parliament, but the Government are very much looking forward to seeing that application and will judge it, of course, on its merits, in the usual way, in due course. With that, I think I will sit down.
Tim Loughton
I will not take up too much more of the Chamber’s time, because I spoke fairly extensively to start with, but I would certainly like to thank hon. colleagues who have brought to bear their own experiences and those of their families, particularly from the Northern Ireland angle, and from Dundee and the large and important training school that the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) spoke about in detail.
As I started by saying, this is not a localised issue; it is a UK-wide issue, and we have had three parts of the United Kingdom represented in contributions today, for which I am grateful. But I must say that I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. I fear that he spoke rather more with a Treasury hat on than with his more recent Transport Minister’s hat on. He does seem to be in a state of denial about a very real and serious problem, which is recognised by the industry. He just does not seem to acknowledge that flying schools are in a state of decline and the number of pilots that they have the capacity to produce is substantially declining.
I quoted, again at the outset, that around 2,500 pilot licences were granted in 2015, whereas this year, they are anticipated to be one fifth of that, at 500. That is not a healthy, vibrant business as it stands.
Jesse Norman
I do not think that that number is correct. Let me put that on the record.
Tim Loughton
Okay, well, those are the figures that have been provided by those in the industry. The three flying training schools that have gone under produced many hundreds of pilots a year. That represented a substantial part of the capacity within the United Kingdom. Therefore, I am afraid that this is not a localised problem, involving just a few individual schools. There are serious fears for the sustainability of many of the surviving large schools in particular.
I will not rerun all of the issues that we came up with earlier, but there are serious problems that I hope we will be able to air in more detail when we meet the Minister about the immediate problem of the hundreds of students who find themselves without a course, without the funds to find an alternative course, and without an awful lot from the CAA. I am afraid that that has been the experience, hence the request for the CAA to step up and step in rather more proactively than it has. We need an acknowledgment that students who pay fees up front are vulnerable to the flying schools going out of business, and are without the protections we take for granted when we buy goods and services or embark on educational courses elsewhere. Again, I take issue with the Minister’s challenging that this is some form of education. The clue is in the title: these are flying schools, which are training people, in the air rather than on the ground, to provide a vital public service on which this country relies.
It is not just the training schools and their immediate employees that will be suffering. It is the local economies—the economies of smaller regional airports that rely on the flying training schools for a great deal of their revenue, from touchdown fees or the purchase of kerosene. That is often the most profitable part of the business of those small airports and crucial to their survival, not least my own in Shoreham.
Contrary to what the Minister says, the implications go beyond just the three individual cases of flying training schools that have gone under in the last 10 months. I am grateful that we have had this airing of an issue that has not had a great deal of publicity but which has a great many implications, well beyond the constituencies represented today and the three specific training schools I have mentioned. I hope we can take those points further when we meet the noble Baroness, which I think is next week. I will be happy if any colleagues here wish to join me in that delegation along with BALPA. I am grateful for the time in the Chamber.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered flying schools.
At-risk Academics: UK Support
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK support for at-risk academics.
Yesterday evening, I was privileged to attend a remarkable 90th anniversary event hosted by the Royal Society and the British Academy. In 1933, the skies over Europe were darkening. The Nazis had come to power in Germany and were already making racial discrimination against non-Aryans, principally Jews, part of their state policy—the early steps on the road to the holocaust. One of the first such steps came on 7 April that year, with the passing of the so-called “law for the restoration of the professional civil service”. An innocuous title covered a grim reality. The law forced out of their posts civil servants of non-Aryan origin, primarily those of Jewish descent, together with members of political organisations that were deemed to be hostile. Jews, other non-Aryans and political opponents were also barred from holding positions as teachers, professors or judges.
Up until then, the German educational system, and especially its universities, had been among the best in the world. Leading German academics were outstanding in their fields and had many contacts and connections with their counterparts in the UK, yet the new law meant that many faced immediate dismissal with no prospect of further work in Germany. Happily, the reaction of their colleagues here in the UK was immediate and decisive. The prime mover was Sir William Beveridge, then the director of the London School of Economics, who happened to be in Vienna that April and was horrified to hear about the purge. Returning home, he immediately began to create an organisation to raise funds to help its victims.
The result, on 22 May 1933, from the rooms of the Royal Society at Burlington House the founding statement was launched of what was initially called the Academic Assistance Council, or AAC—a major initiative of which the UK can rightly be proud. In just a few weeks, 41 university chancellors and vice-chancellors, distinguished professors and other public figures had come together to pledge support for the planned rescue of their colleagues and counterparts in Germany. They included no fewer than nine members of the Order of Merit and, I am pleased to say, a serving Member of this House, the then Conservative MP for Hastings, Eustace Percy. They defined their mission as
“the relief of suffering and the defence of learning and science”.
It was a mission to save not just the individuals and their families, but also the hard-won knowledge and skills held within their heads.
The founders’ appeal for funds immediately bore fruit. Between May and August 1933, the AAC raised nearly £10,000 to get its work off the ground—about £900,000 in today’s values—and much of that came from UK academics. In the following six years until the outbreak of war, the AAC—later called the Society for the Protection of Science and Learning or SPSL—and its individual council members helped between 1,500 and 2,000 academics to escape from Germany and other countries under fascist influence or control. Their contribution to the arts and sciences here in the UK and elsewhere proved to be immense: 16 of those helped by the AAC/SPSL later won Nobel prizes, 18 were knighted and over 100 became fellows of the Royal Society or the British Academy.
Ninety years on, sadly, many academics around the world are again at risk. Some are caught up in conflict. Their universities may have been destroyed or left without power or water, making productive work impossible. Just getting to and from work may now mean running a gauntlet of rival militia gangs. Others face violence or persecution at the hands of repressive regimes or extremist groups, which see a free-thinking and free-speaking academic as an intolerable challenge to their authority.
As we know, women in Afghanistan can no longer go to university at all. In certain countries, academics are in serious danger because of their sexual orientation. Elsewhere, those who defend democracy and denounce state corruption are subjected to arbitrary arrest and physical violence, as happened as recently as July to Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu, a renowned senior visiting fellow at the London School of Economics, who was seized in Azerbaijan while visiting his mother and, disgracefully, is still incarcerated. It is therefore just as well that the organisation originally founded to rescue academics from the Nazis is still at work today. Now known as the Council for At-Risk Academics, or Cara, it is busier now than at any time since the 1930s, fielding hundreds of applications for support, especially from Afghanistan, Ukraine and the middle east, but also from many other countries around the world.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The right hon. Gentleman and I are well aware of the situation of Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu in Azerbaijan. He is a distinguished academic, proud of academic independence and the objectivity of his work and studies. He will not be intimidated by anybody regarding what he writes or how he writes it. He is in a difficult situation at the moment, and I would be grateful if the Minister could assure us that the British Government will do all they can to ensure that he gets the medical support and attention he needs, as well as to ensure his right to pursue his profession and live in peace.
Sir Julian Lewis
I entirely agree with everything the right hon. Member says, and I told a special adviser before the debate that I would be mentioning this case. I understand that there has been a statement of concern from four countries—the US, the UK, France and Germany—about this case, and I hope that those in power in Azerbaijan will take the representations seriously.
My first contact with Cara came during the fall of Kabul in 2021, when a constituent sought my help to bring her sister-in-law, an academic opposed to the Taliban, to safety in the UK and to a Cara fellowship at the University of Southampton. The task was neither quick nor easy, but it ended successfully with Cara’s help. It is a pleasure to see the executive director of Cara, Stephen Wordsworth, present at the debate today. I am grateful to him and his organisation for all they did for my constituent’s sister-in-law.
Since then, I have drawn attention to Cara’s work several times and was pleased to table early-day motion 1188 in May, with the backing of 20 more MPs on both sides of the House, to mark the anniversary of its 1933 founding statement. That success for my constituent was just one of hundreds of cases with which Cara is dealing. The charity has steadily built up its support network of UK universities and research institutes, now numbering 135. Most of them host a Cara fellow, often several, and act as their visa sponsors.
The House should note that Cara fellows come on regular visas, not as asylum seekers, and, to their great credit, the supporting universities usually cover much or all of the cost of each placement. Thanks to that support, some 170 academics from all around the world are safe with their families on Cara fellowship placements in the UK. At any given time the Cara team are working to help place dozens more, while other new applications are being carefully sifted and assessed. Many of them will soon lead to successful placements. For each one who comes, however, another will apply and will deserve help.
We talk often about attracting the best and the brightest to this country. With the generous support of the UK’s universities and research institutes, Cara plays a crucial part in this endeavour—but with the important difference that were it not for Cara, these highly talented people would in many cases be destitute, locked up, badly injured or even dead. The work is painstaking and unrelenting, and it is carried out by just 14 people. The hope is always that Cara fellows will one day be able to go home safely, and some do, with individuals recently returning to Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, Turkey, Iraq, Palestine and Azerbaijan, which we just mentioned in another context. Others, however, must continue to wait. I could provide dozens of examples but shall limit myself to just a few. For their safety and that of their relatives and friends still in their home countries, some of the names are pseudonyms.
Naila was an accomplished academic in Yemen in the field of public health. When she first contacted Cara, she was living with her husband and a young child. They were under siege and fearing for their lives. With Cara’s support, she secured a placement at Cambridge University, where she now works on a global talent visa.
Nadiya, a Ukrainian academic with vast international experience in civic education and citizenship linguistics, was forced to flee Ukraine with her 12-year-old daughter after Russia’s invasion. Cara helped her to secure a visiting research fellowship at the department of education at Oxford, where she is now continuing her research.
Wynne was a renowned environmental researcher and activist in Myanmar with over 30 years’ experience, who sought Cara’s help after the 2021 military coup. He is now a visiting fellow at Oxford, researching drought and water insecurity.
Oleksandra was a professor of economics in Kyiv. She left with her daughter after Russia’s invasion and is now a visiting researcher at the London School of Economics.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. He always bring good things to Westminster Hall, but also to the main Chamber. Since 2022, over 100 Ukrainian academics have been supported to settle in the UK with British Academy and Cara at-risk fellowships. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we, as a compassionate and generous country, should continue to ensure that those academics from Ukraine are supported in their careers, and that this approach must also extend to the likes of women in Afghanistan, who deserve the very same treatment?
Sir Julian Lewis
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, who is another long-time friend from across the divide in the House of Commons Chamber. He is absolutely right, and I will refer in a little more detail to the Researchers at Risk programme very shortly.
I return to my list of examples of people who have been saved and are now doing well. Nooria, from Afghanistan, is a specialist in gynaecology and obstetrics, and was working as both a clinician and an associate professor at the Kabul University of Medical Sciences. After the Taliban takeover, she was trapped at home. With Cara’s support, she was offered a visiting research position at the University of Cambridge, where her work has now led to a fully funded PhD offer.
Hayat is a researcher from Afghanistan with a PhD and a master’s degree from the UK and the US respectively, but this previous international experience attracted reprisals from the Taliban. As a Cara fellow at the University of Nottingham, he is carrying out work in three research projects on the impact of conflict and natural disasters on households’ welfare and food security.
Huda was a radiology researcher in Syria when she contacted Cara. She experienced bombings throughout the conflict and was once shot at in her car. Cara helped her to secure a postdoctoral placement at the University of Cambridge, after which she was awarded a global talent visa.
Ayşe completed a visiting fellowship at Wolfson College, University of Oxford, and returned home to Turkey, where she continues to do research on gender violence.
Wiesam completed a visiting fellowship in the department of geography at the University of Manchester, and returned home to Gaza, where he is now working as a professor in thermal remote sensing at Al-Aqsa University.
Ahmed completed a visiting fellowship at University College London before returning to Iraq, where he is now a dean of college at a university.
In the past two years, Cara has also worked with the British Academy—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to this—and other national academies, to deliver the largely Government-funded Researchers at Risk programme. Thanks to that, another 180 academics from Ukraine have received awards paid to them by Cara to allow them to continue their work here. Cara has also worked with the funding scheme in Germany for at-risk scholars, the Philipp Schwartz Initiative, since its launch in 2016.
Cara’s strong track record of supporting threatened scholars around the world is an important contribution to the fulfilment of the UK’s aim to promote a more effective international response to humanitarian crises. As an organisation, it remains unique in Europe, and we should celebrate its 90th anniversary and the difference it has made and continues to make to so many lives for
“the relief of suffering and the defence of learning and science”.
It requires little direct help from Government. but I have a couple of requests for the Minister. First, as already noted, Cara fellows come to the UK on regular visas. Thanks to the care that Cara and the host university visa sponsors take, Cara fellows have in recent years enjoyed a 100% visa application success rate. I hope that the Home Office and UK Visas and Immigration will keep looking positively on Cara-associated visa applications, and that the Department will continue to recognise the contribution that Cara fellows make during their stays in the UK and subsequently through active partnerships, if and when they can safely return home. I also hope that the Home Office and UKVI will, therefore, be ready to discuss with Cara ways in which the visa regime might be adapted to make their fellows’ time in this country even more productive.
Finally, the Researchers at Risk programme has shown how effective a Government-funded scheme can be when it works with and complements existing efforts by proven practitioners. The original funding for Researchers at Risk is now fully committed, but I hope that the Government will learn from the undoubted success and be prepared to consider a longer-term follow-on scheme, open to academics at risk around the world. That would, indeed, ensure that the United Kingdom remains a global leader in this admirable field, and worthy of the efforts—
Mr Lord
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a superb speech. We do have at-risk academics in this country, not from torture or persecution in the sense that he is talking about, but from the modern thought police. People’s livelihoods and mental health can be put on the line by unfair dismissals. Would it not be a huge irony if some of the Cara fellows had the same fate? Does he agree that to be that true beacon in our country, we need that freedom of expression in all our institutions of higher learning, especially our universities?
Sir Julian Lewis
My hon. Friend tempts me to move into a wider area of controversy, but one thing that I would note, without crossing that line, is that very often the people in our university community in the United Kingdom who speak out most strongly in favour of freedom of speech and who insist that people should listen to views with which they might not necessarily agree, rather than shout them down, have often experienced repression in their own countries and come to the United Kingdom to escape that type of restriction.
I will leave that point there and resume what will be my final sentence by repeating the fact that building on the undoubted success of the Researchers at Risk scheme would ensure that we remain both a global leader in this admirable field and worthy of the efforts made by the eminent founders of Cara 90 years ago.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
It is a pleasure to appear before you, Sir Robert, in this most important debate.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing this debate. As was abundantly clear from his remarks, this topic is of long-standing interest to him and I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Government and my right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister, who unfortunately is not here today.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East for his commitment to highlighting these issues and for championing such a commendable cause. As he pointed out, there are many examples of academics who have been able to continue their important work and studies here in the United Kingdom, whether that be through the global talent visa, the skilled worker visa or any other route for which they are eligible.
My right hon. Friend’s passion for and knowledge of this subject shone through his remarks today, particularly when he spoke about the work of the Council for At-Risk Academics. I have also heard him raise this issue in the main Chamber of the House of Commons itself, so dear does he hold this cause to his heart.
I think we all agree that academia, science and research have an enormously beneficial and enriching effect on our society and on our way of life in the United Kingdom. These activities drive progress in how we think and how we live. They foster collaboration and creativity. Whatever the discipline or the field, it is right that we do all we can to ensure that those working in it are supported and encouraged. Any threat against their freedom to carry out their work is totally unacceptable.
The impact of any attempt to impose restrictions on research in academia is profound; it is felt not only by the individuals involved but by the world as a whole, as we are denied the benefits of their knowledge and the advancements they could help forge.
For our part, the United Kingdom Government are committed to the cause of academic freedom globally and to ensuring that at-risk academics have a place of safety in which to study, teach and carry out research, including within the UK. Our work and study visa regime provides opportunities for such individuals to come to the United Kingdom and to continue their careers here, either on a permanent basis or until such time as it is safe for them to return to their own country. Such individuals can carry out their learning in peace and security, can forge a new and better life for themselves, and can contribute to the UK’s society and economy. That also demonstrates to those around the globe who seek to curtail knowledge and inquiry that the United Kingdom remains a beacon of academic freedom.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way and I apologise, Sir Robert, for missing the very start of the debate. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for advising me of it.
The Minister is making a very good point about how the UK is seen globally. The point I want to make is the benefit that UK institutions receive from having these people here, who are right at the very top of their academic game. That is very true for the University of St Andrews, which is in my constituency and which is one of the Cara institutes. Does the Minister agree that we are getting the best of the best through this approach?
Miss Dines
I agree with the hon. Lady that there is much we gain by way of academic research. Indeed, we enjoy the best not only of academia but of what the inquiring mind can bring to our institutions with a global feel. I agree with her wholeheartedly.
We thank Cara, similar organisations and the wider university sector, which create these opportunities and reach out to eligible individuals and groups. I also thank all those people who are here in Westminster Hall today. It is so nice to see the Public Gallery so very full. It includes Stephen Wordsworth, who is the director of Cara and who is here today with colleagues and friends. You are most welcome.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East is also the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. As I alluded to earlier, he has said on a number of occasions that some states will continue to project threats to individuals even when those individuals are in the UK, having sought safety here. We will seek to identify and mitigate those threats wherever they exist. If threats should follow any academics to the United Kingdom, our world-leading intelligence and security agencies would take a proactive and robust approach to identify those threats and, where they exist, to provide protective security in whatever form is necessary.
There have been various interventions in the debate. It is not right for me to talk about specific cases, but I will ask the Immigration Minister to write to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) to address the points that he raised. I am grateful, as always, for the intervention by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I think he has just left, but he always brings great experience and wisdom to these debates, and he works collaboratively across parties.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the Minister for the remarks she has just made, but would it be possible for the Government to put more direct pressure on Governments such as that of Azerbaijan about the treatment of academics, as well as about the individual cases that have been raised today?
Miss Dines
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government work very hard to promote the interests of academic and personal freedom across the globe. I cannot mention specific cases, but I will definitely get back to him through the Immigration Minister on the case that he mentioned. The Government will continue to seek academic freedom wherever they can throughout the world in cases of unjust and unfair incarceration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Lord) was right in his intervention. Everybody who is here in this debate has the same heartfelt feelings about how we need to assist academia across the globe and provide, where appropriate, safety for academics to express their views.
It has been an interesting and informative debate. I hope I have left my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East and other Members in no doubt of the Government’s enduring commitment to protect, promote and support academia and research, which benefits so many of us. I offer my thanks again to my right hon. Friend for securing this important discussion.
Question put and agreed to.
LGBT+ People and Spouses: Social Care
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the treatment of LGBT+ people and their spouses in social care settings.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I sought this debate because of the horrific experience of my constituent Ted Brown and his late partner, Noel Glynn. Ted is present in the Public Gallery this afternoon. Ted and Noel were together for almost 50 years. They met at the first Gay Pride event in 1972, which Ted helped to organise. They were civil partners; they were devoted to each other. Sadly, Noel developed dementia in older age and, in 2018, he was placed in Albany Lodge care home in Croydon after Lambeth Council was unable to find a place in a care home any closer to Ted in Brixton.
One day, Ted noticed that Noel had suffered bruising and a cigarette burn to the back of his hand, and two whistleblowers at Albany Lodge confirmed that Noel was being subjected to homophobic abuse from some of the staff. The whistleblowers recounted two staff members asking him, “Are you a gay man? Do you like gay men?” before dragging him to his room, where other residents heard a disturbance going on and Noel’s voice. In January 2019, Noel told a social worker, “I don’t like it here—they beat me up”. The social worker recommended moving Noel to another care home, but he remained at Albany Lodge for nine more months. Throughout that time, Ted was paying £1,400 a month to Albany Lodge for Noel’s care. Ted told me that staff at the care home refused to recognise his relationship with Noel, and that he was warned by two other LGBT residents in the home not to tell staff that they were a couple, because, “It won’t be good for either of you”.
Noel was a vulnerable man with dementia. He should have been safe in Albany Lodge. The abuse he suffered was horrific and inexcusable, and it was a clear breach of his human rights. That was recognised in a court judgment against Lambeth Council, which placed Noel in Albany Lodge, that awarded the couple £30,000 in compensation. Sadly, Noel died in 2021 before the compensation was paid.
Ted told me that when Noel was first placed in Albany Lodge, there was a delay in undertaking a necessary medical assessment. He contacted the care home to chase this on Noel’s behalf and received an email notifying him that an assessment would be done that day on his father. He was not invited to attend this appointment, which would usually be supported by a spouse or close family member since the aim of the assessment was to gather information about the person’s health history, including matters such as allergies and eating habits. Noel, by then, had dementia.
Ted went to the home anyway and was initially not allowed into the room with Noel, despite bringing documents demonstrating their civil partnership, his power of attorney for Noel and evidence that they had been partners for 49 years. As Ted waited outside the room, he could hear Noel calling out for him. This utterly distressing situation speaks to a total lack of dignity for LGBT+ couples in the care system that urgently needs to be addressed. Prior to being admitted to Albany Lodge, Noel initially received care at home. Ted believes that Noel was also subjected to homophobic abuse by one of the carers, who he observed treating him roughly. In an indication that these experiences are not at all uncommon, Ted also told me that prior to the carers coming in, he had been warned by a friend to remove all traces of his relationship with Noel as a couple from their home.
In a report titled “Stripped of all Pride”, Compassion in Care documented 486 reports of homophobic abuse in care settings and of LGBT+ staff who were afraid to disclose their sexuality. I strongly encourage the Minister to read the report, if he has not already done so; the testimonies are shocking and devastating. One whistleblower wrote:
“There was one gay resident in the home, staff were so cruel to them, some staff treated this poor man as if he had something catching. I saw one staff member spit on this man whilst telling him to repent as he was a filthy pervert. Another staff member slapped this man around the back of his head, really hard. I reported it, I was horrified. The staff started shouting at me are you a pervert lover? Are you gay? Nothing was done, I went to the authorities and left”.
That is hate crime, happening behind closed doors and being perpetrated against some of the most vulnerable people. There are many similarly shocking testimonies in the Compassion in Care report.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving a powerful and emotional account of her constituents. I welcome Ted to the Chamber; I wish it was under happier circumstances. I want to raise something that happened in my constituency a few years ago. A gay couple were taunted with offensive and degrading questions about their sexuality on a bus in West Hampstead. They were then brutally attacked. It was in the news, so my hon. Friend might have heard about it. This year, Rainbow Europe announced that the UK has fallen to 17th place in terms of safety for LGBTQ people. Nine years ago, it was in first place. Does my hon. Friend agree that crimes that are targeted at someone’s LGBTQ identity should have tougher sentences?
Helen Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for raising that shocking case, which I remember from media reports at the time. We cannot ever take progress on equality for granted, and it is vital that we take seriously that drop in protections for LGBTQ+ people and that the current increase in hate crime is met with the toughest possible sanctions that can be delivered.
Perhaps even more shocking than the testimonies in the Compassion in Care report is the fact that, of the 486 services involved in the testimonies, 481 were still rated as good by the Care Quality Commission. A 2016 CQC-commissioned report found that older people were hiding their sexual orientation and gender identity because of fears of discrimination. The abuse that Noel suffered and the abuse documented by Compassion in Care are utterly abhorrent, and there should be no place for them anywhere, still less in settings that are trusted to look after our most vulnerable loved ones—older people who are physically frail or suffering the disorientation of dementia.
For the current generation of older LGBTQ+ people, such abuse can also be a re-traumatisation. Those aged 75 and older were adults before homosexuality was decriminalised in 1967. They lived through the long years of section 28, have experienced life in a deeply homophobic society, are very likely to have spent a significant period of time concealing their sexuality, and have lived through the trauma of the HIV/AIDS epidemic—suffering the loss of much-loved partners, friends and community members while society stigmatised them. Older people who are LGBTQ+ are also disproportionately likely to have become estranged from family members and may lack people around them to advocate on their behalf in the care system.
I am particularly concerned about the poor response to Noel’s case. Once the horrific abuse he suffered was identified, it should have been the job of the care home, the local authority, the CQC and the Government to ensure that it could never happen again, but the reality was far from that. When Noel’s abuse was reported, staff were suspended, but Ted understands that they were allowed to return to work on a different floor of the same home. Following inspections in 2019 and again this year, the CQC continued to rate Albany Lodge as good. The fact that one local authority placed Noel in a care home in a different local authority has also presented problems in ensuring accountability.
No one should have to fear that they or a loved one will be abused in a place that has a responsibility to care for them. No one should have to fear that their sexuality or gender identity might result in such abuse. In 2016, the CQC recommended that commissioners, providers, and health and care staff should
“consider the needs of LGBT people in planning and delivering end of life care services”,
that health and care staff should
“communicate openly and sensitively about sexual orientation and gender identity as a routine part of their delivering good quality, personalised end of life care”
and that commissioners and providers should
“collect data on sexual orientation and gender identity as part of an equalities approach to monitoring end of life care outcomes.”
The Government also mentioned the need for improved monitoring in their 2018 LGBT action plan, but there is little evidence of progress. There are examples of good practice, both in the delivery of LGBT affirmative retirement housing, such as Tonic Housing in Lambeth, and in the Pride in Care quality standard championed by Care England, but it is unacceptable that monitoring the experiences of LGBT+ residents is not a mainstream part of CQC assessments. Albany Lodge should not have continued to be rated “good” while an LGBT resident was being abused under its roof, and it certainly should not have continued to be rated “good” after that abuse had come to light.
What progress does the Minister believe has been made following the publication of the Government’s LGBT action plan five years ago in 2018? What action is he taking to protect the rights of LGBTQ+ residents in adult social care? Will the Government ensure that gathering the experiences of LGBTQ+ residents and their spouses forms part of the CQC inspection framework for care homes? Will he take steps to ensure that no care home or care agency found to have allowed homophobic, biphobic or transphobic abuse can continue to be rated “good” by the CQC? Will he consider further support to roll out the Pride in Care quality standard to more care homes across the country?
When Ted spoke with me about Noel’s experience, he told me about the guilt he feels about being unable to protect the man he loved from abuse. I am sure all of us can understand that guilt, even though it is entirely misplaced. Ted should have been able to trust Albany Lodge to care for Noel and that trust was fundamentally broken. We cannot undo what happened to Noel, but we can work to ensure that it does not happen to anyone else. I hope that the Minister will set out the meaningful action that he will take to this end.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Robert. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for her powerful advocacy for both Ted and Noel. It was shocking and very difficult listening, and she was eloquent and forceful in making the case to support LGBT people in social care.
I am grateful for the work of York LGBT Forum. It has tirelessly campaigned for the rights of LGBTQ people across the community. It engages with stakeholders to advance the rights of LGBT people across the city and the region. As part of its “Free to be Me” work in social care, the forum is hosting a seminar this coming Friday entitled “Don’t Leave Me in Silence” reflecting on the experiences of people in social care. I spoke to one member last weekend and she talked through the work she had engaged with, and it echoed the inquiry the all-party parliamentary group for ageing and older people, of which I am chair, undertook a few years ago, which recognised the importance of identifying the social care needs of LGBT+ people and their partners.
In the session, which was held in Parliament, we heard how partners were often ignored in social care settings, not least when determining the wishes of their loved ones in care. We heard how, on so many occasions, they were unable to communicate the needs of their relationships before they entered care—instead becoming a distant friend. People in care often felt that they could not even put a picture of their partner up in their room, almost eradicating the memory of their relationship. We heard the distress, the loss of identity and how they felt shame, not to mention their facing some pretty intrusive questioning, too.
With good social care, this should not be an issue. On entering a care setting, a relationship should be established that takes all the needs of individuals into account. It does not take much to ask what someone’s requirements are and who their family is, and to ensure that their family is honoured. It is a central part of care. It is what care is: recognising the human, not just the physical, needs that someone has. It does not take much to ask, and it does not cost much to train staff.
LGBT+ awareness training would significantly enhance the experience of LGBT people in care. The CQC should monitor the training that staff have, and the Skills for Care workforce, which has set out a learning framework, should review that framework, not least in the light of today’s debate, and ensure that it is rolled out to all care settings. It should be a marker that the CQC looks for when examining care settings.
Recently, I talked to a constituent who was still at home and seriously ill. She knew that in the not-too-distant future her time would come for more intense care. She asked that she would be in a setting that recognised her gender identity; she feared being placed in one that would recognise only her birth identity. Such dying wishes must be honoured. That is about respect for the individual and understanding their care needs. It is about ensuring that they are cared for holistically and that they and their families are given the time, care and support that they need. It is about listening; it is about acting. I heard one story about someone who started to be dressed in the clothing that represented their birth gender identity, because no one had taken the time to listen. That cannot be a matter for a care facility to determine; it is a matter for the individual and their family.
This debate has focused on the family, but it is worth remembering that many LGBT+ people may not have family. The chair of York’s Ageing Well Without Children, or AWOC, Sue Lister, has explored what it means for individuals who might not have family at all, or whose partner has passed. She wrote a poem, which I would like to close with today. It is called “Lesbian Loneliness”. It is written about a care setting:
“Magnolia walls house the non-absorbent thrones.
Dry voices whisper round the walls like leaves that fall unnoticed.
Uniformed bursts of energy swirl according to the clock
Bringing this, taking that.
Weathered skin, brittle bones, ghosts of the past
Gather on these barren shores.
My life, my love, has passed away, leaving me hung upon the thorns of grief in a waste of loneliness.
Unspoken. Living too long in the shadow of social shame
I dare not rock the boat and she is buried forever.
‘My love’ I cry in the dark hours and hold her in my heart
By day I pass as an ordinary old woman.”
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert, and to respond to the debate on behalf of the shadow Health and Social Care team in my first outing as the newly appointed shadow Minister of State for Social Care. It is always good to see the Minister for Public Health in his place.
I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing the debate and for all her work on this important subject. Her contribution this afternoon was heartbreaking —the way in which her constituent was treated was utterly shameful. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her contribution. She ended on such a powerful poem, which speaks to so many who suffer in care home settings.
The Care Quality Commission guidance for all providers of adult social care clearly states that people using care services
“must not be discriminated against in any way and the provider must take account of protected characteristics, set out in the Equality Act 2010.”
As we have heard today and as we know from other studies, however, that is not always the case.
A survey conducted in 2017 found that 23% of open LGBT+ respondents who had been in a care home or other form of institutional care reported that being gay, trans, bisexual or lesbian, or having other protected characteristics, had a negative effect on the care that they received. Those examples are varied, but each and every one of them is concerning. Some respondents to the 2017 survey said that they felt invisible. Other responses related to use of language—for example the assumption that a partner or spouse is of the opposite sex, when that is not necessarily the case.
At their worst, the experiences of LGBT+ people in care home settings can be traumatic, as demonstrated by the story of Noel Glynn and his partner Ted Brown, who is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. Before he died, it is reported that Mr Glynn, who had dementia, suffered bruising across his body and had a cigarette burn on the back of his hand because of abuse from care staff. Other residents warned his partner Ted not to reveal to staff that he and Noel were a couple, saying, “That won’t be good for either of you”.
Mr Glynn and Mr Brown sued Lambeth Council, but Mr Glynn very sadly died before any compensatory payments were made. This case is beyond abhorrent. I hope the Minister will set out how it happened and what steps the Government are taking to ensure that it never happens again. The Minister will know that the Care Quality Commission does not currently consider the extent of homophobia or transphobia in inspections, despite its fundamental standards. Following this case, will the Minister look again at that guidance?
More generally, what this issue comes down to is the importance of personalised care. A report by the Women and Equalities Committee published in 2019 points to research showing that 72% of care workers do not consider sexual orientation to be relevant to one’s health needs. That same report states that
“most health and social care professionals feel under-equipped to deal with LGBT people’s needs rather than intentionally discriminating.”
The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 are clear on this subject. Regulation 9 states that people using a service should have care or treatment that is personalised specifically for them. It is important that care providers respond to the serious concerns raised by LGBT+ people and ensure that those accessing services feel respected and safe, and benefit from care that is tailored to their needs.
My questions to the Minister are as follows. Given the extraordinary shortages in adult social care staff—sitting at around 165,000—what work are he and his Department doing to protect the principle of personalised care? Further, what steps is the Department taking to monitor the experiences of LGBT+ people in social care settings? In the 2018 LGBT action plan, the Government pledged to develop best-practice guidance for monitoring and to make this openly available to the public sector. Why were these pledges not implemented? Have they simply been abandoned alongside a plethora of other Government commitments, from banning conversion therapy to tackling waiting lists? Finally, LGBT+ organisations have called for better guidelines and staff training for those working in care settings. Can the Minister outline whether the Government support these calls?
The next Labour Government will address the vacancies in social care by delivering a new deal for care workers, guaranteeing fair pay, training, terms and conditions and career progression.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I am curious to know from the shadow Minister what fair pay in the social care sector would be. What does he think of the Liberal Democrat proposal to pitch an additional £2 per hour minimum wage for social care workers?
Andrew Gwynne
If the hon. Gentleman had been at the TUC conference today, he would have heard the shadow Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), outline precisely what Labour’s fair pay deal will be for the social care sector, but we need to go beyond that. We need to ensure that social care becomes a valued profession again, rather than just assuming that agency staff can fill the vacancies. We need to make sure that social care once again has parity with the rest of the healthcare system and that care workers want to work in the care sector not just because of pay, terms and conditions, but because it is a profession—which, sadly, many feel it no longer is.
We will work in partnership with users and families and develop a set of national standards based on existing minimum entitlements and legal rights, including legal rights that exist in the Equality Act 2010—a piece of legislation of which I am fiercely proud, and which the last Labour Government took through Parliament and put on the statute book. We need to make sure that all service delivery, particularly in social care, meets the ambitions and legal expectations of the Equality Act—sadly, that has let down so many LGBT+ people in the social care sector, as we have seen from the statistics in the surveys that I have cited this afternoon.
We would also ensure that our commitment to raise standards right across the sector is upheld by requiring all care providers to demonstrate financial sustainability and, crucially for this debate, to deliver high quality care for service users before they are allowed to receive contracts from local authorities, making sure that local authorities commission care providers who are capable of delivering the care that people need at the standard we should expect. That would result in more personalised and ultimately higher-quality care for all individuals.
In 2023 people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and others should not feel ostracised by a system that is there to support them. They should not feel ignored and that their personal needs are not being met. Ultimately, they should not feel the need to hide the fact that they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans or other. I hope that the Minister will agree with me that we can get to work on delivering that higher standard of care for all service users. The testimony that we have heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood should stand as that end point. Never again should somebody from the LGBT+ community be treated as we have heard. “Never again” should be more than a slogan. It should be deeds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O'Brien)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I apologise if this important debate is interrupted by a vote. I also apologise for the fact that my colleague the Minister for Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), has been in a car accident and cannot be here today.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing this debate on a hugely important issue, which is only likely to grow in importance over time. I express my sympathy to Ted for the appalling, abhorrent experience that he and Noel suffered. I am glad that compensation has been paid, although it is not enough, and I am happy to continue to discuss that case with the hon. Lady and her constituent after this debate.
People have a right to live in safety, free from abuse and neglect, and they should expect high-quality care and tailored support to meet their personal care needs. Nobody should be disadvantaged due to their background, sexual orientation, gender identity, culture or community.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has mentioned some of the guidance and the clear recent legislation we have passed to ensure that is the case. Care workers, social workers and everyone working in social care need to be sensitive to people’s individual needs and circumstances, including their sexual orientation and gender identity. It is vital they have the confidence to discuss individuals’ differences to find out how they can best provide care and meet individuals’ needs.
I want to thank our amazing social care workforce, who work tirelessly to deliver high-quality care to individuals. It is important to recognise the hard and brilliant work of the social care workforce, even though today we are talking about some horrendous failures in social care, where things have not gone right, as highlighted in a report by Compassion In Care that has been mentioned several times and which is called “Stripped of all Pride”. I read the report and found it absolutely harrowing. Some of the cases discussed are almost unbelievable. The report shines a spotlight on how LGBT people are subject to prejudices and biases, potentially from the workforce and, if they are in the workforce, from people receiving care. I want to pay tribute to the whistleblowers who spoke to that people working on that report for speaking out against the abuse and vulnerability they face, not just in the case of Ted and Noel but across the country. It is vital that LGBT people are free to live and work in care homes where the culture is inclusive and respectful.
Many people who require care and support may not have children; not just LGBT people but, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) pointed out, other people too. It is essential that we have strong systems to protect them and we do not just rely on other friends and family members to pick up discrimination or abuse.
Care providers have a key role in safeguarding, and all the relevant care professions are subject to employer checks and controls. Guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is clear that care homes must have a safeguarding lead and that they should make sure everyone knows who that is. As part of its inspection regime, the Care Quality Commission checks that care providers have effective systems to keep adults safe from abuse and neglect. I will set out some of those robust processes.
Local authorities have a duty to investigate safeguarding concerns under the Care Act 2014. Anyone who is concerned that an adult with care or support needs is at risk of or experiencing abuse or neglect should contact the provider and the adult safeguarding team in the relevant local authority. If someone is in immediate danger or it is believed that a crime, including hate crimes, has been committed people should contact the police too. Any form of abuse or neglect is unacceptable, and we need a focused and effective safeguarding system.
All social care providers already have a duty to be respectful of an individual’s protected characteristics, including their sexual orientation, and make sure that their staff have the appropriate training to cater for the individuals in their care. In its role, the CQC takes a preventive approach to people experiencing prejudice or abuse, and looking at the quality of care for LGBT people in adult social care has been one of its equality objectives over a number of years. It is important that those who may be more likely to experience discrimination are listened to and have their needs understood by the local authority. That is why, from now on, the CQC will assess equity in outcomes and consider how local authorities ensure that people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are understood. The new duty we have created for the CQC to assess local authorities’ delivery of their Care Act duties went live in April 2023, and that will make a big difference in ensuring that those at the authority level are thinking actively and working on this vital issue.
CQC assessment of local authorities will increase transparency so that those who might be more likely to experience discrimination, such as LGBT people, are able to hold their local authority to account. It is not just about raising and enforcing standards; it is about having the resource to provide a good service. That is why I am making the record increase in social care funding that we have set out, with an extra £7.5 billion overall, including nearly £600 million for the workforce development plan, so that we have a high-quality social care workforce as well as strong rules.
Leadership is key to developing an inclusive culture. The funded delivery partner of the Department of Health and Social Care, Skills for Care, has produced resources for care providers to help to develop a stronger awareness of the importance of equality and diversity standards. That helps social care leaders and their teams develop an inclusive and confident approach to diversity. I am aware that there are some providers that cater specifically to the LGBT community, which I think is great, and I want to recognise their important work. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood mentioned Tonic and I pay tribute to it and others across the country for their work. However, it is not just about them; it is about making sure that social care settings are suitable for everyone, whatever the setting.
I thank the hon. Members who have taken part in this important debate today and for shining a light on this important issue.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this debate, and on her moving and thoughtful speech. A lot has been said about driving such behaviour out of social care settings, but I wonder whether the Minister might say a little bit about the role that the police might have. We all want a fantastic ethos from social care settings, from local government and from national Government, but even with reasonable recruitment policies and so on, if there are bad apples in the sector, the damage they can do to vulnerable people over years or decades can be quite devastating. We need to make sure that those people are driven out if they get a police record, and are never able to enter that sector again.
Neil O’Brien
Absolutely. The police take this issue more and more seriously, which is vital. Some of the things that we have been talking about today, including in the “Stripped of all Pride” report, are clearly criminal offences, and it is important that we bring to justice all the people who do them. There is always much more to do, but the Government take this matter deadly seriously; it is horrific and appalling to hear about some of the treatment that people have experienced, and we are determined to stop that, using every single tool we have.
Helen Hayes
Let me put on record a matter that I should have done at the beginning of my opening speech: I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on adult social care—apologies for not mentioning that earlier.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her moving and powerful speech, particularly for the poem with which she finished; sometimes prose is not quite enough to convey the depth of emotion on such issues, but that poem did so very well. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who was right to locate this issue within the wider pressures facing social care and to discuss the esteem within which the sector is held. There are many good people working extremely hard every single day to deliver high-quality care, but the pressures of social care, the difficulty local authorities have finding placements and the difficulty of recruitment and retention faced by many organisations certainly do not help with the issues of scrutiny and accountability that we are concerned with today.
Finally, I thank the Minister for the tone of his remarks and his commitment to address the issue. I urge him to look more at an issue that he did not mention in his response: the Pride in Care standard, which shows already what good can look like for LGBTQ+ people in care settings, and can give assurance to relatives looking for care placements for their loved ones that the setting understands and takes seriously the very specific personalisation needed, and the need to ensure absolutely that homophobia, transphobia, discrimination and abuse are eradicated from such settings.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the treatment of LGBT+ people and their spouses in social care settings.
Written Statements
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Insolvency Practitioner Regulation Reform
(1 year, 3 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 Government have today published their response to their consultation “The Future of Insolvency Regulation”, which was published in December 2021. This consultation was open for 13 weeks and outlined proposals for significant reform to the regulatory framework for insolvency practitioners.
The insolvency profession plays a key role in driving economic growth and supporting those in financial distress. The unique responsibilities that insolvency practitioners bear and the decisions they take help save jobs and businesses, and deliver a fair, effective and orderly winding up to deal with financial failure where that is not possible. The vast majority of insolvency practitioners do a good job in challenging circumstances, but there continue to be instances of poor conduct that directly impact those closely involved. This tarnishes the reputation of the whole profession and undermines confidence. Insolvency practitioners should be regulated within a modern framework that reflects the way the insolvency sector has developed since formal insolvency regulation was first introduced in 1986.
The Government received 102 detailed responses to the consultation. Officials also obtained further relevant evidence through targeted stakeholder engagement. Most proposals received significant support amongst a broad range of stakeholders. We are grateful for the views and evidence provided as part of the consultation process, which has informed the package of reforms we will take forward when parliamentary time allows. This most notably includes:
challenging the current four professional body regulators to deliver significant and measurable improvements to the quality of regulation through non-legislative means, whilst keeping options to replace the current regulatory model with a single regulator of insolvency practitioners under review;
expanding regulation to include firms providing insolvency services, alongside the existing regulation of individual insolvency practitioners;
reforming the way ethical and professional standards for the profession are set;
introducing a public register of authorised insolvency practitioners and firms providing insolvency services, that will include relevant and proportionate regulatory information;
developing and consulting on proposals to introduce a compensation-redress scheme for those affected by an insolvency practitioner’s acts or omissions;
strengthening the bonding framework, which requires insolvency practitioners to hold security in the event of their fraud or dishonesty.
The Government’s response to the consultation reaffirms their commitment to ensuring the insolvency profession is effectively and robustly regulated, with a regulatory framework fit for the future. These reforms, which represent the biggest change to the regulatory framework in nearly 40 years, will address weaknesses with the current regulatory framework, modernise the regime and increase public confidence in regulation.
A copy of the consultation response may be found online at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-future-of-insolvency-regulation
[HCWS1013]
Combat Air Strategy
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
The last update to the House on delivery of the combat air strategy was given during Farnborough international air show in July last year. DSEI London has brought the eyes of the world once again to the UK’s world-leading defence capabilities, making this a fitting time to provide a further update on the progress made over the last year.
The Government published the integrated review refresh in March, which lays out a strategic approach based on four pillars: shaping the international environment; deterring, defending and competing across all domains; bolstering our national resilience; and securing strategic advantage. The Defence Command Paper 2023 sets out how Defence will help the UK meet these aims through the interlinked objectives of protecting the nation and helping it prosper. With the world becoming increasingly contested and volatile it is clear, now more than at any time in a generation, that strong and capable combat air is crucial in enabling the UK to meet its core strategic objectives.
It is in this context that RAF fast jets have been conducting an intense schedule of operations and exercises, from eastern Europe to the middle east, and from the high north to Australia. It was with a keen eye to the UK’s future security and prosperity that in December 2022 we launched the global combat air programme (GCAP) with Japan and Italy.
Operations and exercises
Russia’s illegal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine has seen the UK step up its efforts to reassure our NATO allies in eastern Europe. In late 2022, RAF F-35B aircraft deployed on HMS Queen Elizabeth took part in operations with our NATO allies and joint expeditionary force partners above the waters of northern Europe, underscoring our shared commitment to European security. From March to July this year, the RAF led NATO’s Baltic air policing mission, intercepting 50 Russian aircraft and flying for a combined total of more than 500 hours. Operating from Amari air base in Estonia, RAF Typhoons conducted quick reaction alert (QRA) intercepts, demonstrating our willingness and ability to defend our allies. Typhoons have continued to operate from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus and from the Falkland Islands, simultaneously safeguarding our security and projecting UK influence. And of course, RAF Typhoons are on constant standby in the UK itself, to protect our own skies and intercept adversary aircraft when they approach our airspace.
Exercises also continue to play a fundamental role in demonstrating our military capability, interoperability with allies and partners, and our shared resolve. Major global deployments have been conducted, with F-35B Lightning aircraft taking part in Exercise Northern Edge in Alaska, and Typhoon playing a key role in Exercise Pitch Black in Australia. Exercises such as these make clear the RAF’s truly global reach and our commitment to Indo-Pacific security. Closer to home, the RAF has taken part in exercises that underline our commitment to Euro-Atlantic security, such as Air Defender in Germany and Tempest Strike/Tower Guardian with Norway and Estonia. In January, Typhoons from RAF Akrotiri exercised with Saudi Arabia, and in March we agreed a statement of intent to further strengthen our combat air relationship.
Across both operations and exercises, the way in which RAF fast jets operate has become fundamentally more agile, with air-to-air refuelling from both home bases and deployed locations, supported by a global network of allies and partners. This has helped the RAF to take part in operations and exercises with over 30 nations over the last 12 months, across Europe, the high north, the middle east and Indo-Pacific.
In addition to evolving how we operate, we continue to invest in our Typhoon and F-35B fleets to keep them ahead of the threat. In July, an £870 million five-year contract was awarded to BAE Systems and Leonardo UK to fit RAF Typhoons with the European common radar system (ECRS) Mk2, one the world’s most advanced, sustaining 600 UK engineering jobs in Edinburgh, Luton and Lancashire. Typhoon has already proven its export potential and we are working closely with industry to pursue further exports to close international partners. Meanwhile, the RAF continues to grow its F-35 fleet, with the next key programme milestone being the stand-up of 809 Naval Air Squadron in December.
The global combat air programme (GCAP)
In December 2022, the Prime Minister and his Japanese and Italian counterparts launched a partnership to design a next-generation combat aircraft to keep us ahead of the threat well into the second half of the century. We are currently in the early but crucial phases of the programme, developing and assessing concepts for a system with the most advanced capabilities, including machine learning to support human operators, open systems architecture to allow rapid and continual upgrade, and extensive digital networks linking forces across air, land and sea to bolster our overall operational advantage.
This is a strategic endeavour in which Japan and Italy are strong partners. Japan, renowned for its industrial base and with a commitment to increasing investment in its self-defence, has invested heavily in advanced combat air R&D, while Italy brings decades of shared experience on the Eurofighter programme. All three partners operate F-35. Progress is well under way, with the UK, Japan and Italy already working together across a range of areas, including concept design, a trilateral engine demonstrator, and advanced on-board electronics to ensure information advantage. The founding partners are open to exploring how others could become involved going forwards, to mutual benefit and aligned to programme schedule.
Here in the UK, the Ministry of Defence continues to work closely with BAE Systems, Leonardo UK, Rolls-Royce and MBDA UK, under the Team Tempest partnership. We are delivering at pace and in April awarded BAE Systems, on behalf of Team Tempest industry partners, a £656 million contract extension to progress vital concepting and technology work. In July, a £115 million contract was awarded to Leonardo UK to develop a flight test aircraft, to be delivered in partnership with 2Excel. Rapid progress is also being made on an advanced flying demonstrator that was announced at Farnborough air show last year, with over 150 hours of simulated flight trials and key aerodynamic engine and ejector seat testing undertaken.
This progress is being enabled by the long-term approach to capability delivery outlined in the 2018 combat air strategy, which recognised the vital importance of a strong and sustainable UK combat air sector. MOD has invested over £1.1 billion in R&D through the future combat air system technology initiative (FCAS TI), with a further £600 million from our Team Tempest industry partners to date, delivering advanced industrial technologies such as digital design and additive manufacturing. These technologies are revolutionising how we deliver advanced combat air, driving efficiency and cutting timelines. Looking ahead, the UK has a proposed budget of over £12 billion over the next 10 years, alongside robust funding from Japan and Italy. Funding requirements will continue to be refined as the programme matures.
In addition to investing in advanced industrial technologies, we are continually working to develop the skills base needed to succeed, now and in the future. The number of skilled people working on the programme is growing quickly, with approximately 3,000 across the UK’s Team Tempest partners, in major combat air hubs including the south-west and north-west of England and Edinburgh. We recognise that today’s students are tomorrow’s lead engineers, which is why we are reaching out to schools and universities, recruiting graduates and apprentices, and propelling them into long-term STEM careers while continuing to attract mature talent.
Next steps
UK combat air will remain crucial for our security and prosperity and that of our allies and partners, both on NATO’s borders with Russia and in the wider world. The RAF will continue to exercise its global reach, conducting operations and exercises from the Euro-Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific. We will continue to invest in our Typhoon and F-35 fleets. On GCAP, we are working intensively with Japan and Italy to establish the core platform concept and the joint structures needed to launch the development phase in 2025, targeting entry into service in 2035.
[HCWS1015]
Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Considerations
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
I wish to make a joint statement with HM Treasury, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government.
The Government are clear that the UK’s defence sector has an integral role in supporting the first duty of Government: to promote and protect the United Kingdom’s core national interests—the sovereignty, security and prosperity of the British people. That includes supporting allies and partners and contributing to broader international security.
Nowhere is this clearer than in Ukraine, where we continue to have a leading role in providing our Ukrainian friends with our support and with vital military aid to resist President Putin’s illegal and brutal war.
Our defence industrial base underpins our armed forces, maintains our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, and safeguards our critical infrastructure. The private sector is essential to our national security, whether in peacetime or times of emergency. The ongoing maintenance of critical industrial facilities, skills and intellectual property onshore, and the approach we take to sustain these, gives us confidence that we can continue to operate independently, in defence of the country’s interests, without external political influence and protecting the sensitive technologies that underpin our military capability.
Despite this, defence companies are being excluded from access to debt and equity capital, citing environmental, social and governance (ESG) grounds. This not only threatens an important part of the economy that, through MOD expenditure alone, directly and indirectly supports over 200,000 jobs, but fails to recognise that the UK’s defence industry is essential to protecting our way of life. Such divestment also threatens to increase the cost of procurement, diverting taxpayers’ money away from other defence spending and from public services. The industry’s value to us as a key strategic asset is only increasing at a time of global uncertainty.
As outlined in the Defence Command Paper refresh, this Government assert that there is nothing contradictory between the principles within ESG and the defence industry. On the contrary, a strong national defence, including our nuclear deterrent, is a pre-requisite for the freedoms, including social liberties, that we often take for granted, and the aspirations that investors and financial services companies seek to address using ESG considerations.
As stated in the green finance strategy published this spring, the Government believe that continued private investment in the UK defence industry and our NATO allies is essential to protect the UK national interest, the UK economy and broader environmental and social goals.
Moreover, the UK defence sector has reflected ESG considerations in a range of ways. Industry is driving innovation in new technologies to improve sustainability and companies are embedding ESG metrics into their remuneration structures. Additionally, defence companies are exploring how to raise standards across the board, improve access to information and communicate the positive vision of what they are achieving on these subjects.
While investors must always be free to make their own choices, they should do so on the basis of the facts, and those seeking to inform those choices through providing ESG ratings should be clearer on their methodology and more prompt to correct errors when these are pointed out. Defence spending helps prevent war and helps support the British way of life, and those of our NATO allies and partners.
The MOD is showing leadership itself on the environmental and social agenda, including the application of the social value model within its procurement process —we are focused on tackling economic disparities, tackling climate change and promoting equal opportunity. Through the defence suppliers forum, we are working with industry at a strategic level to build sustainability into defence supply chains and tackle greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Crucially, HM Treasury has also published a consultation on a potential regulatory framework for ESG ratings providers with the aim of improving transparency and promoting good conduct in the ESG ratings business. The Government will, with our industrial partners, continue to explore and champion the wider environmental and social benefit of the defence sector and ensure it continues to represent the highest standards of corporate governance. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and I will continue to engage with defence companies and the financial sector on access to investment and financial services for industries critical to our national security.
This Government believe that the important values within ESG should not undermine capabilities developed to help us preserve peace and security, without which sustaining those values would not be possible.
[HCWS1014]
House of Lords
New Homes
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government in what year they expect to reach their target of building 300,000 new homes a year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, we are continuing to work towards our ambition of delivering 300,000 homes a year. This has always been a stretching ambition and we have made strong progress. The three highest rates of annual supply in more than 30 years have all come since 2018. We are aware that increasing supply even further will be made more difficult due to the economic challenges we face, but we are engaging with Homes England, developers and registered providers to understand their delivery challenges.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend, but has she read the leader in last Saturday’s Times? It said of the Government’s housing target:
“That goal has now been sacrificed on the altar of appeasing rural Conservative backbenchers fearful of a backlash in their green and pleasant constituencies”,
and concluded:
“The political calculations of the Tory party are in danger of strangling Britain’s housebuilding industry, retarding economic growth and depriving young people of the affordable homes they so desperately need”.
Can my noble friend confirm that this controversial policy, which was launched in a consultation document last December and has not yet been adopted, might be amended in light of the widespread criticism that it has now generated?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Yes, I have read the Times article. We are carefully analysing the many detailed responses we received to the consultation and expect to respond formally later in the autumn. It is worth making it clear to my noble friend that the proposals in the consultation are not government policy. My noble friend should also be reassured that, as I have said before, the Government remain committed to our ambition of delivering 300,000 new homes per year. The proposals in the consultation are designed to support areas to get more local plans in place. That will deliver more housing and stop communities being exposed to development by appeal.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, for some weeks we have heard scare stories that 100,000 new homes are blocked by the rules on nutrient neutrality. I am therefore glad that the Government have debunked that myth with their recent explainer, which states that only 16,500 homes are currently impacted. By comparison, Savills estimates that 150,000 homes are land-banked in 2021, and Homes England sits on 250,000 more new homes. Given those numbers, is there any real justification for the Government’s assault on the habitat regulations, the health of our rivers and their own good environmental reputation?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Yes, there is, my Lords. The 16,500 figure is annual, while the 100,000 figure is between now and 2030. The Government have put in place a package of mitigation that will allow us to deal with nutrient neutrality not as a sticking plaster, stopping housing being built, but by dealing with the issues at source. If the noble Earl reads the mitigation circumstances, he will see what we are doing and how much we are investing in that.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I found the Minister’s reply rather disappointing. I appreciate the ambition, but it is the implementation that is the major problem. Drastic cuts of funding to social housing have resulted in many households in need being trapped in the private rented sector, and the number of affordable homes is just not meeting that need. Current conditions have meant that private sector building has flatlined, but social housing builders can be countercyclical and, with the right investment, could do so much more. The Government will reach their target only by investing massively in social homes. Do the Government and the Minister agree with that? If not, can she please explain how that target will be met?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to increasing the supply of affordable housing, which is why, through our £11.5 billion Affordable Homes Programme, we will deliver tens of thousands of affordable homes for sale or rent across the country. The levelling up White Paper committed to increasing the supply of social rented homes, and a large number of the new homes delivered through our Affordable Homes Programme will be for social rent.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer about affordability, but I wonder what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the definition of affordability is a good one. Could we redefine it so that it means affordable for most local people in that community, and look at what that is doing to house prices generally in each area?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We had a debate on this quite recently on the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill. Through the consultation on the NPPF, we are looking at affordable housing and, when we have finished that consultation and looked at the results, we will consider it further.
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
My Lords, the work done on the National Planning Policy Framework by my noble friend Lord Pickles, Brandon Lewis and Greg Clark was in my view one of the major achievements during the coalition, because it provided a sensible balance between a stick and a carrot, with local authorities producing a plan and a mechanism for the Government to step in if they did not. This led to a significant increase in the land supply. With the changes that have taken place in the last few months, the mood music is completely different. Local authorities know that applications to appeal are quite futile. A disastrous thing has happened. What do the Government intend to do about it? If they do nothing, the 300,000 target will be pure fantasy.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I quite agree with my noble friend about the importance of the NPPF. That is why we are consulting on it, will review it when we have the results of the consultation and will come back out to consult on our further ideas on how we can update it—we cannot leave it there in aspic for ever. By doing that and by the measures in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to modernise the planning system, we will deliver more houses through local plans and hit the 300,000 target.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have relevant interests in this Question. Councils’ local plans incorporate their share of the national housing targets. Can the Minister explain how national housing targets can be achieved when more than 60% of local councils do not have an up-to-date local plan?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Baroness is right: we need more local plans. That is how we will deliver more houses. We know from evidence that local planning authorities that have local plans deliver more houses. That is why we have the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, are changing and simplifying making local plans and will insist that local authorities deliver local plans. If they do not, we have measures to push them to do so.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, in her response to the debate on housing targets during the Report stage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, the Minister stated:
“To get enough homes built in places where people and communities need them, a crucial first step is to plan for the right number of homes”.—[Official Report, 6/9/23; col. 426.]
The National House Building Council’s statistics show a dramatic decline in registrations in quarter 2 across most regions, compared with the same quarter last year; it was down 67% in the north-west, for example. It is going in the wrong direction. What is the Government’s plan to ensure that local targets meet that 300,000 homes target?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As I said to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, we are in an economic situation that is not as favourable for housebuilding as it was, and therefore we have to work with Homes England, developers and local planning authorities to ensure that we give all the support we can, reinvigorate the housing market and get these houses built.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, when house prices fall, as they are doing now, big building firms tend to sit on their balance sheets and play the waiting game. That is very bad news for new homes as big builders now have a 90% share of the UK market while SMEs have seen their share collapse from 40% to less than 10%. Does the Minister agree that this market domination is stifling competition and is bad news for the supply of new homes?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I absolutely do. We need to spend more time with our SME housebuilders. The levelling-up home building fund is providing £1.5 billion in development finance to SMEs and builders for exactly this reason: to support them to build more homes. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is making changes to support SMEs, making the planning process much faster and more predictable for them so that they can stay in business and build more houses.
NHS: Staff Numbers
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clark of Windermere
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to increase the number of staff working in the NHS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
A record number of staff are working in the NHS, including more than 6,000 more doctors and more than 16,400 more nurses than last year. We have backed the NHS long-term workforce plan with more than £2.4 billion over five years. This will put us on course to double the number of medical school training places, almost double the number of adult nursing training places and increase the number of GP training places by 50% by 2031. It will also ensure that the NHS workforce is put on a sustainable footing for the future.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his Answer, but he knows that there is a dire shortage of staff right across the NHS, with 47,000 nursing vacancies. The recruitment of nurses to training places is down 13% this year. Some 170,000 workers in the NHS left their jobs last year, mainly under stress. Today, we have the news that a survey found that 32% of students who are currently in medical school have said that they intend to emigrate on completing their studies. I repeat what I asked in my Question: what plans do the Government have to increase the number of staff working in the NHS?
Lord Markham (Con)
The whole House will, I think, recognise that we have extensive plans that are, as I said, backed by £2.4 billion. That is what the long-term workforce plan was all about. There were many requests for us to put it in place and that is what we have delivered. All of this comes in the context of 63,000 more members of staff over the past year—actually, around 280,000 more members of staff since 2010. Those are substantial increases. Do we need to do more? Yes. Is that what the long-term workforce plan is all about? Yes.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, those within the NHS must be allowed to work safely. Has my noble friend seen the reports today? A third of female surgeons have been sexually assaulted by other doctors within their workplaces, sometimes while they are actually operating on people. It is as unbelievable as it is appalling. What plans does my noble friend have for getting to the bottom of this, finding out the truth of these allegations and holding responsible those who are responsible for the safety of working practices within the NHS? In its recent dealings with him, did the British Medical Association mention this terrible issue—or have its interests been concentrated solely on money?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend. Like all of us, I am sure, I was appalled to hear about that study. The most fundamental purpose of any employer is the safety and well-being of their staff, obviously, and I am afraid that the hospitals that allowed that to happen and allowed that culture to take place clearly failed. Clearly, we need to get to the bottom of that. As I often say, it starts with the leadership in each hospital and the culture that is built up within each college. Those are the people who need to be looking at themselves in the mirror and asking whether they have the right culture to make sure that everyone feels safe in the workplace.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, we know that the Minister is a big fan of data dashboards for tracking such things as the flow of patients through hospitals. Does he agree that such a dashboard would be an excellent way for us to track the Government’s progress against all the various targets that they have put into their workforce plan? Will he commit to producing one?
Lord Markham (Con)
I believe that the whole point of the workforce plan is that every couple of years there is a review of our progress against it and how it needs to be adapted, since it is a moving feast. So, absolutely, it is vital and something we are working on. Overall, the things that we said that we would do we are on course for. We said that we would increase the number of nurses by 50,000 over the course of this Parliament. It is currently 47,000. We said that we would increase doctors’ appointments by 50 million. That is currently on track. So a lot of good work has already happened. A lot of targets have been hit. Yes, there is more to be done and we are happy to track it.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, it is currently predicted that there will be a shortage of about 4,000 fully trained anaesthetists by 2025. The Government’s plan to expand anaesthesia associate training will also need anaesthetists to supervise the trainees in the workplace. However, currently there is a bottleneck at a certain level of the training of anaesthetists. That bottleneck can be resolved by increasing the number of training slots. Why do we not do that?
Lord Markham (Con)
In every area, anaesthetists being a very good example, we need to be looking at where the bottlenecks are and moving to free up those situations. I think we would all agree that with practitioners such as anaesthetists and in other areas, it is a very sensible approach to make sure that the most highly skilled are focused on the most highly skilled jobs and that they can have people underneath them who can be trained to work within that. So hearing that there is a certain amount of opposition from certain colleges and the BMA to those sorts of roles is quite disappointing. I hope they would accept that this is a key way of addressing the issue.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, can I take the Minister back to the original Question from my noble friend Lord Clark? He put before the House some quite startling statistics about the number of medical staff—particularly but not exclusively doctors —who are leaving following or shortly after the completion of their training, either for other countries or for private practice? What view does he take of that drain away from the National Health Service and the effective loss of the investment that the country makes in the very expensive training of clinicians?
Lord Markham (Con)
My first point on that is to ask what the real facts are. Five years on from qualification, around 95% of doctors are still registered with the General Medical Council and still practising in the UK. So the fact is that retention is very high. That notwithstanding, we want to do everything that we can to retain people, and professional development is what the long-term workforce plan is all about. Also, we all know that pensions were a big reason for a lot of the brain drain and doctors leaving the profession, and that was something we were quite radical in supporting and changing. We are going through this bit by bit, asking what key things we need to do to retain our staff and resolve this.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I have seen press reports that suggest, from future projections, that one in 11 people in the workforce will end up being employed by the NHS. Does the Minister really believe that this is sustainable? What plans does he have to avoid what would be a completely impossible situation for the economy?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, I am aware of this. Health spending equates to roughly 11% of the GDP of our country. Not surprisingly, the number of people in the workforce reflect that. It is absolutely mind-blowing; the amount of investment going into this space is bigger than the economy of Greece. Without a doubt, we have to make productivity improvements and look to technology, AI and all the things we can do to improve output and make sure that that total is not just ever-increasing.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s workforce plan is silent on having enough properly maintained treatment facilities, buildings and equipment, all of which have become increasingly inadequate. Could the Minister confirm what assessment has been made of the physical capacity requirements to deliver the NHS workforce plan? How will he ensure that staff have what they need to do their job?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely correct: a workforce plan needs to be backed up with the physical real estate to deliver it. As noble Lords are aware, I am responsible for the new hospitals programme, which is part of that. In primary care, much of the long-term workforce plan is all about getting upstream of the problem in terms of prevention, and clearly we need to make sure that the physical real estate is there to support that. So the next steps will be to make sure that the capital meets the long-term workforce plan.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, the NHS needs more recruits, but can the Minister tell the House where there are pressing shortages that adversely affect patient care and when he anticipates that the problem will be sorted?
Lord Markham (Con)
As I say, the long-term workforce plan puts this on the right footing, going forward. There are big increases in the number of staff, so it is not like we have not been working hard on this area already. By any definition, 63,000 more staff over the last year is a prime example of that. So we are addressing this, but I am not going to pretend to the House that this can be done once, lightly and quickly; it is part of a long-term programme, which the long-term workforce plan is all about.
Children’s Health: Sugar
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of sugar on children’s health.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition undertook a comprehensive assessment of sugar intake and health in its 2015 report Carbohydrates and Health. In 2023, it looked specifically at children aged one to five. SACN concluded that reducing the intake of sugar would lower the risk of tooth decay and weight gain in children and adolescents. The Government have an ambitious programme to reduce children’s sugar intake, which includes the soft drinks industry levy.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his reply. One area where the Government have failed to take the action they should is to encourage the industry to reformulate food more than it is doing at the moment—to take out sugar and substitute the alternative, organic, healthy sweeteners that are available. Would the Government look into this and do some more work? Would they be prepared to invite companies that are willing to enter public/private partnerships to start doing that?
Lord Markham (Con)
First, I recognise all the work the noble Lord does in this space. Secondly, I completely agree that reformulation is the big prize as part of this. The House will remember me mention before that Mars, Galaxy, Bounty and Snickers have all reformulated their food, as has Mr Kipling and his “exceedingly good” cakes—they are compliant cakes as well. There is a lot being done here, but there is more to do. We meet the industry all the time and are very happy doing so.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in Canada, thousands of children have been fed on whole milk for many years, and their problems with obesity do not exist? The food industry has deliberately promoted a low-fat diet. It is a lousy diet that tastes horrible; that is why they have had to shovel in such vast quantities of sugar. Could the Minister ensure that the Department of Health no longer advocates a low-fat diet? Fat going into the duodenum acts on the stomach, making it empty more slowly and therefore giving the feeling that the patient has had enough.
Lord Markham (Con)
I think one of the things that, hopefully, I have learned in the almost year that I have been answering Questions is when I know the answer to a question and when I do not. I am afraid this is one of the examples of the latter. I will happily look up the Canadian example of the use of whole milk and write to the noble Lord on it.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests, as recorded in the register. I was very pleased to hear the Minister refer to the soft drinks industry levy, which has been a very successful way of reducing sugar consumption in soft drinks. Therefore, do the Government have plans to extend that levy to other products that contain a lot of sugar? That would be a very effective way of reducing sugar consumption.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord is correct; that has been a success story. Overall, we have seen a 46% reduction of sugar, while at the same time sales of drinks in that category have gone up by 21%—that is 60%-plus if you combine the two. We are now looking at other moves that can help. The movement of product positioning to remove the so-called “pester power” is a key step forward in this. Of all the modelling that has been done, that is the thing that it is thought will reduce calories by the most—by 96%. That is the current focus; it has been in place for almost a year and early evidence is that it is working, but as ever we must keep everything under review.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, for the 4 million children in food poverty, the quality of their school lunch is crucial to their health and development. But the school food standard has not been reviewed since 2014, and nobody checks whether schools are adhering to it anyway. With so many children going hungry, is it not time that the standard of school food was brought up to date with the latest research on the impact of sugar and other nutrients?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely correct. What we give children in schools is a key thing that the Government can affect. That is why I am delighted that the level of free school meals, at 33%, is the highest on record, making sure that they have good nutritious food. But the noble Baroness is correct: there was a review taking place in 2019, which was one of the casualties of Covid. I know that it is now one of the things that we are thinking, as we recover from Covid, that we need to look at again.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has spoken passionately about reducing the intake of sugar by younger people. Are His Majesty’s Government intending to admit obese children with type 2 diabetes to the two-year pilot study of the new drug Wegovy?
Lord Markham (Con)
My understanding—and I will confirm this afterwards—is that, to begin with, always with these sorts of treatments, you want to make sure that you are doing it in a safer type of environment. Generally, having adults doing it is a better place to start. Clearly, if that works the way we think, and we can trust that it will work, then you have opportunities to expand beyond that. The other thing I would like to say on this is that, actually, an active life is very important—activity and sports are a very important component of this. Interestingly, it has been shown that an active life increases life expectancy by one to two years, so that is an important feature in all this as well.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, as a design technology teacher now teaching food nutrition as well, can I ask whether, rather than sugars, of which the risks are well known, the Government will update NHS advice on ultra-processed food, particularly its website? These seem to pose a much higher risk to health, particularly as they are often marketed as the healthy option.
Lord Markham (Con)
Many noble Lords will recall the Question we had on this before. It is the actual ingredients that are the problem. Ultra-processed foods, in and of themselves, are not a good definition because bread is an example of an ultra-processed food. The problem is that many of these are high in fat, sugar and salt, and that is what we need to be tackling. That is what we are going after, not the definition of ultra-processed foods per se.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has told us previously that the Government are going slow on their ban on junk food advertising because they want to give time to manufacturers to reformulate their products. For many of us, this is disappointing because, as long as the food continues to be advertised, there will be excessive consumption. Could the Minister give us a progress update, so that we can get to the point where these foods, which are bad for health, will no longer be promoted—particularly in front of children?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, as I mentioned previously, our modelling shows that roughly 95% of the calorific reduction that we are expecting will come from the movement of the product positioning. The evidence, almost at the end of the first year, is that this is working. Effectively, the category of non-high HFSS products has gone up by about 16% while products high in fat, sugar and salt have gone down. We know that supermarkets are taking the lead in doing this voluntarily, in terms of the so-called BOGOF, or “buy one get one free”, promotions. Tesco and Sainsbury’s have already stopped that on a voluntary basis and, as I mentioned earlier, the companies are also reformulating their foods. There is a lot of progress in a lot of areas.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, children from the most deprived areas are four times more likely to be obese and three times more likely to have dental decay than those in the least deprived, with sugar as a key contributor to poor health and future prospects. Does the Minister agree that targeting excessive sugar intake at earlier stages will have more impact on the more deprived communities and, if so, how do the Government propose to do this?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, the noble Baroness is absolutely correct, and that is why in the major conditions survey we have an ambition to reduce sugar intake by 20%, working right across the board and especially with baby food manufacturers. As I set out earlier, there are a range of things that we have already done: the sugar tax reduced intake by 46%, and the movement of the so-called “pester power” has made a big impact. We are seeing companies reformulate food. But it is something we will keep under review, and we will do more if we need to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the president of the British Fluoridation Society. Coming to oral health, is he alarmed at the number of intensive dental treatments that children need because of the rise in decay? Could he update the House on any speed up in fluoridation schemes?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely correct. As many are aware, the most common reason for six to 10 year-olds to go into an A&E visit is tooth decay. The noble Lord will recall that we passed an SI quite recently expanding opportunities for water fluoridisation. I know that is now increasing and I will happily follow up with the detail in writing.
Mr Jagtar Singh Johal
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the Prime Minister raised the case of Mr Jagtar Singh Johal, currently imprisoned in India, with the government of India during his recent visit to that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I can confirm that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised Mr Johal’s case with Prime Minister Modi on 9 September in Delhi, on the margins of the G20 summit. We will continue raising Mr Johal’s case and any related concerns directly with the Government of India, including his allegations of torture and his right to a fair trial. I regularly raise Mr Johal’s case directly, including with External Affairs Minister Jaishankar on 29 May.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
I thank the Minister for his reply, but neither it nor the Prime Minister’s response to Questions in the Commons yesterday showed any sense of the outrage expressed by more than 100 Members of the Lords and Commons over India’s abduction and six-year arbitrary detention and torture of Jagtar Singh Johal, a British citizen. Does the Minister agree that it does nothing for Britain’s standing in the world when a British Prime Minister, looking for a favourable trade deal, expresses admiration for a man who was barred from entry into the United States and the UK for atrocities against Muslims in Gujarat, whose Home Minister refers to Muslims as “termites” and whose party is committed to turning India into a Hindu state, to the detriment of minorities?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we raised Mr Johal’s case. We have a wide-ranging relationship with India, and in that regard we have a very constructive dialogue, including, as I have raised directly on a number of occasions, on a wide range of human rights issues. I am sorry, but I do not subscribe to the noble Lord’s description of either India or the Prime Minister of India. I declare an interest as someone who has Indian heritage and is Muslim by faith.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, did the Prime Minister, and indeed the noble Lord the Minister, ask for Mr Jagtar Singh Johal’s release? What actions did they ask the Indian Prime Minister to take?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As I said in my Answer, we raised the specifics of the allegations that Mr Johal’s family have raised with us directly. We engage with Mr Johal directly through our consular support. We do not believe that publicly asking for his release would be productive or constructive. There is a natural process and a legal process to be followed in India. However, we are raising allegations of mistreatment when they are made. We are also working on ensuring that the family can directly access Mr Johal. Indeed, I visited Scotland only last month, where I met directly with Mr Johal’s father, his wife and his brother.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, following on from that point, we have been here before with the cases in Iran and the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Commons emphasising that the Government needed to have a zero-tolerance approach to the arbitrary detention of British citizens. Do the Government agree and acknowledge that Mr Johal is arbitrarily detained? I think that previous Prime Ministers did. Is that still the case, as not just Mr Johal’s family but the UN working group has declared him to be? How can Mr Johal expect a fair trial, as the noble Lord has sort of indicated, after a confession was extracted from him by torture?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I did not sort of indicate; I was quite specific: a fair trial is required. It is protected by the constitution of India and the independence of its judicial system. The noble Baroness is quite right that the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has issued a specific opinion about Mr Johal. We take that very seriously and have consistently raised those direct concerns about Mr Johal’s treatment with the Indian authorities. However, as the noble Baroness will know from her own experience, it is now for India to reply formally to that particular opinion.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, after the Prime Minister raised the issue of Mr Johal with the Indian Prime Minister, have the Government given any feedback to Mr Johal’s family in Scotland? Secondly, do the Government think that Mr Johal is a political prisoner?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am not going to speculate on or respond to the noble Lord’s second question. This is not about politicising; it is a matter for the Indian authorities. They will be following a due process. As I have said before, I have directly raised the issues and concerns raised by the Johal family. It is not just me; my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have done so. As I said in my Answer, the important thing is to ensure that there is a fair trial. Where allegations are made of mistreatment, we will raise them directly. We have a constructive engagement with the Government of India, which allows us to raise these key points and messages directly and candidly.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the fact is that until now there has not been due process and there are clear accusations regarding the way Mr Johal has been treated. In the Minister’s letter to Mr Johal’s MP, he said there are risks and benefits to calling for his release. Can he outline what the risks are? That is critical in our relationship with India and its Prime Minister.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is well versed in this. There are risks in any issues or challenges we face with any country. They are based on an assessment of what that balance will be and how it will impact the relationship, but equally on non-interference in its legal process. If a judicial process were under way here in the UK, we would not expect countries publicly to call for the release of an individual or to interfere in the legal process; nor do we seek to do that where a due process is being followed. If there are concerns—I fully accept that there have been delays to various hearings—I assure the noble Lord that I have raised them, because to our mind the various delays are causing further grief to the detainee as well as to the family. It is important that this process be completed as soon as possible.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that it is widely believed that intelligence sharing with the Indian authorities contributed to Mr Johal’s detention and torture. Will the Government now acknowledge and apologise for any role that the UK played in his detention and take responsibility for securing his release?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness, in asking the question, is aware that Mr Johal has an active civil litigation case against His Majesty’s Government on this matter and that this is an issue before the court. We must let that process take its course. I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate that I cannot comment further on the case because of that material fact.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the trade deal which has been going through with India. Can he reassure the House that the human rights dialogue continues and is unaffected? Can he give other examples of cases we have taken up?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I can give that direct assurance. As well as being Minister for our relationship with India I am also, as the noble Earl knows, Minister for Human Rights. We have a very structured engagement on human rights. I am not going to go into specific cases, in order to protect some of those individuals, but we have a very productive exchange. We raise a number of cases as well as broader human rights issues, including the key aspects often raised in your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to raise again the issue of arbitrary detention. I know it is rather difficult for us because we are now facing huge delays in our own criminal justice system, but six years is a long time to wait for due process. We keep being told this by the Indian authorities—when the issue was raised by Boris Johnson some years back, he was given the same reassurance that there was going to be a trial very soon. Here we are, six years on and there has not been a trial, so not surprisingly the family have very little confidence in those kinds of reassurance. The international community has confirmed that Mr Johal has been detained in conditions which suggest that he has been seriously tortured. It really is coming to a point where one is expecting something more than polite conversations with the Indian Government. Were we having more than polite conversations?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure the noble Baroness that whatever the nature or substance of a conversation, I would regard any engagement we have as polite, but politeness does not mean that we cannot be straight and candid in those exchanges. The engagement we have with the Government of India is a constructive friendship; it is a partnership. As I have already said from the Dispatch Box, I fully accept that Mr Johal’s case has continued over a number of years, and I have been engaged directly on this. That is why it is important that we keep it very much on the front burner, and that is exactly why in the bilateral engagement my right honourable friend had with the Prime Minister of India, he raised this.
Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) (No. 2) Bill
Tuesday 12th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act 2023 View all Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 March 2023 - (15 Mar 2023)
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Firearms Bill
Tuesday 12th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Firearms Act 2023 View all Firearms Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 March 2023 - (15 Mar 2023)
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill
Tuesday 12th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Act 2022-23 View all Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Act 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 127-I Amendment for Committee - (1 Sep 2023)
Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill
Tuesday 12th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 View all Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101 Marshalled list for Committee - (12 Jul 2023)
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, taking this Bill through your Lordships’ House has been somewhat of a challenge, but I am delighted to see the finishing post coming up—for this House anyway—until it wends its way back to the Commons and the final hurdle under the sure guidance of the honourable Lady, the Member for Bath. I am grateful to everyone who has worked so hard to bring the Bill to this stage, which has necessitated a great deal of pragmatism and compromise on all sides, not least by the Minister.
The Bill will not return to the Commons as it was when it first arrived in your Lordships’ House but, in essence, it will still protect workers from sexual harassment and it will impose a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to ensure that their employees are protected. Sexual harassment and assault in the workplace, particularly on women at all levels—even, we learn today, on female surgeons—are rife. The Bill will go some way towards rectifying this. We need a change of workplace culture, and this Bill will make a good start.
I thank all Members who have participated in the Bill, including the Minister, the officers of the Government Equalities Office and my legislative adviser, Mohamed-Ali Souidi. The EHRC has also given us excellent advice and will be charged with enforcing the new duty and helping and advising employers. On behalf of the EHRC, I ask the Minister to ensure that the necessary resources are made available to enable it to do this work. An Act is just a piece of paper until and unless it is properly enforced—in this case, that will be no small job. I look forward with great relief to now waving the Bill goodbye for its final stages in the other place.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I express my sincere thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for all the work she has put in, and thank the Minister for her support in the passage of this Bill through the House. The Bill represents an excellent step in the right direction. Clearly, we still have much to do. I also echo the sentiments and hope that the Government will move forward on this and will provide the necessary resources to make sure that all the provisions can be fully implemented.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, I sincerely thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for her work in taking this important Bill through the House. The noble Baroness has been patient and has shown great pragmatism—I think we have used that word a few times—in the progression of this Bill to help tackle workplace harassment. It is an honour to be here to confirm the Government’s ongoing support. We believe it is important that everyone feels safe and able to thrive in the workplace.
The noble Baroness asked me how the EHRC will enforce the new duty—that is important. The EHRC’s regulatory approach for any new duty will include producing a statutory code of practice based on its current technical guidance in the area and a mechanism for employees and employee representatives to be able to notify the EHRC of breaches and potential breaches of the preventative duty. It will also be able to use powers under the Equality Act 2006 to undertake strategic litigation, investigation and enforcement activity to target systematic non-compliance with the preventative duty, in accordance with the litigation and enforcement policy. On how that will be funded, I will write to the noble Baroness.
The Bill will help the Government to deliver their commitment to introduce the employer duty as part of the violence against women and girls strategy. The employer duty will send a strong signal to employers that they need to take action to prioritise prevention of sexual harassment and, ultimately, to improve workplace practices and culture. I thank all noble Lords and organisations who raised important issues in the debates and discussions throughout the Bill’s progression through the House. I believe this Bill now strikes the right balance between protecting free speech and tackling harassment. While there has been much debate and amendments have been made to the Bill, I think we can all agree that workers should feel safe and be free from sexual harassment in the workplace. Therefore, I hope the Bill can progress with the full support of the House today.
Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill
Tuesday 12th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Act 2023 View all Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 136-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (1 Sep 2023)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I would like to express to your Lordships how delighted I am that the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill is finalising its passage through this House. This Bill is a significant moment in transforming access to post-18 education and skills as the next step toward the introduction of the lifelong loan entitlement.
I thank noble Lords for their valuable scrutiny and input throughout the Bill’s passage in this place. I express my particular thanks to Members on the Front Benches, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Twycross, Lady Wilcox of Newport, Lady Thornton and Lady Garden of Frognal, and the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Addington, for their positive engagement and overall support for the principles behind the Bill, as well as for their thoughtful scrutiny and constructive contributions. The debates have been engaging and we have benefited significantly from the deep expertise in this House.
I pay particular thanks to those former Education Ministers and Secretaries of State who provided us with their insight. They include the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friends Lord Willetts and Lord Johnson of Marylebone.
I thank the many other noble Lords who took part in the debates and who have a wealth of knowledge across higher and further education, including honorary fellows, visiting professors and members of many of this country’s brilliant universities and colleges. I am also grateful to those leaders in universities and colleges who shared their insights with me about the potential for the Bill, the learning from the pilots and what is needed to make the Bill have a material impact once it becomes law.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her constructive engagement on this Bill and for briefing Members at an early stage, along with the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, and the right honourable Member for Harlow. I also thank the Bill team. Labour supports the Bill’s aim; we support the idea that people can access funding to undertake the learning they need throughout their career. With people undertaking portfolio careers and with continual changes in technology and society, it is no longer the case that what you learn through a traditional three-year degree course is all that you will need in your work for the next 45 years or so.
We had a number of interesting, if concise, debates as the Bill passed its various stages. The Bill is quite limited in scope and Labour still believes that there could have been scope for setting out a more formal review process on a number of its aspects. This would, not least, have helped to safeguard against unintended consequences, whether around distance and flexible learning or employers making a proper contribution to staff development.
There are a number of potential negative impacts on people who are less able to move to study or who are less able to study full-time because of caring responsibilities. From what the noble Baroness said, we hope and believe that the Government intend to monitor and review the lifelong loan entitlement as it is established and rolled out, to make sure that its promise and potential are fulfilled, and especially to ensure that every person in England can have their own promise and potential fulfilled.
I thank the team in the Labour group office, particularly Clare Scally, as well as my Front-Bench colleagues and mentors—my noble friends Lady Wilcox and Lady Thornton. Their patience and kindness in imparting their own lifelong learning and talking me, a relatively new member of the Labour Front-Bench team, through the process of the passage of the Bill has been hugely appreciated.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I apologise profusely to the House for arriving after the Minister started speaking; business moved much more quickly than I expected.
From these Benches, I thank the Minister and the Bill team very much for all their work on the Bill. We remain concerned about how many adults will wish to take on debt in order to improve their learning, and we look forward to hearing updates from the Minister about how many people have done so. From these Benches, we feel that grants would be a much more effective way of persuading adults to learn. But, of course, we are all totally in favour of lifelong learning, and we wish the Bill well.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, as many of you will know, the number 1 recommendation of the Augar review of post-18 education and funding was for this sort of reform. As someone who was a member of that review and who has spent a considerable part of the last three and a half years on secondment to government to work on the Augar review proposals, among other things, I take this opportunity to thank everyone involved.
I have been jinxed: I have not managed to contribute to any of the fine and informative debates that have taken place on this. They have highlighted some of the challenges that lie ahead. I am enormously encouraged by the cross-party support for the principle of a funding system that genuinely takes us forward into not just the 21st century but a future where post-compulsory lifelong learning is the rule, not the exception. We now have an opportunity to build on this.
I thank everyone involved in the drafting and passing of the Bill—although we have not quite passed it yet. I particularly put on record my appreciation of the work put in by a large number of officials who have worked enormously hard on this—on teasing out the policy implications and on minimising the amount that had to be put into primary legislation. I thank them and the Minister for her support. It is a little miraculous that we have moved from a major recommendation in 2019 to putting this reform on its way to implementation in 2023. So, on behalf of the Augar review team—and, I think, all the future students of this country—I thank everyone involved in this reform.
Energy Bill [HL]
Tuesday 12th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Energy Act 2023 View all Energy Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 168-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments - (11 Sep 2023)
16:55 - Division on the Amendment to the Motion. - Ayes: 191 / Noes: 216 - Amendment to the Motion disagreed.
17:12 - Division on the Amendment to the Motion. - Ayes: 186 / Noes: 214 - Amendment to Motion on Amendment 272 disagreed.
17:25 - Division on the Amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 208 / Noes: 205 - Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 274 agreed.
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
“(aa) the interim targets, as defined in section 2 of that Act;”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, as well as moving that this House do agree with the Commons in their amendment, I will also speak to the other Commons amendments. I am pleased to bring the Energy Bill back to this House, following on from the many hours of debate that we had during its parliamentary stages in this place. The Bill is essential to the transformation of our energy system and will leverage private investment in clean technologies. It will reform our energy system so that it is fit for the future, and it contains essential provisions for ensuring the safety, security and resilience of the UK’s energy system.
The Government have listened carefully to the points raised, both in this House and in the other place, and we tabled various amendments in the other place to address many of these issues. The amendments have been gathered into three groups. First, there are the amendments making changes to the Bill in response to concerns raised across the House and where we have overturned lost votes. Secondly, there are amendments where we have introduced new government policy. Thirdly, there are amendments addressing minor and technical amendments made to the Bill. I wrote to noble Lords about this in advance of the debate, and I am grateful for the positive engagement that I have received from across the House.
I will speak first to the amendments in the first group, tabled following constructive engagement with both Houses. First, on the amendment on Ofgem’s duties, no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will be pleased about this—and I am grateful to her for her amendments on Report that sought to include the Government’s net-zero targets within Ofgem’s duties. The Government have now tabled a revised version of the noble Baroness’s amendment to ensure that it would not impact the hierarchy and intended effect of Ofgem’s duties, but very much in the spirit of the original amendment. The revised provision amends Ofgem’s existing duty to consider a reduction in greenhouse gases by making specific reference to the net-zero targets and carbon budgets in the Climate Change Act 2008. This reaffirms the Government’s commitment and mandate in achieving our net-zero targets and ensures that Ofgem’s role in net zero is clear.
I turn to the amendments to the hydrogen levy provisions. The Government have included these provisions following consideration of the concerns raised by colleagues in both Houses, particularly the Labour Front Bench. Following careful analysis of the implications, these amendments are similar in intent to an amendment made on Report in this House, but they help to ensure that the provisions work in a way that is practical. Specifically, they remove provisions that enable the levy to be imposed on energy suppliers in Great Britain, ensuring that within Great Britain the levy could be placed only on gas shippers. In the case of Northern Ireland, the amendments are intended to ensure that only gas supply licence holders who engage in gas shipping activities can be subject to the levy. This reflects the different approach to the licensing of gas shipping across Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The revised legislation provides a fairer approach to funding hydrogen, placing the charge higher up the supply chain, with the potential for costs to be spread to sectors expected to benefit most from early hydrogen deployment.
Finally, I remind the House that the Bill will not impose a levy on gas shippers. Instead, it will enable government to introduce such a levy through secondary legislation. Any decision to do so would take into account all relevant considerations, including the affordability of energy bills. The Government will hold a public consultation as usual, before laying regulations introducing the levy.
I turn to amendments on renewable liquid heating fuel. As the recent biomass strategy made clear, such fuels will have a critical role to play in decarbonising our economy. We recognise that these fuels have the potential to play an important role in decarbonising heat in those off-grid properties that are not suited to electric heating. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his amendment and comments on Report on this issue. I am pleased to confirm that we will explore the potential of these fuels for heat by issuing a consultation within 12 months, and we are taking powers in the Bill to support the use of these fuels in heat in future. This amendment would provide government with the powers to introduce, again by regulation, measures that would impose obligations on heating fuel suppliers to supply specified amounts of renewable liquid heating fuel within specified periods. The Government also commit to consult specifically with the Scottish Government when consulting on the role of renewable liquid fuels in heating buildings off the gas grid and the implementation of a renewable liquid heating fuel obligation. The Government will look to legislate when parliamentary time allows to give statutory force to this consultation requirement.
Amendments 165 and 165A on sustainable aviation fuel commit the Government to publishing a consultation on the options for designing and implementing a revenue certainty scheme for sustainable aviation fuel within six months of the Bill being passed. The Government are also introducing a sustainable aviation fuel mandate from 2025 that will do the heavy lifting to close the cost gap between jet kerosene and sustainable aviation fuel by providing price support in the form of tradable certificates. These policies, along with the £165 million advanced fuels fund, will help to deliver our ambition of having at least five commercial-scale sustainable aviation fuel plants under construction in the UK by 2025.
I turn to community energy. The Government recognise that such projects can have real benefits for the communities in which they are based, and we are keen to ensure that they deliver value for money for consumers. That is why earlier this summer we launched a new £10 million community energy fund, which expands on the success of the previous rural community energy fund to enable both rural and urban communities across England to access grant funding to develop local renewable energy projects for investment. Alongside the proposed fund, we are committing to publishing an annual report and to consulting on the barriers the sector faces when developing projects.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 165A in my name and briefly comment on Amendment 272A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and Amendment 274A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, both of which have the strongest possible Green support.
It is 2023 and we are in a climate emergency. We cannot consider new coal. I am afraid the Minister’s brandishing of heritage railways does not hack it; it is a tiny usage, much as I have no objection to heritage railways. For steel and cement, other nations are moving very quickly away from using coal while we are stuck in the starting gate. On the community energy amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, I had the great pleasure formally to move it on Report and we saw hugely strong support not just in your Lordships’ House but all around the country. Tomorrow we will debate the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. This is a way to allow communities to take control of their energy supplies and provide the framework to set free huge opportunities up and down the land. It is a no-brainer and I urge your Lordships’ House to vote for both amendments.
Moving chiefly to my Amendment 165A, it is worth revisiting the history of the Bill. Those with a very long memory might think back to 19 July 2022, when it had its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House. That was three Prime Ministers back and I really cannot count how many energy policies we have had from the Government since then. We might be in traditional ping-pong now, but the Government’s positions on so many of the issues in the Energy Bill have bounced back and forward so fast within the Government that it is enough to make any observer dizzy.
One of the last-minute additions was this clause on so-called sustainable aviation fuel. If noble Lords look back to the other place, they will see that the level of debate that occurred around this very significant amendment was really very scant. That is why I have tabled this amendment now, to provide a real opportunity for your Lordships’ House to at least explore the issues and bring out some of the Government’s thinking. I hope we will also hear significant explanations from the other Front Benches on what their thinking is on so-called sustainable aviation fuel. It is often linked with and spoken about as though it is in the same stable as renewable energy, but the fact is, of course, that almost no flights now are powered by sustainable fuel because of supply and cost. Sustainable fuel can be three times as expensive and even for United, the largest consumer of sustainable fuels in the US, last year it comprised less than 1% of its total fuel consumption.
The fact is that so-called sustainable aviation fuels are not a “get out of the limits of this finite planet free card” for the aviation sector. The idea that aviation can keep expanding, or that it should—I shall be coming back to this tomorrow in an amendment to the levelling-up Bill—is, I would say, for the birds: although of course the birds cannot afford the inevitable environmental damage that burning stuff, whatever the stuff is, inflicts.
I can go through some statistics on this. Bain & Company in June published a report assessing the most likely pathways to net zero by 2050 for the aviation sector. The headline was that it can eliminate 70% of emissions from aircraft operations without using electric or hydrogen at scale. Just 5% of emissions reductions come from hydrogen and electric planes in the Bain & Company scenario; the rest is engine efficiency, aircraft efficiency, optimising routes and scaling up so-called sustainable aviation fuels. A 70% reduction is significant, but the Science Based Targets initiative net-zero standard requires a 90% reduction in CO2 across all scopes by 2050 at the very latest. This report suggests that so-called sustainable aviation fuel can meet a maximum of 60% of global jet fuel demand in 2050 in the best-case scenario.
I think it is worth reflecting very briefly, looking to debates in the other place, that we saw both Labour and Tory MPs going further than this amendment does and calling for government subsidies for the sector. We have to set this in the context of the fact that tax exemptions last year saw the Treasury lose £4.7 billion from the aviation sector: that is calculated by Transport & Environment. That could pay for—gosh—more than 40 new hospitals: does that sound familiar? Or it could cover the cost 10 times over of additional medical staff. It is the equivalent of 1% of the income taxes collected by the Government last year. That is the context.
To come to the detail, my amendment simply addresses subsection (6). It seeks to bring in some systems thinking: an approach that does not look simply at the climate emergency because, as huge and pressing as that is, we are actually in a state where we have exceeded so many other planetary boundaries and we face so many other crises and threats that it is absolutely critical that the Government think in a systemic kind of way. If your Lordships want to think about where things went horribly wrong when we did not do that, Dieselgate is the obvious example. That was a case of corruption and fraud, but behind it was the problem of looking simply at the carbon emissions from diesel and not considering all the other environmental effects.
The current government amendment says that the Secretary of State should look at the contribution to the reduction in greenhouse gases. My amendment keeps that but adds the impact on the food system. Your Lordships’ House often debates the fact that food security is a huge and pressing issue of our age, and if we take land out of use for growing food and turn it to growing stock for aviation fuels, we are creating a potentially huge problem for ourselves.
Proposed new subsection (6)(c) says,
“not negatively impact human, animal or plant health”.
That perhaps comes back to the diesel reference, if we think particularly about human health. Burning stuff produces pollutants—that is just practical reality. However, we must also think about plant health. We often talk about using agricultural waste for these sustainable aviation fuels. That agricultural waste could be going back into the soil to contribute to soil and plant health, bringing us to a situation where we are not depleting our soils and then topping them up with artificial fertilisers, particularly nitrogen produced by the incredibly energy-intensive Haber-Bosch process. This is a systems-thinking, joined-up approach.
Finally, my amendment says,
“not negatively impact the availability of feedstocks for other industrial processes”.
The Minister referred to steel and cement, but all kinds of different, innovative steps are being taken to use all kinds of different materials to replace current fossil fuel production. We need to think about where what we call waste could best go.
I am aware of the desire to move this debate on, so I will not speak much longer, but I have just two final reflections. First, we hear a great deal of talk about waste cooking oil in terms of so-called sustainable fuels. Well, I am afraid that your local chippy is not going to take your private jet flight very far at all—let us be realistic about that. Secondly, my mother’s favourite movie was “The Sound of Music”, in which there is a song that goes:
“Nothing comes from nothing,
Nothing ever could”.
All energy use—all fuel—has environmental and social costs associated with its production and use. We have to think in that systemic, holistic way when we think about how we fuel our sustainable future.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 187A in my name. The purpose of moving this amendment is straightforward: we have an opportunity to put in place an enforceable plan of action that will deliver the often-mentioned aspirations to deliver energy-efficient homes and properties. I was sure that the Minister would repeat the line that this is unnecessary—and so he did. But I am afraid that the facts tell a different story. The new clause would enable a plan to be in place, working to clear targets to reduce gas supply in homes by 25% and a 10-year programme to retrofit 19 million homes, costed at £6 billion, with local authority and a community base to deliver.
The facts are these. Since 2010, progress to reduce emissions has stalled. The UK is still heavily reliant on fossil fuels for home heating and industry, and has the least energy-efficient housing stock in Europe, according to the IMF. Limited progress on energy-efficiency measures has been made worse by poor public information campaigns and the lack of a long-term plan with clear targets, clear technical explanations and little evidence of a financial and structural plan to go alongside. I do not wish to repeat all the comments that have been made throughout the debates on this Bill. However, we have to acknowledge a lack of grip, of urgency, and of serious explanation of the benefits of determined action.
In terms of tackling emissions and meeting legally binding decarbonisation targets, reducing the need for heat must be a top priority. Benefits include: a reduction in the cost of heating homes—therefore, a very positive help to those suffering from the cost of living crisis; a huge benefit to the health of the population by achieving affordable warmth, potentially saving the NHS £500 million a year; and a major contribution to energy security by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
These come on top of the potential of delivering economic benefits, providing skilled jobs and high-wage opportunities. Retrofitting poorly performing homes alone could support 190,000 jobs across all regions. Given the strength of opinion on energy efficiency in so many analyses of progress, I am minded to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the Minister—he knows that I like to praise his work—particularly on the change in the Ofgem amendment, in that our major regulator will now have a net-zero objective. To me, that is absolutely stark staringly obvious, and the fact that there has been government resistance to it while the Bill has been in this House I find strange, so that is a real move forward. The other thing that is to me stark staringly stupid is that we are talking about opening a coal mine in 2023. That makes no sense at all, and I will go through the reasons why.
It is not just we on these Benches or the Opposition who have that view. Let me quote from the Commons at Report. The then Energy Minister, Chris Skidmore—highly respected in this area and highly respected by the Government, in that he wrote their independent net zero review—said:
“Legislating to prevent the opening of new coal mines simply maintains the commitment that the UK sought to make to the rest of the world at COP26”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/23; col. 303.]
That was Chris Skidmore, former Energy Minister, valued by the Government for his net zero review, and by all of us for that great piece of work.
At COP 26 in Glasgow a couple of years ago, which we chaired very successfully under Sir Alok Sharma, we nailed our colours to the mast and led a coalition of countries—I think the government press release says 190—and celebrated the fact that we would phase out coal. What motivates me most to put Amendment 272A forward again is that our international reputation is being shredded by the fact that we are moving ahead on this basis. Let us not pretend that it is not noticed internationally, because it is. Even the White House, under John Kerry, the climate envoy, has remarked on this piece of government policy planning and Michael Gove’s proposal to open the coal mine. So, our international reputation for climate leadership, which all of us on all sides of this House have been particularly proud of over the years, is being literally trashed by this decision.
That has other effects as well. During a Private Notice Question yesterday, we debated the fact that we had no investor take for offshore wind on the CfD pitch when it concluded last week. That shows that we need rock-solid commitment to net zero in order to attract investment into this country. To me, our saying internationally that we are starting to open coal mines absolutely goes against what we are saying to bring in investment. It questions UK government policy, which is competing with the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States and a green deal industrial plan in the EU. We are trying to get a slice of that global investment, yet our environmental and climate focus is wobbling. That is absolutely wrong.
This amendment would apply to any sort of coal mine, but the Minister mentioned the Cumbrian coal mine, which is what that decision is all about. Let us be clear about that proposition and the company West Cumbria Mining. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has said already, that industry is moving—indeed, must move—competitively towards a much greener stance; for the UK steel industry to remain competitive, it must do so as well. As I understand it, scientists have questions about West Cumbrian coal, including whether its sulphur content is even sufficient for the steel industry. However, the main facts are these: first, the steel industry generally is not that interested in that coal; and, secondly, the company itself says that some four-fifths of the coal will not be used by the UK steel industry, which means that it needs to be exported. Once coal is exported, we have no control over how that substance is used.
That brings me to transport. The argument is that it is better to provide our own coking coal than to import it. However, if we export 80% of this coal, that will put transport costs up because we will have the cost of transporting it to other, international markets.
The one argument that I do have sympathy with concerns jobs. We all know that the region of Cumbria is hugely challenged in terms of levelling up, jobs and income. However, it is completely obvious to me that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, just talked about with regard to Labour’s amendment, we have the ability to provide green jobs and proper energy efficiency. It is clear to me that this coal mine will not be there for a particularly long time, so those jobs will be transient.
I will leave it at that but let me come back to the United Kingdom’s international reputation and our important share in global investment in the green sector. I quote the Government’s own website, which said this after COP 26:
“The end of coal—the single biggest contributor to climate change—is in sight thanks to the UK securing a 190-strong coalition of countries and organisations at COP26”.
That was a proud moment for not just Alok Sharma but the Government. It is being trashed.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 274B in my name. I draw attention to my interests in the register.
I will speak briefly about community energy but let me just say that I absolutely support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I also very much support the noble Lord’s words, especially about what this measure is going to do to Britain’s reputation, and his reminding us of where this country was just a couple of short years ago as the leaders of COP, playing a proud role on the world stage; that seems to be in tatters right now.
Community energy is wildly popular in the country—it is extremely popular with all sorts of people. I find it puzzling why the Government are not bending over backwards to make this easier and simpler for people. I do not want to get into the arguments about onshore wind, but surely one way to mitigate communities’ concerns about renewable energy is to give people a stake in it so that it is about not just a bit of money but owning something. My sister has lived on a small island in Denmark for 60 years. The people there are completely energy independent. It was the first place I knew of that had wind farms everywhere. Everyone knows how much electricity is coming in and what it is doing. They have ownership and share prices—that is just the way it has been done, and it is kind of brilliant. Why can we not say, “The local energy we produce off that hill heats my towel rail all year round”? They can report, “I co-own it”, “It has paid to put solar panels on the roof of the community hall”, or “It has paid for energy efficiency advice and deals for the other homes in our village”.
In fairness to the Government, they have acknowledged this, but we seem to have spent an incredible amount of time hand-wringing about the difficulties rather than finding the easy, appropriate ways of supporting it. All that the sector wants is a deal comparable with all the other renewable energy that we have in this country, via a guaranteed minimum price. This gives communities the certainty that they need to raise the funds to go ahead. This is true across so much of the alternative energy sector.
I supported the establishment of the £10 million community energy fund but, quite honestly, that is not very much. If you look in the Evening Standard, you find that you can buy a flat for £10 million within about 100 yards of here. It is not going to go far enough. We need real reform, so the commitment made by Andrew Bowie in the other place
“to consulting on the barriers the sector faces when developing projects”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/23; col. 281.]
was particularly welcome.
That is why I have come up with this compromise amendment, which I hope that the Minister feels able to accept. It would give the industry a boost to know that there was something coming down the tracks on an agreed timeframe. A problem that we have seen before is consultations which do not receive a response—or do but with serious delays. That is all that I am trying to avoid with this amendment in lieu, which sets a generous timescale of 18 months for a consultation and a further six months for bringing forward proposals to remove the barriers to community energy schemes. This times nicely with the end of the two-year community energy fund and would avoid a potential cliff edge.
I believe that the Minister will appreciate the need for clarity for the sector and the need to reassure over 300 MPs, including 147 Conservative MPs, who backed the original Local Electricity Bill, which recognised the barriers to community energy and proposed remedies. I therefore ask him to give this house more clarity on timescales, or I may be required to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise extremely briefly to support very strongly the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lady Boycott. Regarding the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Boycott, it is crazy that we have barriers inhibiting the development of renewable energy by community energy schemes. This amendment is a very modest proposal to ensure that those barriers are removed within a reasonable timeframe. I hope that all sides of the House can support these three amendments, but I have particularly spoken to that tabled by the noble friend Lady Boycott.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and record my gratitude to the Minister for the Ofgem amendment. In much more elegant language, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that it was a no-brainer. It absolutely is, and Amendment 187A is equally a no-brainer. However, before I say why, I add my support to those amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Particularly in the latter we have a compromise which would really boost a sector of the energy industry that is of great benefit.
In terms of benefits, no one—including the Government —fundamentally challenges the benefits of improving the energy efficiency of Britain’s old, cold, leaky housing stock. They recognise the benefits for individuals and families in terms of health and reduced bills, but it goes beyond that. There are benefits for the UK because improving energy efficiency reduces demand, helps towards our net-zero target and improves our energy security. It is also potentially of benefit to the taxpayer in reducing the huge expense that the Government take on board when energy prices spike. We have seen how much the Government have spent on heating homes and that money going out of the window because of the state of the housing stock. There are also benefits in stimulating the retrofitting industry, which is a national industry. It goes across all parts of the country and helps with the training and then the providing of secure and sustainable jobs.
We have debated this—I will not say ad nauseam, but certainly at length—not only on this Bill but on the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, because of the issues that I was talking about, such as employment and the fact that the poorest people suffer most from the worst homes, in terms of energy efficiency and their health.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, as I did in Committee. The reduction that she has achieved in her ambitions sits very well with what the Government have said are their ambitions. I would like to see my noble friend supporting this and saying that it is an opportunity. Giving us a tight, but not too tight, timescale to make this happen is a good way to demonstrate that.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I will make a few comments. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lady Blake for their amendments and will make our position on them clear. Secondly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for the welcome changes that he made to the Bill in the other place on the housing levy and on renewable liquid fuels.
We generally welcome the passage of the Bill. It has been a long time in gestation—15 months or more—with hundreds of changes and more today. We welcome all those too, although they probably could have been made earlier.
I turn to the three amendments. First, on coal, the new new Labour Party is no longer in favour of coal. We absolutely support what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said about the coal industry, and it is time to put this in legislation. It is not enough to say that we are no longer committed to coal; we need to legislate for it and so we will be supporting this amendment.
On my noble friend Lady Blake’s amendment on energy efficiency, I will restate the facts. First, the UK has the least energy-efficient homes in Europe. Domestic energy-efficiency measures have fallen 95% since 2012 and are 20 times lower than they were when Labour was last in power. The Resolution Foundation estimates that 9 million households are paying an extra £170 a year as a result of these failings.
The Minister said that the amendment is unnecessary, because it is partly in the net zero strategy and the Powering Up Britain publication, but this is legislation, and it should state what the Government propose to achieve and by what timescale. Therefore, we support the amendment.
On community energy, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, set out very clearly her proposal to commit the Government to finding out what the barriers inhibiting the development of community energy are, and to bring forward a plan to overcome them. That is a very modest amendment from where we were the last time around, and I can see no reason whatever for the Government not to support it. We will support those three amendments should the Members wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I will start on the last issue raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Meacher, and others: that of community energy.
The Government launched the £10 million fund this summer, and it is larger than its predecessors. From what I have seen so far, it has been welcomed across the community energy sector. It will fund projects such as Congleton Hydro, which received £73,500 in funding from the former rural community energy fund—this fund will do a similar job. Thanks to that funding, it is producing affordable, clean and secure electricity from a local weir, enough to power the equivalent of 60 homes. Not only is the project reducing emissions in the area but its success has led to the creation of an annual £5,000 fund for local community projects.
Amendments 274A and 274B aim to commit us to a consultation on the barriers preventing the development of community energy schemes. The amendments set out with whom we should consult, and commit government to bringing forward proposals to remove identified barriers to community energy. But as I referred to earlier, the Government have already committed to consult on the barriers that the sector faces when developing projects. As part of this process, we will of course involve the community energy sector in designing the consultation, through the Community Energy Contact Group. We continue to believe that it is more appropriate to allow the small-scale export market to develop with minimum intervention than to introduce a support scheme that specifies minimum prices or contract lengths for generators.
I know that the House is keen on supporting community energy, and we are the same, but it has to be done in a cost-effective manner, because the cost is borne by every other bill payer. It might be advantageous to certain islands or rural community villages, but if there is a cost in excess of the system, it is borne by every other bill payer in the country. The amendments would place an additional obligation on government to bring forward proposals to remove these barriers within a specified timeframe.
In Committee in the other place, Energy UK submitted evidence recognising the role of community energy but cautioning:
“The additional context of developing roles for future energy system operation, reform of competition in delivery of network infrastructure, and wider reforms of electricity markets including energy retail”
mean that the consideration of community energy needs to take into account this much wider context, rather than considering community energy “in isolation”, and that we need
“to give the Government, the regulator, and the industry time to fully consider”
all those issues. We must be careful not to disadvantage the majority of the population to benefit a very small minority.
We obviously cannot be sure what the consultation will conclude until we have carried it out, so in our view it is not appropriate to make a commitment to do something the outcome of which, and what barriers or proposals will come forward, we do not know at this stage. But I reassure the House that the Government will continue to work closely with the sector and the wider industry on the best way forward.
I now move on to the somewhat contentious issue of coal. Amendment 272A, on prohibiting coal extraction, was raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Lennie, and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I was particularly interested to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, because of course we both come from the north-east of England, and there are still sitting Labour MPs in the north-east, whom the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, knows well, campaigning in favour of opening new coal mines. It is interesting that the Labour position seems to be developing from that.
A full prohibition on coal extraction is likely to prevent extensions in existing operational mining—even where that extension could enable site restoration or deliver public safety benefits. It would cut across heritage mining rights in, for instance, the Forest of Dean, which is important to its tourism offer, and perhaps also in Beamish, another area that we know well. Importantly, it would prevent domestic coal extraction projects from progressing that seek to supply industries that are still reliant on coal, such as steel manufacturing. Again, the Labour Party loses no opportunity to lecture us on the importance of the steel industry. That industry is going through a transformation, but many parts of it still require access to coal, so I hope the Labour Party has cleared its position with the steel unions, which I suspect would not support an amendment such as this—I will leave that little domestic argument to different Labour members.
The phasing out of future coal-powered generation, which we do agree with, is a more proportionate response to moving away from coal use than a complete prohibition on coal extraction. Such a ban would deny the prospect of access to domestic coal reserves for future generations, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of the use it could be put to and regardless of the fact that it could perhaps play a role with CCUS in the future.
The Secretary of State for DLUHC’s decision on the mine followed a comprehensive planning inquiry that heard from over 40 different witnesses and considered matters including the demand for coking coal and its suitability. It went into all the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, recommended, the climate change impact and, crucially, the impact on that particular local economy. While the full reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision are set out in his published letter—which should perhaps be read in its entirety—he concluded that
“there is currently a UK and European market for the coal … it is highly likely that a global demand would remain”.
While coking coal may be required for steel production for quite some time—I assume the Labour Party is not proposing that we should close the steel industry down overnight; if so, that would be a fairly radical policy change from all that it has said before—to support the decarbonisation of that industry through its transition period, as well as other industries that still rely on coking coal, we have already put in place the £315 million industrial energy transformation fund. We think that is a better way to help industry move away from coal in the future, rather than just banning their fuel source, because you would be banning British coal—you would not be banning coal; you would just import those same supplies produced by miners in other parts of the world. This helps business, in our view, with their high energy use, to cut their energy bills and reduce their carbon emissions through investing in energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies—that is a more constructive way to proceed.
On sustainable aviation fuel, again the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, got excited and condemned us for something that we are not doing. Sustainable aviation fuel is the most developed technology pathway for aviation decarbonisation and will play a key role along with the other technologies as outlined in the jet zero strategy. Many experts view sustainable aviation fuel as the only alternative to kerosene for long-haul flights up until 2050. If the noble Baroness does not want that, she should have the courage of her convictions and say to people that what the Greens really want to do is to ban flying completely, to prevent people going on business or on their holidays. If that is her agenda, she should say so, rather than try to put amendments forward to prevent us developing those sustainable fuels that we could use in the future to decarbonise the sector.
We recognise that there is uncertainty around feedstock availability and we will continue to work closely with colleagues across government to ensure that the most up-to-date evidence and modelling are reflected throughout the policy design of the SAF mandate and the revenue certainty mechanism. We have already confirmed that the sustainable aviation fuel mandate will not support crop-based biofuels and that SAF must meet strict sustainability criteria. These measures will prevent negative environmental consequences, such as the loss of biodiversity, deforestation and the clearance of land with high-carbon stock that could be associated with the cultivation of raw materials that may be used in certain SAF production.
On energy efficiency and energy statements, of course I understand noble Lords’ desire to go further. I am passionately committed to the cause of energy efficiency, but I do not recognise some of the characterisation put forward in this House. We are making good progress in this country. In 2010, some 14% of UK homes were at EPC band C or above. Now it almost 50%. We have a particularly difficult problem because we have the oldest housing stock in Europe, but we are making progress on this matter. We could go further and faster, and we are endeavouring to do so, but we do have a good record in this country. I want to put that on the record before I talk about the specific issues.
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group. The Government introduced amendments on Report in the Commons to commence further provisions of the Bill on Royal Assent. These amendments will ensure that key secondary legislation can progress at the pace required for the department’s policy objectives to be met.
The remaining government amendments are technical and minor in nature. They relate to existing policies already in the Bill. I wrote to noble Lords about these amendments, setting out what they do and our intentions behind them. Therefore, the House will forgive me if I do not speak to every amendment in detail; I will instead recap the key amendments we sought to make in the other place.
In general, the amendments have been made to improve the clarity, precision and consistency of the Bill. In Part 1, we have amended the definition of a carbon capture entity to include direct air capture projects, with the intention of supporting such projects that bolster our greenhouse gas removals efforts, as set out in the net zero strategy.
In Part 2, we have tabled amendments to the definitions of hydrogen production revenue support contract and carbon capture revenue support contract so that, while contracts can be offered only to eligible low-carbon hydrogen producers and eligible carbon capture entities, after the point of contract signature it is for the contracts to set the parameters of the ongoing support that they provide. This will help ensure that projects and their investors are clear on the terms of their support. That should inspire confidence in this new regime.
We have amended Part 5, on the independent system operator and planner, to limit the breadth of its efficiency and economy objective and clarify the definitions of ISOP functions in the Bill. These changes leave the ISOP with a mission that is more clearly defined but also flexible enough to accommodate wider developments in energy regulation. They should also help to reduce the risk of the ISOP being distracted from its core purposes and potentially incurring unnecessary costs to customers.
Part 12 on the offshore wind environmental improvement package has been amended to make clear that the clauses apply to all infrastructure in the UK marine area used or intended for use in connection with an offshore wind farm and in connection with the conveyance of electricity generated by such wind farms. Further amendments have been made on the energy performance of premises, petroleum production licensing, the disposal of radioactive waste and compensation for nuclear damage, as well as other minor drafting and clarificatory amendments. I hope noble Lords will agree that they are necessary amendments that improve the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Callanan
Moved by
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 3 to 16.
“(7A) But regulations made by virtue of subsection (7)(a) may not make provision amending (or repealing or revoking) any provision of—
(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or an instrument made under such an Act, unless the Scottish Ministers have consented to the making of that provision;
(b) a Measure or Act of Senedd Cymru, or an instrument made under such a Measure or Act, unless the Welsh Ministers have consented to the making of that provision;
(c) Northern Ireland legislation, or an instrument made under Northern Ireland legislation, unless the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland has consented to the making of that provision.”
(b) consider any representations which are duly made and not withdrawn.”
“(2A) Before making regulations under this section containing provision within devolved competence, the Secretary of State must give notice to each relevant devolved authority—
(a) stating that the Secretary of State proposes to make regulations under this section, and
(b) specifying the period (of not less than 28 days from the date on which the notice is given) within which representations may be made with respect to the provision within the relevant devolved competence, and must consider any representations duly made and not withdrawn.
(2B) For the purposes of this section “relevant devolved authority” means—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, if the regulations contain provision within Scottish devolved competence;
(b) the Welsh Ministers, if the regulations contain provision within Welsh devolved competence;
(c) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, if the regulations contain provision within Northern Ireland devolved competence;
and “the relevant devolved competence”, in relation to a relevant devolved authority, is to be construed accordingly.
(2C) For the purposes of this section, provision—
(a) is within Scottish devolved competence if it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament;
(b) is within Welsh devolved competence if it would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006);
(c) is within Northern Ireland devolved competence if it—
(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and
(ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;
and references to provision being within devolved competence are to provision that is within Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland devolved competence.”
(b) specify a period of not less than 28 days within which representations or objections with respect to the proposed regulations may be made,
and the Secretary of State must consider any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn.”
(b) sending a copy of the notice to—
(i) the Scottish Ministers, if an activity that would be authorised by the proposed licence is within Scottish devolved competence;
(ii) the Welsh Ministers, if an activity that would be authorised by the licence is within Welsh devolved competence;
(iii) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, if an activity that would be authorised by the licence is within Northern Ireland devolved competence.
(5A) Section 17(4) (activities authorised by a licence: devolved competence) applies for the purposes of subsection (5)(b) of this section as it applies for the purposes of section 17.”
“(10) For the purposes of this section “appropriate devolved authority”, in relation to regulations, means—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, if the regulations contain provision within Scottish devolved competence;
(b) the Welsh Ministers, if the regulations contain provision within Welsh devolved competence;
(c) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, if the regulations contain provision within Northern Ireland devolved competence.
(10A) For the purposes of this section, provision—
(a) is within Scottish devolved competence if it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament;
(b) is within Welsh devolved competence if it would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006);
(c) is within Northern Ireland devolved competence if it—
(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and
(ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”
“(a) stating that the Secretary of State proposes to make regulations under this section, and
(b) specifying the period (of not less than 28 days from the date on which the notice is given) within which representations must be made with respect to the proposed provisions,
and must consider any representations duly made and not withdrawn.”
(iii) the appropriate devolved authorities (if any).”
“(12) For the purposes of this section the “appropriate devolved authorities” are—
(a) the Welsh Ministers, if provision making the modifications proposed in the notice under subsection (2) would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006);
(b) the Scottish Ministers, if provision making the modifications proposed in that notice would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament;
(c) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, if provision making the modifications proposed in that notice—
(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and
(ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”
the Scottish Ministers, if an activity authorised by the licence is within Scottish devolved competence,
the Welsh Ministers, if an activity authorised by the licence is within Welsh devolved competence,
the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, if an activity authorised by the licence is within Northern Ireland devolved competence,
(iv) the Oil and Gas Authority, and
(v) such other persons as the economic regulator considers are likely to be affected by the decision, and”
“(1A) Section 17(4) (activities authorised by a licence: devolved competence) applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) of this section as it applies for the purposes of section 17.”
“(5A) The economic regulator must send a copy of any notice given by it under subsection (4) to—
(a) the Welsh Ministers,
(b) the Scottish Ministers, and
(c) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.”
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 17.
“carbon dioxide transport and storage revenue support contract” has the meaning given by section 59(2);”
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak also to the other amendments in this group, which concern new policy that was introduced in the other place. I turn first to the amendments on hydrogen transport and storage infrastructure. These amendments will enable business models to be brought forward to provide investors with the long-term revenue certainty that they will need to establish and scale up the deployment of hydrogen transport and storage infrastructure. I am sure this will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who spoke about this earlier in the Bill’s passage.
The development of this infrastructure represents the critical next step in the growth of the hydrogen economy to support the Government’s ambition to have up to 10 gigawatts of low-carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030. The business models are intended to help overcome the key barriers to investment in this infrastructure, such as high capital costs, lengthy development lead times and uncertain financial investment returns in what is a very nascent market.
Next, on carbon capture storage information and samples, the amendments support the role of the North Sea Transition Authority—NSTA—as the regulator of carbon dioxide storage in the UK continental shelf. They achieve this by ensuring that it has the relevant powers to access and share information and samples collected through relevant carbon-storage activities. This reflects similar powers already held by the NSTA for the petroleum industry and will enhance knowledge sharing across the carbon capture, usage and storage industry. It will support innovation for the effective utilisation of the UK’s geological storage potential and help encourage private investment in the UK’s growing green economy.
The Government have also tabled amendments relating to Great British Nuclear. These amendments will enable GBN to support government in rebuilding our civil nuclear industry and facilitating the delivery of nuclear projects to achieve our net-zero ambitions. GBN will play a critical role in strengthening the UK’s energy security. By legislating for GBN, we are working to undo decades of underinvestment and inspire trust in the UK civil nuclear industry, restoring the global leadership that the UK used to have in civil nuclear power.
I move on to discuss the amendments to provide relief on network charging for energy-intensive industries. High industrial electricity prices are one of the key barriers that inhibit the most carbon-intensive sectors from adopting greener technology. The measures deliver on a fundamental element of the British industry supercharger set out in February. These amendments will give the Government the powers to deliver a scheme that will provide relief on electricity network charges for Britain’s strategic energy-intensive industries. It will bring electricity prices for these UK businesses in line with some of their global competitors, thereby helping to preserve thousands of jobs and investment and enabling greater electrification of industrial processes, removing one of the major barriers to decarbonisation. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 259A to 271A inclusive; your Lordships will be pleased to know that I do not intend to speak to each one individually. For technical reasons these had to be split up but, essentially, this is a chance for your Lordships’ House to reconsider again the whole Great British Nuclear introduction that the Minister just outlined.
This debate follows on in many ways from that secured for last Thursday by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, about nuclear power. I will not revisit all the many issues raised there, although I note that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, expressed rightful and strong scepticism about the progress of both Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, on cost and other factors. There is also the continuing cost of the clean-up of dinosaur technology from the last century of £260 billion, and issues of waste that we have still not tackled.
I said that I will not go through these amendments one by one, but I do want to speak to Amendment 262A, which disagrees with the financial assistance. In our discussion yesterday on the failure of the offshore wind contract for difference bidding process, the Minister said my suggestion that we should look at a higher strike price for offshore wind was not thinking about the bill payer. I do not know how many Members of your Lordships’ House have looked closely at the detail of government Amendment 262, but it is utterly an open slather:
“The Secretary of State may provide financial assistance … to facilitate the design, construction, commissioning and operation of nuclear energy generation”.
Proposed new subsection (2) says that this assistance
“may be provided … by way of grant, loan, guarantee or indemnity … the acquisition of shares … the acquisition of … assets … a contract, or … by incurring expenditure for the benefit of the person assisted”.
Proposed new subsection (3) says that the assistance may be considered “without interest”—it goes on and on. I will not go through the whole lot, but basically this allows the Secretary of State the open slather to do whatever they like to fund nuclear—and one thing we know about nuclear energy generation is that it costs, and the cost just keeps going up.
I am afraid there is currently a great deal of speculation. Many people accept that, essentially, Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C are ongoing disasters. We have this wonderful new idea of small-scale nuclear plants scattered all over the countryside, as a noble Lord suggested in last Thursday’s debate. Really, my Lords, how realistic is this? We are talking about something that simply does not scale down.
I am aware of the desire of your Lordships’ House to move on to votes, but I want to quote one person who perhaps has a different perspective from mine. Markus Krebber, the chief executive of RWE, suggests that investors should not and will not back nuclear plants. This comes back to the issue of finance. If there will not be private money coming in, we are talking about massive sums of government money. He told the Australian Financial Review:
“I would have a big question mark whether building new ones is really a good strategy, because if you look at the cost overruns and the delays, I think purely a renewables-based energy system including the necessary storage is probably in most of the regions already today cheaper than new nuclear”.
I think that is unarguable.
I will briefly address the issue of Sizewell C. We are talking as Japanese fishermen around the Fukushima nuclear plant suffer massive economic loss as a result of the dumping of wastewater into the sea there. In Suffolk we will see the local economy facing massive loss if Sizewell C goes ahead. Studies by the Suffolk Coast destination management organisation show that visitors would stay away, losing the tourism industry up to £40 million a year and an estimated 400 jobs.
If we look at the environmental impacts of the proposed Sizewell C, we can see that it is opposed by both the RSPB and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust. The site is surrounded by protected wildlife habitats. When it comes to water, the Planning Inspectorate was unable to recommend that Sizewell C be granted planning consent due to the lack of an identified long-term supply of potable water. There is a huge problem with access to the site. It will require a 60-metre cut-off wall so that it can be dewatered and existing soil can be swapped out for more suitable material and huge, as yet undesigned, sea defences. Looking at the state of our climate now, we are seeing significant runaway with very serious potential risks in the impact on our sea levels. I note that Cefas said that
“it is generally only possible to predict detailed changes to the coastline over the next 10 years”.
I have focused a little on Sizewell C and the deep uncertainties and concern because of the point about money. Under the government amendment, we are letting a Government go ahead and do whatever they like and spend whatever they like on a project that is so deeply problematic.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The Minister waxed lyrical about the scheme to provide subsidies for energy-intensive industries. We were deeply moved by his enthusiasm. He was silent on the clause that follows. He was talking about Clause 177, but Clause 178 sets out how the subsidies are to be paid for—by levies on all electricity users. I do not want this moment to pass without making the old-fashioned comment that I think it is best that subsidies are paid for out of taxation, rather than by levies.
Subsidies are a political decision by the Government; they are absolutely entitled to make those political decisions. But all electricity users are, at the moment, suffering from the political decision to instruct Ofgem to prioritise competition, which has led to the collapse of more than 30 supply companies. The costs of these collapses are being borne by us all in the levies on our electricity bills. You can debate whether it is honest or dishonest for political decisions to be paid for in a concealed fashion of this kind, but what is certain is that it is regressive. I am therefore slightly less enthusiastic about the combination of Amendments 177 and 178 than the Minister was about Amendment 177.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
All I would like to say is that, in response to the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, we are interested in keeping the lights on and we are interested in nuclear being part of the mix of fuels that will keep the electricity going, particularly now that coal will no longer be part of the electricity production in this country.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will first deal directly with the points by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. What should I say about this? He is, of course, prescient in his observations, but this has been a long-standing policy—effectively of the Treasury, which is unwilling to fund many of these policies from general taxation. Therefore, a lot of previous subsidies, such as the warm home discount, are levied on energy bills. That has been a long-standing policy through a number of Governments and different Treasuries. I wish the noble Lord luck in his campaign to change the mind of His Majesty’s Treasury on these matters.
Moving on to the other issues, let me deal first with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The problem for the Greens on this is that any sensible energy system in the UK—this is recognised also by the Opposition and we are grateful for their support—needs nuclear power, because it is a source of carbon-free electricity. Of course, many Greens, the more progressive Greens who have looked at our energy system properly, also support the use of nuclear power. I would point the noble Baroness to a very interesting website that I was looking at, called Greens for Nuclear Energy. This is a statement from a series of members of the Green Party who take a sensible and progressive view about this. Looking at the needs of the energy supply system and the need for decarbonisation, they have come to the same conclusion as many other sensible experts: that there is a need for nuclear power in this country.
The website says:
“Greens For Nuclear Energy seek to influence the Green movement’s key organisations and institutions”
in favour of nuclear energy because
“We need every available low carbon power source to combat catastrophic climate change”.
They therefore believe that
“the increasingly urgent need to deal decisively with our emerging climate crisis makes continued opposition to nuclear energy irrational for environmentalists and reduces our chances of averting a climate catastrophe.”
Perhaps the noble Baroness would want to go away and look at some of the more sensible members of her own party.
The invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent rise in global energy prices have demonstrated the paramount importance of accelerating our homegrown power and strengthening our national energy security. This is in addition to the significant contribution, as I have just said, that nuclear would make to achieving our net-zero objectives because it is very low carbon. Nuclear technology generates zero direct carbon or other greenhouse gas emissions and has one of the lowest life cycle emission rates among generating technologies. The Committee on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency and the UN Economic Commission for Europe—alongside some sensible Green members—have all highlighted the role that new nuclear electricity generating capacity, in partnership with renewables, can play as part of our diverse energy mix while helping us to achieve net zero.
Great British Nuclear will de-risk new nuclear developments by, among other things, co-funding selected technologies through their development. This will provide greater certainty for investors to develop projects over the long term required to deliver new nuclear generation capacity on to the electricity grid. We intend to fund Great British Nuclear’s initial operating costs via grant in aid. It will be subject to standard NDPB reporting and accountability requirements, which will be set out in Great British Nuclear’s framework document.
The terms of investment in development projects will be bespoke and negotiated on an individual basis. The key goal will be to deliver on the Government’s commitment to increase nuclear energy capacity in Britain, while of course ensuring, as always, value for money for the taxpayer and the bill payer. We are legislating to ensure that Great British Nuclear has the long-term operational mandate needed to carry out the role that government intend for it. The amendments set out the framework within which Great British Nuclear shall operate in facilitating the deployment of nuclear reactors in Britain.
I spoke earlier about the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. The EII support levy, like the other measures in the British Industry Supercharger, would simply constitute a rebalancing of existing electricity costs away from EIIs and on to other energy users, who have traditionally received more protection from higher energy prices than some in industry.
At the end of these debates, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. In particular, I thank my colleague in the other place, Andrew Bowie, for guiding the Bill through the House of Commons. I also thank the department’s Bill team and all the other policy and legal officials across various government departments who have been involved in this huge and landmark piece of legislation. They who have worked tirelessly to deliver it. I particularly thank the House authorities, parliamentary staff, clerks and doorkeepers, and all noble Lords who have contributed to the evolution of this landmark Bill.
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 188 to 258.
(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Secretary of State;
(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Department;”
““the Department” means the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland;”
“(1A) Regulations under this Part containing provision within subsection (2) (with or without other provision)—
(a) if made by the Secretary of State, are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 276);
(b) if made by the Scottish Ministers, are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10));
(c) if made by the Department, may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
“(2A) Any other regulations under this Part—
(a) if made by the Secretary of State, are subject to the negative procedure (see section 276);
(b) if made by the Scottish Ministers, are subject to the negative procedure (see section 28 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10));
(c) if made by the Department, are subject to negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.)).”
“(4) A power of the Department to make regulations under this Part is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).”
“(5) In this section “primary legislation” means—
(a) an Act of Parliament,
(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(c) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or
(d) Northern Ireland legislation.”
“(2A) Before making ESOS regulations that contain provision within devolved competence, the Secretary of State must give notice—
(a) stating that the Secretary of State proposes to make ESOS regulations,
(b) setting out or describing the provisions of the regulations that contain provision within devolved competence, and
(c) specifying the period (of not less than 28 days from the date on which the notice is given) within which representations may be made with respect to those provisions,
and must consider any representations duly made and not withdrawn.
(2B) A notice under subsection (2A) must be given to each relevant devolved authority, that is to say—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, so far as the regulations contain provision within Scottish devolved competence;
(b) the Welsh Ministers, so far as the regulations contain provision within Welsh devolved competence;
(c) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, so far as the regulations contain provision within Northern Ireland devolved competence.
(2C) The Secretary of State need not wait until the end of the period specified under subsection (2A)(c) before making ESOS regulations if, before the end of that period, each relevant devolved authority to which the notice was given has confirmed that it has made any representations it intends to make with respect to the provisions referred to in subsection (2A)(b).
(2D) The Secretary of State must, if requested to do so by a relevant devolved authority, give the authority a statement setting out whether and how representations made by the authority with respect to the provisions referred to in subsection (2A)(b) have been taken into account in the regulations.
(2E) References in subsection (2A) to provision within devolved competence are to provision that is within Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland devolved competence.
(2F) Where the Secretary of State makes ESOS regulations that have effect in relation to the compliance period beginning on 6 December 2019 (see regulation 4 of the Energy Savings Opportunity Schemes Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/1643))—
(a) subsections (2A) to (2E) do not apply, and
(b) before making the regulations, the Secretary of State must consult—
(i) the Scottish Ministers, so far as the regulations contain provision within Scottish devolved competence,
(ii) the Welsh Ministers, so far as the regulations contain provision within Welsh devolved competence, and
(iii) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, so far as the regulations contain provision within Northern Ireland devolved competence,
and subsection (2) applies to consultation under paragraph (b) as it applies to consultation under subsection (1).”
“(d) the acquisition of shares or any other interest in, or securities of, a body corporate;”
(a) the planning, construction, operation or decommissioning of offshore wind electricity infrastructure, or
(b) the identification of an area for activity within paragraph (a) (whether or not any particular offshore wind electricity infrastructure is in contemplation).”
“(2) In subsection (1), “offshore wind electricity infrastructure” means—
(a) a generating station, in the UK marine area, that generates electricity from wind (an “offshore wind generating station”), or
(b) infrastructure, in the UK marine area, used or intended for use in connection with—
(i) an offshore wind generating station, or
(ii) the conveyance of electricity generated by an offshore wind generating station.”
“(3) For the purposes of the reference in subsection (2)(b)(ii) to infrastructure used or intended for use in connection with the conveyance of electricity generated by an offshore wind generating station, it does not matter whether the infrastructure is also used or intended for use in connection with the conveyance of electricity generated from other sources.”
“(5A) “Relevant person”, for the purposes of a determination made by virtue of subsection (4)(a), means the person who imposed the compensation condition.”
“(8A) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (7)(c) must provide that the delegation of a function—
(a) to a Scottish public authority requires the consent of the Scottish Ministers;
(b) to a Welsh public authority requires the consent of the Welsh Ministers;
(c) to a Northern Ireland public authority requires the consent of DAERA.”
“(9A) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, so far as the regulations relate to relevant offshore wind activities in Scotland,
(b) the Welsh Ministers, so far as the regulations relate to relevant offshore wind activities in Wales,
(c) DAERA, so far as the regulations relate to relevant offshore wind activities in Northern Ireland, and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
“(6A) Regulations made under this section by the Secretary of State—
(a) may not provide for a function that is exercisable by a Scottish public authority, a Welsh public authority or a Northern Ireland public authority to cease to be exercisable by that authority, and
(b) to the extent that a function is exercisable by or on behalf of a Scottish public authority, a Welsh public authority or a Northern Ireland public authority, may not provide for the function also to be exercisable to that extent by another person,
but may (subject to paragraphs (a) and (b)) modify such a function.”
“(7A) But regulations made by the Secretary of State by virtue of subsection (7)(a) may not enable directions to be given—
(a) to a Scottish public authority by a person other than the Scottish Ministers;
(b) to a Welsh public authority by a person other than the Welsh Ministers.”
“(3) References in this Chapter—
(a) to a Scottish public authority are to the Scottish Ministers or any other public authority whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Scotland;
(b) to a Welsh public authority are to the Welsh Ministers or any other public authority whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Wales;
(c) to a Northern Ireland public authority are to a Northern Ireland department or any other public authority whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Northern Ireland.”
“Regulations under section 251 and 252: procedure with devolved authorities
Regulations under section 251
(1) Before making regulations under section 251 that contain provision within devolved competence, the Secretary of State must give notice to each relevant devolved authority—
(a) stating that the Secretary of State proposes to make regulations under that section,
(b) setting out or describing the provision that is within the relevant devolved competence, and
(c) specifying the period (of not less than 28 days from the date on which the notice is given) within which representations may be made with respect to that provision,
and must consider any representations duly made and not withdrawn.
(2) The Secretary of State need not wait until the end of the period specified under subsection (2)(c) before making regulations if, before the end of that period, each relevant devolved authority to which the notice was given has confirmed that it has made any representations it intends to make with respect to the provision referred to in subsection (2)(b).
(3) The Secretary of State must, if requested to do so by a relevant devolved authority, give the authority a statement setting out whether and how representations made by the authority with respect to the provision referred to in subsection (2)(b) have been taken into account in the regulations.
(4) In subsections (1) to (3), “relevant devolved authority”, in relation to regulations, means—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, if the regulations contain provision within Scottish devolved competence;
(b) the Welsh Ministers, if the regulations contain provision within Welsh devolved competence;
(c) the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, if the regulations contain provision within Northern Ireland devolved competence;
and “the relevant devolved competence”, in relation to a relevant devolved authority, is to be construed accordingly.
Regulations under section 252
(5) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under section 252 containing provision within Scottish devolved competence unless the Scottish Ministers have consented to that provision.
(6) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under section 252 containing provision within Welsh devolved competence unless the Welsh Ministers have consented to that provision.
Devolved competence
(7) For the purposes of this section, provision—
(a) is within Scottish devolved competence if it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament;
(b) is within Welsh devolved competence if it would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006);
(c) is within Northern Ireland devolved competence if it—
(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and
(ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;
and references to provision being within devolved competence are to provision that is within Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland devolved competence.”
“(za) the Petroleum (Production) (Landward Areas) Regulations 1995 (S.I.
1995/1436),
(zb) the Petroleum (Current Model Clauses) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/160),
(zc) the Petroleum Licensing (Exploration and Production) (Seaward and Landward Areas) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/352),”
“(2) Where a licence granted (or having effect as if granted) by the Oil and Gas Authority under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 or the Petroleum Act 1998—
(a) incorporates model clauses amended by a paragraph of Schedule 19 (whether or not any provision of those model clauses is modified or excluded), and
(b) is in force immediately before that paragraph comes into force,
the licence has effect with the amendments provided for by that paragraph.”
““licensed disposal site” means a site that would be, or would at any time have been, a relevant disposal site but for section 7B(5)(a) (nuclear site licence granted in respect of site);”
“Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage: implementation power
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate—
(a) to implement the CSC, or
(b) otherwise for the purposes of dealing with any other matter arising out of, or related to, the CSC.
(2) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1) includes provision that is authorised by the CSC to be made in relation to a particular matter.
(3) Regulations under this section may amend—
(a) Schedule 20,
(b) the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, or
(c) any other enactment having effect in relation to a matter to which the CSC relates.
(4) In this section, “the CSC” means the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (as amended or supplemented from time to time).
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 259.
“Great British Nuclear
(1) The Secretary of State may by notice designate a company as Great British Nuclear.
(2) A company may be designated under this section only if—
(a) it is limited by shares, and
(b) it is wholly-owned by the Crown.
(3) A notice under subsection (1)—
(a) must specify the time from which the designation has effect, and
(b) must be published by the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after the notice is given.
(4) The designation of a company terminates—
(a) if it ceases to be wholly-owned by the Crown, or
(b) if the Secretary of State revokes its designation by notice.
(5) A notice under subsection (4)(b)—
(a) must specify the time from which the revocation has effect, and
(b) must be published by the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after the notice is given.
(6) For the purposes of this section a company is wholly-owned by the Crown if each share in the company is held by—
(a) a Minister of the Crown,
(b) the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority established by section 1 of the Energy Act 2004,
(c) the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority established by section 1 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954,
(d) a company which is wholly-owned by the Crown, or
(e) a nominee of a person falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (d).
(7) A company designated as Great British Nuclear under this section is exempt from the requirement in section 59 of the Companies Act 2006 (requirement as to use of “limited” in company name).
(8) In this section—
“company” means a company registered under the Companies Act 2006;
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (see section 8(1) of that Act).”
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 260.
“Crown status
(1) Great British Nuclear is not to be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.
(2) Great British Nuclear’s property is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.”
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 261.
“Great British Nuclear’s objects
Great British Nuclear’s objects are to facilitate the design, construction, commissioning and operation of nuclear energy generation projects for the purpose of furthering any policies published by His Majesty's government.”
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 262.
“Financial assistance
(1) The Secretary of State may provide financial assistance—
(a) to Great British Nuclear, or
(b) to any other person to facilitate the design, construction, commissioning and operation of nuclear energy generation projects.
(2) Financial assistance under this section may be provided in any form and in particular may be provided—
(a) by way of grant, loan, guarantee or indemnity,
(b) by the acquisition of shares or any other interest in, or securities of, a body corporate,
(c) by the acquisition of any undertaking or of any assets,
(d) pursuant to a contract, or
(e) by incurring expenditure for the benefit of the person assisted.
(3) Financial assistance under this section may be provided subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, which may include—
(a) conditions about repayment with or without interest or other return, or
(b) conditions with which Great British Nuclear or any recipient of financial assistance under subsection (1)(b) must comply if the financial assistance is used for—
(i) acquiring shares or any other interest in, or securities of, a body corporate, or
(ii) participating in a partnership or joint venture.
(4) The power to provide financial assistance under this section is in addition to (and does not limit or replace) any other power of a Minister of the Crown to provide financial assistance.
(5) In this section—
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (see section 8(1) of that Act);
“partnership” means—
(a) a partnership within the meaning of the Partnership Act 1890, or
(b) a limited partnership within the meaning of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907.”
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 263.
“Secretary of State directions and guidance
(1) The Secretary of State may from time to time give Great British Nuclear directions or guidance.
(2) Before giving a direction or issuing guidance the Secretary of State must consult Great British Nuclear and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) Directions may be general or particular in character.
(4) Great British Nuclear must—
(a) comply with any directions given to it under this section, and
(b) have regard to any guidance given to it under this section.
(5) The Secretary of State must—
(a) publish and lay before Parliament any directions given to Great British Nuclear under this section, and
(b) publish any guidance given to Great British Nuclear under this section.”
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 264.
“Annual report
(1) Great British Nuclear must, after the end of each reporting year, send a report to the Secretary of State about the activities it has undertaken during that year.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament together with any comments that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) In this section “reporting year”, in relation to Great British Nuclear, means a period of 12 months ending with 31 March (but does not include any period before its designation as Great British Nuclear).”
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 265.
“Annual accounts
(1) Great British Nuclear must send a copy of its accounts and reports for each financial year to the Secretary of State before the end of the period for filing those accounts and reports.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of any accounts and reports received under subsection (1) before Parliament.
(3) In this section—
“accounts and reports” means, in relation to Great British Nuclear, the annual accounts and reports that Great British Nuclear’s directors must deliver to the registrar under section 441 of the Companies Act 2006;
“financial year”, in relation to Great British Nuclear, means Great British Nuclear’s financial year determined in accordance with section 390 of the Companies Act 2006;
“period for filing”, in relation to accounts and reports for a financial year, has the same meaning as in the Companies Acts (see section 442 of the Companies Act 2006);
“the registrar” has the meaning given by section 1060(3) of the Companies Act 2006.”
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 266.
“Transfer schemes
(1) The Secretary of State may make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities—
(a) to a GBN body or a proposed GBN body from—
(i) a former GBN body;
(ii) a GBN body;
(iii) a proposed GBN body;
(iv) a Minister of the Crown or Crown body;
(v) a designated BNFL body;
(vi) an NDA body;
(vii) a UKAEA body;
(viii) a nominee of a person falling within any of sub- paragraphs (i) to (vii);
(b) to a former GBN body, a Minister of the Crown or Crown body, a designated BNFL body or a public body from—
(i) a former GBN body;
(ii) a GBN body.
(2) The things that may be transferred under a transfer scheme include—
(a) rights and liabilities relating to a contract of employment;
(b) property, rights and liabilities that could not otherwise be transferred;
(c) property acquired, and rights and liabilities arising, after the making of the scheme;
(d) criminal liabilities.
(3) A transfer scheme may—
(a) create rights, or impose liabilities, in relation to property, rights or liabilities transferred;
(b) make provision about the continuing effect of things done by a transferor in respect of anything transferred;
(c) make provision about the continuation of things (including legal proceedings) in the process of being done by, on behalf of or in relation to a transferor in respect of anything transferred;
(d) make provision for references to a transferor in an instrument or other document in respect of anything transferred to be treated as references to the transferee;
(e) make provision for shared ownership or use of the property;
(f) make provision for apportioning property, rights or liabilities;
(g) require a transferor, an associate of a transferor, or a transferee, to enter into any agreement of any kind, or for a purpose, specified in or determined in accordance with the scheme;
(h) make provision for transferring property, rights and liabilities irrespective of any requirement for consent that would otherwise apply;
(i) make provision for preventing a right of pre-emption, right of reverter, right of forfeiture, right to compensation or other similar right from arising or becoming exercisable as a result of the transfer of property, rights or liabilities;
(j) make provision for dispensing with any formality in relation to the transfer of property, rights or liabilities by the scheme;
(k) make provision for reimbursing any person in respect of expenditure reasonably incurred by the person in connection with the making of a transfer scheme;
(l) make provision that has the same or similar effect to the TUPE regulations;
(m) make other consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision.
(4) A transfer scheme may provide—
(a) for modifications by agreement;
(b) for modifications to have effect from the date when the original scheme came into effect.
(5) A transfer scheme may make provision requiring a transferor to provide such co-operation to a transferee as the transferee may reasonably require in connection with the implementation of the scheme.
(6) The co-operation that may be required by virtue of subsection (5) includes, in particular, co-operation in relation to—
(a) the provision of information;
(b) consultation with representatives of employees transferred by the scheme.
(7) Any requirement imposed on a person by a transfer scheme is enforceable by the Secretary of State in civil proceedings—
(a) for an injunction,
(b) for specific performance of a statutory duty under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988, or
(c) for any other appropriate remedy or relief.
(8) Before making a transfer scheme, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the transferor (or, if there is more than one transferor, the transferors), and
(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(9) Subsection (8) may be satisfied by consultation before the passing of this Act (as well as by consultation after that time).
(10) The making of a transfer scheme is not a trigger event for the purposes of the National Security and Investment Act 2021.
(11) In this section—
“associate” has the meaning given by section 1152 of the Companies Act 2006; “company” means a company registered under the Companies Act 2006; “Crown body” means any body corporate in which a Minister of the Crown holds, directly or indirectly, any shares or other interest;
“designated BNFL body” means a company designated for the purposes of Schedule 7 to the Energy Act 2004 or any body corporate in which a company designated for those purposes holds, directly or indirectly, any shares or other interest;
“former GBN body” means—
(a) a company formerly designated as Great British Nuclear, or
(b) any body corporate in which a company formerly designated as Great British Nuclear—
(i) holds, directly or indirectly, any shares or other interest, and
(ii) held, directly or indirectly, any shares or other interest, at a time at which it was designated as Great British Nuclear;
“GBN body” means Great British Nuclear or any body corporate in which Great British Nuclear holds, directly or indirectly, any shares or other interest;
“information” includes documents;
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (see section 8(1) of that Act);
“NDA company” means the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (established by section 1 of the Energy Act 2004) or any body corporate in which the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority holds, directly or indirectly, any shares or other interest;
“proposed GBN body” means a company that the Secretary of State proposes to designate as Great British Nuclear or any body corporate in which a company proposed to be designated for those purposes holds, directly or indirectly, any shares or other interest;
“public body” means a body established by an enactment (within the meaning of Part 1 of this Act) or any body corporate in which a body established by an enactment holds, directly or indirectly, any shares or other interest;
“the TUPE regulations” means the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246);
“UKAEA body” means the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (established by section 1 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954) or any body corporate in which the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority holds, directly or indirectly, any shares or other interest.”
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 267.
“Transfer schemes: compensation
(1) A scheme under section (Transfer schemes) may provide for a transferor or any person who has suffered loss or damage in consequence of the scheme to be entitled to compensation from the Secretary of State or a transferee under the scheme, in accordance with provision made by or under the scheme.
(2) Where a person is entitled to compensation, the amount of compensation is to be the amount—
(a) agreed by the Secretary of State and the person, or
(b) in the absence of such agreement, determined by an independent valuer.
(3) An independent valuer appointed for the purposes of subsection (2) must be appointed—
(a) by the Secretary of State and the person, or
(b) in the absence of such agreement, by the Secretary of State on behalf of both the Secretary of State and the person.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about compensation under this section that corresponds or is similar to any provision about compensation that may be made by the Secretary of State by regulations under paragraph 8(5) of Schedule 7.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.”
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 268.
“Transfer schemes: taxation
(1) The Treasury may by regulations make provision varying the way in which a relevant tax has effect in relation to—
(a) anything transferred under a scheme under section (Transfer schemes), or
(b) anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, a transfer under such a scheme.
(2) The provision that may be made under subsection (1)(a) includes, in particular, provision for—
(a) a tax provision not to apply, or to apply with modifications, in relation to anything transferred;
(b) anything transferred to be treated in a specified way for the purposes of a tax provision;
(c) the Secretary of State to be required or permitted to determine, or to specify the method for determining, anything that needs to be determined for the purposes of any tax provision so far as relating to anything transferred.
(3) The provision that may be made under subsection (1)(b) includes, in particular, provision for—
(a) a tax provision not to apply, or to apply with modifications, in relation to anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, the transfer;
(b) anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, the transfer to have or not have a specified consequence or be treated in a specified way;
(c) the Secretary of State to be required or permitted to determine, or to specify the method for determining, anything that needs to be determined for the purposes of any tax provision so far as relating to anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, the transfer.
(4) In this section—
(a) “relevant tax” means income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, stamp duty reserve tax, stamp duty land tax or value added tax;
(b) “tax provision” means any provision—
(i) about a relevant tax, and
(ii) made by an enactment (within the meaning of Part 1 of this Act);
(c) references to the transfer of a property include the grant of the lease.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.”
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 269.
“Transfer schemes: provision of information or assistance
(1) The Secretary of State may direct a person within subsection (2) to provide the Secretary of State with such specified information or assistance as the Secretary of State may reasonably require in connection with the making of a scheme under section (Transfer schemes).
(2) A person is within this subsection if—
(a) property, rights or liabilities are likely to be transferred from or to the person by such a scheme, or
(b) the person is a body corporate that is likely to be transferred under such a scheme.
(3) Paragraph 12(4), (6), (7) and (8) of Schedule 7 apply to a direction under this section as they apply to a direction under sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.
(4) In this section—
“assistance” includes assistance provided in a country or territory other than the United Kingdom;
“information” includes documents;
“specified” means specified in the direction.”
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 270.
“Reimbursement and compensation in connection with designation
The Secretary of State may reimburse a person in respect of expenditure reasonably incurred by the person in preparation for or in connection with the designation of a company under section (Great British Nuclear) (other than any expenditure incurred in connection with the making of a scheme under section (Transfer schemes)).”
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 271.
“Pension arrangements in connection with Great British Nuclear
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about pension arrangements in relation to Great British Nuclear that corresponds or is similar to any provision about pension arrangements in relation to the ISOP that may be made by the Secretary of State by regulations under paragraph 2 or 3 of Schedule 8 (see paragraph 4 of that Schedule for restrictions on how the power to make regulations under paragraph 2 or 3 of that Schedule may be exercised).
(2) Before making regulations under subsection (1) that make provision corresponding or similar to the provision that may be made by regulations under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 8, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation corresponding to the consultation required by paragraph 2(5) of that Schedule.
(3) Before making regulations under subsection (1) that make provision corresponding or similar to the provision that may be made by regulations under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 8, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation corresponding to the consultation required by paragraph 3(4) of that Schedule.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) may be satisfied by consultation before the passing of this Act (as well as by consultation after that time).
(5) The Secretary of State may direct a person within subsection (6) to provide the Secretary of State with specified pensions information or such specified assistance as the Secretary of State may reasonably require in preparation for or in connection with the exercise of the power conferred on the Secretary of State by subsection (1).
(6) The following persons are within this subsection—
(a) the trustee of a qualifying pension scheme;
(b) any person who exercises functions on behalf of a person within paragraph (a);
(c) any person who is or has been an employer of a qualifying member of a qualifying pension scheme.
(7) Sub-paragraphs (5) to (7) of paragraph 5 of Schedule 8 apply to a direction given under subsection (5) as they apply to a direction given under sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.
(8) The exercise of the power conferred on the Secretary of State by subsection (1) is not a trigger event for the purposes of the National Security and Investment Act 2021.
(9) In this section—
“pensions information” means information that—
(a) relates to pensions or other benefits under a qualifying pension scheme, or
(b) relates to the administration of a qualifying pension scheme in respect of pensions or other benefits under the scheme;
“qualifying member”, in relation to a qualifying pension scheme, means a person who is or has been a member (as defined by section 124(1) of the Pensions Act 1995) of the scheme;
“qualifying pension scheme” means a pension scheme that provides for the payment of pensions or other benefits to or in respect of employees or former employees of—
(a) a transferor in relation to a transfer scheme under section (Transfer schemes), or
(b) an associate (as defined by section 1152 of the Companies Act 2006) of such a transferor;
“specified” means specified in the direction.
(10) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.”
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 272.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, for the reputation of the UK internationally and for the health of the planet, I wish to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 273.
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 274.
Baroness Boycott
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 274B instead of the words so left out of the Bill—
“Local supply for community energy
(1) Within 18 months of this Act being passed the Secretary of State must consult and report on the barriers preventing the development of community energy schemes.
(2) For the purposes of this section, community energy schemes are defined as low carbon and renewable energy schemes owned, or part-owned, by community organisations.
(3) In carrying out the consultation, the Secretary of State must consult with—
(a) current and prospective community energy generators,
(b) the community energy industry,
(c) the electricity transmission and distribution industries,
(d) licensed energy suppliers, and
(e) any other persons deemed relevant by the Secretary of State.
(4) Within six months of the closure of the consultation conducted under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must respond to the consultation and bring forward proposals to remove the barriers preventing the development of community energy schemes.””
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House on this very simple, good-for-everybody amendment.
Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 275 to 338.
“(ca) Chapter 3 of Part 3, except section (Renewable liquid heating fuel obligations);”
“(aa) sections (Key definitions for Part), (Designation), (Designation: procedure), (Revocation of designation), (Grant, extension or restriction of gas transporter licence by Secretary of State), (Applications for grant etc of gas transporter licence), (Modification of gas transporter licence by Secretary of State), (Scope of modification powers under section (Modification of gas transporter licence by Secretary of State)), (Procedure etc relating to modifications under section (Modification of gas transporter licence by Secretary of State)), (Information and advice), (Conditions of gas transporter licences for conveyance of hydrogen), (Secretary of State directions to the GEMA) and (Repeal of Part);”
“(ba) section (Power to modify Gas Act 1986 in relation to hydrogen);”
“(bb) section (Renewable liquid heating fuel obligations);”
“(h) sections (Great British Nuclear), (Crown status), (Great British Nuclear’s objects), (Financial assistance), (Secretary of State directions and guidance), (Annual report), (Annual accounts), (Transfer schemes), (Transfer schemes: compensation), (Transfer schemes: taxation), (Transfer schemes: provision of information or assistance), (Reimbursement and compensation in connection with designation) and (Pension arrangements in connection with Great British Nuclear);”
“(3) Chapter 2 of Part 7 extends to England and Wales only, subject to subsection (5).”
“(za) in Chapter 1 of Part 2—
(i) section 56;
(ii) sections 57 and 58, so far as relating to hydrogen production revenue support contracts and a hydrogen production counterparty;
(iii) sections 61 and 62;
(iv) section 77(1) to (3), so far as relating to a designation under section 61;
(v) section 79, so far as relating to hydrogen production revenue support contracts and a hydrogen production counterparty;
(vi) sections 81 and 84, so far as relating to the exercise of any power that comes into force in accordance with this paragraph;
and in this paragraph “hydrogen production revenue support contract” and “hydrogen production counterparty” have the same meaning as in that Chapter;”
“(za) section 103;”
“(za) Chapter 1 of Part 3;”
“(za) section 115;”
“(za) section 117;”
(i) sections 127 and 128;
(ii) section 132 (including Schedule 7) and section 133 (including Schedule 9);
(iii) section 136(2) and (3), so far as relating to other provisions in force by virtue of this paragraph;
(iv) sections 138 and 139;”
“(za) section 160 (including Schedule 13);”
“(za) section (Revenue certainty scheme for sustainable aviation fuel producers: consultation and report);”
“(za) section (Renewable liquid heating fuel obligations);”
“(aa) section 170;”
“(b) Chapters 1 to 3, sections (Key definitions), (Retention of information and samples), (Preparation and agreement of information and samples plans), (Information and samples plans: supplementary), (Information and samples coordinators), (Powers of OGA to require information and samples), (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA), (Power of Secretary of State to require information and samples), (Power of OGA to give sanctions notices), (Enforcement notices) (Financial penalty notices), (Revocation notices), (Operator removal notices), (Duty of OGA to give sanction warning notices), (Publication of details of sanctions), (Subsequent sanctions notices), (Withdrawal of sanction notices), (Sanctions: information powers), (Appeals in connection with Chapter), (Procedure for enforcement decisions) and (Interpretation of Chapter) and Chapter 5 of Part 2, so far as not already in force by virtue of subsection (2);”
“(ba) sections (Key definitions for Part), (Designation), (Designation: procedure), (Revocation of designation), (Grant, extension or restriction of gas transporter licence by Secretary of State), (Applications for grant etc of gas transporter licence), (Modification of gas transporter licence by Secretary of State), (Scope of modification powers under section (Modification of gas transporter licence by Secretary of State)), (Procedure etc relating to modifications under section (Modification of gas transporter licence by Secretary of State)), (Information and advice), (Conditions of gas transporter licences for conveyance of hydrogen), (Secretary of State directions to the GEMA) and (Repeal of Part);”
“(ca) section (Power to modify Gas Act 1986 in relation to hydrogen);”
“(ea) section (Principal objectives of Secretary of State and GEMA);”
“(ga) sections (Electricity support payments for energy-intensive industries) and (Levy to fund electricity support payments);”
“(l) section (Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage: implementation power).”
“(d) after subsection (10) insert—
“(10A) For the purposes of subsection (5)””
“SCHEDULE
Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA)
PERMITTED DISCLOSURES OF MATERIAL OBTAINED BY OGA
Disclosure by OGA to specified persons
1 (1) Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit a disclosure of protected material by the OGA which—
(a) is made to a person mentioned in column 1 of the table below,
(b) is made for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out of that person’s functions, and
(c) is a disclosure of protected material obtained by the OGA under a provision mentioned in the corresponding entry of column 2 of the table.
Column 1 | Column 2 |
A Minister of the Crown | Section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) or (Sanctions: information powers) |
His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs | Section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) or (Sanctions: information powers) |
The Competition and Markets Authority | Section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) or (Sanctions: information powers) |
The Scottish Ministers | Section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) |
The Welsh Ministers | Section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) |
A Northern Ireland Department | Section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) |
The Office for Budget Responsibility | Section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) or (Sanctions: information powers) |
An enforcing authority | Section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) or (Sanctions: information powers) |
The Statistics Board | Section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) or (Sanctions: information powers) |
The GEMA | Section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) or (Sanctions: information powers) |
The Crown Estate | Section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) |
A manager of the Crown Estate in Scotland | Section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) |
“enforcing authority” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (see section 18(7)(a) of that Act);
“manager of the Crown Estate in Scotland” means a person who for the time being is discharging functions in relation to the management of any property, rights or interests to which section 90B(5) of the Scotland Act 1998 applies;
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975.
(3) Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit a disclosure of protected material by the OGA which—
(a) is a disclosure of protected material obtained by it under section (Power of OGA to require information and samples),
(b) is made to the Natural Environment Research Council, or any other similar body carrying on geological activities, and
(c) is made for the purpose of enabling the body to prepare and publish reports and surveys of a general nature using information derived from the protected material.
(4) A person to whom protected material is disclosed by virtue of sub-paragraph
(1) or (3) may use the protected material only for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (3)(c) (as the case may be).
(5) Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) from disclosing the protected material so far as necessary for the purpose mentioned in that sub-paragraph.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the table in sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) to remove a person from column 1,
(b) to add to column 1 a person to whom sub-paragraph (7) applies, or
(c) to add, remove or change entries in column 2.
(7) This sub-paragraph applies to—
(a) persons holding office under the Crown;
(b) persons in the service or employment of the Crown;
(c) persons acting on behalf of the Crown;
(d) government departments;
(e) publicly owned companies as defined in section 6 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
(8) Regulations under sub-paragraph (6) are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Disclosure required for returns and reports prepared by OGA
2 (1) Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit the OGA from using protected material obtained by the OGA under section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) for the purpose of—
(a) preparing such returns and reports as may be required under obligations imposed by or under any Act;
(b) preparing and publishing reports and surveys of a general nature using information derived from the protected material.
(2) Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit the OGA from disclosing protected material so far as necessary for those purposes.
Disclosure in exercise of certain OGA powers
3 Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit a disclosure of protected material if it is made in the exercise of the OGA’s powers under section (Publication of details of sanctions) (publication of details of sanctions).
Disclosure after specified period
4 (1) Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit protected material obtained by the OGA under section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) from being—
(a) published, or
(b) made available to the public (where the protected material includes samples),
by the OGA or a subsequent holder at such time as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(2) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may include provision permitting protected material to be published, or made available to the public, immediately after it is provided to a person.
(3) Before making regulations under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply if the Secretary of State is satisfied that consultation is unnecessary having regard to consultation carried out by the OGA in relation to what time should be specified in regulations under sub-paragraph (1).
(5) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.
(6) In determining the time to be specified in respect of protected material in regulations under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to the following factors—
(a) whether the specified time will allow owners of protected material a reasonable period of time to satisfy the main purpose for which they acquired or created the material;
(b) any potential benefits to the [carbon storage] industry of protected material being published or made available at the specified time;
(c) any potential risk that the specified time may discourage persons from acquiring or creating carbon storage information or carbon storage samples;
(d) any other factors the Secretary of State considers relevant.
(7) In balancing the factors mentioned in sub-paragraph (6)(a) to (d), the Secretary of State must take into account the principal objectives of the Secretary of State set out in section 1(1).
(8) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (6)(a), the owner of protected material is the person by whom, or on whose behalf, the protected material was provided to the OGA under section (Power of OGA to require information and samples).
Disclosure with appropriate consent
5 (1) Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit a disclosure of protected material if it is made with the appropriate consent.
(2) For this purpose a disclosure is made with the appropriate consent if—
(a) in the case of disclosure by the OGA, the original owner consents to the disclosure;
(b) in the case of disclosure by a subsequent holder—
(i) the OGA consents to the disclosure, and
(ii) where the protected material in question was provided to the OGA under section (Power of OGA to require information and samples), the OGA confirms that the original owner of the material also consents to the disclosure.
(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), the original owner of protected material provided to the OGA is the person by whom, or on whose behalf, the protected material was so provided.
Disclosure required by legislation
6 Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit a disclosure of protected material required by virtue of an obligation imposed by or under this or any other Act.
Disclosure for purpose of proceedings
7 (1) Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit a disclosure of protected material by the OGA for the purposes of, or in connection with—
(a) civil proceedings, or
(b) arbitration proceedings.
(2) Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit a disclosure of protected material by the OGA for the purposes of, or in connection with—
(a) the investigation or prosecution of criminal offences, or
(b) the prevention of criminal activity.”
“SCHEDULE Section (Appeals)
CARBON STORAGE INFORMATION AND SAMPLES: APPEALS
PART 1
APPEALS AGAINST DECISIONS RELATING TO INFORMATION AND SAMPLES
Appeals in relation to information and samples plans
1 (1) A person affected by any decision of the OGA to which effect is given by the preparation of an information and samples plan may appeal against it to the Tribunal—
(a) on the ground that the decision was not within the powers of the OGA, or
(b) on the ground that the plan is unreasonable.
(2) On an appeal under this paragraph the Tribunal may—
(a) affirm, vary or quash the decision under appeal,
(b) remit the decision under appeal to the OGA for reconsideration with such directions (if any) as the Tribunal considers appropriate, or
(c) substitute its own decision for the decision under appeal.
Appeals against notices requiring provision of information or samples
2 (1) A person affected by any decision of the OGA to which effect is given by the giving of a notice requiring the provision of information or samples under section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) may appeal against it to the Tribunal—
(a) on the ground that the decision was not within the powers of the OGA, or
(b) on the ground that the length of time given to comply with the notice is unreasonable.
(2) On an appeal under this paragraph the Tribunal may—
(a) affirm, vary or quash the decision under appeal,
(b) remit the decision under appeal to the OGA for reconsideration with such directions (if any) as the Tribunal considers appropriate, or
(c) substitute its own decision for the decision under appeal.
PART 2
APPEALS RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF SANCTIONABLE REQUIREMENTS
Appeals in relation to sanction notices
3 (1) Where a sanction notice is given under section (Power of OGA to give sanction notices) in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement, an appeal may be made—
(a) under paragraph 4 (on the ground that there was no such failure to comply);
(b) under paragraph 5 (against the sanction imposed by the notice).
(2) Where an appeal is made in relation to a sanction notice, the notice ceases to have effect until a decision is made by the Tribunal to confirm, vary or cancel the notice.
(3) Where, on an appeal made in relation to a sanction notice—
(a) the Tribunal makes a decision to confirm or vary the notice, and
(b) an appeal is or may be made in relation to that decision,
the Tribunal, or the Upper Tribunal, may further suspend the effect of the notice pending a decision which disposes of proceedings on such an appeal.
Appeals against finding of failure to comply
4 (1) An appeal may be made to the Tribunal by the person, or by any of the persons, to whom a sanction notice is given in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement, on the grounds that the person, or persons, did not fail to comply with the requirement.
(2) On an appeal under this paragraph, the Tribunal may confirm or cancel the sanction notice.
(3) Where sanction notices are given on more than one occasion in respect of the same failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement—
(a) an appeal under this paragraph may be made only in relation to the sanction notice, or any of the sanction notices, given on the first of those occasions, and
(b) appeals in relation to sanction notices given on subsequent occasions in respect of that failure to comply may be made only under paragraph 5.
Appeals against sanction imposed
5 (1) Where a sanction notice is given in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement, a person mentioned in sub- paragraph (2) may appeal to the Tribunal against any of the decisions of the OGA mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) (as to the sanction imposed by the notice) on the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (4).
(2) The persons who may appeal are—
(a) the person, or any of the persons, to whom the notice was given, and
(b) in the case of an operator removal notice under section (Operator removal notices), the licensee under whose carbon storage licence the exploration operator operates.
(3) The decisions against which an appeal may be made are—
(a) where an enforcement notice has been given, the decision as to—
(i) the measures that are required to be taken for the purposes of compliance with the sanctionable requirement, or
(ii) the period for compliance with the sanctionable requirement;
(b) where a financial penalty notice has been given, the decision—
(i) to impose a financial penalty, or
(ii) as to the amount of the financial penalty imposed;
(c) where a revocation notice has been given, the decision to terminate the carbon storage licence or to revoke the storage permit;
(d) where an operator removal notice has been given, the decision to require the removal of the exploration operator.
(4) The grounds on which an appeal may be made are that the decision of the OGA—
(a) was unreasonable, or
(b) was not within the powers of the OGA.
(5) On an appeal under this paragraph against a decision made in relation to an enforcement notice, the Tribunal may—
(a) confirm or quash the decision, in the case of a decision mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) (remedial action), or
(b) confirm or vary the decision, in the case of a decision mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a)(ii) (period for compliance),
and confirm, vary or cancel the enforcement notice accordingly.
(6) On an appeal under this paragraph against a decision made in relation to a financial penalty notice, the Tribunal may—
(a) confirm or quash the decision, in the case of a decision mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(b)(i) (imposition of penalty), or
(b) confirm or vary the decision, in the case of a decision mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(b)(ii) (amount of penalty),
and confirm, vary or cancel the financial penalty notice accordingly.
(7) The Tribunal must have regard to any guidance issued by the OGA under section (Financial penalty notices)(6)(a) when deciding whether to confirm or vary a decision as to the amount of a financial penalty under sub-paragraph (6)(b).
(8) On an appeal under this paragraph against a decision to terminate a carbon storage licence, to revoke a storage permit or to require the removal of an exploration operator the Tribunal may—
(a) confirm the decision,
(b) vary the decision by changing the revocation date or the removal date, as the case may be, or
(c) quash the decision,
and confirm, vary or cancel the sanction notice in question accordingly.
(9) Where a decision is quashed under sub-paragraph (5)(a), (6)(a) or (8), the Tribunal may remit the decision to the OGA for reconsideration with such directions (if any) as the Tribunal considers appropriate.
Appeals against information requirements
6 (1) A person to whom a notice is given under section (Sanctions: information powers) may appeal against it to the Tribunal on the grounds that—
(a) the giving of the notice is not within the powers of the OGA, or
(b) the length of time given to comply with the notice is unreasonable.
(2) On an appeal under this paragraph the Tribunal may—
(a) confirm, vary or cancel the notice, or
(b) remit the matter under appeal to the OGA for reconsideration with such directions (if any) as the Tribunal considers appropriate.”
“(2A) Any requirement imposed on a person by a transfer scheme is enforceable by the Secretary of State in civil proceedings—
(a) for an injunction,
(b) for specific performance of a statutory duty under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988, or
(c) for any other appropriate remedy or relief.”
“(3A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this paragraph is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.”
“(a) such specified pensions information, or
(b) such specified assistance,
as the Secretary of State may reasonably require in preparation for or in connection with the exercise of a power conferred on the Secretary of State by this Schedule.”
“PART A1
PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION) (LANDWARD AREAS) REGULATIONS 1995
A1 In the Petroleum (Production) (Landward Areas) Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/1436), Schedule 3 (model clauses for petroleum exploration and development licences in landward areas) is amended as follows.
A2 After clause 37 insert—
“37A Change in control of Licensee
(1) This clause applies if—
(a) the Licensee is a company, or
(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,
and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.
(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).
(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.
(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).
(5) The OGA may—
(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,
(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or
(c) refuse consent to the change in control.
(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—
(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and
(b) consider any representations that are made.
(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.
(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—
(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,
(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and
(c) financial conditions.
(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.
(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—
(a) the company,
(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and
(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.
(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 37(4).”
A3 (1) Clause 38 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—
“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 37A);
(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Petroleum Act 1998;”;
(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.
(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).
A4 (1) Clause 38A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—
(a) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;
(b) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 37A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;
(c) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 37A); or
(d) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”
(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.
PART A2
PETROLEUM (CURRENT MODEL CLAUSES) ORDER 1999
Introduction
A5 The Petroleum (Current Model Clauses) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/160) is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.
Part 2 of Schedule 2
A6 Part 2 of Schedule 2 (current model clauses for controlled waters or seaward production licences deriving from Schedule 2 to the 1964 Regulations and Schedule 4 to the 1966 Regulations) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A7 to A9.
A7 After clause 38 insert—
“38A Change in control of Licensee
(1) This clause applies if—
(a) the Licensee is a company, or
(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,
and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.
(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).
(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.
(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).
(5) The OGA may—
(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,
(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or
(c) refuse consent to the change in control.
(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—
(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and
(b) consider any representations that are made.
(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.
(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—
(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,
(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and
(c) financial conditions.
(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.
(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—
(a) the company,
(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and
(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.
(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 38(4).”
A8 (1) Clause 39 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—
“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 38A);
(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act of 1998;”;
(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.
(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).
A9 (1) Clause 39A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—
(a) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;
(b) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 38A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;
(c) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 38A); or
(d) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”
(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.
Part 2 of Schedule 3
A10 Part 2 of Schedule 3 (current model clauses for landward production licences deriving from Schedule 3 to the 1966 regulations) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A11 to A13.
A11 After clause 36 insert—
“36A Change in control of Licensee
(1) This clause applies if—
(a) the Licensee is a company, or
(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,
and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.
(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).
(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.
(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).
(5) The OGA may—
(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,
(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or
(c) refuse consent to the change in control.
(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—
(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and
(b) consider any representations that are made.
(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.
(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—
(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,
(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and
(c) financial conditions.
(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.
(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—
(a) the company,
(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and
(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.
(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 36(3).”
A12(1) Clause 37 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—
“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 36A);
(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act of 1998;”;
(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.
(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).
A13(1) Clause 37A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—
(a) an event mentioned in clause 37(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;
(b) an event mentioned in clause 37(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 36A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;
(c) an event mentioned in clause 37(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 36A); or
(d) an event mentioned in clause 37(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”
(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.
Part 2 of Schedule 4
A14 Part 2 of Schedule 4 (current model clauses for landward production licences deriving from Schedule 4 to the 1976 Regulations or Schedule 4 to the 1982 Regulations) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A15 to A17.
A15 After clause 37 insert—
“37A Change in control of Licensee
(1) This clause applies if—
(a) the Licensee is a company, or
(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,
and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.
(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).
(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.
(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).
(5) The OGA may—
(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,
(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or
(c) refuse consent to the change in control.
(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—
(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and
(b) consider any representations that are made.
(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.
(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—
(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,
(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and
(c) financial conditions.
(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.
(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—
(a) the company,
(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and
(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.
(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 37(3).”
A16(1) Clause 38 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—
“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 37A);
(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act of 1998;”;
(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.
(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).
A17(1) Clause 38A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—
(a) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;
(b) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 37A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;
(c) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 37A); or
(d) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”
(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.
Part 2 of Schedule 5
A18 Part 2 of Schedule 5 (current model clauses for seaward production licences deriving from Schedule 5 to the 1976 Regulations) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A19 to A21.
A19 After clause 39 insert—
“39A Change in control of Licensee
(1) This clause applies if—
(a) the Licensee is a company, or
(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,
and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.
(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).
(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.
(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).
(5) The OGA may—
(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,
(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or
(c) refuse consent to the change in control.
(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—
(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and
(b) consider any representations that are made.
(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.
(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—
(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,
(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and
(c) financial conditions.
(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.
(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—
(a) the company,
(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and
(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.
(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 39(4).”
A20(1) Clause 40 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—
“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 39A);
(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act of 1998;”;
(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.
(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).
A21(1) Clause 40A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—
(a) an event mentioned in clause 40(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;
(b) an event mentioned in clause 40(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 39A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;
(c) an event mentioned in clause 40(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 39A); or
(d) an event mentioned in clause 40(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”
(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.
Part 2 of Schedule 6
A22 Part 2 of Schedule 6 (current model clauses for seaward production licences deriving from Schedule 5 to the 1982 Regulations) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A23 to A25.
A23 After clause 38 insert—
“38A Change in control of Licensee
(1) This clause applies if—
(a) the Licensee is a company, or
(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,
and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.
(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).
(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.
(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).
(5) The OGA may—
(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,
(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or
(c) refuse consent to the change in control.
(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—
(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and
(b) consider any representations that are made.
(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.
(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—
(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,
(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and
(c) financial conditions.
(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.
(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—
(a) the company,
(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and
(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.
(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 38(4).”
A24(1) Clause 39 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—
“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 38A);
(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act of 1998;”;
(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.
(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).
A25(1) Clause 39A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—
(a) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;
(b) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 38A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;
(c) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 38A); or
(d) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”
(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.
Part 2 of Schedule 8
A26 Part 2 of Schedule 8 (current model clauses for landward development licences deriving from Schedule 5 to the 1984 Regulations) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A27 to A29.
A27 After clause 35 insert—
“35A Change in control of Licensee
(1) This clause applies if—
(a) the Licensee is a company, or
(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,
and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.
(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).
(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.
(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).
(5) The OGA may—
(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,
(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or
(c) refuse consent to the change in control.
(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—
(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and
(b) consider any representations that are made.
(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.
(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—
(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,
(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and
(c) financial conditions.
(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.
(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—
(a) the company,
(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and
(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.
(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 35(3).”
A28(1) Clause 36 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—
“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 35A);
(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act of 1998;”;
(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.
(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).
A29(1) Clause 36A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—
(a) an event mentioned in clause 36(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;
(b) an event mentioned in clause 36(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 35A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;
(c) an event mentioned in clause 36(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 35A); or
(d) an event mentioned in clause 36(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”
(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.
Part 2 of Schedule 9
A30 Part 2 of Schedule 9 (current model clauses for seaward production licences deriving from Schedule 4 to the 1988 Regulations as they had effect before 16 December 1996) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A31 to A33.
A31 After clause 41 insert—
“41A Change in control of Licensee
(1) This clause applies if—
(a) the Licensee is a company, or
(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,
and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.
(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).
(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.
(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).
(5) The OGA may—
(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,
(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or
(c) refuse consent to the change in control.
(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—
(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and
(b) consider any representations that are made.
(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.
(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—
(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,
(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and
(c) financial conditions.
(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.
(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—
(a) the company,
(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and
(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.
(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 41(4).”
A32(1) Clause 42 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—
“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 41A);
(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act of 1998;”;
(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.
(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).
A33(1) Clause 42A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—
(a) an event mentioned in clause 42(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;
(b) an event mentioned in clause 42(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 41A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;
(c) an event mentioned in clause 42(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 41A); or
(d) an event mentioned in clause 42(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”
(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.
Part 2 of Schedule 10
A34 Part 2 of Schedule 10 (current model clauses for seaward production licences deriving from Schedule 4 to the 1988 Regulations as they had effect on and after 16 December 1996) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A35 to A37.
A35 After clause 41 insert—
“41A Change in control of Licensee
(1) This clause applies if—
(a) the Licensee is a company, or
(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,
and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.
(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).
(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.
(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).
(5) The OGA may—
(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,
(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or
(c) refuse consent to the change in control.
(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—
(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and
(b) consider any representations that are made.
(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.
(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—
(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,
(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and
(c) financial conditions.
(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.
(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—
(a) the company,
(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and
(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.
(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 41(4).”
A36(1) Clause 42 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—
“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 41A);
(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act of 1998;”;
(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.
(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).
A37(1) Clause 42A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—
(a) an event mentioned in clause 42(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;
(b) an event mentioned in clause 42(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 41A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;
(c) an event mentioned in clause 42(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 41A); or
(d) an event mentioned in clause 42(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”
(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.
Part 2 of Schedule 13
A38 Part 2 of Schedule 13 (current model clauses for landward appraisal licences deriving from Schedule 5 to the 1991 Regulations) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A39 to A41.
A39 After clause 32 insert—
“32A Change in control of Licensee
(1) This clause applies if—
(a) the Licensee is a company, or
(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,
and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.
(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).
(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.
(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).
(5) The OGA may—
(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,
(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or
(c) refuse consent to the change in control.
(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—
(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and
(b) consider any representations that are made.
(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.
(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—
(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,
(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and
(c) financial conditions.
(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.
(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—
(a) the company,
(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and
(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.
(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 32(3).”
A40(1) Clause 33 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (h) insert—
“(i) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 32A);
(j) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Petroleum Act 1998;”;
(b) in the closing words, after “(f)” insert “or (i) or (j)”.
(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).
A41(1) Clause 33A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—
(a) an event mentioned in clause 33(2)(c), (d), (e) or (f) occurs in relation to one of those persons;
(b) an event mentioned in clause 33(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 32A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;
(c) an event mentioned in clause 33(2)(i) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 32A); or
(d) an event mentioned in clause 33(2)(j) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”
(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.
Part 2 of Schedule 14
A42 Part 2 of Schedule 14 (current model clauses for landward development licences deriving from Schedule 6 to the 1991 Regulations) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A43 to A45.
A43 After clause 34 insert—
“34A Change in control of Licensee
(1) This clause applies if—
(a) the Licensee is a company, or
(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,
and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.
(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).
(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.
(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).
(5) The OGA may—
(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,
(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or
(c) refuse consent to the change in control.
(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—
(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and
(b) consider any representations that are made.
(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.
(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—
(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,
(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and
(c) financial conditions.
(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.
(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—
(a) the company,
(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and
(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.
(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 34(3).”
A44(1) Clause 35 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—
“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 34A);
(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act of 1998;”;
(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.
(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).
A45(1) Clause 35A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—
(a) an event mentioned in clause 35(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;
(b) an event mentioned in clause 35(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 34A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;
(c) an event mentioned in clause 35(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 34A); or
(d) an event mentioned in clause 35(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”
(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.
PART A3
PETROLEUM LICENSING (EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION) (SEAWARD AND LANDWARD AREAS) REGULATIONS 2004
Introduction
A46 The Petroleum Licensing (Exploration and Production) (Seaward and Landward Areas) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/352) are amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.
Schedule 2
A47 Schedule 2 (model clauses for production licences relating to frontier areas — no break clause) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A48 to A50.
A48 After clause 37 insert—
“37A Change in control of Licensee
(1) This clause applies if—
(a) the Licensee is a company, or
(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,
and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.
(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).
(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.
(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).
(5) The OGA may—
(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,
(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or
(c) refuse consent to the change in control.
(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—
(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and
(b) consider any representations that are made.
(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.
(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—
(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,
(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and
(c) financial conditions.
(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.
(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—
(a) the company,
(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and
(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.
(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 37(4).”
A49(1) Clause 38 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—
“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 37A);
(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act;”;
(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.
(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).
A50(1) Clause 38A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—
(a) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(c), (d), (e), (ee) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;
(b) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 37A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;
(c) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 37A); or
(d) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”
(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.
Schedule 3
A51 Schedule 3 (model clauses for production licences relating to frontier areas — including break clause) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A52 to A54.
A52 After clause 38 insert—
“38A Change in control of Licensee
(1) This clause applies if—
(a) the Licensee is a company, or
(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,
and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.
(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).
(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.
(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).
(5) The OGA may—
(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,
(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or
(c) refuse consent to the change in control.
(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—
(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and
(b) consider any representations that are made.
(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.
(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—
(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,
(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and
(c) financial conditions.
(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.
(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—
(a) the company,
(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and
(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.
(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 38(4).”
A53(1) Clause 39 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—
“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 38A);
(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act;”;
(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.
(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).
A54(1) Clause 39A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—
(a) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(c), (d), (e), (ee) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;
(b) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 38A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;
(c) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 38A); or
(d) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”
(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.
Schedule 4
A55 Schedule 4 (model clauses for standard production licences) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A56 to A58.
A56 After clause 36 insert—
“36A Change in control of Licensee
(1) This clause applies if—
(a) the Licensee is a company, or
(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,
and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.
(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).
(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.
(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).
(5) The OGA may—
(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,
(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or
(c) refuse consent to the change in control.
(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—
(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and
(b) consider any representations that are made.
(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.
(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—
(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,
(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and
(c) financial conditions.
(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.
(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—
(a) the company,
(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and
(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.
(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 36(4).”
A57(1) Clause 37 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—
“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 36A);
(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act;”;
(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.
(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).
A58(1) Clause 37A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—
(a) an event mentioned in clause 37(2)(c), (d), (e), (ee) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;
(b) an event mentioned in clause 37(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 36A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;
(c) an event mentioned in clause 37(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 36A); or
(d) an event mentioned in clause 37(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”
(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.
Schedule 6
A59 Schedule 6 (model clauses for petroleum exploration and development licences) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A60 to A62.
A60 After clause 35 insert—
“35A Change in control of Licensee
(1) This clause applies if—
(a) the Licensee is a company, or
(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,
and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.
(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).
(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.
(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).
(5) The OGA may—
(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,
(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or
(c) refuse consent to the change in control.
(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—
(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and
(b) consider any representations that are made.
(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.
(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—
(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,
(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and
(c) financial conditions.
(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.
(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—
(a) the company,
(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and
(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.
(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 35(4).”
A61(1) Clause 36 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—
“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its
consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 35A);
(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act;”;
(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.
(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).
A62(1) Clause 36A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—
(a) an event mentioned in clause 36(2)(c), (d), (e), (ee) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;
(b) an event mentioned in clause 36(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 35A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;
(c) an event mentioned in clause 36(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 35A); or
(d) an event mentioned in clause 36(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”
(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.”
“(c) a country mentioned in section 26(1B)(b),
(d) an overseas territory mentioned in section 26(1B)(c) or (d), or
(e) a relevant reciprocating territory.”
“(1) Section 26 of the 1965 Act (interpretation) is amended as follows.
(2) +”
“(e) after the definition of “overseas territory” insert—
““the Paris Convention” means the Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy of 29 July 1960, as amended by the Additional Protocol of 28 January 1964, by the Protocol of 16 November 1982 and by the Protocol of 12 February 2004;”.”
“( ) In subsection (1A)(a)—
(a) in the opening words, for “a relevant international agreement” substitute “the Paris Convention”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (i)—
(i) for “relevant international agreement” (in each place it appears) substitute “Convention”;
(ii) for “agreement” (in the third place it appears) substitute “Convention”;
(iii) for “agreement’s” substitute “Convention’s”;
(c) in sub-paragraph (ii), for “relevant international agreement” substitute “Convention”.”
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Tuesday 12th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 View all Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 169-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reason - (11 Sep 2023)
Lord Caine
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 44D, 44E, 44F, 44G, 44H and 44J, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 44K.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, last week your Lordships sent this legislation back to the other place after agreeing an opposition amendment with a majority of 11 votes. This was overturned the following day by the elected House by a majority of 83. It followed the rejection of an earlier amendment passed by this House with a majority of 92. I fully accept that this House has exercised its legitimate constitutional role by asking the other place to reconsider. It has done so and very decisively answered on both occasions with overwhelming majorities. I therefore respectfully hope that your Lordships now agree to this Bill being passed, over one year and two months since I introduced it.
The legacy Bill introduced to the other place at the start of the Session last year took on a very different form to the Bill before us today. The changes brought about by the Government and extensively influenced by your Lordships over the course of the Bill’s passage mean that the Bill that I hope will receive Royal Assent is a more robust piece of legislation, designed to deliver better outcomes for victims and survivors of the Troubles. The current mechanisms for addressing legacy matters work for only a very small number of people rather than the overwhelming majority and where established criminal justice processes are increasingly unlikely to deliver the outcomes that people desire, particularly in respect of prosecutions. This legislation will provide more information to more people in a shorter timeframe than is possible under current mechanisms.
Should this Bill become law, which I hope it will, it is for the commission that it establishes to build on the framework that the legislation provides by developing, independently of the UK Government, clear structures, guidance and protocols regarding how it will work in practice. However, the new commission will need time to do this. While I recognise that this has been a difficult process, I encourage everybody to give Sir Declan Morgan KC and his team a fair wind, to demonstrate that the commission can deliver effectively for families. The UK Government will provide whatever support that they can in this endeavour while of course respecting the operational independence of the commission, which has been significantly strengthened by your Lordships’ House. I hope that others can do the same. I beg to move.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
It has been a long time—well over a year, as the Minister said—and I continue to say that I do not blame the Government for one second for trying to resolve what is a hugely difficult issue. Of course they were right to do so, but they do not have the answer.
My right honourable friend the new shadow Secretary for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn—I welcome him to his post and, incidentally, pay tribute to Peter Kyle, who did a great job over a couple of years—said in the Commons last week, quite rightly, that the Government have made changes that all of us welcome, including this House, but it simply is not enough.
The Minister mentioned the Divisions we have had in the last few weeks. Twice, this House—the majorities might not have been huge, but they were majorities nevertheless—has asked the House of Commons to look again at the central controversial issue of the Bill, which is conditional immunity. He is right, of course, that ultimately we have to give way to the elected House, but that does not alter the fact that this is a friendless Bill. In effect, it has no support in Northern Ireland at all. All my experience of Northern Ireland over the years is that, where there is no support for a Bill such as this, from all communities in Northern Ireland, it will not work. There should have been consensus.
The Government should put the Bill on hold—put it on ice, if you like. Wait until there is a restored Assembly and Executive. When we debate other issues affecting Northern Ireland on Thursday, we will perhaps hear that there has been progress on the possibility of restoration. The right place for this to be debated and discussed is Belfast, not London, so put it on hold. If that does not happen, a future Labour Government will undoubtedly repeal this legislation.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. I question the Minister on the wording of the Commons reason, which is very short:
“Giving family members a role in whether immunity should be granted or not would critically undermine the effectiveness of delivering on the principal aim of this legislation”.
Could the Minister explain what the principal aim of this legislation is? Many of us feel that the motivation underlying it is one of the reasons why it has attracted total opposition from all sections of the population and all the political parties in Northern Ireland.
This House was trying to ensure that families and victims have more say in the process. I absolutely concur with the Minister that he has extended his offices, to a very generous degree, with a desire to try to engage people. It is true that the Bill has been substantially improved from what it set out to be, but it does not satisfy anybody any more than it did at the beginning. Serious questions remain as to whether it accords with international human rights. We know that the Government believe it does, but others disagree. Sir Declan himself has said that he would welcome legal challenges. I referred to that the other day, as there is still a concern that the Bill may become an Act and then be subject to legislation or court action that could undermine its effectiveness.
That said, at this stage, we have exercised the debate and stated our view. The Commons has decided to persist and, in these circumstances, we are bound to accept its view.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, it is very difficult to achieve unanimity in politics in Northern Ireland, yet the Government inadvertently seem to have achieved that through this legislation, in that all political parties, Churches and, as far as I am aware, victims groups in Northern Ireland are opposed to it. We may question the motivation behind some of that opposition, and with good measure, in particular that coming from Sinn Féin, which in its past was the victim maker. For particular selfish reasons, it has a jaundiced view of this and is opposed to it through false motivation. Nevertheless, there is a strong consensus in Northern Ireland that this is the wrong way to go.
The Bill remains fundamentally rotten. There was a good attempt, by the Opposition which put forward this amendment, at least to flag up the role of victims and give them some direct say. As was said in the previous debate, that, in and of itself, would not have made a bad Bill good, but it would at least have been a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, we are now left with the situation that, despite the voices from all sides of this Chamber, yet again our amendment has been rejected by the House of Commons. It is deeply disappointing that both the Government and a majority of MPs have not listened to what has been said. We are therefore about to pass legislation that, whatever slight improvements have been made to it, fundamentally lets down victims and creates a situation in which justice is corrupted. The reason given for the rejection of this amendment—that it would in some way taint the process and prevent a successful outcome—is a false promise, because we all know that the paramilitary organisations will not simply give up the information. So we are doing all this for no material gain whatever for the victims.
This is a deeply dark day for democracy and for this House. Clearly, we are left with a situation where the Commons remains unconvinced. If the Opposition do not push this to a Division, we will be left with a fait accompli which we will all come to regret.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Weir. Noble Lords have been consistent across the House in their opposition to the contents of this Bill, which I believe are deeply iniquitous. For me, they represent a denial of basic human rights—access to justice and truth, the very things that victims and survivors have yearned for over many years.
I am deeply disappointed that the Commons, on a majority vote, rejected our reasonable amendment, which was supported across this House last week. None the less, I do not think that the issue will be resolved by this Bill. I believe that Sir Declan and his commissioners will meet many legal challenges; in fact, he invited them in his Irish News interview on Monday 28 August, which suggests that he might have doubts about this process.
Notwithstanding that, this House has stood solidly and steadfastly with the victims and survivors. I was disappointed again when I heard the Secretary of State in an interview a few days ago, as he did not seem to reflect on, think about, empathise with or sympathise with the views of victims. He simply dismissed them. This was another denial of their right to justice and human rights. Always remember that victims of the Troubles have suffered immeasurably in many ways, whether physically or mentally, over a long period, through the loss of loved ones.
So, we still disagree with this Bill. I am pleased that my honourable friend the Shadow Secretary of State has indicated that a future Labour Government will repeal the Act. I look forward to that day, because I know where I stand: it is with the victims and survivors, right across the board.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak in opposition to the Government’s removal of the opportunity for family members of those who died in the Troubles to play a role in the decision as to whether immunity should be granted under the Bill. Accepting your Lordships’ amendment would have given victims the opportunity, at least, to have a role in the decision as to whether to grant murderers immunity for the murder of their loved one.
Today is a terrible day for the people of the United Kingdom and for the rule of law in the United Kingdom. It is a day of shame. It is the day on which Parliament is legislating to remove from people across the UK who were victims of the Troubles access, in accordance with the rule of law and our international legal obligations, to criminal prosecutions, civil actions for damages for loss and injury caused, and to inquests. Moreover, His Majesty’s Government are forcing through not only these restrictions but their immunity clause, despite the fact that, as the Secretary of State said most recently,
“There are no guarantees that the Bill will bring information forward”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/23; col. 439.]
at all.
How do your Lordships think the people of Northern Ireland and the other victims of the Troubles across Great Britain felt on hearing those words? At least the current system had been gradually providing verifiable and accurate information for victims, despite the best efforts of those who sought to limit access to information. The Secretary of State said yesterday that, despite the widespread opposition to the legacy Bill from politicians and victims, he has not been presented with an alternative option. This is untrue. The Government have been presented with alternatives during the passage of the Bill which included a fully empowered independent commission that would have investigated in compliance with all our legal obligations. Those alternatives have all been rejected by the Government, who have used their parliamentary majority to force through this iniquitous Bill against the wishes of every political party, community group, victims’ group, human rights organisation, et cetera. Nobody in Northern Ireland and nobody among the GB victims’ groups wants this law.
On this day, His Majesty’s Government are using their parliamentary majority to force through a Bill that is already subject to challenge in the courts. There is now tremendous pressure on the party in opposition to live up to its commitment to repeal the Bill if it wins the next election. Even more, there is huge international pressure on the Irish Government to institute legal proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the UK’s failure to comply with its legal obligations under the treaty. I very much hope that they will bring those proceedings.
A country which does not respect the rule of law and its international legal obligations loses its legitimacy in the wider world. In passing this Bill, the United Kingdom is not, as His Majesty’s Government have claimed, seeking to provide truth and reconciliation for the people of Northern Ireland and for all the victims of the Troubles across the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked a very pertinent question, and I hope the Minister will reply to it. The effect of this Bill is to restrict access to legal remedies, which are enjoyed by everybody else in the United Kingdom, for that small and unfortunate group of victims, several thousand in number, who suffered so terribly during the Troubles. I cannot support this amendment.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, in my years of service to this House I cannot think of an occasion when sadness, disillusionment and indeed anger pressed upon me to the extent they do today. Over the months we have worked to try to improve this Bill, I have listened to many highly technical speeches based on great parliamentary experience. But to that I have to add one other element today which it has been my sad duty to bring to the attention of this House over that period.
It is to tell noble Lords that the word “victimhood” has become so used that we have lost sight of what or who a victim is. A victim exists with a picture on the mantelpiece. A victim exists with frequent visits to a hospital for treatment. A victim exists in the grandmother trying to explain to grandchildren what happened to members of that family. A victim is one who believed at one stage that the mother of Parliaments would understand their dilemma.
I have paid tribute on several occasions to the Minister for his patience in dealing with this issue, but I have to say this afternoon that he has not gone far enough. The feeling of sadness which overwhelms me is based on my many years of service to victims—to the men, women and children who were the real sufferers of our Troubles. I cannot get them out of my mind at this moment: the funerals, the addresses at funerals, the comfort in the hospital ward or beside a bedside. That is the whole background: the human side of “victim”. The human side is an ageing population who have been through the Troubles, and who now, by the passage of time, have looked with some hope to what we were going to pass in Parliament.
Way back, all those years ago, when Denis Bradley and I were asked to make the first attempt at dealing with the combined reconciliation and legacy issue, we set out on a journey which ends at this moment, in your Lordships’ House, so my feelings run very deep. Irrespective of the Opposition’s assurance that they will repeal this legislation one day if they are in power, and irrespective of the politics of it all, I speak of the broken hearts, the broken bodies and the irreconcilable issues that face ordinary decent people. I think of the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment, the civilians, caught up in this. I think of the work in hospital wards by dedicated doctors and nurses, and I can still hear in my mind the drumbeat of the procession to the grave. I say to the Government: surely, they have brought us not to a crossroads but to the edge of a cliff, and Northern Ireland is tottering at the edge.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to those who have spoken. I do not intend to follow the current fashion for making yet another Second Reading speech at this stage of the legislation’s proceedings. I will just pick up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, when he referred to the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly in all this. He will recall that it was the Northern Ireland Executive, back in 2013, that invited Richard Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan in to try to deal with issues related to past flag parading. Of course, no consensus was forthcoming on that occasion. As I have reminded the House on so many occasions, the reason we ended up dealing with these issues as the UK Government and in Westminster is that after the Stormont House agreement, it was the then First Minister and Deputy First Minister who came to the Secretary of State and said that it was far too difficult for them to do in Stormont and asked us to do it in Westminster.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, asked me about the motivation for the legislation and what it is designed to achieve. I touched on this last week and in my comments in moving this Motion. It is primarily to get more information to victims and survivors of the Troubles about what happened to their loved ones, in a far shorter timeframe than we feel is possible under the current legacy mechanisms. It is about information recovery, where people want to access that information. That is the motivation behind the legislation. It is now incumbent on us to pass the Bill and give Sir Declan Morgan and his team the opportunity to make this a reality and to deliver for victims and survivors of the Troubles.
G20 Summit
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, the whole House will join me in sending our sympathies to the people of Morocco following the devastating earthquake. Our thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones, the injured and those bravely engaged in rescue efforts. We also remember the victims and loved ones of the terrorist attacks that took place in the United States 22 years ago today, including many British citizens.
I have just returned from the G20 summit in India. At the summit I had three aims: first, to increase diplomatic pressure on Russia and call out its shameful disruption of global food supplies in the Black Sea; secondly, to show the world that democracies such as the United Kingdom, not authoritarian regimes, are leading the fight on global challenges such as development and climate change; and thirdly, to strengthen ties and forge new partnerships to deliver jobs, growth and security for the British people.
The world faces a moment of danger, volatility and increasingly rapid change, but even as most G20 leaders came together in Delhi in a spirit of co-operation, one did not. For two years now, Putin has lacked the courage to face his G20 peers. Day after day, his actions cause horrendous suffering in Ukraine, violating the United Nations charter, threatening European security and disrupting global energy and food supplies. The spillovers have driven up prices here at home and are hurting people all around the world. Russia’s withdrawal from the Black Sea grain initiative exposes its willingness to spread that suffering further. While Putin stalls, making unmeetable demands, he is destroying Ukraine’s ports and grain silos. In just one month, Russia has destroyed over 270,000 tonnes of grain—enough to feed 1 million people for a year. I can tell the House today that, thanks to declassified intelligence, we know that on 24 August the Russian military targeted a civilian cargo ship in the Black Sea with multiple missiles, demonstrating just how desperate Putin is.
At the G20, leaders united in calling out the ‘human suffering’ caused by Putin’s war. Ukraine has the right to export its goods through international waters, and it has the moral right to ship grain that is helping to feed the world. The UK is working with partners to get grain to those who need it most. We will provide £3 million for the World Food Programme, building on earlier contributions to President Zelensky’s ‘Grain from Ukraine’ initiative. We are using our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to monitor Russian activity in the Black Sea, so that we can call it out if we see that Russia is preparing further attacks on civilian shipping or infrastructure, and so that we can attribute attacks should they happen. Later this year, we are hosting a UK global food security summit to put in place solutions for the long term.
I spoke to my friend President Zelensky just before the summit. Backed by our support, Ukraine’s counteroffensive is making hard-won progress. We will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes, until we see a ‘just and durable peace’ that respects its sovereignty and territorial integrity. That is the only possible outcome to Putin’s illegal war, and Ukraine, with our support, will prevail.
On my second aim, we showed at the G20 that it is the UK and our partners, not authoritarian actors, that offer the best solution to the global challenges we face. We are playing our part to stabilise the global economy, control inflation and fuel future growth. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show the UK is leading the way, growing faster out of the pandemic than any other major European economy, and demolishing the false narratives we have heard from the other side of this House. We are also leading the way on development assistance. Instead of loading countries with debt, we are calling for fundamental reforms of the World Bank. When I met the World Bank president, I underlined the UK’s desire to see the bank become more efficient and responsible, sweating its balance sheet to deliver more support where it is needed.
We are also leading calls at the G20 to safely harness new technologies to support growth and development, and we are leading action to tackle climate change. While some in Westminster denigrate the UK’s record on climate issues, out there in the world we are rightly seen as a global leader. We have cut emissions faster than any other G7 country, with low-carbon sources now providing over half our electricity. We are providing billions for the global energy transition, including through our pioneering just energy transition partnerships. And at the G20 I made a record commitment of over £1.6 billion for the green climate fund—the single biggest international climate pledge that the UK has ever made.
Finally, my most important aim in Delhi was to deliver on the priorities of the British people. In a changing world, we are using our Brexit freedoms to build new relationships with economies around the world. Since I became Prime Minister, we have joined the CPTPP—the most dynamic trading bloc in the world. We have launched new partnerships with Canada, Australia, Japan and the US, covering trade and economic security. We have secured agreements with France, Albania, Turkey and others to stop illegal migration. At the G20, I went further. We signed a new strategic partnership with Singapore to boost growth, jobs and security. I held warm and productive discussions with Prime Minister Modi on strengthening our relationship in defence, technology and a free trade deal between our nations.
I also met Premier Li of China. The whole House is rightly appalled about reports of espionage in this building. The sanctity of this place must be protected, and the right of Members to speak their minds without fear or sanction must be maintained. We will defend our democracy and our security, so I was emphatic with Premier Li that actions that seek to undermine British democracy are completely unacceptable and will never be tolerated. I also emphasised the UK’s unyielding commitment to human rights, and I was clear on the importance of maintaining stability and international law as the basis for stable relations. China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, the world’s second-largest economy and the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide. It has growing influence on others, notably Russia. One of my messages to Premier Li was that China should use its influence to call on Russia to end its aggression against Ukraine. The G20 showed a common purpose on food security, and we need to see that in other areas.
This Government have acted decisively to improve our security, blocking China’s involvement in critical areas such as civil nuclear power, semiconductors and 5G. I pay tribute to the tireless work of our security services. We will shortly set out our response to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on China. In November last year, the Government set up a new Defending Democracy Taskforce. Its mission is to reduce the risk to the UK’s democratic processes, institutions and society, and to ensure they are secure and resilient to threats of foreign interference. The importance of that work is clear for all to see. Crucially, in taking that approach, we are aligned with each and every one of our Five Eyes allies and with every G7 partner. By speaking frankly and directly, we will ensure our messages are heard clearly and that our interests and values are protected and promoted.
At a time of rapid change, we are bringing British values and British leadership to bear on the biggest global challenges. As one of the fastest-growing major economies, the second-largest contributor to NATO and a global leader in everything from climate to tech to development, I am proud of the UK’s leadership. It is through that leadership, working with our allies and partners, that we will increase our security, grow our economy and deliver on the priorities of the British people. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. It helps the House when Statements are repeated; I am grateful to him for doing so.
As the G20 got under way, the scale of the devastation caused by the earthquake in Morocco was becoming evident. Today, the death toll continues to rise towards 3,000, with almost as many reported injuries. I entirely concur with the noble Lord’s comments, and our thoughts and condolences are with those affected and those aiding the rescue efforts. Alongside other nations, UK specialist search and rescue teams are working with the Moroccan authorities in a race against time to try to find and treat survivors. We know that a number of UK citizens have been affected. I do not know whether the noble Lord can comment on this, but it would be helpful if he could say something about the efforts being made to ensure that UK citizens can return home at the earliest opportunity.
As the Lord Privy Seal said, this is the week in which we should remember the victims of the 2001 9/11 attacks and those who risked their lives trying to rescue others. It is a further reminder that we must always strive to make our country and communities safer and more resilient. As we look to secure future security, we recognise that, for some, their lives will never be the same. With the ongoing war in Ukraine as a backdrop to the G20 in New Delhi, there can be no greater reminder of the need for nations to stand together against terrorism and aggression, and to support countries dealing with major disasters.
This year’s G20 was a real opportunity to secure progress on international issues. With the Government and the Opposition consistently united against Putin’s unjust invasion—the noble Lord has made that comment himself—and seeking international co-operation to help Ukraine, I think we all would have hoped for an unequivocal statement from the G20. The Lord Privy Seal may not wish to comment on that, but I suspect he would concur that that is also what he would have sought. It would have been a hugely significant expression of support if the international community had agreed to work towards an agreement about repurposing Russia’s frozen assets to help reconstruct Ukraine. The fact that it was not an unequivocal statement of support means that, whatever its other merits, the communiqué is a disappointment.
We generally welcome and encourage the Prime Minister’s comments on global food supplies in the Black Sea and his personal condemnation against Putin. The Lord Privy Seal will know that the need for further action is urgent. Can he say anything more or give an update on preparations for the November summit on food security? Does he have some detail on whether, and what, progress was made in this regard in Delhi?
The inclusion of the African Union in the G20 reflects Africa’s progress as the world’s fastest-growing continent. We should also support the increasing role of Africa on the world stage. Does the noble Lord consider that the inclusion of the African Union might represent a step towards a greater role for African states in, for example, the UN?
The important announcement of a new partnership for global infrastructure and investment represents an exciting prospect for the world to have an alternative to China’s intercontinental belt and road initiative, but that partnership will not involve the UK. I have a number of questions on this that I hope the noble Lord can clarify. Did we decline the opportunity to sign up, or was it never on offer—were we not offered the opportunity to do so? Will there be opportunities for the UK to play a role in these arrangements in the future? How does it fit in with Ministers’ ongoing rhetoric on global Britain when we are not part of such an exciting and crucial partnership?
I will also ask the noble Lord about the trade deal between the UK and India. The Chancellor has referred to the “real political momentum”, but there does not appear to be any tangible evidence of that following the summit. Can the noble Lord shed some light on the reasons for Mr Hunt’s optimism? This is a key government promise, yet deadlines have been and gone. There does not appear to be any progress, but he might be able to enlighten me: can he identify and outline the genuine progress, or is it still wishful thinking at this stage?
So, there is no UK-India trade deal and we are being left out of the new infrastructure and investment. Those are worrying indicators for the UK. Can the noble Lord say something about what our strategic plans are for the future of the UK and our place in the world?
The US has the Inflation Reduction Act and the EU is relaxing the rules to allow for greater green subsidies. The Government may disagree with those policies, but their promises of increased global trade and this wonderful new land of increased investment post Brexit are just not being met. Whatever disagreements we have on foreign and domestic policy, we do agree on the UK’s potential. With our expertise and creativity, we should be able to attract investment and trade, but it has to be as part of an international, outward-looking strategy for the economic, environmental and foreign policy challenges of the future. I have no doubt that we can meet those challenges, but if this Government are to do so we need to see a better, confident and credible plan.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement and taking questions on it. From these Benches, we also send our sympathies to the people of Morocco in the aftermath of the earthquake. The UK is already sending search and rescue teams, but do the Government have any plans to contribute financially to the reconstruction effort which is now under way and which is going to be long and arduous?
On the outcome of the G20, I probably should not admit it, but I have some sympathy with the Prime Minister. There are deep and unbridgeable rifts between G20 members on a range of issues, most notably Ukraine, and it would be unrealistic to expect harmony to have broken out on all these in Delhi. It seems to me that criticism of the Prime Minister on this ground is pretty naive. As is so often the case with this kind of summit, the value appears to lie principally in the discussions which were able to take place outside the full sessions, so I believe it had considerable value despite the inability to make progress on some of the big issues.
On Ukraine, we applaud the Government’s attempts to get more grain out of the country. The Prime Minister discussed this issue at length in the Statement and said:
“The UK is working with partners to get grain to those who need it most”.
Will the noble Lord explain what tangible support the UK is giving or planning to give to increase the volume of these much-needed grain shipments?
The Prime Minister held a much-heralded meeting with President Modi, principally to advance a trade deal between our countries, but as the noble Baroness said, the Statement is extremely coy about any progress made. There was much speculation in the run-up to Delhi that a deal would be struck before Christmas. Can the noble Lord give the House an assessment of how realistic he believes such a timescale to be?
One of the principal announcements around the summit, as the noble Baroness mentioned, was the signing of a new partnership for global infrastructure and investment. The UK was not a signatory to this agreement despite having been involved in its inception. Can the noble Lord tell the House why not? It has the potential to be a significant counterweight to China’s belt and road strategy and is therefore of direct relevance to our trade and security. Will the UK make any financial contributions to the initiative or take part in discussions with the other partners on its future?
The Prime Minister gave a detailed account of his discussions with his Chinese counterpart, but the words “Hong Kong” do not appear in the Statement. At present, the Hong Kong authorities, with Beijing’s backing, are actively offering bounties against pro- democracy Hong Kongers now in the UK. The United States has sanctioned those responsible for the crackdown in Hong Kong, but this Government have surprisingly failed to sanction a single person. Will the Government now specifically condemn what would, in effect, be kidnapping and commit to protecting Hong Kongers in the UK? Will they use sanctions, like the Americans, against those responsible for dismantling Hong Kong’s democracy?
The principal aims which the Prime Minister set in attending the G20 were: maintaining pressure on Russia; showing that the UK is leading the fight on global challenges such as climate change; and strengthening international ties. Those are admirable but need to be pursued consistently, so it is a surprise to see that the Prime Minister has decided not to attend the UN General Assembly later this month. This is the largest international summit and an annual opportunity to promote our values and our policy priorities. Can the noble Lord explain why the Prime Minister has decided not to go to New York, and could he suggest to him that it is not too late for him to change his mind?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for those responses, and I will try to pick up at least some of the points made. Anything I do not, I will try to pick up later. First, I am grateful for and share the sentiments that noble Baroness and the noble Lord expressed about the catastrophe in Morocco. I lived through an earthquake of 6.5 on the Richter scale and saw the damage it did to property, lives and communities. The degree of devastation and force that one experiences is unimaginable. At 6.8, this earthquake was twice as strong as the Italian earthquake to which I refer. One can only begin to imagine the horror and the scale of what needs to be done. Our thoughts and prayers remain with everyone who was affected, as the whole House has said. We are supporting our Moroccan friends, as was acknowledged in the House. We have deployed emergency response teams to Morocco to assist with rescue efforts. They are in Marrakesh. They have started search and rescue efforts. We also are deploying a medical assessment team to assist in the work. As for helping British nationals, this is an important issue. The Foreign Office has already received a small number of requests for assistance from British nationals in Morocco. We stand ready to assist British nationals, and consular support is available 24 hours a day, every day.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked whether the communique could have said more about the atrocious activities of Russia. One would always wish that one might say more about those matters. The reality is that this was a G20 summit. In fact, one of the extraordinary and notable things about it was that in some paragraphs of the communique India and, indeed, China—I think for the first time in such a community—assented to a call for a just peace based on territorial integrity for Ukraine. If you look at the text, you will see that implicitly China and India committed to support a just and lasting peace. That is an important matter. These are delicate diplomatic issues. Every nation has its own perception of the world, but the G20 was able to come forward together with that very important statement.
On Ukraine, obviously much of that was covered in the initial Statement. We continue our full degree of support. I was asked about the use of frozen Russian assets for the purposes of reconstruction. We are committed to exploring all legal routes for using frozen Russian assets for reconstruction in Ukraine. We laid legislation in June to enable us to keep sanctions in place until Russia pays compensation. In fact, that delivers on the commitment the G7 made earlier this year that sovereign assets will remain immobilised until Russia pays for damage it has caused to Ukraine.
I welcome what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said about global food security. This was a very important step forward at the conference, particularly against the background of the Russian attacks on grain. I was asked what the further steps would be. On 20 November, the UK will host a global food security summit towards zero hunger and ending malnutrition. This will work on bringing leadership internationally and strengthening key science, technology, finance and climate partnerships to prevent famine, wider food insecurity and malnutrition. It will be an important moment for this country but, much more importantly, for international co-operation. I am sure that noble Lords will welcome that.
I was asked about the African Union. We are delighted that there was agreement to African Union membership of the G20. As global leaders, frankly, we need to ensure the focus of the international system and the benefits of development, trade and prosperity are more equitably shared than is the case today, and the presence of the African Union should help us to achieve both and so—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby—would African representation on the UN Security Council. These are issues on which we reflect.
As far as the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment is concerned, noble Lords should remember that this initiative was launched during our own G7 presidency in 2021. It is something that the UK is much committed to. We have announced a series of flagship projects working with G7 and other partners to deliver responsible development. This is an interlocking set of initiatives. As regards this particular initiative, which was agreed at the G20, Japan did not sign it, for example, and neither did Italy. It is an agreement relating to a particular set of nations and fits in to a wider framework of the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. Under our British investment partnership approach with India, we have invested more than £2.3 billion to support 600 enterprises employing about half a million people.
I was asked by both parties about the relationship with India. We are not setting a date on any specific target. The talks that took place involving the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and their counterparts were extremely positive and constructive. We will continue to negotiate with India to secure a comprehensive and ambitious trade deal. Round 12 of negotiations concluded on 31 August. Meetings took place. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade met with India’s Ministers for commerce and finance, and they discussed how to make further meaningful progress on the admittedly complex next phase focused on goods, services and investment. Our Prime Minister and Prime Minister Modi reaffirmed their joint commitment to securing an ambitious deal that helps us to unlock greater opportunities for trade. We must get the right deal; the answer is to get that, not a deal by a specific target date. The discussions were constructive and helpful.
I totally agree with what the noble Lord said about Hong Kong. We discussed that briefly yesterday. I can assure him and other noble Lords that we will take the most vigorous action against anyone involved in threatening or undermining the security of those good people from Hong Kong: refugees from the tyranny of the Chinese Communist Party whom we have all united in welcoming to this country. We will support them, both nationally and internationally.
On the grain initiative, which I was asked about, that is obviously important. We welcome the efforts of Turkey and the UN to try to get this matter moving again. We call on Russia to return to the Black Sea grain initiative. That was in the communiqué. Russia must engage seriously with Turkey and the UN and we are engaging with both to support diplomatic efforts. As I said in the Statement, Ukraine has the right to export its grain.
Let us not forget that the UK’s total military, humanitarian and economic support for Ukraine now amounts to £9.3 billion. I can assure the House that, both in seeking to open the grain routes and in other areas, we will continue that support, on which this House is resolutely united. I am grateful to both parties for that.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and I am grateful to my noble friend for repeating it. Obviously, I associate myself with the sympathies expressed over the horrific earthquake in the Atlas mountains and the need to rally round and support Morocco, which will be an increasingly important country for our own relationships in the coming decades.
I would have liked to hear a slightly tougher line come out on Ukraine, as I think we all would. Clearly, more persuasion is required to establish that we are not talking just about ideology, West and East and all those out-of-date concepts. We are talking about a direct, criminal assault on humanity and the stable world order. The sooner that message is established everywhere, regardless of trade or past connections, the better for bringing Russia to book.
One omission did surprise me; in fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned it and my noble friend also made some comments. It is on the accession of the African Union—all 55 countries—to the G20. This is an enormous change. If they all turn up, it will completely swamp the G20; even if just their secretariat and leadership turn up, this really does remind us of the change in the world balance of power, prosperity and development in the future.
Africa is heading for a population of 1 billion within this century. What is happening in Africa and India makes them increasingly the pivots and central points in the balance of world development, and between the attempted hegemonies of China to overthrow the world order of the last 50 years and the kind of balance we would like to see here in Britain, which is one of independence for more and more countries as they face the problems of the future.
It is also worth remembering that 21 of those 55 countries are members of the Commonwealth. As I said, I am quite surprised that more was not made of this in the Statement itself. I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister would like to comment a little further, but this is where our interests will be increasingly focused and where the new priorities in our foreign policy need to be sharpened up; so, I would welcome perhaps a little more on how the African Union fits into this completely changed world scene, but I thank the Minister all the same for making the Statement.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend, whose expertise and dedication to these issues we all recognise. I fear that it is a few years, perhaps decades, since I had a hand in the drafting of prime ministerial Statements, so I cannot comment on the selection of material, but I can certainly say that the Government and the Prime Minister, all of us, do support and welcome this. It is something that was negotiated with the positive support and promotion—with other nations—of the United Kingdom.
It is absolutely vital that we make progress with relations and support for Africa. The UK is one of the largest supporters of the World Food Programme. We provided over £330 million of funding in 2022, including to Africa. Trade should also be a force for good. In Africa it is a remarkable and welcome thing that 98% of goods imported to the UK from Africa will enter tariff-free. These are things we must continue. We have £3.4 billion of green investments in Kenya, for example. I can certainly undertake to the noble Lord that the Government are very much seized of the importance of that great continent—the continent of the future.
As far as Russia is concerned, I did allude to the difficulties of agreeing. For 20 nations to agree words is often a diplomatic task, but it is fundamental—a point that I made in my initial response—that all G20 members, including actually Russia, committed in the declaration to a
“comprehensive, just, and durable peace in Ukraine that will uphold all the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter”.
That is something that President Zelensky asked for last year at the Bali summit, and something that we will advance. If you think about it, Lavrov was there—Russia was at the G20 and under the terms of the declaration Russia has told the leaders of the biggest global economies that it will uphold all the principles of the UN Charter and refrain from the use of force for territorial acquisition. Unless Putin withdraws his troops, he will have lied to the world—perhaps not for the first time.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, we are all grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. In the Statement, the Prime Minister said that
“we are leading action to tackle climate change”.
Could the Leader tell us then why, it seems, the UK was not invited to the initiative taken by the UN Secretary-General to have a summit of world leaders on climate ambition? Also, he did not respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about why the Prime Minister is not attending the General Assembly. Is that the reason why the Prime Minister is not going?
Lord True (Con)
Well, my Lords, there were so many hypotheticals there. I am no more informed about the Prime Minister’s diary than the noble Lord is. On climate change, there is no doubt that the UK is seen, rightly, as a leader. I repeated some of the reasons for that in the Statement. At the G20 we made a $2 billion pledge—£1.6 billion—to the Green Climate Fund. That maintains our position as one of the top donors to the world’s biggest climate fund. I think it was a little churlish of the noble Lord, for whom I have the greatest affection, to say that no commitment was displayed. The UK has been a top donor to the fund since its inception in 2015 and, frankly, this latest pledge ensures that we will remain so. This Government are absolutely committed to making advances in this area.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
I appreciate this is not correct procedure, but the Minister is putting words in my mouth. I did not say that there was no commitment. What I said was that apparently the UN Secretary-General did not think that this country was worthy of an invitation to a summit. Nor has the Minister answered the question, now put twice, of why the Prime Minister is not attending the General Assembly.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I think my inference was reasonable on the basis of the remarks the noble Lord made.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I hope I may make one aside, which I do not think has been mentioned yet. I found it very touching to see a British Prime Minister of Indian descent representing this country and landing in India. I think that says quite a lot about diversity and opportunity in this country. I realise that the Prime Minister comes from a well-heeled background: nevertheless, it is wonderful to see a British Prime Minister from that background representing us.
On Morocco, is the Minister aware of reports that that country is turning down aid from some countries? As for China and India, of course, however well we may do in this country on getting our carbon emissions down, it will pale into insignificance if we cannot get those countries—and indeed the US—to bring theirs down. My final point is on China. Was mention made of the persecution of the Uighurs?
Lord True (Con)
On the noble Lord’s final point, which was discussed briefly in another Statement yesterday, the Prime Minister met Premier Li of China. I think it is the first time in four or five years that there has been a meeting with such a high-level member of the Chinese Government, and he was certainly told in no uncertain terms what the UK thinks in relation to human rights, Hong Kong and other matters.
I will not follow his comments on the nature of the Prime Minister. I think the Prime Minister values the relationships we seek to forge internationally across the world. If, by some good fortune, his personality is helpful in a particular relationship, that would be good fortune, but let us not underestimate that getting diplomatic deals is not a matter of sentiment. Of course, one applauds the diversity that one sees in all parties at the moment, but getting deals is a matter of hard negotiation. That is what counts at the end of the day —not sentiment.
I have not seen the reports that Morocco is turning down support, but I will look into the matter and refer the noble Lord’s comments to my colleagues in the Foreign Office. I believe the noble Lord asked another question, which has slipped my mind. I will look at Hansard, if I may, and follow up on it.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for letting us hear the Statement in full. I was very glad to hear him refer to the global involvement of the UK and our accession to the CPTPP. Could he let us know the timetable for submitting our written confirmation of that protocol from 17 July and whether any of the other parties have indicated their timetable for confirming?
Lord True (Con)
No, my Lords, I am not briefed to give specific timescales, but I will certainly let my noble friend and the House know if such information is made available. I apologise for that.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, somewhat to my surprise, it would appear that there are no further questions on the Statement—in which case we will move on.
Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill
Tuesday 12th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill 2022-23 View all Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 119-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (11 Sep 2023)
20:37 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 30 / Noes: 39 - Amendment 1 disagreed.
21:58 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 25 / Noes: 32 - Amendment 5 disagreed.
The Earl of Caithness
“(A1) This section has effect in a calendar year only if, before the end of the previous calendar year, the Secretary of State has made a statement in writing to the effect that, in the Secretary of State’s view, its operation will not cause unintended and perverse consequences for wildlife conservation and for communities in areas outside Great Britain where hunting takes place.”
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, this Bill has very little effect in or on the UK, but it potentially has huge effect in every country of the world where trophy hunting takes place. As was made very clear at Second Reading, many of the reasons for this Bill are emotionally, rather than scientifically, based. The position of the proponents of the Bill is entrenched.
The Joint Nature Conservation Committee, better known as the JNCC, is a public body set up by Parliament that advises the Government and devolved Administrations on UK-wide and international nature conservation. It is very relevant to this Bill. On its website it states:
“As the UK’s statutory advisor on international conservation matters, we have a long history of experience in this area. We play a leading role in providing high-quality evidence and technical advice on the development and implementation of international nature conservation agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity … the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats … and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)”.
Thus, the JNCC performs a similar role for the Government in respect of animals as does Kew in respect of plants. Crucially, it provides scientific advice to the UK CITES management authority, Defra, as to whether imports are likely to be detrimental to species survival or not. Its views are of the utmost importance and its advice should be followed, unless there is good reason not to. It has given independent advice to the Secretary of State, who has ignored it. Although she was warned it would happen, in doing so she has undermined its credibility and the standing of the UK in international conservation. If its own Secretary of State does not heed the advice of the JNCC, why should any other nature organisation in the world do so?
To me, the most striking pieces of independent advice and damning criticism that the JNCC has given the Secretary of State, and which she has ignored, are: Defra has no interest in the efficacy or the impact of legislation; the consultation on the Bill was expressly designed to create a political mandate for action; Defra and the UK will need to own the negative consequences of any ban, as well as taking the plaudits from those in favour; and an outright ban is likely to have unintended and perverse consequences for wildlife conservation and the viability of communities reliant on hunting revenue.
It is the last piece of advice by the JNCC that inspired this amendment. I am grateful to it, and to the freedom of information laws in this country which have allowed its advice to be made public. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to be advised each year about the unintended consequences of trophy hunting that the JNCC believes will occur, and to publish their judgment. If it is found that there are unintended consequences, Clause 1 would cease to have effect.
In moving Amendment 1, I confirm that I have no interest to declare. I do not own a hunting trophy and agree that some criticisms of trophy hunting, when it is not carried out to the highest standards, are justified. When it is badly managed, trophy hunting can be unsustainable. It can lead to local level overexploitation of some wildlife species and illegal killings. When it is badly managed, it can affect the social structure, behaviour and genetics of some species. It can affect other wildlife and tourism. Some benefits that should reach local communities do not, and it can engage in unethical practices which affect wildlife conservation. However, these criticisms do not apply to all trophy hunting and one should not throw the good out with the bad.
Let me mention some of the benefits of well-managed trophy hunting that justify my amendment. The most important is that as a result of trophy hunting, land is set aside for wildlife. The greatest pressure on wildlife is from human population growth, with its demand for food and the increasing expansion of agriculture and urban development in former wild areas. To avoid this pressure, the remaining wild areas must provide jobs, resources and other financial benefits.
In Tajikistan, trophy hunting conservation initiated by NGOs and the local community started in 2008, and now about 420,000 hectares of land is managed by local, traditional hunters from a community living an almost subsistence existence. Around 300 jobs have been created and 20,000 community members benefit indirectly. Sadly, all too often with human beings comes organised crime. That crime, poaching, has facilitated a dramatic decline of elephants and rhinoceros in parts of Africa and southern Asia, reversing decades of conservation achievements. Poaching is indiscriminate as to age, sex or species and in most cases leads to a painful and lingering death for the animal, whereas trophy hunting can be selective, with a clean and quick death. Poaching in the hunting areas of Tajikistan is now almost non-existent. The numbers of Asiatic ibex and markhor have increased and the decline in the population of snow leopards has been reversed. There is a much more stable food supply for the community.
In neighbouring Pakistan, in Gilgit-Baltistan, there are now more than 50 designated community conservation areas, covering more than 30% of the total land area—about 21,750 square kilometres. As a result of the community-based trophy hunting programme there, the population of Astore markhor, which is the national animal of the country, increased from 1,900 in 2012 to 2,800 in 2016. Similarly, in Balochistan, the population of Sulaiman markhor, which is an endemic sub-species that had a highly threatened status because of the Afghan war and the tribal area system—which had no solid implementation of wildlife laws—doubled between 2000 and 2011 to over 3,500. As a result, markhor were upgraded to near-threatened species by the IUCN in 2015. For anyone interested in conservation that is a remarkable success story, due to trophy hunting.
Trophy hunting helps to conserve over 1.3 million square kilometres of land in Africa, which is approximately the size of France, Germany and Spain combined. It is also a fifth more than the combined area of the national parks there. If these vast areas of land were not used for wildlife conservation, in all likelihood they would see alternative and less conservation-friendly land uses.
Another important benefit is that trophy hunting earns money for conservation. It provides economic benefits to government organisations, wildlife agencies, local communities and landowners. Trophy hunting is the major source of livelihood for the communities in the far-flung mountainous areas of Pakistan. Village-based conservancies have been formed there and the money obtained from trophy hunting has been distributed through them. Eighty per cent of the revenue generated through trophy hunting goes into local communities, most of it being spent on public welfare works, while 20% of the total revenue generated goes to government departments, which usually pay the local watchers and staff salaries from it. In the Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan a total of $1.35 million has been generated between 2017 and 2020, while in Balochistan, since 1989, trophy hunting has brought in a total revenue of nearly $1.75 million, of which about $1.4 million has been given to the local communities, with almost $300,000 paid to the Government there. These are substantial sums of money, especially when one considers that the per capita income is less than $1,000.
In Mexico, bighorn sheep were reintroduced to the island of Tiburón in 1975. The island is owned and managed by the Seri Indians. When numbers grew above the carrying capacity for the island, the surplus stock was either licensed for trophy hunting or young animals were sold for translocation. Between 1998 and 2007 the Seri, who controlled the process, raised $3.2 million. The funds provided much-needed income locally and were reinvested in Seri community projects, the management of the bighorn sheep population, and the maintenance of the island in an undisturbed state.
In Canada, the polar bear hunts form part of a larger indigenous co-management system in which Inuit communities participate because they choose to. Legally, they can hunt what they want so the choice is very deliberate, because they believe in co-operation. The USA tried to help polar bears by reducing hunting through a trophy imports ban, but totally ignored the fact that local communities can legally harvest their quota of bears regardless. The result has been a considerable loss of income to the Inuit community in these small, remote areas, where there have been very limited ways of generating income.
For most hunters, bringing a trophy back is important. If one is prevented from doing that, either the hunt will not take place or, if it goes ahead, the hunter will not have to pay a trophy fee. In many places, the trophy fee makes up a significant part of the revenue and its loss would weaken the economic model of that area. Thus, the effect of the Bill will be to undermine, and perhaps stop, trophy hunting, with a consequential loss of revenue for conservation and local communities.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My noble friend talks about loss of income. One of the points put forward by proponents of the Bill is that that loss could be made up through ODA and the aid budgets of different countries. Does he agree that it would not be a good use of overseas aid to make up for the money that is going to these communities as a result of trophy hunting?
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend on that point. One also needs to bear in mind that the local communities do not want aid. They want actually to be able to look after themselves, generate their own income and manage their populations without being given handouts by countries. They need help but do not need the type of money my noble friend has just referred to.
Another benefit from trophy hunting is that other wildlife that is not targeted for hunting is also protected, as are the local flora and fauna. I mentioned the trophy hunting of the markhor and ibex, and I add the argali sheep. Research has shown that, because those animals are now licensed to be shot, not only have their numbers increased but the wildlife population has also grown overall. This means a greater supply of food for the snow leopards and, consequently, more are found in hunting reserves in Tajikistan than outside them. Having a greater supply of food means there is less conflict with humans and their livestock. In hunting areas in Pakistan, the number of retaliatory killings of carnivores such as snow leopards, wolves, bears and foxes has been reduced, and tolerance has increased because of the economic benefits of trophy hunting.
Lord Swire (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I entirely agree with him that this must be evidence-based legislation, and a lot of a misleading and mischievous false information has circulated around this subject for some time. Does he share my surprise that the Minister for Environment and Tourism in Botswana felt obliged to issue today a press release, which I think was circulated to all noble Lords, refuting the allegations made by the acting CEO of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, Dr Adam Cruise, concerning trophy hunting in Botswana? Is that not precisely the sort of misleading information—rather arrogant and high-handed to a country such as Botswana—that we should avoid?
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right, and I am sure that the source of that misinformation will not be a surprise to him or anyone else. It is a regular source of misinformation, and it was quite correctly shot down in flames by the Botswanan Government.
My noble friend raised an important point, on which I will end. We should use the Bill to improve conservation by getting rid of bad trophy hunting practices, while at the same time keeping the good and improving standards and welfare for all. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for bringing the Bill to the House and championing it. For the Green group, I express my strongest possible support for the Bill as it stands—and opposition to all the amendments.
I have been in your Lordships’ House for nearly four years, and I have to admit that I was rather surprised when I looked at the misnamed “grouping of amendments”. I have never seen this before: it is a list of 62 amendments in 62 groups. It is surprising that people who might perhaps regard themselves as champions of the traditions of the House have produced something that has not been seen in recent history—and I checked with someone who has been around the House for much longer. It could keep this House going for several days. Those who would champion the traditions and progress of the House appear to be heading in the opposite direction with this.
It is interesting to look at the gender balance of the names on the amendments: every single one is male. There is something to be said there. Only the other day, I had a conversation with a noble Lord about how it has often been put forward that, if we could hand over some countries in the global south to the women, and let the women run things, they would look different. That might be an interesting case study tonight.
Lord Robathan (Con)
I understand what the noble Baroness is saying, but is she really implying that those people, such as myself, who put down amendments have no right to express an opinion on this, and that their views are valueless because they are not female?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I would love to see a true balance of gender in contributions in your Lordships’ House, as I would love to see a balance of membership in it. Of course, we are a long way from that point here and in the other place.
Something else that joins the people expressing views here tonight in terms of moving the amendments is that these are a small number of people who appear to think that hunting is a sport. It might be something like a sport if you gave the elephants, lions and birds guns but, until you do that, it is a slaughter—and that is what is being supported by the proposers of amendments to this very modest and heavily supported Bill.
It is noticeable that the amenders and the people sitting in the Chamber tonight are all largely sitting on the Benches on one side. But this was a 2019 Conservative manifesto promise—to ban imports of hunting trophies for endangered species. The intent for such legislation was in the Queen’s Speeches in 2019 and 2022. A 2022 public opinion survey showed that 80% of the British public support a ban on the imports of hunting trophies. Again, for those champions of tradition who say that we are the unelected House and that we should not stand in the way of the will of the House of Commons, the Commons passed this Bill with only minor amendments in March 2023.
I want to pick up just one point expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who spoke about closeness to nature. We are talking about imports of these trophies into the UK. Practices of indigenous people embedded in local landscapes is one thing; a UK dentist or aristocrat bringing back a trophy from Africa is something else again. So I ask everyone proposing amendments to this Bill to search their conscience to ask themselves what they are really doing in the Committee this evening.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I support it as the first amendment because it highlights straightaway the need to put conservation at the heart of this Bill—not simply disgust at the idea of trophy hunting, but conservation. I hope that the Government will take account of this and of the arguments that they will hear this evening on both sides and that they will be able to bring an improved Bill back to the House.
I was struck on reading back through the Second Reading speeches, which unfortunately I mostly missed, at how widespread the disgust is at this practice. I share it, as I have never shot anything or hunted anything, and I cannot imagine why people want to do this. But of course the point of this Bill is not to express disgust at this; it is to improve the prospects for animals that are being hunted. To do this, we have to look at the broader context. Particularly in Africa, we have a situation of huge rising demographic pressure and huge rising demand for the products of poaching, especially as those countries that believe in traditional medicine get richer, and the pressure on poaching for the ingredients for traditional medicine becomes more severe year by year. We can make sense of this Bill only by looking at that wider context and looking at whether it takes account of those pressures.
In the earlier debate, there was a certain amount of, “Well, we all pick our experts, don’t we?” Of course, we do all pick our experts to some extent—but I am sure that noble Lords would agree with me that this is not a reason not ever to listen to experts. I was extremely struck by the recent letter to the Times, signed by almost 200 different experts, who were very clear in their request that our Government
“should support an amendment whereby hunting trophies are permitted only if”—
I would say if and when—
“they demonstrate clear benefits to both conservation and local livelihoods, fulfilling the government’s manifesto commitment and helping, rather than harming, conservation.”.
I do not know whether any noble Lords have ever been involved in trying to put together a letter to a newspaper, but when you get one that is signed by almost 200 people from a very wide range of countries and associations, you have to feel that there must be some major arguments and major concerns that need addressing. Just to name some randomly, we have: Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, the Frankfurt Zoological Society and the charity Stop Rhino Poaching; and we have experts from Kew, Oxford and Cambridge. Those are experts that we need to take some account of.
I was also very struck that, in fact, our Government internally recognise that hunting is not necessarily at odds with conservation. In fact, the Minister made this point himself at Second Reading, pointing out that
“some of the richest wildlife habitats that we find anywhere on these islands are sustained through the activities of people who hunt for sport”.—[Official Report, 16/6/23; col. 2245.]
I want to emphasise the need to take account of expert opinion, and the need to look at the context within which trophy hunting takes place. This does not mean that there is no place for this Bill. As the noble Earl has said, there are nuanced arguments. But when there are so many people arguing that we need to amend and improve this Bill, we should take these recommendations seriously and make sure that conservation is at the heart of this Bill. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, I believe that most reasonable people, and certainly most noble Lords taking part today, support wholeheartedly the objective of conservation that the noble Baroness was just talking about. We always want to protect our shrinking wildlife on this planet, so it is always helpful to start on the areas on which we agree, and that is one of them. But the perception on which this Bill is based is that a number of the world’s most endangered and iconic species are threatened with extinction by excessive hunting, and that by prohibiting the importation of trophies taken from these animals we will set an example to other countries and, perhaps more importantly, prevent the decline in the numbers of those species.
The argument on the other side is that the income derived from hunting for these trophies—the trophies themselves do not matter, of course—improves conservation in a number of different ways. The most obvious way—and I think that my noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned it—is that, in hunting areas, the habitat is being protected. That is the most important thing, because it is loss of habitat that is the greatest threat to wildlife. On the other side of the coin, we have learned in the course of this Bill that trophy hunting is not actually a threat to any endangered species at all—it is other things that threaten them, but not trophy hunting. None of the animals that would be covered in the two annexes to which this Bill will apply when it becomes an Act are at all threatened in any way, shape or form by trophy hunting. They are threatened by other things, the most important of which is loss of habitat; that is, to some degree or another that is open to debate, protected by trophy hunting. If you have a concession, a piece of land on which you are conducting your hunting business, you are obviously going to protect it because otherwise it damages your business. That is widely demonstrated.
It is often said that this House has an expert on almost every subject. I have to confess that I am not an expert on the subject before us this evening, although I have some experience of conservation here in the United Kingdom, and I have a passion for the wilder parts of the world, some of which I visited, and the creatures that live there. I have never shot game in Africa or in other parts of the world—the Far East, or whatever—so I, too, have no direct interest to declare in this Bill.
It is clear that opinion is divided in the Committee, as it is everywhere, on which side of the argument one falls—and that is quite normal. What is interesting to me, as the noble Baroness touched on, is what has happened during the course of the passage of this Bill, in its passage to the other place and in the several months since it came here first in June—rather a long time ago. I have been involved in a lot of Private Members’ Bills over the past 35 years that I have been in this House, and I cannot remember any on which such an extraordinary deluge of information has been poured on our heads and through our letterboxes. Of course, some of it is very good and some of it is not so good—that is a fact of life.
We have had an extraordinary amount of high-quality information provided by academics. Two speakers have already referred to the letter from academics that appeared in a newspaper. I have tried to get letters into newspapers, and it is very unusual to do so. Getting 10 Peers to sign one brings herding cats to mind, so getting 150 academics from across the world—which must also be a bit like herding cats—to sign a letter is extraordinary. These were not just any old people. It is a pretty impressive list. I do not remember it happening before.
I also do not remember another piece of legislation that does not really affect this country at all but does affect others. The way some people speak, you would think that hunting is a minority activity. Actually, 99% of the countries in the world have hunting; those that do not are the minority. It is normal in most parts of the world and cultures. I have never come across a situation where more affected countries have been so vociferous in their opposition to a Bill that affects them. I do not remember the British Government—although I am sure there is a case of it—enacting a piece of legislation like this, which has an economic, social and cultural effect on other countries, without asking or meeting them and completely ignoring their views. It is quite extraordinary.
The countries most affected by this—the southern African countries that have hunting—have, like the academics, been unanimous in their opposition. Two groups took the trouble to get on an aeroplane and come over here. Can noble Lords imagine the Minister jumping on a plane because of something happening in the South African Parliament and dealing with a group there? We had a Minister, heads of wildlife departments and an MP come to this House because they were so horrified by what would happen. The evidence we were given was extraordinary, detailed and backed by hard, peer-reviewed research.
One thing that affected me most was that one of the people who came here, an MP from a constituency in Botswana that I could not begin to pronounce, on the edge of the Okavango, told us: “It seems to me that British parliamentarians care more about animals than they do about our people. I go to funerals of my constituents who are killed because they live alongside wildlife. Their cattle are killed and their crops are destroyed. Four or five constituents every year, usually children on their way to school, are killed by animals”. That is a fact of life when humans live alongside wildlife.
We have debates about rewilding in this country—sometimes very sensible and sometimes not quite so sensible—in which people say that we do not want wolves in England because they are too big and might kill our sheep and dogs. It is quite right that we have those impassioned arguments, but can you imagine saying to someone in Surrey, “We’re going to put a couple of prides of lions outside Esher and a herd of buffalo in the Surrey Hills”? They would not be very happy about it. These people live alongside these animals all the time. This MP was saying that it looked like we cared more about the animals that we do not have to live with than his constituents who do. We need to take that very seriously.
As my noble friend has said, trophy hunting is a major force for conservation. The 1.3 million square kilometres in Africa is one-fifth more land than all the national parks combined. We need to think carefully, because this is big stuff. Trophy hunters obviously want to continue hunting, so they preserve their quarry in those areas and actively protect the habitats and other related animals around. More importantly, the communities are therefore incentivised, economically and in other ways, to accept the animals, which are undoubtedly difficult to live with, and prevent poaching. If they have no value to those people, if they are a negative and not a positive, how on earth can we expect them to protect them? Surely, the object of this Bill is to protect them, so we need to incentivise those people. Trophy hunting is one of the main ways at the moment to do that.
Trophies can account for up to 50% of the revenue derived from hunting, as I think my noble friend mentioned. If you remove the ability to take away the trophy, you take 50% of the income away, for no real gain to anybody. After all, trophies in themselves are not important. What matters is how we manage the wildlife and the consequences to them, not the trophy. Although we have been told that you do not really need hunting and could replace it with photo tourism, we need to be clear that the overwhelming evidence we have received is this: of course you can increase photo tourism, but that will not work in the areas in which there is trophy hunting, because they are different. There is not the infrastructure and they are not the sort of places that are good for photographic tourism anyway. It simply will not work. We were told that not just once or twice but by all the evidence we received, which was detailed and explained why.
The evidence we received on the other side of the coin, which said that you could do tourism there and do not need trophy hunting, gave no specific examples at all. I found it extraordinary that I got from the JNCC—many of your Lordships will have too—nine detailed pieces of peer-reviewed research demonstrating where trophy hunting occurs, how and why it is important and the numbers, while we did not receive a single piece of specific evidence going the other way that we could rely on.
Welfare has come up in this debate. This is not a welfare Bill, but a conservation one. It is important to note that the two are different subjects. I am not a naturalist or an expert in these things, but I can give noble Lords a fact which I know to be completely true: 100% of wild animals will die. Some 99% of them will die of injury, illness, starvation, lack of water, competition with others and being predated upon—not a very nice one—while probably less than 0.01%, a tiny number, will be killed by trophy hunting.
I can also assure noble Lords that, of all the deaths that wild animals undergo, probably the one with the least welfare concerns is to be shot by a bullet. No wild animals die in their beds or have palliative care. None is surrounded by its relatives when it leaves this planet. They all die nasty, painful and long-suffering deaths. That is what nature does. The only ones that have a short, quick death are those that are hunted. A welfarist wanting to improve the welfare of animals—which is not the point of this Bill—cannot object to this on those grounds. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, shaking her head, but this is a fact. If she thinks I have got something wrong, I invite her to come in on it, because this is pretty factual.
I said at the outset that we cannot all be experts on every subject that comes before this House, although some noble Lords seem to think they are from the frequency with which they bend our ears. We must therefore rely, to a certain extent, on the information we are given. We have to decide, sift it and look at the reliability of its sources. As I have said, I have been extremely impressed by the evidence that has come to us supporting the conservation points of this Bill and making it clear that, as drafted, it does not have the conservation benefits we would want.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
Before the noble Lord moves on, will he also reflect on one point? We have indeed, as he rightly pointed out, been inundated with extremely interesting and very knowledgeable briefings from both sides of the argument. The overwhelming conclusion of those people who are concerned about the Bill, do not want to stop it in its tracks but want to improve it, is that they feel very strongly indeed that, with the right amendments, the Bill could in fact be fit for purpose and could command widespread support, particularly among those countries in southern Africa that he referred to.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. He is absolutely right: all those countries that we have all had letters from said that they would support the Bill if it had a proper conservation amendment in it, as is on the Order Paper today. We have had fascinating information. To me, the most fascinating information—I think it has already been referred to—was the stuff from the JNCC, the Government’s official adviser on conservation. It was consulted over a period of time by a number of Ministers as the Bill was formed over a period of years, drafted and redrafted. I have seen, and I am sure that your Lordships have, too, lots of advice from different committees, groups and people to Ministers. I do not think I have ever seen a more categorically strong piece of advice from a government advisory body saying, “No, this Bill as you have drafted it at the moment will have severe conservation problems and deficits”.
If we want the Bill to be a good model of conservation and to help the wildlife we all want to help, it needs to have in it certain measures, and those measures are in an amendment of mine that we will look at later this evening: Amendment 34. In the meantime, Amendment 1 from my noble friend Lord Caithness is very interesting because it would give the Secretary of State the ability to look in advance at what the results are going to be. It would give him or her a duty to do that and to see whether the Bill is going to do the good that some claim it will or the harm that others claim. As such, I would be very happy to support my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, as we move through the early stages of this debate, I think it is important, first, that collectively, as a House, we recognise that there is a wide range of opinions not simply within this House but without it. I think it is right that we conduct this debate in a tone and a manner that does not denigrate anyone’s opinion. I think that what is held is held very passionately by a number of people and that both the movers and the opponents of the amendments are doing so in a very sincere manner.
I take exception particularly to one thing that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said: I think that every Member of this House has the complete right, irrespective of gender, to put forward whatever they feel to be in the best interests of legislation and to contribute to this debate. It will not come as a great surprise that I do not intend to undergo a course of gender reassignment or self-identification. As a DUP Peer, I think, to be fair, we have a reputation: we are not regarded as a particularly woke bunch, or indeed as people who would be naturally inclined to a left of centre approach to things. It therefore may come as a bit of a surprise that this may be the first time in my number of months in this House that I find myself, not necessarily in terms of tone but in terms of content, largely in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and commending the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for her actions in bringing this forward.
There will be others who speak in this debate who come with a greater level of expertise, and we can all trade statistics and representations that have been made to us. I have to say that I think the case for this amendment and from some of the opponents of the Bill has been heavily oversold. Trophy hunting does not create, as the impression has been given, some great utopia for society that will cure all our ills. It seems from the supporters of this amendment to simultaneously both preserve the ancien régime of indigenous peoples while at the same time being the principal driver of social progress within these countries: it seems to be the close correlation, if not the main motivation, behind female emancipation and education. If people are making the case for this amendment, it is important that it is not oversold.
I believe that trophy hunting makes an economic contribution to these countries, but there are some statistics that suggest that this is fairly minimal. As for the idea that this is being done as some form of benevolent social welfare for some of the residents, we know that, at the end of the day, for those on the ground this is making a very small contribution. The trickle-down effect is very limited. The range of these amendments would make the Bill much more complex and open to legal challenge than would otherwise be the case and create a regime which would enhance the level of uncertainty within the Bill.
I appreciate that the job, particularly in Committee, is to see what improvements can be made within the Bill. I have to say that, generally speaking—and I do not want to prejudice any of the arguments that will be made—it would appear that most of these amendments come from people who are vehement opponents of the Bill. That is a perfectly legitimate position, but let us not pretend that the intention of the amendments is particularly to improve the Bill. I think their impact would be to create the death by a thousand cuts of the Bill and to create a range of loopholes across the Bill that that would fundamentally weaken its purpose.
While I mention loopholes, I have not put down an amendment, but it may be useful if the Minister, whenever he is summing up towards the end, could deal with one loophole in the Bill that I think needs to be closed. In another place, my colleagues raised the issue of why Northern Ireland was excluded from the Bill. The argument was made that it would be in some way incompatible with the single market, to which Northern Ireland is apparently still subject. Leaving aside constitutional issues that I have some concerns about, I have to say that as an argument there has been a level of misinformation there. Irrespective of whether you are in favour or against these amendments, the single market is not an excuse for Northern Ireland’s exclusion, as four countries within the EU have either enacted very similar legislation or are in the process of doing so. So I urge the Government to consider this again.
For me—this may be a simplistic approach—this is about the signal that we send out as a civilised nation. Trophy hunting and taking back those trophies to the United Kingdom is something that is no longer part, if it ever was, of a virtuous, civilised nation. Therefore, I urge the Committee not only to reject this amendment but to oppose the amendments throughout the Bill, which will not necessarily improve the Bill but will act as a device, bit by bit, to water it down.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Weir, because I do not think that these amendments that some of us are proposing this evening are designed to wreck the Bill. On the contrary, the conversations I have had with my colleagues, who take this issue very seriously, are all about improving the Bill, which is why I will support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I think there is a better amendment coming from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, but I think this is a good amendment and this is the role of the second Chamber.
Without giving too much away, some of us have been lobbied quite hard over the past few days about the Bill and told, for instance, in that famous Whips’ argument, “If you don’t accept this, you will get something much worse”. Well, if we accepted that as a serious argument, there would be no point in having this revising Chamber at all: we would just accept all bad legislation coming from the other place and roll over and have our tummies tickled. We might as well stay away. The point of this House, if it is to have a point at all, is to examine legislation, reject bad legislation and, where necessary and feasible, improve the legislation. So, I utterly reject the noble Lord’s comment that this is designed to wreck the Bill.
I have various declarations to make. My first declaration is that I have no desire to shoot an animal in Africa, nor to bring a trophy home. In fact, I believe that if my wife were to wake up in the morning and find a kudu head at the end of the bed, she might react in the same way as if it were the severed head of a horse, to use an analogy from a film—which is quite a dangerous thing to do and was recently done rather poorly by President Biden.
However, the point is not whether I want to import trophies here from Africa or elsewhere. I set aside my own personal views and want to look at the legislation as it stands. The other two declarations I should make is, first, that I consider the Minister to be a close friend of mine—I do not know whether he will consider me in the same light after this—and I am afraid that for him it is a question of the cab rank principle of KCs that he has to accept whatever brief is coming his way. However, he is nothing but a serious conservationist, and I slightly wonder what is going through his mind privately—but we will not dwell on his grief: he will do this job in the entirely professional way that he handles so much of his brief, which seems to be a brief without beginning and without end.
However, the second and more serious point I want to make—this is a proper declaration—is that I am the deputy chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, which is designed to grow intra-Commonwealth trade. We heard in the previous Statement about the rise of Africa and how the African Union will now be represented at the G20, and Africa is coming of age. Everyone is looking at Africa. Hopefully, the British Government and our allies will look a bit more closely and try to fill the void that has been left by some countries to stop the Wagner Group, China and others exploiting that magnificent continent.
I am therefore very conscious of the role of the Commonwealth and of the perception that in some way the Commonwealth is a hangover from colonialism and the British Empire. Manifestly it is not; you only have to look at the most recent accession countries to the Commonwealth to see that they have absolutely no historic connection with this country whatever. However, it is there, and we should accept that there is that lingering suspicion. I am therefore enormously sensitive and immediately alert to the possibility that anything we say or do in this country about developing countries, particularly in Africa, could be conceived or misconceived as some form of neocolonialism. I know there is a temptation, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, from the other side tried to paint this as an all-boys club gathering—I was rather amused that the next, excellent speaker was the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, which put paid to that rather cheap accusation.
The point is that Africa is watching. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, we had a delegation of Ministers from some African countries. As a Minister I certainly would never have gone to an African country in the same way they came here to make these points. They came all this way to talk about what they wanted to do in their own communities, with their own experiences, and not the great principle of whether trophy hunting is morally right or repellent—which some people feel, and I absolutely accept that—but what it means to their local livelihoods and their local population. We should factor that in.
It makes me feel extremely uncomfortable that here we are, sitting on our well-upholstered behinds in the lovely gilt and leather confines of the House of Lords, telling people in Africa, in this century, in this day and age, how they should go about making their living. What an appalling idea that we could think that we could replace what they are trying to do by making this illegal, destroying that part of their livelihood and saying that we will replace it with aid. That is not what aid is meant for. It is not meant to make populations dependent; it is meant to liberate people, to encourage them to get up, do their own thing to the best of their ability and trade their way out of poverty. I will never vote for anything in this House which has an adverse effect on the livelihoods of people in those countries. We should think very carefully before we start telling those people what they should be doing.
Lord Turnbull (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry that I was not able to speak at Second Reading; I found out that it was scheduled only after the speakers’ list had closed. However, I have read the Hansard for that debate.
Like others, I am now struggling to find a rationale for choosing which amendments to support and which to oppose. This is difficult, as the Bill is flawed. Its stated aim, found in the impact assessment, is
“to ensure that imports of hunting trophies to the UK are not placing additional pressure on species of conservation concern”.
This muddles up two completely different objectives, the promotion of conservation and limiting import of trophies. The link between the two is tenuous. Acting on trophies will do precious little to promote conservation. As the Bill applies only to imports into the UK, it will do nothing to curb the appetite of the legendary Minnesota dentist.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, funnily enough, that is a very good note on which to start. I will come to the specific amendment in half a second. But one of the things people do not realise is that the whole thing about trophy hunting—by the way, I do not go in for it at all, but I know something about herd management from deer in Scotland; not that I manage myself, but I know people who do—is that you do not want to shoot a young male coming along because it has a magnificent pelt. You want it to develop into a full-blooded animal, and when it is just past its prime that is when you cull it, for exactly that reason: the dynamics of the crotchety old male which is causing disruption. The noble Lord is absolutely right. If you are managing the whole thing properly to improve whatever it is people wish to hunt, it will be done in a much better and more sustainable way for nature as well.
It comes back to what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said. The essential message is financial incentive. This is what I got from the delegates from Africa who came over, whom I also met. They want to be able to manage these things in order to get the funding, and incentive and local buy-in from the low-level population to support this in order to get the conservation side right. That is the trouble: it is all very well pouring aid in from the top, but sometimes it does not get anywhere near the bottom. It is much better to have stuff coming in to give the ordinary people on the ground an incentive to try to work in an environmental and conservation way. The objective is to conserve properly: you get your herd profiles right and then you do some hunting.
The reason this amendment is so important is that it is about the unintended and perverse consequences. The Bill says that you cannot import trophies
“on behalf of the hunter”,
meaning the person who killed the thing. If you think about it, if you are managing a herd, you will have deaths at all age profiles in the herd, and people are going to hunt for meat. Many of the animals that have been taken out for meat will have horns and other bits that are useful for creating mementos for tourists. I should love some reassurance that this is not banning the production of tourist mementos which are not trophies—they are not the thing that the person paid a fortune to go to kill, but what you might call by-products of the results of it. I am afraid you will have culling going on in the herd, and there will also be animals that die, so why cannot their body parts be made useful, for greater sustainable use?
These are not plastics, poisoning the planet; they are naturally produced things. It will be much better to make all sorts of products and ornamental things from them than from fossil fuels. If one of the unintended consequences of the Bill is that it prevents all use of all animal body parts, it really should be examined again. We are just wasting a whole natural resource there, and I am a great believer that we should be using natural products, not artificially produced plastic products, which are killing the planet.
The main thing is that we have to get the financial incentives in the right place, to incentivise at the bottom level, and we also need to use all the animal stuff. This great fiction that people just go out to shoot a few trophies and that these will be animals in their prime is not really how it should work.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I can see that this could be a very constructive Bill, particularly if we got back to our manifesto promises—to refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said. The manifesto pledge was to ban imports from trophy hunting of endangered animals and, when we come to my Amendment 4, that is something I will enlarge on. This Bill goes a great deal further than that and, in doing so, as my noble friend Lord Swire said, it starts to create a very inappropriate relationship with the Governments of countries where trophy hunting takes place. We ought to be working with these countries to help them conserve the wildlife which they have—and which we would be terrified to have.
We in this country cannot even contemplate the return of the lynx, never mind the wolf. As for bears, certainly not, although they used to live here—never, not allowed. The pigs that escaped in the great storm are relentlessly persecuted. We have no concept of what we are asking these people to do in living alongside elephants, hippopotamus and rhinoceros, let alone lions and the other big predators. We should have such respect for and understanding of them, and we should be working really closely with them to enable that symbiosis to continue. If they are telling us that trophy hunting is part of that, we can ask them how they can grow through this and go beyond that, as well as offer real support in getting photographic tourism going and working on how we bring that idea back to the UK—not that it is the easiest, when we are all being told that we cannot fly any more. It ought to be a process where we are working closely with African Governments, not having them come here to protest what we are doing. This ought to be a process we are in together.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
Would my noble friend reflect on one specific point around all this? When we started out on this Bill, all those months ago, I do not think any of us believed for one moment that the importation into this country of, I think, two lions’ heads a year and 115 trophies a year would give rise to so much interest and concern from those countries in southern Africa that he mentions. Surely now they have made their point so clearly and powerfully, we should really take that on board, and therefore consider the amendments they support to improve the Bill.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I would have thought so.
We need to be rational about conservation. Conservation often involves killing. It is one of the reasons why the RSPB is not as successful as it should be in preserving wildlife; it is not good at controlling predators. Humans create predators—foxes live in towns, and the number of crows is enormously increased as a result of human activity. Together, they make wildlife extremely difficult to maintain, unless you do something about the predators.
We should understand that our nature as hunters and the role that we have taken on as the top predator carry with them responsibilities. In looking at what is going on in a community in Africa with a lot of wildlife, if we do not collaborate in providing it with income—something that makes that symbiosis profitable for them—that community will choose a different balance. That balance will be the balance we have chosen for ourselves here: “Let’s not have anything that causes us inconvenience”. We here are the example of what we wish Africa to become, as symbolised in this Bill. We want wildlife eliminated, or at least restrained only to parks, and not part of people’s lives.
We should revise our thinking on this and, as my noble friend says, go back to our friends in Africa, work out how we can do this well and support what they are doing. If that involves trophy hunting, and that results in good conservation, that is something we should support for as long as it is necessary—though I have not, and never hope to, taken part in it myself.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, we have been debating this amendment for some considerable time. There is a concern that we will not be able to get to the amendment with the real meat in it, so I will do my bit now.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, on her stamina and determination to do everything she can to protect animals from cruelty, harm and death no matter where they live. She has a reputation for being a doughty campaigner and is to be congratulated on agreeing to sponsor this Bill through the Lords. I have no interests to declare. I am not an animal expert but I have read the briefings.
This is a Bill that has government support. Originally, the measures would have been in the kept animals Bill, which was abandoned in favour of introducing various measures through Private Members’ Bills. This should have shortened the time taken to get measures on to the statute book. The glue traps Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, was one such Bill; the Sharks Fin Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, was another.
I apologise for not being present at Second Reading due to other commitments, but my noble friend Lord Rennard covered the ground very thoroughly at the time. Although not perfect, this Bill is short and to the point and bans the import into Great Britain of a trophy from an endangered animal that has been hunted. This trophy can be any part or derivative of an endangered animal that has been obtained by hunting.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches fully support the aims and objectives of this Bill, as I believe do the Labour Benches. However, from the number of amendments that have been tabled, it is obvious that this Bill does not have unanimous support on the Government Benches. But it does have overall support across the whole House, as the hunting of wild game animals, while a sport that attracts those with unlimited resources to spend on their pursuits, is abhorrent to the vast majority of the Chamber and the general public.
Turning to Amendment 1, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, gave—at length and very knowledgeably—the rationale for his amendment, which would in effect ensure that the Bill is not able to progress. The effect of this amendment is, first, to grant the Secretary of State alone the power to decide whether a legal prohibition applies that is beyond the scope of the proposed prohibition, which is intended to be a blanket ban. Secondly, the proposal is not a standard clause retained in conservation or animal welfare legislation. On that basis, we do not support this amendment.
I regret and apologise for the fact that I am not able to stay until the end of this evening’s business, which I suspect will be long-winded and repetitious. What we have before us this evening is a Minister of great integrity, knowledge and compassion alongside four female Members of the House from different political parties all attempting, on behalf of their parties, to enable the aims and objectives of this Bill to move towards ending animal trophy hunting by preventing the importation of those trophies into Great Britain.
I regret to say that, ranged on the other side, we have some of the landed gentry of the country—mostly hereditary Peers—doing their utmost to filibuster and talk the Bill out. They are entitled to express their views, of course. I generally have great regard for the contribution made to the work of this Chamber by the hereditary Peers, but I fear that, this evening, they will not do their reputation among their colleagues or the public at large any favours at all. Despite the words of the noble Lord, Lord Swire, the opposers of this Bill will take the opportunity this evening to attempt to kill it off by filibustering to ensure that there is no Report stage due to a shortage of time. They do this because they know that if the Bill got to Report, none of their amendments would be passed and they would be roundly defeated.
This tactic was used to talk out the hereditary peers by-elections Bill, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, and came mostly from a section of the Conservative Benches. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would have us believe that trophy hunting is of great benefit to all, including the animals. I take completely the point about conservation and economics but the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that the trophies themselves do not matter at all is breathtaking.
The hunting trophies Bill was in the Conservative 2019 manifesto. Although supporting the Conservative manifesto is not my main aim in life, I and my colleagues do support this Private Member’s Bill and are passionate about protecting endangered wild animals from the revolting practice of being killed for their body parts. In whatever way those opposing this Bill may argue their case, they are unlikely to get support from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, after that speech, I should begin by declaring a few non-interests. I am not a hereditary Peer. I am not a landowner unless you count a small garden about half the size of this Chamber on the Hampshire/Berkshire border. I am not a trophy hunter, nor do I oppose the import of all trophies.
However, I speak in support of my noble friend Lord Caithness’s amendment. I go back to where he started, namely with the markhor—that is, Capra falconeri, the screw-horned goat that is the national animal of Pakistan. Last year, I was lucky enough to see the extraordinary landscapes where these animals live in Baltistan, Chitral and Hunza; there are also isolated pockets of them in Afghanistan and India. In fact, they were thought to be extinct in India as recently as the 1990s and were in the most extreme category of UN extinction watch as recently as the end of the last century—that is, until their numbers were revived through the carefully targeted sale of a very small number of hunting licences, the revenue from which is reserved to local communities. Those communities then have every incentive to preserve habitats and are in effect turned into so many gamekeepers that they ensure that no animals except the elderly, post-reproductive males marked for culling are in danger. The result of that change is that the markhor has rebounded immensely.
It is not the case that trophy hunting is always a tool of conservation. That is why I say that I am not against the whole concept, but I want to speak in favour of the distinction that this amendment makes. Let me give an obvious example from the other side. There is no evidence that the ban on whale hunting has had a detrimental effect. On the contrary, the recovery of whale numbers has been one of the unremarked miracles of the past couple of decades. We have seen an amazing bounce-back in the number of humpbacks and bowheads although, sadly, we have not yet seen the same for blue or gray whales.
Even there, there is a habitat aspect to things. A lot of whales are killed because they swallow fishing gear that has been discarded or get in clashes with vessels. However, I am not going to argue—I do not think that anyone else will—that a hunting ban there is ineffective or that a trophy ban would make a difference but, where we are talking about habitats, it is vital to give local people an incentive to conserve that habitat. I cannot put it better than my noble friend Lord Lucas just did: it is easy for us to be sentimental at a distance about lions, tigers, elephants and so on because we do not have to live next to them. Without any incentive to preserve their numbers, local people will naturally see them as, at the very least, competitors for resources but also as a danger. Without the right incentives, they will have every reason to hunt them to extinction, as I am afraid human populations have done to large mammals on every continent going back to our hunter/gatherer days.
This amendment draws a distinction, giving the Secretary of State a last-ditch power to decide where there would be an unintended consequence for conservation. By the way, I would love to have a general power to stop unintended consequences of legislation. Almost always you get the most unintended consequences from Bills that have been passed in response to some public campaign. People have not thought through all the implications and we hear exactly the arguments that we are hearing tonight, that the public demand this law. If you are presented with, as a general proposition, the idea that we should not kill magnificent animals, then of course, everyone will agree with that—I would, and I hope that everyone would. However, we are looking at ways in which to modify this legislation so as not to have a detrimental effect on conservation.
I do not want to be accused of filibustering, so I will keep this very brief and close by saying that, as I understand it, that is precisely the reason why we exist here as a second Chamber. What function do we have if not to act as a break on the necessary radicalism of the popularly elected House? Being here, we have the privilege to look beyond the headlines and to consider in full the implications and the potential unintended consequences of laws that have been drafted in a knee-jerk way. This legislation is precisely an example of such lawmaking. Therefore, it seems to me the proper role of this Chamber to approve it and to take out the parts of it that would have the most harmful impacts.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, we have heard some very strong speeches, though many have had a rather tenuous connection with any particular amendment. I and others would like to speak to Amendment 34, which is much the most important and seeks to strengthen this Bill, if that might be allowed.
Lord Harlech (Con)
I understand the noble Lord’s point about wanting to speak to a specific amendment, but he will have to wait until we get to the group that Amendment 34 is in.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Can I invite the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, to support our amendments tomorrow, since he clearly laid out what this House does? Some amendments tomorrow exactly cover the kinds of issues that he was talking about.
Clearly, the Bill deals with a very passionately felt issue, with strong views on both sides of the argument. That has come across today in Committee and previously. The debate was introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, with his Amendment 1. However, before referring to that, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for introducing this Private Member’s Bill and for her excellent introduction at Second Reading. We offer our strong support to this Bill. I remind noble Lords that the ban which has been debated has widespread public support and clear cross-party support in Parliament.
There are many amendments in front of us today, but our concern around Amendment 1 is that the effect of the noble Earl’s proposal would be to grant to the Secretary of State alone the power to decide whether a legal prohibition applies, where it is within scope. We do not think that is the correct way to go forward with any legislation. We have said with regard to many Bills that the strong Henry VIII powers being given specifically to Secretaries of State is not how to go forward with legislation. Also, the proposal is not a standard clause retained within conservation or animal welfare legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned. That is specifically why we would not support Amendment 1.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, tried to speak to Amendment 34. I would like to make a point about the groupings. Degrouping every amendment from the proposed government groupings to deliberately frustrate the progress of this Bill is pretty poor and undermines a manifesto commitment of the party that those noble Lords say that they support. They are part of this Government. They sit on the Government Benches. This is pretty poor behaviour on their part, and I want to put that on the record.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, we have already spent a considerable time on this first amendment. I take what I think is a minority view about the purpose of Committee: it is to look, in detail, at amendments to improve a Bill or reject various parts of it, as the case may be. Speeches should be closely argued on the amendment concerned, or the amendments if they are grouped, and they should be concise. The time spent on this amendment has been miniscule in comparison with the time spent on what were, in effect, Second Reading speeches. I am sorry, but I deplore that as a Committee issue.
I turn then to the actual amendment. It gives the Secretary of State the requirement, not just once but each year, to make
“a statement in writing to the effect that, in the Secretary of State’s view, its operation will not cause unintended and perverse consequences for wildlife conservation”.
I once chaired the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and I was always very wary of giving the Government, Secretaries of State or anybody else unfettered discretion to do things. This seems to me to fall into that category, because there is not even a whiff of parliamentary scrutiny. For that reason, I am very much opposed to this and, as I wish to be concise, I will sit down and leave the Minister to speak.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for tabling and moving this amendment, and the other Peers who have proposed amendments. However, I must say that the Government are disappointed that the House has not thus far been able to agree a way forward for this important legislation. My experience is that there is always a deal to be done, and I hope we may yet find some way forward. I was interested to hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, whose experience in these matters is hugely valued. I will take up any opportunity to find a way forward.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
I thank my noble friend for giving way; I am most grateful. I too would like to have found a way forward, which is why I made clear what my proposal was on 16 June at Second Reading. I am very sad that my noble friend Lady Fookes has declined to discuss it with me. I asked on three occasions, but she felt she could not—that is her right, of course. I also rather regret that over two and a half months, the first squeak I heard out of the Government was last week, and no proposal or ability to find common ground was offered. The only direct approach I had was yesterday, 24 hours before Committee. That is no way to find agreement; nevertheless, my door is open and I look forward to agreement, because most of my noble friends here do not wish to kill this Bill. We would like to see a good Bill on the statute book.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank my noble friend and understand the point he makes. Like other noble Lords, I commend my noble friend Lady Fookes for her commitment to this Bill and her hard work to support it.
I shall set out the Government’s position on the Bill and speak to the issues raised by a number of amendments. First, as noble Lords will know, the Bill before us would deliver our manifesto commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies from endangered animals. I recognise that this is a controversial proposal in this House, and I accept that there is a range of views and evidence on trophy hunting, including that it can be beneficial in conservation terms and for local livelihoods if well managed. The Government’s position, having listened to a number of different sides and gone through all the options, is that an import ban is the best way forward. An import ban would address the public’s concern about imports of hunting trophies, delivering a policy that is clear, comprehensive and practical to implement and enforce.
This is why we have a problem with the so-called “smart ban” amendments put forward, such as Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness; Amendment 19A, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness; Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft; Amendment 39, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan; and Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Bellingham and Lord Roborough. What is being proposed in those amendments is effectively a licensing system based on criteria about conservation impact or wildlife management practices and regulations. That is, broadly speaking, what we already have in place. The effect of these amendments would be to negate the purpose of the Bill.
There are a great number of amendments which deal with items in scope of the ban, concerning changes to the definition of a hunting trophy or the species, items or conditions under which a hunting trophy would be subject to the ban. This includes Amendments 3 to 7, 9, 10, 12, 15 to 18, 20 to 28, 31 to 33 and 35 to 38, in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Leicester and Lord Caithness, the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Hamilton, Lord Swire, Lord Robathan, Lord Reay, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Roborough, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
The definition of a hunting trophy used in the Bill, in Clause 1, is consistent with the definition agreed by CITES and is already used by our authorities for CITES controls. Our current controls would continue for imports that are not hunting trophies. There is already provision in the Bill for consideration of imports for scientific or educational purposes, for example for the import of items for personal use that were not obtained through hunting. The scope of species is clear and comprehensive. Annexes A and B of our wildlife trade regulations implement appendices 1 and 2 of CITES in Great Britain. They cover species at risk from international trade, including elephants, giraffes, rhinos, big cats, bears, primates and hippos.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I thank the many noble Lords for their support for my amendment.
I was particularly interested in the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, because I do not think that either of them actually listened to what I said. They came with pre-prepared speeches—the usual claptrap they produce when it comes to trophy hunting. I mentioned all the disadvantages of trophy hunting and said that I was trying to improve the conservation of animals. If the noble Lord does not like my examples, well, I am sorry, but at least he has not challenged the efficacy of them. I think that would have been a more helpful and constructive approach than just spieling out the usual generalisations, which we have become use to accepting from the proponents of the Bill.
My noble friend Lady Fookes gave one of the most remarkable replies from a sponsor of a Bill that I have ever heard in over 50 years in this House. She did not comment at all on any of the information that I gave, which contradicted a lot of what she said at Second Reading in generalisations. I gave specific examples which she has not contradicted—so I presume that she accepts them but does not like them.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
May I intervene? I did not deal with any of those issues because I regarded them as a Second Reading speech. I am not going to answer that kind of thing. I hope the noble Earl will not take it that I agree with everything he said, because I do not. I was trying to keep to what I believe is the purpose of a Committee stage.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
I think we all fully accept that my noble friend will not meet anybody to discuss this Bill and will not discuss it. That is very clear.
I respect the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, who said that it is cruel to kill any animal. I do not agree with her, but I respect her position. I wonder whether she might just consider the very fine deer herds in this country, such as in Richmond Park. They are only fine deer herds because of culling and because beasts are shot and taken out in order to continue and improve the herd. If we did not have that, we would not have the very fine deer herds we are privileged to have in this country.
My noble friend Lord Benyon said he was disappointed that no compromise had yet been found. There is a compromise. The Government have ignored the compromise and the advice of the JNCC, which is the specialist advisory body. There is no need for an advisory board. If the Government would look again at my noble friend Lord Mancroft’s amendment as a suitable vehicle to get the benefits for conservation and for local people that can be achieved, there would be a sensible way forward. Given the support I have had, I would like to test the opinion of the Committee.
The Earl of Caithness
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, this is a very simple amendment. It makes Clause 1 subject to Clause 4, which relates to the advisory committee, which we will come on to discuss in some detail. I think it is a very flawed clause of the Bill, which needs amendment. The point of this amendment is simply to make certain that the advice will be understood and taken on board by the Government when it comes to the implementation of Clause 1 of the Bill.
It is very depressing that the Government have turned their back on and totally ignored the information from their advisory body, the JNCC. It has set a bad precedent. It has undermined the JNCC and has reduced the efficacy of the Government’s work on conservation abroad. It is a very damaging decision that the Secretary of State has taken, against normal precedent. I hope therefore that, by my simple amendment, at least the consideration of the advisory board will be taken a little more seriously by the Government than they are taking advice at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I have already set out the Government’s position on this matter in my response to an earlier group. I have no further comments to make, and I will not be supporting this amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw it.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the support around the Committee I have received on that one. In view of the brief but factual reply from my noble friend the Minister, I am happy to withdraw this amendment.
The Earl of Leicester
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to attend Second Reading. I was very keen to do so but unavoidably had to attend an important meeting at home. I refer to my interests as set out in the register. That includes my family’s management of Holkham National Nature Reserve, one of the most prolific in terms of conservation success in the land. I also stalk red deer in Scotland but have never hunted in other parts of the world.
This Bill will provide the legislative framework for understanding when someone commits a criminal offence. Therefore, in order to be fair and to avoid multiple legal challenges, clarifications around the definition of animals impacted by the Bill and the hunter himself or herself are required. Without clarity around these definitions, the Bill in its current form raises challenges for import and export agents preparing documentation relating to the importation of a hunting trophy into the UK and for Border Force officials tasked with enforcing the new legislation.
The purpose of my amendment is to highlight the extent to which the Bill has expanded in scope from the original manifesto commitment, which addressed endangered species—perhaps 10, in the recent UK context—to over 6,200 species, and the extent to which this highly disproportionate approach will create a far greater administrative burden than seems necessary. Amendment 3 would ensure that the new words “a wild” precede “animal”.
The Bill is clearly meant to be about conservation. That much has been made clear by the Government, who have stated that it was to be enacted in order to protect the world’s threatened species. If the Bill is about conservation, then it should be about wild animals, as the hunting of domestic, non-wild or captive animals is not a conservation concern. Such a ban does not, therefore, advance the intention of the Bill. This is not a small matter. There are many cases where animals are killed in situations which would not be classed as wild. The killing of tigers in South Africa is one such example. While very many of us would find that morally repugnant, it is clear that this Bill is about conservation and that the killing of a tiger in South Africa has no detrimental impact on wild tiger conservation in Asia.
If this is not about conservation and the killing of wild animals but more about welfare, then we should presumably take this time to address the killing of livestock in this country. It is worth remembering that, every year in the UK, approximately 2.6 million cattle, 10 million pigs, 14.5 million sheep and lambs, 80 million fish and 950 million birds are slaughtered for human consumption. Given that people can live perfectly well without meat, and plenty do, it is hard to argue that that kind of killing is not done only for the pleasure of people eating meat, but it clearly dwarfs by many orders of magnitude the average of 90 to 115 wild animals which are imported annually to the UK. The Bill, then, is clearly meant to be about conservation and therefore wild, rather than non-wild, animals.
Although it should be about conservation, in reality it can be tricky to find what is actually wild and what is not. We can see this complexity in our own wildlife legislation. Mark Avery has discussed this matter with regard to pheasants, which, for example, are determined as livestock when bred in captivity but, as soon as they are released, are deemed to be wild. This kind of complexity also applies to the kind of animals we see discussed all the time in the trophy hunting debate. Lions, for example, are one of the most high-profile species mentioned, especially since the killing of Cecil the lion. However, when is a lion a wild lion?
In South Africa, for example, there is a complex scenario where lions may be captive, managed or wild. According to credible organisations such as Panthera, South Africa has between 2,700 and 3,200 wild and managed lions, split roughly 50/50. The wild animals live in national parks such as the Kruger National Park; managed lions inhabit private reserves such as Phinda and Tswalu, and are managed in the name of keeping the gene pool diverse. Others are captive; the South African Predator Association keeps track of captive lions and captive breeding facilities, but not everyone who breeds lions in South Africa needs to be a member, and not everyone who is provides statistics. According to an article in National Geographic, the 2015 estimate was of around 7,000 lions in captivity.
Ideally, the animals covered by this Bill should also be wild animals which are native to that country. There are many cases where exotic animals cause immense concern in terms of their impact on nature biodiversity, particularly in Australia. One trophy-hunted non-native species in Australia is the camel, which needs to have its population controlled after feral populations were established by explorers and colonisers. Another example is the tiger, as I mentioned before. Although prohibited in a country in which tigers naturally occur, tiger hunting does happen in South Africa. Between 2002 and 2011, 17 tiger trophies were exported from South Africa—although, mercifully, none to the UK.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, if Amendment 3 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 4 or 5 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment, which makes a great deal of sense. I think it is also just worth pointing out that he touched on a pertinent point: everyone is concerned about endangered animals. A lot of people feel strongly about animals in the wild, but what we have heard this evening, and what is obviously apparent, is that not all of these animals are wild. There are canned lions and the shooting of animals in enclosures. When I researched this, I was surprised that animals can be shot on the internet: you go online, pay your subscription—whatever it is—and then line up the crosswires on your computer to shoot an animal in an enclosure. I think most of us find that pretty distasteful and unnecessary, which is why there is a distinction between animals kept in artificial conditions and those that are completely wild. So I absolutely agree with what my noble friend said.
This goes to the essence of one of the points that many of us have made: the Bill is well intentioned. I have to say that I really resent some of the comments made this evening about how people on this side of the House—I am not a hereditary Peer, by the way—somehow want to sabotage the Bill. We do not. Surely the essence of any Committee stage is to improve a Bill. So, although some complain about the number of amendments—at the last count, it was over 60—and say that they are somehow unhelpful to the Government, egregious and wrong, I argue that this is actually the Chamber at its very best, trying to improve a Bill. It went through the other place very quickly, without any amendments, and it came here. We had a substantial debate on it, and a huge amount of information came our way over the summer and the latter part of the spring, from experts around the world, to help us to improve it. Surely that is the House taking this matter seriously. My noble friend’s amendment is one of many small but technical amendments. I really do find it hard to accept the idea that this is an all-male group of refuseniks living in a colonial world that is somehow trying to turn the clock back. We are actually acting in the best spirit of this House. We need time to get Bills like this right, and it may require a lot of technical amendments to be looked at, discussed and voted on.
It is incredibly important that we listen to the experts, who have not only commented on the generality of the Bill but picked up on some of the points regarding animals that may be wild or tame—that obviously goes to the core of my noble friend’s specific amendment. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which was mentioned, gave us evidence, but there are many other bodies, which I will come to at a later stage of the Bill. It is also worth mentioning that, when there is so much consensus among international bodies, we have to stop and take note. The International Union for Conservation of Nature made a strong case for the conservation arguments and highlighted the point about wild animals, as opposed to those kept in captivity. The Government have referred to that organisation in a favourable light on other occasions, but now they appear to be ignoring it.
There are other bodies as well. There is the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the IUCN, which is a global conservation authority. What is interesting about the advice that it has given your Lordships’ House and the Minister and the Government is that it is obviously not particularly comfortable in supporting trophy hunting. In fact, I would say that it is probably instinctively against it. But it is pragmatic. What it said was that trophy hunting was a possible threat to nine of the 6,200 species covered by the Bill, whereas it offers a very clear benefit to 25% of the wild species to which the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, referred.
Then you have the specific Governments who have given evidence to Members of this House and put arguments and sent letters to them, including Botswana’s Minister for the Environment and Conservation, who made it very clear that the
“importation ban of legally harvested wildlife trophies will negatively impact wildlife authorities, including Professional Hunting Associations and Community-Based Support Organizations”
and conservation bodies. What is relevant to this is that, recently, representatives of the community-run conservation areas in the four African countries that make up the Kavango-Zambezi trans-frontier conservation area—the so-called KAZA—stated that the Bill would have a “highly detrimental effect” on the protection of wildlife and the way of life of these communities. The way of life of the communities is something that is highly relevant to this specific amendment, which is why I support the noble Earl in his amendment.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, I want to make a comment about this and ask a question of my noble friend on the Front Bench. The noble Earl is quite right that we should differentiate. This is a conservation Bill and we do not conserve domestic animals—we conserve wild animals. So the argument that they should be wild is entirely correct.
There is a technical point that I should know the answer to and do not, so I shall ask my noble friend on the Front Bench. We in this country have different laws for wild and domestic animals; we do not treat our wildlife in the same way as we treat our domestic animals, for very good and sensible reasons. The law relating to them is different. But there is a reference to a wild animal that is “captive”—although I cannot remember the right word. I apologise to your Lordships, because I should remember it, but I have forgotten this legislation, which I used to know very well. There is a definition of a wild animal that is enclosed, or captive, or whatever it is—and when it becomes enclosed or captive, domestic welfare law applies. It is a different law. What I do not know, and I ask my noble friend, is whether that law applies abroad, under English law. If it did, canned lions in Africa would be subject to domestic law, because they would be captive wild animals, and the whole thing would apply completely differently. I do not think that they are really wild animals.
There is a difference between domestic and managed wild animals. We do not have any managed wild animals in this country, so it would not apply to us. I am not clear, but there are differences here and the law would apply differently if UK law were applied to, for example, canned lions in Africa. I am just not clear what the answer to that question is, and it would be helpful to know it.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
For the record, I do not like this amendment and am opposed to it, as it restricts the scope far too much.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
Does that mean that my noble friend thinks that we should have trophy laws for domestic animals?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I do not wish to add to what I said earlier, but my noble friend has asked me something specifically. There are considerable concerns about the hunting of captive bred animals, including what is termed “canned hunting”. Such trophies should not be exempt from the import ban. The concept of what most of us imagine canned hunting to be is one that excites all our wrath and indignation about a practice that, in risk terms, is like shooting a cow in a field. I entirely understand, and I think that everybody is keen to find a way in which to differentiate it.
We could find ourselves dancing on the head of a legal pin here. What is an enclosure? There could be a small enclosure the size of this room, which would of course be ridiculous; there are also hunting concessions that are fenced in and, effectively, a managed population of animals. I do not want to get into that debate or make legislation that would create circumstances in which a court would be sought to adjudicate that legal definition. Therefore, I cannot recommend that this Committee supports this amendment, and respectfully urge the noble Earl to withdraw it.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, who highlighted many examples around the world, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who highlighted the importance of differentiating between wild and captive animals. However, like my noble friend Lord Caithness, I will not seek to divide the Committee on this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in search of this rather elusive rapprochement which my noble friend on the Front Bench referred to, I suggest that we bring the scope of this Bill closer to what was in our manifesto —endangered species—broadening it slightly to “threatened” species, since that was mentioned when this Private Member’s Bill was launched. These definitions belong to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list, which has nine categories, with “threatened”, “endangered” and “critically endangered” being the top three.
If we covered these species only, we would fulfil what we said we would do in our manifesto, would do what the proposer of this Bill said in another place that it was intended to do, and would avoid the huge burden of it covering the enormous variety of species that it does, with the administrative difficulties that would result. As a way forward, to fulfil our commitments and produce something effective and sensible, I urge this amendment on my noble friend. I beg to move.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I compliment my noble friend on his amendment, which has the great benefit of substantial simplicity and great logic behind it. I urge the Minister to look at it. This may be the compromise that we are looking for and could come back to on Report.
Everyone agrees that we are very concerned about endangered species; no one can say for one moment that they are not. However, under the very wide drafting of this Bill, less than 4% of the species it covers are trophy hunted anywhere in the world. I do not know whether noble Lords knew that. Only 1% of species covered by it have been imported to the UK since 2000. Some 79% of hunting trophies are from species that are stable, increasing and abundant, which is quite a compelling figure.
As I pointed out earlier, on average two trophies of wild lions and 115 trophies in all are imported into the UK every year. We are talking about a very specialist, niche issue here, yet we have all those unintended consequences, which I shall talk about at a later stage—maybe if my noble friend Lord Mancroft’s amendment is reached later this evening or on another occasion, and certainly on Report.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I shall just add to that, supporting the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, because it helps to answer an important point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised earlier, which is that the convention in this House is that we try to implement, or not to impede, manifesto commitments. What is clear about the Bill as it is drafted, unamended, is that it is not really expressing the manifesto commitment; it is much more confused and goes much wider. What we are getting here, as we try to amend it, is something closer to the original intentions.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, I think that is a very helpful intervention. There are some noble Lords who think this is the manifesto commitment; I do not think it is. This goes significantly wider than the manifesto commitment. More than that, I have sat and watched lots of manifesto commitments go round and round over the years and I have very rarely seen one that went through in pure form. One of the arts of politics is compromise: if you want to get your business, you make compromises. The Government do that every day in different areas, and so they should—that is how it works. This is an area in which we could make that compromise.
I am looking at the lists. There are, I think 6,200 species that we are banning from bringing in as trophies, and it is important to remind ourselves of the trophies, because we have probably not seen many of them on the walls. I have seen a few trophies, but I have never seen 2,076 corals on a wall. I have seen some fish, but I do not know that I have ever seen any cartilaginous fish, but there are 154 of them on the list—we are banning those, apparently. I think it is a sensible move to ban the trophy hunting of poison dart frogs—that is something we should have done years ago and I cannot imagine why we have not. Here we are, getting round to it, and there are quite a few other things on this list.
To tell the honest truth, the words “sledgehammer” and “nut” come to mind. Look at these creatures. There is an echidna here—I am not sure quite what it is, but it is on the list. We have banned that, and, my goodness, that is a good day’s work, is it not? Kangaroos, wallabies and possums are on the list. Frankly, this list of 6,200 is completely absurd and ridiculous; we should reduce it to the creatures that are genuinely likely to become trophies and make it more reasonable. After all, the poor customs people who are meant to be dealing with this have not got a hope. There are 975 reptiles on it and—goodness me, that is lucky—we have banned 96 molluscs. I have had sleepless nights over mollusc hunting.
I agree that this list is a bit absurd. We should try to reduce it. It is an area where we can compromise without causing any concerns, and I hope your Lordships will look at this very seriously.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, your Lordships will probably not be surprised that I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Mancroft on this. I prefer the fact that there is a wider scope with the wildlife trade regulations annexes A and B. If they do not cause a problem, nobody will worry about that. I was amused by my noble friend Lord Mancroft and his molluscs, but I really do not think it is of any significance whatever. However, what I do notice is that as we go through the various amendments, a little bit here and a little bit there is chipped away, and if they were all accepted, we would see something very different indeed. Therefore, I stand by the Bill as it stands.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I set out earlier my thoughts on these amendments. My noble friend Lord Lucas is a very intelligent and assiduous parliamentarian and raises an important point. But I suggest that this amendment is not necessary, because the species in scope are provided for in Clause 2. Notwithstanding what my noble friend Lord Mancroft says, that is for the simplicity of the functioning of the Bill, so I hope I can persuade my noble friend Lord Lucas to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I will just add on that last point: surely we should stick to the manifesto commitment, which is on endangered species. That is what we said in the manifesto. Maybe the Minister could stand up again and answer that point. Widening it in this way in Clause 2 to the 6,200 species goes far wider than what we committed to in 2019.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, to follow that up, it seems strange that my noble friend the Minister lamented that there was not a compromise on the Bill—that was when he started his reply to me on my first amendment. The Bill as presented before us is much wider than the manifesto commitment. Surely this would be an area in which a sensible compromise, achieving the aims of those of us who wish to improve the conservation of animals throughout the world and what the Government seek to do, is a possibility. If my noble friend was serious in saying that he laments the lack of a compromise, he ought to tell us where he thinks a compromise might be.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, one of the reasons I enjoy being in this House is that we have to achieve compromises in so many things. I try to work across the House to try to get half a loaf rather than no loaf at all. Here we are trying to achieve something that is workable. Annexes A and B of our wildlife trade regulations implement appendices 1 and 2 of CITES in Great Britain. They cover species at risk from international trade, listing nearly 6,000 species, as has been mentioned. These include elephants, giraffes, rhinos, big cats, bears, primates and hippos. By covering all animal species in annexes A and B of the wildlife trade regulations, we are removing any possibility of permitting the import of a hunting trophy from these species into Great Britain. Estimates of the number of species that are trophy hunted vary, but they are in the hundreds rather than the thousands. The Bill would apply to hunting trophies from all annexe A and B species. That is clear and comprehensive, avoiding confusion about what is or is not covered. Current rules on importing hunting trophies similarly apply to all annexe A and B species.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
I wonder whether my noble friend would give consideration to answering the question I put to him.
Lord Benyon (Con)
We are seeking to implement the manifesto commitment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am naturally disappointed in that, but I shall not give up during the course of rest of this Committee trying to find other ways in which we might reach a compromise and a way forward.
I reassure my noble friend Lady Fookes that I view these amendments as alternatives—different ways of dealing with what I regard as a Bill that has gone too far. I do not wish it to die a death by a thousand cuts; I wish it to flourish as an effective and important piece of legislation. I think it needs improving but, given the Minister’s response, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Robathan
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. I do not wish to repeat everything that has been said before; it is getting late, and I am sure many people, like me, would rather go home. But I will say a few general points about this. Unfortunately, because of a medical appointment, I could not speak properly at Second Reading. I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that I find it strange that men are not allowed to have an opinion on this. I note that there are six women on the Opposition Benches, against one man. Does that mean that their opinions carry more weight than that of men? I hope not; I was quite keen on equality rather than discrimination. I am just saying, as the noble Baroness has intervened from a sedentary position, that on the Opposition Benches there is just one man.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I just intervene to say that the noble Lord is the opposition; we are the other side, as far as I can see, this evening—so I think the nomenclature is wrong.
Lord Robathan (Con)
This is a Private Member’s Bill, not a government Bill, apparently, and on the Opposition Benches we have five to one—sorry, six to one; maths is not necessarily my strong point.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. The noble Lord opposite makes a very interesting point. What the Government are doing today is passing socialist legislation, which is an odd thing for a Conservative Government to be doing. It is supported entirely on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches and clearly has very little support on our Benches. It is an odd thing for the Government to do. I dare say that if there was ever a day when the parties on the other side got into government—I think it is very unlikely—I suppose they would pass right-wing legislation, but I do not know.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Anyway, to go back to the matter in hand, I would say that, when I and several other noble Lords here met a delegation from countries from sub-Saharan Africa, as I recall, there were two female African Ministers who came to talk to us—so it is not purely men who take a view on this.
Lord Swire (Con)
Just for clarification, when these Ministers and MPs took all the trouble to come from Africa to put their point over, is my noble friend aware of how many of those who support the Bill actually had the politeness to meet them?
Lord Robathan (Con)
Yes, I am indeed aware: none. Which was a pity, and it was especially a pity that my noble friend Lady Fookes did not come to hear what had to be said by people who actually know a great deal about the issue because they live with it.
I said I would make some general points because I was unable to speak properly on Second Reading. I have a farm in Leicestershire. I farm for conservation, in my opinion—conservation and subsidy, but the latter is not doing so well at the moment. It is covered in birds and hares. I also shoot, but I only shoot birds and animals that I can eat. I certainly do not want to shoot trophies, such as described by the proponents of the Bill; indeed, I find it rather distasteful. But that is not really the point.
My first point is that this Bill is neo-colonialist. I find it extraordinary that the left backs it, because we are trying to tell independent countries in Africa and elsewhere how wicked their policies are. The second point is that we are ignoring the wishes of these countries, especially those from sub-Saharan Africa. To suggest that we replicate the money that is made from trophy hunting with overseas development assistance is basically treating Africans—nations and others—as supplicants. It is an arrogant zeal that pushes this forward. We are treating them as people who are unable to manage their own wildlife, or indeed their economies, without us telling them what to do.
As we have just heard, this is a terrible Bill in so many ways. It is absurd. I do not think that anybody has ever hunted a mollusc as a trophy, but there it is. It is almost unenforceable and is pretty unintelligible. My noble friend the Minister, for whom I surprisingly have great respect, talked about dancing on a legal pin. Well, should the Bill come to a court—I hope that it never does—there will certainly be the possibility of dancing on legal pins here.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I just want to clarify one matter. I actually feel quite strongly that we need to improve this Bill. Therefore, we need to see it on Report. Earlier, the Minister said something really significant; it was the first time that I have heard the Government say that they want a compromise. He said that he does not want the Bill in its current form but wants an improvement to it. We are teasing out different possibilities. I certainly disagree with him on that point, but we want this Bill to go through Committee and on to Report—just as an improved Bill that is, as the Minister said, fit for purpose, serves the manifesto promise that we made and, crucially, answers the very real questions on the submission of those five or six African countries.
Lord Robathan (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend because I will come on to a compromise in a minute.
This Bill is of course a manifesto commitment left over from 2019. It was probably put in, rather surprisingly, by a former Prime Minister to placate somebody close to him. As somebody who was a Member of the House of Commons for 23 years, I can promise those who talk about 86%—or whatever it is—of people asked about trophy hunting not approving of it that this is not something that exercises most people on the streets of London, Manchester Blaby or Leeds. Furthermore, the Bill ignores the advice of the Government’s own body, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
I go back to what my noble friend just raised. Let us have a compromise that promotes conservation—I am absolutely a conservationist on my farm—fulfils the manifesto commitment to ban the importation of endangered species and listens to the Africans and others who oppose this Bill. Let us not listen to the arrogant zeal of activists.
I turn to the specific amendment. It goes to the heart of the issue, which is conservation, and asks us to listen to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list, which concerns species that are seen as threatened by trophy hunting—if they are. The Minister just mentioned CITES. Let us stick with that, then; that would be something useful, although I do not think that you are allowed to trade in anything that is on a CITES list anyway. Let us stick conservation at the heart of this Bill, not the sort of patronising, arrogant zeal that we see from a lot of people on this. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Robathan’s Amendment 5. I declare an interest, as stated in the register, as a partner in a sporting estate in Scotland.
I note my noble friend the Minister’s earlier words. However, I echo other noble friends in the Chamber: this is a critical amendment that would return the Bill closer to the original Conservative Party manifesto commitment and ban imports from the trophy hunting of endangered animals. When Henry Smith proposed this Private Member’s Bill, he stated:
“The world’s wildlife faces an extinction emergency of extraordinary proportions. We have to do everything we can to support conservation”.
We now understand that we all support that, but I am familiar with the high importance of hunting, which can involve taking trophies in financing conservation efforts and in the protection and restoration of habitats and ecologies that support the species being hunted.
In this country, it is of limited national economic benefits, but it can make a material impact at a local level in relatively disadvantaged communities. When we look overseas—to countries in Asia and Africa, for example—the impact is much greater. Revenues from hunting can be the key financial support for conservation efforts. I understand that hunting may be distasteful to many, but conservation efforts funded by that hunting are universally welcomed. What right do we in this rich country have to cut off that funding and send a signal to the rest of the world that they should do likewise? Why should we make decisions that put out of work people around the world whose interests are also best served in ensuring a surplus of these species, potentially turning hunters into poachers?
The globally accepted definitive authority on threatened species is the IUCN red list. This classifies species into nine categories according to their level of endangerment, from “not evaluated” to “extinct”. The amendment identifies “threatened”, which incorporates “critically endangered” and “vulnerable”. That is one more than the manifesto commitment. Dr Challender of Oxford University, and colleagues, showed that less than a quarter of the 73 CITES-listed mammal species that have been imported as hunting trophies since 2000 fall into the “threatened” definition and 60% are of “least concern”. The same work showed that nearly 80% of imports were from countries where populations of the hunted species were stable, increasing or abundant.
The amendment brings in the concept of trophy hunting itself as a threat to the species being hunted. Analysis of the red list by Challender, Dickman, Roe and Hart showed that
“legal hunting for trophies is not a major threat”
to any of the species imported to the UK as trophies since 2000. In fact, the analysis concludes that trophy hunting is not listed as a threat to the survival of any species. The positive impact of hunting on threatened species is well illustrated by Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes and Dr Emslie in their article in the Conversation:
“South Africa and Namibia are the two countries with the most African rhinos. In 1970, before legal hunting was introduced, they jointly held about 1,950 white rhinos … That number had risen to about 16,600 by 2017 … the biological and socio-economic benefits generated by these hunts … can boost conservation performance through enhanced population growth and funding”.
Returning to the Challender analysis, only 10 endangered species have been imported to the UK as hunting trophies since 2000, including ranched animals, which would not have been bred without hunting as an objective. Therefore, I question why this Bill is identifying over 6,200 species. How will our Border Force cope with this burden of determining which species or subspecies an animal part may be from and whether it is a trophy, has been hunted, or where the importer lives? How much simpler and more targeted to rely on IUCN red list designations.
This is an important amendment, returning the Bill to its original intention and supporting conservation efforts globally. Further to comments on earlier groups, these amendments, and this one in particular, are carefully designed to turn a damaging, emotionally driven Bill into legislation which genuinely will support conservation.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment. We have been told that the motivations behind this Bill are the manifesto commitment and public opinion. I am not particularly enthusiastic about either of those things, but there is no doubt that this amendment does return the Bill to the manifesto commitment that was given. If that is what the Government are hanging their hat on, as they appear increasingly to have done during the summer, then they should accept this amendment. If they say, “Well, we can’t do that because that will return the Bill to the House of Commons”, well, they have had the timetable for this Bill, as they have for any Bill, in their gift throughout, so it is their fault and not ours that we are debating it at this late hour.
A point was raised earlier about public opinion. We have had “public opinion” thrown at us—that 80% or 90% of people support this. The reality is that the people support it because they think it is a conservation measure. When it is explained to them—as it has been by the IUCN, with its rather more nuanced and in-depth research into public opinion—that actually, it does not help conservation, less than 50% support it. The number goes right down.
The polls that put it up at 80% or 90% are the usual incredibly biased animal rights polls, which we have seen for 20 or 30 years in this country. They say, “Do you want to rip a small animal to shreds and enjoy every minute of it, relishing in its blood?” You get 99% on that one; if you have these sorts of ridiculous questions, of course you do. The reality is that we should not and must not run our country by public opinion poll.
Lord Robathan (Con)
I was in the House of Commons for 23 years. I do not know if I achieved anything useful; I did try. During those 23 years, I got an enormous amount of correspondence—letters and latterly emails. To my certain knowledge, I did not get one letter, email or even telephone call worrying about hunting trophies.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I got one actually, over more than 23 years.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
Well, it was lovely to have that domestic entertainment, but the point I was trying to make is that we should not be basing serious legislation on rather dubious public opinion polls. In-depth research is useful, but the ballot box is the real thing that we do. I do not think we should be doing this on public opinion polls, but we have an opportunity to take the Bill back to the original manifesto commitment, if that is what everybody is so obsessed about.
I notice, however, that most manifestos have God knows how many items in them which nobody takes any notice of at all. They discard them at will when they are not interested in them, then grab them and hang their hats on them when they think they are very important. I must admit that my noble friend Lord Robathan is absolutely right, in that I do not see queues of people going around Parliament Square waving placards because of this Bill or issues like it. There are more important things on their agenda.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said no one asked him about this. My noble friend Lady Anderson and I were in the House of Commons more recently than he was, and we had a great number of letters on this issue. On the other hand, it could be that only socialist ladies get them.
Lord Swire (Con)
The noble Baroness may well be right, because I was in the House of Commons until 2019 and I got no letters on this subject. I was on the Hunting Bill committee when I first came into the House of Commons and I got a lot of letters about that, mainly because all the evidence was being ignored in favour of prejudice.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
If we are all making confessions, I was not in the House of Commons and I never had a letter, but I had a bomb delivered to me in this House from the very nice animal rights people. I also had some threatening letters describing precisely what they were going to do my six year-old daughter, when they followed her to school here in London. Luckily, special branch was very helpful about that. So I am delighted that I did not get any letters, but I know an awful lot about the people who send them.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I want to pick up a few points that have come out of this debate on the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Robathan, supported by my noble friend Lord Roborough.
I return to the point about manifesto commitments, without being completely repetitive. We said in our manifesto that we would ban the import of trophies hunted from endangered species. This is a Private Member’s Bill, but it has government support. The Government were originally going to bring it. Maybe the Minister could help me here when he winds up this debate: if the Government had brought in either a clause in the captive animals Bill or a free-standing government Bill on trophy hunting, would it have referred only to endangered species? At what point in this discussion was the definition of endangered species extended to the 6,200? Was that Henry Smith, the MP for Crawley, going a bit off-piste and substantially widening the Bill? Do the Government support that?
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I too will be very interested in my noble friend the Minister’s reply to this amendment. It gets to the kernel of the argument, and actually teases out whether or not this whole Bill is about conservation or something completely different.
This amendment is suggesting that it would apply to
“a species classed as threatened on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List and”—
critically, where that list records trophy hunting as a threat to that species. It does beg the question: if it does not record trophy hunting as a threat to that species, and if the animal is not on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list, why are we gold-plating legislation which would be perfectly palatable to most of us, and at whose behest?
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, having listened to the debate so far, I think that this amendment is slightly closer to Amendments 14 and 33, which are in my name, so it might be for the benefit of the House if I say my remarks now rather than repeating them at a later stage—if such a thing happens.
The Government have not told us why the present licensing system does not work. I think it is important for us to recall and think about how the present licensing system works. If anybody wants to import a trophy into the UK from a species that is listed in CITES appendix 1 or 2, there is a requirement for an export certificate from the country and an import certificate from the UK. The issuance of these certificates is based on a science-based assessment that there will be no harm to the species—that is worth stressing. In CITES terms, this is called a non-detriment finding, or NDF.
In the UK, implementation of CITES happens domestically via the principal wildlife trade regulations referred to in the Bill. The two annexes of the wildlife trade regulations that are referred to, annexes A and B, are broadly aligned with the CITES appendices. In the UK, the JNCC, as I have said before, is the relevant public body for overseeing imports of animal species, including hunting trophies. For any species listed on annexe A, JNCC is required to determine, first, that the import will not have a harmful effect on the conservation status of the species or on the extent of the territory occupied by the relevant population of the species—this is the NDF—and, secondly, that the import is taking place for one of the purposes referred to in CITES Article 8(3): that is, for research, for education, for breeding aimed at the conservation of the species, or for other purposes that are not detrimental to the survival of the species concerned.
The JNCC has interpreted other purposes that are not detrimental as including hunting trophies—as long as trophy hunting is part of a careful species management plan that should, as appropriate, be based on sound biological data collected from the target populations; clearly demonstrate that harvest levels are sustainable; be monitored by professional biologists; be promptly modified if necessary to maintain the conservation aims; demonstrate that illegal activities are under control; produce significant and tangible conservation benefits for the species; and provide benefits to, and be in co-operation with, the local people who share the area with, or suffer by, the species concerned.
For species on annexe B, the measures are less strict since, by definition, the species on this annexe are less threatened by trade, and no certificate is required other than for six exceptions: the African lion, African elephant, argali sheep, hippopotamus, polar bear and white rhinoceros. For these species, the UK has the equivalent stricter measures that it applies to annexe A species, meaning that import permits are required—including an NDF. Thus, if a hunting trophy has been issued with an import certificate by JNCC, we can be confident that this is because due process has been followed: a non-detriment finding assessment has been conducted and the assessment has indicated there is no risk to species survival.
This Bill is about conservation and preventing the further endangerment of threatened species. The system in place under CITES already performs this function through a process that has been agreed multilaterally by over 180 countries. The Bill does not need to concern itself with those species that are not under annexes A or B. I have an amendment coming up to delete annexe B. However, the amendment before us is a better one and I would be very happy to support it should it be taken to a Division. However, if it is not, I give notice to my noble friend the Minister that I will wish to divide on my amendment in due course.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, as I said earlier, I spoke at some length on the first amendment and covered many of these points. However, to address this precise amendment, it would narrow the scope of the ban to species considered threatened on the IUCN red list. Where this assessment identifies trophy hunting as a threat, it would remove the power for the UK Government to determine species in scope, which the Bill currently does through annexes A and B of the wildlife trade regulations. This amendment contradicts Clause 2, which clearly sets out the species in scope of the import ban and would remove the power for the UK Government to determine species in scope. With that in consideration, I respectfully ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I note that almost all the speeches have been in favour of this amendment. That is because it is about conservation. I am a conservationist—I think everyone who has spoken is a conservationist—but this Bill, which my amendment aims to improve, is not about conservation. I find that very distressing—I really do.
The two noble Baronesses on the Front Bench said that they had letters from people supporting a trophy Bill when they were in the Commons. They may have done, but I remember a rather dreadful organisation called 38 Degrees, which ran campaigns the whole time. I discovered that some of my constituents who wrote to me and emailed me on standard responses that were given by 38 Degrees had not even sent them themselves; they were sent for them. We all know how campaigns can work.
I am disappointed that the proposer of the Bill and the Minister do not think that we need to highlight conservation in this Bill. I was not going to divide the House because it is time for my bed; I am getting rather old.
Lord Robathan (Con)
I am younger than Joe Biden. However, my wife and my children in particular tell me how old I am.
Lord Robathan (Con)
They do. Because people are urging me to, I think I will test the opinion of the House.