House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Member Sworn
Mr Speaker
I understand that the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) wishes to take the Oath to the King.
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Andrew Richard Rosindell, for Romford.
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
The Department’s priority is to finalise entry into the permanent structured co-operation military mobility project before considering involvement in other projects. However, we assess that the EU’s standard “third country” terms for PESCO projects involving procurement or capability development will continue to impose significant constraint on UK involvement.
Alyn Smith
I appreciate that the UK Government’s attitude to PESCO is to take each project on a case-by-case basis, but may I suggest that publishing criteria for that case-by-case assessment would be useful? It is obvious to the dogs in the street that PESCO will evolve at light-speed, and the UK risks missing out on a lot of important co-operation that could be beneficial. Will the Minister publish that guidance? Otherwise, I will be tabling 68 parliamentary questions to cover each of the 68 PESCO mechanisms.
James Heappey
I note the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, and I fear that my answer will give him encouragement to table the 68 questions, because it is right that we consider each opportunity in PESCO on its merits. PESCO is a vehicle for increasing military mobility around the continent. Non-EU NATO partners support that fully, and the UK is among them, but industrial or technological co-operation will not always be in the UK’s interest, or in the interest of UK industry, so it is right that we consider these things case by case.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
During his visit to Ukraine on 12 January, the Prime Minister signed an historic UK-Ukraine agreement on security co-operation with President Zelensky, illustrating our long-term commitment to supporting Ukraine. The Prime Minister announced that the UK will provide £2.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine in 2024-25—a £200 million increase on the previous two years—to cover rapid procurement and gifting of equipment, development of international capability coalitions, and training through Operation Interflex.
Mr Betts
I thank the Minister for that response. There is clearly widespread support in this House and the country for helping Ukraine to resist Russian aggression, but there are concerns, given that President Zelensky has recently identified a shortage of arms and ammunition, particularly in the light of the impasse in the US Congress. What discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in the EU and other European nations about helping to bridge the gap in the short term, and on how we will deal with it if, in the longer term, the election of President Trump reduces NATO spending in general, and its spending on Ukraine in particular?
James Heappey
Of course, we are aware of the scepticism among Republican presidential candidates and in the US Congress about funding for Ukraine. That is why UK Ministers—the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Prime Minister and I —have been in Washington to make the case for the US continuing to support Ukraine, no matter the outcome of the election. Second-guessing the outcome of the US electoral system is probably not sensible, but notwithstanding the fantastic efforts, led by Prime Minister Kallas of Estonia, to increase the manufacturing of ammunition in particular, it is clear that European manufacturing capacity is not yet at even half the target set. That should be cause for all of us to consider how we might urgently ramp up manufacturing if the worst comes to the worst.
Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
Ukraine can win the war, and must win the war. The Minister touched on the provision of ammunition and equipment, but Ukraine also needs hundreds of thousands of trained personnel. I very much welcome the extension of Operation Interflex, and the work that we are doing, but could we not be doing far more of that with our allies to assist Ukraine?
James Heappey
My right hon. Friend is right to point to the importance of the training effort. That gives me the opportunity to reflect on this week being the 10-year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Crimea, which gave rise to Operation Orbital. Since then, across Operation Orbital and Operation Interflex, 60,000 Ukrainian troops have been trained. Continuing to train them, not as individuals but increasingly as formations, is undoubtedly the key to unlocking the real potential of the Ukrainian armed forces.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
We have all seen the events that have taken place in the past few days regarding the Russian offensive in Ukraine. They must act a wake-up call to all of us. This is our problem, and our fight, with the Ukrainians, to defeat Putin. We need to make sure that we step up the amount of ammunition and arms that we ship to Ukraine. We need to do that with our European partners, and we need a plan, not just for the short term but for the long term, so that we defeat Putin. What talks are the Minister and the Cabinet Secretary having with our European allies to ensure that Ukraine wins this war?
James Heappey
Such conversations happen all the time. Only last week, the Secretary of State was at the latest donor conference, followed by NATO Defence Ministers. I was in Norway a week or so earlier, having exactly those conversations with allies. As the right hon. Gentleman suggests, while traditional armaments such as artillery ammunition are important, so too, increasingly, are the novel precision weapons systems that the UK is very much at the forefront of supplying to our Ukraine friends.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is it not time that both sides of the House came together to agree on a common policy of increasing defence expenditure, so that by increasing our support for Ukraine, we can set an example to our American allies, without whose help there can be no future for peace and security in Europe?
James Heappey
My colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench know that I try not to throw gratuitous punches in the House, and I know that they are enthusiasts for military spending, but their colleague the shadow Chancellor has thus far declined to say that she would adopt anything other than the 2% target for NATO spending, which is not the same as what the Government are currently spending, or what they currently intend to increase spending to, so the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) is timely. It would be fantastic if, in the next hour, the shadow Secretary of State were to make the same commitment as we have.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
In the last year of the last Labour Government, we were spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, a level that has not been matched in any of the subsequent 14 Tory years.
Like the Defence Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition and I were in Munich at the weekend, and the urgency of the need for more help for Ukraine ran through every discussion. Everyone was also profoundly moved by the words of Yulia Navalnaya, speaking even after the news of her husband’s death at Putin’s hands. This is the brutality that the Ukrainians are fighting, and this is why UK support must not falter. We strongly back last month’s UK-Ukraine security agreement, which the Defence Secretary has described as “a 100-year alliance”. Will the Government take the necessary next step and provide an implementation plan for this year and future years, to ensure that Ukraine receives the help that it needs now and for tomorrow?
James Heappey
While I am grateful for the history lesson on what was spent under the last Labour Government, the commitment to match our spending in a future Government was conspicuously absent from the right hon. Gentleman’s question. However, let me return to the collegiate spirit in which Defence questions are normally conducted. I absolutely agree that what the Secretary of State set out in his speech about the partnership with Ukraine requires a strategic approach, with very long horizons set for what our co-operation, both industrial and military, could look like.
John Healey
Long horizons are fine, but Ukraine needs more help now. I am concerned about the £2.5 billion for Ukraine that was announced last month and described by the Prime Minister as
“the biggest single package of defence aid to Ukraine since the war began”.—[Official Report, 15 January 2024; Vol. 743, c. 578.]
The Minister has said much the same today. In response to a question from me last week, however, he would not rule out using that money to cover the UK’s operational costs at NATO bases. Will he rule that out today? Will he confirm today that every penny and every pound of the £2.5 billion for Ukraine will go to Ukraine?
James Heappey
I fear that the right hon. Gentleman has missed something over the last two years. The £2.3 billion that the Government have provided for operations to support Ukraine has always included not just the gifting in kind that takes the headlines, but Operation Interflex and other avenues through which we support the Ukrainians. The fact is that next year’s spending and that of the year after will match exactly what we did in previous years, in terms of the breadth of that contribution. It is also true that the long-term strategic alliance that the Secretary of State set out and the commitment year on year to spend more than any other European ally are not mutually exclusive; we are doing both.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On 17 February, at the Munich conference, Prime Minister Frederiksen of the Kingdom of Denmark said:
“If you ask Ukrainians, they are asking for ammunition now, artillery now. From the Danish side, we decided to donate our entire artillery.”
Does the Minister not agree that allies should be a little more like Denmark when it comes to recognising the consequences of not meeting Ukraine’s needs?
James Heappey
We are full of admiration for our Danish colleagues, but the reality is that the UK has provided almost its entire heavy artillery capability, in terms of AS-90s. Those that we have held on to are those that service the battlegroup in Estonia and the very high readiness armoured battlegroup. Similarly, we have been generous with our ammunition stocks, while retaining those that we need for our very high readiness forces. More than that, we have catalysed the production of 155 mm ammunition in the UK, and even further, we have been buying up as much 152 mm and 122 mm ammunition around the world as we possibly can. The UK’s contribution to the Ukrainian artillery fight is not confined to what we have in our own ammunition stockpiles; it is much, much bigger, and amounts to hundreds of thousands of rounds.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
To paraphrase a former Member, the Government’s response has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Given the Czech Republic’s profound donations of artillery and shells, on top of the Danish donation, as well as a commitment of over 1 million shells from the EU, I hope the Minister can come to the Dispatch Box and correct the balance. Can he advise the House on how much of this new investment, which is welcome, is in tactical armaments and artillery?
James Heappey
The overseas ammunition acquisition plan from previous years remains broadly as it was, which amounts to about 300,000 rounds bought on international markets and provided to Ukraine. The 155 mm manufacture acceleration is subject to a different funding package that the Secretary of State and his Ukrainian counterpart have been working on. It is important to note that the £200 million additional money from last year to this is focused on the provision of drones, and those tactical drones are proving to be most significant, in terms of their impact in the battle space.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
The latest figure for the full-time strength of the Army is 73,520. The Army is continuing to work towards its “Future Soldier” structure of 73,000 regular and 30,000 reserve personnel. There are no plans to change this. The good news is that provisional figures suggest that January had the highest number of Army applications for six years.
Scott Benton
Media reports have suggested that white men have been actively discriminated against in recruitment, and that security checks may be relaxed due to promoting ethnic diversity within the Army. A number of senior military figures have purportedly warned that the pervasiveness of woke ideology being pushed on to the armed forces is a real and present threat to national security, and will give aid and comfort to the King’s enemies. Will the planned review of diversity policies seek to address those concerns?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but I do not recognise the situation that he describes. We take security extremely seriously and ensure that all personnel have security clearance appropriate to their job. Checks normally require at least three years’ UK residency, but Commonwealth candidates are permitted to accrue qualifying residency while serving, although they cannot take up roles and ranks that require higher levels of vetting. This policy has been in place for several years, and it has not changed.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Figures in The Times last month showed that the British Army will shrink to as small as 67,000 by 2026 due to the crisis in recruitment and retention. As threats to the UK increase, will the Minister finally commit to halting the cuts that he continues to make to the Army?
Dr Murrison
The Government are sticking to 73,000 regular and 30,000 reserved personnel, as I said earlier. Those figures are in “Future Soldier”, published in 2021, and they remain unchanged.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
The Ministry of Defence continues to stand ready to support the effort, led by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to pursue land, air and maritime routes to deliver urgently needed humanitarian aid.
Jack Brereton
Many of my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South are extremely concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and want to see much more aid getting into Gaza. It is vital for the innocent civilian population there. Will the Secretary of State update us on what more is being done to ensure additional routes, and particularly a sea route, into Gaza for humanitarian aid to innocent civilians?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I have been to the region on a number of occasions—I have visited Israel and Cyprus twice, as well as visiting Egypt and Saudi Arabia—with the specific intention of trying to resolve the problem that he describes. We have already delivered 150 tonnes of aid, but the problem is getting that aid into Gaza. Although we have persuaded the Israelis to open Kerem Shalom, we desperately need Ashdod to be opened, too. As we have discussed with the Cypriots, we could then create a humanitarian aid route from Cyprus direct to Ashdod and straight into Gaza via Kerem Shalom.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
Families are an integral part of the armed forces community. Our commitment to them remains strong and is reinforced by the Haythornthwaite review, the defence Command Paper refresh, the families strategy, which was published in January 2022, and my hon. Friend’s excellent “Living in our Shoes” framework for delivering more family-sympathetic policies.
Andrew Selous
The families of armed forces personnel have to put up with more separation, relocation and danger to their loved ones than the families of any other public servants, and they often feel slightly disenfranchised. They might not know their Member of Parliament, and they might fear to approach them because of the impact it might have on their spouse or partner’s career. Does my right hon. Friend agree it is incredibly important that the public can see the follow-through on the 86 recommendations that the Ministry of Defence accepted in full and on the 20 recommendations that it accepted in part?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that I have a slightly different number. My number is that 106 of his report’s 110 recommendations have been accepted. Regardless of the exact figure, I entirely agree on the importance of making sure that armed forces families live in decent accommodation. When we ask armed forces personnel to fight abroad, they should live in good accommodation when they come home.
My hon. Friend is familiar with the steering group, which includes families, federations and the authors of his excellent report, and he will be pleased to hear that it meets again on 28 February.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
In a challenging labour market, we continue to apply an array of measures to support recruitment and retention and to refine the armed forces’ offer. These include the biggest pay rise in 20 years, flexible service and an improved accommodation offer. The Haythornthwaite review has a key part to play, and teams have been stood up across the Ministry of Defence to implement all 67 recommendations, working to establish a reward and incentivisation architecture that will attract and retain the skills we need.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer, but the quality of forces accommodation is also an important factor in both recruitment and retention. Will he consider giving local commanders greater agency in getting small repairs done locally if the national contractors fail to act quickly enough?
Dr Murrison
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Heads of establishment can access an approved funding pot to address minor maintenance works, up to a maximum value of £25,000 per item, which is extremely helpful and gets away from some of the bureaucracy involved with the prime contractors.
Sarah Atherton
Seven experienced personnel are leaving for each five recruited. Despite the diversity and inclusion policies, some of which are counterproductive in my opinion, and in addition to Capita’s initiatives, last year there was a net loss of 310 servicewomen. Falling retention rates are overshadowing operational effectiveness. Can the Minister outline what he is doing on retention?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and ministerial predecessor. Over the past two years, the Ministry of Defence has put servicewomen at the heart of developing and delivering a range of initiatives, from uniform policies to the provision of accessible sanitary products, mentoring, the introduction of flexible service, wraparound childcare, parental leave, and zero tolerance of unacceptable behaviour. There will be further measures in response to the Wigston review, the Gray review and my hon. Friend’s report. I pay tribute to those who have been driving change, but it is far from job done.
Stephen Crabb
The armed forces, including the 14th Signal Regiment based in Pembrokeshire, continue to provide fabulous career opportunities for young people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, now more than ever, we need to encourage Army visits to schools, and that the long campaign by nationalists in Wales to stop those visits damages social mobility and aspiration?
Dr Murrison
I share my right hon. Friend’s enthusiasm entirely. The armed forces are a huge engine for social mobility. In the last year, the Army achieved over 5,000 school engagement visits across the United Kingdom, each at the school’s request. The British Army is the public’s Army. It is important it engages with the people it serves, despite the best efforts of some on the left and the nationalists, to whom he refers.
Mr French
The London Borough of Bexley is home to several excellent cadet and reserve units that teach vital life skills. Will the Minister update the House on progress on the cadet expansion programme and what work is being undertaken to strengthen the pathways into His Majesty’s armed forces?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. The joint Ministry of Defence and Department for Education cadet expansion programme is progressing extremely well, with over 54,000 cadets in school cadet units. The cadet expansion programme has focused on growth in the state sector. Since its introduction in 2012, the number of cadet units in state schools has grown by over 400% to 268 schools. Some new units have also opened in independent schools, where there has been a 12% increase. I am sure my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming that transformation.
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Local service personnel routinely cite issues in service accommodation as a barrier to recruitment and retention, so I was disappointed to hear that the Government have no plans to improve the quality of the nearly 900 single-living accommodation bed spaces in my constituency at Chicksands that currently fall into the lowest grades. Will the Minister commit to revisiting that decision to ensure we do right by all service personnel serving on the base before it closes?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of service accommodation. He will be aware of the huge Government investment to improve the quality of both service-family accommodation and single-living accommodation. Our people deserve the best. It is public knowledge that they have not had the best for some considerable time, but we are committed to remedying that for his constituents.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister not wake up in the morning sometimes and want to check in on reality? We have had seven Secretaries of State for Defence since 2010 and absolute turmoil in our armed forces. Why would people join the British Army when this Government have run us down to 72,000 serving personnel? I campaigned when the number went below 100,000! The Minister should wake up and invest in the defence of our country in a troubled world.
Dr Murrison
Those are interesting reflections. I suggest the hon. Gentleman has a word with the shadow Ministers on his Front Bench, particularly the shadow Chancellor who, to date, has failed to commit to the level of spending on the defence of this country to which the Government are completely committed.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
The rise of so-called “woke” culture has been infecting our society for many years and it should be unsurprising that it is now infecting our military. Does the Minister think that the rise of “woke” makes it easier or more difficult to recruit the right sort of people into our armed forces?
Dr Murrison
I completely reject the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. If he is talking about increasing the number of women in our armed forces, Lord Etherton’s review into LGBT personnel in our armed forces historically, or our ambition to make our armed forces more reflective of the society from which they are drawn and that they serve, then I am guilty as charged.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister and others will be aware that recruitment across Northern Ireland to the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy has always been exceptional. However, the number of personnel in Territorial Army regiments is set at a figure that those regiments cannot go above. Will the Minister look at increasing the number of TA soldiers to ensure that recruitment in Northern Ireland can exceed the current numbers?
Dr Murrison
I pay tribute to the people of Northern Ireland who, as the hon. Gentleman says, have disproportionately contributed to the defence of our country. He will know that we are committed to growing our reserve forces across the United Kingdom.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
We have 24,000 fewer troops, 4,000 fewer sailors, 200 fewer aircraft and the removal of one in five ships. The Conservatives have failed our armed forces over the past 14 years, missing their recruitment target every year since taking power in 2010 and hollowing out our military. Does the Minister honestly believe that he can look the public in the eye and claim that five more years will fix the mess that they have created, or is it time for a fresh start?
Dr Murrison
Oh, I think the hon. Gentleman knows what I am going to say in response to his question, and that is to invite him to have a conversation with the shadow Chancellor to see whether she will commit to the same level of spending on defence that this Government are committed to and, indeed, are spending right now. Will he make a spending commitment here and now in the House of Commons? If so, I am all ears.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I also suggest that it is not for the Government to be asking the questions?
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
The rotary wing enterprise programme seeks to improve aircraft availability across support solutions for Apache, Chinook, Merlin and Wildcat from within existing budgets. It will do so by driving synergies between platforms, modernising support solutions and pursuing delivery-focused commercial mechanisms.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
Mr Speaker, as you know, Fleetlands in Gosport has been the home of military helicopter maintenance for more than 65 years. This highly skilled engineering work is really key to levelling up the area, providing much-needed jobs and opportunities. Does the Minister agree that the MOD’s rotary wing enterprise and new medium helicopter programme would benefit greatly from these generations of expertise and skills right there in Gosport?
James Cartlidge
I know from my recent visit that my right hon. Friend is a champion not only for defence in her constituency, but for defence jobs in particular. She is right about StandardAero Fleetlands, which is a valued actor in the maintenance of our rotary wing platforms. The rotary wing enterprise is due to enter its detailed design this year. As part of that, it will consider wider social value, including the extent to which economic prosperity is supported. But as this is a specific potential procurement, I cannot comment any further. I also cannot comment on the role of particular companies in the new medium helicopter programme, but we hope to say more on that very soon.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
The Government have delayed producing the information required for the invitation to negotiate for the new medium-lift helicopter four times since September 2022. Can the Minister explain what has caused this 18-month delay? Given the reports last week about his Department freezing capital spending until at least the new financial year, when will the Government get their act together to get this competition under way? Can he promise that the delay will not push back the delivery date for this vital capability for our forces?
James Cartlidge
I am pleased to say two things to the hon. Lady. First, we will have the announcement on the next stage of the new medium helicopter very soon. I am also pleased to confirm that we have been clear on our spending position. To echo my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence People and Families, if the hon. Lady wants to talk about stuff that is rumoured in the press—we do not have those sorts of capital spending controls—can she confirm whether the shadow Chancellor will honour our defence spending commitments?
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
AUKUS partners continue to make good progress on the optimal pathway to deliver conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines to Australia and to develop the advanced capabilities required.
Giles Watling
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. AUKUS is a bold project that rightfully identifies the greater need for co-operation in the Pacific between our great nations. However, I do not think that it should be limited just to defence. In my own report for the 1922 foreign affairs policy committee, we found that there is not only a need, but an appetite for wider scope—the inclusion of Canada, for example. Does my right hon. Friend agree that AUKUS cannot just be about defence policy. Will we be reaping the maximum benefits for Britain by consigning this to be just a defence procurement exercise? Where is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in all of this?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right to say that AUKUS can and should be a programme that extends beyond the three core nations—the UK, the US, and Australia—but that is very much a matter for pillar 2 arrangements rather than pillar 1, which the House will know is about the nuclear-powered submarine for Australia and the joint procurement. He will be pleased to hear that, in November, I was in the US signing up to a programme of pillar 2 work, which could ultimately extend to others, including Canada and New Zealand.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
The Royal Navy has a range of capabilities to support the engagement of land-based targets. Specific threat planning is considered for every deployment or contingency, and measures are taken to reduce or mitigate those expected threats as dictated by operational priority.
Sir Desmond Swayne
What urgency is attached to the upgrading of HMS Diamond’s defence systems?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend asks an excellent question. I know that there has been a lot of interest, following the deployment in the Red sea, in what the lessons are. I can confirm that the Sea Viper capability has been at the forefront of this, being the Navy’s weapon of choice in the first shooting down of an aerial threat in more than 30 years. It is a cutting-edge weapons system, and I can confirm that Sea Viper will be upgraded, to further enhance this capability against the more complex and evolving threats that we face, including the ability to intercept missiles in their terminal phase.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
In 2022-23, the Ministry of Defence spent £25 billion with UK industry. The most recent estimate shows that that supported 209,000 jobs across the country, of which 47,000 were in manufacturing.
Mr Robertson
My Tewkesbury constituency contains a lot of aerospace manufacturing, particularly for the defence sectors, but those companies have long complained to me that they cannot attract enough young people, particularly to take engineering jobs. The all-party parliamentary group on aerospace, which I co-chair, has the objective of enticing young people to go into engineering or at least consider it as a career. Will the Government do anything more to persuade young people to consider taking up the engineering opportunities that are there?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend asks an excellent question. It helps that we have lots of school groups and young people in the Gallery today, it being half term. I can confirm that last year’s defence Command Paper identified skills as a priority, including the shortage of engineering, digital, cyber, STEM, nuclear, and space-based skills. The defence head of profession for engineering, who also supports the Government science and engineering head of profession, has a defence youth engagement strategy that drives STEM outreach activities and the encouragement of engineering uptake in individuals aged four to 14.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
Everything that I had intended to say in response to the hon. Gentleman was covered in response to the supplementaries to Question 2.
Richard Foord
Lord Ismay said of NATO that it existed, among other things,
“to keep the Soviet Union out”
and “the Americans in”. The Foreign Secretary was misunderstood on a recent visit to the United States when he proposed that Congress should pass a new military aid package for Ukraine, and he was rebuffed by some Republicans in the House of Representatives. What can the Defence Secretary do to encourage the US to maintain its commitment to Ukraine and to NATO?
James Heappey
Again, we covered this earlier, but it is an important issue. The Secretary of State and I, and other Ministers from the MOD and across Government, put our shoulder to the wheel whenever we are in Washington, to impress on the US not only the importance of its continued commitment to Ukrainian security, but that Euro-Atlantic security is integral to US security. The US cannot simply look towards the Pacific; it needs to remain engaged in the Euro-Atlantic, in its own interests as well as those of NATO allies.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
On my last visit to Ukraine a couple of weeks ago, I had several meetings with Ukrainian Ministers, who voiced their frustration and concern about the delay in setting up joint operations with UK defence manufacturers. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is doing everything possible to speed the process up to allow the Ukrainians to produce their own kit, with our help, to help win the war?
James Heappey
The Secretary of State and the Minister for Defence Procurement have both been heavily engaged in this; indeed, the Minister for Defence Procurement led a delegation to Kyiv to catalyse exactly the idea that my hon. Friend mentions.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
The MOD has already started its decarbonisation journey in support of the UK’s net zero commitment. At the Royal International Air Tattoo last year, I was pleased to sign the defence aviation net zero charter on behalf of the MOD. Working closely with our industrial partners, we are moving to cleaner and more efficient technology. The Army is building solar farms, and has invested £14 million in battlefield electrification. The Royal Navy’s cutting-edge catalytic systems are reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in its patrol vessels by up to 97%. Finally, the RAF is pioneering the use of sustainable aviation fuel.
Wera Hobhouse
It was a pleasure to attend the Global Charge dinner last October, and to see so many members of the armed forces, from all ranks, committed to tackling the climate crisis. However, the Defence Committee has described the MOD’s current reduction targets as “insufficiently demanding” under the greening government commitments—they are the lowest across all Departments. Will the Minister ensure that the next round of CC commitments will contain more demanding targets, not least to reflect the real ambitions and for members of the armed forces on the ground to see the devastation of climate change?
James Cartlidge
I know the hon. Lady is very passionate about this issue. I have just listed the ways in which the individual services are taking steps to reduce their emissions, but we always have to balance that against our overwhelming priority as a Department, which is to support the ability of our armed forces to defend these islands.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
Defence is investing over £6.6 billion in advanced research and development. We are working with UK industry and academia to identify and invest in innovative technologies, ensuring that we have the capabilities we need to defeat our adversaries.
Sir Edward Leigh
The RAF has traditionally had a very poor record when it closes bases in Lincolnshire—just walking away, leaving them to go to rack and ruin—but at RAF Scampton we had wonderful schemes for innovative defence technologies, such as a spaceport. Will the Minister now work with the Home Office and me to try to release the bulk of that base so that we can get all these exciting technologies going? The MOD cannot just wash its hands of the base, now that it has been passed to the Home Office. We are supposed to have joined-up government.
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. As he knows, RAF Scampton is no longer part of the defence estate, which means we do not have formal responsibility for it. What I would stress to him is that we are investing in innovation in Lincolnshire, including the significant investment into RAF Waddington associated with our Protector capability.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
The Dreadnought submarine programme remains within overall budget and on track for the first of class, HMS Dreadnought, to enter service in the early 2030s. Inflation has remained higher than expected for an extended period and has had an adverse impact on the cost forecasts for the programme compared with the forecasts from a year earlier. As the programme is in its preliminary phases, it is too early to provide cost estimates for the replacement warhead programme.
Patrick Grady
I think that means the Minister does not know what the total lifetime cost of Trident replacement is going to be. Budgets in Government Departments and households alike are under immense pressure because of rampant inflation. Why do everybody else’s budgets have to be under pressure but there seems to be a blank-cheque approach to the renewal of Trident?
James Cartlidge
That is an extraordinary thing for the hon. Gentleman to say. He knows that we will shortly be publishing, before the end of the financial year, our supplementary estimate for the defence nuclear enterprise for the financial year. But as he knows, there is a cost in not having a deterrent. That is his policy: to do away with the deterrent on a unilateral basis, despite all the terrible threats we can see in the world and the nuclear sabre-rattling from Russia. His policy would be abject folly. We will invest in providing that ultimate guarantee to the people of the United Kingdom.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I know that the Minister and most of the House, leaving aside those on the Scottish National Benches, will agree that the continuous at-sea deterrent is absolutely central to the defence of the realm—there is no question about that at all. Does he agree that we must find a way of replacing Trident within budget, and that the worst possible thing that could happen to Trident would be an SNP Government in Scotland?
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
This year I visited the United States—the White House and Capitol Hill—to lobby on behalf of Ukraine, as discussed today; Saudi Arabia and Egypt, given the crisis in the middle east; HMS Diamond, to thank the ship’s crew; and our sovereign base at Akrotiri, to thank the Typhoon pilots. Cyprus itself was also visited. Last week I was in Brussels for the NATO meeting and in Munich for the security conference. The whole House will know that defence never sleeps and will wish to join me in thanking the brave men and women who make that possible.
Greg Smith
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on progress made at the NATO Defence Ministers meeting, particularly with regard to support for Ukraine?
Grant Shapps
Alongside the NATO meeting, there was the Ukraine defence contact group—a group of 52 countries, all of which support Ukraine. The big concern, of course, is ensuring that Ukraine has the things that it needs now and the planning to ensure that it can sustain the fight and push back against the enemy in 2024. That is why I have announced £200 million for drones, and why we have a 15-nation coalition for MPI—the multinational procurement initiative. At my request, we have also welcomed Australia to the international fund for Ukraine, with its commitment of 50 million Australian dollars to a fund that is now worth £900 million.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The agonies of the Palestinian people are extreme. We all want the fighting to stop now, for hostages to be returned now, for aid to be ramped up now, and a ceasefire that lasts permanently. What is the Defence Secretary doing to help his Israeli counterpart to accept that their threatened offensive against Rafah just cannot happen?
Grant Shapps
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the seriousness of the situation. As he has just heard, I visited Israel before the new year and had those conversations directly. I believe that it is in Israel’s interest, obviously in Gaza’s interest, and in the world’s interest to see that immediate cessation followed by a permanent ceasefire. We are doing everything we can to persuade the Israelis of that necessity and to put pressure on Hamas, who still hold hostages—if they were to release them, this thing could finish very quickly. We are also helping by ensuring that we work on plans for what happens in the north of the country and in southern Lebanon.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
Since 2011, the armed forces covenant and its consequentials have been the absolute lynchpin of public commitment to those who have served, and they have materially improved the lived experience of the service community. The Ministry of Defence is responsible for a number of services for veterans. The Veterans Welfare Service, for example, supports around 50,000 veterans every year, and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs co-ordinates across Government to advance support for veterans and their families.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The number of veterans claiming welfare benefits is rising steadily, and more than 52,000 are now in receipt of universal credit. Does the Minister find that a cause for celebration or concern?
Dr Murrison
I am a veteran, and I talk to veterans all the time, as does my right hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. I do not recognise the picture that the shadow Minister describes. Since 2011, we have materially improved the lived experience of our veteran community and their families, and we will continue to do so—of that, he can be absolutely sure.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
That is a very good question. The distinction is between the Cabinet Office social value rules, which are applied across Government and are irrespective, and the rules that the Ministry of Defence applies to our procurement. There was discussion of the new medium helicopter earlier, for example. When that comes out, as I hope it will soon, we will be clear that we are looking to incentivise a strong commitment to the UK industrial base.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, just remember that this is topical questions and I have to get other Members in.
Grant Shapps
Very simply, I read that report and, as the hon. Lady has rightly pointed out, accepted all of its findings. We do not usually take it further, but I will certainly be happy to take a look at the case she has raised.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On the subject of recruitment and retention, on 7 November the Chief of the General Staff, Patrick Sanders—arguably the best general of his generation—told the Defence Committee:
“We are taking 400 soldiers out of the field army to put them alongside recruiters, because—guess what?—it takes a soldier to recruit a soldier.”
Never was a truer word spoken. So when are we finally going to sack Capita?
Dr Murrison
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question—I knew he would get Capita in there somewhere. He will be familiar with the Engage to Recruit programme, which is currently underway and having some success in getting soldiers to recruit soldiers. That is probably why, as I touched on in my earlier answer, we are now seeing some extremely promising recruiting figures, including in January—the best figures for six years.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Grant Shapps
Arms deals and export licences are dealt with in the normal way, but the hon. Member will be interested to hear that actually, not many arms sales take place in the direction of Israel at all. Off the top of my head, I think it was just £42 million last year, and that was mostly for protective equipment.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Late last year, diesel got into the water supply at the Trenchard Lines camp near Upavon in my constituency. I commend the resilience of the families who live there, and also of the MOD, which acted very quickly to ensure that there was a temporary supply of water. Those families are still living on that temporary supply, so can the Minister assure me that attention is being given to sorting out this problem and ensuring a permanent supply of clean water?
James Cartlidge
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter—he is a champion of the defence community in his constituency, and I thank him for his early engagement on it. I understand that the local authority regulator, following the completion of rigorous testing, has confirmed that the water quality at Trenchard Lines is acceptable, and it is now safe for personnel working and living there to use the mains supply. I will double-check that and write to him, but I am grateful for his comments on the performance of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation in that regard.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with answers I gave last week or the week before at the Dispatch Box, when I said that we will always look at what is happening in the Red sea. I have been there to meet the crews myself, and will make a judgment based on the reality on the ground. There is now also input from a conglomeration of EU countries that are coming to join Prosperity Guardian, and we welcome that input.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In the debate on the Red sea on 24 January, I asked for confirmation that HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark would not only not be scrapped, but would not be mothballed. The deputy Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), with the Secretary of State for Defence alongside him, said in response that I was
“absolutely right to detect the supportive view of the Secretary of State for Defence.”—[Official Report, 24 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 402.]
However, a journalist was subsequently told by the Ministry of Defence that nothing had changed, so are those ships going to be mothballed or not?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend can rest easy: I have been down to visit HMS Albion since those questions, and I can confirm that one of those ships will always be being made ready to sail. He can therefore be very relieved.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question—she has been consistent in her inquiry into this matter. She will be reassured to know that across the service community, the rate of suicide is lower than we would expect in the civilian population. There is a subset of young men within the serving population for whom there is an excess, and we are looking very closely at that. I very much commend to the hon. Lady the suicide action plan that we have published, which lays out what Defence is doing to drive down the suicide rate in our armed forces. Whichever figure it is, it is too high.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The whole House would like to see a larger Army, Navy and Air Force—there is unanimity on that point. Central to that must be not only the armed forces recruitment programme, but the Army centralised training scheme. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the pause in capital spending by the MOD, which was announced last week in the press, will not affect those two schemes, and that they will continue in as full-blooded a way as they are at the moment?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that there is no pause. The approvals are flowing.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Grant Shapps
The whole House recognises the irony of an SNP Member talking about ships being delivered late. The whole House will want to welcome the extraordinary work done by those on HMS Prince of Wales who got the ship ready to leave not at 30 days’ readiness, which is what they were ranked for, but in eight days. I would have thought that congratulating the ship’s company would be the right thing to do.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State remember that the British Army used to be the biggest trainer of young men and women in the country and that we produced so many skilled people? When can he take us back to those balmy days?
Grant Shapps
Since 2014, we have been training 60,000 Ukrainian troops, proving that we know how to get troops trained. We still train extraordinary numbers. I think I am right that, on all forms of training more broadly, we are breaking some of those records. We will ensure that we have armed forces that are fit for the 21st century.
UK Economy
(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the UK economy entering recession.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
High inflation remains the biggest barrier to growth, which is why halving it is still our top priority. Thanks to decisive action supported by the Government, inflation has fallen from over 11% to 4%. The Bank of England is forecasting that it will fall to around 2% by early summer, in only a matter of months, which is much faster than previously thought.
It is important to put all this in context. Just over a year ago, the Bank of England was forecasting the longest recession in 100 years. That has not happened, and the British economy has proved resilient in the face of unprecedented shocks. Forecasters, including the Bank of England and the International Monetary Fund, agree that growth will strengthen over the next few years, with the IMF forecasting that we will grow faster than Japan, Germany, France, Italy and many others, on average, over the next five years. Wages have been higher than inflation for six months in a row, unemployment remains very low, and we are backing British business by delivering the biggest business tax cut in modern British history and rewarding work by cutting taxes for working people.
These are all reasons to be positive about the economy turning a corner. If we stick to our plan, we can be confident of seeing pressures reduce for families and of achieving healthy economic growth. At the autumn statement, we unveiled 110 growth measures, including unlocking £20 billion of business investment. This includes a substantial labour market package, delivering a tax cut to national insurance for 27 million people, as well as reforming pensions and extending investment zones. The real risk to economic growth and prosperity in this country is the fact that the Labour party has no plan for growth—no plan at all. While they may pretend that they have abandoned their £28 billion pledge, they are still committed to their damaging 2030 energy policy, which, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, costs £28 billion. All of us across this House know what that means: higher taxes and lower growth with Labour.
Rachel Reeves
The Chancellor should be here explaining why Britain has fallen into recession. Will the Minister explain why he has been left to answer these questions, and where exactly the Chancellor is? The Chancellor should be accountable to MPs and to our constituents, and answer for his failure in the House. What an insult to all those people who go to work every day and experience the reality of 14 years of Conservative economic failure that he has simply failed to turn up.
Does the Minister accept that the Prime Minister’s promise to grow the economy is now in tatters? Will the Minister explain why the economy is now smaller than when the current Prime Minister entered 10 Downing Street? Does the Minister accept the misery that this Government have caused homeowners with their kamikaze Budget, leaving a typical family renewing their mortgage paying an additional £240 every single month?
The Chief Secretary is also notable for her absence today, and was last seen refusing or simply failing to recognise that their target measure of debt as a share of GDP is rising, not falling. Following her rebuke this morning from the chair of the UK Statistics Authority about misleading the public, can the Minister inform the House whether the Chief Secretary will again be relying on incompetence as her best defence?
It is not good enough. The whole country knows that the economy is not working for working people under the Conservatives. It is time for change. If the Government seriously think everything is fine, why do they not take their record of failure and let the British people decide?
Bim Afolami
I am coming to that.
The right hon. Lady started by talking about the Chancellor; as Economic Secretary, I am perfectly entitled to answer on behalf of the Department and I will do so today. The main thrust of her remarks was on growth; let me deal with that in detail.
The first point to recognise is the international context that we all find ourselves in. [Interruption.] It happens to be true. For example—to describe that international context—10 EU countries were in recession in 2023. In relation to forecasts, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s original forecast was that there would be a contraction of 1.5% in the economy; we have significantly outperformed that. As I have said, the Bank of England forecast the longest recession in 100 years; we have significantly outperformed that. On wages, I think this is the sixth month in a row when wages have been higher than inflation, which, as I have said, we have more than halved.
On the Chief Secretary, what she was explaining is that we were and are meeting our fiscal rule, which is that debt will be falling in the fifth year of the forecast excluding the Bank of England. That is what she explained, and that is what I am reiterating for the House. [Interruption.]
Labour Members do not like hearing this, but they have absolutely no plan on the economy. We have been clear about our plan, and it is starting to bear fruit with wages, with cutting taxes for working people starting in January, with higher business investment as a result of our full expensing in the autumn statement. The shadow Chancellor does not have to take it from me; the Office for Budget Responsibility said that the two fiscal events in 2023—the Budget and the autumn statement—would represent the largest increase to GDP that it has ever scored. What I say to her and the House is this: our plan is working; stick with the plan and do not throw it away with the Opposition.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
It is good news that unemployment has stayed low by European standards, and the economy is still generating plenty of job vacancies. Will the Government take more steps to help more people into those jobs, so that we can get faster growth, bring down the benefit bill and boost their incomes?
Bim Afolami
The whole House knows that my right hon. Friend is somewhat of an expert on matters relating to the economy. To answer his point specifically, the national insurance tax cut was scored at the last fiscal event—the autumn statement—as significantly increasing the number of people in work. Although I will not speculate on fiscal events, that point has been very much noted by me and the whole Treasury.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Minister spoke about resilience, but the fourth quarter contraction in the economy was the biggest quarterly fall since early 2021 at the height of the covid pandemic, so I am not sure he is quite right about resilience. He also spoke about growth, but the Government told us in November that growth is not forecast to exceed 2% in any year in the forecast period. How modest the Minister’s ambitions are.
National debt is still approaching 100% of GDP—£3 trillion. The consequences of Brexit are suppressing growth, and that poses a challenge to the UK Government’s fiscal targets. Although it is welcome that inflation has fallen, prices remain high. Prices are not falling; they are simply going up slightly less steeply than they were a month or two ago. It is obvious that what the economy needs is growth, and the investment to generate that growth, but given that business investment, according to the Government, is forecast down this year by 5.6%, private dwelling investment is forecast down this year by 6%, and flat at 0% next year, and general Government investment is forecast down in ’25, ’26, ’27 and ’28, where will the investment for growth come from?
Bim Afolami
I deeply respect the right hon. Gentleman, and I will take his points one by one. On resilience, the way we get resilience for ordinary people and for households is to ensure that real household incomes increase. Since 2010, they are up 12%. We are trying to increase business resilience with our full expensing regime, which is revolutionary in the advanced world. Full expensing will enable more businesses to invest and will deal with the chronic weakness of the British economy, which is weak investment. That is why we are doing that.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned growth. Growth is not as high as we would like, and that is the case across the whole of Europe and the whole of the industrialised world. That is why the Chancellor in the last fiscal event put in place 110 growth measures. We have a plan for growth over the long term, and we will deliver it. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned debt. To repeat the point I made to the shadow Chancellor, debt is falling in the fifth year of the forecast according to our fiscal rule, which excludes the Bank of England. That is not just the fiscal rule now; it has always been the fiscal rule.
The right hon. Gentleman makes the fair point that lower inflation does not mean that prices are falling. Indeed, lower inflation is a lower rate of increase. We all know that in this House. That is why bringing down inflation is so important, and the Opposition, with their plan to recklessly jack up borrowing and taxes to the extent of £28 billion, will increase inflation.
I repeat that investment has been a long-term weakness of the British economy. We are taking long-term measures to deal with it, and I hope that in the next fiscal event—the Budget—we will continue in that vein.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
May I thank my hon. Friend for his distinguished service as a voice of His Majesty’s Government? I refer him to what the former chief economist of the Bank of England, Andrew Haldane, said today, referring to a “double blow” to the credibility of the Bank of England, which was late to put interest rates up and missed inflation, and has been slow to reduce them, hammering the economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bank of England is no longer showing itself to be competent and that its independence must be questioned?
Bim Afolami
I do not think that I will quite agree with my right hon. Friend. It is very important that we leave the Bank of England to do its work and respect its independent mandate, but that, from the Treasury, we do what we can to bring inflation down and support it in that mandate. As I said, the Labour party’s plans—whether it claims to have dropped them or not—will lead to an increase in borrowing or an increase in taxes, which will significantly damage that aim.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I think the Minister is failing the audition. Labour will not take lectures from him about borrowing, which was at 67% of GDP when we left office and is now nearly 100%. He is claiming that somehow growth is happening, but we are actually in a recession, which means that there is no growth; in fact, there is negative growth. GDP per capita fell in every quarter of last year, meaning that everybody is getting worse off under his appalling stewardship of the economy. Is it not time that the junior Minister went back to his boss and told him, “It’s all over. Time’s up. Call the general election.”?
Bim Afolami
It is definitely above my pay grade to call elections. In relation to GDP per capita statistics, which are important—the point of them is to try to get a sense of what is happening to individuals or to individual households and families—I would say—[Interruption.] Let me—[Interruption.] I wish the shadow Chancellor would allow me to respond. Real household incomes, which are as good a measure as any to see what is happening to individuals and families in our economy, are up 12% since 2010. If we are looking at people at the bottom of the income scale, the rise in the national living wage that comes in in April will mean a rise since 2010 of about 30% in real terms for people on full-time minimum wages. Those two statistics are examples of what has happened to real people on the ground.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I thank the Minister for updating the House. Does he agree that people in Redditch and elsewhere are concerned about negative economic news—although it almost always turns out to be wrong? Most of all, does he agree that the greatest risk to my constituents in Redditch and those across the country is a Labour Government? Labour has said it can somehow magically get £28 billion of green growth benefits without paying for them. We all know that my constituents will be paying for that through extra borrowing and higher taxes.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister has no responsibility for the Labour party. Let us move on.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister says the Government’s priority is backing British business, cutting inflation and reducing the pressure on British families. When the Government admit this measure will increase inflation, when British business is tearing its hair out at the chaos caused by not knowing what the charge will be and who will pay it—with less than 10 weeks to go—and when British consumers will find that it causes food shortages and an increase in food prices, why on earth are the Government going ahead with the Brexit border tax? Will the Minister commit here and now to cancelling it, so that we can stop this inflationary measure—yes or no?
Bim Afolami
I thank the hon. Lady for focusing on inflation. She is right that it is critical, and bringing it down is a focus for the Government. The House has heard her point about the European Union, but I would add that we have a clear plan for bringing down inflation, which we will continue to carry out. She has to ask those on her Front Bench why they do not have one.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
For too long, too many people in the Treasury—not my hon. Friend, who is an excellent Minister—have thought that the best way to grow the economy is to fill the country with more and more people. Will the Government recommit to insisting that anyone who comes here to work should earn the average UK earnings of around £33,000 a year? That means no shortage schemes and no exemption for care workers or the NHS, but that in those sectors we pay proper wages, we get people off benefits—too many people are on them, dragging down our economy—and we seriously cut mass legal migration; and, by the way, if there is a general election, let us give our people something to vote for.
Bim Afolami
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about migration. I completely agree that we need higher earnings for British people, not an economy where we import too many people and keep earnings down. That is why we have been focusing on raising the national living wage and ensuring that ordinary household incomes will go up as a result of this Government’s policies, as I have explained. It is worth pointing out that certain things happened last year, such as people fleeing Ukraine and Hong Kong, which meant that the immigration numbers were particularly high. The broad thrust of what my right hon. Friend said is correct: we want a high-skill, high-wage economy.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I do not know whether the Minister realises quite how infuriating people find watching his Government tell them, “Everything is fine”, “It is all going really well” and “There’s nothing to see here”, when every day they feel poorer and small businesses are closing. If the Prime Minister and the Chancellor cannot face reality, how on earth can anyone trust them to solve the economic crisis that their Government created?
Bim Afolami
Let me be clear with the hon. Lady, whom I have a huge amount of time for as a very good Member of Parliament: it is not our position that everything is okay. There has been a challenging international context: a once-in-100-years pandemic, and an energy crisis caused by Putin’s war in Ukraine. This Government have done everything we possibly can to build an economy for growth, and I hope we have her support.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What distinguishes this recession is the 800 jobs that have been created every day since this Government came to power in 2010—the very antithesis of anything ever achieved by a Labour Government, who have always left unemployment higher than they found it—is it not?
Bim Afolami
It is—and I would add something else: the figures for home repossession were much higher when there was a recession under the Labour Government in 2008-09, in comparison with our record now, and unemployment now is much lower than it was then. Though we are in challenging times, the economy is turning a corner. Our record compares very favourably Labour’s.
Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)
The Chancellor said last May that he was comfortable with the prospect of a recession. Now that my constituents in Selby and Ainsty are suffering under that recession’s effects, would the Minister chalk it up as a job well done?
Bim Afolami
The hon. Gentleman will do well. There is nobody on the Government Benches who welcomes adverse economic situations for anybody. That is why we are doing everything we can—straining every sinew—to grow the economy. All the measures I have laid out will continue, but they would be put at risk by those on his Front Bench being in office.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Before I came to this House, I was a director of quite a large retail group in North Norfolk. No one has made the point that in the last quarter of the year the country saw Babet, Ciaran, Debi, Elin, Fergus and Gerrit—six major storms and floods. How many were there in the previous year? Absolutely none at all. Will the Economic Secretary tell everybody that of course the economy will not function properly in the grip of storms and floods every fortnight? We are not in recession, but the more we talk it up, the more we will be.
Bim Afolami
I thank my hon. Friend for that question—I would say that the loss of large retail groups in Norfolk is the House’s gain. His point about the international context is serious and important. Although Labour Members do not like to hear it, facing a once-in-100-years pandemic and Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, which caused energy prices to skyrocket, will have adverse impacts on the economy. The country understands that and the House understands that; the Labour Front Bench should also understand it.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
This recession is a direct result of the choices that this Government have made. Years of potential growth have been missed, and the Government have failed particularly to capitalise on the green transition. Green investment will be worth £1 trillion globally by 2030, including half a million jobs in this country. When will the Government bring forward a green investment programme to match the ones in the US or in Europe?
Bim Afolami
First, our record on decarbonisation beats anywhere else in the G7, so we do not take lessons from the United States or any other country in that regard. In relation to the green investment plan by 2030, the hon. Lady should direct her ire at those on the Labour Front Bench for not being clear as to what their plan is. The Leader of the Opposition says—[Interruption.] Well, it is important because politics is a contest of ideas, as indeed it is a contest between two parties. If Labour Members believe they can spend an extra £28 billion without that having an impact on taxes and borrowing, they are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the British people.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The past couple of years have been very difficult economically, and I certainly do not treat the state of our economy as the giggle-fest that Labour Members seem to be having today. Over the past few weeks, I have met many businesses in my constituency—large and small—and a number have told me that they feel conditions are getting better, demand is growing and orders are coming back. Constituents have also told me that they have noticed food prices dropping in our supermarkets. Does the Minister agree that the most damaging thing that could happen to our economy now would be for those on the Labour Benches to continue to talk our economy down?
Bim Afolami
My right hon. Friend is correct that things are starting to get better for many people across the country, including small businesses. We have more than halved inflation, which is now down below 4%; we think that in the coming months it will go to 2%, which is the target. Of course, once it hits that target, we hope that interest rates will also start coming down, which will make a big difference to ordinary people up and down the country.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I applaud the Minister’s willingness to take on this unenviable assignment, unlike his right hon. Friends. The international context that he refers to is that Japan and the UK are the only G7 countries in recession. Inflation in the UK, which he has referred to, is the highest in the whole G7. Why is the UK economy doing so much worse than comparable economies elsewhere?
Bim Afolami
The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I would say that our economy entered difficult times at a different point in the cycle from certain other economies. To fully assess the performance of all economies, we have to wait for the end of this whole period, so I would not prejudge exactly at this stage. I simply say that the difficulties we are facing have affected every single economy, although the nature of different economies means that they are affected at different times. We are putting in place comprehensive growth measures and comprehensive measures to bring inflation down. I also note that UK interest rates are roughly middle-of-the-pack compared with other countries of comparable size. We will keep all this under review and, at the next fiscal event, will take further measures to increase our potential growth rate over the long term.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Does the Minister welcome the news that the South Yorkshire Mayor has finally recognised the economic importance of Doncaster-Sheffield Airport and is at last starting to use the powers given to him to begin the process of getting it up and running again? Does he agree that that has taken far too long—it is years since the airport closed —and that the South Yorkshire Mayor should have used his powers years ago, rather than waiting until nine weeks before he is re-elected?
Bim Afolami
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out once again what a brilliant champion he is for his constituency. I am sure his constituents have heard that comment, and that he will continue to make that point.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Lordy, lordy! It is like listening to the Red Queen in “Alice Through the Looking Glass”, who invented six impossible things before breakfast! How on earth can we have confidence in what the Minister says when the UK Statistics Authority had to tell off the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), for making false claims about tax cuts; when Evan Davis had to school her at length and she refused even to understand how wrong she was about debt falling as a percentage of GDP, when it is going up; and when the Minister himself actually said that the NHS accounts for 42% to 43% of everything the Government spend, when it is only 15%? Can he confirm one fact: these two years will see the biggest fall in living standards since records began? That is why people are going to vote the Government out, isn’t it?
Bim Afolami
I have already explained the Chief Secretary’s comments. In relation to my own, I was referring to current spending and not overall spending. I clarified that as well. Look, there have been difficulties for so many millions of people across the country and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have never sought to minimise that from this position or from any other position in the House. We have faced once-in-a-hundred-years challenges. The Government have faced them and taken the right action to deal with them. The cost of living support package is worth over £100 billion, to the tune of more than £3,700 per person. We have dealt with those challenges and we have a plan now to grow the economy to grow our way out of them. I am afraid that Labour Members and the Labour Front Bench do not have that sort of plan, which is why I would not make the assumption that he makes about the election.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
The number of those who are on long-term sickness benefits in Blackpool has increased fourfold over the last few decades. That represents an enormous loss of potential, and it is also hurting economic growth and productivity. The Government’s proposed reforms in this area are to be welcomed, but rather than delaying them until next year, what is preventing the Government from bringing them in this year?
Bim Afolami
I will take that point away. I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the next financial year. At the next fiscal event, the Budget, the Chancellor will bear what he has said in mind.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Fourteen years of Conservative mismanagement of the economy are having disastrous impacts on working people. For example, musicians are waiting months to be paid because HMRC is failing to process A1 forms on time for musicians touring in Europe. The trade body LIVE—Live music, Industry Venues and Entertainment—told me that in one case 26 musicians, performers and sound engineers were not paid for more than three months after their tour to Spain, due to delays in processing A1 forms. Even worse, in response to written questions, I have been told that service standards for those forms will not be met by HMRC until at least April 2024. Does the Minister agree that those delays are totally unacceptable, particularly when our musicians are already having to cope with a challenging financial landscape, made worse now by the news of a recession?
Bim Afolami
I agree that we need to speed up the processing of A1 forms, as the hon. Lady describes. I am sure the Treasury heard that point and I will ensure my ministerial colleagues take what she says very seriously indeed.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Whatever spin the Government may put on it, forecasts show that the economy has officially entered a recession. However, people out there have been suffering grinding economic pressure for years. Average energy bills are 59% higher than they were in 2022, and more than 600,000 Welsh households are in fuel poverty. Meanwhile, the profits of energy companies such as British Gas have increased tenfold to £750 million. This is the Minister’s chance to make a difference to every household. He has referred to the next fiscal event. Will he act to extend and backdate the windfall tax on energy companies that are currently profiteering from households everywhere?
Bim Afolami
The right hon. Lady is right that many people have had very challenging times over the last couple of years. Let me correct something that I previously said to the House: the increase in real household incomes since 2010 is actually 8%, while the increase in GDP per capita is 12%. I wanted to put that on the record. As for taxes, I cannot speculate about what will happen at the next fiscal event.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
According to the forecast, in five years’ time debt will be higher than it is now. Is this a reasonable time to be talking about tax cuts, and does their doing so not suggest that the Government have learnt nothing from the Budget of September 2022?
Bim Afolami
I assure the hon. Gentleman that this Chancellor and this Government are very different from those in September 2022 to which he refers. As for debt, I repeat that we are keeping to our fiscal rule, which is and has always been that debt will be falling in the fifth year of the forecast—falling, once we exclude the Bank of England. That has always been our position, and it will continue to be the case.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
The Minister has made no mention of the importance to the UK Treasury of North sea oil, and indeed the danger to the Scottish economy of the closure of Grangemouth Refinery. Given that the UK Treasury received £8 billion in revenues from the North sea last year and is expected to receive £6.1 billion this year, can it not find the tens of millions—not the tens of billions that it will receive in revenue—to ensure that the HydroCracker can be restarted and the profitability of the refinery increased threefold?
Bim Afolami
I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s specific point and ensure that the Treasury gets back to him, but his broader point about offshore oil and gas in the North sea is very important. It is critical that we support the oil and gas sector, not just for the tax revenues but for the livelihoods and prosperity of the United Kingdom, and this Government stand four-square behind it.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
There is overwhelming evidence that the lower the economic inequalities, the higher economic growth will be. We know from the Office for National Statistics that between 2021 and 2022 the disposable incomes of the poorest fifth of households shrank by 3.4% while those of the richest fifth increased by 3.3%, and that reflected the position in the preceding 10 years. What assessment has the Minister, or the Chancellor, undertaken to estimate the impacts of these increasing inequalities on our shrinking growth?
Bim Afolami
When we are talking about people at the bottom end of the income scale, it is important to note that those on the full-time national living wage—which we will be increasing by the largest ever amount in April this year—will be 30% better off than they were in 2010.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
News that the UK is officially in recession comes as no surprise to my constituents, who have been battered by this Tory cost of living crisis. Food inflation is still double the headline rate of inflation, and that is not only affecting the price of the weekly shop but having a hugely negative effect on my local pub and hospitality sector, with many businesses on the brink. Instead of their fantasyland spinning that everything is going fine, what measures will the Government introduce to bring food inflation down?
Bim Afolami
As I have said many times this afternoon, inflation is a target for this Government: we aim to ensure that we continue to bring it down, and indeed we expect it to get to 2% in the coming months. In relation to food inflation specifically, at the last fiscal event we introduced full expensing, which will enable food manufacturers, supermarkets and others to increase their investment hugely, because it completely nets off against their tax—100% of the cost of their investment is netted off. The impact will be increased investment that will reduce their costs and reduce the cost of food in our shops. That is one of many measures that we are introducing to reduce food inflation.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said he was going to grow the economy and he has obviously failed: we are now in recession. In my constituency, families and small businesses are under severe pressure. Can the Minister possibly explain how he is going to address these very serious problems?
Bim Afolami
All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that we are in a very challenging international context and we have performed better than the international forecasts. We had high inflation, which really bedevilled this economy a couple of years ago, but we have more than halved it. We have a plan to grow our way out of this, as was shown by the last fiscal event, where we unveiled, I think, 110 growth measures. That is our plan. The Labour Opposition do not have a plan. If this country sticks with our plan, we will grow our economy significantly over the coming months and years.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Minister keeps trying to hide behind the war in Ukraine and the impact of the pandemic, but the reality is that those are affecting every country in the world. Would he not admit that the exacerbating factor—the thing that has led most to economic decline, to massive labour shortages and to rampant inflation here in the UK—is Brexit?
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The economy is in recession and the consequences for the public finances are not the fault of those people infected and affected through the contaminated blood scandal, the largest treatment disaster in the NHS. I was hoping to ask the Chancellor this question, but can the Minister confirm whether money has already been ringfenced to pay compensation to those people, as set out in the final recommendations on compensation by Sir Brian Langstaff in April 2023?
Bim Afolami
I believe that the right hon. Lady asked a similar question of the Chancellor at the last Treasury questions, and the Chancellor responded by saying that he was absolutely clear about the need to compensate people in the way that she has described. He will update the House in due course and indeed update her with further details in response to her question.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has failed to get growth and industry has completely lost confidence in this Government. With projects cancelled, HS2 cancelled, Building Schools for the Future cancelled, hospitals never built and an absolute failure to bring down high energy prices, it is no wonder that business investment forecasts are down. With the US and the EU incentivising investment, what is the Minister now going to do to get the investment we need in the green manufacturing industries of the future?
Bim Afolami
To increase investment we brought in full expensing at the last fiscal event, which should represent an increase over the forecast period of £14 billion of investment and deal with the chronic weakness of our economy over generations. That is what we are doing to increase investment. In relation to green investment in particular, what we are not doing is having a huge unfunded £28 billion plan—or maybe now it is not Labour’s plan; maybe it is a secret plan or maybe the Labour Front Benchers have stopped their plan. We have a responsible costed plan to increase investment; the Opposition do not have one.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
Let’s try this again. Public sector net debt is set to rise from 89% of GDP this year to 92.8% of GDP in 2028-29, according to the most recent Office for Budget Responsibility forecast. In case the Minister does not understand, that number is higher than today’s. The Prime Minister promised to reduce debt, but it is increasing. The plan isn’t working, is it?
Bim Afolami
The Prime Minister and the whole Government are committed to reducing debt as we get to the end of this economic forecast period, which is what we are doing.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Minister’s rosy picture of the economy shows a complete lack of awareness of what is actually going on in this country. He claims that the Labour party is somehow a risk to growth, but it is his party that has taken the country into recession. That shows a complete lack of self-awareness, too. That is the nub of the matter.
We are in a recession, yet the Chancellor is nowhere to be seen. I would have thought this was important enough for him to be here to answer questions. Given that growing the economy is yet another of the Prime Minister’s pledges that has not been met, who does the Minister think should carry the can for this failure: the Prime Minister or the Chancellor?
Bim Afolami
I will have to take the hon. Gentleman’s criticism of my self-awareness on the chin, but his broader point is serious. He is asking whether the Government and I are light-hearted or think that everything in the economy is absolutely fantastic, but it is not. That is why we have taken the measures that we have. It is why we cut tax for working people, beginning in January. It is why we are increasing business investment. It is why we had a more than £100-billion package of cost of living support, because we know how much many ordinary people in this country are suffering. And it is why we are trying to grow our economy overall, because that will result in greater prosperity for the country and more money for our public services. The Labour party puts all that at risk.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Government are failing. An 81-year-old constituent told me that he cannot remember the economy and living standards ever being this bad. Can the Minister not see that, under his Government, Britain is worse off?
Bim Afolami
I do not agree with the hon. Lady. I will not repeat everything I just said to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), but this Government and this Treasury are sticking to our plan for growth. That is all put at risk by the Labour party.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Office for Budget Responsibility assessed Boris Johnson’s trade and co-operation agreement, which sets out the trading relationship between the UK and the EU, at the beginning of last year, and it said that the TCA has reduced long-run productivity by 4%. Why does the Minister think that is?
Bim Afolami
We built on the trade and co-operation agreement through the Windsor framework, and the Opposition do not propose to change it. Indeed, the TCA is fundamental to the stability of our relationship with the European Union, and I do not think the country would benefit from unpicking it once again.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for all his answers. The questions have not been easy. The Office for National Statistics has revealed that there was a 0.3% decline in GDP between October and December 2023. Given that the strength of the economy was, and still is, the subject of one of the Prime Minister’s pledges, what steps is the Minister taking to reverse this decline, and to re-instil confidence in the Government’s economic plans?
Bim Afolami
I have already laid out the steps that we are taking, and there is a critical need to make sure that all the regions of our country benefit from those steps. That is one of the reasons why we put so much effort and focus into investment zones over the last couple of years. We hope that these investment zones will continue to increase growth in the economy, not only at a macro level, but for people in every region of this country—particularly in Northern Ireland and the other regions that perhaps did not benefit from this country’s previous growth. We are committed to strengthening that regionally.
Post Office Governance and Horizon Compensation Schemes
(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement about Post Office governance and the Horizon compensation schemes.
Over the weekend, several serious allegations were made against the Government, my Department and its officials by Henry Staunton, the former chair of the Post Office. The allegations are completely false, and I would like to make a statement to the House so that hon. Members and the British public know the truth about exactly what has happened. I would like to address three specific claims that Mr Staunton made in his Sunday Times interview—claims that are patently untrue.
First, Mr Staunton alleges that I refused to apologise to him after he learned of his dismissal from Sky News. That was not the case. In the call he referenced, I made it abundantly clear that I disapproved of the media breaking any aspect of the story. Out of respect for Henry Staunton’s reputation, I went to great pains to make my concerns about his conduct private. In fact, in my interviews with the press, I repeatedly said that I refuse to carry out HR in public. That is why it is so disappointing that he has chosen to spread a series of falsehoods, provide made-up anecdotes to journalists and leak discussions held in confidence. All that merely confirms in my mind that I made the correct decision in dismissing him.
Secondly, Mr Staunton claims that I told him that “someone’s got to take the rap” for the Horizon scandal, and that was the reason for his dismissal. That was not the reason at all. I dismissed him because there were serious concerns about his behaviour as chair, including those raised by other directors on the board. My Department found significant governance issues. For example, a public appointment process was under way for a new senior independent director to the Post Office board, but Mr Staunton apparently wanted to bypass it and appoint someone from the board without due process. He failed to properly consult the Post Office board on the proposal; he failed to hold the required nominations committee; and, most importantly, he failed to consult the Government, as a shareholder, which the company was required to do. I know that hon. Members will agree with me that such a cavalier approach to governance was the last thing we needed in the Post Office, given its historical failings.
I should also inform the House that while Mr Staunton was in post, a formal investigation was launched into allegations made regarding his conduct, including serious matters such as bullying. Concerns were brought to my Department’s attention about Mr Staunton’s willingness to co-operate with that investigation.
It is right that the British public should know the facts behind the case, and what was said in the phone call in which I dismissed Mr Staunton. Officials from my Department were on the line; the call was minuted, and a read-out was sent after it took place. Today, I am depositing a copy of that read-out in both Libraries of the House, so that hon. Members and the public can see the truth. In those minutes, personal information relating to other Post Office employees has been redacted. For all those reasons, an interim chair will be appointed shortly, and I will, of course, update the House when we have further details.
Finally, Mr Staunton claims that when he was first appointed as chair of the Post Office, he was told by a senior civil servant to stall on paying compensation. There is no evidence whatsoever that that is true. In fact, on becoming Post Office chair, Mr Staunton received a letter from the permanent secretary of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Sarah Munby, on 9 December 2022, welcoming him to his role and making it crystal clear that successfully reaching settlements with victims of the Post Office scandal should be one of his highest priorities. That letter is in the public domain. The words are there in black and white, and copies of the correspondence will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The reality is that my Department has done everything it can to speed up compensation payments for victims. We have already made payments totalling £160 million across all three compensation schemes. That includes our announcement last autumn of the optional £600,000 fixed-sum award for those who had been wrongfully convicted. It is the strongest refutation of those in this House who would claim that we acted only after the ITV drama, “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, was shown. British people should know that a dedicated team of Ministers and civil servants have been working around the clock for many months to hasten the pursuit of justice, and bring swift, fair redress to all those affected.
To that end, I am pleased that all 2,417 postmasters who claimed through the original Horizon shortfall scheme have now had offers of compensation. The Post Office is dealing promptly with late applications and cases where the initial offer has not been accepted. My Department has also established the Horizon compensation unit to ensure that money gets to the right people without a moment’s delay. Last autumn, we announced an additional £150 million to the Post Office, specifically to help it meet the costs of participating in the Post Office-Horizon inquiry and delivering compensation to postmasters. In all, we have committed around £1 billion to ensure that wronged postmasters can be fully and fairly compensated, and through forthcoming legislation, we are taking unprecedented steps to quash the convictions of postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal.
In short, we are putting our money where our mouth is, and our shoulders to the wheel to ensure that justice is done. It is not fair on the victims of this scandal, which has already ruined so many lives and livelihoods, to claim, as Mr Staunton has done, that things are being dragged out a second longer than they ought to be. For Henry Staunton to suggest otherwise, for whatever personal motives, is a disgrace, and it risks damaging confidence in the compensation schemes that Ministers and civil servants are working so hard to deliver. I would hope that most people reading the interview in yesterday’s Sunday Times would see it for what it was: a blatant attempt to seek revenge following dismissal.
I must say that I regret the way in which these events have unfolded. We did everything that we could to manage this dismissal in a dignified way for Mr Staunton and others. However, I will not hesitate to defend myself and, more importantly, my officials, who cannot respond directly to these baseless attacks. Right now, the Post Office’s No. 1 priority must be delivering compensation to postmasters who have not already been compensated. There were those who fell victim to a faulty IT system that the Post Office implemented, and that it turned a blind eye to when brave whistleblowers such as Alan Bates sounded the alarm. We said that the Government would leave no stone unturned in uncovering the truth behind the Horizon scandal, and in pursuing justice for the victims and their families. We are delivering on that promise, while looking for any further possible steps that we can take to ensure the full and final settlement of claims as quickly as possible.
It is right that we reflect, too, on the cultural practices at the Post Office that allowed the Horizon scandal to happen in the first place. It was a culture that let those in the highest ranks of the organisation arbitrarily dismiss the very real concerns of the sub-postmasters who are the lifeblood of their business and pillars of the local community. Although the Post Office may have failed to stand by its postmasters in the past, we are ensuring that it does everything that it can to champion them today, and to foster an environment that respects their employees and their customers. That is how we will rebuild trust and ensure that the British public can have confidence in our Post Office, now and in the future. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I firmly agree that the revelations in The Sunday Times at the weekend could not be more serious. In particular, if true, the claim that the Post Office was instructed to deliberately go slow on compensation payments to sub-postmasters in order to push the financial liability into the next Parliament would be a further outrageous insult in a scandal that has already rocked faith in the fairness of the British state. If that is the case, it cannot be allowed to stand, and if it is not, it must be shown to be false in no uncertain terms. We have two completely contrasting accounts: one from the former chair of the Post Office, and one from the Secretary of State. Only one of them can be the truth. I hope that we are all in agreement that Parliament is the correct place for these matters to be raised and clarified. What we need now is transparency and scrutiny.
Will the Secretary of State categorically state that the Post Office was at no point told to delay compensation payments by either an official or a Minister from any Government Department, and that at no point was it suggested that a delay would be of benefit to the Treasury? Will there be a Cabinet Office investigation to ensure that no such instruction or inference was given at any point? Crucially, is the £1 billion figure for compensation, which the Secretary of State helpfully just repeated, already allocated, and sat in the accounts of the Department for Business and Trade, ready to be paid? If it is not, will compensation payments be specifically itemised in the upcoming Budget?
The Secretary of State will also understand that following the story at the weekend, victims of other scandals—especially of the contaminated blood scandal—feel that they need to ask whether they have been the victims of deliberate inaction. Will the Government provide assurances that no such obstruction has been placed on any payments of this kind? If so, can they explain what the delay is in some cases? In the full interests of transparency, and to fully ascertain the veracity of any allegations for sub-postmasters and the general public, will she publish all relevant correspondence, and minutes of meetings between the Department, the Treasury, UK Government Investments and the Post Office during this time? Finally, when can we expect the legislation on exoneration that was promised by the Prime Minister?
I cannot stress enough that the last thing that was needed in this scandal was any further allegation of cover-up or obfuscation at the very top of Government. People’s faith in Government, already damaged by scandals such as Hillsborough, Bloody Sunday and Windrush, is hanging by a thread. This miscarriage of justice has shown the devastation that can occur when institutions are allowed to operate without oversight or are shrouded in secrecy. We should all agree that that secrecy must end, and that the full sunlight of public scrutiny should be brought to bear. If everything the Secretary of State has told us today is correct, surely there will be no objection to that happening fully.
Kemi Badenoch
I welcome the tone that the shadow Front-Bench spokesman has taken. There is often a tendency for political point scoring, but I think we both agree that this is very much about the postmasters. That is why I ensured that I was at the Dispatch Box: so that people would know the truth. That is what builds trust.
The shadow Minister asked whether I would categorically state that no instruction was given to delay payments. Yes, I can. We have no evidence whatever that any official said that. If such a thing was said, it is for Mr Staunton to bring the evidence. It is very hard to refute a negative. People making wild, baseless accusations and then demanding proof that they did not happen are making mischief, in my view. As far as I have seen, all the evidence points to the fact that no one gave that instruction.
It is also important to look at whether it would even make sense to do so. There would be no benefit whatever to our delaying the compensation, which has no significant impact on revenues. It would be a mad thing even to suggest. The compensation scheme, which Mr Staunton oversaw, has been completed. My understanding is that 100% of payments have been made, so clearly no such instruction was given. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the infected blood inquiry. This is a good example of how people lose faith in the system because of misinformation. That is why I am here to correct the record.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the £1 billion allocation. We give monthly reports that show exactly what payments are being made. He also asked whether we will publish correspondence. No, we will not publish in full all correspondence between Departments, UKGI and the Post Office. That is because we set up the statutory inquiry, which will examine the important issues related to the Horizon scandal, as well as current governance arrangements. We are fully co-operating with the inquiry, but the inquiry was set up by Parliament specifically to look at that. In addition to the read-out of the true content of my telephone call with Mr Staunton, we will consider publishing correspondence between Departments and Mr Staunton in accordance with freedom of information rules, so that people will know exactly what happened, contrary to his account. The hon. Gentleman asked about legislation. That is something that we are actively working on. I expect that we will be able to deliver on that imminently.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
When I was the postal affairs Minister, the officials in my team not only shared my drive to get the money out of the door—life-changing money for postmasters—but were energised and empowered to do so. I cannot believe for a minute that just a few months later they would be doing and thinking the polar opposite. Clearly, they cannot defend themselves in public, so will my right hon. Friend confirm that conversations about colluding to slow down the compensation did not happen? It is important that we double down and get more money out of the door as soon as possible.
Kemi Badenoch
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his fantastic work as the postal affairs Minister, and I can confirm that. My officials have looked through all the correspondence, and all the minutes of the conversations that Mr Staunton had with the Department. They found absolutely nothing, and he did not raise the matter in his call with me. If it were something that officials had said to him, surely he would have mentioned it to Ministers—either myself or the postal affairs Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). The fact that Mr Staunton did not do so shows that it is quite likely something that he is making up.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I am at a loss today: another Monday, another Post Office scandal. I have tried very hard to pull together my thoughts on the statement, what was said in The Sunday Times, and what was said in this place less than two weeks ago when I led a Backbench Business debate on the culture of Post Office management.
I will ask the Secretary of State a few questions. Will she place on the record whether Nick Read wrote to the Justice Secretary last month defending the convictions, saying that some postmasters were guilty? That is a serious allegation, and I would really like to have an answer.
There has been talk all morning about damaging confidence in the compensation schemes. If there is confidence in them, can the Secretary of State explain why so many leading sub-postmasters affected by the scandal were given such derisory offers, months and months late? That is just not on. The Secretary of State cannot say that Henry Staunton damaged the compensation schemes; it was down to the Government and Post Office Ltd.
Is the Secretary of State aware that Post Office Ltd still employs 40 investigators who secured convictions? I agree with what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) said: exoneration must be hurried up and compensation must be paid sooner rather than later. I have said that every month for the last nine months.
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Lady asks multiple questions. The first is about a letter written by Nick Read, Post Office’s chief executive, to the Justice Secretary. What I can say is that UKGI and Post Office Ltd have both vehemently denied that Nick Read was put under any pressure to write the letter she refers to.
On the risks of making a decision on blanket exoneration, the postal affairs Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), has said repeatedly that we have been faced with a dilemma: either to accept the present problem of many people carrying the unjustified slur of conviction, or to accept that an unknown number of people who have genuinely stolen from their post offices will be exonerated and perhaps even compensated. That is the case, and it is certainly what the Government believe. What she says about people being put under pressure to write a letter is something that UKGI and Post Office Ltd have both vehemently denied.
The hon. Lady repeats Mr Staunton’s allegations, but I have already given a statement saying that they are completely false. She asks about individual cases of people who have been paid. I cannot comment on individual cases, but I would like to clarify that the main scheme in place under Henry Staunton’s watch was the Horizon shortfall scheme. Some 2,417 people were made offers within the original deadline. One hundred per cent have received offers, but 84% have accepted offers. I just wanted to clarify my previous comments.
On the 40 prosecutors still working for Post Office, I have had multiple people giving different bits of information. The inquiry is looking at that and will get to the bottom of it.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State review the governance of UKGI? How did it manage to preside over the Post Office with its dreadful treatment of sub-postmasters? How did UKGI allow senior Post Office managers to rack up and accumulate losses of £1,390 million, effectively bankrupting the Post Office so that it can now trade only if it has the reassurance of massive cash infusions from the Treasury on a continuing basis? Surely this body has done very badly, and we need a better answer.
Kemi Badenoch
That is one of the reasons why we have been making personnel changes in this area. It goes back to the point I was making in the statement: Post Office needs an effective chair. Until the day I had the conversation dismissing him, I never had any correspondence from Mr Staunton about difficulties that he was having with UKGI. If he was having difficulties, he should have told me, rather than give an interview to The Sunday Times effectively stating that he had no control over the organisation that he had been appointed to run.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says we have to accept that Henry Staunton’s accusations are completely false. The letter that Nick Read wrote to the Lord Chancellor about overturning convictions mentioned that about 300 people are possibly going to be “guilty”. She has just told the House that the investment body did not instruct him to do that. Henry Staunton said he did not tell Post Office to write the letter, and the board did not know about it, so who did? For the sake of openness and transparency, she should produce all correspondence between UKGI and Post Office. The Secretary of State has accused Henry Staunton of lying in public. The only way we can judge whether she is telling the truth is if we have all the information out there.
Can I just say to the Secretary of State, in relation to her obsession with tweeting, that although she says that people are jumping “on the bandwagon”, some of us have been involved in this for many years on a cross-party basis, including through work with her colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), so that is quite insulting. What message will the Secretary of State’s tone today send to sub-postmasters? I will tell her: more cover-up and obfuscation. Get the information out there and explain what is going on. Otherwise, she will not have their trust. It will just be more of the same that we have seen over many, many years.
Kemi Badenoch
I completely reject the right hon. Gentleman’s assertions. This is the political point scoring that I talked about earlier, which we just need to stop. Rather than focusing on the issue, he is talking about my tweeting. Maybe he should get off Twitter and actually listen to what I am saying at the Dispatch Box. He is talking about a letter that UKGI says it did not ask Nick Read to write. The only possible answer is that Nick Read himself decided to write that letter. I did not ask him to write it, the Post Office says that it did not, and UKGI did not. These are the sorts of things I am talking about—continuing to make aspersions about Ministers. We have made the Post Office an independent body, we have an independent inquiry, and the information will come out in due course.
Sir Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
There is no doubt that there was a bad culture in the Post Office for a very long time. It misled a significant number of Ministers, who, to put it gently, could have been more inquiring over the years. Has my right hon. Friend had time to reflect on the words of the non-executive members of the board representing the postmasters, who say that only days before she sacked the chairman, there was still a culture in which they were viewed as guilty and on the take? If that sacking has brought compensation to those people, who were traumatised and misled by the Post Office, and who had their lives destroyed, her decision will go down as a very welcome one.
Kemi Badenoch
I agree with my right hon. Friend. The comments by the members of the board who are former postmasters are very interesting. They are saying exactly what I am saying: that Henry Staunton was not doing a good job as Post Office chair. That leads me back to the point made by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is more interested in attacking the Government than in looking at what even the members of the board are saying. It is important that we continue to give confidence to people that those organisations are run properly. That was the reason for the dismissal.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Having supported constituents in negotiations in relation to the historical shortfall scheme, I can tell the Secretary of State that, whatever the reason for it, the conduct of the Post Office and its agents was characterised by delay and obstruction. That, in turn, led to the view taking hold among sub-postmasters that there was no point in making claims. Since the ITV drama aired, I have heard of several constituents making belated claims. What more are the Government doing to ensure that everybody out there who may have a claim is able to receive compensation?
Kemi Badenoch
The right hon. Gentleman’s question is a good one. The fixed-sum awards show that we are taking the matter very seriously. I became Business Secretary in February last year, and my one priority was to ensure that people got their compensation as quickly as possible. I did everything that I possibly could, with the Minister with responsibility for the Post Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), whom I thank for his tireless efforts. He had been looking at the portfolio before I got the job as Business Secretary, and I knew that the work was in safe hands. We have worked together as a team, fought cross-departmentally to ensure that people got the compensation that they deserved, and brought in legislation just before December—well before the ITV drama. The cases that the right hon. Gentleman raises are important, as they show that there is still a lot of work to do, and we will continue doing it.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Given the Post Office’s track record with accuracy, I am very glad that we have heard from the Secretary of State—I would rather take her assurances at the Dispatch Box than anything from a disgruntled, sacked former employee of the Post Office. Even during last week’s recess, I still had constituents coming to me saying that they were affected by the Horizon scandal, so can the Secretary of State assure the people watching that the process is very quick and simple? People who still feel that they lost money during that horrendous period need to keep coming forward, because there is an easy process: they can fill in a form to make sure their voice is heard and that they get compensation.
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend is quite right. I thank him for raising this issue, and also for the work he has done—as a former postmaster, he knows quite a lot about what has been going on. I reassure all of the people who have been affected by this scandal that it is something we take very seriously. When I became Business Secretary, I was absolutely horrified by the sheer scale of trauma that people had been going through. We want people to continue coming forwards; where they are not happy with the process, we will look at it again, but there is a formal process in place to ensure that all postmasters can be treated fairly, equally and equitably.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The allegations of limping towards the general election in relation to delaying compensation payments to postmasters mirror the Government’s behaviour towards the infected blood scandal. They have had the final recommendations for that compensation since April 2023, with no action having been taken, so it seems to me that there is a pattern of behaviour: the Government act only when they are forced or shamed into doing so. With the infected blood scandal, we have been told repeatedly by Ministers that the Government are working at pace. What that really means is that they are limping at pace, are they not?
Kemi Badenoch
No, no, and no. It is a shame that the right hon. Lady stands up in the Chamber and says that the Government acted only when we were forced to do so, because she knows that we brought legislation to this House well before the ITV drama. She knows about the Horizon shortfall scheme, the group litigation order payments and the overturned convictions. She is trying to mix this issue up with the infected blood inquiry, knowing that I have just proved that the allegations made by Mr Staunton are completely false. I have said that minutes will be put on the record showing that this is not an issue that Labour wants to look at beyond political point scoring. I will not stand at this Dispatch Box and allow that to happen.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
At the weekend, leaks to newspapers appeared to show really poor embedded practices at the Post Office board, using language about our postmasters being “on the take” or “guilty”. What is my right hon. Friend doing to clean up the act?
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is why we need effective leadership at the Post Office; and it is why I took the decision to dismiss Mr Staunton, among the other issues I have covered in this statement. We need people who care, and one of the things that worries me is that because Mr Staunton has decided to have revenge in the papers, it is going to be even harder for us to find people who will come in and do this very difficult job. I hope they will not be put off by the misinformation that has been in the papers.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for her prompt statement, and for laying out her version of events about the dismissal of Mr Staunton, the Post Office chairman. We have to accept her statements from the Dispatch Box, but I take exception to one point she made. She said that there was no evidence of stalling on compensation, but that evidence comes from the experience of my own constituents, Mr and Mrs Rudkin—their evidence to me was fundamental in unravelling this whole Post Office Horizon scandal. Susan Rudkin’s criminal conviction was overturned in December 2020—she was one of the first nine. When I spoke to Mr and Mrs Rudkin only a few weeks ago, over three years after that conviction was overturned, they still had not received their compensation. If that is not evidence of stalling, what is?
Kemi Badenoch
I cannot comment on that specific case, because I do not have the details, but a fixed sum award is available should Mr and Mrs Rudkin wish to take it. There is a process and we will move as quickly as we can. I cannot speak specifically about why there has been that delay, but we are doing everything we can to get the money out to the postmasters as quickly as possible.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I have a once-proud former postmaster in my constituency, who ran the post office in Swanage. He fell foul of this scandal and was sacked, not prosecuted. His life was utterly ruined and he repaid the money that was owed. That was many years ago, but his wife is now very ill and he has still not had compensation. May I make two points? First, his lawyer tells me that the compensation scheme is taking too long. Secondly, may I ask the Secretary of State for an assurance that he will not be brushed off financially simply because he was not prosecuted? The lives of this man and his wife have been utterly ruined.
Kemi Badenoch
I know exactly the sort of people my hon. Friend is talking about, and it is really awful to hear about everything they have been through. I have a constituent who has talked to me about how this scandal has ruined her life. We owe it to them to do everything we can to ensure that they are fully compensated, and I can assure him that Ministers and officials are working on this every day. I know it is not always as quick as people would like, but we want to ensure that it is done properly and that there are no issues following that. I do not have the specific details of that case, but they can apply to the Horizon shortfall scheme, and if my hon. Friend brings it to the attention of the postal affairs Minister, we will look at it specifically.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Ministers have promised that the Government will bring in a new law to swiftly exonerate and compensate victims, so can the Secretary of State tell me why my constituent Chris Head has been offered only 13% of his compensation claim? How can sub-postmasters trust the Government or the Post Office to deliver full and fair compensation when they are still facing so much pushback on their compensation claims and receiving offers that go nowhere near financial restoration, let alone compensation for the injustice? Can I quickly add that the Secretary of State’s suggestion that the Government would have acted in the same way had the ITV drama not been shown is thought to be completely unbelievable by most, and none more so than by the sub-postmasters themselves?
Kemi Badenoch
The fact is that when we took the legislation through the House in December, the Opposition Benches were empty. Opposition Members are the ones who decided to take a more keen interest after the drama; we have been working flat out. I do not have the specific details of her constituent’s case, as she knows, but I will continue to repeat what I have said, which is that where people have not received compensation, we can look at that. There is a process, and there is also an independent panel they can appeal to, but the vast majority of people who have been getting offers are taking them.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
Too often, quango bosses are rewarded for failure and can walk away with big payouts, and it would be a disgrace for the man who has done so little to get compensation for postmasters to get any himself. Can the Secretary of State confirm that she will block any such payments?
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I think the public squabble at the weekend further undermines people’s confidence in what is going to happen and in the Government’s assurances about compensating the people affected by the Post Office scandal. I tend to believe the view of the Secretary of State, simply because the record of Post Office officials trying to cover up, pass the buck and cause confusion is on the record, and we know what they are doing. However, the fact remains that there are still people who have not had any offer of compensation, there is still £1 billion that has not been spent in compensation, and there are still people whose cases have not even been considered. Is not the best way of answering Henry Staunton for the Government to get on with the job and ensure that compensation is paid quickly, and for people to get the compensation they deserve?
Kemi Badenoch
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. As I said earlier, 64% of people have received compensation, and we want to get that to 100% as quickly as possible. However, we want to ensure that people get the right amount and are compensated fairly, and that is why we have the process, including a point of appeal if they are unhappy with the offer.
The point the right hon. Gentleman made right at the beginning of his question is correct. The points made in the newspapers do undermine the work that we are doing. It was very disappointing to read those statements. It was also disappointing because I had done everything I could to try and keep this out of the news and do it behind closed doors, properly. I made sure when I gave public statements that I said I would not do HR in public. When I found out that it had been leaked to Sky News, I even called Sky News and asked—one of my assistants asked—for that not to be put out in the public domain before I had had a chance to speak to Henry Staunton. I did the same with the Daily Mail, which thankfully did listen. We also need the media to help us in this and not publish false allegations.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
I am absolutely staggered that the Labour party now seems to be coming out in support of the disgraced Post Office management team—the same management team that oversaw the wrongful imprisonment of postmasters across the country, with hundreds of convictions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when push comes to shove, that lot over there would take the side of the grifters, not the grafters?
Kemi Badenoch
As my hon. Friend says, the Post Office leadership oversaw wrongful convictions. That is one of the reasons why we have had multiple changes, and this is just the latest to ensure that we get the right leadership in place. [Interruption.] I know that some Opposition Members are dealing with this properly, but we can see from the heckling that many of them came here thinking that they could score political points, and I am not allowing that to happen.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Many Members are of course angry and impatient about trying to get compensation and exoneration for all of the postmasters as soon as possible. If we are all honest, we as a whole Parliament should have been much more impatient much earlier. There are some rare exceptions to that, including my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who spoke earlier, and obviously Members on the Government side of the House as well. May I just clarify something about the process of Mr Staunton’s dismissal? As I understand it, he found out about it from Sky News. I think the Secretary of State just added a piece of information, which is that she then rang Sky News, before ringing him I think, to try and get them to stop running it. So she knew that this had already been leaked to Sky News, presumably from somebody in her Department. What investigation did she go through to find out who leaked it, and is that person still in post, because otherwise one might just worry that it might have been she herself who leaked it?
Kemi Badenoch
I knew that someone would ask that question. I in fact have evidence to show that I asked Sky News not to run the story. Of course I did not leak it—because if I had, that would have created legal risk if Mr Staunton had found out on the news before I had had a chance to speak to him. We have no idea how Sky News found out the information—several thousand people work in the Department for Business and Trade, and many more work at the Post Office and UK Government Investments. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) is heckling, but the point I am making is that leaks are incredibly damaging and harmful; they create legal risk for the Department. I did not do so; I made multiple efforts with at least two media outlets to make sure that they did not create problems for Mr Staunton, and it is one of the reasons why it was very disappointing to see what he did in The Sunday Times at the weekend.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
To be honest, I am afraid I do not think that the Business Secretary and her statement have helped us to get closer to the truth in this situation; it is a question of the Secretary of State’s version of events and the former chairman’s version of events. For clarity, and to try to draw a line under this and get to the truth, is the Secretary of State willing to refer herself to the ethics adviser?
Kemi Badenoch
I think that is a ridiculous assertion, and from someone who clearly did not listen to the statement. The difference between what I am saying and what Mr Staunton is saying is that I have officials who will back me up, I have members of the Post Office board who will back me up, and I have newspaper and media outlets that know that I tried to stop the story. The fact is that the hon. Lady just wants to believe Mr Staunton’s allegations because that helps Labour politically, but they are not true. They need to listen to the truth and stop hoping for lies; that is not what our job is in this House.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
If Henry Staunton is guilty of what the Secretary of State has accused him, it beggars belief that he was appointed only two years ago by this Government. May I ask her about Post Office investigations? I have yet another constituent who has come forward who was forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement by the Post Office and who has not been fully compensated for what they lost when they lost their business. Is it acceptable for the Post Office still to be involved with investigations, given how discredited those are? How can the victims of this scandal have any confidence whatever in the process that the Post Office is involved with?
Kemi Badenoch
The way we have been dealing with this issue at the Dispatch Box, the work that the inquiry has carried out and our commitment to look at individual cases and ensure that the process is working out properly is how the postmasters will have confidence in the system.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
In recent weeks, I have met with a number of constituents who are former sub-postmasters and who have explained the terrible impact that this scandal has had on their lives. Although they were not convicted by the Post Office, they had to pay large sums of money for shortfalls that frankly did not exist. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government’s expectation is that those people will be compensated not only for the money they paid, but the financial and personal harm that this scandal caused in their lives?
Kemi Badenoch
That is definitely what we are trying to do. No one should be in a worse position than they were in before the scandal happened. Where we can provide additional compensation, we will be able to do so, and that is what the process is set up to do.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of us will be concerned about the Department that oversees employment rights being one where thousands of people know that somebody is about to be sacked before they do. We would agree with the Secretary of State that the process is about giving the public confidence that when wrongs come to light, they will be righted. The challenge she faces is that the track record of recent decades is not good. It is not just about the Horizon scandal, but the nuclear veterans, Windrush, the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, the infected blood scandal and Grenfell. Time and again, it is the compensation schemes that become the story and a source of injustice. Rather than taking to Twitter, would it not be the right rejoinder for her to become the first Secretary of State to say, “We should put the management of compensation schemes involving Government out to an independent body so that everyone can have confidence”? I am sure she would find support from Opposition Members for that.
Kemi Badenoch
First, I have not said that thousands of people knew that Henry Staunton was being sacked; I said that there are thousands of people who work in the Department, and it could have been anybody who put that out there. It is important that we stick to what has been said on the record. The hon. Lady mentions that these scandals go over decades, and I remind her that the Horizon scandal started under a Labour Government; it is this Government who are beginning to fix it.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
On the shortcomings of the Horizon scheme, I raise with the Secretary of State the case of my constituent Mr Pennington, a sub-postmaster for 20 years, who went through 10 years of financial distress paying back shortfall amounts generated by errors in the Horizon system. The poorly designed Horizon scheme has paid back only part of the shortfalls of possibly £100,000—and only a paltry £1,500 for 10 years of financial stress and worry. I wrote to the postal affairs Minister four weeks ago and have not had a response. When will the shortcomings of the Horizon scheme be reviewed, so that sub-postmasters such as Mr Pennington receive full—not part—compensation for all those years of distress?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Lady is right to raise that matter. We are aware of the problem. We are working with the advisory board to see how we can fix it and ensure that people get proper compensation. I have just been told by the postal affairs Minister that the letter she is expecting should be with her shortly.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. She will be aware that many post office branches have closed in recent years, including the Clapham Common post office in my constituency, which is due to close on 6 March. In her statement, she said:
“Right now, the Post Office’s No. 1 priority must be delivering compensation to postmasters”.
Does she agree that millions of pounds spent on the Post Office trying to pay innocent sub-postmasters would have been better spent on ensuring that we keep our vital post offices up and down the country?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Lady for her tireless work campaigning to save Clapham post office; I know she has had many meetings with the postal affairs Minister. We should be able both to keep post offices open and to compensate.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
As this is a genuine national scandal, the exoneration of sub-postmasters with criminal convictions requires that they be treated equally, with a shared speedy and common approach, across the UK. Both I and the recently reappointed Justice Minister in Northern Ireland have written to Ministers asking for Northern Ireland to be included in the forthcoming legislation. However, I understand that the Government are currently not minded to do that with the devolved Administrations. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Northern Ireland will be part of that legislation, which I hope will be brought forward soon?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman will know that Stormont is now up and running, and that we will be having conversations with devolved Governments on the best way to resolve this. We do not have an answer now, but we are aware of the issue and are working on it.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The reports on the weekend were extremely alarming, given how sub-postmasters have been treated in recent years. On the obvious question, can the Secretary of State give any assurance or guarantee that the compensation will be paid and taken forward before the general election is called? That surely is what sub-postmasters would ask for, and it is the least that they deserve.
Kemi Badenoch
That is absolutely the right thing to do. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, because it gives me another opportunity to restate that the very idea that compensation would be delayed until after the election is complete nonsense. It does not even make political sense. We want to ensure that people get their money as quickly as possible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her positive answers. Across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, hundreds of postmasters and postmistresses are still awaiting compensation for these wrongdoings. While it is understood that this is a sensitive subject for many, will she provide an update on the expected timescale for compensation of everyone who is entitled across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? The fact of the matter is, some people have waited two years, three years and longer, and it really cannot go on.
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman is right: it cannot go on. I want to see everyone get their money as quickly as possible. By the end of this year, everybody should have received it. That is certainly what I am working towards.
Death of Alexei Navalny
(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
With permission, I would like to update the House on the death of Alexei Navalny. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in sending our deepest condolences to Mr Navalny’s family, friends and supporters. We are appalled at the news of his death.
Mr Navalny dedicated his life, with great bravery, to exposing corruption. He called for free and fair politics and held the Kremlin to account. He was an inspiration to millions, and many Russians felt that he gave them a voice. The Russian authorities saw him as a threat. President Putin feared even to speak his name. Putin’s Russia imprisoned him on fabricated charges, poisoned him and sent him to an Arctic penal colony. Mr Navalny was a man of huge courage and iron will. Even from his remote prison cell, he persisted in advocating for the rights of the Russian people.
No one should doubt the dreadful nature of the Russian system. Years of mistreatment at the hands of the state had a serious effect on Mr Navalny’s health. His death must be investigated fully and transparently. The Russian authorities must urgently confirm the location of Mr Navalny’s body to his family and allow them access to it.
On Friday, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office summoned the Russian ambassador to express our outrage at Mr Navalny’s death. We made it clear that we hold the Russian authorities fully responsible. As the Foreign Secretary said over the weekend, those responsible must be “held to account”. I assure the House that we are working at pace to explore all options.
As a mark of respect, the Foreign Secretary and his G7 counterparts began their meeting on Saturday with a minute’s silence in honour of Mr Navalny. Our ambassador in Moscow laid flowers at the memorial to victims of political repression on Saturday. The ideals for which Mr Navalny stood and died will live forever.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. This weekend, my right hon. Friends the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary attended the Munich Security Conference and heard Yulia Navalnaya, Alex Navalny’s wife, speaking with remarkable courage and conviction in a moment of utter personal grief. I share the Minister’s comments, and I am sure that the whole House will join us in sending our deepest condolences to her and her family.
The death of Alexei Navalny was shocking yet cruelly predictable. Let us be crystal clear: one person above all others bears the overwhelming responsibility for his death and should be held accountable. Alexei Navalny is yet another victim of the oppressive system that Putin has built, of which he was such a potent critic. He was not a saint but he fought relentlessly, optimistically and with good humour against the corruption and kleptocracy of modern Russia. The last few years of his life were a profile of courage. After an assassination attempt with a chemical weapon, there would have been no shame at all in seeking a quiet life. Instead, he chose to return not just to the fray but to Russia. He knew exactly what he would face, but Alexei Navalny believed relentlessly and indefatigably in a different Russia that could be, in his words, not only free but happy. He once wrote from prison:
“Everything will be all right. And, even if it isn’t, we’ll have the consolation of having lived honest lives.”
Alexei Navalny’s courage, his campaign against corruption and his dream of a democratic Russia will live on in those brave Russians who continue to speak up. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an illegal act of aggression. Navalny called it a stupid war built on lies. It has been devastating for Ukraine, but also for Russia, which edges further into darkness, propaganda and paranoia. Alexei Navalny challenged not just Russian autocracy and kleptocracy but past western hypocrisy and enablement. His campaign was about not just Moscow but London. We must deliver the changes that he campaigned for.
The reality is that we have still much further to go, and it is therefore disappointing that the Minister has shown up with nothing new to say in response to last week’s appalling news. Will the Government review further sanctions on Russia, including an assessment of the full Navalny list? Will the Minister launch a new effort to target those networks responsible for facilitating and enabling international corruption?
There has been little or no action against breaches of new Russian sanctions brought in since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, so will he strengthen not just our sanctions regime but how those sanctions are enforced? Will he support calls to establish an international anti-corruption court? Will he turn rhetoric on frozen Russian state assets into tangible action? When will the Government get on with it? It is a source of shame that under successive Tory Governments, Britain became the money laundering capital of the world. Our tributes to Alexei Navalny must be more than just rhetorical and include tangible action at home to clean up the financial crime fuelling autocrats abroad.
Finally, I want to ask the Minister about Vladimir Kara-Murza. I have met his brave wife and mother and heard directly from them. Vladimir is another brave and vocal opponent of Putin, languishing in prison for his beliefs. He is also a British citizen. We know what Putin is capable of. What is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s current assessment of his welfare, and what steps are being taken to support him and his family?
The tragic death of Alexei Navalny has reverberated across the world. It must serve as a reminder of Putin’s menace and underscore our responsibility to oppose him in Ukraine, on the world stage and here in London. I hope that the Minister can provide the House with some assurance that today’s statement will be accompanied with commensurate, bold and urgent action.
Leo Docherty
We will act. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone of his response. I endorse everything that he said about the heroically brave Mrs Navalnaya. Those in this House who watched her video early this morning will have been extremely moved by her fortitude and courage at this difficult time. He used the word “courage” with regard to Mr Navalny, which was absolutely appropriate. Those of us who watched the footage of Mr Navalny returning to Russia subsequent to the Novichok attack were humbled by his audacity and his bravery. His hope for a free and happy Russia must remain in the hearts of the many Russians who, despite extraordinary press censorship and repression, deserve to have the opportunity to live up to that promise.
It would be premature for me to comment on the prospect of future sanctions in addition to those that have already been put in place with regard to Mr Navalny’s poisoning, but I can assure the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and the House that we are working at pace and looking at all options in that regard. Of course, we will continue our active diplomatic work to crack down on the networks of corruption surrounding the Russian state and its kleptocracy. Sanctions evasion is a particularly important component of that and is something that our diplomatic teams around the world, in concert with our allies, are focused on.
The hon. Gentleman asked a relevant question about seizing versus freezing assets. We continue to work with G7 allies to look at all legal routes to ensure that frozen assets might be used to help the reconstruction effort by those who deserve them. We will keep the House updated as and when we make progress on that. We do seek to act in that regard, and that is how we can honour Mr Navalny’s memory and his legacy—by acting, not just making rhetorical statements.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Mr Vladimir Kara-Murza. Through our ambassador in Moscow, we continue to make representations inquiring after his health and wellbeing and seeking consular access to him. I can confirm that the Foreign Secretary remains in contact with Mrs Kara-Murza and continues to support the family.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Alexei Navalny was murdered. It is important that we in this House call it out for what it was, because that is what he deserves. Following his murder, I was also in Munich, where I heard his wife, Yulia, ask for us to stand by her. That is what we must now do. The US threatened more than a year ago that there would be significant repercussions if Navalny was murdered; Biden must now deliver on that threat, or we will see more lives taken, such as that of Vladimir Kara-Murza. I reiterate the calls for the seizing of central bank assets. That has been done before: the UN Security Council froze and seized Iraqi assets. We have a precedent; there is no reason for us to find new legislation or other ways to do so. Beyond that, we need to pursue a special tribunal on the crime of aggression. Will we consider also sanctioning Russia’s Deposit Insurance Agency? Finally, to hit the heart of Putin’s economy, will we urge the US to release more oil and therefore drive down prices?
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend speaks with authority, and I am grateful for her reflections on her meeting in Munich. She is right to use the word “murder”. We seek to hold the Russian state and leadership to account. Of course, I cannot comment on the American position, but on our policy with regard to Russian state assets, we will continue to look at the appropriate legal path to ensure that that which is frozen might be utilised to bring benefit to those affected by this outrageous and illegal war in Ukraine.
On accountability, a special tribunal is one of the things we are considering, together with our Ukrainian allies and Sir Howard Morrison. There has been a large degree of institutional work together with the Ukrainians and the G7 on that. We will continue to work to find the best mechanism possible that might sit alongside the International Criminal Court. Of course, the ICC has already indicted Putin, and that indictment for crimes relating to trafficking children had an impact on his travel plans. Sometimes the cogs of justice can turn slowly, but they do turn surely.
My hon. Friend made a good point about the insurance agency, which I cannot comment on now. She also asked about the flows of oil; again, I cannot comment on that. We do have a laser-like focus on the economic impact of our sanctions in the round. The House should have confidence that the economic impact of our actions—taken as part of the G7 response and wider international actions on sanctions—on Putin’s ability to fund his war has been very significant: to the tune of billions.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
We are, all of us, appalled at this murder and the timing of it. It was designed to send a message and it needs a serious response. I am grateful for sight of the statement, as far as it goes. I think the Minister would acknowledge that it does not go very far, so I would press for further action. The Minister will be aware that the EU Foreign Affairs Council is meeting in Brussels as we speak. It is looking at a range of measures. Can he assure us that the UK will be part of those efforts, in particular with regard to the implementation of Magnitsky sanctions? I am looking not for an announcement now, but to ensure we are co-ordinated with that. I reiterate my own calls for the sequestration of the Russian assets that have been seized. This death—this murder—was designed to send a message. A serious message must be the response to it; if there is one, it will have SNP support.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful, as ever, to the SNP spokesperson for his tone and his support. Of course, it would be premature for me to comment. By convention, we never comment on sanctions from the Dispatch Box, but of course we are looking at pace at all options in response to this outrageous event. In that context, we will continue to liaise with US and EU allies—that is a matter of course. The hon. Gentleman asked a good question about sequestration. Again, I cannot comment, other than to say that we continue to look at the most viable legal route to bring about that good.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend tell the House what advantages remain in maintaining diplomatic relations with this murderous and barbarous regime?
Leo Docherty
The benefit is to deliver messages of condemnation and outrage, and to continue to advocate for consular access for those held by the Russian regime.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I want to turn to the economic impact of the sanctions, which the Minister alluded to. A loophole in our sanctions regime means that countries such as China and India import Russian crude oil, process it and then sell it into the UK as refined oil. In 2023, we imported 5.2 million barrels of this oil. That means that we sent something like £141 million in tax revenue to the Kremlin’s war chest. Britain is also the biggest insurer of Russian oil moved by sea, most of which is sold at prices well above the price cap—again, violating sanctions. Does the Minister agree that tough words are no substitute for tough actions, especially after the shocking murder of the heroic Alexei Navalny? Will he agree to report back to Parliament before Easter with proposals to stop the sanctions-busting?
Leo Docherty
We should have confidence that the economic impact of sanctions has been very significant. Putin has been denied hundreds of billions of dollars because of the collective action of the G7 nations. Is it perfect? No, it is not. Are we looking at ways of making it more effective? Yes, we are. Will we keep the House updated? Of course.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Yulia Navalnaya’s speech at the Munich security conference changed the tone of that entire summit. She called for the west to act. Does the Minister agree with me that Alexei Navalny’s death underlines Putin’s determination to emulate Stalin in quashing free speech in Russia and extending Russia’s influence beyond its borders? When we speak of sanctions, might we also consider pressing the Americans to expedite the $60 billion that Ukraine needs? One way we can honour Navalny’s life is by making sure Ukraine wins and Russia loses. To that extent, can I also suggest that while diplomatic back channels need to remain open, maybe it is time to dismiss the Russian ambassador?
Leo Docherty
We will continue to lead by example in terms of our provision of lethal aid and humanitarian aid, and we hope and expect that our closest allies will do the same. The impact of our provision has been very, very significant. My right hon. Friend made a good point about Putin’s leadership. What this event actually shows is the fact that Putin is fearful: fearful of those, like Mr Navalny, who have the courage to challenge him and speak truth to power. That is the most potent action in the face of a cruel, repressive tyrannical regime like Mr Putin’s, which ultimately is quite brittle.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
At the end of February last year, Alexei Navalny clarified his position on Crimea. He talked about how the borders of Ukraine and Russia were internationally recognised, and had been defined in 1991. Does the Minister agree that while it is not our place to choose the Governments of Russia, we long for a time when Russia will be governed by a Government who respect sovereignty and territorial integrity?
Leo Docherty
I do agree with the hon. Gentleman, and there is no inevitability about the Russian people being ruled by a tyrannical latter-day Tsar. Mr Navalny knew that, and his messages and brilliantly produced and humorous videos were watched by millions of people in Russia because many millions of Russian people seek that alternative.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
It is clear that domestically the Putin regime is a criminal racket, and that internationally it has brought war against Ukraine and threatens many others. What discussions are the UK Government having, and what diplomatic efforts are they making, with other NATO members that do not pay the minimum 2% of GDP towards our common defence?
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend has asked a very good question, and we continue to make that point to our NATO allies in a full-throated way. As he knows, NATO is a growing organisation with a growing potency and capability, but collectively we must and will put our money where our mouth is.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I declare an interest, in that I was the director of the British Council in St Petersburg from 2005 until 2008. I am also honoured to call Vladimir Kara-Murza my friend. I met him shortly before he insisted on flying back to Russia although many of us urged him not to. It is a measure of the man that he did that—and, indeed, we are talking about somebody who the Russian authorities have tried to poison twice. With heroism similar to that of Navalny, Kara-Murza has stood up against the mafia state that is represented by Vladmir Putin.
It was good to hear the Minister say that our ambassador in Moscow is doing his best to gain access to Kara-Murza, but may I press him on the issue of Kara-Murza’s medical condition? He is weakened by the two attempts to poison him, and we are desperately worried that he may well be on the list in terms of what the Kremlin may be wanting to do next. His medical health is of the utmost importance, so can the Minister please say what steps are being taken specifically to ensure that it is being looked after?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Gentleman knows from his own experience the system that we are dealing with. The direct answer to his question is that we continue to make representations at the very highest level to the senior membership, or leadership, of the Russian state, saying that we expect Mr Kara-Murza’s health to be attended to, that we expect him to receive medical care, and that we expect no threat to be made to his life. That message is carried by our ambassador directly to Russian Government Ministers, and, in addition, UK Ministers including the Foreign Secretary continue to engage with Mrs Kara-Murza to offer the family full support.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the murder of Alexei Navalny, following the earlier murder of Boris Nemtsov, shows the absolute refusal of Putin to tolerate any kind of genuine democratic opposition? Will the Government therefore give absolutely no credibility or recognition to the sham pretence that the co-called presidential election taking place next month in Russia will undoubtedly be?
Leo Docherty
My right hon. Friend speaks on the basis of knowledge, and he is entirely right about the sham election that will take place on 12 March. The murders of which he has spoken do show a terrible pattern, but as I said earlier, we should not feel that repressive government is an inevitability in Russia. The Russian people have a hope that there can be a different Government, and that is why Mr Navalny’s message was received so well.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
All those who care about democracy and free speech should condemn the murder of Alexei Navalny, but one of the most meaningful things the United Kingdom Government could do to honour his memory is to take steps to deal effectively with the dirty Russian money being laundered in this country, particularly as being made through nefarious means by allies of Putin. What are the Government going to do to deal more effectively with the dirty Russian money being laundered in the United Kingdom?
Leo Docherty
The House should have confidence and should be proud of the fact that we have sanctioned more than 1,900 individuals and entities. There is no space or place for dirty Russian money in the United Kingdom.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I just want to reinforce the point about Vladimir Kara-Murza. He is a British citizen, and he is now the most high-profile political prisoner in Russia. In my conversations with the Minister and his officials, when I have talked about prisoner swaps, which I was doing at the behest of the Navalny team, it was made quite clear that doing that encourages state hostage taking. I accept that argument, difficult thought it is, but unfortunately it comes at a price. In my conversations with Evgenia Kara-Murza, she is adamant that she now wants everything possible done to get Vladimir out, despite the fact that he went back of his own accord, because his health is in a fragile condition, and if Putin can kill Navalny, he can kill Kara-Murza. There is some criticism that the Government have not done everything possible in the past. Will the Minister reassure me that every option and every conceivable course of action to get Kara-Murza out—potentially including negotiated swaps with Russian spies in Sweden or wherever—will be looked at? Otherwise, he will be next.
Leo Docherty
As my hon. Friend said, we do not and would not countenance a policy of prisoner swaps, but of course we continue to make every effort to support Mrs Kara-Murza and to seek the release of Vladimir.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
Holding political prisoners is not a sign of strength; it is a sign of weakness, and Mr Navalny’s murder should be rightly condemned. However, right now in the UK the journalist Julian Assange is in Belmarsh prison for blowing the whistle on atrocities in Iraq. Does the Minister agree that it is important for the UK Government to measure themselves against the same standards if they are going to criticise others? [Interruption.]
Leo Docherty
I think the hon. Gentleman can sense that the House knows there is no equivalence.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
In 2020, Alexei Navalny was treated in hospital in Berlin, having been poisoned in Russia with a toxin subsequently identified as Novichok, also used in the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury in 2018. Given the use of the same toxin in such similar circumstances, does my hon. Friend not agree that it is overwhelmingly likely that agents of the Russian state were responsible for the attempted murder of Navalny in 2020 and that the current protestations by the Russian state that it was not responsible for his death last week are entirely risible? How are the Government ensuring that those who are responsible are brought to book and tried before a court?
Leo Docherty
My right hon. Friend is correct. That is why we demand a full and transparent investigation, because those individuals involved must be held to account.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The whole House should be worried about developments such as those at the weekend with the murder of Navalny because the Russian state, now run by a bunch of criminals, seems arrogant enough to assassinate opposition people outside its own boundaries, invade nations, threaten other nations and now suppress democracy in its own country. It is disappointing that the Minister is saying today only that he will look at all the options. Will he come to this House very soon with a list of additional sanctions that we can impose on the regime and with ideas about how we can isolate it diplomatically?
Leo Docherty
We are working at pace on working up all options, but I can confirm that as and when action is taken, we will keep this House informed. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that work is under way at pace.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
This appalling murder is not really about the prison guards. It is about who gave the order, and that can only be Putin. Does the Minister agree that we need to intensify the sanctions against him personally and against his regime, and that we need to pursue all measures to hold him to account for this murder?
Leo Docherty
I agree. Apart from anything else, it is a matter of justice and international law. The cogs turn slowly, but we should have confidence that they do turn.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The gruesome treatment and appalling murder of Alexei Navalny are a stark reminder, if one were needed, of the evils of Putin’s regime. Time and again, we have asked what progress the Government are making on overcoming the legal concerns about repurposing frozen Russian assets to support the recovery and reconstruction of Ukraine, as countries like Canada and Estonia are already doing. Yet again, we have had an empty response this afternoon. Will the Minister now prioritise this issue and come back to the House as soon as possible with a real plan for how the UK can use those assets to help Ukraine?
Leo Docherty
We are working at pace. It is urgently important and, of course, we will keep the House updated.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It takes an extraordinary person to go back to a country where he knows he will be imprisoned, tortured and then murdered. All our thoughts are with Alexei Navalny’s wife, and our best wishes go to her.
The best way to commemorate Alexei Navalny’s tragic death is to ensure that Ukraine does not fall. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he is straining every diplomatic sinew to ensure that our allies, both in NATO and the EU, give Ukraine what it needs to keep these Russian thugs at bay and to regain its country?
Leo Docherty
I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s comments about Mr Navalny’s courage, and about the sense of hope that he gave to people in Russia because of that courage.
My hon. Friend asks about Ukraine. Of course, we seek to lead by example by increasing our contribution of both lethal aid and humanitarian support. Our collective response through NATO shows that Putin was quite wrong if he thought he could walk into Ukraine and conquer the entire country.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Let us call this what it is: state-sponsored terror by Putin and his regime. We know that Putin and his regime attempted to murder Navalny three years ago with the same Novichok that was used against Sergei Skripal in the streets of the United Kingdom. The difference between today’s response and the response we saw from the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), is that we took action immediately —not just us but our allies in Europe and North America—by expelling Russian diplomats.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) mentioned Magnitsky sanctions, and we need to act now. Putin needs to get the message that we will stand up to Russian terror. Why is Russia participating in this week’s G20 summit? We need to send a very clear message to Putin, and the only message this international thug will understand is that we will take the swiftest action against him.
Leo Docherty
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s sentiment, and we are acting. Sanctions have deprived Putin of billions of dollars of revenue to fund his war machine. We would never comment prematurely from the Dispatch Box about future sanctions, but we will continue to do everything we can to ensure that he is deprived of the ability to wage his illegal and evil war.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I strongly support what Members have said about the Minister needing to come back in, say, a week’s time to tell us more about what action can be taken.
The Minister spoke about working with the opposition to Putin. When I went out with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy some years ago to try to find allies that we could work with, it was incredibly depressing how few we found in organised political parties. I also went out for the Pussy Riot trial, and I felt the strength of feeling, but they are clearly not people we could work with on that level. What can we do? Navalny and Nemtsov are gone. Who can we work with to try to support the people who oppose Putin?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Lady is right, and she makes a good point. Putin’s tyrannical regime leaves absolutely no civic or political space for any kind of freedom of expression or political engagement, no matter how moderate. What we can do is ensure that Russian people have more access to the truth and to better information, which is why a lot of our energy goes into working against Russian disinformation across the region.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The House and the whole country are easily and instinctively united in condemnation of this latest evidence of Vladimir Putin’s brutality, but is the Minister not a little uncomfortable that he makes his statement on the same day that his colleagues in the Home Office have announced restrictions on visa access for those from Ukraine fleeing the war against Russia? Does he not understand that we diminish the effect of our outrage unless we are seen to be doing absolutely everything, at home and abroad, to support our Ukrainian allies?
Leo Docherty
I know from my own constituency, as all Members will know, that our collective response, whether from the Government, local government or at an individual level, has been consistently generous and open hearted.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I express my condolences to Alexei Navalny’s friends and family, and to the Russian people as a whole. What has happened to Navalny is an indictment on any freedom-loving people, as I believe the majority of Russians to be. As colleagues have said, we are keen to understand the effectiveness of the sanctions and I hope the Minister will come back to the House about that, because currently Putin seems to be able to do what he wants with impunity. In the powerful documentary about him, one of Navalny’s last statements was that it only takes good people to do nothing for people like Putin to survive. We must make sure that does not happen.
Leo Docherty
The hon. Lady puts her finger on the good point that Navalny essentially gave people hope. That is why his message will resonate and why, despite his murder, he leaves a powerful legacy, which will continue to inspire the Russian people.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The murder of Alexei Navalny reminds us of the scale of the threat from Russia, not least to Ukraine—it is, of course, the second anniversary of the Russian invasion this week. Following the earlier question about the changes to the Ukraine family scheme, how can those changes be justified given the ongoing threat to Ukrainian families? The announcement was sneaked out today and comes into immediate effect this afternoon. How can that be justified given that there are Ukrainian families who want to be reunited with relatives in the UK?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Gentleman will know he should address that question to the Home Office. He mentioned the second anniversary of the illegal invasion of Ukraine. Earlier today, I had a good meeting with the Ukrainian chargé d’affaires at which we looked at images of the Ukrainian Red Cross delivering aid in some of the worst afflicted cities in Ukraine. Each Member of the House will choose how to remember and commemorate the second anniversary, but I am grateful to him for raising it.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
I express my condolences to the friends and family of Alexei Navalny, but can the Minister explain why we can have a statement on the untimely death of one foreign national but we cannot have a statement on the ongoing excess deaths of 100,000 of our own citizens, many of whom have died suddenly? [Interruption.] Is it because this death fits the Government’s narrative, but the death of our own citizens does not? Or is it a parody of Stalin, whereby one death is a tragedy but 100,000 deaths is merely a statistic?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. My thoughts are with the family, wife, children and friends of Alexei Navalny at this difficult time. The fear of the disappeared will resonate with some citizens in Northern Ireland, where so many families have not been able to lay their loved ones to rest. That is apparent in news stories today about Navalny’s mother trying to get access to her son. Does the Minister agree that all efforts must be made to ensure Navalny’s body is returned to the family so that they can understand, have a full investigation and lay their loved one to rest?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Gentleman is right. Our ambassador has today made a representation directly to the Russian Government to release Mr Navalny’s body back to the family. We will keep making representations until that takes place.
Antisemitism in the UK
(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
With permission, I will make a statement on antisemitism in the United Kingdom.
Last week, the Community Security Trust published its latest report on antisemitic incidents. It made for deeply disturbing reading. It showed that there were 4,103 instances of anti-Jewish racist hatred recorded across the UK in 2023. That is the highest annual total ever reported to the Community Security Trust. It is a 147% rise from the 1,662 antisemitic incidents the previous year, and 81% higher than the previous yearly record of 2,261 incidents, reported in 2021. Most shockingly, more than two thirds of the incidents reported last year occurred on or after 7 October, when Hamas perpetrated its barbaric terrorist attack on Israel. The report also indicates that antisemitism began spiking before Israel’s military response had begun: the week immediately following 7 October saw 416 antisemitic incidents reported to the CST, which is higher than any subsequent week.
The CST’s findings, which tally with increases in offending reported by the police, are nothing short of a disgrace and an outrage. Examples highlighted in the report are shocking and reprehensible. I urge all Members to read the report because it shines a light on the scale and character of this disgraceful problem. The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that members of Britain’s Jewish community are suffering a level of hatred and abuse which is frankly shameful.
There is no excuse for the behaviour outlined in the CST report or seen in some of the shocking incidents that have occurred recently. The situation in the middle east does not and will never give anyone the right to harass or intimidate others. I repeat, no one ever has that right. This Government will not stand for antisemitism of any kind. It is important to note that the police have comprehensive powers to deal with abhorrent conduct of this nature. For example, in the case of public order offences, where there is proof of racial or religious hostility on the part of the offender, offenders will be charged with racially or religiously aggravated versions of those offences, which will result in an uplift to their sentence. Furthermore, inciting racial hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986, and anyone engaged in that appalling behaviour should expect to be arrested. Whenever and wherever criminality involving antisemitism occurs, this Government expect the police to investigate the incident fully and work with the Crown Prosecution Service to bring the perpetrators to justice.
We have been clear both before and since the 7 October attacks that we will do whatever it takes to keep Britain’s Jewish community safe. We have taken strong steps to confront the poison of antisemitism head on. We have increased funding to bolster security at Jewish schools, synagogues and other sites. A total of £36 million will be made available for these crucial protective measures across 2023-24 and the following financial year.
The Community Security Trust is an essential partner in our efforts to keep the Jewish community safe, and I pay tribute to it for the brilliant work that it does. The Home Office meets regularly with CST staff and co-operates closely with them. We keep dialogue open constantly, and both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have regular meetings with them. None the less, it should sadden us that these kind of precautions are necessary in the UK, in 2024. The work of organisations such as the CST is more important than ever, and we must remain vigilant. That includes sending the message loud and clear from this House—I hope from the whole House—that any instances of criminal behaviour will be identified, and those responsible caught and punished.
We are working closely with the police to ensure that hate crime and expressions of support for terrorist organisations are met with the full force of the law. The idea that anyone could celebrate or valorise Hamas for the appalling terrorist atrocities that it perpetrated on 7 October is beyond comprehension. It goes completely against the values of this country. Last month, we proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organisation that actively promotes and encourages terrorism and is responsible for spreading antisemitism. Hamas itself, of course, is already a proscribed organisation. Anyone who belongs to, or invites or expresses support for, a proscribed organisation is committing an offence. The penalties upon conviction are a maximum term of 14 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine.
The right to protest is of course a fundamental part of our democracy, but that right cannot be exercised in a way that intimidates others or invokes fear in them. It is totally unacceptable for a small minority to incite hatred and commit crimes. The police have powers to deal with that, and we expect them to act. Where further powers are needed, we will not hesitate to act, which is why we recently announced a new package of measures to crack down on dangerous disorder—in particular, that committed at protests.
The CST’s findings on incidents within the sphere of higher education were especially disturbing. No one should be subject to antisemitic abuse while at university. Every effort must be taken to prevent hatred from flourishing in schools, universities and colleges. That is why we announced a further £7 million of funding to help to tackle antisemitism in education.
We are equally unwavering in our stance towards hatred and abuse directed at British Muslims. The Government have been in regular contact with representatives of the Muslim community, and we are aware of an increased number of reports of anti-Muslim hatred as well. That is of course unacceptable, and we have made additional funding available for protective security measures at mosques and Muslim faith schools.
Last month, we marked Holocaust Memorial Day. Just as we remember the horrors of the past, we must remain alert to present-day dangers. Antisemitism is an ancient hatred, which has reared its ugly head in the most abhorrent and evil ways throughout history. The CST’s findings show that we have much more to do if we are to rid our society of this poison, but the Government will never stop trying. We will never give up on this fight. It matters too much. Of course, that extends to ensuring that Members of Parliament are protected from acts of similar hatred, which some have suffered. I am thinking particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who is in the Chamber, whose office suffered a terrible arson attack just a few weeks ago.
To the antisemites, we say this: “You will not win. You will be shown up for the despicable racists you are.” To our Jewish friends and colleagues, I say this: “We stand with you. We understand your fears and we share your pain. We will protect you—today, tomorrow and always.” I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, and advance sight of it. The appalling and intolerable rise in antisemitism in Britain in recent months, as set out in the report of the Community Security Trust last week, is a stain on our society. We must never relent in our work to root it out—something that I know the whole House will want to affirm.
The more than 4,000 incidents in 2023 alone are an urgent reminder of the responsibility that we all have to stamp out the scourge of antisemitism wherever it is found. I join the Minister in thanking the CST for the remarkable and tireless work that it does each day, alongside the police, to keep our Jewish community safe. Having supported and worked with it over many years, I know the incredible forensic work that it does in monitoring antisemitism, and the physical protection that it provides for Jewish schools, synagogues and other community events. We owe it our thanks.
We welcome and support the Government’s commitment of additional funding for the CST. The incidents that it reports include a violent, abusive attack on a Jewish man on his way home from synagogue, the desecration of Jewish cemeteries, and a 200% increase in antisemitic incidents at universities. Just 10 days ago, a Jewish student residence in Leeds, Hillel House, was vandalised with antisemitic graffiti. For the years they are studying, universities are students’ homes. No one should ever feel unsafe in their home, or wherever they are. Everybody has the right to live in freedom from fear.
The CST’s report also found the number of online incidents of antisemitism rising by 257%—an ancient hatred being resuscitated through modern means, to proliferate and promote extremism. I agree with the Minister that it is unconscionable that one of the steepest surges in antisemitism came in the week following Hamas’s barbaric terrorist attack on Israel on 7 October—the deadliest day for Jews since the holocaust—with individuals in this country celebrating those scenes of unimaginable horror. There must be zero tolerance for the glorification of proscribed terrorist groups on Britain’s streets. We support the proscribing of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and ensuring that those who commit antisemitic hate crimes always face the full force of the law.
In the weeks following 7 October, I met the CST together with Tell MAMA, which monitors Islamophobia and has also identified a huge increase in Islamophobic incidents and hate. They were united in their call for an end to hatred and prejudice, to antisemitism, and to Islamophobia. We must never allow the terrible events and conflicts in the middle east, which cause deep distress across our communities, to lead to increased tension, hatred, prejudice, abuse or crimes in our communities at home. I welcome the points that the Minister made about ensuring that extremist incidents on marches are also addressed with the full force of the law, but I press him to go further in a few key areas.
First, the counter-extremism strategy is now eight years out of date. There are reports that the work has been delayed again. When will the Government come forward with an updated strategy? The Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the Government’s own experts have warned that there is a gap in the law around hateful extremism that is allowing toxic antisemitic views and conspiracy theories to be spread, and making it harder to police them. I have asked this of Ministers before: will the Minister update us on what action is being taken?
Will the Government also urgently look again at the decision that Ministers took around a year ago to downgrade the reporting of non-crime hate incidents, particularly around Islamophobia and antisemitism, to ensure that those who engage in vile and vitriolic religious hatred can always be properly monitored and identified by the police?
Finally, I ask particularly about online antisemitism, which has increased. We have seen a huge increase on X, formerly Twitter, at the same time as some of its monitoring and standards have been downgraded. Have the Government raised that directly with Elon Musk and X? I urge them to do so, and to set out how the Online Harms Bill will address that, because there are real concerns that it will not go far enough to address the changes.
We stand ready to work with the Government on this. Those on both sides of the House will want us to stand together with Jewish communities across the country, in solidarity against hatred, prejudice and antisemitism in all its forms. All of us must stand together and say that antisemitism must never have any place in the United Kingdom.
Chris Philp
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for her comments and questions. She asked about protests. I agree that it is completely unacceptable for people to seek to intimidate others, to incite racial hatred or to glorify terrorism. In fact, it is illegal. The police have made 600 arrests at protests since 7 October, and we in Government are urging the police to use all their powers to ensure that hatred is not incited in the course of the marches that have happened.
The shadow Home Secretary rightly asked about online safety, where a great deal of hatred is fomented. We are engaging with online platforms on a regular basis; I think the Home Secretary is due to travel to California next week to discuss these issues, among others. From memory, schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023 contains a list of priority offences, one of which is inciting hatred. When that part of the Act comes into force, large social media platforms will be under an obligation to take proactive steps in advance, not retrospective steps after the event, in order to prevent priority offences from taking place. That will include hate crime of the kind she mentioned.
The right hon. Lady asked about non-crime hate incidents. The changes to the guidance were designed to ensure that minor spats between neighbours, or expressions of essentially legitimate political views, do not end up wasting police time by getting recorded. Where things do not meet the criminal threshold but might be useful in pursuing a criminal investigation later, they will still be recorded. To be clear, inciting racial hatred is a criminal offence under sections 17 and 18 of the Public Order Act 1986; causing harassment, alarm and distress through threatening and abusive language, or causing fear of violence, is an offence under sections 4, 4A and 5 of that Act; and there are various other criminal offences as well. Those things meet the criminal threshold and are therefore not affected by any change to non-crime hate incident recording rules in any event.
Updating the law and the approach to extremism is kept under continual review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities spends a great deal of time considering the question of extremism. In relation to criminal law, just a week or two ago we announced various changes for which we intend to legislate via Government amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill when it comes back to the House on Report in a few weeks’ time. Those measures will tighten up a number of areas relating to protest, including removing the “reasonable and lawful excuse” defence to various public order offences, making it easier for the police to have a blanket prohibition on face coverings, which are often menacing but also make it difficult to identify people committing criminal offences at protests. We will make it an offence to climb on key war memorials, which is grossly disrespectful, and introduce other measures as well. We keep things under continual review, so if further changes to the law are needed, the right hon. Lady can be assured that we will make them.
It is this Government’s view that antisemitism is a scourge that must be fought online, on the streets, through the law and through the courts. I am sure the whole House will be united in that fight.
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his hard work and genuine commitment to seriously tackling this issue, and I was pleased to work with him and CST last year. The reality is that the Jewish community has been demonised and targeted, is scared and has been let down by the authorities. The Jewish community needs its champions and friends to speak in its defence without fear or favour. Lord Ian Austin, who sits in the other place, is one such courageous advocate who has campaigned for decades against antisemitism and Islamism. Does my right hon. Friend share my deep concern about organisations such as Midland Heart, which has suspended Lord Austin as its chair merely for his speaking against Islamism, terrorism and antisemitism?
Chris Philp
Let me first pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend for her work during her time as Home Secretary. We worked closely together, and I can tell the House that the Jewish community had no stronger advocate in the Government on these issues, particularly during the events of the autumn. I agree with what she said about Lord Austin. I have read the tweets that he sent, and it strikes me that there is nothing unreasonable about them. He was criticising Islamism, which is a form of extremism. That is obviously not the same as the Muslim community more widely, as everybody knows. I do not think that the actions proposed by Midland Heart are in the slightest bit reasonable. I join my right hon. Friend the DLUHC Secretary in urging Midland Heart to urgently reconsider what it has done. Lord Austin is a tireless campaigner against racism, was a great servant of this House when he was here, and does not deserve the treatment he has recently received.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The sharp rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia in the UK is extremely concerning, and the SNP extends our heartfelt sympathies to victims of antisemitism and all forms of hate crime.
In today’s statement, I see references to “funding to bolster security”, “caught and punished”, “the full force of the law”, and “a maximum of 14 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine”, none of which I disagree with in any way, shape or form. We need to implement the law robustly. However, I am a bit concerned that there is only one line in the statement that talks about education. It says that £7 million of funding will be delivered “in education”, but I would like it to say “through education”, because surely we can eradicate antisemitism through education. Through incarceration, it becomes a lot harder.
Part of Scotland’s strength is our diversity. We value Scotland’s Jewish communities and other faith and belief communities. We recognise the important role that they play in making Scotland a safer, stronger and more inclusive society in which everyone can live in peace and work to realise their potential. In June 2017, the Scottish Government formally adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. Formally adopting the IHRA definition demonstrates the Scottish Government’s determination that there should be no place in Scotland for any form of antisemitism or religious hatred that makes our communities feel insecure or threatened in their daily lives.
The Scottish Government’s recently published hate crime strategy sets out their strategic priorities for tackling hate crime, including antisemitism. It was informed by the communities with lived experiences of hate crime. It makes a number of commitments, including ensuring improved support for victims, improving data and evidence, and developing effective approaches to preventing hate crime. If I have one ask of the Minister, it is to reconsider how much money we are putting into educating people, so that we can all eradicate this heinous crime.
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman asks about education. I made it clear in my earlier remarks that, in the autumn statement on 22 November, the Government announced a further £7 million of funding to help tackle antisemitism in education and ensure that support is in place for schools and colleges. In addition to that—since he asks about education—on 5 November the Department for Education announced a five-point plan to protect Jewish students on university campuses, which included a call for visas to be withdrawn from international students who incite racial hatred, asking vice-chancellors to act decisively against staff and students involved in antisemitism, and meeting the Office for Students, the independent regulator, to find out what more it can do to make it clear that antisemitism and racial hatred incited on campuses should be referred to the police, and to explore an antisemitism charter in higher education. I accept the point that education at school and universities is important, but that is an area where the Department for Education is taking a lot of action in England. I would certainly urge the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland to do the same.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Vicious campaigns of antisemitism are occurring in many universities in this country. Jewish students have visited me to tell me about it, and some of the accounts are bone chilling. The failure of the Metropolitan police to deal with some of the fascist-style racists in the London marches has been a historic disgrace that has unleashed more attacks. The aggressive hounding by protesters of MPs, especially Labour MPs out campaigning and a Conservative colleague at his home, is a real threat to the democratic process.
I am concerned about reports of a magistrates court judge liking an antisemitic post on social media, having passed an extremely lenient sentence on protesters convicted of terrorism offences. This judge apparently trains junior members of the judiciary and is involved in judicial appointments of other judges. Should that not result in a full, deep investigation, with a past docket of cases being checked for bias and a potential suspension, pending the interim report?
Chris Philp
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. Ministers are very clear that where behaviour on marches crosses the criminal threshold—inciting racial hatred, causing fear of harassment, alarm and distress, terrorism offences or glorifying proscribed organisations—we expect the police to take robust action and to make arrests. They have made about 600 arrests so far. In fact, some brave police officers were injured in the course of trying to make an arrest in London on Saturday.
I echo and strongly endorse my right hon. and learned Friend’s point about Members of Parliament. No Member of Parliament, as a democratically elected representative of the people, should be subject to harassment or intimidation. As he said, some Labour MPs have been, which is completely unacceptable. We have seen the incident at the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), which was completely unacceptable—in that case, I believe arrests have been made. And, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) suffered a terrible incident at his home address just a few days ago. All that is unacceptable and illegal, and I expect the police not only to protect MPs, but to identify and arrest the culprits afterwards.
In relation to the judge, the judiciary is of course independent. Matters of judicial conduct are subject to investigation by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. From the account of the incident that I have heard, and which my right hon. and learned Friend gave, that is the kind of thing that I would expect the JCIO to investigate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
As the Minister knows, the Home Affairs Committee has been carrying out an inquiry into the policing of protests. We have been particularly appalled to hear evidence of the huge increase in incidents of antisemitism perpetrated in the wake of the 7 October terrorist attacks. The CST has recorded that 43% of antisemitism incidents last year explicitly referenced the Israel-Palestine 7 October attacks and the conflict in Gaza. Attacks on Jewish and Muslim communities here in Britain in response to overseas conflicts are never acceptable. What more can be done to stop the exploitation of such overseas conflicts and the effect that it has on community cohesion in this country?
Chris Philp
The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee asks a very good question. It disturbs me deeply, as I am sure it does many Members, to see conflict occurring elsewhere in the world playing out on our own streets and leading to tension, to put it politely, and to a lot more—often hatred—being incited domestically. As I said, there is no excuse whatsoever for the events in the middle east, in Gaza, to lead to antisemitic hatred on the streets of the United Kingdom. That is completely unacceptable, and I am disturbed to see people engaging in that kind of behaviour.
Across the House, we as political leaders need to make it clear to our communities that that behaviour is not acceptable and not consistent with British values, and that our laws will be rigorously and robustly enforced. We have values here of tolerance and mutual respect; we abhor terrorism, violence and intimidation. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we do not want to see that anywhere on our streets, and no one—no matter how strongly they feel about what is happening in Gaza—should behave in a way that is intimidating or incites racial hatred. If we all, across this House, speak unanimously with one voice on that topic, it will be heard by all communities in this country.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
When British Jews woke up on 7 October to the pogroms and the associated rapes, butchery of children and hostage-taking, we expected sympathy from people on the streets of Britain. Instead, we have seen people attacked for speaking Hebrew, Jewish businesses attacked, Jews assaulted, and hate marches on our streets. As we saw again this weekend, the fellow holding the sign to remind marchers that Hamas are a terrorist organisation was the one who was dragged off and had his collar felt by the police, while people continue to march through the streets with cries for jihad and intifadas and in support of the Houthis.
What everyone says in this place is all fine, but the reality is that the demonisation of the world’s only Jewish state is playing out in the demonisation of Jews in this country. In our universities, the embedding of antizionism— in and of itself pure Jew hate in many cases—is being wrought on Jewish students. So although the measures that have been outlined are fine, there is a deeper problem in our society: Jews do not feel safe in this country. More must be done to tackle the real root cause of Jew hate.
Chris Philp
I was as appalled as my hon. Friend when some people—a small but none the less significant minority—reacted to what happened on 7 October with a deeply disturbing jubilation. That is sick, it is unacceptable and, depending on how it is expressed, it is frankly illegal, because encouraging acts of terrorism or acts by a proscribed organisation, which Hamas are, is a criminal offence. As I have said, there is no excuse whatsoever for that kind of behaviour. I was as sickened as he was, and as I am sure the whole House was, to see that some people—some of our fellow citizens—reacted to what happened on 7 October with apparent jubilation instead of with horror and sympathy.
In relation to the police response, 600 arrests have been made at the various protests that have followed 7 October. We have repeatedly met police—I have lost count of the number of meetings that we have had in the past three or four months—to urge them to use the full extent of the law and to show zero tolerance to people who break the law and incite racial hatred. As I say, 600 arrests have been made.
In relation to individual incidents, there is sometimes more to them than meets the eye, but I will ask for an account of the incident that my hon. Friend referred to. He is absolutely right to say that no member of the Jewish community, whether on the streets of central London, at university or at school, should suffer fear and intimidation. The truth is that, in the past few months in particular, they have suffered fear and intimidation, and that is unacceptable. We expect the police to use the full force of the law to stop that, and I know that the House will speak with one voice in condemning it unreservedly.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the attack on the constituency office of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), was an utterly unacceptable attack on democracy? It is a matter of great sadness that this Parliament will lose a fantastic MP because of the intimidation associated with his being prepared to stand up for his Jewish constituents and for Israel.
Chris Philp
I am pleased to report to the House that arrests have been made in relation to the appalling attack on the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green, and I understand that the perpetrators are currently on remand in prison. It is a tragedy that someone with his exemplary track record of public service feels that he is unable to stand for Parliament again, partly as a result of the intimidation that he has suffered, particularly the arson attack on his office. As I am sure Members from across the House will acknowledge, he has been a fearless advocate on behalf of his many Jewish constituents. It is a loss to them and to Parliament that he will not contest the next election. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that no other Members end up feeling that way. I do not want—I am sure that none of us does—to live in a country where democratically elected representatives feel any form of fear or intimidation. That is not how democracy works. In this country, we settle matters at the ballot box, not through intimidation tactics or violence on the streets. That is a principle that each and every one of us must defend to our last breath.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I do apologise; I called two Members from the Government Benches, so I will now call two from the Opposition Benches.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I welcome the strong statements made by the Minister and the shadow Home Secretary. I hope that, in tackling the deep-seated antisemitism to which the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) referred, we can work in a united way across the House, and not seek to make cheap political points on any individual cases.
We have had attacks on Jews in theatres in London; we have had attacks on Jews in campuses, particularly in Leeds and Birmingham, as other hon. Members have said; and, as the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) said, a judge has failed to penalise three people for glorifying terrorism in London. People in all sorts of sectors, locations and areas across our country are worried that antisemitism is spreading. The Government’s response needs to be co-ordinated. When will a new hate crime action plan be published? The last one, despite consultation in the interim, was published five years ago.
Chris Philp
I share the right hon. Lady’s horror at the various events highlighted in the Community Security Trust’s report, including an incident at a theatre where a Jewish man was essentially hounded out—a disgraceful and despicable act that has no place in a civilised society such as ours. She mentioned the case that the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis), raised. I spoke to the current Attorney General earlier today, and I understand that the Crown Prosecution Service is reviewing that case as well; it deeply concerns me, as I know it concerns the right hon. Lady.
Our strategy in relation to extremism is something that the Communities Secretary continues to consider, but the approach the Government have taken is one of action, rather than words. For example, we have legislated via the Online Safety Act, which contains some very strong measures, as I said to the shadow Home Secretary a few minutes ago. When I was technology Minister, she and I discussed at some length the measures needed in that Act to combat hate—measures based, in fact, on some of the terrible experiences of antisemitism that the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) has herself suffered. I have talked about the increased funding for the Community Security Trust, the Department for Education’s plan in universities and schools, and the extra money for the Holocaust Educational Trust, so the Government are taking action rather than simply expending more words. However, as I said, this is an issue that the Communities Secretary is extremely alive to.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Sadly, we have seen a trebling of antisemitic incidents on university campuses between 2022 and 2023: the CST recorded 67 incidents on campuses in the month following the horrendous attacks of 7 October, compared with just 12 in the same period the previous year, and we have heard from other right hon. and hon. Members about the terrible reports of antisemitic graffiti and harassment of Jewish students coming out of Leeds and Birmingham universities earlier this month. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I very much welcomed the £7 million to tackle antisemitism in schools and universities that the Government announced in November, which the Minister has referred to. However, since then, we have had no update on how many applications have been made to that fund and how the money has been allocated. When will we get an update on some of the many actions the Minister has outlined, and particularly on how that £7 million has been allocated so far?
Chris Philp
I would be very happy to come back to the hon. Lady and other Members with an update on that question. It is an evolving situation, but I echo her comments. It is particularly concerning when universities—the training grounds for the next generation—appear to have been hijacked in some places by antisemites: when Jewish students are being intimidated and harassed and Jewish societies have their meetings picketed, with people standing outside shouting abuse and worse. That is completely unacceptable, and we should all support the Department for Education’s work in this area and call on university vice-chancellors to show absolutely zero tolerance for that kind of behaviour—to stamp on it hard wherever they find it.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and join him in paying tribute to the work of the Community Security Trust. Today, however, the most senior Liberal Democrat councillor in Harrogate and Knaresborough has been exposed for tweeting horrendous antisemitic comments for the past five weeks. She had hundreds of followers, including many senior local Liberal Democrats; she tweeted over 500 times on the subject, and those tweets were read over 10,000 times, so it beggars belief that no Liberal Democrat knew what she was saying. They must have known, but in the five weeks she has been tweeting, they did nothing until it was exposed in the media today.
In our politics, we have seen antisemitism in meetings; we have seen it online; we have seen it in Rochdale; and now we have seen it in Harrogate. Does my right hon. Friend agree that political leaders—indeed, everyone in every political party—must act immediately if they encounter antisemitism in their midst, not wait to see whether anyone notices?
Chris Philp
Yes. My hon. Friend is quite right: it is incumbent on political leaders, from whom many other members of the community take their lead, to act immediately, not just when antisemitism gets exposed in the media or when pressure builds, and not because it is convenient but because it is right. Whether it is the example in Harrogate that my hon. Friend gave or, indeed, the recent example in Rochdale, acting immediately from principle is what counts, not just reacting to public pressure a few days later.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
Jewish people in my Greater Manchester constituency have had to endure a 163% increase in antisemitic hate crime, as detailed in the CST’s annual incidents report. Some of that is blatant targeting of Jews; in other cases, it is much more sinister, targeting Zionists. When we see a banner saying “Zionists not welcome”, we know what it means: “Jews not welcome”. Let us call it out for what it is: anti-Zionism is antisemitism.
The Jewish community in my Bury South constituency have benefited from the Government’s additional £3 million to increase the already extensive security provisions. I thank the Government again for that temporary funding, but would they be prepared to continue that funding, and —given the extensive threats to the Jewish community—consider making it permanent?
Chris Philp
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Very often, anti-Zionism is nothing more than anti-Jewish sentiment; it is antisemitism, and we should call it out where it happens, as he has quite rightly done.
The extra money for the Community Security Trust will apply in the current financial year; it will be a £3 million increase to £18 million in total. It will also apply next year, in financial year 2024-25, and it will be kept under review thereafter.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
As one of the two Members of Parliament for the Metropolitan Borough of Bury, I support exactly what my colleague, the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), has said. It is important not to cheapen this debate, and we do not want to do so, but how political parties deal with antisemitism within their ranks is crucial and sends an important signal to the country about how this Parliament treats the issue. Does my right hon. Friend share, therefore, my genuine disappointment about the weak, flip-flopping and changing position of the Labour leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), concerning the remarks of Labour’s now ex-candidate for the Rochdale by-election? Martin Forde KC, who compiled a report for the Labour party on bullying, sexism and racism within its ranks, has described those remarks as “clearly antisemitic”.
Chris Philp
As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) a few minutes ago, it is incumbent on political leaders—particularly those who aspire to the highest office in the land—to act quickly and from principle. I am disappointed that after the comments of Labour’s former Rochdale candidate became public, it took a number of days for the Leader of the Opposition to act. I would suggest that he reflects soberly on that; I am disappointed that it took so long, and on reflection, he is probably disappointed with himself as well. It might be useful if he said so publicly.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The figures from the CST are absolutely horrific. Antisemitism is absolutely unacceptable; hate crime, including Islamophobia, is absolutely unacceptable; but does the Minister think there is sufficient capacity within the police to investigate the full range of issues that are being raised? What is the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in preventing the discrimination that can contribute to this hate?
Chris Philp
I think there is enough resource in policing. As I may have said once or twice before, we have record police officer numbers—a total of 149,500 or so was reached in March last year—so we do have sufficient resources. The police are prioritising this issue, and of course, they can work with the EHRC to take criminal action where the EHRC identifies examples of antisemitism.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Following the battle of Cable Street against Mosley’s blackshirts, the Public Order Act 1936 introduced measures that severely restricted the ability of Nazi-type movements to march in predominantly Jewish areas. Is the Minister satisfied that the police of today are sufficiently aware of the powers they have to stop marches taking routes that go through areas that are predominantly associated with a threatened community?
Chris Philp
Yes, I am, and the police do it. For example, on Saturday, a convoy was planned from the north of England to north London, many parts of which have Jewish communities. The police stopped that convoy because they were concerned that it would inflame tensions and that the convoy would engage in intimidatory behaviour.
Under sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, the police also have powers to place conditions on both processions and assemblies where they feel they will lead to disorder, and they use those conditions; in fact, they used them at the weekend. The marchers originally planned to go right up to the Israeli embassy in Kensington, but conditions were imposed to prevent their getting within undue proximity of that embassy. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), who is sitting next to me on the Front Bench, made direct representations to the police on behalf of her constituents, raising concerns about the marchers’ plans. The police have those powers, and have used them more than once, as recently as this weekend.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that the largest Jewish school in Europe—JFS—is in my constituency, and I want to thank the CST for its vigilance and service on behalf of all the students and their families. Sadly, only last month a student was physically attacked by a group of youths outside the school, and those youths goaded the student about the situation in Palestine. Would the Minister agree that nothing can justify such an attack on an innocent schoolchild, and does he accept that, whatever one believes about the actions of the Israeli Government, racism and anti-Jewish hatred must not be allowed to hide behind any political mask?
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The events in Gaza, or indeed anywhere else in the world, provide no basis, reason or excuse at all to inflict racist abuse on citizens in this country. There is no justification whatsoever for antisemitic attacks on Jewish people in this country because of what is happening elsewhere in the world. What happened to that boy outside the Jewish free school, JFS, in his constituency and what has happened—sadly, tragically—to thousands of members of the Jewish community in recent months is totally unacceptable and totally without excuse, and the police should act to make arrests where that happens.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I pay tribute to the Community Security Trust, which is based in the Hendon constituency, for the work it does—not only the full-time staff, but the volunteers. Sadly, the number of offences we have seen does not surprise me. The continued protests on the streets of London are simply normalising antisemitism in the United Kingdom, but what bothers me the most are offences on university campuses; and more and more of my constituents are telling me that their children will not be going to university as a result. Some 245 universities have adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, but others continue to refuse to do so. Does the Minister agree that there is no logical reason why any vice-chancellor would not do so?
Chris Philp
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of the Community Security Trust, as well as to Mark Gardner—its chief executive—and all its staff and volunteers, and the people who fundraise for it. The trust’s work has never been more important than it is now.
I agree with what my hon. Friend has said about universities. I can see no reason at all why every vice-chancellor and every university should not adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and I call on them today to do so. There is no excuse whatsoever for failing to act. I endorse and echo the five-point plan set out by the Department for Education to get this issue on campuses tackled. It is deeply disturbing, and I want to see vice-chancellors and other university leaders do a lot more to stamp out the scourge of antisemitism, which is all too present on our country’s campuses.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
This weekend, my heart broke to see some 20 officers and multiple police vans stationed outside my synagogue, and that this was deemed necessary for our protection. The conflict in the middle east is being used to radicalise people against British Jews online, in our schools and universities, and on our streets. Additional security funding is welcome, as is the funding for education settings, but what financial support and resource will be provided to local authorities for projects working across our faith and community settings at a local grassroots level to bring communities together, rather than allow them to be driven further apart?
Chris Philp
The hon. Member is right to say that grassroots work is needed. The £7 million I referred to earlier is part of that, and organisations such as the CST, which the Government substantially fund or provide with quite a lot of money—£18 million a year—do good work in this area as well. I echo her sentiment and that of others: there is no excuse, no reason and no possible justification for targeting Jewish people in this country, and the full force of the law must come down on anyone who does so.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
I cannot have been the only one, the weekend before last, to have watched with a mixture of horror and incredulity as several Labour Front Benchers were sent out to justify retaining their Rochdale candidate, only for their leader to reverse his position 48 hours later based on the comments at a meeting and to praise himself for his decisive action. Then they had to suspend their candidate for Hyndburn for comments at the same meeting. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is serious about having changed his party, as he repeatedly claims, does my right hon. Friend agree that he should publish a full list of the attendees of that meeting and a full transcript of what was said by whom, so that voters in the north-west can know who they are voting for and what they actually believe?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is quite right; I agree with what he has said. The Labour leader—the Leader of the Opposition—should publish a full list of who was at that meeting and a full transcript to show that he is serious about tackling antisemitism, and I call on him now to do that. He should have reacted much sooner. It should not have taken 48 hours to suspend a candidate who had said obviously antisemitic things. I am deeply disappointed by that inexcusable 48-hour delay, but he now has a chance to make at least partial amends by publishing that list and transcript.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I welcome the comments today from the Government in clamping down on the astonishing and worrying spike we have seen in antisemitic incidents since 7 October. Antisemitism is vile and disgusting, and it infects every area of society—including, sadly, politics—and where we see it, we need to root it out and remove people from the process. To that end, I have written to the Minister for Women and Equalities, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), asking if we can have a cross-party discussion about how we deal with the problem in politics —because we cannot pretend that it does not exist; it does. I wrote to her in November and again last week, so can the Minister please take forward that suggestion, and see if the Minister for Women and Equalities will convene a cross-party discussion on the issue?
Chris Philp
Of course, there are many all-party parliamentary groups and other cross-party groups taking an active interest in this area, and I am sure that the Home Affairs Committee will consider it as well. I think I am going to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch) at some point later this evening, so I will happily remind her about the hon. Lady’s letter.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House and making this important statement. Does he agree that even more alarming than the sheer number of antisemitic incidents now being reported on a daily basis is creeping tolerance across so much of our national life and so many of our institutions—universities are just one example—of an acceptable level of antisemitism, so long as it is dressed up in a bit of Israel hatred? Does he agree that that is what we need to be focusing on tackling, because at the moment, as the CST report demonstrates, this country is moving in a very serious and dark direction?
Chris Philp
Yes, I agree completely with my right hon. Friend. We need to show zero tolerance to all forms of antisemitism. It is incumbent on everybody—particularly Members of Parliament, but everyone in civil society, including university vice-chancellors, teachers and lecturers, as well as people in the workplace—and every single member of our society has an obligation to call out antisemitism when they see it, and indeed any racism when they see it; unless people are willing to do that, there is a danger that it creeps in, as my right hon. Friend has just said. I think it starts with Members of Parliament calling it out in their own constituencies, and doing so publicly. That is what zero tolerance means: never turning a blind eye, never turning the other cheek, and never crossing the road and passing by on the other side. It means always calling out antisemitism and racism wherever we see it. That is an extremely important message.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
As has already been said, the CST report includes shocking figures about the rise in antisemitism in university settings. The Union of Jewish Students has warned repeatedly about a climate of fear for Jewish students on campus, and the incidents in recent weeks will only have deepened that fear. Can the Minister say a little more about what he and his Government colleagues will do, working with our universities, to ensure that Jewish students can feel safe and secure during their time studying?
Chris Philp
As we have discussed already, Members across the House are particularly concerned about what is happening on university campuses. As I have said a couple of times, the Department for Education has a five-point plan, which it set out just a few weeks ago and which includes withdrawing visas from international students who are inciting racial hatred. Anyone who is not a British citizen who incites racial hatred or commits criminal offences in this area should be removed from the United Kingdom. People who come to this country need to respect our laws, and our citizens and their rights and dignity, and people who are not British citizens should be removed either under the Immigration Act 1971 or section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 if they incite racial hatred; I know the immigration Ministers will take action there.
We want vice-chancellors to do more and have written to them asking them to do so. We have had meetings with the Office for Students—the regulator—to make sure it is doing more to clean up what is happening on campuses; we are doing more to make sure that criminal referrals—from universities to the police—are made when antisemitism happens; and, as I have said, I think and the Department for Education thinks that every single university should sign up to the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend know that synagogues in the west end of London are being targeted by these so-called protesters, and that this has happened not only once or twice but now on multiple occasions—to the extent that they are even looking to see what time the services finish so that old people, the young, parents and so forth are being terrorised? This is not supporting Palestine; this is antisemitism—this is attacking Jewish people. I hope my right hon. Friend will call in the commissioner and sort it out.
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. Gathering outside a synagogue with the purpose of intimidating people coming out is completely unacceptable. That is not protest; it is deliberate intimidation, and it has no place on our streets whatsoever. The police have substantial powers to act in this area; I will not recite all the various sections and Acts, but the police have numerous powers to act. We have regular meetings with policing leaders—one is coming up in just a few days—and I will certainly be raising this point. If my hon. Friend could send me a couple of examples, I would be very happy to raise them with the Metropolitan police in the coming days.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement, for his robust answers and for his strength of purpose in supporting Jewish people across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; he is very clearly doing that. Have discussions taken place with the devolved Administrations, in particular the Northern Ireland Assembly, regarding a support fund for those who feel unsafe in their current homes and need help to move to a safe place, bearing in mind that we are now in a scenario where Jewish families are staying indoors—afraid to go out unless it is essential—due to so-called peace protesters who are making our streets feel unsafe for a section of our community?
Chris Philp
There is nothing peaceful about deliberately intimidating Jewish people going to synagogues, as we discussed just a moment ago, and I would be happy to look into the question of the funding available for devolved Administrations to do work in this area.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The shocking rise in antisemitic attacks reported by the CST is bad enough, but the trouble is that that was last year and the escalation has continued into this year. People in London suffer the hate marches literally every Saturday—with banned organisations displaying their flags, placards that are clearly antisemitic and vile slogans uttered—and after those so-called peaceful protests disperse, some protestors go and intimidate people in the restaurants, bars and theatres throughout London, so much so now that my Jewish constituents are afraid to go into central London on a Saturday for fear of what they will suffer. There is a solution to this, and that is that anyone who is breaking the law should be arrested by the police. We did that in 2011, when there were the problems of the riots. Those people should be arrested, put through courts—overnight if necessary—with clear police evidence, and then jailed for their crimes. It is not acceptable that such intimidation can take place on our streets, when our people feel unsafe.
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is quite right; members of the Jewish community do feel intimidated going into central London, particularly when the marches are happening, and that is not right and is not acceptable. No one should feel that intimidation when simply coming into the centre of our capital city. He is quite right in what he says about applying the law. There are numerous relevant laws. He mentioned displaying banners of proscribed organisations such as Hamas and now Hizb ut-Tahrir. Displaying those flags and emblems is a criminal offence and we expect the police to make arrests. Inciting racial hatred is a criminal offence. Causing someone to suffer harassment, alarm or intimidation through threatening or abusive language is a criminal offence. Causing someone to fear violence is a criminal offence. We expect the police to apply those laws not sometimes but always. They have made 600 arrests so far already, and we are meeting them on a highly regular basis, including later this week, to make sure that those laws continue to be robustly applied, not just sometimes but always, for all of the reasons my hon. Friend has just eloquently laid out.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Let us be clear: antisemitism, like other forms of racism, has no place in the UK or elsewhere and the perpetrators of antisemitism should face the full force of the law. Does the Minister agree that, because an accusation of antisemitism is so serious, it must not be made either lightly or casually? We must have cool heads and not label groups or communities as antisemitic, because that merely causes more division and more problems. We have to be very careful how we use this word if we want to maintain the public’s trust that people are not being falsely accused of antisemitism.
Chris Philp
No one today in this House, on either side, has labelled any group collectively as antisemitic. This is about individuals and their behaviour, and where individuals harass or intimidate members of the Jewish community, where they engage in antisemitism and where anyone engages in racism, we will call it out, and where it is illegal, the police will make arrests and prosecute it. This is about individual acts, which all of us I hope collectively condemn. No one is tarring an entire community at all; no one has done that on either side. This is about calling out, tackling and where appropriate prosecuting individual acts of antisemitism. They have sadly become only too frequent in recent months, and the whole House should unite in standing against that.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
There is a growing and deeply unpleasant trend of personalising protests. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has been subjected to that recently, as have other Members of the House. Just to raise his particular case, 80 or so protesters were screaming right outside his door, with a police car between them and his house, for over two hours. The police did nothing. I personally think that is wrong, and that the police need to get a grip and start arresting these people for being intimidating. That is all it was: intimidation. It was not a lawful protest in my view. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that the police are not doing enough to crack down on such appalling behaviour?
Chris Philp
What happened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) at his house was completely unacceptable. It was intimidation; it was an attempt, I would suggest, to coerce a Member of Parliament and inhibit him from doing his democratically elected duty. I am sure everyone in the House would unreservedly condemn the behaviour of that mob outside my right hon. Friend’s house.
Various legal powers are relevant, including section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which gives the police the power to direct people outside a person’s house to move if they are behaving in a way that causes harassment, alarm or distress. That would clearly have applied in this case. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Security, who is in his place, and I wrote to chief constables on precisely that point on 16 February, just a few days ago, raising concerns and calling for robust action. I believe we are having a discussion on that topic in just a few days’ time. Members of Parliament at their home addresses, constituency offices and surgeries need to be protected because they are doing their democratic duty. Where people seek to intimidate them, the police need to take extremely strong action, because aggression against Members of Parliament is an act of aggression against democracy itself and in my view that makes it particularly serious.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
I welcome everything my right hon. Friend has set out today and that the Government are trying to tighten the law where necessary, but evidence suggests it is not yet working. Every week we see protests and people marching through London with placards with antisemitic, conspiratorial tropes—the same things we saw in October, November, December and January. We know that antisemitism is still running rife on university campuses, in schools and in our communities. I urge my right hon. Friend to look not just at how we deal with prosecutions and crime, but at how we tackle the root causes and how we get into our schools, educate people and try to rid society of this evil scourge once and for all.
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is right. Where the law is broken, whether that is inciting racial hatred, intimidation or harassment, the police must act and make arrests, and they have arrested 600 people already. That is necessary as a law enforcement response, but he is right that we need to tackle the ideology at source. We need to make sure that schools are teaching young people the right thing and explaining what British values of tolerance actually mean. The Department for Education is doing work in that area, as is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, who is in the Chamber. We need to make clear to every member of our society that antisemitism and anti-Jewish racist hatred have no place in these islands of ours. We must eradicate it wherever we find it.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
This report from the Community Security Trust is deeply troubling and depressing, as I think in some respects are aspects of our politics. There is the fact that today a well respected Member of this place is leaving because of anti-Jewish hatred. At the same time, we have a by-election that has effectively become a competition for who can be the biggest antisemite. That is deeply chilling. Does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on all political leaders and all political parties to show moral strength, stand up for what is right, take on hatred and not allow any element of their party to be captured by hatred, whatever the short-term electoral or political temptation?
Chris Philp
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Political leaders in particular have a special responsibility to act quickly, to act decisively, and to act not when it is expedient but when it is right. I was disappointed, as I have said, that the Leader of the Opposition took 48 hours or longer to act in the case of the Rochdale candidate. There is no excuse for that sort of delay. We all have an obligation to do the right thing and to do it quickly, whatever the circumstances.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I thank those on the Government Front Bench and the Opposition for their attention to a very serious issue.
Points of Order
(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the past hour or so, the charity Campaign Against Antisemitism has reported that a member of the public sent off a birth certificate application to the Home Office for his six-month-old baby girl and today the certificate was returned ripped, with the word “Israel” as the place of birth scribbled out. The Home Office is responsible for the security of the Jewish community, and the pointers are that this would have been done by a Home Office employee. How can I alert the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the permanent secretary to this appalling incident?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
First, the right hon. and learned Member will appreciate that that is not a point of order for the Chair. However, if he has something he wishes to raise directly with the Home Office, he should most certainly do so. He has already placed his case on the record in the presence of the Home Secretary.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would be grateful if you could advise those of us in this House who wish to pay tribute to the amazing Saxby-born Tony Roe, who is the BBC’s east midlands political editor. He has looked after our local democracies and our communities for more than 40 years, and this is his last week. We from the east midlands are very grateful to him for all he has done in serving local democracy and our communities. I would be grateful to know how you, Mr Deputy Speaker, can help me to make sure that is well known.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
The hon. Lady will be fully aware that that is also not a point of order for the Chair, but it might just be the subject of an early-day motion. I leave that to her judgment.
Bill Presented
Family Visas (Minimum Income)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Alistair Carmichael presented a Bill to prohibit any increase in the minimum income requirement for family visas; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed (Bill 165).
Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
Monday 19th February 2024
(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 View all Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 36-I Marshalled list for Report - (19 Jan 2024)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The first duty of Government is to keep our citizens safe. The United Kingdom faces an enduring threat from terrorists, hostile actors and organised criminal groups, and that threat is evolving and becoming more sophisticated. It is not enough for us to keep pace with those who would do us harm; we must endeavour to get and then stay ahead of them. The investigatory powers are the legal powers available to law enforcement, the intelligence services, MI5, the Secret Intelligence Service, GCHQ and other public authorities where appropriate to obtain communications and data about communications.
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 provides a clear legal framework for the use of those powers, combining world-leading safeguards and oversight with giving agencies the tools they need to protect us. There is a double lock for the most sensitive IPA powers, meaning that an independent judicial commissioner must approve a decision by the Secretary of State to issue a warrant under the IPA. The use of any of these powers must be assessed as necessary and proportionate, with strong independent oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal provides a robust mechanism for providing redress in respect of any unlawful use of those powers.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Home Secretary will be as aware as I am that very occasionally those in charge of our intelligence and security services do not act in the best traditions of this country in their offices, and I am thinking of cases such as Belhaj and Boudchar. Where people have been the victim of mistreatment—as a consequence of UK complicity with foreign powers, for example—should there not be a right for those people to have access to the information about that?
James Cleverly
I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I am not sure it is directly relevant to this matter, but I take on board the points that he makes. He will forgive me if I do not address them directly at this point; I want to consider them properly.
The IPA is sound legislation, but the nature of these threats has evolved since 2016, and we are confronted by greater global instability and technological advances, and they demand that we act. Terrorists, child abusers, organised criminals and malign actors from hostile states have exploited technological advances. Our job is to ensure that the UK’s investigatory powers framework remains fit for purpose. The changes that this Bill proposes were informed by the independent review of the IPA published by Lord Anderson of Ipswich in June 2023. The Bill received cross-party and Cross-Bench support as it passed through the other place. Every Government amendment was accepted, and I thank the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament for the productive way they engaged with and helped to shape the Bill.
In particular, we have agreed to tighten the drafting of clauses 22 and 23 in line with amendments proposed by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Those changes put beyond doubt that the Prime Minister may delegate warrants for the purposes of obtaining communications of parliamentarians in two, and only two, exceptional circumstances: the personal incapacity of the Prime Minister and a lack of access to secure communications. There is also a limit of five Secretaries of State to whom this responsibility could be delegated in those circumstances. Further to that, in respect of new part 7A, parliamentary scrutiny will be enhanced through a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State annually to inform the Intelligence and Security Committee about the new regime for bulk personal datasets.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentioned the ISC’s scrutiny of these matters. He will understand the concern about widening the number of people who can play the role previously played exclusively by the Prime Minister. I understand the reasons for that, but has he considered limiting that to those Secretaries of State who have warranting powers?
James Cleverly
We looked at that. There is a balance to be struck, and actually the bulk of those Secretaries of State to whom the function could be delegated in those two exceptional circumstances do have warranting powers—I think the Secretary of State for Defence is the only one who does not. My right hon. Friend’s point is a fair one, but the scope of the Bill is not much greater than that.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
As a member of the ISC, I welcome the Government’s acceptance of our recommendation. However, I would like to understand why they are not accepting our other, simple proposal: that when a delegation takes place, the Prime Minister would be informed about that afterwards.
James Cleverly
I think it is inconceivable that the Prime Minister of the day would not be informed of the use of a delegated authority.
Mr Jones
It is not about the Prime Minister not being informed about the delegation; it is about the Prime Minister looking at the case afterwards—they would not be second-guessing it, obviously, because it would already have been agreed. We suggested that, as a matter of course, the Prime Minister should be informed afterwards of the contents of that warrant. For some reason, the Government are resisting that. I cannot understand why.
James Cleverly
I understood the point that the right hon. Gentleman was making—perhaps my answer was not clear—but I suggest that it is inconceivable that the Prime Minister would not routinely be informed of the exercise of this power. Ultimately, that is a level of granularity that would add complexity to the Bill without utility. But, as I have said, through the passage of the Bill thus far, we have listened carefully to the Committee’s suggestions, and although we may not always agree, I can reassure him, other members of the Committee and Members of the House that we will continue to act in listening mode in relation to the Committee’s suggestions.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
On that point, will the Home Secretary give way?
Joanna Cherry
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. He mentioned listening to scrutiny by the ISC. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has issued a call for written evidence on the Bill, and as he will know from the human rights memorandum, the Bill raises important human rights issues relating to the rights to privacy and to freedom of expression, and possibly the right to an effective remedy. Will he therefore undertake to look closely at any correspondence that the Joint Committee might send him when we have completed our scrutiny of the Bill?
James Cleverly
I reassure the hon. and learned Lady that we will do exactly that.
I turn to the measures in the Bill. We are creating a new regime for bulk personal datasets that have low or no expectation of privacy: for example, certain datasets that are widely publicly or commercially available. Bulk personal datasets are an essential tool to support our intelligence services in identifying fragments of intelligence within a large quantum of data, in order to disrupt threats such as terrorism and hostile state actors. The Bill seeks to create a new statutory oversight regime for how the intelligence services access and examine bulk personal datasets held by third parties. It will place that oversight on a statutory footing, increasing the transparency of the regime. The regime will be subject to strong safeguards, including the double lock.
We are also making changes to the notices regime that will help the UK anticipate and address the risk to public safety of companies rolling out technology that precludes lawful access to data. We want to work with those companies to achieve common goals, but we must have the tools available when collaboration falls short.
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
I know that the Home Secretary wants to make progress, but I am grateful for the opportunity to comment.
These reforms to the IPA are necessary to upgrade our world-class regime and ensure that our frameworks are kept up to date with evolving threats and, importantly, technology. We know that the terrorists, the serious organised criminals, the fraudsters and the online paedophiles all take advantage of the dark web and encrypted spaces: to plan their terror, to carry out their fraudulent activity and to cause devastating harm to innocent people such as children, in the field of online paedophilia. Does he share my concern and indeed frustration with companies such as Meta and Apple? The former has chosen to roll out end-to-end encryption without safeguards and the latter has rolled out advanced data protection, which will allow these bad actors to go dark, which will severely disable agencies and law enforcement from identifying them and taking action, and will enable—indeed it will facilitate—some of the worst atrocities that our brave men and women in law-enforcement agencies deal with every day.
James Cleverly
My right hon. and learned Friend—and immediate predecessor—makes incredibly important points. Digital technology and online technology have been a liberator in so many ways, but, sadly, as has been the case with technology throughout time, it has also been used by those who would do people harm. Indeed, she mentioned in particular the harm done to children. We take that incredibly seriously. We value the important role of investigatory powers and will continue to work with technology companies—both those well established at the moment and those of the future—to maintain the balance between privacy and security, as we have always done, and ensure that these technology platforms do not provide a hiding place for terrorists, for serious criminals and those people taking part in child sexual exploitation.
The three types of notices under the existing IPA are data retention notices, technical capability notices and national security notices. Those notices must be both necessary and proportionate, and they are of course subject to the double lock. The Bill does not introduce any new powers for the acquisition of data. The changes are about ensuring that the system is up to date and remains robust. The Bill will create a notification notice allowing the Secretary of State to place specific companies under an obligation to inform him or her of proposed changes to their telecommunications services or systems that could have an impact on lawful access. This is not a blanket obligation, and it will be used only where necessary and proportionate, and then only on a case-by-case basis.
The notice does not give the Secretary of State any powers to veto or intervene in the roll-out of a product or services. It is intended to ensure that there is sufficient time for appropriate consideration of the operational impact of the proposed changes, and potentially for discussions with the company in question about them. The public, rightly, would want their representatives to know in advance if companies were proposing to do something that would put public safety at risk, and responsible companies will work with Governments to avoid endangering people, who are of course also their customers.
The Bill will also amend the IPA to require the company to ensure that existing lawful access is maintained. That means the company cannot legally take any action that would negatively affect the level of lawful access for our operational partners during the review period. In the other place, the Government tabled an amendment to allow a timeline for review of a notice to be specified in regulations. We also gave the judicial commissioner further powers for managing the review process. Taken together, they ensure that companies are clear on the length of time that a review can take, which reduces uncertainty for their business as well as providing greater clarity for the review process. In the other place, my noble colleague Lord Sharpe of Epsom also committed to a full public consultation before amending the existing regulations on the review of notices, and laying new regulations relating to the notification notices.
The Bill also clarifies the definition of a telecommun-ications operator, to make it clear that companies with complex corporate structures that provide or control telecommunications services and systems in the UK fall within the remit of the IPA. These changes do not directly relate to any particular technology, including end-to-end encryption, but are designed to ensure that companies are not able to unilaterally make design changes that compromise exceptional lawful access.
The Bill makes changes to the powers of public authorities to acquire communications data. Section 11 of the IPA made it an offence for a relevant person in a relevant public authority to knowingly or recklessly obtain communications data from a telecoms operator or a postal operator without lawful authority. The Bill will set out examples of the acquisition routes that amount to lawful authority outside the IPA, giving greater clarity to public authorities that they are not inadvertently committing an offence. Further targeted amendments will ensure that public sector organisations are not unintentionally prevented or discouraged from sharing data. Further changes will allow bodies with regulatory functions to acquire communications data.
The Bill also creates a new condition for the use of internet connection records—ICRs—by the intelligence services and the National Crime Agency. The IPA currently requires certain thresholds to be met on the known element of an investigation, such as exactly when a website has been accessed. That limits the ability of operational partners to use the ICRs to detect previously unknown criminals, terrorists or state threat actors who are acting online. The proposed measure will allow greater detection of high-impact offenders by removing the requirement to unequivocally know a specific time or times of access and service in use, and instead will allow these factors to be specified within the application.
Mr Jones
I understand the use of the measure for the security services, but the Bill broadens the scope of how many people could be dragged into it. There is no judicial oversight of the Security Service or whoever is using it. The Bill states that the measure is for national security and economic wellbeing—that is a catch-all for quite a lot of things. Although the intent is right, there need to be some safeguards to prevent innocent people being dragged into that potentially broad measure.
James Cleverly
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point. Innocent people’s data is often acquired in dataset capture, and it is always deleted. Economic wellbeing merely reflects the language that is used in other parts, for consistency across our various strands of work.
Mr Jones
I thought we were here today to scrutinise the Bill. It should not be a chore for the Home Secretary to be asked questions. The definition of wellbeing could be quite broad. I understand the meaning of national security, as I think he does, and the House, but wellbeing could have quite a broad definition and I am not convinced that I have seen what it is. I am not sure that consistency with other legislation is a great argument for including it in this Bill.
James Cleverly
The simple truth of the matter is that I disagree. In legislation of this nature, maintaining consistency of language with previous relevant legislation, including the Intelligence Services Act 1994, is incredibly important to clarity of intent. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has given thought to this, and we do not disregard his point, but we have thought through the importance of consistency of language, which is why we have maintained it.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
A general listener to our proceedings might worry that the new powers could be used for fishing expeditions, rather than the very specific powers that they replace. Could the Home Secretary give some words of reassurance from the Dispatch Box that the broadening of bulk data collection without specific dates will not be used for fishing expeditions, which might affect the privacy of ordinary citizens who have done nothing wrong?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady makes an important point, but the powers could be applied to any bulk dataset collection, of which she knows there are many across Government. Provisions are in place to ensure that innocent people’s data is not held but deleted, and that our security services and other organisations that will utilise these powers always do so carefully and cautiously. There are relevant safeguards in place, as I have made reference to—the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the tribunal—if there is wrongdoing. The proposals are put forward for a very specific reason. The Government have given thought to mission creep and broader expansion, and we feel that this is a modest extension that will give significantly greater protection to the British people.
Mr Jones
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) just said, we need to give confidence to the public that what we are rightly doing to protect ourselves has that level of security in it. There is no judicial oversight of internet connection records. If we are to give these powers to the Security Service—which I approve of—we should be able to say to the public that they are proportionate and that there is an independent process to ensure that they cannot be abused. Surely, judicial oversight throughout should be important.
James Cleverly
The right hon. Gentleman specifically spoke about judicial oversight, but there is oversight—
James Cleverly
There is oversight by the Secretary of State through the warrant process, and oversight of the whole process by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Through the Committee on which the right hon. Gentleman sits, there is oversight of the Secretary of State’s function.
Mr Jones
I agree, and I support that oversight, even though this Government have not made our job on the ISC easy. Unless I am missing something, there is no judicial oversight of internet connection records in the Bill. If we want to give people confidence, that backstop of judicial oversight should be important.
James Cleverly
As I said, I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman specifically said that there is no judicial oversight—
James Cleverly
I am not disagreeing, but there is oversight. The Committee on which the right hon. Gentleman sits is part of that oversight process.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has just touched on the importance of the oversight role of the ISC, particularly in relation to these additional provisions. I wonder whether he remembers the passing of the National Security Act 2023. During the final stages of that important piece of legislation, the Government tabled an amendment in lieu promising that they would progress a review of the memorandum of understanding within six months of the Act coming into force to ensure there was an updated and robust relationship between the ISC and the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, the ISC having been unable to secure a meeting with the Prime Minister since 2014, remarkably. Given the nature of the ISC’s important role in these provisions, I wonder whether the Home Secretary could update us on that review.
James Cleverly
That is not an element of this Bill. On a commitment for the Prime Minister to meet with the Committee, I will look at the details.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary give way?
James Cleverly
I want to make progress to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak in this debate is able to do so, but I will give way to the right hon. Lady.
Yvette Cooper
On that point, will the Home Secretary encourage the Prime Minister to go before the Intelligence and Security Committee at the soonest opportunity? My understanding is that that has not happened for 10 years.
James Cleverly
I cannot make a commitment on the Prime Minister’s behalf. Members of the Committee will know that I appeared before the Committee in my previous role, and I think it is important that Government do make themselves available for this scrutiny. As I say, it would be inappropriate for me to demand of the Prime Minister attendance anywhere, but I will pass on the right hon. Lady’s point.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I will assist the Home Secretary with a little context. When I was a ranking member of the Intelligence and Security Committee between 2010 and 2015, it was a matter of routine that the Committee went to see the Prime Minister once a year, usually in the Cabinet Room. That stopped in 2014. Successive Prime Ministers have failed to reinstate it, although it must be said that the shortest-lived of them did offer to meet with the Committee, but sadly ceased to be Prime Minister before that became possible.
James Cleverly
The lengths that some people will go to to avoid Committee scrutiny. I am trying to remember where I was; it has been such a long time since I looked down the page of this speech. All such applications must be necessary and proportionate and subject to independent authorisation or inspection.
The Bill will also strengthen safeguards for journalistic material within the Investigatory Powers Act’s bulk equipment interference regime, aligning it with changes to the bulk interception regime that are under way to ensure compliance with obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998. Prior judicial authorisation will be needed before material obtained through bulk equipment interference can be selected for examination using criteria where the purpose is to identify, or is highly likely to identify, confidential journalistic material or confirm a source of journalistic material. Prior judicial approval is also necessary before such material may be retained for purposes other than its destruction. The other measures in part 5 of the Bill will ensure that the resilience and protections of the regime are maintained and enhanced.
The Bill will also make improvements to support the Investigatory Powers Commissioner in effectively carrying out their role, ensuring that the world-leading oversight regime remains resilient, including powers to enable the IPC to appoint deputies, delegate some of their functions to judicial commissioners and the newly created deputies, and put certain functions on a statutory basis. The Bill will ensure there is a clearer statutory basis for reporting errors to the IPC.
Joanna Cherry
I sense that the Home Secretary is coming to the end of his speech. We have mentioned parliamentarians and journalists, but I want to talk about another important group: trade unions. Some people fear that the Bill will open the door even further than its parent Bill on the surveillance of trade unions. Does the Home Secretary agree that there should be no place for the surveillance of trade unions in a democracy? If so, will he consider amendments to the Bill to ensure that that does not happen, including a redraft of clause 5?
James Cleverly
I take the point that the hon. and learned Lady puts forward. There are a number of organisations not explicitly mentioned in the Bill where that argument could be made, and I am not sure it would necessarily be useful or right to list them all, but I will take on board the point she makes in good faith—genuinely.
The Bill will bring the Investigatory Powers Act up to date with the modern age, provide greater clarity, make the system more resilient and retain the world-leading safeguards of civil liberties and commercial integrity. Above all, the Bill will mean that the men and women who work so incredibly hard to keep us safe, often without recognition, have the tools they need to do so in the modern era. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe—to defend our national security and defend our citizens against terrorism, extremism and serious crime. Labour always stands ready to work cross-party on national security to keep our country safe. It is why we are supporting this Bill today, why we will work with the Government to get the details right, and why we look forward to pursuing some of these issues in further detail in Committee. We recognise the important work that the Intelligence and Security Committee has done on this and that Lord Anderson has done in reviewing these areas; I pay tribute to his work, and to his previous work as independent reviewer. We also recognise the detailed considerations that have already taken place in the House of Lords.
It is vital that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the powers and capabilities they need to pursue terrorists and dangerous criminals, such as child abusers, and to keep the public safe. I pay tribute to the work of the intelligence and security agencies and to our counter-terror police for the immense work that they do. We are all indebted to them for their tireless and, by necessity, often hidden work to protect our country and defend our democracy and our freedoms from those who would seek to do us harm.
It is significant in the context of the Bill that the work of those agencies is about not just protecting our security, but defending our democracy. That is why it is so important that the powers they possess operate within a clear and strong legal framework with proper oversight and robust safeguards to prevent abuse or misuse. It is why the agencies themselves support having a strong legal framework in place. It is how we ensure there is consent and support for the essential work that they do. It is why this framework has to both protect privacy and protect us against serious threats, and why it has to defend both security and liberty—in a democracy, those go hand in hand. Strong powers always need to be accompanied by strong oversight and strong safeguards. That is why it is important we get the detail right. Just as we worked in a constructive cross-party manner on previous investigatory powers legislation and on the National Security Act, we will continue to do so on this legislation.
The reality that we all face is that threats to our national security are now more complex than ever: fast-changing challenges from home-grown extremism and radicalisation; a steep rise in state-sponsored threats from hostile foreign actors; the exponential growth in new technologies; the proliferation of serious crimes; and national security threats such as child abuse being perpetrated and spread online, putting young children and young people at terrible risk.
Within that rapidly evolving landscape, we obviously cannot allow our security services to be outpaced. We must ensure that the interception powers that our security services and police have to fight crime are updated to cope with rapid technological changes and changing threats. We must also ensure that the safeguards and oversight keep pace with changing powers, so that we continue to ensure, as is embedded in the legislation, that all measures are appropriate and proportionate when action is taken. That is why we rightly have, in the existing Investigatory Powers Act 2016, measures such as the double lock on some provisions relating to judicial commissioners’ approval and oversight; those, too, need to be updated in response to changing technology.
The Bill is necessary because technology is moving so fast. We now see serious crimes such as: child abusers using new and very different methods to share vile images of sexual assaults on children; extremists and terrorists using different and changing internet forums and encrypted messaging to find new ways to radicalise and organise; and serious and organised criminals using new applications to launder money and drugs, and to facilitate organised immigration crime that can put lives at risk. Clearly, that means the legislation needs to be updated. That is why we recognise the need for measures and the main provisions in the Bill—for example, on bulk datasets. We recognise the need for the Government to make changes to the existing framework, because agencies that are working at pace to intercept threats should not have to go through the same lengthy processes to use datasets that are widely available to the public and other commercial organisations.
In the other place, Members debated the importance of getting the threshold right and how the phrase “low or no expectation of privacy” should be interpreted. Those discussions will rightly continue in Committee. We will also continue to seek further clarification on the interaction of these reforms with some of the measures in the Data Protection Act 2018.
On internet connection records, the Bill reflects some of the recommendations made by Lord Anderson. This is a sensitive area and, rightly, there is a high test for important agencies to meet to access vital records, but there are also particular concerns around child abusers and terrorists being able to use new forums and communication channels where there should be the further ability to pursue action and intelligence leads. We recognise the importance of the issue, but also of ensuring that we get it right and frame the detail in the right way to ensure that we can protect vulnerable young people and children.
Ministers are right to ensure that Government Departments are not inadvertently prevented from the kinds of normal and routine legitimate exchanges of basic information by inadvertent coverage of previous legislation, and to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place. We agree it is important that there are processes to ensure that security and intelligence agencies can anticipate technological changes that are coming down the track from major telecommunications companies and major commercial organisations that might potentially make their work more difficult or inadvertently put national security at risk. Rather than have everyone simply try to play catch-up in retrospect, including with criminals and terrorists who may exploit those changes, it is sensible to have in place in advance a process for constructive dialogue between companies and intelligence agencies to mitigate any adverse consequences for tackling serious crimes, such as child sexual exploitation. I hope Ministers will look at how far they can ensure that regulations to govern changes to the notices regime are properly consulted on, scrutinised and therefore set at the appropriate level, and that they continue to engage with technology companies on how they should be implemented.
We welcome the additional safeguards and the introduction of stronger oversight, including as a result of the discussions in the other place—for example, ensuring that more of the commissioners’ functions are put on a statutory footing; ensuring there is proper oversight of the use of third-party bulk personal datasets by intelligence services; and including additional protections, through Government amendment 45 in the other place, relating to confidential journalistic material and sources. We hope that that issue will be looked at further in Committee.
In the context of what the oversight arrangements should be, I ask the Government to look again at the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee. As a former member of the ISC—although that was now more than two decades ago—I can testify to the importance of the Committee and the seriousness with which all its members take their work. The Committee provides a level of oversight and scrutiny that cannot be provided in the normal way by other parliamentary Select Committees, due to the nature of the secret work our intelligence agencies need to do. It also performs an important role for Government. There should be the reassurance for Ministers that the work of the intelligence and security agencies is being appropriately scrutinised. The Government therefore need to look again at updating the memorandum of understanding for the ISC to ensure that it, too, can fit with the evolving landscape under the changes that are taking place, and to make sure that its remit can do so as well.
I will press the Home Secretary again on this issue. I understand that he cannot answer for Prime Ministers in a simple way, but I press him to take back to the Prime Minister the importance of recognising the serious role played by the ISC. It is not simply about the role of the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary; it is also about the role of the Prime Minister. There are powers that only a Prime Minister has and has to execute, as is reflected in the Bill. Therefore, recognition from the Prime Minister of the role of the ISC is important.
Finally, there is the complicated issue that Lord Anderson raised regarding the circumstances in which the Prime Minister’s unique powers can be delegated in the context of intercept warrants targeted at Members of relevant legislatures. There was a detailed discussion. Those warrants are rightly subject to a triple lock process which requires the authorisation of the Prime Minister. We recognise that the experience of covid and the hospitalisation of the then Prime Minister in 2020 gave rise to questions about what should happen in such circumstances and making sure there are proper procedures in place to ensure that there is no national security gap. Members in the other place were right to press for a tightening of those arrangements. That raises wider issues that the Bill cannot address: around what happens if there is a conflict of interest for a Prime Minister or circumstances in which a Prime Minister is accused of being careless on issues around national security. I do not think that that can be addressed by the Bill or perhaps by any legislation, but it is a salutary reminder to us all about the importance of Prime Ministers taking immensely seriously their responsibilities towards our national security and always behaving in a way that means that that can never be in doubt.
This should be a cross-party issue—a matter on which we all work together. I know that Members who are present this evening and have great expertise in this area will want to raise further questions about the detailed application of the Bill, and I hope that those will be considered in the same spirit that we saw in the House of Lords. Often in this place, the Government simply maintain their position and the detailed amendments are tabled in the Lords, but I hope that on this issue we will see the same spirit of cross-party discussion that we saw in the other place.
This is about ensuring that there is proper oversight and there are proper safeguards, but it is also, vitally, about defending our national security at a time of rapidly changing technology, when we all have grave concerns about the potential for terrorists, extremists and serious criminals to exploit that new technology to do us harm. We must all be vigilant, and ensure that the intelligence and security agencies are supported so that they can do the work we need them to do, on our behalf, to keep our country safe.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
Let me say first of all that I am in favour of the Bill, which I think constitutes a sensible updating of the intelligence community’s powers in the ways that the Home Secretary and, indeed, the shadow Home Secretary have described. I am also in favour of the principle, mentioned by the shadow Home Secretary, that greater powers for the intelligence agencies should come with greater oversight of those powers.
I know that my colleagues in the Intelligence and Security Committee will want to focus on certain areas covered by the Bill. I want to focus my remarks on internet connection records, which are, of course, important pieces of intelligence. We are talking here about which internet sites were accessed and when, not about precisely what was viewed or what activity was carried out, but none the less this data can be of significant intelligence value. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 allows for the obtaining of internet connection records data in certain circumstances. The circumstances on which I want to concentrate are those in which an intelligence agency is focused on the use of a particular internet service at a particular time and is keen to know the identity of the person or persons who have been using it at that time. This is covered by section 62 of the Act, which gives authority for an intelligence agency to obtain that information. The Bill seeks to broaden an agency’s power to act in those circumstances.
The law currently requires the agency to know specifically which service has been used, and specifically at which time it was used. Clause 15 seeks to extend that to allow the collection of ICR data to identify individuals using “one or more” specified internet services “in a specified period”. What that means, at least as the Bill is currently drafted, is that there is no apparent limit on the number of internet services that can be specified or on the length of the specified period, so the clause could allow an intelligence agency to collect ICR data on a large number of different internet services, and over a long period. That would inevitably involve data on the activities of a potentially large number of people, whereas the current law permits only examination of a specific service at a specific time, which carries much less risk of other wholly innocent and uninvolved individuals being caught in the net.
I do not suggest—and neither, I think, does the Intelligence and Security Committee—that the intelligence agencies do not need these wider powers. We do say, however, that this is a significant widening of their powers, and that it should therefore come with additional scrutiny from a judicial commissioner. I think we can deduce, not just from the debate in the other place, but from what the Home Secretary has said in this House and what other Ministers have said at other times, that the Government essentially have two arguments in response to that. The first is that this new power is not intrusive enough to merit extra oversight, as ICR data relating to those not subject to agency interest is not retained, and the second is that the power being proposed is no more intrusive than current powers to collect internet connection data.
On the first of those arguments, the fact that data is not retained does not mean that it is not intrusive to collect it. Many of our constituents would be concerned about their internet activity being scrutinised, even if no action were taken thereafter—and we should bear in mind that the Bill’s language does not limit that scrutiny to sites visited which are inherently suspicious. Even everyday online activity may be of interest in the case of individuals of concern, but this provision would mean that the everyday online activity of many who are not of concern will also be examined. That, we say, makes the provision worthy of additional oversight.
The second argument the Government might advance is that this is no more intrusive than current powers. That, I think, is true in terms of the depth of the intrusion—it is still the “when” and “where” of internet activity rather than the “what” that we are talking about—but it is not true in terms of its breadth. Many more people will be caught by it, and that is a significant and material increase in intrusion for the population at large. We therefore believe that the Government should think again, not about whether intelligence agencies should have these wider powers, but about whether there should be the involvement of external scrutiny to ensure that they are used properly.
There is only one other matter that I want to touch on briefly, and it has been mentioned already: the grounds on which powers such as these can be used. There are, essentially, three. First, they can be used in the interests of national security, and I have no argument with that. Secondly, they can be used in urgent cases to combat some forms of criminality. Thirdly, they can be used in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the UK, in so far as those interests are also relevant to national security. As the House knows, the last of those has long been controversial as an appropriate ground for action—and, of course, the more intrusive the powers that can be used with that justification, the more controversial it is. I think it fair to say that the ISC is concerned about its use in that regard, and I am sure the House will want to consider, as the Bill proceeds, whether its application to these powers and more generally is still appropriate.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Let me start with two thank yous. First, let me put on record my party’s gratitude to the intelligence services and law enforcement organisations that work so incredibly hard to keep all our citizens safe in the face of constantly changing and developing threats. Secondly, I thank all those who took part in the reviews of the 2016 Act that have informed the Bill. However, as Lord Anderson said in his own review, they should be a starting point for parliamentary scrutiny and debate rather than a finishing point.
Although any opportunity to revisit and improve the 2016 Act would generally be welcome, my party has serious concerns about certain provisions in this amendment Bill. In short, while it is constantly presented as “updating”, and as protecting and making efficient pre-existing powers, we fear that the reality is a very significant expansion of what are, we must remember, already extraordinarily wide powers by international standards. There are significant privacy and human rights risks, and the danger of increasingly widespread suspicionless surveillance. We fear that we may be handing invasive powers to intelligence and law enforcement agencies not because the powers are necessary or essential to their work but because they are convenient, and that is not striking the right balance.
All this is consistent with the very detailed and principled privacy and human rights concerns that my party raised in relation to the 2016 Act itself—particularly in the speeches made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who is here to take part in the debate again today. As will be the case today, we did not oppose the Second Reading of that Bill, but in the absence of important amendments, or concessions and reassurances—again, as with the 2016 legislation—we keep open the option to oppose the current Bill at a later stage.
Today I will focus on concerns relating to bulk personal datasets, and on notices relating to changes in telecommunication services. I will also briefly flag up our concerns about internet connection records and changes to the offence of unlawfully obtaining communications data. My party also believes that this Bill provides an opportunity to revisit the whole issue of snooping on parliamentarians, if we are bold enough to take it.
I shall turn first to bulk personal datasets and part 7 of the 2016 Act. In short, we struggle to see that the proposed changes have been shown to be necessary. We fear that they will instead create even larger gaps in the oversight regime in relation to these capabilities. A whole host of concerns arises in relation to the provisions of clause 2 and the concept of data in relation to which there can be
“low or no reasonable expectation of privacy”.
Bluntly, I struggle to see how a decision maker is supposed to assess people’s reasonable expectations of privacy, and when we say “people” we can be talking about hundreds or thousands of people or potentially several million people. Within that group of individuals there will be many varying attitudes to further privacy, and the data related to individuals could vary hugely from the mundane to the deeply personal. It may be that there is supposed to be some type of “reasonable person” test applied, but is that reasonable person black, gay, Jewish or indeed a trade unionist? How are potentially very different subjective attitudes to be accounted for? These might seem like odd questions, but the experience in the United States of America, where a similar test is involved, proves that these questions are very real indeed. Is it a general question of privacy in relation to the data or a more specific question of expectations of the use of that data by intelligence services? What precisely is low expectation? This seems to be an impossible assessment to undertake in any realistic or meaningful sense.
Joanna Cherry
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments earlier. As usual, he is making a very forensic speech. On this issue of a reasonable expectation of privacy, does he agree that clause 2 and clause 11(3) seem to be based on a legal misunderstanding that people lose their right to privacy when they happen to share certain information with someone else? He will be as aware as I am that that runs contrary to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and that, by contrast, the Court has actually said that privacy includes
“the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings”.
Does he agree that it is important to ensure that this Bill is commensurate with our obligations under the European convention on human rights?
Stuart C. McDonald
My hon. and learned Friend will not be surprised to hear that I completely agree with her.
In fact, that brings me to the next point I want to raise in relation to clause 2. As well as putting in place what I struggle to see as being a reasonably operated assessment, the clause raises concerns in relation to consistency with data protection legislation and with human rights obligations. The factors to be taken into account when undertaking that really difficult assessment do not even expressly include the sensitivity of the data in question, which surely should be central to any question of processing. That is an inconsistency with existing data protection principles and laws, and I agree that the compatibility of such provisions with our human rights obligations is also surely highly dubious. Just because someone has shared personal data does not mean that they automatically lose their right to further protection around how that data is shared and processed, especially when it is sensitive personal data, as my hon. and learned Friend has just said.
The role of judicial commissioners in this area is even further diluted, reduced to reviewing by judicial review standards whether datasets do indeed relate to data where there can be low or no expectation of privacy. Frankly, that is not a safeguard at all. At the very least, their role needs to be strengthened when the Bill is considered in Committee. We also need to seek assurances around how the Bill will impact on the reporting of the retention and use of bulk personal datasets. If large numbers are retained under category authorisations, we may not know how many datasets are actually being gathered.
Let me turn to various aspects of part 4, on notices. Again there are some controversial provisions, particularly in clause 21 and the requirement on selected telecommunications operators to inform the Secretary of State if they propose to make changes to their products or services that would negatively affect existing lawful access capabilities. That seems like an extraordinarily broad power, without anything remotely appropriate in terms of oversight and limitations. These powers are going to make the UK a real outlier. Essentially, the Secretary of State will be empowered to say to tech companies, “You are not allowed to improve your products without consulting us, so that we can still break in to access the data that we need and when we want it”. Despite what the Secretary of State says, taken together with other changes to review processes, such powers could easily be used to significantly delay, or de facto veto, updates to security, rendering everybody’s data more vulnerable to hacking by third-party actors.
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
That is simply incorrect, and I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to continue down a road that he knows to be incorrect. Let me just be very clear: this is a continuation of a power that was granted in 2016. The notice does not extend that power; it merely enables a conversation to begin with companies before any action is taken, to maintain an existing standard and not in fact to change it.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful for that clarification from the Minister, and we will of course engage further in this debate in Committee.
These concerns have been raised not just by me but by significant tech companies; this is not something that has come to me simply through perusing the Bill. The key question remains: why is there to be no proper oversight of these notices and notice powers by independent advance authorisation? Why is there not even the double lock that applies to other notices that can be served on communications providers under that Act? Surely that scrutiny should be carried out in advance. There are also lots of question marks around the expanded claims of international jurisdiction. How will potential conflicts of law be resolved, especially if a company subject to one of these notices that is contrary to its domestic laws cannot even say anything about it because it is bound to secrecy by this legislation? What are the prospects of other Governments copying what our Government are doing and seeking to replicate such provisions, and what would the impact of that be on UK companies?
Turning to internet connection records, the starting point is that we should remember that no other European Union or Five Eyes country permits the requiring of ICR generation or retention in relation to its own residents, so this was a hugely controversial development in the 2016 Act. As we have heard, ICRs can reveal huge amounts of deeply sensitive information about a person. For now, secret services can seek ICRs only when certain facts that are already known, such as the identity of a person connecting or the time and use of the connection, so that the retention is at least targeted in some way.
The risk in this Bill is that reasonable suspicion will no longer precede targeted surveillance. Instead, the Bill would seek to use ICRs for the discovery of new targets, which is a really significant jump and development. I can genuinely understand some of the reasons being offered for this change, and I am not unsympathetic to the case being made, but if these powers are not carefully circumscribed, they risk creating a big step towards mass surveillance and fishing exercises. We need to ask whether there are less invasive alternatives and whether these powers are therefore really necessary. Alternatively, we need to look again at the oversight mechanisms for the use of these powers.
We also have concerns about the Bill’s proposals in relation to the offence created by the 2016 Act, where relevant persons in a relevant public body knowingly or recklessly obtain communications data from a telecoms or postal operator without lawful authority. This Bill seeks to set out examples of what would amount to lawful authority, which is a laudable aim. However, there are real questions about whether some of the examples in clause 12 are not in fact redefining the concept of lawful authority. In particular, the assertion that there would be lawful authority simply because
“the communications data had been published before the relevant person obtained it”
is controversial. That is particularly so when
“‘published’ means make available to the public or a section of the public (whether or not on a commercial basis).”
As I said in relation to bulk personal datasets, limited publication is not authority for intrusive surveillance. Could a simple private message not amount to publication of comms data? The implications of this definition of lawful authority need very careful scrutiny indeed.
Finally, on the interception and hacking of parliamentarians, making provision for circumstances where the Prime Minister is unavailable to play his part in a triple lock seems sensible, but the fact that the issue of snooping on MPs and others is being revisited should trigger us all to rethink the whole scheme. Our role of representing our constituents, interrogating legislation and holding the Government to account should not be interfered with lightly. We should take the chance to consider post-surveillance notification of MPs who have been spied upon, by judicial commissioners, once investigations are completed. As matters stand at the moment, redress is almost impossible to obtain. We should also require that the investigatory power commissioners be informed every time these powers are used, so that there is transparency about how often this is happening. All other options should be on the table as well.
I started by thanking intelligence and law enforcement authorities and I am happy to do so again in closing, but our respect for them does not mean we should ever consider writing blank cheques or handing them whatever powers they ask for. They are not perfect. From time to time they exceed their powers and certain individuals abuse their lawful capabilities. The powers that they seek through this Bill are extremely invasive and broad in scope. There is a real danger that key provisions of the Bill will go beyond what is necessary and get the balance with privacy and human rights wrong. These provisions will need serious scrutiny and revision in Committee, and that is what we in the SNP will seek to secure.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Hegel said, “What is reasonable is real, and what is real is reasonable.” In facing the very real threats that pervade, it is certainly reasonable that we equip those missioned to keep us safe with the powers they need to do so. That is partly about putting in place a legislative framework that allows them to counter those threats, for we know what will happen otherwise. We sit in this Chamber graced by the coats of arms of our former colleagues Jo Cox and David Amess. We in this place know what it means when those missioned to keep us safe are unable to do so.
On that basis, I was proud and pleased to take the original Investigatory Powers Bill through this House—some veterans of its passage are in the Chamber tonight—and, in doing so, we were conscious of the need to strike a balance between, on the one hand, providing the powers and equipping the police and the security services with the necessary mechanisms to do their job and, on the other hand, retaining both the privacy of individuals and putting in place the necessary safeguards mentioned by the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).
That balance was at the heart of our considerations then. I am conscious that I said in that debate:
“It is important to understand that privacy is at the very core of the Bill… The protection of private interests and the protection of the public are at the heart of all we seek to do”.––[Official Report, Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee, 12 April 2016; c. 90.]
That remains so, but it is also important to recognise that we always anticipated that the legislative arena was bound to require a dynamic approach, of the kind we are discussing this evening, and that we would need to update the legislation to deal with the changing character of the threats I described. It comes as no surprise that the Government have introduced legislation to do just that, to add to what is already on the statute book and to make it more appropriate.
Joanna Cherry
The right hon. Gentleman and I often crossed swords during the passage of the 2016 Act, but we have since reached a point of rapprochement on discovering our mutual passion for the importance of freedom of expression. From what he is saying this evening, I think we can also agree on the importance of privacy. Of course, that comes from the right to a private and family life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Does he agree that it is unfortunate, given this Bill’s huge implications for our constituents’ privacy, that the Government have decided not to conduct a privacy impact assessment? Surely such an assessment is vital, and it is perhaps something upon which he and I can again, rather unusually, agree.
Sir John Hayes
Our agreements are becoming rather less unusual. I do not know whether that gives the hon. and learned Lady any pleasure, or whether it causes her pain. None the less, she is right that, when we consider such legislation, it is important that it is scrutinised to an even greater degree than we would normally expect in this place.
The 2016 Act was considered by three Committees of this House. It was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament and, indeed, the bulk powers, which have been mentioned, were subject to an independent review by David Anderson, who has since been elevated to become Lord Anderson.
The hon. and learned Lady is right that the need for scrutiny is profound, particularly when we equip organisations with extensive authority to invade private space. Of course, we will not know much of what they do. Many of the individuals involved in the security services and the police, and the work they do, are rightly unknown to all but a few, so it is all the more important that, in giving them such authority, we behave in the way that the hon. and learned Lady describes—I am now adding to the small, two-person coalition formed between us.
It is right that the legislation is updated to make it fit for purpose. The ISC, of which I am also proud to be a member, has been told of the need for urgent, targeted and necessary changes. When we consider this Bill, we should test whether its provisions are indeed urgent, targeted and necessary. I am not absolutely convinced that all we see before us passes that test, and I will say a little more about that when I come to clause 14 and its associated schedule.
There is more expertise in the Chamber tonight than I could possibly imagine but, by way of background for the wider audience, I will say a word about what the 2016 Act does and why this Bill therefore matters. The Act provides the law-enforcement and security services with the vital powers they need to keep us safe, and it does so in a way that is clear and transparent.
When we passed the Act into law, we ensured that the safeguard mechanisms were radically overhauled. The innovative double lock that we put in place was, at the time, unprecedented. As the shadow Home Secretary said, it does two things: it provides the necessary protection that she describes, but it also gives the security services confidence that what they are doing is not only authorised but thoroughly checked. It is also good for Ministers to know that the process has judicial oversight as well as political oversight.
There have been a number of changes since the Act was passed, both in the job done by the security and intelligence services and the police and in the reason they have to do that job, for the people who seek to do us harm are dynamic, too; they change what they do, and technology has also changed. All of that explains why this Bill is, in broad terms, welcome and necessary.
But the powers I describe are not given solely to the people I mentioned. They are also given to a number of other public bodies. This was debated at great length when the 2016 Act was considered in this place. These public bodies—ranging from local authorities to the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and all kinds of others—have proper legal functions. I am not debating that, but they are not quite of a kind with the security services and the police. To grant these bodies such intrusive powers was always controversial and, to put it mildly, was bound to give rise to some scepticism.
When Parliament considered the Act, we deliberated on that provision in great detail and took a very considered and cautious decision to restrict the use of the power, which we considered to be intrusive. As a result, the public bodies that I have described, including the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities, are required to take further procedural steps in order to compel the disclosure of communications data from telecommunications operators. They must obtain either an authorisation under the current IPA, a court order or other judicial authorisation, or regulatory powers in relation to telecommunications or postal operators, or they must obtain the communications data as secondary data as part of a valid interception or equipment interference warrant. So their ability to take advantage of the powers within the existing Act is both limited, particular and subject to those safeguards. The Bill before us seeks to remove that requirement for those further procedural steps in relation to a wide range of public regulatory authorities.
Worse still—I hope the Minister will correct this in his summation—we have yet to learn which those bodies are, as we have not seen a list of the authorities. I hope we will get that list, if not tonight—as it is a big ask for the Minister to read them all out in his 10-minute summation, I hope he will write to the House, and put a copy of the letter in the Library, explaining which bodies will enjoy those powers.
The Government’s argument for removing the restrictions I have set out is that a broader array of communications now fall into the category of communications data—the definition of communications data has broadened—and that a wider number of organisations now constitute telecommunications operators. As a result, it is said that the current restrictions prevent some regulatory authorities from acquiring the information necessary to carry out their statutory responsibilities. The problem with that argument is that unless we know what those regulatory functions are and unless we understand which bodies are involved in the supervisory functions, it is hard to know whether the changes before the House can be legitimised. I have no doubt that will be explored in Committee— I would be amazed if it is not—but it would be helpful if the Minister could be ahead of that further consideration and clarify which specific bodies will fall into this category.
As I said, the issue was highly scrutinised when we last debated these matters. At that time, the powers were tied to national security and serious crime circumstances only, to avoid impinging on the very privacy mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). For that reason too, Parliament granted the powers to a limited range of organisations. We should not brush that aside lightly. Colleagues will be aware of various reports of the intrusive use of investigatory powers by local authorities and other public bodies. The House would not be content to introduce sweeping powers for an unknown and potentially unlimited number of public bodies, when a previous Parliament decided that was too intrusive. I would like the Minister to satisfy the House about the necessity of the change, to specify to whom the change will apply, and to reassure us that there is no weakening of the core connection between the privacy of the individual and the necessary powers available to do what is legally right.
As I said earlier, in broad terms the Bill is welcome. It is important to understand that we need to update the legal framework in which those missioned to keep us safe operate, but the Bill can be improved during its scrutiny. I simply point out that when we debated the Act in its original form, we recognised that through scrutiny that Bill could be improved. As we continue consideration of this important measure, I hope that this Minister—one of my successors as Security Minister—will recognise the same.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
In common with all the speakers who have made their contributions thus far on Second Reading of the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill, I will not say that I oppose the Bill or that these powers should not exist or be updated in this rapidly developing area of technology. As others have observed, the rapidly evolving technology is creating threats about which we could not have dreamed when the original Act was introduced after an ISC report on privacy and security in 2015. Although the issues are evolving, some things stay the same, namely that in a democracy it is important that the security services and all the agencies, whether they relate to police or security, can be held to account by the democratic structures that are created to make our democracy real.
I emphasise a point that has not been stressed by others: we are living through an era during which authoritarian governments across the world are beginning to challenge the openness of democratic structures and test whether those who live in a democracy have the political will to maintain their democracy, keep it vibrant and protect it from threats. Against that background of being challenged—we do not have to look much further than Europe and the borders of Ukraine to see how some of those challenges are beginning to develop—we are being asked whether we rate the health and strength of our democracy enough to protect it. We are also being asked, which is the nature of this debate, to justify the powers we are giving to the security and police services to our constituents and those citizens of our country who wish to see their democracy protected, as well as having a proper balance between democratic oversight safety and the powers we give our security services to do their jobs.
As others have mentioned, there is a balance between the effectiveness and speed of those powers and the safeguards that this Parliament puts in place in order to ensure that there is proper oversight and use of them. We have heard how that balance and safeguarding has been developed in law. We are looking now at amendments to the existing law in order to update and modernise those powers to make them more effective, efficient and easier to use, and to ensure protecting our security, be it from criminality, terrorism, paedophilia or state actors who wish to our country harm, is balanced correctly with safeguards, openness and transparency oversight. Then we can protect our society and values, while respecting the privacy of every individual citizen who enjoys the freedom of living in our democracy.
The Bill seeks an expansion in investigatory powers and some of those powers available to agencies to deal with the evolution of this area. Our job, not only in the debate tonight, but in the scrutiny of this Bill in Committee, is to test and ask the appropriate questions about whether the right balance has been struck by Ministers and the relevant agencies in the extra powers that they want to introduce. As the newest member of the ISC, I believe that, as the investigatory powers evolve, it is also important that the powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee to do its job in these new areas are properly developed and resourced. I shall just leave that on the record. It is not a surprise to those who have read the Lords debates that this is an issue.
I draw attention to an area of the Bill where amendments were agreed in the Lords: what is known as the triple lock, rather than the double lock. That is the mechanism that protects the communications of Members of this Parliament and other relevant legislatures from being arbitrarily intercepted by agencies for no reason. In fact, it is part of the protection that one would expect in a robust democracy for those people who are elected to represent their constituents. They have a reasonable expectation, I think, to be allowed to go about their business without being subjected to that kind of intrusive power, unless there is an extremely good reason for it. Members will know that the underlying principle is that the communications of Members of this Parliament and other relevant legislators should be intercepted and read only where it is absolutely essential to do so—in the most serious of circumstances. In the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which this Bill will change, Parliament recognised that that was an issue by adding a third layer of safeguards to the approval process for warrants for targeted interception and targeted examination of communications. Those warrants are issued only by a Secretary of State and reviewed by a judicial commissioner, which is the double lock, but they are also approved by the Prime Minister personally. As my right hon. Friend said from the Dispatch Box, there is an issue if the Prime Minister is unavailable to do that. It is important that there is not a gap in security protection, which would happen if the Prime Minister is unable to be the third part of that triple lock.
Nobody disagrees with the idea that that process should be made more robust, but there is also an issue about how wide the power to issue that final approval—currently, that final approval rests only with the Prime Minister—should go. There were debates about that when the Bill went through its stages in the other place. The question of balance is how the new Bill deals with ensuring that the triple lock is robust while not creating a lacuna should the Prime Minister be indisposed and unable to issue warrants without that power going too wide. The ISC supports the intention behind this, which is to provide resilience around the current arrangements. It is important that the Prime Minister is the person who approves these things, but this may affect the operations of the intelligence agencies when they are seeking a targeted interference or a time-sensitive warrant. None the less, there was agreement that, in truly exceptional circumstances, it may be appropriate for a Secretary of State to temporarily deputise for the Prime Minister. The Committee considered that it was important that decisions in this area should be delegated only in the most exceptional circumstances, and delegated only to a limited number of Secretaries of State who are already responsible for authorising relevant warrants. We want the Prime Minister to retain sight of all warrants relating to Members of a relevant legislature. Most of that was agreed in the other place, although there is an issue about whether the relevant Secretaries of State—there can be up to five of those—are ones that already issue warrants.
Mr Jones
I was a little taken aback that the Home Secretary just assumed that, once these had been agreed by a substitute, they would automatically be reviewed by the Prime Minister. Clearly, that is a big assumption. Does my hon. Friend not think that it would be better if we put it in the Bill that the Prime Minister had full oversight of this warrant?
Dame Angela Eagle
Clearly, putting such things in the Bill is often an important safeguard. Certainly, I do not understand why the delegation of these powers should not be limited to Secretaries of State who also issue warrants. I do not quite understand why there is an obsession with five Secretaries of State. We could have four and still have robust oversight.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady aware that the Wilson doctrine is still in operation? This came about in the ’60s and ’70s when Harold Wilson, the Prime Minister of the day, gave an undertaking to this House that the mail of Members of Parliament would not be routinely tapped; it would happen only in exceptional circumstances. All this triple lock is doing is putting that doctrine on to a statutory footing.
Dame Angela Eagle
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Obviously, the Wilson doctrine is in the previous Investigatory Powers Act. However, given what happened with the incapacity of the Prime Minister during the covid pandemic, we are seeking to tweak it. It seems sensible to do so, but we need to tweak it in a way that is as narrow as possible to ensure that there is no lacuna in protection.
I wonder why this idea of five Secretaries of State is so important. I also wonder why we cannot restrict the Secretaries of State who could operate in place of the Prime Minister in this very particular circumstance to those Secretaries of State who also issue warrants, and why that cannot be on the face of the Bill. I hope that, in his response, the Minister might have some contribution to make about why the Government are sticking on this particular issue, given that everyone understands how important it is to have resilience. But the resilience that the ISC is seeking is slightly stricter than that which the Government seem to wish to grant. It would be helpful for Committee stage if the Minister explained why that is.
It is important that our discussions on particular bits of the Bill, which we will have in Committee, are seen in the context of a widespread acknowledgement that we need to ensure that the investigatory powers to which the Bill relates are updated, and continue to evolve, to make them relevant, and efficient and effective to use. At the same time, any expansion in investigatory powers must have particular safeguards and oversight in a democratic country, so that we can assure our constituents that it is being done in the interests of preserving our democracy and ensuring that we can protect the population from growing and ever-evolving threats, be they of terrorism, state actors or crime, and that their human rights and rights to privacy are still appropriately protected with proper oversight, which of course the ISC is an important part of.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). As she mentioned, she is the newest member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, but that has not prevented her, as we have seen this evening, from already making a valuable contribution to our work. As Chairman of the ISC, I will set out the Committee’s view of the Bill as a whole, based on the engagement that we have had with the intelligence community, and with the Government more broadly, on the legislation. In doing so, I pay particular tribute to our member in the other place, the noble Lord West of Spithead, who has already clearly set out our Committee’s position there, and had success, in at least one respect, in obtaining an improvement to the Bill. In looking at the Bill as a whole, I will also touch on one other specific matter in addition to those that my colleagues have tackled individually.
As right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware, the original Investigatory Powers Act was introduced as a result of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s 2015 report on privacy and security. The report recommended the creation of a new Act to set out clearly: the intrusive powers that are available to intelligence agencies; the purposes for which they may be used; and the authorisations and, crucially, the oversight that should be required. There have, however, been a number of developments since the Act was introduced. As the Home Secretary said in opening the debate, we now face a different threat picture, with greater danger from state actors, a significant rise in internet-enabled crime, and an ever-accelerating pace of technological change.
The ISC has therefore made time to consider and scrutinise the case for change put forward by the intelligence agencies and the Government, and to take classified evidence on the Bill. I can tell the House that, broadly, the Committee welcomes the Bill as a means of addressing those developments that have the potential to undermine the ability of the intelligence agencies to detect threats and protect our country. However, as we have heard, there are several areas in which the Committee considers that the Bill goes too far. In particular, it does not yet provide the safeguards and oversight that are so essential when it comes to secretive actions that have the potential to intrude on a great many people.
The Bill seeks an expansion of the investigatory powers available to various public bodies. The Committee is in agreement that, at least in the case of the intelligence services, that is justified, but we are still sceptical—this was eloquently presented in more detail by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who took the original legislation through when he was Security Minister—of the broad way in which some powers have been restored to an unknown number of as yet unidentified public bodies through clause 14. Any increase in investigatory powers ought to—indeed, must—be accompanied by a concomitant increase in oversight. That is a very basic principle that Parliament has always expected to be followed. By oversight, I do not just mean parliamentary oversight as exercised by my Committee, but robust ministerial, judicial and regulatory oversight too. During the passage of the Bill, Members of the Intelligence and Security Committee will seek to ensure the inclusion of necessary safeguards and sufficient detail on those safeguards.
The Bill deals with a number of technical areas, where it is right that the necessary guidance is provided in codes of practice. However, matters that deal with procedural safeguards or external oversight must be on the face of the Bill to ensure that they are adhered to and cannot be changed or watered down without Parliament being consulted.
I am sorry to say that in recent years the Government have been reluctant to ensure that democratic oversight keeps pace with intelligence powers, particularly where it is related to the remit and resources of the ISC, which have been increasingly undermined in a way that I believe Parliament never intended. It is therefore imperative that Parliament ensures that the safeguards and scrutiny provided by the ISC and other external oversight bodies, such as the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, are clearly set out and cannot be discarded on a political whim. That means putting them in the legislation itself. Fine words in a code of practice are, I am afraid, not worth the paper they are written on; the statute must include everything that is needed to provide Parliament and the public with the necessary assurance that investigatory powers are tightly drawn and robustly scrutinised.
The Committee therefore expects the Government to take this opportunity to bolster the effective oversight that they keep saying they value. Actions speak louder than words, as is often said, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s assurances in his response to our interventions. I hope that he will be able to find a solution both to the individual aspects of the Bill that continue to be raised, and to our overarching concern about the diminution of parliamentary powers in respect of national security.
I would like to highlight one particular issue, which concerns my colleagues on the ISC and myself, relating to the oversight requirements for the retention and examination of bulk personal datasets. The Bill will insert new section 226DA into the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 to require each intelligence service to provide the Secretary of State with an annual report detailing the individual bulk personal datasets that they retained and examined under either a “category authorisation” or an “individual authorisation” during the period in question.
In the upper House, Lord West, on behalf of the Committee, tabled an amendment that was designed to ensure that there is independent parliamentary and judicial scrutiny, too—I emphasise that—of this information, rather than just political oversight. The amendment would have achieved that by providing that the annual report that the Government propose be sent to the Secretary of State should also be sent both to the ISC and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. One would think that that was a pretty reasonable request. Such a measure would rectify the current gap in parliamentary oversight of these authorisations and complement the commissioner’s existing powers of inspection to provide oversight at all levels.
Unfortunately, the Government did not accept the amendment. However, they did at least acknowledge that the gap existed and that some level of parliamentary oversight of the new regime was needed. The Government therefore introduced their own amendment, which, rather than providing the ISC with the same report that they are providing to the Secretary of State, places an additional duty on the Secretary of State to provide a separate report to the ISC. Notably, even this secondary report would not be provided to IPCO. That Government amendment is now proposed new section 226DB.
Although we are reassured that the Committee’s strength of feeling, which was matched by the feeling of noble Lords in the upper House, has been recognised by the Government, what concerns the Committee is why the Government have chosen to craft a separate amendment requiring a separate report to be drawn up.
There are three key differences of which the House will wish to be aware between the proposals of the Committee and those of the Government. The first is that the Government’s proposal will actually create more work for the intelligence community because, instead of simply sending the existing annual report to the ISC, it will have to produce an additional report. That seems entirely at odds with the Government’s general approach to the Bill. The Minister in the upper House was keen to emphasise the need to minimise the burden on the agencies when it came to other elements in the Bill, so it is most peculiar that the Government are deliberately choosing to increase the burden unnecessarily.
The second difference is that the Government proposal excludes the Investigatory Powers Commissioner completely, and it is not clear why. Oversight by the commissioner should be regarded as essential, because that is what it is.
The third and most important difference is that the Government amendment is less specific on the information to be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee, and does not include individual authorisations within its scope, only category authorisations. It therefore does not provide the same level of assurance to Parliament and the public that the ISC will be fully sighted on the operation of this new regime. It is that final point that is causing us most concern. I therefore seek assurance from the Minister that the Government proposal will not limit the information received by the ISC to category authorisations, and that all the information contained in the report to the Minister will be contained in the report to the ISC, unless it is material that falls strictly within the definition of current operations at the time at which the report is provided, which we accept is the one thing that we do not generally see. That definition should be strictly as set out in the Justice and Security Act 2013. Any excisions beyond that would undermine what we presume is the intent to provide assurance to Parliament and the public that the regime has robust democratic oversight.
Finally, I simply reiterate the key point: the Bill seeks an expansion in the investigatory powers available to the intelligence services. Although that expansion may be justified, any increase in investigatory powers must be accompanied by a concomitant increase in oversight, and the Government have not yet fulfilled that requirement.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Let me start by thanking our security services. I think I am now the longest-serving member of the ISC, and it is a privilege to work with them and scrutinise their work, as our Committee does. They do not get a great deal of publicity—for the right reasons—but when they do, it is sometimes not factual by any stretch of the imagination. They do an invaluable job, and in protecting our democracy, the threat that they face—that we all face—is changing, so the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 needs revising.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) said, the important point is that any new powers that we give the security services to act on our behalf should come with an equally balanced level of scrutiny and oversight. I see the scrutiny of our security as like a three-legged stool, with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, and the ISC. Well, actually, I would say that it is more like a two-and-a-half-legged stool, because the Home Secretary has done what most Ministers do; they say how wonderful the ISC is, how much they value our work, and that they want us fully involved—in passing this legislation, for example—but since 2017, when I first sat on the ISC, there has been a marked increase in lip service paid to it, as I think we see again in the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, we have not met the Prime Minister for 10 years—any of them; I think we had one who offered to come in the dying days of her Administration. We have taken evidence from the security services on the Bill, and I have to say that they are not the problem: it is the Government who are the problem all the time. That was the case with the National Security and Investment Act 2021. Frankly, it is an uphill struggle to get things changed in this Bill—changes that would not only improve the Bill, but make sense. One has just been highlighted by the Chairman of the ISC, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).
On occasions, it is a bit like going round in circles. I will give an example. We have actually made one little advance in the other place, in terms of acceptance of the changes to do with the triple lock. Now, though, the sensible thing we are asking for—that it should be in the Bill that the Prime Minister should actually see those warrants—is being resisted as though it would somehow stop the world. I am sorry, but I do not think it would. I think the Government believe that they have to be seen to be resisting any changes. I like the Minister, but the passage of the National Security and Investment Act was a pretty dark day for the Government’s relationship with the ISC, because we had to fight tooth and nail to try to get anything changed in that Bill.
Mr Jones
I think the Minister was, actually. I think he picked up the tail end of that Bill.
The ISC has looked at this issue in detail. We have taken evidence from the heads of the security services, and we want to be supportive of change, but we also want that important role of scrutiny and ensuring the public are protected from the occasions when things might go wrong. The other thing that struck me today is that, although the Home Secretary can read a good speech, I am not sure he had a great grasp of some of the detail of the Bill. All I ask of the Minister is to please take on board some of the things we are saying, so that we can make progress in Committee. They are not radical things that are going to upturn the Bill; they are things that will improve it. I suspect that in certain parts of the Government there is a hatred of the ISC, and the belief that we have to be resisted at all costs. That will lead to a poorer Bill, because the amendments we will be tabling would actually improve the Bill. Lord West also did a great job in the other place.
I now turn to clause 2 of the Bill, which introduces the bulk personal data regime. There is a worrying gap: oversight of what are deemed low or no privacy datasets added to category authorisations. At the moment, the system does not work, because things like the electoral register have to get special permission. That is silly, frankly, but we need to ensure that these provisions are scrutinised.
New part 7A of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, introduced by clause 2, provides for a light-touch regime for the retention and examination of bulk personal datasets by the intelligence services where the subject of that data is deemed to have low or no reasonable expectation of privacy. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) said, people are increasingly giving their personal data with little thought to how it is going to be used—not just by the intelligence services, but for commercial purposes. That needs looking at.
Approval of such a dataset will be sought either under a category authorisation, which encompasses a number of individual datasets that have a similar content and may be used for a similar purpose, or by individual authorisation, which covers a single dataset that does not fall neatly into a category authorisation or is subject to a complicating factor. For a category authorisation, a judicial commissioner will approve the overall description of the category authorisation before it can be used. A judicial commissioner will approve renewal of the authorisation after 12 months, and the relevant Secretary of State will receive retrospective annual reports on the use of category and individual authorisations.
However, as the Bill is currently drafted, this oversight is all retrospective. The problem is that what is missing is real-time or even near real-time oversight of changes. Under the present regime, once a category authorisation has been approved, the intelligence services have the ability to add individual datasets to that authorisation through internal processes alone. They examine the dataset without being subject to any political or judicial oversight, and they would be able to use those datasets for potentially a year without anybody being any the wiser.
We do not question why the security services need these powers, but there is potential for mission creep without any oversight of what is being authorised. We are not saying that these powers are not required; they are required. What we are really being asked to do is rely on the good faith of the intelligence services to use the powers in a certain way. I do not think that is strong enough, and no legislation should be solely dependent on good will. We also have to guard against—there are such occasions—situations when mistakes happen or people use powers for purposes that are not in the public interest.
It is important that we fill this 12-month gap, and the ISC thinks that the easiest and simplest way to change this process would be for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to be notified when an individual bulk personal dataset is added by an agency to an existing authorisation. I understand that Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in his review of 2023, recommended a similar proposal. The argument from the Government—it is similar to what they have used throughout this Bill, as the Committee Chairman has remarked—is that that will be onerous in adding to the work of the intelligence services. Well, it would not, because it would simply mean sending a one-line email to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner containing the name and description of the bulk personal dataset as soon as reasonably practicable.
The decision would be approved internally and then sent to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, so it is not actually asking for approval. It is just making sure that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is aware of what is being added, and that the individuals taking such a decision realise that they must inform the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. That would obviously allow the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to look at trends in what is happening. Clearly, after the 12 months, they could look back, but they could also intervene if they thought something was not in touch.
An argument the Government use quite often about this Bill is that it is to have a light-touch approach, and I think this suggestion is for a light-touch approach. I do not know what is onerous about the security services sending an email to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. I think it would ensure the oversight that is needed. Real-time oversight is what we are suggesting, and I do not think it would add to the administration of the security services, but it would lead to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner at least having some visibility on another layer at which decisions are taken.
The proposal would be a very simple thing to do, and I do not understand why the Government are resisting it. I suggest they are resisting it for the many reasons they have resisted some of the other sensible things we have put forward: just because they want to do that. I do not know how we go forward with the relationship between this present Government and the ISC. Dragging information out of them screaming and kicking is taking a long time, even though we have a legal duty to get information, and the critical point now is the starvation of resources from the Committee which is creating real problems in the way that it can operate.
I hope that things change and that when we table amendments we will not get the usual response that amendments to this type of legislation should only be done in the Lords. Are we here to cause trouble for the security services? No, we are not; we want to ensure we do our job, which is set out in statute, to supervise the security services and improve the powers, but to ensure that the public have the recognised safeguards we should expect in a democracy such as ours.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Unlike most Members present, I am not an expert on security. We in this House often have to be generalists. We are here to participate in debates, to understand legislation and to raise concerns where we see them. Like all Members who have spoken before me, I would like to put on the record my deep gratitude to our security services; I regard them with the highest respect. We all regard them with the highest respect and within that there is a slight danger: we respect them and admire their work so much that we are almost always going to grant them what they want. That is a danger, because our duty is to scrutinise what people want and, as the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has just said, not to create trouble but to raise questions of concern. I know these questions of concern will be well received by the Minister on the Front Bench, who thinks deeply about these matters and is also a good friend of mine.
I will be brief because we are coming to the end of the evening, but I want to look at clause 15 and internet connection records. The general rule of investigation is that suspicion precedes surveillance, so if there is good reason to believe that someone is up to mischief, we can start to look at them more closely; we can conduct surveillance to see if our concerns are factually based. The problem with the recommendation in clause 15 is that it allows for target discovery as opposed to target development. If I have got this wrong, I am happy to take an intervention, but what target discovery means to this layman of security matters is possibly going on fishing expeditions—just looking out there to see what is going on and processing enough data on enough people. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) said, people who are perfectly innocently going about their business will get caught up in this data-processing machine just to make sure they are not up to anything nefarious, dangerous or unpleasant. That causes me some concern.
I do want bad people to be caught—I benefit from the capture of bad people; my constituents benefit from the capture of bad people—but surveillance always needs to be proportionate and risk-based, as the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) said in her speech. Freedom is important. One of the most ridiculous constructs in the English language is “Nothing to hide, nothing to fear”, because if people saying that genuinely believed it, they would not have any curtains in their home.
The truth is that we like to think that we have private space in which to operate and go about our legitimate business without the state taking a view that we are up to mischief or might be up to mischief. I know that point was touched on in previous speeches. I think the Chairman of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who is also a good friend, touched on it. Sometimes it is difficult to keep up with experts, but he made it clear that the Committee has concerns about these new powers.
I said I would speak briefly, so I will just close on this point. There are people in this country who like to protest and, frankly, often get in the way of other people, but what they are doing is not illegal. I would hate to think that people within those organisations might end up having their internet records checked out, just to make sure that they were being good citizens. I remember that during the debates on covid-19 perfectly respectable, hugely respected scientists and respected Members of this House were raising concerns about Government policy on lockdowns. I am not saying that the security services were keeping tabs on their interventions, but we know from subject access requests that people in Government were keeping tabs on these people, as if what they were doing was against the interests of the state. That is why I raise my concerns about the clause. I hope the Government will bring forward amendments, but if they do not, I hope they will not be too offended if I perhaps bring forward some amendments on Report.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I thank all right hon. and hon Members for their contributions. This is a complex issue, and that is clear from the level of scrutiny and debate we have seen thus far. The Bill seeks to find a balance—the shadow Home Secretary referred to that very word, “balance”—between necessary investigatory powers and not having a Big Brother, nanny state.
I thank, as others have done, the security forces and those involved in the intelligence sector for all that they do, their work and their commitment and dedication to the job, which have made all our lives safer. Many in this House—I know a few, anyway—could say that they owe their lives to them, and I would be one of them. I thank them very much for all they have done.
I am keen to see work on international terrorism. I was talking to my friend, the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), about how international terrorism works. The Real IRA has contacts in the middle east and eastern Europe. It has contacts where all evil organisations come together, because their ultimate intention is to create havoc and murder innocent people. This Bill is important, because it can address terrorism in Northern Ireland and its contacts with international terrorism. I hope and pray that the work will be successful. As someone who has lived through years of terrorism, I am well used to curtailed freedoms, with checkpoints and stop and search. I have understood the necessity for that and have been thankful for those protections. Let me be clear: I have no issue whatever with this Bill in principle, but I have some questions for the Minister.
Various constituents have contacted me to express concerns, and I want to put those on record, ever mindful of supporting the Government on this issue as measures come forward. I will take a few moments to seek some clarification. First, a concern has been outlined to me about having a notification requirement to require operators to inform the Secretary of State if they propose to make changes to their products or services, and I am sure that other Members have received that briefing. Open Rights Group states:
“While this objective may appear to be reasonable, it would allow the Home Office to prevent secure services from launching in the UK, even where they are rolled out elsewhere. This provision would allow the Home Office to place itself in a position of power over the provider as soon as it hears about the possibility of data being less accessible than it is currently. This situation would take place without reference to an independent authority to assess the rationale or proportionality. Such a move might not be proportionate, for instance, if the security technology had already been introduced safely and with demonstrable benefits to users in other parts of the world.
Open Rights Group is concerned that these powers could deny people the access to technological developments upon which people’s free expression and right to privacy rely. For example, major tech providers such as Apple have stated that they would pull certain services from the UK rather than compromise their security if this power was used to prevent them from rolling out security updates.”
I gently ask the Minister to be clear about why the presumption should not be made in the manner I outlined and what discussions have taken place to ensure that providers such as Apple can work securely in the UK. The right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) referred to the dark web and all the things that can happen in it. It is really important that the dark web is taken care of in this legislation.
Also highlighted to me were end-to-end encryption issues and the inability of service providers to see service users’ content in their apps and systems. I am not a technical whizz kid; I am the very opposite. I am of that old generation who can just about do text messages on their phone and turn on Zoom meetings, but if something goes wrong, I am lost. When it comes to technology, I am not au fait with it, but I do know this. I understand the need for people with no question mark above them whatsoever to know that their messages are private and that the Government are not storing information—that could be accessed by others—on them for no reason. It is important that that never happens.
Data breaches affected staff in my office when my accounts in the House were hacked in the last fortnight. We let the security people know, and I understand that it is not unusual for it to happen, but when it does and people’s content is accessed, it is important that such breaches are taken care of. We have also had the breach of data on police officers in Northern Ireland. Those are both testament to the fact that breaches occur. Therefore, only what is essential should ever be gathered and stored. Reference was made to the need to have robust monitoring and regulation. If that had been in place, the Police Service of Northern Ireland data breaches, which I think disadvantaged more than 3,500 people, would never have happened.
While I cannot browse and shop online—I have no interest in doing so—watch TV programmes online or do any of those other things, I do believe that there is a need for privacy. My concern is that the Bill is encroaching too far on those whom the Government have no reason to hold data on. I ask the Minister again to make it clear why any online search history should be stored. These are gentle questions—they are not meant to be intrusive or aggressive—but it is important that I put these matters on the record on behalf of the constituents who have contacted me.
I highlight the concerns of my constituent that the Bill’s proposed measures are poised to
“profoundly impact political dissidents and opposition figures residing in the UK. Refugees, political exiles and human rights advocates who have sought refuge in the UK deserve the assurance of digital safety and security.”
I seek that assurance for those who have fled offensive and oppressive regimes and sought refuge in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I would further appreciate an insight into how we can ensure that there is freedom to express opposition, yet not see harmful rhetoric. That balance is clearly difficult to reach. I seek the necessary clarification that we have struck that balance. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister, because I believe that his response will encapsulate the questions we have asked and give us the answers that we desire.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill is a technical but important piece of legislation that, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said in her opening remarks, we support. We support the Bill, which updates aspects of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, because it is imperative that legal frameworks are updated to ensure that our security and law enforcement services keep up with changes to communications technology in an increasingly challenging and complex landscape of threats to our safety and our national security.
At the outset, let me pay tribute to the exceptional men and women who serve in our law enforcement and security services, often in the shadows and without recognition, to keep our country safe. We owe them all a deep debt of gratitude. I also thank officials at the Home Office, who have provided very helpful briefings on the Bill to the shadow Home Office team. I hope that the Minister will join me in paying tribute to our noble colleagues in the other place, especially Lord Anderson, Lord Sharpe, Lord Coaker, Lord Ponsonby and Lord West, among many others. They have already done a lot of the intellectual heavy lifting, digging into the technical details of the Bill to improve it ahead of its Second Reading today. Those contributions are most welcome, but the Bill still needs to be scrutinised in more depth to probe any remaining ambiguity and ensure that safeguards are strengthened. I will say a little more about that later.
As the shadow Home Secretary said, the Opposition will work in the national interest with the Government on national security because, as legislators, we all have a duty to ensure that the law is one step ahead of those who seek to harm us. As lawmakers, we have a duty to ensure that when technical Bills are before us on matters relating to national security, we scrutinise them carefully and get into the detail. Members on both sides of the House have fulfilled that important duty with a number of thoughtful and considered contributions in this debate, including the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who spoke, as always, with great authority and made important points about oversight and the interests of economic wellbeing. I am certain that we will return to those in Committee.
The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), a former Security Minister, helpfully reflected on his experience of taking the original legislation through the House back in 2016, and made some important points about the role of public bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), the newest member of the ISC, made an important point about the context in which we are having this debate, with authoritarian regimes around the world constantly seeking to test the will of democracies. She also made an important point about the balance between safeguarding our security and oversight and transparency.
The chair of the ISC, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), spoke with his long-standing experience of these matters, and expressed clearly the view of the Committee. He made a number of important points, including about the safeguards that he will seek to include in the Bill. I am sure that we will return to that. He also made the important point about any increase in powers coming with an increase in oversight—a point reiterated by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who I think is the longest serving member of the ISC. He spoke about the two-and-a-half legged stool, made a number of important points and provided a constructive challenge to Government. I hope that he will work with us, the other Committee members and the Minister in Committee to make some improvements to the Bill.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) made a typically carefully considered speech. For someone who claimed not to be an expert, he made a number of important points, not least about surveillance needing to be proportionate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reflected, as he often does, on his own experiences of dealing with terrorism in Northern Ireland, and rightly paid tribute to all those who served to keep our country safe.
I will now turn to aspects of the Bill that could be improved. The measures outlined in the Bill continue to provide our law enforcement and security services with some of the most powerful measures that our state has at its disposal to keep us safe, intercepting private communications and retaining information where necessary. With those strong powers there must also be strong, robust safeguards, to guarantee their appropriate and proportionate use.
When the Minister responds, I would be grateful if he provided further assurances that the notices regime will be kept under constant review. Such assurances are important as the power to access telecommunications data through bulk personal datasets unlocks an individual’s digital footprints of their online activity. For those of a certain age—I do not have anybody in particular in mind—investigatory powers can conjure images of wiretapping telephone lines, and, for those of a very certain age, even steaming open letters. However, the modern reality is that the huge amounts of data produced every second could be sifted through and used by law enforcement and crime agencies when there is a lawful basis to do so. The Bill must therefore clearly establish a precedent of proportionality, such as further defining what is meant by low or no reasonable expectation of privacy, in clause 2, in relation to certain bulk personal datasets. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined how the Government intend to do that.
The UK’s use of investigatory powers should be clearly understood by our international partners. Vast amounts of telecommunications data, such as WhatsApps, are now stored in servers across many jurisdictions by multinational companies with sometimes complex corporate structures. I understand that Meta, for example, has stringent measures to protect those servers from cyber-attacks, preventing WhatsApp messages from being interfered with or accidentally deleted. If only the same stringent measures existed for some Members on the Government Benches—and the SNP Benches, for that matter.
Moving swiftly on, a warrant to intercept messages between two UK nationals in the UK could be stored on a server in another jurisdiction, leading to potential conflicts of law arising from clause 17, which would strengthen extraterritorial enforcement of retention notices. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister said something about the feedback the Home Office has had from international partners about potential conflicts of law that could arise from clause 17, and what actions have been taken to avoid potential conflicts. Can the Minister also say what recent feedback the Home Office has received from companies providing messaging services in the UK that use servers storing communications data in other countries?
Ensuring the utmost clarity in the measures outlined in the Bill must also include where they are applied in the most exceptional circumstances, such as when the Prime Minister cannot make a decision to sign off an interception warrant. The shadow Home Secretary rightly mentioned the importance of Prime Ministers treating these matters with the utmost seriousness. This was also discussed and debated in detail when the Bill was progressing through the other place, with the term “unable” being used if a Prime Minister cannot make a decision, compared with other terms such as “unavailable”. I expect the Minister will be relieved that I do not plan to spend too much time on this, but that is not to underplay its importance. The debate between noble colleagues on whether “unable” or “unavailable” was the most appropriate term may in part have been generated by the activities of two former senior figures in Government, neither of whom is still a serving Member of Parliament. For the benefit of the House, I will just say that one of them might have been a Foreign Secretary who became Prime Minister, and the other might have been a Prime Minister who became Foreign Secretary.
The Prime Minister plays a crucial role in making decisions on national security. May I remind the Minister, as other hon. Members have sought to do during this debate, that since 2014, successive Prime Ministers have failed to meet with the Intelligence and Security Committee? As we all know, the ISC is a senior Committee of Parliament that provides absolutely vital oversight on these crucial matters. We heard from the Chair, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who made some important points. Can I again ask the Minister why he thinks no Prime Ministers have made themselves available to the Committee for a decade now?
Furthermore, recent updates to the IPA 2016 after the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom provide further safeguards to protect sensitive information relating to freedom of expression, such as journalistic material, from the usual interception and retention regimes. Other elements of freedom of expression should have similar safeguards. Does the Minister think there should be similar exemptions in the Bill for communications relating to the vital work of trade unions? That was a point also made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry).
To conclude, this is an important Bill that demands strong and careful scrutiny. Our personal liberties and our national security depend on it. It is in the national interest to get the legislation right: to make sure it is both appropriate and proportionate in its scope. It must also be effective in maintaining the current powers our law enforcement and security services already have to disrupt and defeat criminals and malign actors who seek to harm us and undermine our way of life. On the Labour Benches, we will work with the Government as much as we possibly can in the national interest to get it right. I look forward to working with the Minister and other colleagues on that important endeavour as the Bill progresses through the House.
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
I thank hon. and right hon. Members from across the House for their contributions not just today, but throughout the many different stages of the Bill. I pay huge tribute to the Members of the other place who have contributed enormously, in particular Lord Anderson, who has been an exceptional asset to the passage of the Bill and the condition it is in, and Lord West who, as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, not only shepherded some extremely important amendments into the Bill, but was kind enough to say that it was the first time in 14 years that he had ever had an amendment accepted by the Government. I am delighted to say that it was to this Bill. It was because we are so committed to working with all parts of both Houses and with the ISC that we got so much through in the other place. [Interruption.] That said, many comments will no doubt be raised in this House. I can assure hon. Members, especially the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), that I will approach all suggestions in the way that I have done to date. Where we may not agree—it may not be that he is right, or that I am right—it will be for good reason and I will set out my reasons in the appropriate way.
The Bill is about one fundamental thing: the security of the British people. We rightly heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) about the nature of freedom, but the truth is that freedom without security is impossible. It is a chimera. The Bill is about ensuring that the British people have the security to enable that freedom. That is an absolutely vital responsibility not just of this Government, but of this House and the other place. I am grateful for the work that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) have put in to ensure the co-operative, bipartisan and open approach to the Bill, as is merited by the work of our fantastic intelligence services to provide security for our whole country.
As the British public would expect, we keep our approach to national security under constant review. Where we identify the need for change or improvement, we will not hesitate to act. That is why we have brought forward the Bill, which acts on the findings of the Home Secretary’s report and Lord Anderson’s independent review into the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Hon. and right hon. Members will not need me to rehearse the arguments, but we have seen an extraordinary, rapid evolution in the nature of the threats since the 2016 Act: Russia’s threat to the whole of Europe and not just to Ukraine; the violence that Iran is trying to bring not just in the middle east but even on to our own shores; and the way technology has enabled hostile states not only to steal our technology but to introduce intelligence-gathering platforms into our country through the guise of car sales.
We have seen a change in the way technology works and a change in the nature of the threats, and we must keep up to date with those changes. That is why this work is so important. It is essential that the United Kingdom’s investigatory powers framework remains fit for purpose to help our intelligence agencies detect and stop some of the most serious threats posed to the UK and its citizens, including threats from terrorism, state threats, and child sexual abuse and exploitation.
Because these are exceptional powers, Members have rightly pointed out that they require appropriate, robust and, in this case, world-leading safeguards, and that is what we have sought to set out. The changes in the Bill are relatively narrow in scope, but unless we make them now, the ability of our agencies to tackle evolving threats will be increasingly constrained in the face of global instability, technological advances and state hostility, so now is the time to act.
Let me now deal with some of the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) raised a rather interesting point about the changes to “lawful authority” in clause 12 in respect of published data. The purpose of new subsection (3A) is for material that has already been published not to require additional authority for its disclosure by a telecommunications operator to a relevant public authority. The definition of “publish” and reference to “a section of the public” would not include private messages unless they had been made public in some other way—just as our sitting room could not be considered a public place unless we opened it up to the public. It would be our choice, and nothing to do with the nature of the building.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who has made important contributions through her chairmanship of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, raised questions about the transparency safeguards in the 2016 Act. Those extremely robust safeguards are centred on considerations relating to intrusion into privacy, and that will remain the case in the Bill. They include a requirement for investigatory powers to be used in a “necessary and proportionate” way, with independent oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and redress through the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) contributed in his usual robust fashion to the debate—and, I should add, to the session that I was fortunate enough to have with the Intelligence and Security Committee, in which he was enormously helpful in assisting me with some changes to the Bill. He spoke about the five individuals who could be designated by the Prime Minister, and asked why we had not referred specifically to “those with warranting powers”. It is possible that a Minister with warranting powers who had that experience would then be moved to another Department, or indeed that the machinery of government change would alter the nature of the oversight. While we felt that it was right to limit the number to as few as possible, we also felt that it was right to have a relevant selection, which is why we left the number at five—after some very good consultation with the ISC, for which I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) .
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend has been immensely generous both in giving way and in his earlier comments about my role. Will he briefly deal with the issue of the other bodies with the regulatory function who can compel the release of communications data? As he will remember, the point I made was that the existing law obliges them to take further procedural steps before they do so. Why is that no longer deemed appropriate?
Tom Tugendhat
As my right hon. Friend will know, several powers in the earlier Bill—the one that he took through the House—were indeed overseen in various different ways. The Bill does not seek to undermine any of that oversight; what it seeks to do is clarify, in certain areas, where it is necessary. My right hon. Friend has highlighted individual agencies or bodies, and I should be happy to write to him to ensure he is aware of exactly where that is being covered.
The right hon. Member for North Durham spoke about prior judicial authorisation for ICRs. The purpose of the Bill is to try to streamline operations for the intelligence services in areas where the risk is of, as we are calling it, low or no expectation of privacy. He will have seen in the Bill what the expectation means, including areas where information has already been readily made public. I accept his commentary and I would be happy to enter into further conversations with him, but the reason we are not currently going down that route is simply that the existing law, the IPA 2016, allows the collection of bulk data with prior authorisation. This is intended to speed the process up. If we put in the measures he is referring to, we would effectively remain in the same place that we are now. That would make it harder for the volume of data that is now coming to be considered by the intelligence agencies. That is why we have made the provision for a subsequent approval rather than a prior approval. He is right to say that it involves a maximum of a year, although I think it unlikely that it would go to that maximum. That will be in cases where this is low or no expectation of privacy—after it has already been agreed by a judge to be in the correct category. I think the right hon. Gentleman might be looking at this through the other end of the telescope.
Mr Kevan Jones
What the Minister has to realise is that the big concern from the public—although let’s be honest, the public are not looking at the detail of this—is that somehow the security services will be getting access to huge amounts of bulk data and just having a free run at it. All that I and the Committee are suggesting is that an email should be sent when there are changes to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. That would be a simple thing. It would not be onerous, and it would reinforce the point that there was at least some potential oversight of the process.
Tom Tugendhat
I think we may be conflating different aspects of the Bill. I do believe that this already has oversight.
Let me answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, which touches on a similar area. Where people have the right to and expectation of privacy and freedom, this provision does not remove that right. What it does is allow the intelligence agencies to use bulk data to target an individual at a particular point, and the excess collected information will not be able to be used for targeting an individual without the warrant process that would be expected for any initial search. In that sense, this is not undermining anybody’s privacy; it is allowing for the fact that information is now largely in bulk format. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central was talking about steaming open envelopes. It is impossible to steam open a single envelope today; one has to steam open thousands because that is how data comes. Without an amendment such as that set out in the Bill, we would simply be interrupting the work of the intelligence services to the degree that it would hold them back and make the process harder, but I would be happy to take this up with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne later if he wishes.
I thank the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who was here earlier and made an interesting point about the various ways in which the memorandum of understanding should be looked at through the National Security Act 2023. Friends of mine will know my thoughts on that and know that I gave the Conservative party the chance to allow me to change that 10-year absence, but the Conservative party chose somebody else to make that decision so I have sadly lost the ability to have that influence.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) made a typically insightful speech and typically sensible comments on the ways in which we must consider how the authorisation must not be used to mount general surveillance. Condition D will be used only when an applicant makes a clear and compelling case, based on tangible, reliable intelligence leads, information and analysis, that the resulting data will identify parties involved in a relevant serious crime or national security-related specified operation or investigation. The applicant must explain any anticipated collateral intrusion, and how this will be managed to ensure that the application is necessary and proportionate to the outcomes of the investigation.
Sir Jeremy Wright
I accept what my right hon. Friend says but, in the context I described, the case is being made to someone else within the intelligence agency. There are, of course, two types of authorisation—D1 and D2—and we are worried about D2, under which the application is made from inside the intelligence agency to inside the intelligence agency. That does not present the sort of external scrutiny that we suggest is necessary.
Tom Tugendhat
My right hon. and learned Friend is right, but he also knows that IPCO has retrospective oversight of these areas. Where it comes under a category allocation through “low or no”, there is an automatic review period within a year. Although he is correct that the application is made within the service, it is within the service subject to a pre-agreed condition and with follow-up oversight, so as to enable that speedy response.
Sir Julian Lewis
On a different but not unrelated point, the Minister will recall that I referred to the annual report given to the Secretary of State detailing the individual bulk personal datasets that had been retained and examined. There is no extra work involved in letting the ISC and IPCO see that report. The only possible justifiable exclusion would be something that, at the time of the report, was still current. Is there any reason at all why IPCO and the ISC should not be sent that report, rather than a severely watered-down version?
Tom Tugendhat
My right hon. Friend answers his own question. The reason for the difference is the currency element.
Sir Julian Lewis
In that case, we can reach agreement if the Minister would like to give us an assurance that the only difference between the two reports will be the exclusion of matters that are current at the time of drawing up the report, but I suspect that there will be many other differences between the two reports.
Tom Tugendhat
I will be very happy to talk to my right hon. Friend about that to make sure that he is satisfied. It is important that we make sure that the reports that go to the House—through the ISC, because of the nature of the reports—are relevant and allow appropriate scrutiny. I think we can all agree with that.
I have covered the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, so I will turn to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who made an extremely important point: that his constituents, like any other citizens of the United Kingdom, should expect the right to privacy. He also made a compelling point about the need for security, and I think the Bill strikes that balance extremely carefully. He is right to say that people will be concerned, and he is not alone. I am also concerned that we maintain the right to privacy within our legislative framework, which is why we checked very carefully that the Bill is fully compliant with the ECHR right to a private life. It is also why we looked at the various exceptions.
The hon. Member for Barnsley Central mentioned the notices regime, and he is right that we will keep it under review. We maintain a regular conversation with companies that have an interest in this area, and he is right to say that there is an overseas element. I merely point out that it is the role of this House to legislate for the security of the British people and, in particular, for the safety of our children and families. Such security is not something we can outsource to tech firms on the west coast. We sometimes have a responsibility to pass extraterritorial laws—as he knows very well, we have done that in the past—so although this measure adds to that ability, it is not detrimental because it asks people to maintain their current position before making any changes and to talk to us during that period. There is no requirement to break any policies, change products or introduce new products; it is merely to maintain the status quo, so that we have the same ability to keep the British people safe until we have had a conversation about how that status quo should change.
Finally, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central raised a question about trades unions. He is right that there are many different professions where protected characteristics could come into play, including lawyers, doctors and psychiatrists, and where any such intrusive power should be used with exceptional caution. I would just say that, due to the nature of this place and Parliaments around the United Kingdom, the position of parliamentarian is particular, which is why it is set out specifically and separately in the Bill. That does not mean that any attitude against any other individual should be used cavalierly. It is not a question of the role or the post the person holds, but their rights as a British citizen. Those rights should be absolutely guarded from intrusion or aggression by the state without exceptionally good reason. This amendment, which the hon. Gentleman is kindly supporting, sets out that balance between British citizens’ right to privacy and their right to security. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),That the following provisions shall apply to the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee. Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 12 March 2024.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7)Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mark Fletcher.)
Question agreed to.
Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [Lords] (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State or a government department, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mark Fletcher.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Infrastructure Procurement
(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Alan Brown, I wish to forewarn everybody that whoever is on their feet at 10 pm will have to resume their seat while the Adjournment motion is moved again by the Whip.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought you were forewarning Members in this Chamber that they would have to listen to me.
Clearly, infrastructure investment and procurement is a critical Government function. Done correctly, it gives us improved transport connectivity, new housing, vital services such as water and sewerage, telecoms and the correct energy infrastructure needed to keep the lights on. Infrastructure investment can deliver regeneration, additional inward investment, construction jobs and long-term jobs. But done poorly, we pay more, face interminable delays and have less money to invest in other projects.
I intend to cover a few of the projects that UK Governments have had responsibility for and failed to deliver properly, and illustrate just how much that has cost the taxpayer. First, I should probably address a possible elephant in the room. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may well have heard that the Scottish Government have had issues over the delivery of two new ferries. This story seems to have been in the news every single day in Scotland. There are clear lessons to be learned, and I shall return to them.
Without being flippant, let me explain to the House that the ferries are currently expected to cost £300 million—three times the original contractual agreement. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me put this in cards parlance: I will give you the £200 million ferry overspend, then I will raise you the £45 billion on the HS2 phase 1 overspend, the £30 billion overspend on Hinkley Point C, the £10 billion overspend in the Shared Services network replacement, a very modest £3 billion overspend in Crossrail, and a couple of billion extra spent on the Great Western electrification project. Therefore, very quickly, we have a £90 billion overspend before we even get to the black hole that is Ministry of Defence procurement, whose current procurement plan has a £17 billion shortfall—or, in other words, a £17 billion overspend. Some £15 billion was spent on unusable personal protective equipment over two years. We have well over £100 billion of overspend in infrastructure projects without even digging too deeply. That is before we consider the £37 billion spent on the track and trace system.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
The hon. Gentleman makes some very good points and has opened his speech well by mentioning transport connectivity. I am sure that he is aware that the tiny Faroe Islands have opened a 10.7 km tunnel which connects the island of Sandoy with the main island, at a price of around £90 million to £100 million. Given the sorts of costs that he has cited, for the price of the first phase of HS2 the Faroese could build a tunnel from the Faroe Islands to South Africa. Is there not something particularly wrong with UK procurement? Perhaps that might lie in the Treasury Green Book. He has shown that such waste of money is not getting us anywhere at all.
Alan Brown
I agree with the hon. Member wholeheartedly. The Faroese have to be commended for the work that they have done on transport connectivity. There are certainly some lessons that Transport Scotland can learn from that. Perhaps we need to be bolder going forward in terms of what transport connectivity looks like in Scotland.
I shall briefly return to the ferries. It is quite clear from what I have outlined that there has been well over £100 billion in overspend across a few UK projects. The overspend on the ferries in Scotland suddenly becomes loose change down the back of the couch in comparison. Indeed, the overspend in capital costs of the ferries is equivalent to the money given to PPE Medpro, for which Baroness Mone received a healthy £20 million dividend. Indeed, it was the UK Government who awarded a ferry contract to a company with no ferries for £33 million. That puts a lot of things in perspective.
The reality is that the ferries in Scotland are a microcosm of the failures of so many UK Government major programmes. In Scotland, there was the political intervention to rightly save commercial non-military shipbuilding on the Clyde. However, the actual procurement process seems to have been too rushed. It was inadequately specified by Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited and then all the numerous changes to design increased the costs. That is what happens time and again in major infrastructure projects. We really must look at some of those in more detail, study what went wrong and see what needs to change going forward.
Let us start with HS2. The original business case and proposals were for it to extend to Scotland to help with a modal shift away from flying. This was to improve business productivity, which was based on assumptions that getting to London quicker limited down time, without considering the fact that many people now work on the move anyway.
Through time, the argument was then advanced that HS2 was needed to free up capacity on existing lines, particularly the west coast main line, thereby creating more capacity for both passenger and freight services. That principle is fine, and getting more freight delivered by train is good for decarbonisation, but what the different arguments and analysis mean is that there was never an established rationale for the key outcomes for HS2. That has made it easier, as part of the inherent north-south bias of a London Government, to make phase 1 of the project the London to Birmingham link, and to make that the most important aspect.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
My hon. Friend touches on HS2. I know that he will speak about many more projects, but this is a gusting £100 billion project that was designed to connect the whole length of Great Britain. We knew that we were getting nothing out of it in Scotland. Manchester is disappointed, because it thought that it was getting something out of it. Birmingham was the best connected city to London anyway; it now has another railway line, but one that does not quite make it to London. My constituents in Angus will be footing £92 million of the £100 billion. We could do with a link to Laurencekirk. We could do with fixing the erosion on the Montrose Links. We could do with getting better flood defences in Brechin. We do not know where that money will come from, but we still have to fund £92 million of HS2. Does my hon. Friend think that that is right?
Alan Brown
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. It is almost like, when we look back historically, the oil and gas revenues paid for HS1 and the channel tunnel, but at the time we were assured that there would be a spur up the east coast and a spur up the west coast of high-speed rail. Now, all these decades later, we still do not have the promised spine, but as he rightly says London and Birmingham are getting better connectivity, even though there is some ambiguity about where the line will terminate in London.
We were told not to worry, and that the Birmingham upgrades would still mean much quicker journey times from Scotland to London. We were assured several times that trains will run from London to Scotland on day one of HS2 services, even though they will be going from Birmingham. Sure, trains to Edinburgh and Glasgow will run, but they are intended to run as one service stopping and decoupling at Carstairs. That is just deemed a minor inconvenience for those of us travelling to and from Scotland.
When HS2 looked at the purchase of rolling stock, the key decision was made that they had to be the quickest high-speed trains. That means that when that rolling stock accesses the existing tracks on the west coast main line, the trains will go slower than existing Avanti west coast services. Not only will we not get high-speed rail to Scotland, we will get a poorer service from the new high-speed rail once it is running on the west coast main line. How can that be a logical proposal for the most expensive infrastructure project ever undertaken by a UK Government?
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My hon. Friend makes a point about the slow speeds. This is not news. A report that had a foreword by Philip Hammond, who was the Transport Secretary at the time—13 and a half years ago—suggested that the rolling stock could indeed decrease speeds, stating that
“journey times between North West England and Scotland could be potentially longer than at present”,
resulting in longer journey times between Scotland and London. Just a few weeks ago, we heard evidence in the Transport Committee that that is still the case, with times increasing by between five and 25 minutes. Does my hon. Friend not think that it is absolutely absurd that we have ended up with a gold-plated commuter line between Birmingham and London and slower journey times for the rest of us north of Manchester, and that that sums up Westminster’s attitude to transport infrastructure spending since time immemorial?
Alan Brown
I wholeheartedly agree. I go back to my opening remarks about HS2: the whole premise of it going to Scotland was to encourage people not to fly and to get the train. Now the competition is going the other way; they will be incentivised to fly because the journey times will be longer. It is absolutely crazy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) touched on the fact that the costs of HS2 spiralled to over £100 billion. What happened then? The eastern leg was removed. Next to go was the Golborne link, removing the link to the west coast main line and trains running to Scotland. Then the northern spur to Manchester was removed. HS2 does not know whether to terminate at Old Oak Common or Euston, despite upgrades already commencing at Euston Station. Clearly, there is no overall strategic thinking other than a continual form of panicked cost control.
Unfortunately, HS2 is a monument to a poorly developed concept of not knowing what the key strategic objectives would be, unrealistic budgets, politicians meddling in route alignment and increasing the amount of tunnelling, politician panic as costs increase, continual stop-start reviews all costing money, over-specification, unrealistic risk allocation, and clearly not enough up-front design and site investigation work or proper planning with regard to project delivery and discussions with contractors. But hey, as we have heard, passengers from Birmingham might now be able to get to London 20 minutes quicker than they can at present, which is not a bad outcome overall for a £66 billion project that does nothing strategically outside the midlands. That leg was originally estimated to cost £20 billion, so there has been a £46 billion project overspend.
There is another major infrastructure project that is very similar in its overspend, delays and costs spiralling out of control: Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. It is a testament to political determination and aspirations over the reality of nuclear power. It was estimated to cost £18 billion, including contingency, in 2016, when the UK Government gave the go-ahead after a review. Just a couple weeks ago, however, EDF estimated that it would cost £46 billion in today’s prices. By last week, it had already increased to £48 billion. That is a mere £30 billion overspend on what was already the world’s most expensive power station. Instead of generating power in 2025, it will now be as late as 2031. As costs have continued to spiral, the Government’s attitude is, “It’s okay, the risk lies entirely with EDF,” which is completely head-in-the-sand stuff. China General Nuclear, one of the partners in the project, has already reached its cap on the amount of capital it will put into the project, so clearly EDF is having to fund a lot more borrowing. It beggars belief that the Government claim not to be speaking to EDF about this issue, especially when chief executive Luc Rémont stated last week:
“We’re confident we can find a pathway with British authorities on Hinkley Point C and Sizewell.”
In other words, there will be another taxpayer bailout.
One lesson that the UK Government appear to have learned is that a contracts for difference model is not the best way to deliver a nuclear project, but they are now diving head first into the regulated asset base model, which transfers risk from the contractor to the billpayer. That is what the Government want to do for Sizewell C, despite the evidence of failure of the RAB model for a project in South Carolina, in the United States, where ratepayers continue to pay higher rates for a nuclear power station that was actually abandoned during construction. How will the UK Government make sure that this does not happen at Sizewell?
Dave Doogan
Is my hon. Friend concerned, as I am, that the UK Government—specifically, the Treasury—seem not to have any concern for nuclear overspends? When it comes to nuclear, regardless of whether it is civil or military, there is no shortage of UK Government funding, yet all across GB there are plans for massive pylon lines going through communities. The pylon lines could be offshored but have to be done at the lowest possible cost, which means overhead lines. There is no parity between nuclear and anything else. Everything else is bargain-basement, Treasury Green Book “let’s screw the contractor down to the very lowest price”, except for nuclear.
Alan Brown
Again—no surprise—I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. It is classic “penny wise, pound foolish” all the time, particularly when it comes to nuclear. The Government are kidding themselves about nuclear, because they still estimate that Sizewell C will cost only £20 billion. We already know that Hinkley, which is the model for Sizewell C, is costing nearly £50 billion, so why pretend that it will cost only £20 billion? They are setting their stall out wrongly and have a blinkered approach that suggests we somehow need nuclear, when clearly we do not actually need it. What they should be investing in is renewable energy, storage systems and, as my hon. Friend says, much better grid infrastructure as well.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. Does he agree that there seems to be a disparity between those who live in towns and those who live in rural areas, where costs are, more often than not, much larger? Does he feel that it is time for the Government to have a centralised access point for infrastructure material, as a way of ensuring that each council area and constituency can access the same material for the same cost and begin to build what is broken in the way that it should be done in each area?
Alan Brown
That is a fair point. There is always a rural premium, and people living in rural areas suffer disproportionately when it comes to infrastructure, upgrades, energy efficiency and heating their homes. I have long argued, particularly in relation to the roll-out of energy efficiency schemes such as ECO4, that the Government really need to consider a rural programme. Otherwise, all that happens is that urban homes get upgraded and—
Alan Brown
You did warn me, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I still got caught out.
Back to my favourite topic: nuclear and nuclear overspends. I have highlighted the failures of big nuclear projects, as well as the Government’s blinkered approach to nuclear. They need to reconsider the proposals for so-called small modular reactors. First, they are not small, and no proven design is operational anywhere in the world, but it seems that the British exceptionalism that the Government believe in means that Britain will somehow lead the way in all sorts of nuclear power generation.
Just recently, the Environmental Audit Committee has posed serious questions about that to the UK Government. Let us look at the evidence and the facts before us. NuScale, which was supposed to lead the way for SMRs, has already abandoned its proposed SMR in Utah after costs ballooned to more than £7 billion. But the Government, true to form, believe that they will be able to deliver SMRs for about £2 billion a go. That defies all logic and inevitably means yet more future infrastructure delays and overspend.
Compared with nuclear and HS2, the overspend on Crossrail was relatively modest, at just £3 billion. However, Crossrail was another example of bad news being buried until it could no longer be hidden. Years of delay suddenly emerged right at the end when the project was supposed to be at the stage of commissioning new trains. Those delays should have been highlighted much earlier. We need a culture in which delays and potential overspends are flagged up early enough to allow informed decisions to be made about the projects and to enable an understanding of what needs to be addressed in the budgets and programmes.
Another project that should generate regular headlines is the shared services network. That is the new communications network for the emergency services in Great Britain, so its delivery is presumably critical. According to a written answer I received, the original cost of the project was going to be just £1.6 billion, and the old system, Airwave, was intended to be shut down by 2026. Now the shutdown date is not known as procurement is ongoing, and the total expenditure is estimated to be £11.3 billion, so on the face of it, the cost of the project is up tenfold—nearly £10 billion over—yet it flies under the radar, for want of a pun. It is astonishing.
On a positive note of successful infrastructure delivery, it is worth highlighting that the Scottish Government have delivered the longest stretch of new railway since Victorian times with the reopening of the Borders railway in 2015. That is a real success story—one that the Tories said would never happen. Is it ever praised or used by the Tories as a good example? No. Instead, their immediate messaging is about the need to extend the railway further, an aspiration that the Scottish Government share. It seems to me that, at some point, politicians must be gracious about successful projects, and take learning from them for other projects.
Equally, on rail electrification, Scotland has always had a clear and steady programme, unlike the continual chopping and changing of programmes in England. It generates contractor expertise and a steady supply chain, and contractors are confident that there will be a future pipeline of work. The cost of delivering electrification in Scotland is £2 million per km, compared with £3 million per km in England, so the UK Government’s procurement rate is 50% higher than that of the Scottish Government.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Member is making a fascinating point. Allied to that point is the fact that when it comes to transport, the UK Government make decisions for England and there are Barnett consequentials for Scotland and Northern Ireland, but when Scotland needs something, there are never Barnett consequentials running the other way. We have to hope that the UK Government are overspending or inefficient in their spending so that we in Scotland have money to do something; there is never a point where the magic money tree is shaken for Scotland and then the Barnett consequentials come to England.
Alan Brown
The hon. Member is absolutely right. A proper budget-setting process should mean looking at needs, and then deciding what funding is required to suit those needs and what the aspirations are. Instead, at every Budget, we are supposed to doff our cap and be grateful that increased spend in England gives some crumbs to Scotland. That is not proper planning. Again, an independent country that had proper borrowing powers would be able to plan strategically for the future, instead of this haphazard measure that is reliant on the Barnett formula.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I see the Minister laughing on the Government Front Bench, but the serious point is that Portugal’s spending does not depend on what Spain is doing, or vice versa. It spends what it needs, and it does not need the magic money tree shaken in the country next door before it gets what it needs—it does it itself.
Alan Brown
I absolutely agree. It goes back to the fact that an independent country making its own decisions would plan strategically and be able to borrow money accordingly. Quite often, borrowing for infrastructure leads to the kind of circular reinvestment in job creation that is a win-win.
If we look at roads, we see that it was the SNP that finally delivered a continuous motorway between Edinburgh and Glasgow. The M74 and the M80 have been completed, as has the Queensferry crossing. Yes, if we listen to the headlines, the A9 has clearly been delayed: a much more realistic programme for the A9 should have been developed before now, and Transport Scotland should also have heeded industry concerns about its bespoke contract models making it difficult for contractors to bid. However, the reality is that the SNP Government have delivered on a limited budget, and while the Tories demand more and more, they are also content with the capital allocation being cut over the next two years.
Dave Doogan
I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned the A9. Under the Scotland Office, prior to devolution, it came to an abrupt halt at Luncarty, with sporadic dual carriageway between there and Inverness. Like the Borders railway, when the SNP said that we were going to dual it, the Tory Opposition in the Scottish Parliament—having done nothing about it themselves—immediately insisted that we were not doing it quick enough. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is that there is such a lack of capital infrastructure investment across these islands that, when it comes to major projects such as the dualling of the A9, it is so difficult to mobilise the expertise, skills, contractors, and plant and machinery? There just is not the culture of investment in the United Kingdom that other European nations demonstrate.
Alan Brown
Absolutely. I have long said that when oil was discovered in the north-east of Scotland and the Port of Nigg was developed as a strategic port, any normal country would then have invested in the infrastructure in between. That is when the A9 should have been dualled—when the oil and gas revenues were piling in, and we were using the north-east of Scotland to facilitate that. There should have been a motorway built to Aberdeen, the oil capital of Europe, but the UK Government did not think of upgrading the road or train network to Aberdeen. It is utterly bonkers.
That “bonkers” brings me to the fact that the UK Government are now supposed to be delivering a levelling-up agenda. As we have just heard, that agenda has certainly bypassed Scotland for long enough, but it is another example of political aspirations and a desire to be seen throwing some money about, instead of actually having a coherent strategy based on needs. The UK Government’s levelling-up strategies have imposed strict spending timetables and budget caps that do not allow for inflation, meaning that councils that have been allocated money now have to come up with additional money themselves or cut back on those so-called levelling-up projects, which kind of defeats the purpose of allocating money for those projects.
When we look at projects in the round, it is also critical that the correct funding mechanisms are in place. Labour gave us the private finance initiative model, which proved to be a boon for hedge funds but a complete rip-off for the taxpayer. Again, the SNP Scottish Government learned the lessons from that model and implemented the non-profit distributing public-private partnership model, limiting profits and allowing much greater expenditure on capital projects while not tying hands with revenue budgets.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Member mentioned a vital point about levelling up. I was on a call today with a colleague on my council, Na h-Eileanan Siar, who said that under European structural funds, it was getting roughly £3.5 million a year, and under the levelling-up money—when it comes—it will be £2.25 million a year, so it is actually levelling down in comparison with what happened before Brexit.
Alan Brown
Absolutely. I do not need to tell anybody from the highlands and islands here that so much European money was actually used for transport upgrades for roads and causeways. Again, that was reliant on European money, because it simply was not coming north from Westminster.
To touch briefly on defence procurement, we have the ongoing shambles with Ajax, with a £5.5 billion fixed price contract for approximately 600 armoured vehicles to be delivered by 2025. So far, £4 billion has been paid out, out of that £5.5 billion, for just 44 vehicles delivered, and testing is still ongoing after they were originally deemed undriveable due to the excessive vibration. On defence, we also have the farce of the carriers procurement, and the Trident replacement is sucking the life out of the rest of the defence programme. There are really so many lessons that the UK Government need to learn, and they do not seem to be doing so.
On improvements in infrastructure assessment delivery, I do welcome the setting up of the National Infrastructure Commission and the national needs assessment process. Again, however, the Government do not necessarily seem to listen, especially given what the National Infrastructure Commission has said about nuclear deployment, which the Government just do not listen to at all. The creation of the Infrastructure and Projects Authority does seem to have been welcomed by businesses.
Gavin Newlands
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way one last time. When it comes to transport infrastructure, he will be aware from his previous role as the SNP transport spokesperson that Scotland has an overarching transport strategy. In fact, we are on to transport strategy 2, and we have the strategic transport projects review 2, which supports the delivery of that strategy. In England, there is no such overarching transport infrastructure strategy whatsoever. We have heard evidence in the Transport Committee recently that the Government should put that in place, because that avoids all the problems we are now seeing within this procurement. It is just a complete muddle and a mess, because there is no overarching strategy at all.
Alan Brown
Absolutely. An overarching strategy again goes back to linking needs and outcomes, and to identifying budgets. It also sends a clear signal to investors and contractors of what is in the pipeline of work, and people can actually gear up and plan ahead accordingly. One other thing about Scotland is having, through all this work, a strategic transport development plan, and then the Tories calling for the UK Government in Westminster to bypass that for a pet project, which again completely undermines our strategic thinking.
All these projects I have spoken about show that risk needs to be correctly allocated. The lessons learned means that sufficient up-front design work needs to be undertaken. We need early contractor involvement and a clear pipeline of projects. These are all matters that the construction industry has actually been calling for for years. We also need politicians to take responsibility, where required, and for politicians to understand that undue interference and the chopping and changing of projects mean an increase in costs and programme delays.
Somehow in today’s political world, we do need to have cross-party working as much as possible. One thing is for sure: we cannot continue to have flagship projects that are handled as badly as HS2, Hinkley and the rest. It is quite clear that some politicians down here really do need to look in before they look out when it comes to infrastructure delivery and talking about that.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is a very great pleasure to be given the opportunity to speak in this Adjournment debate on infrastructure procurement this evening.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and SNP Members—and the many scores of hon. Friends behind me—will be delighted to hear that the Government recently published the national infrastructure and construction pipeline, reflecting our commitment to economic growth and productivity. Over the next decade, the pipeline estimates a planned and projected £700 billion to £775 billion overall investment in infrastructure projects across the country. This is going to provide great certainty to industry, and it makes clear the need to invest in new skills and new talent to the sector.
The new Procurement Act 2023, which I had the pleasure of taking through this House, will create a simpler and more transparent system that delivers better value for money and reduces costs for business and the public sectors, and learns the lessons of recent years. Specifically, in the infrastructure procurement space, the construction playbook sets out how contracting authorities can now ensure that this ambitious programme of public investment is delivered in a way that maximises value for money. The playbook provides guidance and best practice on a range of topics including early supply chain involvement, risk, effective contracting, modern methods of construction, bid evaluation, and creating successful relationships with our supplier base. One in every £3 of public money—some £300 billion a year—is spent on public procurement. By improving the way public procurement is regulated, the Government will save the taxpayer money and drive benefits across every region of our country.
Following the UK’s exit from the EU, we have seized the opportunity to develop and implement a new procurement regime in a way that simply was not possible while we were members of the EU. The Act helps deliver the Prime Minister’s promise to grow the economy by creating a simpler and more transparent system that will deliver better value for money and reduce costs to businesses and the public sector. Crucially, it will provide new opportunities to small and medium-sized enterprises to get a bigger share of that £300 billion a year prize, a great achievement.
Alan Brown
What procurement processes are the Government doing now that they were not able to do when they were part of the EU and what difference is that making?
Alex Burghart
I am extremely sorry that the hon. Gentleman missed every single stage of the Procurement Act 2023. We have created a brand-new regime in consultation with businesses of all sizes, who absolutely welcomed the decisions that we have made that will reduce bureaucracy and make it easier, removing the hurdles to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why when we did our consultation it was very warmly welcomed, because people could see it would reduce the costs of entering procurement and reduce the barriers to those businesses getting a share of that public money. I have to say it was welcomed on both sides of the House, by both—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) can refer back to Hansard in his own time, but, having explained how it improves—
Alex Burghart
I am still answering the previous intervention so the hon. Gentleman will have to wait. [Interruption.] I have got all night; I have had my supper and I can talk about this. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun would like us to rehearse everything we went through in the Procurement Act; if he wants to go back and look at it, he will discover that the Act makes it possible for—[Interruption.] The Act makes it possible for—
Alex Burghart
That is because I have been interrupted many times, but I am happy to repeat the first clause of my sentence over and over again until the good gentlemen are ready to put a sock in it, but if they are not, I am not hungry and I am not tired and I am happy to fill up column inch after column inch of Hansard with this rubbish.
If the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun wants to go back and look at the debates that we had in Committee and on Report he will understand that it is possible for both contracting authorities and suppliers to work through pipelines and framework arrangements that make it easier for suppliers to see what business is coming forward and make it easier for them to prepare, with the result that the conversations that he alluded to between contracting authorities and suppliers happen earlier and contracts are more appropriate and less likely to break down. That is one reason why the legislation we brought through the House was so widely welcomed by businesses and by contracting authorities.
I am very pleased to say that we are making great progress towards introducing this new regime in October. We have a huge plan of learning and development that will be going on across the country. We have a new digital online platform for procurement which is being built and which is eagerly anticipated. We are also constructing the new national security unit for procurement, which will make sure that it is much harder for hostile actors to enter sensitive parts of our supply chain. It is a really great achievement.
In addition to this fantastic new legislation that was brought in following wide-ranging public consultation and stakeholder engagement, we have brought forward legislative proposals to establish the new regime. These measures and the training we will roll out to support them will deliver greater value for the public purse not just in infrastructure, with huge road and rail construction projects, but across public procurement from IT software by the NHS to services by local councils.
Alex Burghart
In a moment.
On value for money, the Procurement Act 2023 provides greater flexibility to contracting authorities to design efficient, commercial and market-focused competitions, and removes overly prescriptive rules contained in the existing regulations in a way that simply could not have been done while we were in the EU. The 2023 Act also embeds transparency throughout the commercial lifecycle, and we will ensure that the spending of taxpayers’ money can be properly scrutinised. With more consistent commercial data, we will see increased competition, collaboration and accountability.
The 2023 Act confirms that value for money remains paramount during contracting, while also encouraging buyers to take account of relevant wider social and environmental considerations that the supplier may bring. That goes alongside the construction playbook, which is one of four sector-specific commercial playbooks produced by the Government and designed to improve how we assess, procure and manage Government contracts to maximise value for money and deliver better outcomes. Those playbooks are systematically changing how we approach risk, sustainability and innovation across portfolios, projects and programmes, with the goal of creating productive, profitable, sustainable and resilient sectors.
The construction sector faces unique challenges, and the Government are committed to updating the construction playbook annually in collaboration with Departments, arm’s length bodies and, critically, industry. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority also applies oversight, scrutiny and support to the most important major projects being delivered by Government. As well as tracking performance data on projects on the Government’s major projects portfolio, it provides independent gateway assurance reviews, expert advice and support on the project delivery, commercial, financial and sector-specific aspects of major projects.
The IPA’s standards, tools and training for the Government’s projects help ensure that projects are set up for success, including delivering to cost. The IPA’s expert advice, cost estimation guidance, transforming infrastructure programme and the development of the benchmarking hub are already helping to reduce the costs of projects.
You would think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches who profess to care about procurement, value for money and timeliness would be chomping at the bit to be involved in this work. Alas, no. When the moment came, when they were given the opportunity to sign up to the new procurement regime that delivers all those things, what did they do? They slunk away. They snuck back to their dark corners. They were frit of change and frit of opportunity. Instead, they stuck with the old ways—the bad ways that have led previous Governments into failure. They did not want success; they wanted to stick with failure. That is to the loss of the Scottish people. The good people of Northern Ireland joined our regime. The great people of Wales did the same, and the poor small and medium-sized enterprises in Scotland will be deprived of access to our brand-new regime. That is why we know that the hon. Gentlemen do not take this issue seriously.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There we go. Just for the record, I have not eaten and I am tired.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Specified Diseases and Prescribed Occupations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Specified Diseases and Prescribed Occupations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 and the draft Pneumo-coniosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Mims Davies
It is a pleasure, Sir Edward, to serve under your chairmanship.
The schemes that we are debating provide critical support for the sufferers of dust-related diseases—often caused by exposure to asbestos and other harmful dust at work—who have no recourse to compensation through their employers. I am sure that hon. Members agree that today’s debate is a valuable opportunity to raise awareness of the schemes and the support for Department for Work and Pensions customers with those conditions more widely. The schemes form only part of a wider range of Government support available to sufferers of those diseases, including support with caring costs and for additional costs that arise due to their disability.
The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 scheme—for simplicity, I will refer to it as the 1979 Act scheme—provides for a single lump sum compensation payment to eligible sufferers of diseases covered by the scheme. That includes pneumoconiosis and diffuse mesothelioma. It was designed to cover people who are unable to claim damages from employers—because, for example, they have gone out of business—and who have not brought any action against any other party for damages.
To be eligible for a lump sum award, a claimant must be awarded industrial injuries disablement benefit, or IIDB, for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme. The diffuse mesothelioma scheme under the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008, which I will refer to differently as the 2008 Act scheme, was introduced to provide compensation to people diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma who are unable to claim compensation under the 1979 Act. That might be because they were self-employed or because their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 Act scheme provides no-fault support to sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma quickly at their time of greatest need.
Both schemes aim to make compensation payments to sufferers of those illnesses within their lifetimes, wherever possible. Under both schemes, however, a claim can be made by a dependant, if the person with the disease sadly passes away before being able to make a claim. That is in recognition of the suffering that the diseases can bring to whole families.
The rates payable under the 1979 Act scheme are based on the sufferers’ assessed level of disablement and their age when they were assessed as suffering with the disease for the purpose of IIDB entitlement. IIDB provides a weekly payment for those who have had an industrial accident or developed diseases known to be related to specific types of work. All payments for diffuse mesothelioma under the 1979 Act scheme are automatically made at the 100% disablement rate—the highest rate of payment, reflecting the extremely serious nature of the disease. Payments made to diffuse mesothelioma sufferers under the 2008 Act scheme are determined using the same payment scale used for diffuse mesothelioma sufferers under the 1979 Act scheme.
Between April ’22 and March ’23, the latest financial year for which data is available, 2,860 awards were made across both schemes. That includes 2,460 awards made under the 1979 Act scheme and 400 under the 2008 Act scheme. Expenditure on those lump sum awards totalled just over £42 million in ’22-23. That demonstrates our continued commitment to supporting sufferers of these terrible diseases, and their families.
I will now provide more information on the purpose of the instruments that we are debating. The first two instruments seek to make the one-off awards paid under those lump sum schemes more generous. While there is no statutory requirement to increase the rates in line with prices each year, I am maintaining the position taken by my predecessors in increasing the value of lump sum awards by 6.7%, in line with the September ’23 consumer prices index.
The new amounts will be paid to those who satisfy all the conditions of entitlement for the first time from 1 April 2024. The increase is in line with the proposed increases to industrial injuries disablement benefit and other disability benefits as part of the main social security uprating provisions for ’24-25. Members will no doubt recognise the terrible impact that these diseases have on sufferers and their families. It is right that the value of the compensation payments should be retained, especially in these challenging times.
In addition to the uprating instruments, the Department has laid a third instrument for consideration today, which is a minor technical fix and will simply realign the diseases that may bring entitlement to a payment under the 1979 Act scheme with those that may bring entitlement to IIDB. That will ensure that the original policy intent of the 1979 Act is fully reflected in the legislation and, in doing so, widen the 1979 Act scheme entitlement to customers suffering from two additional dust-related conditions: asbestos-related primary carcinoma of the lung, where the sufferer does not also have asbestosis, and unilateral, or one-sided, diffuse pleural thickening. Crucially, no one will be made worse off as a result of this change.
As many hon. Members will be aware, the Department is advised by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, an independent scientific body, on changes to the list of prescribed diseases for which IIDB can be paid. When they were added to the 1979 Act, all diseases exactly mirrored those listed in the relevant IIDB legislation. However, over time, IIAC has recommended several changes to IIDB prescribed diseases that were also specified in the 1979 Act. Those changes were accepted by my Department. The unintended impact of accepting the recommendations was that people who suffer from one-sided diffuse pleural thickening and asbestos-related primary carcinoma of the lung, but not asbestosis, are now potentially eligible for IIDB but are not eligible for an award under the 1979 Act scheme. The divergence was first identified in September 2023, when officials were asked to provide clarification on entitlement for an individual case. Officials have worked at pace since September to bring forward the legislation before us.
The amendments will address the divergence by realigning diseases specified in the 1979 Act and the IIDB legislation and will apply to new claims made under the 1979 Act scheme. However, payments have been made historically to sufferers of the two diseases despite the divergence identified in the legislation. The Department understands that customers who have made claims for those two diseases historically have not missed out as a result of the change in the legislation not being made sooner.
As of 16 February, the Department was holding 94 claims made since September for which it has not been possible to establish entitlement under the current legislation, but where the criteria would be met under the proposed legislation. If the legislation is approved today, we will pay those customers in full as soon as possible. We estimate that the change will extend legislative entitlement to a 1979 Act scheme award to about 300 people a year with one-sided diffuse pleural thickening and asbestos-related primary carcinoma of the lung. The changes are the right thing to do and demonstrate the Government’s ongoing commitment to supporting sufferers of these terrible diseases. I am sure that all hon. Members here will join me in recognising the continued importance of the compensation offered by the two schemes.
Finally, I am required to confirm that each of the three provisions is compatible with the European convention on human rights; I am happy to confirm to the House that they are. I commend the measures to the Committee and ask for approval to implement them.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I believe this is now the third time that I have spoken to the regulations on behalf of the shadow Department for Work and Pensions team. As always, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. As she explained, the mesothelioma regulations amend the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008, and the pneumoconiosis regulations amend the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979.
The Acts make provision for lump sum compensation payments to be made to people suffering specific dust-related diseases or to their dependents, provided that they meet certain qualifying criteria. The 1979 Act was intended to compensate people who had contracted certain diseases as a result of their working environment. On the other hand, the 2008 Act compensates people regardless of whether they contracted the disease through work, thus covering those affected through indirect exposure. This year, we also have a third SI in the set, which makes small changes to the wording on the specific diseases to which the 1979 Act applies. The regulations before us update the amounts payable by 6.7% from April 2024 based on the consumer prices index rate of inflation in September 2023, bringing them in line with other benefits.
I know that colleagues will be aware of the impacts that these awful diseases can have on victims and their families. I am sure they will want to join me in thanking the many organisations that do a fantastic job in providing support and information. If I may, I will also take a moment here to pay tribute to our late colleague, the former Member for Rochdale, Tony Lloyd, who was a great advocate for people suffering from asbestos-related diseases. He campaigned tirelessly for asbestos to be removed from workplaces, schools and homes.
Thousands of people are diagnosed with or die from one of these diseases every year. Let us remember that most of them will have contracted their illness in the course of their work. Sadly, in many cases that was avoidable. Mesothelioma UK, for example, estimates that 94% of cases of that disease could have been prevented. It is therefore only right that appropriate compensation is awarded by the state. As always, I recognise that there is no statutory requirement to increase these rates, and I am glad that the Government continue to do so.
It is well established that it can take many years for the diseases to develop, so it follows that the majority of people who are diagnosed have already retired. However, when reading the 2022 report from the Work and Pensions Committee into the Health and Safety Executive’s approach to asbestos management, I was struck by a more extreme example given by the Asbestos Victims Support Groups’ Forum. The organisation stated that it had been supporting a 27-year-old man whose exposure to asbestos would have either been at school or during his short working life. This same report also refers to a 44-year-old doctor who died after being exposed to asbestos while working in the NHS.
These rather alarming cases bring me to my next point. A 2019 Government survey found that 80.9% of participating schools reported that asbestos was still present on the estate. Concerns were raised last spring when, at the request of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), the Office for National Statistics supplied data showing that almost 150 healthcare and education workers had died of asbestos-related cancer since 2017. With that in mind, I ask the Minister to provide an update on what work the Government are doing with the HSE to ensure that UK workplaces are asbestos free.
I turn to a question that the Opposition have asked several times in past debates: why does the uprating of these lump sum payments not happen automatically? The Government’s response is always that that is unnecessary, as the commitment to uprate the payments in line with other benefits has been in place since 2004. Previous Ministers have quite rightly noted that these Committees provide an opportunity for the discussion of the schemes, as well as of support for people with respiratory diseases. Although I take both points, I still believe that it would be preferable to provide certainty through automatic uprating. In previous years, Ministers have told me that they will keep the issue under review; I hope that that will remain the case.
I continue to have concerns about the discrepancy between the payments made to victims and those made to their dependants. Under the new figures, the 44-year-old doctor I mentioned would be awarded £100,889, but if their dependant were making the claim, they would receive only £50,608, which is 50% less. The Government committed way back in 2010 to looking at that disparity and equalising the situation. If memory serves, last year the Minister’s predecessor did not respond directly to this point, but in 2022 the right hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), whom I also had the pleasure of shadowing, stated that the Government believe that
“the funds available ought to be prioritised for those who are suffering most with the diseases—the person with the disease.”—[Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 23 February 2022; c. 12.]
I ask the Minister again to consider whether this disparity is proportionate and appropriate, given the devastating impact that these diseases can have on families. I also request that she update the Committee on the most recent estimated costs of providing equal payments to sufferers and dependants. The discrepancy is compounded by the fact that the diseases are much more likely to affect men, which means that, by default, dependants are more likely to be women. I would be grateful if the Minister provided an update on any recent equality impact assessments carried out in respect of the disparity between payments. It is somewhat frustrating that we raise these issues year after year and successive Ministers, although sympathetic, have yet to take any meaningful action.
Despite those concerns, the Opposition are happy to support the uprating of the lump sum payments in line with inflation. I urge the Minister to continue looking at what can be done across Government to improve health and safety, so that we do everything we can to prevent workplace-related deaths.
Mims Davies
I thank the shadow Minister. I agree that the work of the charity and support sector is incredibly welcome. I thank her for being here to debate the draft regulations and for welcoming the uprating, and I thank hon. Members for being part of the debate. There is always much interest in the scheme. The work that the former hon. Member for Rochdale, Tony Lloyd, did on the issue before his sad passing is of great note, and I recognise what the shadow Minister has said.
The Government recognise the vital role that these schemes play in supporting those with dust-related diseases who have no recourse to compensation through their employers. That is why the draft regulations seek to maintain the value of the payments made under the 1979 Act and 2008 Act schemes for the upcoming financial year. The additional changes that we propose will ensure that the original intention of the 1979 Act scheme remains fully reflected in legislation and that the diseases covered by the scheme are based on a more up-to-date clinical understanding. As a result of the changes, legislative entitlement to lump sum awards under the 1979 Act will, as I mentioned, be extended to include sufferers of one-sided diffuse pleural thickening and asbestos-related primary carcinoma of the lung without asbestosis. We remain committed to providing crucial financial support to sufferers of those industrial diseases.
The shadow Minister asked why the uprating is not considered as part of the main social security benefits uprating order. Unfortunately, the legislation that underpins the main social security benefits uprating does not include the lump sum payments under the 1979 Act and 2008 Act schemes. The uprating of the lump sum payments made under those schemes therefore requires separate regulation. Any change to this situation would require primary legislation, which is why we are back in this Committee Room this afternoon.
Like the hon. Lady, I have worked with the HSE over the last four years, and I know how seriously it takes its work on public buildings and asbestos. Of course, we all take public buildings and safety at work extremely seriously. The Government agree that addressing Great Britain’s asbestos legacy, particularly in public buildings, remains a key issue and that continuing to build on the evidence base around safe management and disposal is fundamental. That is why the HSE has a mature, comprehensive and important regulatory framework to ensure that the legacy of asbestos risks in Great Britain is managed. It aligns with the best evidence currently available, and this is reflected throughout the approaches outlined in the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. That is the correct implementation of CAR. It includes managing the risks of exposure and will eventually lead —we heard the stories that the hon. Lady mentioned— to the elimination of asbestos from the built environment without the need for a target deadline. Most importantly, it will ensure that people working in any such environment, as she mentioned, are fully supported.
The hon. Lady raised the question of equalisation and asked whether the value of the awards made to dependants under the schemes could be increased to match those made to sufferers of these diseases. It is clear that whole families, and those covered by the lump sum schemes, can be devastated by such diseases, which is why dependants can claim compensation following the passing of their loved one. Although I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady’s concerns and we have discussed these matters, the Government remain of the view that the available funding should continue to be prioritised for people who are currently living with the disease. That position remains in line with the main purpose of the schemes, which is to provide financial support for people living with certain diseases and help them to deal with the issues that their illness brings. We estimate that equalising awards for people diagnosed with the disease and their dependants in 2024-25 would require an additional £1 million to £4 million in the departmental expenditure limit budget. That is my answer to the hon. Lady, but if I have missed anything, my officials and I will write to her.
The wider point that the hon. Lady raised about asbestos in schools relates to an ongoing issue in which many hon. Members are interested. I would like to reassure everyone that the Department for Education rightly takes the safety of our children extremely seriously. All local authorities, governing bodies and academy trusts are expected to have robust plans in place to manage asbestos in school buildings effectively and in line with their legal duties. That follows expert advice from HSE that as long as asbestos-containing materials are in good condition, well protected and unlikely to be damaged or disturbed, it is usually safer to manage them in place.
The hon. Lady mentioned the recommendations of the Work and Pensions Committee. The Government are not opposed to any steps that continue to support the asbestos safety regime and that enable risk to be managed effectively. In my time working with HSE and the Select Committee, they have certainly been keen to keep engaged. I do not hold that portfolio, but the hon. Lady’s points were well made. I think I have probably answered all her questions, but I will ensure that if anything remains outstanding, my officials will pick it up.
The schemes form only a part of the wider range of Government support that is available to sufferers of these diseases. For example, the recipients of IIDB get the weekly payment I mentioned, based on their assessed level of disablement; as the hon. Lady said, they are entitled to state benefits to cover other needs, such as income replacement support with caring costs, and support for whatever additional costs may arise due to their disability.
While financial support is vital, we must ensure that we do our utmost to improve health outcomes for sufferers of these terrible diseases and, as the hon. Lady said, those who may be coming through with new learned experiences, which I am sorry to hear about. I am pleased to say that respiratory disease is a clinical priority within the NHS long-term plan, which aims to improve outcomes for sufferers through early diagnosis and increased access to treatment. Respiratory disease is also one of the six conditions covered by the Government’s major conditions strategy, which aims to improve care and health outcomes for those living with multiple conditions and an increasing set of needs, which can be more and more complex.
I am delighted to conclude this debate, which has once again shown that this House is committed to ensuring that the necessary support is available for the individuals and their families living with the consequences of these terrible diseases. I commend the draft regulations and schemes to the Committee and ask its approval for implementing them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Specified Diseases and Prescribed Occupations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Specified Diseases and Prescribed Occupations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.—(Mims Davies.)
Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.—(Mims Davies.)
Ministerial Corrections
(10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transport
(10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Anthony Browne
On noise, it is important to strike a balance between the negative impacts of aviation on local communities who live close to the airport and the economic benefits of flights around the UK. We will shortly publish the results of a consultation on night flights, and the hon. Member should wait for it.
[Official Report, 8 February 2024, Vol. 745, c. 361.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne):
An error has been identified in the response to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) in Transport questions. My response should have been:
Anthony Browne
On noise, it is important to strike a balance between the negative impacts of aviation on local communities who live close to the airport and the economic benefits of flights around the UK. We will shortly launch a consultation on night flights at designated airports, and the hon. Member should wait for it.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the ministerial team seen the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety’s recent report on the growing number of accidents involving e-scooters, and if not, will they look at it? Not only are e-scooters an increasing danger to all our constituents, there is a lack of police follow-up when accidents happen.
Anthony Browne
The use of private e-scooters on public land—on roads and pavements—is illegal in the UK, and it is up to the police to enforce that law. We have 23 different legal trials of rental e-scooters around the country.
[Official Report, 8 February 2024, Vol. 745, c. 362.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne):
An error has been identified in the response to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) in Transport questions. My response should have been:
Anthony Browne
The use of private e-scooters on public land—on roads and pavements—is illegal in the UK, and it is up to the police to enforce that law. We have 19 different legal trials of rental e-scooters around the country.
Business and Trade
(10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake
Our 2019 manifesto pledged changes to enhance workers’ rights and support people to stay in work. The Government have delivered on those commitments by supporting a package of six private Members’ Bills helping new parents, unpaid carers and hospitality workers; giving all employees easier access to flexible working; and giving workers a right to request a more predictable working pattern. We have been pleased with the successful progress of that legislation through Parliament, where it has received cross-party support, resulting in six Acts successfully receiving Royal Assent. The Government have already made good progress on laying secondary legislation in due course to implement those new Acts.
The Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023, for example, will give all employees with 26 weeks’ continuous service the right to request flexible working, empowering employees to ask for a working arrangement that suits them and their unique circumstances.
[Official Report, 26 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 523.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake):
An error has been identified in my speech on Second Reading of the Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill.
The correct statement should have been:
Kevin Hollinrake
Our 2019 manifesto pledged changes to enhance workers’ rights and support people to stay in work. The Government have delivered on those commitments by supporting a package of six private Members’ Bills helping new parents, unpaid carers and hospitality workers; giving all employees easier access to flexible working; and giving workers a right to request a more predictable working pattern. We have been pleased with the successful progress of that legislation through Parliament, where it has received cross-party support, resulting in six Acts successfully receiving Royal Assent. The Government have already made good progress on laying secondary legislation in due course to implement those new Acts.
The Flexible Working (Amendment) Regulations 2023, for example, will result in all employees, including those without 26 weeks’ continuous service, having the right to request flexible working, empowering employees to ask for a working arrangement that suits them and their unique circumstances.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023 will provide greater protection to women who are on maternity leave or an employee who is on adoption or shared parental leave in a redundancy situation.
[Official Report, 26 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 523.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake):
An error has been identified in my speech on Second Reading of the Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill.
The correct statement should have been:
Kevin Hollinrake
The Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023 will provide greater protection to women who have returned from maternity leave or an employee who has returned from adoption or shared parental leave in a redundancy situation.
Kevin Hollinrake
Obviously, all legislation should include an impact assessment, including a financial impact assessment on business. The impact assessment result was de minimis—I think that is below £5 million, which is not a significant impact. We therefore do not think that the changes will create a significant burden on businesses. We have engaged with business representative organisations and payroll professionals throughout the policy development of these changes. They have responded positively and understand how the changes will increase flexibility for families. We are working with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to plan communications with businesses to ensure that they fully understand the new arrangements, and we will continue to engage with them while we finalise guidance to ensure the smooth introduction of these changes.
[Official Report, 26 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 525.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake):
An error has been identified in my speech on Second Reading of the Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill.
The correct statement should have been:
Kevin Hollinrake
Obviously, all legislation should include an impact assessment, including a financial impact assessment on business. The impact assessment result was de minimis—I think that is below £5 million, which is not a significant impact. We therefore do not think that the changes will create a significant burden on businesses. We have engaged with business representative organisations and payroll professionals throughout the policy development of these changes. They have responded positively and understand how the changes will increase flexibility for families. We will work with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to plan communications with businesses to ensure that they fully understand the new arrangements, and we will continue to engage with them while we finalise guidance to ensure the smooth introduction of these changes.
Work and Pensions
(10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mims Davies
I reiterate that the disability action plan is not just another consultation, but real, tangible action to change people’s daily lives, with 13 practical actions across 14 different areas.
[Official Report, 5 February 2024, Vol. 745, c. 40.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies):
An error has been identified in the statement on the disability action plan.
The correct information should have been:
Mims Davies
I reiterate that the disability action plan is not just another consultation, but real, tangible action to change people’s daily lives, with 32 practical actions across 14 different areas.
Ulverston Library
Boots Pharmacy closures in Hull North
Community hospitals
Grove Station Reopening
Local businesses and the closure of the Botley Road in Oxford
Frozen British pensions
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Animal Testing
(10 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
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 633591 and 645885 relating to animal testing and non-animal research methods.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I would like to introduce two petitions dealing with legislation on animal testing and the promotion of non-animal research methods. I stress that we are here once again—this is becoming an annual debate. That demonstrates the strength of feeling of our constituents and of people across the UK, a nation of animal lovers, that these procedures and processes really must start being brought to an end.
I will start by reading the prayers of the petitions. The first, e-petition 633591, advocates for the ending of animal toxicity tests and the prioritisation of non-animal methods, or NAMs. The petition was started by Maria and closed in September 2023 with 109,378 signatures, including 233 from my Carshalton and Wallington constituency. It argues that NAMs are
“more predictive of human biology, more economically advantageous,”
and prevent animal suffering. E-petition 645885 calls for the banning of the use of dogs for testing and research, citing their cognitive abilities and emotional range. The petition was started by singer-songwriter and actor Will Young, who I am delighted to see in the Public Gallery today. As of now, it has over 30,000 signatures, including 35 from Carshalton and Wallington.
Let me begin with a bit of background information. Animal testing is covered by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which was amended in 2012 to include cephalopods as protected animals. Regulated procedures include acts that may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm to animals. Animal testing is often cited by some in the industry as being necessary for various purposes, including drug development, veterinary medicines, and chemical or environmental safety testing. However, we have already made movements away from it, for example in the 1998 ban on testing of beauty products and cosmetics, and in a recent written answer, the Government confirmed that there are no laws mandating its use. Nevertheless, we are still in a very challenging situation, and these practices continue.
I want to reiterate some of the data that we spoke about last year. In 2021, over 3 million scientific procedures were conducted on animals. If that number were not bad enough, that was actually an increase on previous years—an increase in the use of dogs by 3%, of cats by 6%, of horses by 29% and of monkeys by 17%. We can only speculate why the number increased, but that certainly does not tie in with the messages we hear that the use of NAMs is on the up and the use of animals on the down.
The issue is not just that these procedures are happening to animals, but the awful conditions that animals are often kept in while waiting for procedures to be done to them. A recent report from the Animals in Science Regulation Unit described “deeply troubling” animal welfare standards in British laboratories between 2019 and 2021. I am sure that many of us will have received emails containing pictures and videos of some of those procedures. I have seen some pretty awful things that are happening to animals here in the UK, despite the industry telling us that it upholds the highest possible animal welfare standards. Failings include a non-human primate dying after becoming trapped behind a restraint device; 112 rats being crushed alive when they were moved in error to a compactor; and numerous incidents of animals being left without water or food.
As I said, the UK purports to be a nation of animal lovers, and I truly believe that it is, but we need to ensure that we update our laws to truly reflect that fact. I acknowledge that efforts are being made to promote NAMs—including cell cultures, human tissues, computer modelling and volunteer studies—and that organisations are trying to invest in and improve the use of NAMs to reduce reliance on animal testing. However, I want to pay particular attention to the second of the two petitions that we are debating, which relates specifically to dogs.
Dogs are most commonly used in secondary species testing. That is where a test on an animal, normally a mouse or rat, has already been conducted but some researchers go on to conduct a secondary test on a different species, and dogs are commonly cited as animals used for that. However, the industry itself says that that is almost completely unnecessary now. Companies such as Pfizer and AstraZeneca have stood up at global health forums and said, “We don’t want to do secondary species testing any more. Please help us find the road map to get us out of the need to do this.”
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene; he is making a passionate speech on such an important matter. My constituency is Ynys Môn, and we are an island of animal lovers—animals ranging from dolphins and red squirrels to sheep and cattle and our feline and canine friends—so it is no surprise that many of my constituents actively campaign for the rights of animals and support reducing the use of animals in scientific experiments. They and I would like to know what steps the Government are taking to support the pharmaceutical industry in the development and use of non-animal testing models.
Elliot Colburn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; I think that more than 100 of her constituents signed this petition too. I hope that the Minister heard her request—indeed, I am sure that it is an ask of all of us in the Chamber today. What is being done, and what more can be done, to try to encourage people out of using animals and into using non-animal methods?
I want to pick up again the point about animal welfare. Many people will cite the regulations that are in place in the UK for animals in experiment environments. However, this statistic might shed some light on why welfare standards are so low. As of 2021, there were only an estimated 23 full-time equivalent inspectors in the United Kingdom. That is 23 inspectors trying to look at 3 million different procedures. The fact that so much self-reporting is going on in the industry and there are so few inspectors leads, again, to the argument that non-animal methods are a much better use of money and bring with them higher ethical and moral standards.
I want to go through some of the proposed solutions before I hand over to some of my colleagues. PETA—People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—has proposed a solution known as the research modernisation deal, or RMD, which offers a strategy to eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research, regulatory testing and education. It prioritises non-animal methods, conducts critical reviews to assess the necessity of animal use, and reallocates funds to non-animal methods. This is aimed specifically at making the UK once again a leader in innovative, ethical scientific practices. Furthermore, we have seen advances in technology such as in vitro and in silico tests, and innovative technologies such as organs on chips, which offer higher levels of protection and prediction accuracy.
Elliot Colburn
That is one of the things I want to stress, but before I do so, I will give way to the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend makes the really important point that non-animal methods can be much more accurate than using animals in these experiments. Does he agree that companies such as Lush, which came to Parliament before Christmas to advocate for those methods, have shown the way in which, through science, we can do better?
Elliot Colburn
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. This is something that we cannot stress enough in this debate: it has been proven in the data time and again that non-animal methods are highly accurate, and much more accurate when it comes to predicting human responses than animal testing is. In fact, animal testing has such low levels of success when it comes to measuring how a drug or something else might affect a human that we would not accept that in any other form of business. When the levels of prediction are so poor, why are we still accepting it? It does not make any sense—not when we have alternatives that can offer much greater clarity about to how humans will react to products and drugs.
However, there are challenges standing in the way, and one of them remains funding for NAMs. Pfizer and AstraZeneca have said that they do not want to do things such as secondary species testing, but regulatory guidelines often expect new drugs to be tested on animals and there is a lack of consensus on possible transition timelines. There is also push-back from the industry, which is resistant to change. However, in advance of this debate I spoke to many scientists and industry leads who said they are crying out for change and want to be at the forefront of non-animal methods. We need to give them the tools to do so and look at the way we fund research.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. He is standing up for all the animals that do not have a voice in the industry and speaking for those across the UK who want to support them. Several organisations contacted me and talked about the need for change. They said that we must look after animals—particularly beagle pups—post testing where possible, but they pointed out that the industry has been very resistant to engaging with rehoming centres, even when the beagle pups have not undergone lethal testing. Surely we can do better. Whenever an animal can have a life in a loving home afterwards, we must make that happen.
Elliot Colburn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope the Minister heard that.
Commercial breeding—in particular, of beagles—is hard for this country to accept. The data shows that a lot of such testing, if not all of it, is unnecessary because the accuracy of the tests is so low. Given that secondary species tests on dogs seem so unnecessary, why are we still allowing them to happen?
Since the debate last year, there has been some welcome news internationally: Canada, Australia and countries within the European Union have come up with road maps for ending animal testing. It is critical that we ask the Government to consider how we do that. We need a strategy and a road map to work with the industry, campaign groups, charities, other organisations and the people who are in the Public Gallery today, to move us away from the use of animals and towards non-animal methods as the default standard. I appreciate that some countries have found it difficult to come up with precise timelines because of disagreements within the sector, but that does not mean we should not try. That is the key thing to take away from this debate.
There are things that we can do in the immediate and interim terms, one of which is to look at animal welfare standards. Twenty-three people looking at 3 million procedures simply is not enough. We also need an immediate review of the necessity of secondary species testing. Whatever happens next, it is imperative that we prioritise the development and adoption of non-animal research methods. The fact the number of scientific procedures conducted on animals went up in 2021—we actually stopped collecting data after that point, so we are not entirely sure how many we are doing, which I think is a mistake—demonstrates that there is not enough impetus behind the agenda of moving towards non-animal methods.
I ask the Government to invest in and fund NAMs properly by reallocating existing funds and promoting collaboration. They have an incredible ability to bring together the industry, researchers, advocacy groups, campaigners and others to create a road map and a strategy so we can truly say that the UK does not need to use animal testing methods any more. We can stop the use of animals and hold ourselves up to an incredibly high international standard as a nation of animal lovers.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Caroline. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on leading the debate in such a detailed, passionate and knowledgeable way.
My constituents, like all others, are passionate about animals, and many have contacted me to oppose their use in laboratory testing. It is upsetting for all those who love animals to learn that, in laboratories across the country, so many animals—including dogs, which we often describe as our best friends—are subjected to awful experiments under the guise of the public good.
It is often said that the UK is a nation of animal lovers, and I think that that is absolutely true. The UK was the first country to instigate animal protection laws, in 1822, and the first to set up an animal welfare charity, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Public opinion is clear, and nearly 100 of my constituents have signed the petition to end the use of animals for toxicity tests and to prioritise non-animal methods, or NAMs. There is enough evidence now that non-animal methods can be more accurate, more cost-effective and quicker than traditional animal models.
Although researchers are already required to use non-animal methods wherever possible, concerns have been raised that the process of checking whether NAMs have been used is not rigorous enough. Cruelty Free International has found cases of animal testing being used despite non-animal alternatives being available. It is therefore disappointing that the Government’s response to these petitions is that there will be no change in the law. Although we should all welcome the fact that we have improved our animal welfare laws over the years, we should not be complacent. At a time when new alternatives and non-animal methods are being developed, we should embrace this opportunity for leadership and to make regulations more stringent.
I am sure we all want to minimise the use of animals in scientific experimentation and the cosmetic industry as much as possible, including by funding research into alternatives. We have already heard about Lush and its very successful reception at the end of last year. There are enough companies that are really promoting the use of alternative methods, so we should really listen to industry on this issue.
We know that animal testing can be unreliable and unpredictable and that it causes unnecessary suffering. Humans differ considerably from animals, so the use of animals often leads to poor results. The regulatory requirement that animals be used before human trials is more than 70 years old. Reviewing that, and removing the needless suffering of animals, will finally bring scientific research into the 21st century.
Of course, there are also methods of digital testing, so we really have moved a long way since the law was last revised. A growing number of human-relevant methods are already being developed. Those are made up of innovative technologies that are helping to deliver better results for humans. Despite that, there is a continued misconception that animal testing provides a gold standard for the regulatory approval of a product.
An expert advisory taskforce could play an important role in exploring animal-free innovation. We should also review all animal procedures to remove duplicative and wasteful methods and to prevent the retesting on animals of any material, chemical, food or drug currently in use. Retesting should be conducted using only non-animal methods or existing human data.
The Government have responded to the petition to ban any testing on dogs by saying that welfare standards are already high and that testing would still continue in other countries. Those are valid responses, yet I think that we can do better and provide even more leadership to other countries. That other countries continue to use dogs is not a good reason as to why we should do so in this country.
Although we should be proud that the UK has some of the highest welfare standards in the world, we must build on our robust record and lead by example. To achieve that, greater funding is required to support the development of new technologies and new, innovative testing methods. Sadly, Government funding for such methods currently represents less than 1% of total UK biomedical research. We can do better, and I would particularly like to hear from the Minister on this point. We know that increased research funding often pays back multiple times to the economy—we have had a debate on research funding in this Chamber before—so investment makes good sense.
There is no excuse for animal cruelty, and we must do all we can to ensure that the humane treatment of animals is upheld everywhere. The moral and scientific case for tighter regulation of laboratory testing is clear. It is time that the Government listened to increasing numbers of scientists and voters.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
This is an incredibly important debate, which has been brought about by these two petitions. In 1986, this country introduced the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. At the time, it was seen as world-leading and as the gold standard, with its three Rs principles: to replace animal testing wherever possible; to reduce animal testing where it was not possible to replace it; and to refine it to reduce suffering where it occurred. However, it is increasingly clear that a review of the legislation is now needed and that we need to make further legislative improvements. We have always been ahead of the United States on animal welfare issues, but this is one area where, arguably, we have now fallen behind them. Until recently, the US required animal testing for certain product authorisations, but it has now brought forward legislation to modern its statute and make it explicit that there is no need for animal testing for any of those products.
In the UK, we have a degree of ambiguity. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency does not explicitly require animal testing, but there is a degree of ambiguity because it is equally cautious about saying that there should not be animal testing. I will come on to that later.
In debates such as this we should always give credit where credit is due, and it is important to note that the Government effectively banned the use of animal testing in the development of cosmetics in 2023, or at least made it clear that there would be no new licences for such activities. That followed the huge progress made by companies such as Unilever and others to phase out the need for animal testing on their products. However, the greatest concern for me is that despite exponential growth in non-animal methods and huge leaps in that technology over 20 years—with the development, for instance, of organ-on-chip technology and bioprinting—the number of animals used in animal tests remains stubbornly high, at around 4 million per year, principally mice.
The 1986 Act is deficient in some minor but quite obvious ways. When it was originally drafted, it simply covered invertebrates, which was consistent with the animal welfare legislation we had at the time. In 2012, the coalition Government decided to add cephalopods to the legislation—for those not familiar with that terminology, it essentially means species from the octopus family—but they did not add decapods. As the Minister will know, the recent Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 now recognises both cephalopods and decapods as being sentient species. At the very least, therefore, we should bring the 1986 Act into line with our current animal welfare legislation, which would require the addition of decapods as protected species.
My more important concern is that if the three Rs had been applied correctly, given the exponential growth in technology that we have seen in the last 20 years, we would have expected to see a correlation and a sharp reduction in the number of animals being used, as the replacement principle was applied. Instead, over the last 20 years the number has really drifted along sideways. I appreciate that it has dipped at times, but it is telling that in the first year of lockdown, when the number of animals being tested fell quite significantly, it was said that it had fallen to the lowest level since 2004. That is quite damning in itself, because if an anomaly year, when the amount of testing was at an all-time low, meant that the level had still got back only to the level it was at in 2004, that suggests that something is going wrong and that the application of the three Rs is not having the effect originally intended by the 1986 Act.
I am afraid that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that what started out in 1986 as a robust regime—perhaps the most robust regime in the world—has probably drifted and coalesced into a rather unsatisfactory system of self-regulation. We have to ask ourselves why those three Rs principles are not being effectively applied. Ultimately, I think it is because everybody defers to process but no one really takes proper ownership. We have ended up with cultural attitudes around the use of animals in scientific procedures that masquerade as science, when actually the science does not require those animals to be used in such numbers at all.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I have always thought that one of the problems—as a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will have insight into this—is that animal welfare sits with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs but the Home Office is in charge of licensing. Usually it is in the hands of a Minister who has 101 other things on their plate, and it is a small part of their brief. Today, we have the team from the Science Department here, and I hope they are looking at the more progressive view. Is the problem that there is no one Minister who can take ownership of the issue?
George Eustice
That is part of the problem. I am sure that the Minister has a busy diary, and there is an argument that the issue falls partly on the Science Department and partly on the Home Office. At the moment, the unit that processes the licences sits in the Home Office but, as I will say later, there is a strong case for a machinery of government change that relieves the Home Office of that burden, which it is not really qualified to carry out, and transfers it to a Department such as DEFRA, where there are vets and where the legislation can be treated, rightly, as a piece of animal welfare legislation, rather than a piece of scientific licensing.
I want to explain why we have this problem. Three types of licence are needed to carry out these scientific procedures. An individual has to have a licence, and there is a licence on the establishment, which is fairly uncontroversial. The difficulty comes with the project licences. Universities and research institutions have internal animal welfare and ethics boards, which assess applications before they go to the Home Office. But how hard do they challenge requests from academics working in their institutions? Perhaps they occasionally ask a few questions and challenge a bit, but it appears that they, effectively, defer to the judgment of the academics who put in the requests, and the academics then agree. The ethics board agrees to the application, which is then submitted to the Home Office.
Let us bear in mind that the team in the Home Office have to process around 4,000 project licences a year. They are overworked and stretched. They will see that an ethics board, with professors and people with “Dr” in front of their names, has assessed that the project is necessary. They will defer to the scientific knowledge of those boards—and perhaps wrongly so. Although scientists are qualified to give good technical analysis, they are not, by and large, qualified to make good decisions, least of all when it comes to decisions relating to policies underpinned by laws made in this House. Only the civil service, backed up by Ministers, can make those kinds of decisions.
I suspect that there is, in the Home Office, a large degree of deference, which is possibly misplaced, to those animal welfare and ethics boards. That is why the Home Office almost never refuses a licence. I understand that, in response to parliamentary questions on this issue, Home Office Ministers will say, “You cannot really judge the fact that we have not refused a licence as evidence that we are not applying ourselves with voracity to this task, because we will often question things and send applications back for further consideration.” I completely understand that, and it is a fair point, but we have over 4,000 project applications a year. Are we really saying that the Home Office might not judge it appropriate to refuse even one in order to create some boundaries and parameters and to inject some vigour and rigour into the system?
A further cultural problem stems from the MHRA, which regulates medicinal and pharmaceutical products in the UK. Although it has confirmed that it does not require animal testing, and that it is open to individual companies and research establishments to decide what type of research they need, a perception exists within industry and academia that experiments carried out using live animals have greater credibility and acceptability. A clear statement from the MHRA that it is not neutral or indifferent, but will take a dim view of products brought before it that have used animal experiments when they might not have been necessary, would sharpen the process and focus minds as to the need for using animal experiments.
How can we get to a position in which the three Rs are being applied as the original Act intended? One of the petitions calls for more funding for non-animal methods. In the UK, we are blessed with some of the world’s best researchers in this area. The Blizard Institute at Queen Mary University of London, which I visited a few months ago, hosts an animal replacement centre of excellence. It is doing some extraordinary work on organ-on-chip and bioprinting. In dermatological research in particular, there is now no doubt that such non-animal methods are far superior to using live animals.
I have a probing proposal for the Minister. As a way to raise money, sharpen the incentives in the current system and get the three Rs enforced, I propose that we consider applying a levy on the use of each individual animal in testing, as part of the project licence. In some ways, it feels quite incongruous to have to put a monetary value on the life of a mouse to get people to take it seriously, but if researchers are not taking the intrinsic value of that mouse’s life as seriously as they should, let us consider some other incentives that might reinforce the original three Rs. Let us consider applying a project licence levy of £100 or £200 for each mouse used, and see whether that focuses minds on the animal welfare and ethics committees. Let us see if it makes them think twice before saying that they need 100 mice for something when they could do it with less. We should consider something like that. The other advantage of a levy is that we could ringfence all its proceeds and put them directly into research on non-animal methods. That is my suggestion to the Minister.
I was a Minister myself for nine years, and I know that it is very easy for people to call for more money for things, but it is not straightforward to be the Minister who has to go to the Treasury and say, “By the way, we’d like just a little bit more money for this one thing that is quite important.” Traditionally, 20 years ago, the Treasury did not like levies and saw them as a hypothecated tax, but we are in different territory post the financial crisis and the many other problems since then. I am sure that if the Minister went to the Treasury and said that he was going to apply a levy of £200 per mouse used in experiments, the faces in the Treasury would light up. They would see the potential to do something useful with that.
Finally, where should responsibility reside for the 1986 Act and the policy under it? I know that that discussion is ongoing within the Government. My view is that the Home Office is a very busy Department and has a huge amount to contend with, and it is very unlikely that its Ministers would be able to give this issue the attention that it deserves. The right thing would be to make a machinery-of-government change transferring full responsibility for animal testing, the 1986 Act and the regulatory regime under it to DEFRA, which has the vets, the scientists and people who would approach this issue as an animal welfare issue. Equally, it has people who understand the importance of science. As our vets have proven on multiple occasions, they are not squeamish about these matters: they will take difficult decisions if need be. Most importantly of all, if the policy were within DEFRA, veterinary science could challenge medical science. Often, we find in veterinary science a better understanding of vaccinations, epidemiology and medicines, with a body of technical expertise that can challenge the medical expertise sitting in other Departments. That is why I think that such a machinery-of-government change should take place.
I hope that the Minister will look favourably on some of those suggestions. I appreciate that it is very unlikely that he could bring forward a levy that might sharpen the implementation of the three Rs between now and the general election, but all parties will be able to think about these issues as they draft their manifestos for the general election ahead.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
As always, Dame Caroline, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on his excellent introduction to this debate, which set out all the issues in his usual informed style.
I have spoken about animal welfare on many occasions in Parliament. It has consistently remained at the forefront of the issues that my constituents write to me about. I am honoured to represent them in this debate. I have always maintained that we are a nation of animal lovers; I believe that the nearly 110,000 signatures that e-petition 633591 gained is proof of that, along with the 31,000 that e-petition 645885 has so far gathered.
In 2022, 2.76 million scientific procedures involving live animals were carried out in Great Britain. Of those, 55% were for experimental purposes; creating and breeding genetically altered animals accounted for the other 45%. A smidgen of good news is that between 2021 and 2022, there was a 10% decrease in the number of procedures, which reached the lowest numbers since 2002, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) pointed out. Although 4,122 procedures were used on dogs, that was a 2% decrease on 2021. The problem is that there are still too many of these experiments taking place.
In a recent YouGov poll, nearly three quarters of respondents were opposed to the testing of both ingredients and completed cosmetics on animals. This included 58% of people “strongly” opposed to both types of testing. While some 47% of people think that testing individual ingredients from medicines on animals is acceptable when there is no non-animal alternative, 30% think that it is not acceptable.
As somebody who has campaigned on these issues for a long time, I naturally fall into the majority view on animal testing with respect to cosmetics; I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth for his work on the issue as Secretary of State. When it comes to medicines, however, I tend to melt into a mess of complexity. Sometimes, personal experiences and those of our constituents can muddy a binary view on this issue. I have absolutely no doubt that the success of my breast cancer treatment is down to past experiments that have taken place on animals. It is hard to remove that from the equation.
At the excellent meeting I had with Animal Free Research UK, I was keen to explain my quandary. In the process of doing so, it was good not only to hear of the work being done on human-specific technologies at hubs such as the University of Exeter’s, but to learn of the work that the Association of Medical Research Charities is doing to improve transparency around animal research and animal welfare. It is worth noting that many of the AMRC’s members make it very clear that they support research involving animals only where there is no alternative. Given that cancer survival rates have doubled in the past 40 years, the scientific community ought to be thanked for its painstaking research and analysis. We know that sometimes this involves studying the biology of a disease in a whole body, and not just on individual cells or tissues. However, even those of us who are beneficiaries of that research want to know that good animal welfare practices have been employed and that the use of that research has been clinically justifiable.
How long can we keep doing animal testing when technology and NAMs are advancing so quickly? I would argue that if this country is to become a science superpower, we should lead by example and rapidly accelerate the use of animal-free research with a long-term ambition of zero animal experiments. We need the road map that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington outlined. Bold action needs to start today if the UK is to keep pace with global action to support human-specific technologies. The US Congress has now passed the Food and Drug Administration Modernisation Act, facilitating the use of non-animal methods for drug testing, while the European Commission has committed to developing a road map for ultimately phasing out animal tests.
Animal Free Research UK and others have made some short and medium-term recommendations, which are reasonable asks. They note that the forthcoming Budget could be an opportunity to launch an ambitious funding call to develop human-specific technologies and attract private investment. They suggest providing dedicated transition grants to leverage the potential of human-specific tech and provide tax relief for companies that are working on these innovations. They also suggest establishing a non-animal science innovation hub, which I am sure would be really attractive to the next generation of scientists, whose animal welfare and environmental conscience seems so naturally embedded.
For what it is worth, I agree with the point that colleagues have made about ministerial responsibility and the challenges that it brings. However, I am pleased that we have a Science Minister who cares about these matters. Ending animal experiments can only lead to positive change in research methods. The Government have introduced a great deal of legislation on animal sentience and animal welfare in recent years, for which my constituents and I are truly grateful. Allowing the continued use of animal testing only undermines the achievements of that legislation. I hope that the House will join us today in upholding the Government’s commitment to animal welfare by supporting these excellent petitions and looking at how we can continue to reduce the use of animals in research so that one day it is not necessary at all.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for opening the debate so comprehensively, as he has done with other such debates. I am delighted to participate in this debate on animal testing and non-animal research methods, arising from e-petitions that have attracted more than 140,000 signatures between them. The petitions call for an end to the use of animals for toxicity tests, the prioritisation of non-animal methods in research, and a ban on the use of dogs for testing and research purposes.
The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) is not alone in receiving a lot of emails about animal welfare. I certainly receive more emails about animal welfare than about any other issue, which is quite remarkable when we consider the issues that we see on the news every day, but which shows the level of concern, commitment and affection that our constituents across the UK have for animal welfare.
We have debated many times the principle of using animals in research—and here we are again. It is frustrating, but those of us who believe that testing on animals must end must keep debating it and making the case until we see an end to these horrific and unnecessary practices. As we have heard, it has long been accepted that animals are sentient beings that are able to have physical and emotional experiences. We know that the public wish overwhelmingly to see an end to animal testing, because it is cruel, causes suffering and, more importantly, is unnecessary, yet 2.7 million procedures involving animals took place across the UK in 2022. That number is very high. Experimental procedures are decreasing, but the reality is that even where alternative non-animal research methods are available, animals are being used for experiments. Of all the distressing aspects, that is perhaps the most difficult for anybody to justify.
We know that animal tests are taking place in the UK and Europe where there are accepted, validated alternatives. Over three quarters of adults living in Scotland—76%—believe that alternatives to animal tests should be a funding priority in the UK for science and innovation. A majority of Scots—62%—want deadlines for phasing out animal tests. When it comes to specific species, more than two thirds of Scots think that it is unacceptable to use dogs, cats and monkeys in such experiments. Undoubtedly, and despite huge public opposition, the UK is one of the top users of primates and dogs in experiments in Europe, but it seems that a culture change is needed. That is what we must keep pressing for.
According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, most drug testing on dogs sees them repeatedly force-fed or forced to inhale substances over prolonged periods to measure the effects of repeated exposure on their major organs. In some factory farms, female dogs are forced to spend their entire lives as puppy-producing machines, allegedly churning out between 1,600 and 2,000 offspring for medical testing each year.
The well-known campaigning group Camp Beagle, some of whose members may be here today, has led calls for the UK Government to ban toxicity testing on beagles of products such as household bleach, cleaning products and weed killers. I am sure we all welcome the fact, mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, that Canada recently banned the use of animals for regulatory toxicity tests, but we need to see the same happen here in the UK.
The public are appalled to learn that, in the name of animal testing, dogs are kept in overcrowded cages, forced to inhale toxins with funnels strapped to their snouts and undergo immense pain and suffering until they die or are killed. Legally, they can be poisoned with toxic chemicals, shot, irradiated, gassed, blown up, stabbed, drowned, burned, starved, subject to electric shocks, deprived of sleep and infected with diseases, and have their bones broken and limbs amputated. Yet, recent developments in evolutionary and developmental biology and genetics have significantly increased our understanding of why animals have no predictive value for human responses to drugs or the pathophysiology of human disease. Indeed, over 92% of drugs that show promise in animal tests fail to translate into safe and effective medicines for humans.
Cruelty Free International research shows that the UK is in the top 10 of animal-testing countries—that is, it is one of the top 10 users of dogs and monkeys in experiments in the world. That is quite something. In the face of such unnecessary cruelty and suffering, we must again call for rigorous public scientific hearings to reduce the unnecessary harm caused by animal experiments, ban this immoral and unjustifiable practice, and pursue alternatives instead.
There is a need for greater transparency in the animal research industry, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford said. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington talked about challenges of funding new approach methodologies, but it is worth remembering that when the UK—as I assume it will—updates its legislation in this area, industry will adapt, just as it will in Canada and in others taking a leading approach. One thing we know with confidence about scientists and researchers is that they are able to innovate; it is their very reason for existence.
It is long past time that the UK updated animal welfare legislation to reflect the ethical and humane rights of animals and to improve animal welfare standards domestically, as so many of us want. It is also past time that we worked internationally to better animal welfare standards globally. New approach methodologies do not use animals and so avoid the inherent cruelty and the problem of animal-human species differences. They use advanced in vitro and in silico technologies to model diseases, test treatments and investigate biological processes in humans. That should be the scientific focus instead of outdated, unreliable animal experiments.
The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act was important because it enshrined the rights of sentient animals, but it did not go far enough. It did not recognise the rights of sentient animals undergoing scientific testing and in Ministry of Defence military experiments. That glaring omission must be corrected. We in the SNP condemned that omission at the time and on Report tabled two amendments to correct it, but the Government voted them down.
The European Union is moving away from cruel experiments on animals and is using cutting-edge replacements, as evidenced by the European Parliament’s vote in favour of developing an action plan to phase animals out of EU science and regulation. It is vital that the UK Government support a new regulatory environment that enables a transition to new approach methodologies.
In 2020, 77 scientists and academics from Animal Free Research UK signed an open letter to the Government and medical agencies calling for a clear timetable for regulatory change to enable the development of medicines without the use of animal testing, and indicating that investment in human-relevant science is a golden opportunity to revitalise medical research, save money, create wealth and improve public health. Last month, leading scientists in human-specific technologies wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking him to consider providing Government support to unlock the potential of future-focused technologies in the upcoming spring Budget; specifically, they recommend tax relief for companies developing and using these cutting-edge technologies, a bold funding call to industry and academia, and transition grants to facilitate a shift away from animal use.
While the Government appear content to let the status quo continue, sentient animals continue to endure horrific and unnecessary suffering, and our constituents continue to be horrified as they look on, helpless, at a Government who are simply not listening to them. Swathes of the respected scientific community and renowned academics also feel that they are not being listened to. It is past time that this unenlightened and unnecessary torturing and testing on our fellow creatures ended, and I hope that the Minister will act without delay. I and many other MPs have been and will continue to be a voice for the voiceless and a voice for common sense. I hope that the Minister’s response today will show that he is ready to add his voice to this growing chorus, which also will benefit science and public health.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Caroline.
I acknowledge the strength of public feeling about animal testing. Together, the petitions that we are debating today received more than 140,000 signatures, including 114 in Newcastle upon Tyne Central. I thank everyone who signed the petitions for bringing these important issues to be debated in Parliament once again. The petitioners are calling for an end to the use of dogs in testing and research in the UK, an end to the use of animals in toxicity testing, and the prioritisation of non-animal methods, which are key issues.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on his expert introduction to the debate, and all those who have made speeches or intervened. All the contributions have been very well informed and thoughtful.
As the Opposition spokesperson in the debate, I state clearly and emphasise that the Labour party believes that the unnecessary suffering of defenceless animals is unequivocally wrong. The Labour party was founded to support the rights of working people, and I believe strongly that human rights and animal rights are intrinsically linked. Those who are cruel to animals or ignore their rights often do the same to humans, so recognising and standing up for the rights of animals is an important part of Labour’s record. From the Hunting Act 2004, which banned the cruel practice of hunting with dogs, to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which put in place strong domestic protections for pets, livestock and wild animals, we have used the power of Government to protect animals. We introduced the offence of causing unnecessary suffering, mutilation and animal fighting, and we banned the testing of cosmetic products on animals in 1998. The last Labour Government had a record to be proud of and, if we are privileged to form the next Government, we will build on that legacy.
The British people expect nothing less because, as Members have pointed out, we are a nation of animal lovers. As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said, the RSPCA was founded in 1824—60 years before the founding of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I do not think that reflects a hierarchy of concern, but it does reflect the extent to which we are concerned about the welfare of animals, and it is no wonder. Animals improve the welfare of humans in many ways, ranging from providing companionship and improving mental health, to facilitating rescues during natural disasters. Animals serve as the best companions, offering emotional support and reducing feelings of loneliness. Domesticated animals can help people to recover from severe illnesses, and they help us in speech therapy, occupational therapy and further physical rehabilitation.
On Thursday, I visited St Paul’s CofE Primary School in Elswick, Newcastle. I asked them what they wanted from Parliament, and top of the list was an end to food poverty and a support dog. Animal welfare and the love of animals are at the heart of British society and culture. As the shadow Minister for science, research and innovation, my priority is to enable the best possible science in this country, which will deliver the best possible outcomes for people across the UK, people across the world and, I believe, animals as well.
Since the introduction of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, animal testing practices have improved. The three Rs—replacement, reduction and refinement—have already been mentioned, and they remain worthy principles. As the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) emphasised, however, many people are rightly distressed and concerned by the scale and, at times, severity of animal testing. Over 1.5 million experimental procedures involving animals were carried out in 2022; 4% of those were assessed as non-recovery—that is to say, the animal died—and almost 4% again were classed as severe.
There are real reasons to foresee a better future. We are in the midst of a scientific and technological revolution that is transforming the economy, society and the conduct of science itself. Non-animal or new approach methods—NAMs—for scientific research are developing at great pace, enabled by advances in artificial intelligence and engineering biology. It is true that there are currently limits to the efficacy of NAMs, but that is becoming less true with each passing year and, as has been pointed out during the debate, there are clear limits to the efficacy of animal testing. Cell cultures, advanced modelling and donor tissues are already helping to reduce the use of animals in testing. In cosmetics, we have seen great success in using NAMs to predict skin sensitisation. A 2018 study found that they were even better than the once-standard mouse test.
One of the petitions calls for an end to the use of dogs in testing. Dogs currently cannot be used in testing if any other species could be used, but in 2022 4,122 dogs were experimented on. I thank the 31,350 people who signed the petition, including 18 of my constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne Central. The other petition calls for an end to toxicity testing in favour of NAMs, and I thank the 109,378 people, including 96 of my constituents, who signed it. The two petitions naturally overlap. For example, beagles are used for toxicity testing; they are injected, fed poisonous chemicals and asphyxiated in their numbers. It is impossible not to feel for these animals.
At the same time, we must recognise that advocates of that type of testing will argue that it is necessary to save human lives, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) highlighted so powerfully.
Tracey Crouch
For the record, I do not advocate or support any testing on dogs, particularly in the manner that the hon. Lady described. My point was that some past research on animals has enabled a great many positive outcomes for cancer patients, such as myself.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I was not implying support for a specific type of testing, but making a general point: some have argued in the past that animal testing has been necessary to save human lives, and groups such as Understanding Animal Research argue that currently. Understanding Animal Research also gives the example of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a lethal childhood disease, as a condition where canine models are effective.
Science and innovation can show the way out of this moral maze. To take the example of testing on dogs, NC3Rs, the UK’s National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, has established a project to develop a virtual second species—a virtual dog—using historical data. On toxicity testing, the UK-based company XCellR8 has developed the AcutoX test as a humane alternative to the LD50 test, which involves giving increasing doses of toxic substances to groups of animals until 50% of them are killed.
Just this month, Newcells Biotech, a spinout from Newcastle University based in my constituency, raised over £2 million from the North East Fund for its models of the retina, kidney and lung, which are used in drug development and which reduce reliance on animal testing. The chief executive officer, Dr Mike Nicholds, told me:
“Over the last 10 years, advances in stem cell biology, 3-D bioprinting and high-content analytical methods such as transcriptomics have revolutionised our ability to build laboratory mimics of human tissues that can reduce the use of animals in the early stages of drug discovery. Pioneered in academia, these approaches are now established in mainstream biotech and importantly the regulators have moved to increasingly accept these non-animal models as reliable. Innovations such as retinal organoids, produced by Newcells Biotech, are being used globally to support the development of drugs that cure blindness, demonstrating the power of these new alternatives.”
He went on to say:
“While the prospect of fully replacing animal testing is likely to be at least a decade away, that prospect is no longer beyond the horizon and certainly significant reductions in animal testing will be driven through innovation and awareness within this timescale.”
George Eustice
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Although these technologies are developing year on year, they have been around for some time. She said 10 years, and some would say that some of them have been around for closer to 20 years. Why does she think we have not seen a corresponding fall in the number of animal tests to date? Does she believe that the current project licensing regime is rigorous enough?
Chi Onwurah
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I thank him for it. In his speech, he talked about some of the challenges around the existing regime. We have seen a huge growth in science, and in biotech specifically, which may, unfortunately, have led to increases in animal testing. But it is also true that the regulatory regime needs to reflect the advances in technology, and I will go on to talk about that.
As well as chips and organoids, we have techniques such as proteogenomics, single-cell sequencing and access to human cell types that we did not previously have. For example, bit.bio, a leading UK cell-coding company, is able to manufacture human neurons that were previously available only through brain surgery. With such advances, I am certain that our brilliant scientists and innovators can help provide workable alternatives to animal testing. Given our country’s strengths in artificial intelligence and data science, Britain can be at the forefront of this scientific revolution, which will make animal testing a thing of the past.
I would, however, like to ask the Minister whether he considers that a priority. Estimates show that NAMs receive as little as 0.2% to 0.6% of UK medical research funding. Being a first mover in this field will bring with it jobs, investment, economic growth and better animal welfare. Will he therefore explain what the Government are doing to support British scientists and to incentivise them to proactively seek to use NAMs in British labs, creating a customer base to pull through new labs?
Before I entered Parliament, I worked for the regulator Ofcom, so I know that regulation can drive innovation and open up competition—or be a barrier to it. Labour is proposing a regulatory innovation office to help ensure that regulation does the former, not the latter. We need to take a proactive approach to ensuring that regulation reflects emerging methods of research if we are to drive forward scientific discovery and trials while reducing animal testing.
With these new technologies, there is a huge opportunity to create new drugs much faster and for less money. Today, in the US, it takes an average of 12 years and $1 billion to create a drug, from initial filing with the FDA to FDA approval. These tools can provide significantly better possible targets for a therapy, reducing time and therefore costs.
Responsive, proactive regulation will help to improve the uptake of new NAMs in accordance with the current regulations’ principles of replacement, thereby eliminating avoidable tests as soon as is practical. That would help to assure the public that their Government are moving in the right direction and doing things proactively.
At the same time, our pro-innovation approach will create opportunities for entrepreneurs and innovators to develop and bring to market new NAMs, with a stable business environment and a path to market. Our ambition is clear, and the views of Members here today are well known. The opportunity is there to support NAMs development, drive the replacement of animal testing and support the welfare of all life—animal and human alike.
That will not happen overnight, and animal testing in human health has long been embedded in our pharma sector. However, we will not advance human therapies and cures, as we should, if we continue to rely on animals that do not get the diseases that humans suffer from.
The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (Andrew Griffith)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for opening today’s important debate. As this is the first time I have spoken since, let me also commend him for his personal bravery when he spoke at the most recent Prime Minister’s questions.
The number of signatories to these petitions—I think almost all hon. Members have mentioned it—indicates the strength of public feeling on this matter. This is not the first time that this issue has been debated, although it is my first time. Although I think none of us would want such a debate to become an annual event, this is absolutely the right forum in which to debate these important matters. I therefore congratulate all those who have contributed and everybody who has signed the petitions.
I completely understand that the use of animals in science, including in toxicity testing, is a sensitive issue. More than that, I believe that everyone here would share my view that the day cannot come quickly enough when we are able to end the practice of animal testing. It is to hasten that moment that, as hon. Members have observed, the UK is one of the world’s leading nations in the development of non-animal methods. The Government are keen to ensure that those are utilised wherever possible, and I heard some frustration or concern from colleagues about the pace of adoption where the scientific methods exist. It is fair to say that most hon. Members accept—I have met charities and organisations working in the sector, including Animal Free Research UK—that we are not quite at that moment when we can fully replace animal testing.
To a degree, we are all in what my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) eloquently called that “mess of complexity”, but that does not mean that we are not clear about the direction of travel and the goal that we seek over time. As the Science and Research Minister, I take extremely seriously my responsibility within the multiple Departments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) talked about.
The Government are supporting and accelerating advances in biomedical science and technology to reduce reliance on the use of animals in research. When we hear data points about the percentage of research money that is spent, it is important to remember that not all of that research is clearly labelled as non-animal research. Developments in respect of artificial intelligence, cell cultures, cell research, understanding the function of human organs, and better imaging can all contribute to the advance of non-animal methods that can be put to work in this space. Indeed, we heard from the hon. Member for Newcastle ex vivo analysis upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) about the very successful spin-out from her university, and we are seeing that sort of development elsewhere. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth said, the rate of growth has been exponential, and this is an amazing moment in science of all kinds. There have been extraordinary advances in non-invasive techniques, such as medical imaging, sensing and ex vivo analysis, which are revolutionising human healthcare.
Through UK Research and Innovation, the Government are actively supporting and funding the development and dissemination of the three Rs, and I will have more to say about that later. Anyone who was not familiar with the three Rs when they came here today is probably more familiar with them now. They stand, first, for the replacement of the use of animals where it is not necessary for research, which I think is the aim we all share. Then, there is the reduction in the use of animals in the meantime, and the latest figures I have, which are slightly more recent than the ones my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to, show a 10% reduction in the use of animals in research. I do not want to over-weight any particular year’s numbers, and we will have to look through and see the continued reduction we all seek. However, the latest data I have, for 2022, showed a 10% reduction. Finally, in addition to replacement and reduction, there is refinement to eliminate or reduce distress to those animals that are involved. All of that is achieved primarily, but not exclusively, through the approximately £10 million of funding per year that goes to NC3Rs, the national centre for the three Rs. We heard of other examples, including Queen Mary University of London’s centre for animal research, which is also doing great work in this area.
We have also heard that the use of animals in science lies at the intersection of two important public goals. There are the benefits to humans and animals—a lot of the research benefits animals themselves—and to the environment, as we seek to have the very highest standards of environmental protection. But we must also balance that with the UK’s proud commitment to the highest possible levels of animal welfare. That is why, as we heard from a number of Members, the use of animals in testing is strictly limited to specific purposes, including assessing the safety of medicines or chemicals, protecting human health and protecting the environment—a lot of research goes on into compounds to understand their downstream effect on our rivers, lakes, oceans and natural habitats.
We also heard that the use of animals in scientific procedures is permitted only if there is no non-animal alternative available, and I will try to address some of the remarks that have been made specifically about the way in which that legal principle, laid down by Parliament in legislation, is applied in practice and whether it is as effective as my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth would like.
Despite the general legal protections, some animal testing of chemicals is required under UK law to protect the environment, but such testing is permitted only once it is established that no alternative exists, and it is dependent on the chemical and quantity being manufactured.
As I said, we are world-renowned for our leadership in this space, and we should continue to be alive and open to what other countries are doing. The example of Canada was mentioned, and some of the work I have done and the meetings I have had have focused precisely on how we can ensure that the UK remains the best place in the world in terms of the legislative framework and the science and how we can ensure that non-animal technologies and the constant advances in them are reflected in policy, practice, legislation in this place and animal research regulations.
Since it was established, the NC3Rs has invested in total almost £90 million in research and £27 million in contracts through its CRACK IT Challenges innovation scheme for UK and EU-based institutions, with that funding mainly focused on approaches for safer assessment of pharmaceuticals. The UKRI Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Council—a different body—supports research aimed at developing and applying innovative methods to study human and animal physiology, including in silico approaches, organ on a chip, and organoid and other advanced cell culture systems.
Despite that funding, I believe that more can be done. Ahead of today’s debate, I asked UKRI that we double our investment in research to achieve the three Rs and develop non-animal alternatives. I can announce that, from £10 million this year, that investment will reach £20 million per annum across the system in fiscal year 2024-25, which is a doubling of what is given to research in this space. In addition—I hope this is welcome across the House—I can announce that this summer, following on from work done by my predecessors and across other Departments, the Government will publish a plan to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of technologies and methods to reduce reliance on the use of animals in science. The former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, will recognise some of the impedance on a Minister at the Dispatch Box, but I can see no reason why that plan could not at least consider some of the machinery-of-government changes that he talked about.
George Eustice
I think everyone will welcome the significant increase in funding that the Minister has pledged today to support research on non-animal methods, but is his Department at all curious why the number of animals used in experiments has not gone down, despite huge increases in technology in this area? As part of a review of the licensing process for projects, would he consider trying to get us some analysis of whether the decision to grant a licence is objective, or subjective and based on something that some ethical committee claims?
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend makes a very good set of points, and that is something that we will look at further. I am already in discussion about the efficacy of the licensing regime with the noble Lord Sharpe, who is the Home Office Minister responsible.
Patricia Gibson
As the Minister stands here today, how confident is he that the regulatory bodies that monitor these matters are sufficiently well versed and up to date with placement and reduction opportunities to prevent unnecessary testing? Does he have confidence in that system?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Lady asks a very detailed question, and she has made some statements that I would like to verify anyway. I was concerned to hear about dogs being shot or blown up and I would ask her, if she has evidence of that, please to share it with me. That would be a subject of great concern and perhaps bring to life some points in the regulatory system that have not crossed my desk to date. I take that matter very seriously, but it is also important that these debates are led by the facts, and I will let the facts decide the efficacy of the regulatory system.
We will produce the plan together with not only officials but the very widest group of stakeholders. In the coming weeks, a cross-Government group will convene to lead that work, and we will consult stakeholders across the industry, academia, medical research charities and those operating in this space. The commitment is to publish that detailed plan this summer.
Given the support for the petitions and the strong interest in this issue, on which Members of Parliament are regularly petitioned, I can announce today that we will restart the public attitudes to animal research survey, which was unfortunately delayed during the pandemic. It is important to me, and I am sure to the House, that these debates are informed by that survey. It was seen as a very useful tool for those working in this space, and I am keen that it is restarted. The next survey will take place in the coming months and the results will be published this autumn, restarting that chronological series about public attitudes.
We talked about how animals in science are highly regulated, and I hear the concerns about that process. Understandably, as with any regulatory process, different people will have different views about efficacy. There is a three-tier system of licensing, at the establishment, project and individual level. Again, I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth made a very thoughtful contribution; perhaps I will meet him to benefit from some of his insights on that. He talked about the importance of having qualified vets in the process. It is important to say that there are qualified vets, and the Animals in Science Committee oversees that process and advises the Home Office on it.
However, endemic in any regulatory or licensing regime is the danger—I do not say that this is indeed the case— of incumbent thinking. My right hon. Friend talked about there not being enough challenge in the process. One potential way of putting in more challenge—or nudging—is increasing the fees for licences, which the Home Office is going to do shortly. My right hon. Friend talked about a levy. This is not a levy, but by increasing the fees, and therefore the burden, we will perhaps shift some of the presumption away from defaulting to testing with animals.
In addition, the Home Office will review the duration of licences. The current duration is typically five years. We have observed the fast rate of change in technology. The Home Office will review the duration to see whether a shorter licence period would be more appropriate, and whether people coming back more often would put more challenge into the system.
In conclusion, I want to be clear: it is the Government’s position that we want to replace the use of animals in scientific procedures with non-animal alternatives wherever we can. For now, the carefully regulated use of animals in scientific research remains necessary if we are to protect humans and the wider environment. That is why our current approach is to continue to support and fund the development, dissemination and adoption of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research, and to ensure that the regulatory framework is both robust in law and rigorous in practice. I thank hon. Members for their insightful and thoughtful contributions to today’s debate, and I look forward to working together going forward.
Elliot Colburn
Do not worry, Dame Caroline; I do not intend to take the full remaining hour and a half to wind up. I thank the petitioners for bringing this topic to the House for us to debate, and I thank colleagues for their contributions.
I want to clarify for the record something I said earlier about the non-publication of data. I was referring to detailed information on procedures by establishment type—in other words, whether the venture is a commercial or an academic one—which ceased being published in 2021, and the annual publication of technical summaries for project licences that are granted. I may have inadvertently suggested that we stopped publishing data on how many procedures took place; I just want to clarify that that is not the case.
I thank again all the organisations, campaign groups, charities and others, many of whom are represented in the Public Gallery, for briefing me and colleagues in advance of today’s debate. I thank in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who made an incredibly detailed and knowledgeable contribution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I particularly enjoyed her description of her “melting in a mess of complexity”—a great Tinder profile if ever I heard one. I will certainly be investing in that.
I thank the Minister for his response. Regulars at petitions debates will know how frustrating it is to come here only to hear a response stating why the status quo is to continue; it is rare that we leave with nuggets of future policy. The restarting of the public attitudes survey, the doubling of investment next year, the Home Office review of licence duration and fees, and that all-important plan are excellent steps in the right direction. I am grateful that he was able to make some announcements during the debate, and I am sure that the organisations that are represented in the Public Gallery and that briefed Members will want to engage with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology in order to feed into the plan. I am very grateful for that announcement. As we have made clear, if we do not make any progress, we will be back next year talking about exactly the same thing, because that is what the petitioners expect of us.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 633591 and 645885 relating to animal testing and non-animal research methods.
Written Statements
UK-Gulf Co-operation Council Free Trade Agreement
(10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
The sixth round of negotiations for a free trade agreement (FTA) between the UK and the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) took place between 29 January and 9 February.
The round was hosted in London and held in a hybrid fashion. A number of GCC negotiators travelled to London for in-person discussions, with others attending virtually.
Draft treaty text was advanced across the majority of chapters. Technical discussions were held across 21 policy areas over 30 sessions. Good progress was made and both sides remain committed to securing an ambitious, comprehensive and modern agreement fit for the 21st century. The next round of negotiations will be scheduled shortly.
An FTA will be a substantial economic opportunity and a significant moment in the UK-GCC relationship. Total trade was worth £59 billion according to latest figures.
His Majesty’s Government remain clear that any deal signed will be in the best interests of the British people and the United Kingdom economy. We will not compromise on our high environmental, public health, animal welfare and food standards, and we will maintain our right to regulate in the public interest. We are also clear that during these negotiations, the national health service and the services it provides are not on the table.
[HCWS261]
Covid-19 Inquiry Response: Costs
(10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The Minister of State, Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG, on 9 February 2024, made the following statement:
Throughout the pandemic, the Government acted to save lives and livelihoods, prevent the NHS being overwhelmed, and deliver a world-leading vaccine rollout which protected the nation. In establishing the UK covid-19 inquiry, the Government recognised the unprecedented and wholly exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, and the importance of examining as rigorously as possible the actions the state took in response, in order to learn lessons for the future.
As such, the inquiry is unprecedented in its scope, complexity and profile, looking at recent events that have profoundly impacted everyone’s lives.
Following the publication by the covid-19 inquiry of its costs for Quarter 3 of the 2023-24 financial year on 5 February 2024, I would like to update Parliament on the UK Government costs associated with responding to the UK covid-19 inquiry.
The figures provided below include input from a number of Government Departments, including the Cabinet Office, the Department for Health and Social Care, the UK Health Security Agency, the Home Office and HM Treasury, many of which are supported by the Government Legal Department (GLD).
The figures we are publishing reflect those that the inquiry publishes—legal counsel and solicitors costs, and secretariat staff costs. The figures are based upon a sample of departmental costs, and are not a precise figure for accounting purposes and are therefore subject to change. While every effort has been made to ensure a robust methodology, complexities remain in trying to quantify the time and costs dedicated to the inquiry alone.
Total inquiry response unit legal costs (April-December 2023).
Inquiry response units across Government Departments are supported by the Government Legal Department, co-partnering firms of solicitors, and counsel. Associated legal costs—excluding internal departmental advisory legal costs—for April-December 2023 are below.
Total legal costs: £20,900,000
Breakdown of staff and costs (April-December 2023).
The Government’s response to the UK covid-19 Inquiry is led by Inquiry Response Units across Departments.
Number of UK covid-19 Inquiry Response Unit staff: 249 Full Time Equivalents (as of Q3).
Cost of Inquiry Response Unit staff: £12,900,000
It should be noted that alongside full time resource within Departments, inquiry response teams draw on expertise from across their organisations. The Senior Civil Servant staff costs associated with appearing as witnesses, preparing witnesses and associated policy development work on the Covid inquiry are significant. Early estimations place these at least £120,000 for Cabinet Office for preparatory work for Modules 1 and 2, but further work is under way to produce a more accurate figure. Those costs are not included in the figures above.
[HCWS262]
Short-term Lets: Registration Scheme
(10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
Following consultation on a registration scheme for short-term lets in England, today the Government set out further details on how the scheme will operate.
Short-term lets are an integral part of the UK’s visitor accommodation offer, and the Government are clear that they bring a range of benefits—from extra income for ordinary homeowners and local economies through increased visitor spend, to increased choice for consumers, to supporting our ability to host world-class events such as the Commonwealth Games and Eurovision by providing additional accommodation capacity. We understand, however, that the growth in short-term lets has brought challenges, such as difficulty monitoring compliance with existing health and safety regulations, and the impact on the availability and affordability of homes in areas with higher numbers of short-term lets.
In order to address these challenges, the Government took action by legislating to deliver the legal framework for a registration scheme through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. The details of how a scheme should operate were explored through consultation, held last year. The analysis of this consultation has demonstrated support for a mandatory registration scheme across all of England—61% of those who responded supported this option. A mandatory, national approach will promote a level playing field in the guest accommodation sector across England, particularly in the application of existing health and safety regulations. It will provide clarity to all short-term let providers on the existing rules they should be following, and promote greater consistency across providers in applying these rules. A mandatory, national registration scheme will also provide valuable data at a local level in all areas of England: this will give all local authorities the information they need to identify short-term lets in their area and help them address community and housing impacts. The Government will separately be introducing planning measures to provide local areas with more control over the future growth of short term lets. We will be introducing a new use class for short term lets, associated permitted development rights and flexibility and certainty for homeowners to let out their own main or sole home for up to 90 nights a year.
The Government have also decided that the registration scheme should be designed to be as light touch, low cost and simple to use as possible—this will underpin all our decisions on how to deliver. For example, we do not wish to disproportionately apply new regulation on property owners that let out their home infrequently. We will continue to consider the case for the potential application of a threshold in finalising the register.
Work will now begin at pace to establish the scheme, which will be delivered primarily online. We will begin by conducting an initial phase of digital development which will test how the scheme is best delivered and administered. The findings will inform the detailed design of a scheme—such as who should administer it, frequency of registration and which information should be collected. We will set out further detail on how the scheme will work later in the year, including a full response to the questions we sought views on in our consultation, the full analysis of responses, and further information on the legislative process that will bring the scheme to life.
In the meantime, it is vital that we work with the sector to get this right and ensure the scheme delivers for everyone in the simplest way. For that reason we will be reaching out to representatives of the visitor economy and likely users of the scheme—such as local authorities, operators and platforms—in the next phase of our work to develop it.
[HCWS263]
Mobile Phones in Schools: Guidance
(10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Today, the Department for Education published new guidance to ban the use of mobile phones in schools. This guidance provides advice to school leaders on how to develop, implement and maintain a policy that prohibits the use of mobile phones throughout the school day.
There is an increasing body of evidence that shows the unnecessary distraction, disruption and diversion caused by mobile phones in schools. Ofcom’s report found that by the age of 12, 97% of children own a mobile phone. The National Behaviour Survey (2021-2022) found that 29% of secondary school pupils reported mobile phones being used without permission in most of their lessons.
This is why we are determined that all schools should prohibit the use of mobile phones throughout the school day—not only during lessons but break and lunchtimes as well. This will create an environment where pupils can focus on learning and socialising, while ensuring that cyberbullying is never tolerated. We know that that there is large variation in how different schools are managing the use of mobile phones. We also know that schools with exemplary behaviour cultures already prohibit their use. This guidance will allow us to achieve consistency and share best practice to ensure that all pupils are protected from online harms in schools and their teaching time is not disturbed by the use of mobile phones.
This is part of the Government’s plan to continue to improve educational standards and give children the skills they need, something we have done successfully since 2010.
[HCWS260]
Changes in Immigration Rules
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (James Cleverly) is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.
Changes to the Ukraine schemes
Almost two years on from the start of the conflict, we continue to stand firm with the people of Ukraine and show that those who need our help are still warmly welcomed in the UK. We have extended that welcome to nearly 230,000 people who have come to the UK—or had their existing permission in the UK extended—under the Ukraine schemes. The British people have shown incredible generosity and solidarity with the Ukrainian people, opening their homes up to those seeking sanctuary.
Today, we are making changes to the Ukraine schemes to ensure they remain sustainable and meet the needs of those seeking temporary sanctuary in the UK.
We have today announced the intention to create a new Ukraine Permission Extension scheme (UPE) which will provide a new route for Ukrainians to apply for a further 18 months’ permission to stay in the UK on expiry of their current visa. We are also today reducing the length of new visas issued under the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme (HFU) from 36 months to 18 months. The change to the HFU permission period is made to align with the period which will be offered to those who choose to extend their permission under the UPE. This will mean that those initially granted a visa for 36 months under the Ukraine schemes will be able to stay in the UK for a total of up to 54 months.
To ensure that visa holders have appropriate accommodation as well as the necessary in-country support to help them assimilate and thrive independently in the UK, we are also changing the sponsor eligibility under the HFU through updates to HMG guidance. Sponsors for new visas will need to be British or Irish citizens or settled in the UK—which means they have the right to live permanently in the UK. Previously, a sponsor only needed to hold at least six months’ permission to stay in the UK from the date of the visa application.
The changes to the rules and HMG guidance being made today will also apply to the eligible minor’s route for unaccompanied children, which is part of the HFU sponsorship scheme.
We are rationalising the offer for Ukrainians coming to the UK to provide one single out-of-country route (HFU) for all Ukrainians to apply to when seeking to come to the UK. Under HFU, there are accommodation checks, a minimum accommodation commitment from the sponsor and safeguarding checks, none of which feature in the Ukraine Family Scheme (UFS). The UFS was created as an immediate response to the Russian invasion and allowed UK-based British citizens and settled persons to act as sponsors for their Ukrainian family members. We are, therefore, closing the Ukraine Family Scheme (UFS) to new applications from today. This will strengthen and improve the sustainability of the schemes we provide.
Ukrainian nationals who may have previously been eligible to apply to come to the UK under the UFS will remain eligible to apply to the HFU sponsorship scheme.
To ensure Ukrainian parents who have permission to stay in the UK under the Ukraine schemes can regularise the immigration status of their UK-born children, we are also amending the rules for the Ukraine Extension Scheme (UES) to ensure it remains open beyond the current closure date of 16 May 2024 for those children.
In order to ensure the integrity of the Ukraine schemes, we are reinstating a number of the general grounds for refusal provisions, which were temporarily disapplied from the Appendix Ukraine scheme.
Changes relating to care workers and senior care workers in the skilled worker route
On 4 December 2023, the Prime Minister and Home Secretary announced a plan to curb immigration abuse and cut net migration. This plan, alongside the package we have already introduced to restrict student dependants, is expected to mean around 300,000 people who would have been eligible to come to the UK under last year’s rules would not be able to.
These changes include some of the measures announced in that package, namely preventing overseas care workers and senior care workers from bringing their dependants to the UK and requiring care providers in England who wish to sponsor migrant workers to be registered by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
These measures will ensure we continue to protect our NHS and social care systems, while addressing significant concerns that have emerged since the introduction of the visa about high levels of non-compliance and worker exploitation and abuse within the adult social care sector, particularly for overseas workers employed within care occupations.
Care workers and senior care workers who are already in the route will be able to extend their permission with the same sponsor, and settle, without the CQC regulation requirement applying to them. They will also be able to bring dependants, including in cases where they change jobs to another sponsor who meets the CQC regulation requirement.
The changes to the Immigration Rules are being laid on 19 February 2024. The changes to close the Ukraine Family Scheme and provide one single out-of-country route for Ukrainians to come to the UK under HFU will come into effect on 19 February 2024. All other changes will come into effect on 11 March 2024.
[HCWS258]
Progress Report on the Implementation of the Rape Review Action Plan
(10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (James Cleverly) and I have published on 14 February 2024 a progress report on the end-to-end rape review action plan—published June 2021. This is the fifth progress report on implementation and demonstrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to transparency on our progress in delivering the ambitions of the rape review.
The report details the improvements we made over the last six months, including:
Implemented the national rollout of Operation Soteria across all 43 forces in England and Wales, the highly effective police investigation model pioneered by the Avon and Somerset Police where investigations focus on the behaviour of the alleged perpetrator, not the victim.
Supported police and prosecutors as they implement this new approach, including by establishing a Joint Home Office, College of Policing and National Police Chief's Council Soteria Unit.
Ensured that police officers have the right skills and knowledge to respond effectively to these offences. We have commenced specialist training for 2,000 investigators in rape and serious sexual offences, and are on track to complete these by April 2024 with appropriate specialism in all 43 forces.
Introducing legislation to strengthen support for victims and build victim trust in the system, including ensuring police requests for third party material are necessary and proportionate, and introducing statutory guidance to embed vital roles like Independent Sexual Violence and Domestic Violence Advisors (ISVAs and IDVAs) through our Victims and Prisoners Bill.
Further improving the victim experience at the Crown Court through our specialist sexual violence support project, introducing additional measures to make sure that victims feel informed and comfortable, and are treated sensitively, through best practice in communication, trauma informed training for court staff and additional facilities.
Introducing the Sentencing Bill, which will ensure that convicted rapists spend the entirety of their custodial sentence in jail, with no possibility of early release. This builds on the Conservative Government’s strong track record of tough sentencing for rape. We previously raised the release point to two thirds of the custodial term after the previous Labour Government lowered it to the halfway point in 2003.
We are now exceeding all three of our initial ambitions to return volumes of cases being referred to the police, charged by the CPS and received in court to at least 2016 levels by the end of this Parliament. In practice, this means we have more than doubled the numbers of these metrics from the levels at which they stood when the end-to-end rape review was commissioned in 2019. The volumes of adult rape cases reaching court have continued to increase quarter on quarter, with the latest data—July-September 2023—showing that:
Adult rape cases referred by the police to the CPS—for either early advice or a charging decision—continue to increase. There were 1,470 police referrals in this period, which exceeds our ambition of 766 by 91% and is up by 219% from the quarterly average in 2019, when the rape review was commissioned.
Adult rape cases charged by the CPS stand at 668, exceeding our ambition of 538 by 24% and up by 174% from the quarterly average in 2019.
The number of adult rape Crown Court receipts has increased to 665, exceeding our ambition of 553 by 20% and up by 188% from the quarterly average in 2019.
The number of people prosecuted for an adult rape offence went up by 54% in the latest year of data—12 months to June—rising from 1,410 to 2,165. This is more than double the number recorded in 2019. Adult rape prosecutions are also up by 32% compared to 2010—2,165 prosecutions in year ending June 2023, compared to 1,644 in 2010.
While strong progress has been made, we made clear in our last progress report that we recognise that this is only a start and there is much more to do. This is why we extended our action plan until December 2024.
Beyond our action plan we are committed to addressing the remaining challenges, particularly in regard to victim attrition and court timeliness. We need to ensure that victims remain engaged in the process and feel confident that they will be supported at every stage.
To assist us in driving improvements in the criminal justice system, we have recruited a new Independent Advisor to the rape review, Professor Katrin Hohl. Professor Hohl is an internationally recognised academic specialising in serious sexual offences and domestic abuse. She was the joint academic lead behind Operation Soteria and her work with victims and frontline services will be invaluable in unlocking the most challenging issues that remain.
The action set out in this publication forms part of the Government’s ambition to improve the experience and ensure justice for victims.
[HCWS259]
Long-term Plan for Housing
(10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Last week I set out the next step in this Government’s long-term plan for housing, announcing a package of measures to ensure that more homes get built where they are needed most—in our inner cities—while ensuring that the green belt and environmentally sensitive site are able to be protected from inappropriate development.
The Government have a strong record of housing delivery: we have delivered over 2.5 million homes since 2010; over a quarter of these have been affordable homes; more than 876,000 households have been supported into home ownership through Government-backed schemes, including the right to buy and shared ownership; and we are on track to meet our commitment to build 1 million homes over this Parliament.
In December of last year, we made changes to national planning policy designed to support housing delivery by addressing legitimate concerns about weaknesses in the planning system, and to facilitate the adoption of up-to-date plans with clear pipelines of delivery. The further, targeted action that the Government announced on Tuesday 13 February builds on those changes by making it easier to pursue the right kind of development on brownfield land.
Brownfield development
Last July, our long-term plan for housing drew attention to the poor record of housing delivery in London, where housing affordability challenges are most acute. Only 35,000 new homes were delivered in the capital last year, just over half the 66,000 homes the Mayor of London’s own plan identifies as needed each year. That is why I urged the Mayor to take urgent action. When he failed to do so, I commissioned an independent review of the London plan led by Christopher Katkowski KC. The review was published on 13 February and recommended a presumption in favour of brownfield development be introduced into the London plan.
The Government intend to deliver this recommendation —and believe it is important to ensure delivery not just in London, but in our other major towns and cities that serve as engines of jobs and growth. We have therefore launched a consultation on proposals for a new “brownfield presumption” in the 20 most populous cities and urban centres in England, where housing delivery has dropped below expected levels. These 20 places, which include London most conspicuously, are areas to which an “urban uplift” already applies when determining the need for homes. They already have the infrastructure and services for new residents, and they are where we can best maximise productivity through increasing housing delivery. The more we can focus efforts in the heart of these urban centres, the better for our ambitions to level up.
The new presumption in favour of brownfield development will apply where an authority fails to meet at least 95% of its housing requirement. It has strong support from the development sector and will make it easier to get permission for new homes. It will raise the bar for refusing applications and ultimately help more young families to find a home. Analysis in the “London Plan Review” report indicates that these changes could lead to up to 11,500 more homes in the capital each year. By extending the reforms across the country, even more homes will be unlocked.
We also want to support brownfield development more widely, by making it clear to every local authority in England that they need to be more flexible in approving planning applications on brownfield land. To make this happen, the consultation proposes a change to national planning policy that would require councils to give significant weight to the benefits of delivering as many homes as possible where there is a shortage of land for homes. This change would also require councils to be more pragmatic in applying policies on the internal layout of developments—cutting through what can sometimes prove too complex a web of constraints that misses the prize of building new homes.
Using brownfield sites will reduce the need for development on greenfield land and help protect the green belt. Neither of the policies out for consultation affects the definition of previously developed land in national policy and so would not alter existing protections, including for residential gardens, nor amend other relevant policies on the character of suburban neighbourhoods.
Permitted development rights
Complementing these changes on brownfield development, I am also delivering new planning freedoms to enable more commercial buildings to be converted into new homes. Following a consultation last year, we have now amended the existing permitted development right for conversion to residential such that commercial buildings of any size will have the freedom to be converted into new homes, resulting in thousands of new homes by 2030.
I have also launched a consultation proposing changes to make it easier for homeowners to extend their homes. I want to ensure permitted development rights reflect current aspirations for how we use our homes. Our proposals would allow larger loft conversions, bike stores and more flexible extensions. They would free homeowners from the arduous process of going through planning permission for additions helpful to all. The proposals balance flexibility for homeowners with respect for neighbours’ amenity. These proposals will also allow homeowners greater freedoms on installing heat pumps and electric vehicle charging points and will ensure these rights deliver what people want for their homes.
It is important to reiterate that new homes created via permitted development rights must not sacrifice quality. Permitted development rights require new homes to meet national space standards, provide for natural light, and must always comply with building regulations, ensuring that these are quality homes that make the best use of our building stock.
London delivery
In London, we want to go even further to make sure that our capital city has the housing it needs, so our changes in policy are accompanied by additional funding: £50 million of investment to unlock new homes and improve the quality of life for existing residents through estate regeneration in London; working closely with the London Borough of Camden, a new Euston Housing Delivery Group to explore maximum regeneration and housing at Euston, backed by £4 million; and £125 million loan funding from the home building fund infrastructure loans portfolio and long-term fund for sites in east and south London, which will unlock 8,000 new homes. To help tackle undersupply in the medium term, we also confirmed our intention to legislate at the earliest opportunity to remove the current block on Homes England’s role in London.
Support for SME housebuilders
Our changes ensure more homes are built—but we are determined in particular to support the SME housebuilders who play such a vital role in our communities. To that end, we have expanded the £1 billion ENABLE Build guarantee scheme to increase the amount of finance available to SMEs by covering loans issued by non-bank lenders and seeded portfolios. We are also helping to tackle SME access to land by introducing SME-only sales of Homes England land, with pilots starting in the south-east and midlands later this year, and developing a pipeline of future small sites by parcelling Homes England land.
In addition, a number of community infrastructure levy (CIL) charging authorities have set higher rates for minor sites (of less than 10 units, and lower in designated rural areas) to reflect the fact that affordable housing is not sought on these sites. This is not within the spirit of the Government’s policy on small sites. The Government will be updating CIL guidance to make it clear that CIL-charging authorities should consider the impact of CIL rates on SME developers and should not set higher residential CIL rates on minor development. This will apply to new and revised charging schedules.
Public sector land
It is also crucial for the Government to release more land for housing development. That is why we are working with the three main landowning departments—the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Health and Social Care, as well as Homes England—which have pledged to set aside suitable unused or unwanted land for housing. So far Departments have pledged to release Government-owned land for at least 15,000 homes before the end of March 2025, and we have set up a ministerial taskforce to assure and accelerate delivery over the longer term.
Short-term lets
All of these actions will help further bolster the supply of new homes—but the Government are also as committed to making the best use of our current housing stock. While short-term lets are an integral part of the UK’s visitor accommodation offer and bring a range of benefits, in too many of our communities uncontrolled growth of short-term lets is causing concern. This is particularly, but not exclusively, where they are concentrated in coastal and tourist areas; affecting the availability and affordability of homes for local people, and contributing as a result to wider homelessness pressures; making it difficult to monitor compliance with key health and safety regulations; and in some instances causing nuisance to local residents and a broader “hollowing out” of communities.
In recognition of these challenges, the Culture Secretary and I consulted on interlinked proposals last year to establish a register of short-term lets and introduce planning measures to provide local areas with more control over future growth. Our aim with these measures has been to get the balance right between protecting local communities and enabling our visitor economy to continue to thrive.
Today I can confirm that the Government will introduce a mandatory national register of short-term lets. That will help local authorities understand which properties are being let out in their area. We will also create a new planning use class for short-term lets. That will apply to properties that are not someone’s sole or main home. We will implement associated permitted development rights allowing for a property to be changed from a standard residential dwelling to this new use class and vice versa. Local authorities will be able to remove these rights and require full planning permission, as they can with any permitted development right.
Separately, where people want to let out their main home for short periods of time, we will provide flexibility and certainty to homeowners that they can do so without the need to apply for planning permission.
Further details of these measures will be set out when the Government formally respond to the respective consultations—including the timeline for implementation of the register, the use class, and the individual permitted development rights. The changes will be introduced from this summer. The Government want a light-touch, low-cost and simple registration scheme and do not wish to disproportionately apply new regulation on property owners that let out their home infrequently. As such, we will continue to consider the case for the potential application of a threshold in finalising the register.
Second staircases guidance
Finally, our focus is of course not just on building more but on building safely. In October last year I announced intended transitional arrangements to accompany new guidance relating to second staircases in new residential buildings in England above 18 metres. As I said then, this is the latest step in a continuing effort to ensure that new buildings are constructed, managed and maintained to the very highest standards.
The Building Safety Regulator will publish the new guidance on second staircases before the end of March, making clear the need for a second staircase in new multi-occupancy residential buildings that have a top occupied storey above 18 metres, and confirming that evacuation lifts will not be called for as a matter of course, providing housebuilders with the clarity they need to progress developments.
The revised statutory guidance, known as approved document B, represents general guidance: it will not be exhaustive, and the design of each high-rise building will continue to receive individual scrutiny from experts, now via the Building Safety Regulator. The fire safety design for any higher risk buildings above 18 metres will be subject to review at planning gateway 1 by fire safety professionals, and by a multi-disciplinary team at gateway 2, who must be satisfied that the final fire safety provisions are appropriate to the requirements of each individual building. It remains the responsibility of the owners and those carrying out building works, including developers, to demonstrate that the functional requirements of the building regulations have been met.
A second staircase will provide new buildings with additional resilience to support exit from the building and enhanced options for firefighting in the rare event of a catastrophic incident. This evolution of safety standards will be a helpful addition to existing building safety measures that we have already introduced and, alongside the enhanced scrutiny of the new building safety regime, will provide people with further confidence in the safety of new homes.
[HCWS264]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division, which is unlikely, we will adjourn immediately and resume 10 minutes after the Division Bells ring.
Registered Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024
(10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the Grand Committee do consider the Registered Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee also consider the draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024, the draft Service Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024 and the draft Principal Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024, which were all laid before the House on 18 December 2023.
These regulations represent the first substantive tranche of a total of some 50 statutory instruments that will breathe life into the reforms being introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which I will refer to as “the Act”. It was my pleasure to help guide that Act through Parliament. I pay tribute to noble Lords for helping deliver a landmark piece of legislation; I am extremely pleased to see so many of them in their usual place today. The Act’s reforms will help bear down on the criminals, kleptocrats and terrorists who abuse our open economy, and will enhance the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business thrives.
I will begin by turning attention to the draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024. While the inevitable focus of the Act was on the reform of company and limited partnership frameworks, our policy is generally to apply company reforms to the class of entity established through the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000. That 2000 Act provides a regulation power to do so and, where appropriate, to modify the application to suit the limited liability partnership, or LLP, context. We intend to exercise the power through further instruments as necessary to ensure that Act provisions apply coherently as between companies and LLPs.
This instrument forms the first step in that process and serves to transpose the elements of the Act that commenced on Royal Assent in October 2023 and in January 2024 and, most significantly, those planned to commence on 4 March. I remind noble Lords that the intention is that many of these points will indeed commence on 4 March. That date is an important one, as it marks the point from which it is intended that many of the company registrar’s new powers will come into effect and from which significant new requirements will apply to companies and, by virtue of this instrument, also to LLPs.
Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I spoke this afternoon to the Registrar of Companies; I was very comforted by her encouraging words about how Companies House is ready for that date and looking forward to it. I am happy to cover further points later around its preparedness and the chronology of other activities feeding off the Act.
Those provisions include: establishment of additional controls around the name an entity chooses to register and that under which it conducts business; a statutory requirement to register an appropriate email address; an obligation annually to confirm that the entity acts with a lawful purpose; and, perhaps most importantly, the registrar’s new objectives under the Act to strive to ensure the integrity and accuracy of register information and, within the parameters of her functions, to prevent companies and others carrying out illegal activities. Elsewhere among those powers and requirements are those that relate to the addresses that corporate entities are required to file with the Registrar of Companies.
That brings me to the next instrument in this group, the Registered Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024. Instances can arise in which an unsuspecting householder finds that a company with which they have no involvement has misappropriated their address, claiming it as that of the registered office they are required by law to file with the registrar. This not only causes alarm and inconvenience for householders but can be indicative of criminal intent on the part of the company in question.
Through the Act, we are strengthening the registrar’s powers to combat this practice by tightening the requirements around what constitutes an appropriate registered office address; streamlining and expanding upon existing avenues of redress for those impacted; introducing criminal sanctions for those who fail to take corrective action; and, ultimately, providing the registrar with the ability to strike from the register those companies that persist in offending.
The purpose of this supporting instrument is to establish a flexible framework within which the registrar can act to address this abuse. It puts flesh on the processes to be followed where the registrar believes it appropriate either to act unilaterally and expeditiously to change a company address or to provide it with the opportunity to object to a proposed change. It sets out how criminal penalties will apply to companies, and their officers, which fail to take corrective action where the registrar has replaced an erroneous office address with a default address. It also outlines the process the registrar can follow to strike a company off the register when corrective action is not taken.
These registered office address regulations apply these procedures and processes in the limited company context. The limited liability partnership regulations I introduced earlier serve to transpose them to apply with similar effect in the LLP setting.
I will now cover the Service Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024 and the Principal Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024. They are, so to speak, two further chapters in the same story. Just as companies are required to file particular address details, so are persons associated with them. It may be helpful if I set out in a little more detail what these requirements are and where they apply.
I turn first to service addresses. A service address must be filed in respect of all company directors, company secretaries and any individual registered as a person with significant control, or PSC.
I move on to principal office addresses. Certain companies have directors or company secretaries that are other corporate entities rather than individuals. Companies may also have what is termed a relevant legal entity, or RLE, which is a company or organisation that has a significant degree of influence or control over another. They are effectively the same as people with significant control but are entities, not individuals. A company must provide address details in respect of all three of these categories and, in doing so, has the option of filing either a registered office or a principal office address.
These two sets of regulations establish similar processes around the rectification of false or erroneous service and principal office addresses as the service address regulations referred to earlier. However, there is one material difference. Because these addresses relate to individuals or corporate entities other than the company itself, the ultimate sanction of striking the company at issue off the register for persistent non-compliance cannot apply.
All three sets of these address-related regulations are also applied in an LLP context by the draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024 that I presented at the outset. In combination, they will deliver a robust and comprehensive safeguard, encompassing, for example, instances in which an address is misappropriated for multiple abuses within the one company, as well as providing scope for much quicker redress for those who still fall victim. At present, the registrar can act only following an application from the victim, and she has to provide companies with 28 days in which they can challenge the claim that an address is being misused. These registrar powers are available only in respect of the registered address; they are not currently provided for service and principal addresses.
Once these improved mechanisms are in place, not only will the registrar also be able to change an address to a default address of her own volition but she will have the discretion to do so immediately, affording the company the opportunity to challenge only after the event. Therefore, in cases of prima facie abuse, it will be possible to deliver much quicker and more efficient resolution. I know that noble Lords on all sides of the House were particularly focused on that topic during the passage of the Act.
In conclusion, these measures are all crucial to the Act’s effective implementation. I hope that noble Lords will support them and their objectives. I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out clearly and crisply the details of the four sets of regulations. I declare my interests as set out in the register. It is certainly not my aim to do otherwise than to support these regulations, which are consequential from the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, as the Minister explained, but I want to raise some brief points in relation to them.
I appreciate that, in relation to the address of a company’s registered office, one major concern is companies opting for PO box addresses or inappropriate addresses that are not the address of the company or any of its officers. I take the point about the importance of tackling this, particularly in relation to crimes of fraud, money laundering and so on. Does the Minister have any idea of the incidence of this type of misleading activity? If he does not have the figures to hand, I would be grateful if he could write to me.
I have two brief additional points. More widely, I wonder if the Minister can provide any details—he has given some indication—of when other provisions of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 will be brought into force. I appreciate what he said about 4 March but I wonder whether Section 60 of that Act, on confirmation of lawful purpose, is to be brought in on that date. I think it is but would be grateful for an identification in the regulations and any other regulations expected in that regard. It would be good to have that mapped out.
Lastly, is the Minister in a position to say something about a review of company law more widely? The last far-reaching review of company law took place in 2006. It was then the most far-reaching review we have ever had and led to the longest piece of legislation on any subject ever seen at Westminster, so it would be quite a task, but that was some 20 years ago and it is in need of some review and refresh. When the Minister responds, perhaps he can give some indication of when that might be tackled. I am most grateful.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, it was good to hear that Companies House is making such good progress. I wonder if it might make sense for the Minister to arrange an update session at some point with Companies House for interested Peers, as we had during the process of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act.
I will speak briefly on the three rectification of register SIs. I greatly welcome these regulations. They will enable people whose address is being used without their permission as the registered or service address, or principal office, of a company to have that remedied. We heard during the passage of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act of the case of the unfortunate individual in Wales whose address had been fraudulently used to register 12,000 companies, and how hard it was for him to have that corrected. It must be deeply stressful for such an innocent party to worry about whether they will find themselves being chased by HMRC for unpaid VAT or tax, or indeed by other creditors, and possibly even finding the bailiffs at their door chasing payment for debts of companies that are nothing to do with them. Until now, they were getting little or no help from Companies House or HMRC in that situation, so it is good that action is being taken but I have a few questions to ask.
First, when Companies House decides to change the company address to the default address, it must in most cases give written notice to the company. I am curious how that will work in practice if the original address was fraudulent, or even just an error. The Committee will be able to see a bit of a circularity there. It presumably just means that the innocent party receives yet more mail addressed to a company that he knows nothing about, which might add to his stress. If it was a genuine mistake, the company might never find out until it was struck off, so there is a practical issue there.
More importantly, though, the regulations relate only to the single company in question. As we know, when a false address is used many companies—in the case of the man in Wales, thousands of them—may often be registered at the same address. It would surely make sense to include a duty on the registrar to investigate all other companies registered at the same address when the decision is taken to change the address to the default; otherwise, the innocent party whose home is being fraudulently used will have to make an individual application in respect of every company of which he becomes aware. In the case of the Welsh gentleman, that would be 12,000 individual applications, which would be an enormous and rather unfair burden on an innocent person. Can the Minister confirm that the registrar will investigate all companies registered at the same address, even if that is not an actual requirement under these regulations?
Related to that, the regulations are not clear about how an application for an address to be changed can be made. Does it have to be in writing or will Companies House make available a more user-friendly system—online, email or whatever—to minimise the effort that an innocent party has to make to sort out the matter? In most cases, I imagine that a fraudulent company will use the same address for the registered office, service address and principal place of business as relevant. Under these three SIs, the innocent party will in that case have to make three separate applications for each such company—or indeed more than three if for each individual director. That 12,000 could then turn into 36,000 or more applications to sort out the issue for our man in Wales. Can the Minister explain to me how this will be streamlined to minimise the burden on the innocent parties?
As I mentioned, such fraudulent companies are often used for the purpose of VAT fraud. Would it not make sense, therefore, also to include an obligation on the registrar to inform HMRC every time such a situation is found? During its evidence sessions, the Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee heard how it is common for fraud victims to check Companies House as a sensible due diligence step before parting with their money. If a company has been moved to a default address, would it not make sense to highlight that on the register and flag the company as being a fraud risk, during the period before it is struck off, to protect potential fraud victims?
Overall, these regulations are a good, important step but they could usefully be added to in order to provide better, simpler remedies for the innocent parties in these cases.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, it is pleasure to follow the insights of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. I will speak to the second SI, the Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024. I broadly welcome the thrust of the proposals but I have a number of questions; I hope that the Minister will be able to answer them.
First, the words “company law” appear in the statutory instrument, obviously, but can the Minister tell the Committee whether there is in the UK any central enforcer of company law—or for LLPs, for that matter? I have not been able to find one in all these years, so it would be helpful to know where the buck stops. Who, in the final analysis, is responsible for regulating these entities? This matters, especially when companies and LLPs engage in unlawful practices such as paying dividends without sufficient distributable reserves—something that damages the interests of creditors, including pension schemes with a deficit.
Let me go back a little while, because I have always been interested in this topic. In a Written Question on 14 September 2017, Kelvin Hopkins, the then Member of Parliament for Luton North, asked the Business Secretary
“what checks his Department carries out to ensure that dividends paid by companies do not exceed their distributable reserves”.
This was the reply, on 12 October 2017:
“The Department is not responsible for carrying out checks on dividends paid by companies to ensure that they do not exceed their distributable reserves”.
That is still the position. Nothing has changed. We still do not know who is responsible for looking at these things.
In recent years, companies such as Domino’s, Dunelm, Games Workshop and Hargreaves Lansdown have admitted to paying dividends that were, strictly speaking, unlawful; after a while, they noticed that they were unlawful. They therefore paid illegal dividends but, in the absence of an independent enforcer of company law, no one really examines such instances. The Business Department has long washed its hands of such matters. I hope that the Minister can tell us where the buck stops and which external agency is responsible for enforcing both company law and LLP law. That is my first question.
Secondly, LLP and company financial statements are prepared in accordance with what are sometimes called generally accepted accounting principles—or GAAP, although there are many variations on that—and are promulgated by the Financial Reporting Council in the form of accounting standards. They have an important bearing on whatever counts as an asset, a liability, income, an expense, wages, a tax, liquidity, accountability and much more. Ultimately, the rules or standards have a bearing on the distribution of income, wealth and risks.
In a democratic society, only Parliament has the social mandate to adjudicate on competing claims concerning the distribution of income and wealth. However, that authority has been subverted by the Government, and none of the accounting standards issued by the Financial Reporting Council is ever debated in Parliament. Why is that? Why has Parliament’s authority been subverted? I hope that the Minister can explain why the Government do not bring accounting standards to Parliament for approval because they affect the distribution of income and wealth and form the basis of taxation.
Thirdly, through the FRC, committees dominated by partners of LLPs make their own accounting and disclosure rules. They operate through a private company, which is named CCAB Ltd and is dominated by the accountancy bodies. No one in the Government has ever suggested that the hungry should set food standards, the homeless should set housing standards or the poor should set the minimum wage, but the partners of LLPs are allowed to make their own accounting rules without any kind of parliamentary oversight.
If noble Lords look at LLPs’ accounts, they will see that these LLP partners do not like transparency. For example, LLPs are not required to disclose their partners’ share of profits, which is the nearest equivalent to director remuneration in limited liability companies. We do not know their exact share of the profit, even though they may be enjoying government or other public contracts. Why is the partners’ share of profits not disclosed in LLPs’ financial statements, and why is setting the rules for LLP accounting and disclosure considered private? Surely it is not.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as someone who has spent a lot of his professional life working on annual reports, I have often had questions about GAAP, but the Minister will be pleased to know that I will not ask them today.
The four SIs before us are to be welcomed. They are steps on the way from our discussions on both the last economic crime Bill and the one before that. We are moving forward, in a sense. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, introduced what I call the Knighton collection of companies that were registered to a terraced house in the Welsh borders, not far from where I live—as I believe does the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I would like some reassurance that the statutory instrument on registered office addresses would deal with that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, eloquently set out, there are a lot of steps to go through to eliminate falsely registered companies. It comes back to the question of whether Companies House is capable of really handling this, ceasing to be a filing cabinet and starting to be an investigative organisation. To echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, it would be very helpful to have an update on how the huge cultural change that Companies House needs is going. Many of us were impressed by the team that we saw, but also a little frightened by the huge task that it has in front of it to make these SIs and the next 51—or however many there are—come to life.
I have some trepidation on the second of these SIs, on limited liability partnerships, because the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, seated opposite, is our Scottish legal expert. I wondered where Scottish partnerships come in, because the territorial extent of that statutory instrument is the whole UK. Where do Scottish partnerships sit within that?
The service address and principal office address regulations are useful and important too, but expose the central weakness that is still within our system. After all the work we did on the Bill, those with control still have the ability to hide that control. We welcome the Service Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations and the Principal Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations, but can the Minister set out, either now or in writing, how we are going to eliminate the cancer within this system of people obscuring the real ownership of assets to the authorities and wider society? With that, we welcome these four statutory instruments.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out these regulations and everyone who has spoken in this short debate. I will take these instruments one at a time.
Under the current system, criminals can—often by using data unwittingly shared or stolen and for sale on the dark web—fraudulently register an individual residential address as a registered office with Companies House, without the knowledge of the actual residents. Since 2011 it has been possible for companies to be incorporated within 24 hours for as little as £12, with Companies House making no checks on the veracity of the address. Once this has been done, the perpetrators can apply for credit, business loans and other financial arrangements. This fraud often does not come to light until the individual wants to apply for credit and finds that they are unable to do so, often resulting in considerable problems.
This instrument relates to where individuals have had their residential address hijacked. It allows the registrar to change the address to a default address and to strike the company from the register of companies if a genuine new address is not provided. It establishes criminal offences for companies and officers where they do not comply. We welcome the streamlining of this process and expansion of the registrar’s powers that this instrument provides, including that, as well as acting on the basis of applications, the registrar can when necessary act unilaterally based on any information in their possession to move swiftly to change a company’s registered office address without giving notice in advance.
However, I would like to know how the Government seek to protect and support victims of these fraudulent practices, as mentioned earlier by the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Fox. Can the Minister say how they will be informed of developments? Will victims be supported if issues continue for them beyond the changing of the registered address—for example, if they have negative notes or ratings on their credit file? If so, how will this be addressed?
Given that this is clearly a widespread practice, does the Minister have any information about provisions to actively check business addresses? There could be existing situations in which fraudulent addresses are in use but currently unchanged or undetected; they may not come to light until the innocent victims have their lives blighted by the discovery of a fraudulent registration of which they were unaware, as in the case in Wales that was mentioned. Does the Minister have accurate figures for how many addresses are registered? Surely it must be in the millions. If, as I suspect, it is on that scale, what analysis has been done on whether this instrument will create an influx of work for the registrar? Has resource been allocated for this?
I move on to LLP. This instrument will ensure that the reforms to company law made by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 also apply to the law governing limited liability partnerships. It will ensure that company law applies without arbitrary differences between companies and LLPs. It pertains to straightforward administrative amendments relating to a company’s name, registered office and email addresses, its directors, annual confirmation of accuracy on the register, information about persons with significant control and so forth. We support this legislation, which seems both reasonable and straightforward, and so on this occasion I do not have any further questions for the Minister.
I move on to the Service Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024. As many noble Lords will know from personal experience, directors and secretaries of companies and persons with significant control over companies are required to notify the companies registrar of their service address—that is, a location where documents may be deemed effectively served on that person.
This instrument empowers the registrar to change the registered service address to a default address nominated by the registrar where the registrar is satisfied that the registered service address does not meet the necessary legal requirements. The registrar may change the address by their own motion or on application and may also, at their discretion, change the address without notice or after a period for objections, the length of which may also be at the registrar’s discretion. Clearly, the situation in which company directors, secretaries and persons of significant interest could attempt to delay or evade being held to their legal responsibilities by providing non-compliant addresses would be unsatisfactory.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
As always, I thank noble Lords for a very powerful and constructive debate around this essential legislation. I genuinely think it will make an enormous difference to the quality of Companies House activities and of our business activities, reducing crime in a magnitudinous way and making the data that companies provide far more valuable in terms of them being able to operate legitimate businesses, to borrow money and to give confidence to customers. Markets are based on trust, so the more the Government can do—and have done, I am pleased to say, with the support of all Peers in the House—the better the business operations underneath that framework.
I will briefly go through some of the significant points. If I have missed anything I will be delighted to follow up after this discussion, but I am keen to make sure that everyone is answered as broadly as possible. If I do not have specific data requested, I will write and copy in all noble Lords.
I thank my noble friend Lord Bourne for his contribution; I hope I understood his question correctly. I do not have to hand a number for the instances of PO boxes being used as registered addresses, but I would be comfortable supplying it to him. The whole point is that this legislation will end the practice of having PO boxes. I think that only about 21,000 or 22,000 addresses are classed as default; of course, that is in effect the registrar’s own address. If you think about the however many million companies that are registered—perhaps 5 million or so—that is a very small proportion. A lot of these figures sound high—when you talk about tens of thousands, it seems an enormous number—but the reality is that, in proportion, they are relatively small. A lot of these default addresses—I am covering several points at the same time—are not for nefarious purposes. They might exist simply because, for example, an individual who had a company has died or the accountant who was registering it has gone out of business. So there are administrative reasons why default addresses are used.
Forgive me but I cannot remember whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, or another noble Lord who made the point about advertising—that because it is a default address, issues around concern and risk may be raised. I have some sympathy with that, although it is not for me to say. A default address does not necessitate that there is nefarious activity; it is often administrative. Clearly, if noble Lords go on Companies House, they will be able to see the date on which an address became the default address, which would potentially give one an indication of the situation.
It is worth talking about the chronology here. I so enjoyed the passage of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. The time went by so fast; it feels like only yesterday that we finished it. It became an Act towards the end of last year. As I said, I am pleased that, following a helpful conversation with the registrar, Louise Smyth, she has been extremely co-operative with my office in promoting our ambitions for Companies House. I am sure that—the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked a question about this—it would be extremely helpful for us all to arrange an update. I found speaking to Louise today, ahead of this debate, very helpful. It is important that we have an element of checking to see whether the resourcing is appropriate and whether the speed of activity is there, but I have the fullest of confidence in Louise and her team.
Let us look at the chronology going forward. Assuming that everything today goes to plan, these powers will come into force on 4 March. That will in effect enable the registrar to have far more discretion over how she acts.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Leong, about multiple registrations, how the registrar will effect her duties and the appellate process around that. It is clearly listed in the statutory instrument that you will not have to have 21,000 to the power of however many different applications, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, may have suggested. The point is this: currently, people may register my address as their company address. This is one of the core sparks that lit the blue touchpaper, or the rocket, that was the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill—this iniquitous situation in which any of us could be registered as a director and our address could be used as a company address. It is a completely bizarre situation that will come to an end on 4 March.
It will then be up to the registrar to make those inquiries; at the stroke of a pen, she will be able to cancel out however many thousands of companies registered to one address. How are we going to do this? The registrar will use the intelligence hub; it is already in existence, as far as I am aware, and is being significantly resourced and expanded. I am encouraged that she will have—this is what we discussed in great detail as the Bill passed through the House—the discretionary powers to do the work and do what is clearly the right thing.
The noble Lord, Lord Leong, rightly mentioned the appeals process. It would be unreasonable to suggest that a single agent of the Crown should be able to, at their whim and discretion, change the fortunes of businesses; that is simply not the case. There is a clear appeals process and, ultimately, the courts would adjudicate. Let me be clear: it is not in the interests of Companies House or the registrar to strike companies off if they believe that they are doing legitimate business. That would be a highly unusual scenario, but there are safeguards and checks and balances around that.
I hope I have covered some of the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Bourne and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. I will cover two other short points on the chronology. These powers will come into effect on 4 March. In May we will get the statutory instrument for the fees—I believe it is being laid in Parliament, in the other place, today—which will go to £50 for incorporation and £34 for verification at the end of every year. The increase is quite significant in percentage terms, but I think all noble Lords in the Committee will agree that, in real terms, that is not a significant amount of money for the incorporation of a company, with all that that entails. I think we have reached quite a good place there.
The all-important work on verification is the real meat of the additional hard work by the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Fox, and other noble Peers. Our friends the ACSPs hope, as do Companies House and the registrar, that by the end of this year they will have begun the process of ensuring that the verification process around ACSPs is well under way. They expect to bring in the appropriate processes for individual verification in 2025. As noble Lords know, these include photo identity card and passport verification and so on; we have done so much work on this.
Lord Fox (LD)
On chronology, am I right in thinking that there is a commencement statutory instrument that needs to be brought forward for the overall Bill? When might we see that being tabled?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
That will happen next week, I am told. I look behind me hopefully on questions like that, but we will do that next week and I hope we stick to this timetable. As I have said, various SIs relating to fees and so on are being laid in the other place today.
I believe I have answered most of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friend Lord Bourne. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, made some important points about dividend payments and the stability of our company system. I would not necessarily say that they are relevant to the Companies House regulations that we are looking at today. They are separate from Companies House’s requirement to make sure that the proper accounts are filed. The noble Lord asked who the enforcer for company law is; the court system is. It is important to stress that.
There have been discussions about when company law will be reviewed. As far as I am aware, we have no specific plans to do a full review, but I am happy to take all the noble Lord’s comments and issues back to the Department for Business and Trade, which has particular responsibility over certain reporting areas, to make sure that he is content that the work we are doing is effective.
I believe I covered the points from the noble Lord, Lord Leong, related to ensuring that the Registrar of Companies can operate effectively and the appellate process. Very importantly, on his comment about the powers of the registrar, these are new powers, so we will have to see how they develop. It is absolutely right that the House and the Government continue to keep a close watch on Companies House and the team there to ensure that they have the necessary powers and resources to deliver on a truly transformative regime for how companies are registered and how Companies House operates. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, rightly said, it needs to move from simply being a repository of information to becoming a truly dynamic activator in overseeing how companies operate. This is exactly what these statutory instruments allow.
I am happy to follow up with any noble Lords who have specific requests, but I very much hope that I have their support on these statutory instruments.
Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024
(10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the Grand Committee do consider the Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024.
Service Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024
(10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the Grand Committee do consider the Service Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024.
Principal Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024
(10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the Grand Committee do consider the Principal Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024.
Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 and the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Specified Diseases and Prescribed Occupations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The schemes we are debating today provide vital support for sufferers of dust-related diseases often caused by occupational exposure to asbestos and other harmful dusts. This includes diseases such as pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma. Although both schemes aim to provide compensation to sufferers within their lifetime, each scheme also allows for claims by dependants if, sadly, the person suffering from the disease passes away before they are able to claim. This is in recognition of the suffering these diseases can bring to whole families.
The changes we are debating today will apply equally to those in England, Wales and Scotland. The Government recognise that addressing Great Britain’s asbestos legacy, particularly in public buildings, remains a key issue. We also understand the crucial role that research and early detection can play in the fight against cancer and other diseases covered by these schemes. We continue to make progress in this space, with the rollout of the NHS targeted lung cancer screening programme, and around £122 million invested in cancer research in 2022-23 through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. However, while individuals continue to be diagnosed with these terrible diseases, the lump sum schemes remain a vital source of financial support for sufferers and their families.
I will now take a moment to provide some additional background to the schemes. The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which—noble Lords will be relieved to hear—for simplicity I shall refer to as the 1979 Act scheme, provides a single lump sum compensation payment to eligible individuals who suffer from one of the diseases covered by the scheme. This includes diffuse mesothelioma, pneumoconiosis and three other dust-related respiratory diseases. It was designed to compensate people who were unable to claim damages from former employers that had gone out of business and who had not brought any civil action against another party for damages. To be entitled to a lump sum award, claimants must have an industrial injuries disablement benefit award for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme.
The 2008 mesothelioma lump sum payments scheme, which I will refer to as the 2008 Act scheme, was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but were unable to claim compensation through the 1979 Act scheme. This may have been because they were a self-employed worker or their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 Act scheme provides support quickly to people with diffuse mesothelioma, at their time of greatest need.
This Government recognise the suffering that diseases such as mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis cause to sufferers and their families. I know that many noble Lords will be aware of friends and close colleagues from your Lordships’ House who have lost their lives as a result of these dreadful diseases. I have known two people who have succumbed. We must remember the great impact these illnesses have on people and their families.
Each year, the schemes continue to provide vital financial support to sufferers and their families. Between April 2022 and March 2023, the latest financial year for which data is available, 2,860 awards were made across both schemes, with expenditure totalling £42.3 million. However, between now and 2028-29, expenditure on the schemes is forecast to fall by 8% in real terms. In part, this may reflect historical changes in the domestic workforce but also improved health and safety provision more widely. This may provide some hope that fewer families will suffer the impacts of these terrible diseases going forward.
Two of the instruments we are debating today seek to increase the value of one-off, lump-sum payments made under the 2008 Act scheme and 1979 Act scheme respectively, this time by 6.7%. These new rates will apply to those who first become entitled to a payment from 1 April 2024. As many noble Lords will be aware, these two schemes are not included in the main social security benefits uprating procedure. However, a 6.7% increase is in line with the September 2023 consumer prices index and mirrors the proposed increases to industrial injuries disablement benefit payments and other disability benefits. As I outlined this time last year, there is no statutory requirement to review the level of these payments annually. However, the department has decided to uprate payments under both lump-sum schemes together, in line with inflation, since 2010. I reassure noble Lords that this year will be no different, which reflects the continued importance of the support provided by these schemes.
This year, in addition to the uprating instruments, I ask that the Committee considers a third draft instrument. Unlike uprating, this instrument will not form part of an annual process. Instead, it seeks to extend the eligibility criteria under the 1979 Act scheme. This instrument will simply realign the diseases which may bring entitlement to a payment under that scheme with those that may bring entitlement to IIDB, ensuring that the original policy intent of the 1979 Act is reflected in the legislation. In doing so, it will widen the 1979 Act scheme entitlement to customers suffering from two additional dust-related conditions; first, unilateral or one-sided diffuse pleural thickening and, secondly, asbestos-related primary carcinoma of the lung where there is no accompanying asbestosis.
As many noble Lords are aware, the department is advised by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council—an independent scientific body, called IIAC—on changes to the list of prescribed diseases for which IIDB can be paid. At the point that they were added to the 1979 Act legislation, the specified diseases exactly mirrored diseases listed in the relevant IIDB legislation. Over time, IIAC has recommended several changes to IIDB prescribed diseases that are also specified in the 1979 Act, which have been accepted by the department.
The unintended impact of accepting these recommendations was that people who suffer from one-sided diffuse pleural thickening and primary carcinoma of the lung with occupational exposure to asbestos, but no accompanying asbestosis, are now potentially eligible for IIDB but not eligible for an award under the 1979 Act scheme. This divergence was first identified in September 2023, when officials were asked to provide clarification on entitlement for an individual case. Officials have worked at pace since September to bring forward the legislation that we are debating today.
The proposed amendments seek to address this divergence by realigning diseases specified in the 1979 Act legislation with those which may bring entitlement to IIDB. If approved, this instrument will mean that the diseases specified in the 1979 Act legislation are based on an improved clinical understanding and that the original policy intent of the 1979 Act is reflected fully in legislation.
Historically, payments have been made to sufferers of these two diseases, despite the divergence identified in the legislation. This was because the department was using diseases set out in the IIDB legislation when considering entitlement to a lump-sum award under the 1979 Act scheme. Importantly, our understanding is, therefore, that customers who made claims for these two diseases historically have not missed out as a result of the change not being made sooner.
As of 16 February, the department was holding 94 claims made since September 2023 where it has not been possible to establish entitlement under the current legislation, but where the criteria would be met under the proposed legislation. If it is approved today, we will pay these customers as soon as possible.
Overall, we estimate that this change will extend legislative entitlement to a 1979 Act scheme lump-sum award to approximately 300 people a year with one-sided diffuse pleural thickening and asbestos-related primary carcinoma of the lung—a reflection of the vital role the schemes play in providing compensation to those affected by these terrible diseases. I am sure—I hope—that noble Lords here today will join me in recognising the continued importance of the compensation provided by these schemes.
Finally, as a part of my role, I am required to confirm that each of these three provisions is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and I can gladly do so. I commend the proposed amendments to these schemes to the Grand Committee and ask noble Lords’ approval to implement them. I beg to move.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, as general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, I was aware of a number of members who died from school-acquired mesothelioma. I declare an interest: having worked in an asbestos-contaminated school myself, I have that registered on my medical record, although I am in good health at the moment.
These lump-sum payments are meant to provide some compensation for asbestos victims who cannot get civil compensation from a former employer, but there is an inconsistency in the schemes. If a surviving partner or dependant must claim after their loved one has died, they receive a substantially lower payment. In 2019-20, a 77 year-old with mesothelioma would have received £14,334 if they claimed themselves, but if they died before claiming, which can of course happen with a cancer that is both aggressive and difficult to diagnose, their surviving partner or dependent child would have received £7,949. Mesothelioma patients typically have months left to live at the time of their diagnosis.
Many surviving partners, often women on modest wages or pensions, suffer financial hardship after the loss of their loved one. Their household income falls, but many of their outgoings remain the same. In that situation, they are further disadvantaged if they can receive only the much lower posthumous payment, so there is a clear moral case for raising that payment. Of the 3,830 payments made in 2018, only 260 were posthumous claims, according to the figures I have from the TUC. It estimates that it would cost £1.5 million to equalise payments. In its view, and indeed mine, raising the level of posthumous payments is therefore affordable.
In 2010, the Government acknowledged that there was no justification for the differential payments, stating that the inequality in payments could put pressure on victims’ families when they are most vulnerable. Does the Minister agree that it is now time to change this and equalise the payments?
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, it is ironic that the all-party group on asbestosis is meeting as we speak. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and I had to leave that meeting early to be here. That group is doing good work. I also pay tribute to the staff at the DWP for all the work they do in this area. They do not always get the thanks that they deserve.
My interest in this is not related to what I am going to say. I chair the oversight committee of the mesothelioma compensation fund on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. That committee consists of all the interests involved: victims, unions, employers and insurance companies. I have been doing this since the creation of the Act.
I simply want to support what my noble friend Lady Blower just said. This inconsistency has existed for 14 years now, and the Government themselves have always acknowledged it: if a claim is not made before the person is deceased, the family ends up with a pitiful amount of money. This is really a plea to underpin what my noble friend said, as something ought to be done to rectify this terrible anomaly.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I also declare that I am a member of the all-party group on asbestos. Following what has been said about schools, which is incredibly important, it is also worth remembering that many of the people who die of mesothelioma have been healthcare workers, because they were in hospitals where the pipe lagging, often done with asbestos, was poorly maintained and loose. When they ran through the corridors, sometimes the basement corridors, to get to emergencies they would have been inhaling this fine dust without realising it. I was one of the junior doctors working in that type of hospital.
The all-party group is desperate—I use that word advisedly—for these regulations and for this compensation scheme to come through. I undertook in the meeting today to make that representation here. I was interested in the Government’s figures, if I heard right, of 2,860 awards in a year, because new cases are estimated to be around 2,700 a year, which tallies completely with the appalling survival rate of only 2% at 10 years. Mesothelioma is an awful malignancy from which people die very quickly. We have heard repeated stories of people who suddenly became ill and were dead within months, so it is devastating. It is also devastating in the younger age groups, who may leave children bereaved of a parent.
The other thing I want to flag up and keep on record is the fact that we still have many school buildings with asbestos in them. That problem has not been solved and I have particularly brought it to the attention of the Government from Wales, where there has been dispute over how it will be ameliorated. As well as this compensation scheme for the victims, we need to remember that prevention is absolutely crucial and to make sure that all buildings where there is asbestos are adequately managed. It may well be that what has been done in many of those schools and hospitals to date has been inadequate, thinking that it could be covered up, because the walls get nails put into them and if children bounce against them, the walls crack. Water can also get in, and you can easily get a leak of asbestos fibres.
There is no current requirement to monitor the air quality in an ongoing way. Individual sampling is inadequate because these fibres will fall to the ground, so a one-off air sample may not detect them. There needs to be continuous air quality monitoring in schools, and I suggest that it might be a preventive and public health measure.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the first two instruments are of course welcome in providing the inflation-based uplift, particularly because the schemes do not require that from their inception, so it is certainly welcome that those payments will be made. I have only one question on that, which is to understand how the process of the change occurs around 1 April, as the Minister said would happen. Given the rate of inflation, the 6.7% is quite material.
I am curious to understand whether it is something that the claimant exercises some control over—in other words, if they decide to put in their claim in March, it will be at the lower rate; if they choose to wait until after 1 April, it will be the higher rate—or is there some other mechanism taking place that determines that it has to be before or after the uplift date? That will be a question for a lot of people now that we have the gap between approving the new rates and when those rates kick in. People will have questions about whether they control that or the department does. What is it that determines whether they get the old rate or this new rate, which is materially increased? I say that not to complain but to welcome it—it is extraordinarily welcome—but if somebody applied and found that by applying a week earlier, they had missed out on a significantly higher payment, it would be frustrating. I hope the Minister can deal with that.
On the final instrument, I again thank the Minister for the very clear and comprehensive explanation of how we got there. It touched on questions that I had when I read the instrument. I will play back to the Minister what I think I heard, and perhaps he can confirm in his closing remarks whether I have understood it correctly.
There are around 300 people a year in the category that we are talking about who were technically excluded from the old payment scheme. These people have been getting their money but, in effect, they have been getting it ultra vires. They should not have been getting it, technically; they have been getting it—that is not a complaint; it is extremely welcome if that is the case—but, in September last year, somebody spotted the fact that they should not have been getting it, and now we have 94 people sitting in the queue until we can fix that. Can the Minister confirm that that is the sort of number of people; that they have been getting the money and no one from the group that we are talking about was being turned away; and that it is just that from a technical, legislative point of view, we have been more generous than we should have been? If that is the case, that is great; I am happy to go with that.
I hope the Minister can just clear that up for us and confirm that, extending into the future, from the point of view of understanding whether someone is eligible, there is not a group of people who will not have applied because, under the prior definition, they thought they were ineligible. If it is the case that there is a group of people who are now eligible who were not previously eligible, I am keen to hear from the Minister how we are making sure that they are all made aware of that and encouraged to apply to the scheme.
On balance, these three instruments seem very welcome. They uplift a much-needed payment for people suffering from serious illness. The one question I have is around the mechanism for when that uplift kicks in between now and 1 April. On the third instrument, again, it is welcome, but I just seek reassurance that people in that category have not been turned away and that future claimants will be made aware of their eligibility effectively.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations to the Committee and all noble Lords who have spoken. As we have heard, the Government have decided to increase the lump sum awards payable under the 1979 Act scheme and the 2008 Act scheme by the 12-month CPI rate last September, namely 6.71%. That is obviously very welcome.
We also welcome the fact that the Government have decided to align the definitions of these diseases as set out in the 1979 Act scheme with those in the industrial injuries disablement benefit—it was helpful to get that background and the amplification from the noble Lord, Lord Allan—hence the need for the third instrument we are debating here. It will have the effect of expanding the pool of people who are definitely entitled to the lump sums payable under the 1979 Act to include those with unilateral diffuse pleural thickening and asbestos-related primary lung cancer. This expansion is welcome but, just to follow on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Allan, for people who are in that queue and waiting for these regs to take effect in order to be able to get it, if they die before they take effect, are we in the position raised by my noble friends in terms of the differential between dependants and other schemes? Can the Minister comment on that?
The Minister is absolutely right that these schemes continue to provide crucial compensation to those who are suffering from these awful diseases and their families. Although money is obviously no substitute for a life, it can help with practical issues, especially if it is paid out fast.
Annual deaths from mesothelioma in Britain increased steeply over the past half-century, mainly due to the widespread industrial use of asbestos from about 1950 to about 1980. That accounts for the current high death rate among men over 70, whose younger working life coincided with the period of peak asbestos use. Thankfully, death rates for those below 65 have been falling. I looked through the latest statistics published by the HSE last July. They showed that there were 2,268 mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain in 2021, which is a fall of 302 from 2020 and below the average of the previous few years.
The HSE says that this reduction remains consistent with the earlier projections that the annual deaths would fall gradually during the 2020s and suggests that the variability in the figures for 2020 and 2021 may have been something to do with Covid, but it also says that predictions suggest that there will continue to be 400 to 500 deaths among females in the 2020s. If I am reading that right, that suggests that while male deaths will continue to fall, female deaths will not. Last year, in the same debate, I asked the Minister whether he could comment on that discrepancy. I did not get an answer. Can he help this year?
It occurred to me to wonder whether this had anything to do with asbestos being uncovered in schools and hospitals, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Blower and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. After all, there are reports that a lot of asbestos has been found in schools uncovering RAAC, which is not surprising given that that DfE has previously said that 81%, I think, of state schools have asbestos. I gather that attempts are being made to launch studies into the impact on teachers and students. Last year, the Guardian reported that official data had already shown that female former teachers born between 1935 and 1954 have a 40% increased rate of mesothelioma. It also reported that statisticians have now detected a rate of mesothelioma deaths that “borders on statistical significance” among teachers born between 1955 and 1974. I hope fervently that my noble friend Lady Blower will not turn out to be in this cohort.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, there is also a problem in hospitals, and I hope very much that she will not turn out to be caught up in this terrible situation. Last July, the Times reported on the death from mesothelioma of Guru Ghoorah, an NHS nurse, at the age of 45, leaving two children aged four and seven. Four NHS hospital trusts were ordered to make a combined compensation payment to him of £650,000. The thing that struck me about that report, apart from that tragedy, was that it noted that ONS figures state that 177 NHS staff died from mesothelioma between 2002 and 2015 and that occupations are not recorded if a person dies aged more than 75. Two-thirds of mesothelioma deaths occur after that age. Interestingly, the Times reported that a freedom of information request by Sheffield University to NHS Resolution found that, between 2013 and 2022, 360 asbestos-related mesothelioma claims were made against the NHS. Sadly, each of those will have resulted in a death. That suggests a rather higher death rate than the official ONS figures. Can the Minister comment on the risks of asbestos in these settings, which were raised by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, to which the HSE is presumably alert? What action is being taken to protect staff, students and patients? Does he think this will impact mortality rates in future?
Looking at the statistics I was struck again that the north-east always stands out in so many depressing tables. Three of the top 10 geographical areas for male deaths are in the north-east, the region I live in: North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Hartlepool; as are two of the top 10 for women: Newcastle and Sunderland. Of course, these diseases are a product of our industrial past. If my noble friend Lord Jones were here, he would talk about south Wales miners suffering from pneumoconiosis. This debate is an important annual reminder of the price paid by so many people for our industrial heritage, our infrastructure and the society we all benefit from, but it is also a reminder of the need for government and industry to take health and safety seriously. The link between mesothelioma and asbestos was found in the 1960s, but asbestos was still being used widely throughout the 1970s. The schemes that we have been debating today were needed because, as my late and much lamented friend Lord McKenzie of Luton reminded noble Lords in the past, some employers and some people involved in liability insurance did not act as they should have done with regard to their liabilities, hence the need to create these schemes, so this is a good annual prompt to be alert to new and emerging risks to health.
The position of dependants has been raised again by my noble friends Lady Donaghy and Lady Blower. I would be interested to know the Government’s current position on this. My noble friend Lady Blower mentioned the TUC’s figure of £1.5 million as the cost of equalisation. Do the Government agree with that figure? If not, will the Minister tell the Committee the figure the Government have for the cost of equalising payouts to dependants and victims?
Finally, I am sure that the Minister will have seen the reports in the news over the past few days about a new drug breakthrough to treat mesothelioma. Does he have any more information that he can share with us on that?
I am grateful to the staff who have worked on this, to the All-Party Parliamentary Group, to the charities and to all those who work in this space. It is incredibly important that we keep up the work on research, on campaigning and on support. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords here today for their contributions to this short debate. As has been the case in previous years, it has demonstrated the profound interest in these schemes that is present in the House—indeed, in this Committee.
I should start off by saying this: it is important that we all remain mindful that these debates are about those whose lives have been impacted by these dreadful diseases. I particularly appreciate the attendance of the noble Baronesses, Lady Donaghy and Lady Finlay, who have broken off from their committee; again, it emphasises the importance of this subject.
The Government recognise that the two schemes we are debating today form a crucial part of the support that is available to people suffering from dust-related conditions and their families. It is right that we ensure that the value of these compensation schemes is retained, especially in these difficult times. In addition to ensuring that these awards are uprated for those who first become entitled from 1 April 2024, the Government are also proposing to make changes to the list of diseases that may bring entitlement to compensation under the 1979 Act scheme.
A number of questions were asked. I will attempt to answer them all; I hope that there will not be any duplication in what I say. I shall mark my own homework on that; I am sure that noble Lords will do so too.
First, the noble Baronesses, Lady Blower, Lady Donaghy and Lady Sherlock, referred to equalisation and dependant awards, asking: why do dependants get lower awards than sufferers and when will the Government equalise these award rates? It is clear that whole families can be devastated by these diseases, as I said earlier; that is why dependants can claim compensation following the passing of their loved ones. The Government remain of the view that available funding should be prioritised to those people who are currently living with the disease. This position is in line with the main purpose of these schemes: to provide financial support to people living with certain diseases, and to help them deal with the issues that illness brings. I hope that I have a figure for the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock; I will address that in a moment.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Blower, asked further questions about disparity, including on the number of recipients of payments under the 1979 scheme who were aged 77 or over and the number aged 37 years and under. They also asked for the breakdown of payments by industry. I can tell the Committee that, in the last full financial year for which published data is available—April 2022 to March 2023—2,460 awards were paid under the 1979 scheme. Some 1,400 of the awards paid—57% of them—were for individuals aged 77 and over, while fewer than five awards paid were for individuals aged 37 and under. Unfortunately, information on the occupational and industry breakdown of recipients of the lump sum schemes is not published and is not readily available; this would require analysis of multiple datasets for the 1979 scheme and the industrial injuries disablement benefit in order to determine occupational and industrial formation. I have probably gone a bit further than the question that was asked but I hope that that is helpful.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Blower and Lady Finlay, asked further questions about equalisation. Around 90% of the payments made under both schemes are paid to sufferers of the diseases covered by the schemes. As I have said already, we are prioritising those living with the diseases.
We estimate that to equalise awards for people diagnosed with the disease and dependants in 2024-25 would require an additional £1.4 million a year from the DEL budget. No provision has been made for this in the current spending review settlement. I think the figure that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, might like to have is the £1.25 million figure that has been raised today.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Blower, raised important questions about asbestos in schools and public buildings. I will attempt to address these questions. It is obviously incredibly serious, and the Department for Education expects all local authorities, governing bodies and academy trusts to have robust plans in place to manage asbestos in school buildings effectively in line with their legal duties. Well-maintained and safe school buildings are a priority for the Government, and we have allocated more than £15 billion of capital funding since 2015, including £1.8 billion this financial year. This comes on top of our 10-year school rebuilding programme, which will transform buildings at more than 500 schools. Where there are serious issues with buildings that cannot be managed by responsible bodies, the Department for Education provides additional support on a case-by-case basis.
Moving onto public buildings, the Government agree that continuing to build on the evidence base around the safe management and disposal of asbestos is fundamental in ensuring that the risks posed by its past use are minimised. The Health and Safety Executive has a mature and comprehensive regulatory framework to ensure that legacy asbestos risks in Great Britain are managed that aligns with the best evidence currently available. This is reflected throughout the approaches outlined in the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012—CAR. Correct implementation of CAR not only ensures management of risks of exposure but will eventually lead to the elimination of asbestos from the built environment without the need for any target deadline.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised supporting research into mesothelioma. Research is crucial, as I am sure the noble Baroness will tell me, in the fight against cancer. The Department of Health and Social Care invested around £122 million in cancer research in 2022-23 through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, which I think I mentioned in my opening remarks. For several years, DHSC has been working actively to stimulate an increase in the level of mesothelioma research activity from a rather low base. This includes a formal research priority-setting exercise, a National Cancer Research Institute workshop and a specific call for research proposals through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. I hope that chimes with the knowledge that the noble Baroness no doubt brings to this Committee.
In 2018, the British Lung Foundation launched the UK’s first Mesothelioma Research Network, the MRN, with the involvement of key stakeholders, including DHSC. The vision of MRN is to improve outcomes for people affected by mesothelioma by bringing researchers together and therefore driving research progress and improving the quality of research. The network is supported by a £5 million donation from the Victor Dahdaleh Foundation, which matches the funding given to Imperial College London by the Government to establish the National Centre for Mesothelioma Research. I could say more about this, but it might be better if I write more to the noble Baroness on this important matter. I suspect she knows a lot of it, but it is important, and I will copy in all Members of this Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, asked which cases might lose out on the uprated rates if they are paid before April. Perhaps I can provide some form of reassurance. The uprating regulations apply only in relation to any case in which a person first fulfils the conditions of entitlement to a payment under the 1979 Act scheme on or after 1 April 2024. As the cases being held will have first become entitled to a payment under the 1979 Act scheme before 1 April 2024, the amount they will receive is unaffected by the uprating. I hope that clarifies that. I think I might have mentioned that in my opening remarks, but I just say it to re-clarify it.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about historic claimants paid ultra vires. I reassure both of them that their understanding of my understanding or perhaps my understanding of their understanding is correct, whichever way around that reads best.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan, asked whether anybody has missed out. I probably covered that okay in my previous responses, but perhaps to go a bit further the department understands that historic claims made for these two conditions will have already received lump sum payments. As a result, to reclarify, these claimants have not missed out on a payment because this change was not made sooner.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether in situations where a sufferer dies before a successful claim is paid the lump sum payment is paid to the estate of the deceased at the same rate. If someone with the disease makes a claim but dies before payment is made, the payment is made to their estate at the same rate that they would have received had they received their payment while they were alive.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, asked who will benefit from this change and whether this will benefit only new claims or historic claims. I think have covered that. The noble Lord may wish to rise if I have not.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister. The question also relates to the previous answer that he gave. If somebody in the new category that we are talking about had applied in August last year, they would have received the payment; however, had they applied in October, they would be held in the queue. We want to understand that a person who has been held in the queue because they applied in October—at that point, the department understood that it did not have the legal authority—will not lose out in any way, particularly if, sadly, they have passed away between their application and now, the point at which we can release the funds because we have passed this statutory instrument. I do not want to delay this any longer; the faster we get it, the better.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Absolutely. That was my understanding too. My understanding is that they would not lose out, given the case raised by the noble Lord. If that is not correct for any reason, I will certainly write to him; however, I have made it clear that nobody will lose, and I should stick to that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about gender differences. Her question was interesting; she asked it last year but did not get an answer, I think. There is always a degree of uncertainty in predicting future disease incidence, but the annually published data from the HSE show that annual mesothelioma deaths were broadly similar in the period from 2012 to 2020 but lower in 2021. Before that, annual deaths had been rising steadily since the late 1960s, but current projections suggest that annual mesothelioma deaths in both males and females are expected to decline over the long term as a consequence of past reductions in asbestos exposure for both males and females.
How soon the decline in annual deaths will become evident is expected to be different, with deaths among males declining during the 2020s and deaths among females remaining broadly level during that period before starting to decline. The reason for this lies in different patterns of asbestos exposure in males and females in the past—the noble Baroness will appreciate that, I think—with heavy exposures being reduced or eliminated sooner in specific industries where fewer females worked, such as shipbuilding, insulation work and asbestos product manufacturing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about regional variations. Some asbestos exposures, such as during construction work, were widespread across all regions whereas other exposures, for example those I alluded to earlier associated with shipyards and asbestos product factories, were associated with particular regions. Of course, those regions still tend to have higher mortality rates today, sadly.
I should make a point of clarification to do with equalisation. We estimate that to equalise awards for people diagnosed with the disease and dependants in 2024-25 would require an additional £1 million to £4 million a year—I think I said £1.4 million and I apologise for that—from the DEL budget and no provision has been made for that in the current spending review settlement.
With that, I hope I have answered all the questions.
Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Specified Diseases and Prescribed Occupations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Specified Diseases and Prescribed Occupations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations 2024
(10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the Grand Committee do consider the East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations provide for the implementation of the devolution deal agreed between the Government and four councils—Derby City Council, Derbyshire County Council, Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council—on 30 August 2022. Since then, we have been working closely with the councils on the implementation of the deal, which is an important contribution to the Government’s levelling-up agenda increasing opportunity, investment and prosperity in the East Midlands. The four councils consented to the making of these regulations on 15 December 2023.
The regulations, if approved by Parliament and made, will establish the East Midlands Combined County Authority and the office of mayor for the area. This will be the first of a new type of local government institution, a mayoral combined county authority, made possible by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The essential feature of a combined county authority is that only upper-tier authorities, that is county councils and unitary authorities, can be constituent members of the combined authority, with a requirement that there must be at least two constituents. This does not mean that, where a constituent authority is a county council, the district councils in the area cannot be involved and have a voice within the combined county authority on matters which could affect them.
In the East Midlands it is envisaged, as set out in the devolution deal, that the constituent members will invite the district councils to be represented by four non-constituent members, two from Derbyshire districts and two from Nottinghamshire districts. It will be for the district councils to decide who their representatives will be. These non-constituent members can be given voting rights on certain matters, as decided by the constituent members. In addition, district councils will be invited by the combined county authority to nominate certain of their members to serve on the combined county authority’s overview and scrutiny committee and audit committee. These committees will have important roles for the accountability of the combined county authority and of the mayor to the people of the East Midlands.
The central feature of the East Midlands Combined County Authority that the regulations provide is that there will be a directly elected mayor for the area. The mayor will provide a single point of accountability essential for the powers and budgets being devolved.
The regulations provide for the first mayoral election to take place on 2 May 2024. The elected mayor will then take up office on 7 May, with a four-year term ending after the next mayoral election in May 2028. Thereafter, there will be elections every fourth year, to be held on the ordinary day of election for the year, which is the first Thursday in May. Following the enactment of the Elections Act 2022, these mayoral elections will be on a first past the post basis.
The regulations also make provision for the overall governance arrangements of the combined county authority. Each constituent council will appoint two of its members to the combined county authority. One of these members will act as the constituent council’s lead member. This means that the combined county authority will have a mayor and a total of eight constituent members.
The mayor will be the chair of the East Midlands Combined County Authority and will appoint a deputy mayor from one of the constituent members. The combined county authority may, in addition, arrange for there to be up to eight non-constituent or associate members. As I have mentioned, it is the intention of the East Midlands authorities that the district councils should nominate four non-constituent members.
The combined county authority will be established the day after the day on which the regulations are made. Until the elected mayor takes office, it will be for the constituent members to decide how they will conduct business, including arrangements for chairing any meetings.
In addition to certain generic functions that all mayoral combined county authorities have, the regulations also confer significant functions on the combined county authority, as agreed in the devolution deal. Many of these functions are currently functions of a public authority, such as Homes England or the Greater London Authority, or indeed functions of the Secretary of State. As required by the 2023 Act, alongside these regulations we have laid a Section 20(6) report, which provides details about the public authority functions being devolved to the combined county authority.
Certain of the functions conferred on the combined county authority are to be exercised only by the mayor. In addition, the mayor will have powers, as mayors of combined county authorities generally do, to issue a precept, if they so choose, to cover the costs of mayoral functions which are not being met by other resources available to the combined county authority. The functions conferred by the regulations include those on housing and regeneration, mayoral development corporations, transport, public health, and education and skills. I will address each in turn. The essential features of these functions are as follows.
To improve the supply and quality of housing and to facilitate the regeneration of the East Midlands, Homes England powers will be conferred on the combined county authority and will be held concurrently with Homes England. These powers will enable the combined county authority, working closely with Homes England, to promote housing and regeneration, and will include the compulsory purchase of land. This will be a mayoral function, and any decisions will also require certain local consents, including the consent of the district council if the proposed land for purchase falls within its area, and that of the Peak District National Park Authority should the land fall within its geographical boundary.
The regulations provide for the mayor to have power to designate mayoral development areas within the geography of the East Midlands Combined County Authority to support the development of strategic sites. This is the first step in establishing a mayoral development corporation; further regulations would be necessary to create such a body. Powers relating to such a corporation are to be exercised by the mayor. As with the compulsory purchase powers, local consents are also necessary. District council consent is required should the proposed development area sit within a district’s geographical boundaries. Similarly, the consent of the Peak District National Park Authority would be required if any part of the development area were within the national park.
The combined county authority is to become the East Midlands transport authority. The mayor is to have control over a consolidated and devolved transport budget, with the power to pay grants to the constituent councils in relation to the exercise of their highways functions to improve and maintain roads. The mayor may also pay grants to bus service operators for eligible bus services operating within the East Midlands area. Grants must be calculated in accordance with any regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Local authority public health functions are to be conferred on the combined county authority, enabling it to deliver public health initiatives throughout its area and in support of the local authorities in the East Midlands. The combined county authority is to be required to adhere to Section 2B(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006, which places a duty on a local authority to take steps as it considers appropriate to improve the health of the people in its area. This responsibility will be held concurrently with the combined county authority’s constituent councils. None of the constituent councils’ public health functions is transferred from the councils to the combined county authority.
Finally on functions, I mention that the devolution deal also provides for the devolution of certain education and skill functions, together with the adult education budget. As agreed with the area, further regulations for these functions will be brought forward later this year with the aim, subject to Parliament’s approval, of the combined county authority being responsible for these functions from the academic year 2025-26.
These regulations will be made, if Parliament approves, under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. As provided for by that Act, Derby City Council, Derbyshire County Council, Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council consulted on a proposal to establish the combined county authority based on the East Midlands devolution deal. They promoted the consultation by a number of means, including a dedicated website; two online events in which residents and stakeholders could make their views known; and a communications campaign. Responses could be made online or directly by email or paper. The councils also undertook stakeholder engagement with businesses, the voluntary sector and key institutions in the East Midlands.
The public consultation ran from 14 November 2022 to 9 January 2023. A total of more than 4,800 people responded to that consultation. As required by the 2023 Act, the councils preparing the proposal provided the Secretary of State with a summary to the responses to the consultation on 1 November 2023, after the enactment of the 2023 Act. The Act provides that a consultation carried out before it came into force can be considered as fulfilling the requirement in it to consult. The majority of respondents supported all aspects of the proposal with one exception. On the establishment of the mayor, 48% of those who took part in the consultation supported the proposal, with 52% opposing it.
The role of the mayor is integral to the proposal. Many aspects of the proposal supported by residents are available only to an institution that is led by a strong, accountable, directly elected leader such as a mayor. Those opposed to a mayor raised concerns about the cost of a mayor, the consolidation of power in an individual and adding an additional tier of governance to local government. In contrast, those supporting the approach of a directly elected mayor referred to the benefits that it could bring to the area in accountability, leadership and providing a voice for the region at national and international levels.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for setting out the contents of the regulations before us, which follow the same sort of model that has been used for the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority and its mayor, as well as the North East Combined Authority and its mayor. I have a couple of questions.
If the housing responsibilities are transferring from the combined authority to the mayor, what will happen in the instance of planning for a major housing scheme? For example, if people have concerns about the impact of flooding and the lack of sustainable drains or similar, which authority will consider that application? It concerns me that the planning process seems to be separated out from what has previously happened in a straightforward way. If all the county councils to which my noble friend the Minister referred are now being transferred to a higher authority, it may not have the facility or means to understand planning issues. It may focus on what it perceives to be the need for increased housing; for example, it may focus on a four or five-bedroomed housing scheme and not on a one or two-bedroomed scheme, which might be preferred or more required in a rural setting.
My noble friend referred to the power to issue a precept. How much of the funding that she set out to the Committee this afternoon is new funding and how much is simply replacing what is already available in the terms of schemes? I will draw a parallel with the area that I know best. For example, if we look at the Tees Valley Mayor, he has an awful lot of new funding at his disposal at virtually every turn. I understand that that will not be the case for new combined authorities and mayors, such as the subject of these regulations. What new funds are going to be available? Are the funds being transferred from the combined authority to the mayor? Is it going to be the case that there is no new money so, in fact, as set out in the regulations, the power to raise a precept will be relied upon in virtually every case, in which case the council tax will have to go up? Was that put in the consultation that was put to the public to which my noble friend referred?
Finally, on the consultation, as a democrat I find it incredibly difficult to accept that when 52% of those responding, if I understand the Minister correctly, rejected the model for a mayor in this instance, the Government and the Minister’s department are proceeding. Would it not be a good idea to pause, reconsider and go back on the proposals? Even though my noble friend says authoritatively that all the legal requirements of the consultation have been met, I urge her to consider the democratic implications of rejecting what 52% of the population said.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has raised a number of pertinent points and I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response to them. She particularly raised the consultation and the responses. There has been a continuing problem with consultation on combined authorities because the number of people who respond is very low. In the case of the East Midlands, I think Ministers have taken the view that elected councillors would have to make the decision about the mayor. Nevertheless, there is a question about how the Government and combined authorities can engage with people to a much greater degree so that response rates to any question would be much higher than in this case. Having said that, I thank the Minister for her explanation of these regulations. It is very good to see the close working of the local authorities in the East Midlands Combined County Authority. I wish it every success in its work. We want it to succeed.
I have previously raised issues of scrutiny, audit and risk in relation to this combined county authority and other mayoral combined authorities. I noticed that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee commented on this public consultation. Paragraph 45 of the report cites the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities explaining that
“the Secretary of State has noted respondents’ concerns about the EMCCA’s governance model and the position of a Mayor but is satisfied that these draft Regulations would ‘provide the necessary check and balances on the governance of the EMCCA and its Mayor’”.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the Tees Valley Review dated 23 January 2024. I will quote from it, because what it says is important to all combined authorities. The question I pose to the Minister relates to whether any of the deficiencies identified in that report, published a few weeks ago, could occur in the East Midlands Combined County Authority. I quote specifically from paragraph 1.7 of the report’s executive summary, which said that
“there are issues of governance and transparency that need to be addressed and a number of decisions taken by the bodies involved do not meet the standards expected when managing public funds. The Panel have therefore concluded that the systems of governance and finance in place within”
the Tees Valley Combined Authority and the South Tees Development Corporation
“at present do not include the expected sufficiency of transparency and oversight across the system to evidence value for money”.
Recommendation 6 then went on to say that the Tees Valley Combined Authority cabinet should
“review its current delegations and directions to STDC to ensure it meets its statutory obligations, including appropriate oversight by Overview and Scrutiny Committees, to enable value for money to be delivered and evidenced through effective scrutiny of significant decisions”.
The Secretary of State has said that the draft regulations would
“provide the necessary check and balances on the governance of the EMCCA and its Mayor”.
Can the Minister, either now or perhaps later in writing, explain how these draft regulations actually provide the checks and balances necessary to ensure that a report such as that written on Tees Valley could not be written on the East Midlands?
The Minister is aware that I have raised issues of security, audit and risk repeatedly during the passage of the levelling-up Bill and on other occasions, and I find those words in the Tees Valley Review worrying. I hope that this cannot possibly happen elsewhere. I am surprised by what has been said on Tees Valley but, given that, what structure is in place—I cannot find it in these regulations—to prevent a repetition of what seems to have occurred in the Tees Valley from happening in the East Midlands or in any of the other mayoral combined or combined county authorities?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the basis for this new type of mayoral combined county authority. The regulations establish the East Midlands combined authority and are required in advance of the first planned combined authority mayoral elections in May this year. We consider them to be very important for the economic and social development of the region and its population, so we will not be objecting to this important SI, but that does not mean that we do not have any questions about it. Indeed, we are very excited and hopeful that our candidate, Claire Ward, will be the first East Midlands mayor elected and, as mayors do up and down the country, will make a great difference to communities in the areas that the Minister set out—housing, transport, public health, and education and skills.
We also noted the degree of consultation that took place from 14 November last year to 9 January this year, but further note, as did the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that the numbers are very low in these consultations. We need to think about how we engage the public more in these very important discussions about the future of their areas. We also noted that there is a distinctive emphasis in this devolution deal on the combined authority reflecting the local communities within the combined authority area. We can do more of that, and I think that might help to engage people even more.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly for their support for the East Midlands. I know that will be well received. Once again, we all wish it well. I will respond to a number of questions— I will look at Hansard and write if I miss any—starting with my noble friend Lady McIntosh.
The response rate to the consultations the constituent councils did was very low. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned that 4,800 responses from 1.6 million people is not a lot, but you cannot force people. My experience is exactly the same. People will tell you, “We just want people to lead our council, keep us safe and economically viable and to spend our money wisely”. Sadly, that is what happens in all these cases, but that is how it is.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering asked whether this funding is new. Yes, the funding to the East Midlands is new, as was the case in Tees Valley; that was new funding, too. My noble friend also mentioned planning powers. No planning powers or housing powers are being transferred from existing planning and housing authorities. We made that clear in passing the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is now an Act. Therefore, those authorities will be responsible. That is part of the challenge; they must work together for the good of their area.
The East Midlands devolution deal is a level 3 deal, with strong devolution alongside the establishment of a mayor. There was concern that 52% of those who responded to the consultation did not want a mayor; the problem is that they also said they wanted a level 3 devolution deal, with the large amounts of money and power that come with it. It was for the Secretary of State to make the decision that the result of the East Midlands consultation should be a level 3 deal, which requires a mayor.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh brought up Tees Valley. As they will know, the report came through very recently. We are considering the two recommendations in it. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is absolutely right: risk, scrutiny and audit are very important here, as they are in all local government. The mayor from Teesside has been asked for his response by early March; once it comes through, I will write a further letter on the Government’s response. What I think will happen is that we—the Government—will learn from that report, as will the East Midlands. As with all local government, as I say, scrutiny, audit and risk are important.
Lord Shipley (LD)
Since we are on that specific issue, may I ask two questions? The Minister said that there were two recommendations but, actually, there are 28 altogether.
Lord Shipley (LD)
Right, but there are others which relate indirectly to the scrutiny, risk and audit function.
Secondly, this is not just about the East Midlands Combined County Authority. This issue relates to all mayoral combined authorities: those that currently exist and those that are about to come into existence. I hope that, when the Minister writes to us, there will have been an in-depth examination by the department of how the criticisms of Tees Valley’s arrangements could not occur in all of those other authorities. I hope that I am making myself clear: there needs to be an examination of the constitutional and working arrangements in all those combined authority areas.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord. This is what we will do: we will look at the report in detail and respond accordingly on the things in the report that reflect, first, on the department itself and, secondly, on future combined authorities of whatever type because of the importance of that.
There are currently no limits on mayoral precepts; the power does exist to set limits. That would need the approval of the Commons, though, if it were to happen so we will watch that as it moves forward. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who brought up the issue of a political adviser. The combined county authorities can have one political adviser; the post, like local authority political advisers, is not politically restricted in the way that other officers’ posts are, but they can have one.
Water Industry (Special Administration) Regulations 2024
(10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Douglas-Miller
That the Grand Committee do consider the Water Industry (Special Administration) Regulations 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations and the Water Industry Act 1991 (Amendment) Order are part of a package that updates the water industry special administration regime legislation. The package is made up of two commencement orders and three statutory instruments. The first commencement order was made on 11 January and the two affirmative statutory instruments being debated today were laid in draft on 15 January. The second commencement order and the negative resolution statutory instrument will follow shortly after the affirmatives are debated.
The purpose of these statutory instruments is to enable the Government to facilitate a more effective water industry special administration regime. They apply to England and Wales, and ministerial consent has been secured where necessary. The Government already have powers in the Water Industry Act 1991 to apply to the High Court for a special administration order. However, updates are required as the current legislative regime is outdated and modelled largely on the Insolvency Act 1986, which has since been modernised. The most notable legislative updates were the Enterprise Act 2002; the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015; and the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016. These updates to insolvency legislation are not automatically applied to the legislative framework of the water industry special administration regime. Instead, the Government must assess how to adapt these insolvency law changes to each industry’s specific special administration regime. Legislation relating to special administration regimes is laid periodically; recent examples of this are the Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2021 and the Energy Act 2023.
It is vital that the Government are prepared for a range of scenarios, particularly regarding the continued provision of public services. This is why an updated water industry special administration regime is so important. I want to make it clear that the two main grounds on which a water company can enter special administration are unchanged by this legislation. They are insolvency, where a company may be unable to pay its debts or its liabilities are greater than its assets; and performance, where the company has failed to carry out its statutory functions or licensed activities to such an extent that it is inappropriate for the company to continue to hold its appointment or licence. During a special administration regime, customers’ water and wastewater services will continue to be provided.
The first statutory instrument for noble Lords’ consideration is the draft Water Industry Act 1991 (Amendment) Order 2024. This order implements hive down provisions through amending Schedule 2 to the Water Industry Act, which makes provision about transfer schemes upon the termination of an appointment or the transfer of a licence for a water industry company and is amended by this order to include provisions about transfer schemes in cases where there is a transfer by hive down. This amendment is necessary to ensure that the hive down provisions commenced last month by the Flood and Water Industry Act 2010 (Commencement Order 10) Order 2024 are fully operable. Hive down is a common commercial restructuring practice to ring-fence value and attract potential buyers. This amendment allows the administrator to hive down the regulated business to a subsidiary in order to protect its business and facilitate a sale process that may be more attractive to a potential buyer.
The second statutory instrument that I ask the Committee to consider today is the Water Industry (Special Administration) Regulations 2024. This instrument will apply, disapply and modify general insolvency provisions as they apply in relation to water companies, including licensed infrastructure providers, and special administration orders made in respect of those water companies under the Water Industry Act 1991.
These regulations make general modifications to the Insolvency Act 1986 and other enactments about insolvency provisions, alongside specific modifications to Schedule B1 to that Act. The amendments adapt Parts 26 and 26A of the Companies Act 2006 via specific modifications for the purpose of the water industry special administration regime and amend Section 26 of the Water Industry Act, and Schedule 1 to the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013. In addition, this set of regulations will give government the power to lay a negative statutory instrument in the coming weeks, which will revoke the Water Industry (Special Administration) Rules 2009, replacing them with updated special administration rules for water companies, based on the 2016 general insolvency rules.
These statutory instruments update the water industry special administration regime legislation to ensure that, should a water company ever be required to go into special administration, a modern, efficient water industry special administration can be implemented. I am grateful for the support of the Committee and am happy to take questions, which I will endeavour to answer in my closing speech.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Douglas-Miller for setting out the content of the SIs before us. I am in great support of them and have just a couple of questions to press my noble friend on.
When my noble friend set out the circumstances behind these instruments, he seemed to indicate that we are just putting into effect existing legislation here and updating it. I would just query the timing of this, which was also queried in the House of Commons when these measures were debated there. At the moment, there are additional investments that we are, rightly, asking water companies to make and which are of a very high order: £60 billion of capital investment over 25 years for storm overflows and other investments such as the self-monitoring programme, which was embarked on under the Labour Government and which we vigorously and enthusiastically pursued. Might these additional responsibilities on water companies be causing the Government some concern, or is it literally about putting in and updating the background, as my noble friend set out? Obviously, we all want to ensure that the water companies are fulfilling the legitimate investment that we have asked them to make.
I have a rather cheeky question. My noble friend knows of my interest in Schedule 3 to the 2010 water Act. Why has Schedule 5 been preferred to be implemented before us in these instruments, and when might we get the orders implementing Schedule 3 to the same 2010 Act? That would put into place the sustainable drainage systems and end the automatic right to connect, which has been called for since the Pitt review and surface water flooding of 2007. That is my rather cheeky interjection, which my noble friend might either want to respond to today or write to me on.
Parallels have been drawn in the report before us with energy companies. When energy companies have failed over the last two or three years, the existing customers of a company which was asked to take on the customers of a failed energy company have found, regrettably, that their tariffs and charges have gone up. This is obviously a matter for Ofwat, but can the Government give any undertaking to customers in the event of a water company failing—which, heaven forfend, we would not wish to see—so that, essentially, what happens in the water sector will not be what we saw happen in the energy sector?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these two SIs, which make provision for the continuation of water supply to households should a water company be teetering on the verge of insolvency. I welcome this move to protect householders and businesses if that happens.
A special administration regime—SAR—allows the Government to prepare for all eventualities to ensure uninterrupted provision of this vital public sector service. Each service SAR is unique. Those governing the water industry—the WISAR—are distinct and come into play when a water industry company becomes insolvent. This is obviously a serious matter. I ask the Minister: how many of the country’s water companies are on the verge of bankruptcy? Is it a couple or is the prediction in double figures? Is the number of water companies struggling confined to England or are there similar threats of insolvency in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland?
Paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that the High Court will appoint a person to manage the affected water company and that this will be on the recommendation of Ofwat or a Defra Minister. I would like an assurance from the Minister that this person will not be someone who has previously been involved in the running of the water company under consideration, nor someone who has been involved in the running of another insolvent water company. This must be someone who is completely independent in every sense of the word.
Apparently, the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (Commencement No. 10) Order 2024 covers the arrangements for hive down provisions, which the Minister referred to. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“This will allow otherwise viable water industry companies to enter a special administration, restructure its debts and then exit the SAR as a going concern”.
Not being a legal expert, I searched for the meaning of a hive down. I found this:
“A hive down is the transfer of all or part of the assets or business of a company to a subsidiary—usually a new subsidiary”.
Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that this would allow the new subsidiary
“to benefit from potential tax savings”.
The process allows new owners to acquire a “clean” water industry company that has no existing liabilities. This is exactly what the current water companies inherited at the point of acquisition in the 1980s.
I sometimes despair at the way in which we as a country conduct ourselves. It seems to me that a water company facing insolvency would welcome the chance to create a subsidiary company, get rid of its debts—or restructure them, as the Explanatory Memorandum euphemistically calls it—and start again, delivering the same lack of investment and poor repair service. Unless I have missed it, there is nothing in the Explanatory Memorandum that prevents previous CEOs or directors carrying on their inefficient ways from the insolvent water company into the new subsidiary. Can the Minister comment on the likelihood of this happening under the proposals for a hive down?
I understand that the SAR rescue purpose applies only where the special administration was based on economic insolvency grounds, not performance grounds, but I am not sure that that is what the Minister said. Can he give more information on poor performance and not meeting the government-set vital environmental targets and say whether this is also a consideration? Will violation of environmental law constitute a failure to fulfil statutory duty, under the terms of Chapter II of the Water Industry Act? Do the Government commit to applying for a special administration order where a company shows consistent and flagrant breaches of its environmental duties?
Paragraph 7.12 gives a lot of detail about the process with a list of modification orders. These modifications indicate that only the Secretary of State or a Welsh Minister can make an application for a water industry company to go into administration. It further states that the interests of the customer should always be considered. I would have assumed it would be a given that the customer would always be the first to be considered.
There is also a section in the EM, at Paragraph 7.18, indicating that the appointed special administrator’s conduct may be challenged by the relevant Minister or Ofwat. Can the Minister give an example of what kind of conduct might qualify for a challenge by the Minister or Ofwat?
There is reference in paragraph 7.21 of the EM to paragraph 91 and the power of the sponsors to apply to the court for the replacement of the special administrator. Since it is necessary to put this information in the EM, this would indicate that it is not a one-off occurrence and is something that has happened in the past. Would the Minister care to comment?
The changes that the Government are proposing will also enhance the ability of special administrators to dispose of fixed-charge property without the consent of the charge holder. In this case, the fixed-charge holder receives only “appropriate value” rather than the standard test of “market value”. Can the Minister say whether this will lead to an increase in valuation disputes in challenges to the administration of sales of water company fixed-charge assets?
There has, as usual, been no guidance to accompany this instrument and no impact assessment. The reason given for no impact assessment is that the impact is alleged to be minimal, with the net present value of the SI over a 10-year evaluation period likely to be less than £55,000. Is this £55,000 a one-off or annually? If the latter, that is more than half a million pounds. Can the Minister say whether this figure includes the bankruptcy costs? If the debt is to be restructured so that the new water company can continue debt free, there will surely be some impact on the creditors of the water company at the point of insolvency. Can the Minister comment?
I understand that if a water company is about to be insolvent, something has to be done to allow water and sewage services to be provided on a continual basis to domestic householders and businesses, some of whom use vast quantities of water every day. However, I remain concerned about this process. It seems to me that those who had been running the previous, now insolvent, water company can simply transfer to running the wholly-owned subsidiary which will be set up under the WISAR. I also remain concerned that the SI makes no reference to the sewage crisis. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to that. Can the Minister confirm that the special administrator will be able to discharge environmental duties as well as financial duties?
I realise that I have asked a number of questions, but I hope that the Minister will be able to answer them. The Liberal Democrat policy is to reform water companies into public benefit companies. While this may not solve all the problems of the ailing water industry, it would certainly bring a great deal more transparency to the issues. I am looking forward to the Minister giving considerable reassurance on this extraordinarily complex matter.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for his thorough introduction to these two SIs. As he said, the first one updates the special administration regime for water industry companies, looking at general insolvency issues. We welcome that; it needs to be looked at and sorted out.
The second SI is pretty technical. It allows part or all of a water company’s undertaking to be transferred to a wholly owned subsidiary, as we have heard, and for securities to be passed over to another water company. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, talked about this to some extent, so I will not go into detail, but I stress the importance of minimising costs to the taxpayer if and when the companies need extra support, even if that is temporary.
We support these regulations because they give more security to people’s water provision. Clearly, it is essential that customers have a continuous provision of water services, irrespective of how the water company is performing. Water is needed for life, so this is important. However, I am sure that the Minister is extremely aware that further challenges face the water sector at present. Some pretty fundamental issues need to be tackled that clearly go beyond the SIs in front of us.
The fact that these legislative changes are necessary reflects the serious situation in which many water companies are not just failing to protect the environment but struggling financially. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, asked about the number of water companies that are facing such problems. Of course, Thames Water is the one that has been in the media recently and there have been serious concerns about its solvency, but I also understand that Thames Water, Southern Water and South East Water have been using up to 25% of customer bills to service the huge debts that they have built up. Clearly, the customer should not be picking them up.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, talked about the impact on consumers, picking up on paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I underlined the bit that she referred to specifically to ask the same questions that she did, so I would be grateful for a clear answer about that and the impact on consumers in this area, for example.
It is important that we have a radical rethink of how the water sector, regulators and Government all work together to ensure stability. I am sure the Minister would agree with me on this, but it would be good to get confirmation that the Government are looking more broadly at stability issues for water companies.
We know that the special administration order is intended to ensure that water services are not interrupted when a water company becomes unviable. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, talked about environmental duties and impacts which could be interrupted when a company becomes insolvent. I am particularly concerned about that. When this was discussed in the other place, the Minister was asked whether
“the new regulations … guarantee that any special administrator will continue to discharge a company’s environmental obligations, including investment commitments under the water industry national environment programme, catchment plans and infrastructure upgrades”.
I remind the noble Lord of the Minister’s response during that debate. He said:
“Every water company is specifically regulated by the Environment Agency, as well as Ofwat. The Environment Agency will have powers if water companies are owned and operating under the regime they operate under now, or should they enter special administration”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 6/2/24; cols. 5-9.]
I am not sure whether that answers the question, particularly asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, about what those environmental obligations and duties would be if it is interrupted. You may potentially have a gap; how can we ensure that it is managed smoothly if it has been transferred across and who, outside the Environment Agency, is responsible for that? Someone has to report that to the Environment Agency and it has to go through that due process, but where does that environmental obligation sit during an insolvency, potentially with a move to a subsidiary? It may well be that the Environment Agency takes it away and manages that separately, but these things are normally done with Ofwat and all the water companies together. I just want clarity around that. In talking about clarity, I hope that I have made myself clear.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I thank noble Lords for all their questions, which I will now endeavour to have a go at, and for their very welcome support for these instruments. As I mentioned in my opening speech, these statutory instruments will enable the Government to facilitate a more effective, efficient water industry special administration regime, ensuring that we are prepared for all eventualities to ensure the uninterrupted provision of vital services. A number of noble Baronesses touched on that today.
I will start with the several questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I might have three out of four answers for her; the second one probably eluded us all.
Everyone will be aware that there has been some recent instability and speculation around the financial resilience of some of our companies in the water sector. This has led Defra to carry out due diligence work on our water industry special administration regime legislation. This exercise identified unmodernised provisions in the current legislative framework. These statutory instruments update water industry special administration regime legislation to ensure that it reflects modern insolvency practices, as is the case for special administration regime legislation for other public services. Ensuring that legislation on special administration takes account of modern insolvency and business practices is important, regardless of the financial resilience of the sector, to ensure proper preparedness.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also asked whether customers will be paying for water companies’ failures. I think that was the gist of her question, which cropped up in a number of noble Lords’ concerns. I want to make it clear that we will always act to protect consumers as a priority. Any intervention that puts pressure on the public purse will be considered very seriously and only as a last resort. The purpose of being able to utilise a more efficient insolvency practice is to protect consumers and ensure not only that they do not pay for those mistakes but, more importantly in the short term—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—that we can provide that service. We can have an argument later about who paid for what and whether somebody needs some money back, but it is crucial that that service—water and wastewater—is delivered for everybody. That would be critical if we had to go through an insolvency, so I reassure the Committee on that front.
The final question that I can answer from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is whether the public would end up paying to bail out a company in special administration. I again make it clear that we will always act to protect consumers as a priority and that, as I have said, any intervention that puts pressure on the public purse would be considered very seriously and as a last resort.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked a lot of questions. I am not sure that I will get to all of them but I will reflect on the ones I have missed and make sure that she gets a written response. The first question was about the Government’s position on Thames Water. As the noble Baroness is probably aware, water companies are commercial entities; it is not appropriate for me or any member of the Government to comment on the position of a specific company. It is for the company and its investors to manage the company’s financial resilience in the context of its licence and broader statutory obligations.
The second question was about why no companies are listed in Ofwat’s leading category, or how many are failing—I think that was the gist of the noble Baroness’s question. It is clear from Ofwat’s performance report that there has been a marked decline in the performance of a number of water companies over the past year or so. This has been driven by company-specific factors but also by the effects of extreme weather, including an unusually hot, dry summer and a winter that brought multiple freeze-thaw events in 2022 and 2023. There are also live enforcement cases against six companies, which precludes a leading rating where an enforcement case is under way. Specifically, there was a question on how many companies we think are going to fail; I am not aware of any companies that are about to fail. I do not have any information on that at all.
The third question was about why the hive down provisions have been introduced. Without them, only a direct sale of assets would be possible. This is likely to be much more expensive and complex to implement from a tax perspective as you would not benefit from the no-gain, no-loss treatment on transfer. It is probably also important to recognise that, if you get to the point of insolvency, the quickest route to providing the services that are absolutely critical is to package up what the company has to deliver in that hive down and get it back into the hands of somebody who can operate the business in the most effective way. Tying it up, with all the debt and the other complications that go with an insolvency, will just complicate and delay the issue.
I turn to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, about breaching environmental standards. As I stated in my opening speech, a water company can be placed into special administration on performance grounds where there is either a serious breach of their principles or statutory duties or an enforcement order that it is no longer appropriate for it to continue to hold its licence. One of the principal statutory duties held by a water company is under Section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991, which says that a water company has a duty to deal with the contents of sewers effectually and provide the necessary infrastructure for that purpose, including meeting the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994. This is key as, without treatment, urban wastewater has significant adverse impacts on our water environment.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked a number of questions. I think I have touched on a few of them as I have gone through here. One of the issues that she focused on specifically was how Ofwat will regulate underperformance. Following the publication of its performance report in November 2023, Ofwat published the financial penalties and payments for all water companies. Ofwat required 13 companies to return £193 million to customers for underperformance in 2022-23. This money will be returned to customers through bills over the 2024-25 year. On the action that the Government are taking on underperformance, industry performance is below the level that the Government and regulators expect and the Government are taking action, alongside Ofwat, as we progress.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and I asked about the unusual position in which we will find ourselves, where a subsidiary company can be set up, meaning that the company is not competitive or living up to its responsibilities financially. I drew the parallel with chapter 11. Is this the first time that we have done this in the UK or is there another parallel? My noble friend could write to me on this.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
It might be easier if I wrote specifically on that. Is my noble friend referring to the special administrator’s duties?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
If I have understood correctly, if a subsidiary company is set up for the purposes of the company continuing to act, does that mean, as with chapter 11, that it does not need to pay off its creditors or debtors? Is this the first time that it has happened in this country?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I am a little unsure on that, so perhaps the best thing for me to do is write.
I think we have covered the questions for which I have answers, and I will write to the noble Baronesses on a number of other questions. With that, I commend these instruments to the Committee.
Water Industry Act 1991 (Amendment) Order 2024
(10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Douglas-Miller
That the Grand Committee do consider the Water Industry Act 1991 (Amendment) Order 2024.
House of Lords
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I call the first Oral Question. The clocks are not working, but we will ensure that we stay faithful to the 10-minute limits.
Conventional Weapon Stocks: Expenditure
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to provide an update on the spending of the £2 billion allocated in the 2023 spending review for replenishing conventional weapon stocks over the next two years.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, £1.95 billion was allocated in the 2023 Spring Budget to improve resilience and readiness across a range of defence capabilities. This is not just about new investments and new equipment; it will also be used to address long-standing challenges across the defence programme, which will make us better able to respond to new threats. The Ministry of Defence remains fully engaged with industry, allies and partners to ensure the continuation of supply to Ukraine and that all equipment and munitions granted in kind from UK stocks are replaced as expeditiously as possible.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer; I am not sure that it contained any information, but it met the basic specification. In my view, the moneys are not being spent on their original requirement. That could be for one of two reasons: first, that the money is gone because it has been spent on budget shortfalls and not on the original objective, or, secondly, that the MoD is not good at purchasing things. Let us take, for instance, the 155 mm shells which are very much desired by Ukraine at the moment. The letter of intent was in November 2022, the contract took nine months to negotiate—to July 2023—and none will be delivered until 2025. Which is it: has the money gone, or is the MoD not good at purchasing things?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, we have just short of £1 billion out for contract, so it is on the way, and we have invested a further £500 million in industrial capacity. Therefore, the money has not been spent elsewhere in the Budget; it is being spent on what it was originally purposed for. This is not the easiest thing to grasp. Resilience and readiness are all about improving capability through, among other things, updating weapon stocks and munitions and investing in manufacturing to ensure that stockpiles are current and ready to meet defence needs. It is not just about replenishing like for like on capability.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, has the Minister discovered the underground ostrich room deep in the Ministry of Defence? It churns out complacent ministerial briefs and Answers to Questions telling us that all is well: no procurement black holes, enough ships to meet operational needs, and recruiting and housing improving. Last July, the Commons Defence Committee report said:
“We have discovered a UK procurement system which is highly bureaucratic, overly stratified, far too ponderous, with an inconsistent approach to safety, very poor accountability and a culture which appears institutionally averse to individual responsibility”.
Can the Minister say what improvements and changes, if any, have been made, and whether the MoD really needs to employ 60,000 civilians—which is virtually the same size as our Army?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. There are a few feathers lying around in some of the rooms in the Ministry of Defence because one thing that the disaster in Ukraine has meant is that the speed with which effective procurement needs to be undertaken has really shaken a few things up. There have been occasions where—it has not happened in the past—specification has been compromised for availability. That is a very good indication that things are starting to move.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, can I take the Minister back to munitions and how we are restocking those supplies? Given the limited lifespan for anything stored, can he say something about the surge capacity for production, in terms of both manufacturing and storage?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, a lot of orders are outstanding, as I have just said, with an enormous amount coming through in the next 12 months. We are replacing everything that we have gifted to Ukraine as expeditiously as we can. As I think I have described once before, this is a holistic view. We are not just replacing like for like; we are taking advantage of improvements in technology to ensure that we have the correct weapons to meet the threat that defence faces.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, Russian shell production—not shell orders—next year is assessed to run at 4 million per year. The Secretary-General last week asked member states to increase arms production. In response, arms manufacturers, including Norway’s Nammo, suggested that this would be possible only if Governments shared risks with manufacturers, given the scale of the capital investment needed. Therefore, what discussions are we having with our NATO partners about formal mechanisms through which this can be achieved?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The noble Lord raises an extremely important and valid point. Noble Lords will know that NATO placed an order for 155 mm artillery shells on 23 January worth $1.2 billion. We have also placed two orders with BAE Systems and invested in its production capacity to ensure that we can also take delivery of the right amount of 155 mm shells. I understand that it has increased the production rate by eight times.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the Defence Command Paper places great emphasis on technology and innovation. A great deal of innovation comes from small and medium-sized enterprises, most of which view the MoD as one of the world’s worst organisations with which to do business. What progress is the MoD making to change that culture and eliminate what those enterprises refer to as the “valley of death” between good ideas and commercialisation of those ideas?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The noble and gallant Lord knows only too well that procurement is really difficult when it comes to military assets. We had a conversation last week about appetite for risk, but getting SMEs involved at the correct level will always be quite tricky because of the scale of operation that we need to deal with weapons and munitions. However, it is absolutely a focus in the MoD to ensure that procurement is much more light-footed that it has been in the past.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, what is my noble friend the Minister’s assessment of Russia’s current conventional weapon stocks and its reliance, so we are told, on importing shells from North Korea?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the Russian threat is paramount, and Russia must not on any account be allowed to prevail—there is no question about that, and the Government, the Opposition and everybody else are on the same page. Russia has ramped up its production capacity and has been using North Korean equipment, although its reliability is not quite clear. It is certainly something of which everybody is increasingly aware.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, while this investment was welcomed when it was announced, if the Minister’s department does not spend the money, the Treasury will claw it back. Is it not about time that he acted to make sure that the money is spent?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I could not agree more. We are spending the money and as quickly as we can get it. We have delivered everything to Ukraine that we said we would. We are replenishing our stockpiles as quickly as we can, and we are investing in technology.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, Putin has increased his defence spending to 40% of GDP. That is, in effect, a war footing. I think that, in many ways, he almost thinks that he is at war with us. How, in all conscience, can our Government not immediately increase our defence expenditure?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I think that everybody knows where I stand on this. There are competing demands on a finite amount of resource. The Government and the Prime Minister have made perfectly clear the direction of travel; it is just a question of when it is appropriate to get there and how far it goes.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister be a bit more precise about the quantities of ammunition being supplied to Ukraine and the different types?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that that is information which we do not divulge.
NHS Dentistry
(10 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 what assessment they have made of the availability of NHS dentistry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
My Lords, since the pandemic this Government have taken decisive action to recover services. There are signs of recovery, with the amount of activity delivered and the number of patients seen increasing, but there is more to do. Our recently published plan to recover and reform NHS dentistry will make dental services faster, simpler and fairer for patients and will fund around 2.5 million additional appointments and more than 1.5 million additional courses of dental treatment.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the recent Statement but, with 80% of NHS dentists not accepting new patients and with 190 hospital operations every day removing rotten teeth from children, clearly a fresh initiative was needed. However, the dysfunctional, discredited 2006 dental contract, which is driving NHS dentists out of the business, and which was described by the Select Committee in another place as not fit for purpose, remains in place. When will it be reformed? Given that everyone has a right to register with a GP and if they cannot find one the ICB has to find one, why is there not an equivalent right to register with a dentist if dentistry is an integral part of the NHS?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend for raising this and declare my interest as my wife is a dentist, although she is not currently practising. It is accepted that we have made sensible improvements to the dental contract, but a fundamental longer-term overhaul is needed. In terms of the ability to get registered with a dentist, that is what the mobile trucks are all about. We realise that in certain areas it is difficult to get that registration. The idea is for mobile trucks to go into a neighbourhood where there is a particular shortage to resolve the problem.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, while working at No. 10 in the early noughties, I was involved in a strategic review of the NHS and was shocked, at the time, to discover how poor the long-term workforce capacity planning was. The total number of dentists currently working in NHS England—around 25,000—has not changed by more than tens or hundreds over the last five years. In that period, more dentists have left than joined. At the same time, fewer than 1,000 dental students have been enrolled each year. Precisely how many dentists do we need to bring NHS capacity in line with demand? In what year, again precisely, will that point be reached?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord is correct in talking about the supply challenges. That is what the long-term workforce plan is all about, and why we are committing to a 40% increase in training places by 2030. The other issue that he rightly raises is the balance between the cost-effectiveness of providing private versus national health dentistry. The problem is that it is often seen as more lucrative for a dentist to go down the private sector route. That is why we are trying to rebalance that and have introduced an increase in the minimum charge to £28 for a unit of dental activity, and £50 for a new patient, to try to bring services back more in favour of the NHS.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as president of the British Fluoridation Society. The Academy of Medical Sciences reported very recently that nearly a quarter of five year-olds have tooth decay. Unless we deal with this there will be many more queues and great difficulties with access. The Minister will know that shortly there will be a consultation in the north-east to introduce fluoride. Surely the current situation demands that we extend this throughout the country.
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, the noble Lord is correct that there is very good evidence of the effectiveness of water fluoridation, and the report as recently as 2022 showed there are no side-effects. The north-east will increase the number of recipients by about 1.6 million people, and there is a process that that needs to go through but I totally agree that we should expand it as far as we can.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, I point out that we have very good data on the number of dentists engaged in NHS activity. It shows a pattern of falling numbers—down to 24,151 in the last financial year. Does the Minister agree that it is fair for us to judge the success or failure of the Government’s new plan on whether that number increases? Does he have a target for where the Government intend it to reach?
Lord Markham (Con)
The absolute measure that everyone cares about is output—the number of treatments—and this plan is all about increasing the number of appointments by 2.5 million. In the last year alone, we increased the number of treatments from 26 million to 33 million. There is more to do, granted, but the real measure of success is how many treatments we get done, which is a function not just of the number of dentists but of their productivity, and of the number of them we can persuade to provide NHS rather than private sector services.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that it is nearly 13 years since the then Secretary of State, and his noble friend Lord Howe, initiated negotiations for a new dental contract? We still need that contract, because it would shift towards paying dentists for outcomes for their patients rather than for units of dental activity. It is when we have a shortage of dentists that we need to shift to outcomes and preventive work, to improve the balance of work that dentists must do and reduce demands on the total dental workforce.
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, it is all about outcomes and output. As I mentioned, there have been sensible moves recently in terms of the contract—the £50 for new patients; increasing minimum levels; and ensuring that dentists get more payment for doing, for example, three fillings versus one. I also agree that some fundamental work needs to be done in this space.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has previously suggested that the 15 mobile dental vans would be able to address emergency situations as well as scheduled appointments. How will this work in practice, particularly in view of the size of the areas each van will cover? How will the Government meet the immediate need for thousands more appointments for emergency dental treatment?
Lord Markham (Con)
There will be a schedule of when the mobile vehicles will visit each area, with the ability to pre-book so, if someone calls up with an issue, they will know that a truck will come to their area in a week or two’s time. That is the idea, or people can queue to receive those services as well. I hope this will be successful. It has worked quite well in some areas already. The case will prove itself and the 14 will be just the start. We can do much more from that, because we all agree that we need to expand supply.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Given that over 8,800 new oral cancers were diagnosed last year, and a fifth of those were in people under the age of 65, do the Government recognise that it is a false economy not to increase dentistry provision, dental hygienist screening for oral cancers and advice on prevention, such as by cutting down on smoking and so on? The cost of treating this, and of early morbidity to the country, is huge.
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, absolutely. That goes back to my noble friend’s point about outcomes. I know that a lot of places, if they are fortunate enough to have an NHS dentist, give you check-ups every six months as a matter of course. In fact, NICE says that if you are in good oral health you will need that only every 24 months, with the idea being that you can create more space for other people to come in, because prevention and screening are vital in all this as well.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I live in Cornwall, where there are now very few NHS dentists and many people are resorting to do-it-yourself. What plan does the Department of Health have to ensure that all in Cornwall have access to a dentist as and when needed? A kit is available from the high street for less than £10, but this does not buy any expertise or guarantee of success.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is quite correct. Cornwall is one of the areas where we piloted the mobile services. It is probably not the number one area, but it is fair to say that it is one of the main areas where we are putting in more resources for precisely that reason.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I shall switch sides of the country. The campaign group Toothless in England was founded in Suffolk and is calling for contracts for NHS dentists to cover the real costs. It says that this is the only way to solve the drought of dentists in places such as Waveney Valley, where one in three people has been unable to secure an appointment over two years.
Lord Markham (Con)
These plans were welcomed by Toothless in England, which was good to see, as well as by Healthwatch. I know personally that making it economic for dentists to work in the NHS rather than in the private sector, or getting that balance right, is fundamental. The changes are a good first step towards that but more probably needs to be done.
Post Office Horizon Scandal: Racism
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sahota
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the reports from sub-postmasters involved in the Post Office Horizon scandal that racism affected the way they were treated by the Post Office.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his Question. Some of the evidence that has been brought to light through Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry has been appalling and regrettable. The Government are committed to ensuring that lessons are learned and events are never repeated, but it is important that Sir Wyn is given the time and independence he needs to draw conclusions and report to Ministers on his findings.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. My heart goes out to all the sub-postmasters, whatever community they belong to, who were victims of this miscarriage of justice. I thank Balvinder Gill, who is in the Public Gallery and who has been through a horrendous experience, along with his mother. Just like Balvinder’s mother, many victims were hard-working, first-generation immigrants, who had accumulated wealth and had a good status in the community. They generally did not have a full grasp of the English language and were treated like second-class citizens by the Post Office. As the Minister will know, over 40% of sub-postmasters were from minority communities. Why was such a high percentage of Asian females prosecuted by the Post Office when, in reality, the prison population of Asian females is less than 5%?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. We are all deeply distressed by the events that have happened during this 25-year sorry saga. The noble Lord refers to one of the documents that was used by Post Office Ltd, which was released in 2023 under the Freedom of Information Act. That did have language in it using descriptors that were very much out of date and should have been updated; it was offensive language and the Post Office has now, rightly, completely changed its methodology. But, once again, Sir Wyn Williams will go into this in great detail.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is easy to see why the noble Lord was shocked by the racist terms uncovered, which were used by the investigating team in Post Office Ltd. It is even more shocking to note how recently those terms were being used, and still more shocking that many of the people who were using those terms are still employed by Post Office Ltd. We do not need the conclusion of the inquiry to know that Post Office Ltd is rotten to the core. When will the new chairman be appointed and when will the work start on cleaning this rotten business out?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I share the noble Lord’s frustration with this process. There was indeed offensive language used in the official documentation, which had not been updated since the 1980s and for which the Post Office has clearly apologised. As far as the culture in the Post Office is concerned, there is a rebuilding job required. The chairman has been removed and live conversations are going on right now to appoint a new chairman. My department is fully focused on rectifying this sorry situation.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, none of the racist terms in the report, codenamed Project May, could have been used without the approval of directors, all of whom were appointed by the Government. Rather than hiding behind the claim that the Horizon inquiry might look at it, the Minister needs to be accountable to Parliament. An inquiry is not a substitute for parliamentary accountability. So, can he tell us when he first became aware of these racist terms and why he has not already referred the Post Office to the Equality and Human Rights Commission for investigation?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. He is referring to the historical document that was released under the Freedom of Information Act in 2023. It has clearly been identified to have offensive language in it, which had not been updated since the 1980s. There is an ongoing inquiry into this. We all want to know the answer. The reason we got into this position in the first place is that people were deemed guilty rather than innocent without due process. Let us not do the same thing again.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is it not obvious, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, that there has been a complete failure of corporate governance here, and the only way to deal with that in the real world is to clear out the people responsible and put in some people who are capable of bringing order and good management to the Post Office?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank my noble friend. We both come at this from the same point of view: the private sector board. The board currently in place is not the board that prosecuted any of these postmasters. In fact, of the non-executive directors, three have been appointed in the last 12 months. There is no question that there has been a failure of governance. As we discussed last time, the governance of this company goes through the chair to the Secretary of State to Ministers. That is where we need accountability and where the inquiry will focus.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, the BBC recently reported a number of concerns and comments made by Post Office staff. One sub-postmaster was told:
“All the Indians are doing it. They have relatives so they take the money and send it to them abroad”.
But neither the terms of reference nor the completed list of issues for the inquiry explicitly mentions racism or discrimination. Is the Minister comfortable that the Wyn Williams investigation will deal with these specific issues of racism and discrimination in his report?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The inquiry was set up by this Government in 2020, initially on a non-statutory basis, immediately following the case with Lord Justice Parker in 2019. That was then upgraded to a statutory inquiry. So Wyn Williams has the full authority of the judicial process to get to the heart of this matter. We are also being advised, as we know, by the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and the advisory committee. It is very clear that we will get to the bottom of all these issues.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, about why there were more Asian subpostmasters treated harshly and sent to prison is important. Nick Wallis, who has written the book on this scandal, said:
“As I spoke to them I did start to wonder why Asian sub-postmasters seemed to be getting far more punitive sentences than their white counterparts”.
It is good that the Minister said that the Government want to learn from the mistakes. Is anyone looking at the difference in sentencing terms between white and Asian sub-postmasters?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. Absolutely—this is fundamental to looking at the overturning of the convictions. There were 983 wrongful convictions and the Ministry of Justice is now working through that process and it absolutely needs to understand exactly how these convictions came about and to whom.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the chairman of the Post Office, who has now resigned, was recently quoted in the press as being advised several times on the quiet by officials in Government to go slow with giving money back after prosecutions in order to save government expenditure. Was that the reason he was sacked or was it because the Government wanted to have a new broom there? It does not reflect very well on what the civil servants were reported to be telling him.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that. I can inform the House that the Secretary of State for the Department for Business and Trade will be giving a detailed Statement in the other place on this in about half an hour’s time, where she will categorically refute the allegations made by Henry Staunton—with evidence that we will put in the House of Commons Library to demonstrate that that was absolutely not the case. It does not match the facts. The fact of the matter is that we have compensated 64% of all the postmasters already and in the HSS scheme 100% already had offers in Henry Staunton’s time—so the facts do not match the article.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, has made me question whether or not misogyny and sexism played a role in the sentencing of the Asian sub-postmasters. Is that being looked into as well?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. As I said, these are all issues that will be looked at. Sir Wyn Williams has complete authority to look into all these matters and he will be guided by the public interest—where this is clearly in the public interest—and also by the advisory committee, with the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and Mr Bates et cetera.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I refer noble Lords to my interests as set out in the register. I ask the Minister: does this not show one of the concerns that we should have about arm’s-length bodies, where they are supposed to be accountable but there are many questions over their accountability? They can act in this way but actually not be held responsible. I wonder whether that has wider lessons for who regulates the arm’s-length bodies and how they are accountable, not only to Parliament but to the British people.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that. I have said at the Dispatch Box before that there will quite a lot of examination required following the Wyn Williams report. There are number of arm’s-length bodies that are set up to look like plcs but do not behave like plcs, largely because there has not been the challenge and the scrutiny typical of non-execs and from Ministers in terms of oversight. That is, I imagine, something which will be very much focused on following the Wyn Williams report.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
The Minister mentioned Wendy Williams as looking into the sub-postmasters. Is it the same Wendy Williams who looked into the Windrush scandal? The mere fact is that the Government took no notice of that and have not implemented anything there, so how is that going to work with this new thing around the Post Office scandal?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My understanding that the judge in this inquiry is Sir Wyn Williams. I will have to write and find out whether there is a connection to Windrush. I am afraid I am not aware of that.
Leasehold: Property Management Companies
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure leaseholders get the best value for money from services provided by management companies appointed by freeholders without their involvement or consent.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I refer the House to the register of interests and the fact that I am a leaseholder.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a leaseholder. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill will make long-term changes to improve home ownership for millions of leaseholders in England and Wales. Measures to empower leaseholders and improve their consumer rights, such as better transparency of fees and charges and improved access to the right to manage, will make management companies more accountable to leaseholders who pay for their services.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Leaseholders are at a complete disadvantage with regard to service charges, and the Bill before the other place does not change that fact, nor do the overoptimistic comments of the right honourable Member for Surrey Heath, which go way beyond what the legislation proposes. When will we get regulation of property agents, following the review by the noble Lord, Lord Best, published in 2019? When will we get proper control over the system whereby leaseholders pay out all the money but have no say in the services provided?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am afraid I have to disagree with the noble Lord’s assessment of the Bill. I can set out a number of ways in which the Bill will improve the position of leaseholders regarding service charges. It will require greater transparency of service charges, so that leaseholders receive key information regularly; we will rebalance the legal costs regime, giving leaseholders greater confidence to challenge their service charges; it will replace the buildings insurance commissions system for managing agents, so that transparent admission fees are in place; and it will increase the non-residential limit from 25% to 50% for buying the freehold or exercising the right to manage, giving leaseholders greater rights in respect of taking over the freehold of their property or managing it themselves.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will know that the law of forfeiture allows a managing agent to take possession of a flat worth, say, £500,000 if there is a debt of more than £350 outstanding. In those circumstances, the freeholder pockets the difference between the value of the flat and the debt. Surely the leasehold Bill should put a stop to that.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government believe that forfeiture is an extreme measure and should be used only as a last resort. In practice, it happens very rarely and is subject to the right to relief. However, any changes to forfeiture would require a careful balancing of the rights and responsibilities of landlords and those of leaseholders. As a first step, we have asked the Law Commission to update its 2006 report on this matter, given the passage of time since then, and to take into account the implications of the reforms currently under way, so that we can consider what action should be taken.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, it is not just leaseholders who face these practices. What response can the Minister give to freeholders who face the imposition of private management companies charging extortionate and unregulated yearly fees, instead of having public areas adopted by local authorities? I believe this practice is known as “fleecehold”. Effectively, this means freeholders paying twice for maintenance: once through their council tax and again through fees to private management companies. What measures will the Government take to regulate these practices?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Bill aims to grant freehold homeowners on private or mixed-tenure estates the same rights of redress as leaseholders in this area—equivalent rights to transparency on estate charges and the ability to challenge those charges at tribunal. I believe the CMA is also looking into this matter, and we look forward to receiving its final report.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, some freeholders, although not all, treat their leaseholders as a cash cow. I have two examples for the Minister. First, there was a ground rent increase—and there is no value at all to the leaseholder in a ground rent—of 113% this year, which was backdated three years, and the sum was demanded to be paid in full in four weeks. Secondly, there was a 23% increase in service charges this year. There is no accountability. Transparency there is, and challenge there can be, but nothing comes of it—and it seems that nothing in the Bill will change that. Can the Minister tell me that it will?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I can. The Government have consulted on a range of options to reform existing ground rents, having legislated in 2022 to set all new ground rents at a peppercorn rate. Following the outcome of that consultation, we aim to legislate in the current Bill before Parliament. As I say, not only will we give leaseholders greater rights to transparency on what service charges are charged for, to ensure that they are reasonable, but we are changing the cost regime in the courts so they can challenge those charges where they think they are unreasonable.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have a friend who is trying to sell their flat in London. The managing agents took so long to respond to the requirement that they consented that the purchasers went away. Will this Bill do any good for that situation?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Bill contains both a time limit and cost limit for the provision of information from freeholders to leaseholders when they are seeking to sell their properties. I do not know the exact circumstances of the case the noble and learned Baroness refers to, but action is being taken in this area.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that legislation in 2000 and 2004 abolished leasehold in Scotland. Given noble Lords’ concerns about the current Bill, why on earth can we not be more radical and abolish leasehold in England and Wales?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Following previous Questions I looked at the example of Scotland, which we do seek to learn from, but the circumstances there are significantly different. At the time, there were only some 9,000 long leasehold properties in Scotland, compared with around 5 million leasehold properties in England and Wales. The majority of Scottish leases had ground rents of only £2.50 per year, whereas the average ground rent in England is £300 per year. It is more complicated to take reform forward in England, but the Government are committed to doing this. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill will take important steps toward delivering commonhold as an alternative in future.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, there are some very good things in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, but the Government have stopped short of instituting a proper regulator of managing agents, which would solve many of these problems and difficulties. Why stop short? Why not do the job properly and have a regulator of property agents?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I welcome the work of the noble Lord on this issue, and I know that your Lordships will be looking at it further in Committee. It is already a legal requirement for property agents to belong to one of two government-approved redress schemes. We also welcome ongoing work undertaken by the industry itself to raise professionalism and standards across the sector, which will make property managing agents more accountable to leaseholders. We will keep that and the question of further regulation for the sector under review.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lord, if leaseholders want to change their managing agent, they need 50% plus one of the residents to vote for change. But in many modern blocks of, say, 100 flats, perhaps 40% to 50% are being sublet, and you have no right to know who the people are who need to vote. How can leaseholders who want to change their managing agent exercise their right to change? It is impossible, because they do not have a right to that data.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Leaseholders wishing to take forward the right to manage claim will need to obtain the title documents of their building from His Majesty’s Land Registry. Those will contain the names and addresses of leaseholders in the other flats in the building, so it should be possible to contact them. On the voting threshold of 50% plus one, we agree with the Law Commission’s recommendation that these existing requirements should not be changed, because they make sure that a minority of leaseholders cannot impose changes on the majority.
Post Office Horizon Scandal: Compensation Payments
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of claims that the Post Office was asked to delay compensation payments to sub-postmasters who were victims of the Horizon IT scandal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that Question. I can utterly refute this allegation. This Government have sped up compensation for victims and have consistently encouraged postmasters to come forward with claims. To suggest that any actions or conversations happened to the contrary is incorrect. In fact, upon appointment, Mr Staunton was set concrete objectives in writing to focus on reaching settlements for claimants—clear evidence of the Government’s intent. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade will shortly give an update to the House of Commons with a detailed rebuttal of these allegations.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the point that he makes about the Statement in the other place. I am sure that this whole House will welcome it being repeated in this House later in the week. Mr Henry Staunton, the former chairman of the Post Office, said that he was told by a “fairly senior person”—his words—to stall on compensation payments to Horizon victims. The Sunday Times yesterday said that the Government utterly refuted these allegations, and the Minister has repeated that today. To make this statement with such confidence, obviously the Government will have had to fully investigate the matter, and I am sure that the Minister would want to confirm this. Can the Minister tell us who carried out this investigation and whether Mr Staunton was approached and asked for the name of the person he said had told him to stall the compensation payments? Can the Minister confirm that the Government will provide a full copy of the investigation report on the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The sadness about this is that the Secretary of State said that she did not want to conduct HR in public, and this is now the situation that we have got ourselves into. We are very clear that no civil servant made that statement; perhaps it is up to Mr Staunton to provide a name, and we can then investigate whether that was the case. In the meantime, it does not make sense, given that the Post Office has been fully funded for compensation already—before the programme “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, two-thirds of postmasters had had their claims met in full. Indeed, of the £160 million paid out so far to sub-postmasters, £138 million was paid out by December, before the television series. Therefore, it was fully funded, and there is no basis for the allegation.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, clearly the public statements of the Secretary of State and the former chair, Staunton, are mutually exclusive, and we look forward to hearing the Secretary of State’s version, which I hope will be repeated in your Lordships’ House. It would be easier to understand in full if it was supported by transcripts of all the relevant meetings. In her social media rebuttal, the Secretary of State said that she
“dismissed Staunton due to very serious allegations about his conduct while Chair of the Post Office”.
Can the Minister confirm that that is true and explain to your Lordships’ House why those allegations were not in fact investigated, rather than simply dealt with through a summary dismissal? If the Minister is unable to do so now, can he come back when the Statement is repeated and tell your Lordships’ House the answer to those questions?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
As I have said, a detailed Statement on this will be given in the other place, and there will also be transcripts and meeting notes put in the House of Commons Library for full interrogation. It is clear that there were very serious concerns about governance. The noble Lord himself mentioned a toxic culture in the earlier Question on this issue, and the Government’s requirement to clean it up and change it. The most important figure on any board of any company is the chair, and, if the culture is wrong, perhaps the best place to start would be to remove the chair, which is what has happened. A full Statement will be given as to the circumstances of that, but it was not done on a whim and it was not a summary dismissal.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, ordinary sub-postmasters throughout the UK have had their integrity and reputation impacted upon. I was talking to one of those people this afternoon, from Northern Ireland. They are part of the 33% who have not yet received payment and their simple question is: when will those outstanding payments be made to sub-postmasters?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The Government can go only as fast as the claims come in. Take as an example the GLO 555: 477 of them do not have any convictions. Of those 477, 58 have submitted a claim, of which an offer has been made to 48 and 41 have accepted. We cannot go any faster; we can go only at the speed at which claims are made.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, the allegations made by Henry Staunton over the weekend are incredibly serious. Thousands of people, as we have discussed many times in your Lordships’ House, have been robbed of their lives, liberty and livelihood. For them to experience any modicum of justice relies on the truth coming out. I have one specific question, because I know we will come back to this, probably on Wednesday, to discuss the Statement being made in the other place. Will the Government publish all correspondence and minutes of meetings between the relevant departments, UKGI and the Post Office, and put them in the parliamentary Library?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
Once again, we are in a situation where we are dealing with private individuals and HR. We should not be doing that in this Chamber, or indeed in television studios; individuals’ livelihoods are at stake here. We did not want to be in this position, but we have to refute the allegations made against us. A judgment will be made by the Secretary of State as to all supporting documentation, and read-outs of minutes will be put in the House of Commons Library. At the end of the day, it comes back to the fact that we need a full inquiry to find out what has actually happened here.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I have seen reports that there are still problems with the Horizon system and that some postmasters are still experiencing the problem of underpayments that created this disastrous position. My question is about ensuring that compensation goes to people as quickly as possible. Can my noble friend assure me that that will be the case and that we will look into the suggestion that this is still an ongoing problem, and, if so, ensure that remedial action is taken?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The response from management on this—and this has now been audited—is that issues with the software system are minimal, and £150 million of government money has now gone in to completely replace the system. A lot of investment is going in to ensure that this does not happen again. On compensation for victims, of the 2,700 claims in the HSS, 2,400 have already had their payments cleared—that is 85% of that category. The more sluggish category is the GLO, because those people have more complicated claims. As I said before, we have received only 58 claims from that cohort. As soon as we get them, we will process them.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on 10 January, the Prime Minister said that postmasters will be cleared and compensated swiftly. On the same day, Kevin Hollinrake MP said at the Dispatch Box that all compensation should be paid by August. However, on 28 January, Kemi Badenoch said on the BBC that the deadline was not a priority and that getting governance sorted out at the Post Office was more important. Given that in the last few days a number of postmasters have said that they have received derisory offers—in the case of Alan Bates, one-sixth—is this limping things along?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The reality is that the Government are not dragging their feet—quite the opposite. We will process the cases as quickly as they are put in. When cases are put in, and if the offer made is rejected, there is a full appeals process for postmasters, which goes all the way up to a High Court judge. At the moment, Mr Bates has not appealed that decision. All these individuals have to have time to assess the offer that was given. We need these offers to be fair and reasonable. There is a reason for all the offers to be made. We are not here to comment on individual cases, but the money is there for compensation, and all these postmasters and postmistresses will be compensated for the damage that has been done to them.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, in answer to previous questions about racism or misogyny, for example, the Minister clearly and repeatedly said that that is a matter for the Wyn Williams inquiry. My question is about process. How do the Government decide that matters should be dealt with by the public inquiry, and how do they decide that it would be useful, expedient and desirable for them to investigate and respond themselves?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The Government are a shareholder, and there is only one shareholder in this company, if you can call it a company—I have never come across a company that has only one. Therefore, the Secretary of State is exercising her shareholder right to reorganise the board of this company to make it fit for purpose to make sure that this does not happen again. In the meantime, the Government, through the Treasury, provided the thick end of £1 billion to pay compensation. The Government also committed to taking full recourse against Fujitsu in due course. In the meantime, a statutory inquiry, with statements being taken under oath, is ongoing. When the truth has emerged, there will be a price to pay.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, in answer to an earlier question, the Minister said that £150 million of public money has been expended correcting the system. Why is it not £150 million of Fujitsu’s money? Will whatever expenditure the Government have made in putting things to rights be extracted in due course from Fujitsu?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
That is absolutely the case, and my colleague in the other place, Minister Hollinrake, has made it very clear that we will pursue Fujitsu for its share of the compensation. It is not right that the sole payer of the compensation should be the taxpayer.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, what is the government advice to the postmasters who, due to their experience, have developed mental health problems, and received all kinds of electric shocks and so on, and are unable to work?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The government advice is that each individual claimant must submit his or her claim, and money is available to them to take legal and medical advice. That is part of the reason why we think that, of the 477 cases, we have 58 claims—because they are more complicated—quite rightly being put together by each claimant and their advisers. When these claims are submitted, we have guaranteed that we will action 90% of them within 40 days of receipt.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord’s question was about not compensation but the issue of funding the correction of the software to the tune of £150 million. The entirely appropriate question is: why is Fujitsu not paying for the reworking of that software, rather than the Government and the taxpayer?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
Perhaps I should have been clearer: the Government are funding this company, Post Office Ltd, to effectively commission a new system to replace Horizon. It might be reasonable to assume that it will not be Fujitsu that does the second system.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I hope whoever takes on this responsibility will bear in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that there may well be continuing problems deep inside the Post Office systems. I speak as an accountant, and I declare my interest. Basic double-entry accounting systems should never have allowed this system to have occurred. What guarantees can the noble Lord give us that a proper accounting-based system will be put in place of the current Horizon?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The issue here is that the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who run these shops know their accounts back to front—that is the whole point. They know to a penny what they are doing from one week to the next, which is why perhaps the greatest sadness in this saga was those honourable people being told that they were alone, when in fact there were thousands of them. We are clear now that, in day-to-day operational matters, we do not have these issues. We are clear that we need to put a new system in place, which is what the Government are committed to doing.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, in response to an earlier question, the Minister said that the chairman had to go because he was effectively responsible for the toxic situation within the company, and it was the chairman’s job at the top to be responsible for this. I am sure he would agree that that is the case, but what about all the other people within the Post Office? Is the Minister saying that none of them had any responsibility for the toxicity within the whole company?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
A company’s culture is set by the board and the management. There has not been a prosecution since 2015, and no one on the board of the Post Office today was involved in the prosecutions. The current board is completely different, and we are now dealing with getting the culture right for this company going forward. We always start with the chair, because that is the top position in the company.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister explain why in 2023, of all things, the Horizon contract was extended?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I am rather relieved to say that I have no idea, so I shall write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, have His Majesty’s Government now put a block on any new government contracts with Fujitsu?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I am not aware that that has happened formally, but the law of common sense says that it must be the case.
Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 December 2023 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 February.
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (Pension Scheme Amendment) Regulations 2024
Lord Roborough
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 December 2023 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 February.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Callanan, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]
Monday 19th February 2024
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Automated Vehicles Act 2024 View all Automated Vehicles Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-R-I(a) Manuscript amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (6 Feb 2024)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, before I begin, I will briefly update the House on our engagement with the devolved Administrations. In line with the Sewel convention, the Government are seeking legislative consent Motions from the devolved legislatures of Scotland and Wales. The legislative consent Motion process is engaged for Scotland and Wales in relation to automated passenger services and the powers under Clause 40 to require reports from the police and local authorities. The Welsh Government laid their legislative consent memorandum in November. I am grateful for their constructive engagement to date. The Scottish Government laid an initial memorandum in December and we are awaiting a supplementary memorandum, outlining their recommendation on consent, later this month. UK government officials are working closely with their Scottish counterparts to clarify questions and provide support. The devolved Governments are rightly taking a close interest in this legislation, and we will continue to work constructively with them to progress the consent process.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I will make a short speech, conditioned by my being a former pilot with experience of Boeing, probably the most sophisticated company in the world on unmanned aircraft. The net result so far has been that 346 people died recently, although, thankfully, nobody died in the Alaska experience. Given that situation, although this Bill is supposedly about safety on the roads, we need to take great care; I recognise that we need a framework here, but I hope my noble friend will listen to what the noble Lord suggested earlier in the debate and have the Office of Rail and Road help oversee this Bill as it is implemented in relation to vehicles on the road.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I briefly congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing this useful, modest and largely technical Bill to its completion. The Government have expressed optimism that the arrival of automated vehicles in large numbers on our roads is going to have no effect whatever on how the rest of the road system and other road users operate. It is the principle on which the Bill is based but, to me, it seems to be credible only in the somewhat artificial reality of your Lordships’ House.
My noble friend the Minister and his department still need to address a worry many of us have. He has stated that nothing will change—that facilities for pedestrians, for example, will not be affected—with the arrival of these vehicles, but it is clear that is not wholly credible. The people who have invested in automated vehicles will find that pedestrians and other road users are obstacles to the rollout of their plans, and they will then turn up at the ministry and say, “We have spent all this money, so now you have to do something to make it work for us”. At that point, officials will roll over, Ministers will wave their hands and the money will decide what the policy is. All of this will happen without a parliamentary debate considering the effect of the vehicles and what they mean for road users, especially in urban environments. I hope my noble friend the Minister will find an opportunity to allow us, and the public, a debate about what the vision of our cities is when automated vehicles are operating in large numbers as the Bill makes provision for.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, in line with the usual courtesies of the House, I thank the Minister and his team, all of whom were exceptionally helpful and willing to give their time and expertise in some useful meetings with myself and my Liberal Democrat colleagues. I also thank my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Bowles, supported by Sarah Pughe in our Whips’ office, for their work. Finally, I thank noble Lords across the House: there was exceptional co-operation in improving the Bill, and one of the outcomes was the amendment of the Minister which clarified the statement of safety principles.
The Bill was a logical progression from 2018, and I would predict that this second Bill will be followed, I am sure, by a third Bill to try and get this right. There are still unanswered questions, and I will briefly list them. There needs to be a fresh look at the legislative framework affecting delivery vehicles that are already on our streets. Those who operate them are concerned about lacunas in the legislation.
We are also particularly concerned about the issue of disabled access, which is where my noble friend Lady Brinton worked closely with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said,
“the promise of automated vehicles is accessible mobility for all”.— [Official Report, 6/2/24; col. 1585]
It is, therefore, deeply disappointing that the concept of disabled access—from the physical space of the vehicle to the software that drives it—is not to be built in from the start. It always costs more to adapt things later, and I believe this is yet another missed opportunity.
Finally, it is a great pity that the vote on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, was lost so narrowly. It was just the kind of thing an advisory council could provide a sense of direction on. I hope the Minister will reflect on the need for certainty on the future structure of appropriate bodies to provide advice and regulation.
We remain concerned, in particular, about data protection in respect of the Bill, which is predicated on a future conglomeration of personal and commercial data, and data associated with the security of the state. It will come together in an unprecedented way. It would enable a massive intrusion of personal privacy, but in its entirety would offer massive power to a malign foreign power or even to a clever, meddling, individual hacker. Although it is well intentioned, the Bill hardly starts to tackle the dangers of that accumulation of data.
Having said all that, I thank the Minister again for his co-operation, assistance and leadership on the Bill.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for the time he spent explaining things on the Bill. I support everything that has been said in this very short debate. I am also sad that the advisory committee did not get voted through. My idea of having an independent regulator was the same thing.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, made the most important point—that behind the technology for this will be very large companies with enormous balance sheets. When equipment starts operating on the road, if the Government and Parliament have to consider how to balance the interests of those companies with disabled people, cyclists, or pedestrians, it will be very hard to do that and resist the pressure from these big companies without some kind of independent scrutiny. As other noble Lords have said, we look forward to the next Bill with interest.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I echo the thanks to my noble friend the Minister and his team for all the work they have done on the Bill. I also echo the thoughts that this is just one Bill. We are on a journey with this technology and these vehicles, and where it will be going.
I would like to address some of the comments that have been made from all sides of the House, because I hear the fear, worry and concern, as technology takes a giant leap forward. We worry about the implications for the world as we see it now. However, the world changes and adjusts. I understand the questions the noble Baroness had about data, its ownership, its power and the responsibility. When we launched the Oyster card in London in 2003, the first time data would be captured en masse—tracking peoples’ individual movements—I remember similar challenges being made as to what we would do with it.
We have come a long way in 20-plus years. We understand a lot more about the power of data and how it can be used for the benefit of people, as much as the challenge there is to keep it safe. I hope that will be echoed in the usage of data with these vehicles.
Additionally, I hear the voice of my noble friend Lord Moylan. We worked together many a year ago at TfL, bringing in implementations. Back then, there was a significant challenge to another change we were implementing. We were told pedestrians would be vulnerable; we were told accessibility would be reduced; we were told safety would be jeopardised. What was the change we were bringing in? It was bicycles: the cycle hire scheme for London. There are always challenges to bringing in new schemes. They are always seen as having many problems on safety and security, and vulnerabilities. As I say, this is in the context of the world as we see it, not maybe as we can amend it and make it better.
This is the journey. There will be more Bills, and we will scrutinise further the use-cases and the opportunities that this technology will bring, for the benefit of designing the future with safety in mind, I hope.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and his team for their co-operation on the Bill. I thank my co-spokesman, my noble friend Lord Liddle, and Grace Wright, our researcher.
When I wrote these few lines down, I was full of unbridled optimism for the Bill—but I had better come back a bit. I am sorry that the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, have not been satisfied; they were good and proper concerns, but I am sure that they will be properly considered.
Proceedings on the Bill have been very much the House of Lords at its best, and that was very much facilitated by the Minister. Like the Lib Dems, we had several meetings with him, and issues were generally treated on their merits. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is not more reassured by the changes we made to the safety standard. I believe that the safety standard that is now in the Bill is a good one that regulators will be able to work with and that is robust enough to stand up to enterprises with a great deal of money. I, for one at least, say that we have a better Bill of which this House can be proud.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is nearly three months since the Bill had its Second Reading in this House. I am hugely grateful to colleagues on all sides for the very detailed scrutiny and challenge that they have provided over that period, as has already been alluded to. I heard what noble Lords have said.
The Bill has seen real benefit from the open and positive manner in which the opposition Front Benches have engaged. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Tunnicliffe, for the series of constructive discussions we have held on safety and other matters. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, brings with him many decades of experience in the world of transport safety, and I am pleased that we have been able to draw on that during the Bill’s passage. I am grateful too to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her contributions, both in the Chamber and in our separate meetings. I also thank those who joined me for our two round-table sessions on data and accessibility, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Brinton, and my noble friends Lord Holmes and Lord Borwick.
I am also grateful to the teams at Wayve and Oxa, which have been so accommodating in welcoming me and colleagues across the House to experience self-driving technology in action. For those who have not yet had the chance, I can tell them that riding in one of these vehicles is simultaneously astonishing and—for want of a better phrase—reassuringly dull.
I am sure that colleagues will join me in thanking the countless policy officials and legal experts standing behind this piece of legislation. I am very grateful to the Bill team: Josh Kossoff, Marty Zekas, Dani Heard, Fran Gilmore and John Latham. My thanks also go to the policy leads Jenny Laber and Catherine Lovell; to Sam Cook, our drafter; and to Adam Lawless and Sean McGarry in my private office.
Finally, I pay tribute, one last time, to the Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission. Their painstaking review is the foundation on which this legislation is built, and we have felt the benefit of their expertise throughout our debates. In particular, I thank the review’s lead lawyer, Jessica Uguccioni. The Bill receiving its Third Reading today is, in no small part, the product of more than half a decade of her work.
At Second Reading, I spoke of the potential benefits of bringing self-driving technology to our roads: safety, connectivity and new economic opportunity. Thanks to the careful and considered scrutiny of this House, the Bill now moves to the other place all the better able to make those benefits a reality.
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Monday 19th February 2024
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 View all Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 41-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (15 Feb 2024)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the independent monitoring committee was established on 2 September 2022 under the terms of the initial memorandum of understanding. Its role has subsequently been enhanced by the treaty between the UK and Rwanda to ensure that the obligations under the treaty are adhered to in practice. The monitoring committee’s role is to provide an independent assessment of delivery against the assurances set out in the treaty. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked last week about how many members of the committee have been appointed, whether the committee has yet agreed the terms of reference that it is supposed to have agreed, and whether they have been published.
The monitoring committee is made up of eight independent experts, whose full details can be found on GOV.UK. Prior to the signing of the treaty between the UK and Rwanda by the Home Secretary and its subsequent laying in Parliament, the monitoring committee met on 4 December 2023 to formally agree the enhanced monitoring provisions the treaty sets out. These build on the terms of reference and monitoring plan that the monitoring committee had produced following the Court of Appeal judgment, the primary purpose being to address the Supreme Court’s concerns about real-time monitoring and thus ensure that mechanisms were in place to prevent the risk of harm to relocated individuals before it could occur. The monitoring committee discussed and approved forward-looking changes to the terms of reference and monitoring plan to enhance the monitoring regime in line with the provisions proposed in the treaty.
To make it clear, the terms of reference and enhanced monitoring plan are available publicly on GOV.UK. However, to summarise, it sets out the following details of the committee’s remit: monitoring compliance with the assurances given in the treaty and associated notes verbales; reporting to the joint committee on its findings as to, for example, His Majesty’s Government’s and the Government of Rwanda’s implementation of the obligations in the treaty, reception conditions, accommodation, processing of asylum claims, and treatment and support of relocated individuals at all times while they remain in Rwanda; it may publish its reports following notification to the joint committee; it is expected to report any significant issues to the joint committee straightaway; it may provide advice or recommendations to the joint committee on actions which should be taken to address identified issues; monitoring complaints handling by His Majesty’s Government and the Government of Rwanda; and developing its own complaints system to allow relocated individuals and their legal advisers to make confidential complaints regarding any alleged failure to comply with the obligations in the treaty—including as to treatment of a relocated individual—or any element of the processing of their asylum claim in accordance with the treaty.
As I set out in earlier debates in response to similar amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Article 15 of the treaty provides that the UK and Rwanda must establish and maintain a monitoring committee for the duration of the term of the agreement. This means that both parties are obliged to ensure that the monitoring committee continues in operation for the life of the agreement, and this obligation is binding in international law.
Noble Lords last week also asked about safeguarding arrangements for relocated individuals. Article 13 of the treaty makes specific provision that Rwanda will have regard to information provided about a relocated individual relating to any special needs that may arise and shall take all necessary steps to ensure that those needs are accommodated. The treaty makes it clear that the agreed monitoring mechanisms must be in place by the time the partnership is operationalised. It specifically provides that there will be an enhanced initial monitoring period for a minimum of three months—from the date removal decisions commence in the United Kingdom—where monitoring shall take place daily, to ensure rapid identification and response to any shortcomings.
Under the treaty, the monitoring committee will have the power to set its own priority areas for monitoring, have unfettered access for the purposes of completing assessments and reports, and have the ability to publish those reports as it sees fit. The committee will monitor the entire relocation process from the beginning—including initial screening—to relocation and ongoing settlement and integration in Rwanda.
The monitoring committee will have the ability to make unannounced visits to accommodation, asylum processing centres and any other locations where documents or information relating to relocated individuals, or their claims and appeals, are held. It will also be able to sit in on interviews by the first instance body with the express consent of the individual being interviewed and to observe hearings before the appeal body.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but are we right to understand that he is saying that there will be no deportations to Rwanda until the monitoring committee is up and running?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As far as I understand it, that is the case.
On a point that we will debate further in relation to Amendment 76A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, during the period of enhanced monitoring, the monitoring committee will report to the joint committee in accordance with an agreed action plan to include weekly and bi-weekly reporting as required. It will otherwise produce a formal written report for the joint committee on a quarterly basis over the first two years of the partnership, setting out its findings and making any recommendations.
The monitoring committee will be supported in all its work by a new support team—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Will the Minister say whether the reports from the monitoring committee to the joint committee will be made available to the House?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I cannot say that at the moment, but, as I have said, they will be published on a regular basis.
The monitoring committee will be supported in all its work by a new support team, as set out in Article 15.(8) of the treaty. The new support team will consist of individuals who do not work for either the UK Government or the Government of Rwanda. The monitoring committee has already met three times since its inception and has agreed to the publication of its terms of reference and enhanced monitoring plan, which are both available online as part of the supporting evidence document that the Government have published. Therefore, we consider that Amendment 86, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is unnecessary.
Amendments 81 and 82 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and my noble friend Lord Hailsham seek to ensure that the Act does not come into force upon ratification of the treaty but instead requires secondary legislation to be laid before commencement requiring a JCHR report on the safety of Rwanda and agreement on this point from the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, would introduce a new clause whereby the Secretary of State must lay a statutory instrument before Parliament every six months stating that their assessment is that Rwanda is a safe country. This Bill reflects the strength of the Government of Rwanda’s protections and commitments given in the treaty to people transferred to Rwanda in accordance with the treaty. The treaty, alongside the evidence of changes in Rwanda since summer 2022, already enables Parliament to reach the conclusion that Rwanda is a safe country. There is therefore no requirement for any further legislation or additional reporting prior to commencement.
The UK-Rwanda partnership is a long-term policy and forms part of a wider set of measures to tackle illegal migration. A review of the policy every six months or two years would be an inefficient use of both government and parliamentary time. Furthermore, as I have set out, this is not needed, as the functions of the independent monitoring committee have been enhanced to ensure that obligations under the treaty are adhered to in practice. These arrangements, which have been carefully agreed with the Government of Rwanda and will be binding in international law, will ensure continued compliance with all the terms of the treaty.
It is also worth noting that Article 4.(1) of the treaty sets out clearly that it is for the UK to determine the timing of a request for relocation of individuals under the terms of the agreement and the number of such requests made. The treaty does not place on the UK an obligation to make any such request. This means that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty if there had been, for example, an unexpected change to the in-country situation in Rwanda that required further consideration. As is the case in many scenarios, the Government would be able to respond and adapt as necessary.
I turn to Amendments 69 and 87 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. This legislation does not impact the financial agreement with Rwanda which was reached in 2022 through the memorandum of understanding for the migration and economic development partnership. Noble Lords will be aware that we have provided Rwanda with £220 million as part of the economic transformation fund and £20 million as an advance credit to pay for operational costs in advance of flights commencing. The spend on the MEDP with Rwanda so far is £240 million. In response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, the £100 million is not a credit line, as he indicated last week.
There was an initial investment of £120 million in 2022 as part of a new economic transformation and integration fund, ETIF, created as part of the MEDP. The ETIF is for the economic growth and development of Rwanda. Investment has been focused in areas such as education, healthcare, agriculture, infrastructure and job creation. A further payment of £100 million was made in 2023 through the ETIF as part of the partnership. We anticipate providing another £50 million in the next financial year. This is not new but follows the same arrangement from 2022. We also made a separate payment of £20 million to the Government of Rwanda in 2022 in advance of flights to support initial set-up costs of the asylum and processing arrangements under the MEDP.
With regard to the question of whether there will be another tranche of funding for the Hope hostel in the next financial year, procurement of accommodation is for the Government of Rwanda. Accommodation costs are covered by the funding stream for operationalisation, and it is then up to the Government of Rwanda as to which accommodation they procure. This legislation also does not impact the process for removals to a safe third country, so the appraisal set out in the illegal migration impact assessment remains unaffected. The published economic note on this legislation explained that the exact cost will depend on the details of the implementation and the level of deterrence. The Government are already committed to disclosing further payments made as part of the economic transformation fund and the per-person relocation costs as part of the department’s annual accounts in the normal way.
Your Lordships will also be aware that the National Audit Office will be producing a factual report on the costs of this partnership. Officials have been working closely with the National Audit Office to ensure that they have the relevant information required for this. I cannot give any opinion on the date of publication, but it will likely be in the near future.
Finally, with the—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the elements of the ETIF and the MEDP, but could he place in the Library a more detailed breakdown? The £20 million credit line for operational does seem to be one part of a credit line. The Minister says that I was incorrect in stating that there was a total of £100 million. I will happily take him at his word if that is the case, but a more detailed breakdown of how much of the expenditure of the Rwandan Government will be UK taxpayers’ money would be helpful. Also, can he confirm whether this is being scored as overseas official development assistance or not?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am happy to commit to providing as much detail as I can in the letter that the noble Lord requests. I am afraid that I do not know the answer to the foreign development aid question, so I will have to look into that and come back to him.
With regard to Amendments 35 and 90 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, it is right that this Bill should apply to anyone arriving after the Rwanda treaty enters into force. It is the treaty, working together with the provisions in this Bill, that underpins the safety of Rwanda. As such, once the treaty is in force the basis for removal under this Bill is established. Clause 9(1) ensures that the Bill and the treaty come into force on the same day. This legislation builds on the Illegal Migration Act 2023, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and other immigration Acts. To the extent that those Acts have retrospective effect, this Bill does nothing to change that.
Accommodating migrants in hotels is costing us £8 million each day. That is billions per year, which is clearly not sustainable. If people know that there is no way for them to stay in the UK, they will not leave safe countries such as France to risk their lives and pay criminals thousands of pounds to arrive here illegally. It is therefore only right that we stop the boats and break the business model of the criminal gangs who exploit vulnerable people. The Government consider this partnership to be a vital investment and therefore I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, indicated in an earlier amendment that the Government would say how Parliament was going to keep its judgment that Rwanda was a safe country under review because circumstances could change. He was going to tell us, but then said that it was going to come in a later amendment. I indicated, at the beginning of this group, which was adjourned from Wednesday, that we were assuming that it would be the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, on this amendment, who was going to tell us how Parliament was going to keep its judgment under review. If it will be in a later amendment, by all means say, but if it is intended to be under this amendment, can the Minister tell us how Parliament is to keep the judgment that it is said we are about to make under review going forward in the future?
Separately from that question, the Minister dealt very shortly with retrospectivity. Does he agree that this Act applies to people who arrived in this country and made a claim for asylum before the Act came into force—and therefore applies retrospectively to them? If it does, what is the Government’s justification for retrospective legislation?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Well, my Lords, I recollect the discussion last week between the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend Lord Wolfson. I think my noble friend pointed out that the right to asylum is not a vested legal right—that there is a right to asylum, but not necessarily in the UK. The Government have consistently won in the courts on the point that you can send somebody to another country for asylum—so this is not, in effect, retrospective legislation. As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, I am not a lawyer, but it seemed to me to make some sense when my noble friend was making the argument, so I suggest we go back to that in this case.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
Do I take it, then, that the Government’s position reflects the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
No, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, summed up the Government’s position rather well, and probably better than I can. I am afraid that we will have to return to the first question asked by the noble and learned Lord in a later group.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, I have a practical question. He says that this will apply retrospectively—what is the Government’s assessment of the numbers of people that this applies to?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I appreciate that the noble Lord asked me about this in the debate last week as well. I will not give him a precise answer at this moment, but will come back to him.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this group of amendments. It has been an interesting group and I think we have teased out quite a bit of the Government’s intentions. It is clear that thousands of people will have these rules applied to them even though they arrived on the shores of this country when it was admissible for them to stay in the UK. There is no desire in the Government for this Parliament to have effective monitoring of both the treaty and the operational arrangements of what will happen.
It is very clear from this group, from the Minister’s answers and from what noble Lords have teased out, that there is no trigger to determine exactly, on the ground, that Rwanda is safe—it is only a sentiment in this Act of Parliament—and that the treaty arrangements do not have to be in place for Rwanda to be deemed a safe country by the Government. The treaty only has to be signed, rather than the operational arrangements be in place.
It is also clear that the costings and budgets for this are so diffuse that there will be no real public scrutiny or transparency of the costs of this scheme—it will take many years to get to the bottom of that. Even though the monitoring committee will be in place, the important point is that it has no powers of remedy over anything that it sees as wrong.
So this has been a useful part of Committee. There have been very good questions that have teased out some of the issues. I, like many noble Lords, am not convinced that the Government have answered some serious issues regarding the suite of amendments, and I am sure we will come back to some of them on Report. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Etherton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the related amendments to Clause 4(1)(b) and Clause 4(4) provide for the situation where the person in question is a member of a particular social group, the members of which have a well founded fear of persecution, and following the decision of the Supreme Court in HJ (Iran) v SSHD [2010] UKSC 31 the focus is on the group and not the individual circumstances of each member of the group.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I will speak to Amendments 40, 43, 45 and 51, which I tabled, all of which are connected.
The current version of Clause 4(1) enables an applicant to oppose removal to Rwanda on the ground that it is not a safe country for the applicant only if the applicant provides
“compelling evidence relating specifically to the person’s particular individual circumstances”.
Clause 4(4) provides that the court or tribunal may grant an interim relief
“only if the court or tribunal is satisfied that the person would, before the review or appeal is determined, face a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm”
if removed to Rwanda.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I am in favour of the amendments in this group, including that in the name of my noble friend Lord Dubs, who cannot be in his place. I have added my name to those in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and I thank him for so powerfully putting the case for the amendments. I too received the letter from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and will refer to it in my submission.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I support the two amendments just mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cashman. I remind the Committee, in relation to the LGBT community, that when the law was changed in the mid-1960s in this country it did not end the persecution of homosexuals. For years afterwards, there was a constant terrorising of the gay community. “Queer rolling” is a term that noble Lords will remember—men being attacked simply because it was suspected that they might be homosexual, or they were in a particular place at a particular time of night. The situation was really grave.
When I was a young lawyer in the 1970s and 1980s, one found oneself in court representing people who were being framed for the offence of importuning, which is still a criminal offence in Rwanda. The police harassed and monitored particular venues known to be habituated by gay men. It took many years before we ended that cultural underplay, which exists in societies even when the law is changed. We know that this is the situation in Rwanda, which has a high level of persecution of gay people still.
I also support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Dubs, which relates to freedom of religion and belief. Many of those fleeing Afghanistan are Hazara. It is a religious minority of the Shia tradition, and they are sorely persecuted in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I conducted an inquiry, which concluded at the beginning of last year, into the persecution of the Hazara. It is one of the main reasons that our security services put them on a high level of risk of being persecuted by the Taliban and other extremist groups. Unfortunately, they are likely to continue to be persecuted by others in Rwanda because of their particular religious beliefs.
I, too, feel that there is a misunderstanding about what “safety” means. In this Bill, when we talk about safety, it does not mean that, in declaring that Rwanda is safe, a person cannot say, “It’s not safe for me”. That is the point. When someone comes to a court and says, “This place is not safe for me because I am gay, or because of my religious beliefs or my non-religious beliefs”, those are bases on which any court protecting people’s human rights would declare that the place was not safe. I want that to be in the minds of noble Lords as they ruminate on this Bill and the amendments to this Bill—that questions of safety cannot be rubbed out of existence simply by a declaration of Parliament that a place is safe.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, spoke very powerfully in moving them, and I shall not seek to repeat anything that he said. It is a pleasure to follow the experience and knowledge of noble Lords who have spoken before me in this group.
I just wish to refer to two elements of why I have supported the amendments. I know that my noble friend Lord Scriven will speak to this group after me. The first is a general point with regard to the assessment of safety in a country where the Government have made a political decision that it can be nothing other than safe. This is what we debated on a previous group. That is illustrated in this group to an alarming degree. We can refer to the equality impact assessment with regard to the legislation; that assessment was carried out after the Bill had been agreed by Ministers, as I understand it. Ministers stated that Rwanda was to be a safe country.
The assessment says, in paragraph 3a, in consideration of the duty of eliminating
“unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act”,
that:
“We consider that removal to Rwanda would not risk discrimination or less favourable treatment as it is a safe country”—
and that is it. Ministers had already decided that it was a safe country, so equality impact assessments are now rendered almost completely pointless when it comes to Ministers deciding this.
That is notwithstanding the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, stating in this House that he could not say that Rwanda was safe yet, because safeguards were not in place. So we are in a situation where the contradictory nature of the decisions about safety, especially for those who may be more vulnerable than others if they are relocated, has now become political and not evidence based. That should be alarming for all legislators.
The second point that I wish to make is the inconsistency of what the Government are saying, because it is led from the political decision that was made for this Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, quoted the current FCDO travel advice for someone travelling to Rwanda voluntarily. If they are travelling to Rwanda voluntarily and are LGBT+, they are warned by the Foreign Office that they
“can experience discrimination and abuse, including from local authorities”—
that is the Government of Rwanda. So the Foreign Office advises voluntary travellers that they can experience discrimination and abuse from the Government. The Home Office is saying that, for someone being located there involuntarily, there is no possible experience of discrimination and abuse from local authorities. So which one trumps? Is it the Foreign Office or the Home Office that has the best advice to receive on this situation?
On the FCDO traveller advice, with regards to discrimination and abuse from local authorities, the Minister has an opportunity in responding to the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, to outline in clear terms at the Dispatch Box some examples of discrimination and abuse from local authorities. The reason why this is important is that it is the Government’s policy that those who are relocated to Rwanda, once they have been processed, will then become residents of Rwanda in local authority areas. The Government state in their travel advice that there is a recognition of a general concern about discrimination and abuse but that, with regard to this legislation, only specific and personal high-bar thresholds for potential discrimination and abuse can be considered.
The final thing I consider to be relevant is the country note for Rwanda, which is the basis on which the decision-makers will make their decisions, either for remedies or in seeking some form of injunction or relocation. It was cited by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The country advice that was withdrawn had an interesting comment on potential crimes against LGBTIQ+ persons:
“Lack of reporting of crimes against LGBTIQ+ persons, due to stigma and fear of harassment, results in limited information”.
The Government, with limited information, can make categorical decisions—but of course, they will be made on a political basis. So perhaps any amendment we move to make this objective is futile, because it is not going to change the fundamental position: that Ministers have politically decided that Rwanda is safe and will always be so.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, we heard this debate opened with great clarity and legal exactitude by my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton, followed by a very good speech from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I am not going to go over all that again, but am I right in this simple analysis of the situation in which the Government seek to place individuals who might be affected by this law?
If I can produce compelling evidence that Rwanda is not safe for me—not my brother, but me—I am entitled to a decision from the Secretary of State, no less, or an immigration officer, that I should not have to go to Rwanda. If that decision is not made in my favour, I have all the advantage of the English legal system, through which I can judicially review the decision of the Secretary of State or the immigration officer. But if I can show that there is compelling evidence not that Rwanda is unsafe for me, but only that it is unsafe for a person like me, I am excluded from all the protection of the law, just because I cannot provide evidence that relates to me as a particular individual—who may, as it happens, not be as well-known as someone like me in Rwanda.
If that is the situation, how can His Majesty’s Government possibly justify that difference? It seems to me to be fundamentally unjust. If that is the case, I hope the Minister, who is very open with your Lordships’ House, will say so, so that the House can decide on Report how to deal with my noble and learned friend’s proposal.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. On this occasion, it is fortuitous to follow him because—without repeating the brilliant points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and my noble friend Lord Cashman, about the safety of Rwanda for particular groups, which are echoed in my noble friend Lord Dubs’ amendments on religious freedom—he pre-empts a point I want to emphasise about the false binary the Government appear to be creating in Clause 4, for example.
As someone who has worked with the refugee convention for about 30 years, I feel that something is missing—well, there are many things missing, but there is something particularly dangerous about tying the hands of decision-makers in the way proposed, be they the Secretary of State, Border Force, or judicial decision-makers in particular. There is a false binary, which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, began to outline. At one end of the spectrum, the country is particularly dangerous for Josef K, not other people in Josef K’s family or political party, or in another social group. The language of the Bill uses the following adjectives:
“compelling evidence relating specifically to the person’s particular individual circumstances”,
At the other end of the spectrum—the false binary the Bill proposes—is the general safety of Rwanda, the Bill’s definition of which includes safety from refoulement in particular. Of course, any refugee lawyer or anyone with experience of dealing with asylum anywhere in the world will tell you that, for a great many refugees, the crucial issue—forget the false binary—is membership of a persecuted social group. Those are the social groups highlighted by these amendments, but they could be other political or ethnic social groups, and so on.
On an ordinary reading of this extraordinary draft statute, I have no doubt that even this odd formulation of the specificity of the person’s “particular individual circumstances” would be construed by a court as including membership of a social group. That would be a normal reading of even this draft provision. However, because of all of that odd stuff in Clause 1 about the purposive construction the Government propose—disapplying the common law, disapplying the Human Rights Act and so on—there is now a real question mark about whether social groups are included for the purposes of Clause 4, for example.
To be fair to the Minister, in his letter, which I read, the clear indication is that social groups would be covered, because HJ (Iran) and gay people who are persecuted are alluded to. But, with respect, if that is the case, in the light of the very odd formulation of this draft statute, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and others have done the Government an enormous favour. At the very least, they ought to agree to the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord. Otherwise, I fear that, because of all these straitjackets in the Bill upon decision-makers, including the Secretary of State, let alone the judiciary—we will come to it later—the Government may find that they are sending people to Rwanda in circumstances where they do not want to, and contrary to the Minister’s letter. For those reasons, I support the amendments in this group.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, which he moved almost unanswerably. I agree with the support given to it by my noble friend Lord Cashman, and I support his proposal of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dubs.
The specific point my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti made is key. I can understand the idea that Rwanda is not a safe country in general because it has no adequate system of addressing asylum seekers and is willing to refoul people irrespective of the merits. I strongly agree with my noble friend when she says that, if a person—for example, a member of the LGBTI+ community—says, “I would not be safe if I were sent back to Rwanda”, that relates specifically to their “particular individual circumstances”, which is the language of the Bill.
The purpose of the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, and of that of my noble friend Lord Dubs, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Cashman, is not to determine in this House whether Rwanda is safe for LGBTI+ people; it is to ensure that, if there is a question mark over that issue—if somebody asserts that, because they are a member of the LGBTI+ community, the Minister is not tied by determining that Rwanda is a safe country—the courts would then consider the question.
Key to the House’s determination of these amendments is the Government’s view of what the Bill, particularly Clause 4(1), means. In responding to the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, can the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, tell us whether, if a member of the LGBTI+ community asserts that Rwanda is not safe for gay people, a Minister can take that into account under Clause 4 in relation to that person? Can he indicate whether, if that applicant disagreed with a Minister’s conclusion, they could go to the courts? We need to know that to determine whether we need to put the noble and learned Lord’s amendment on the statute book.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and seek to tease out a couple of answers from the Minister on these issues. Under the 1951 refugee convention, membership of a particular social group is one of the reasons forming a guard for people to be able to claim refugee status. One would therefore assume that Rwanda, which has signed up to the treaty, would grant asylum to people who are LGBT based on their being a member of that social group. The Government aim to send people who have arrived here via illegal routes, who may be LGBT, to be processed for asylum in Rwanda. I do not know whether noble Lords or the Minister have read the latest Human Rights Watch country report on Rwanda, but it points out that there is a systematic refusal by the Rwandan authorities to grant asylum to those who have fled their home countries because of persecution on the grounds of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
What due diligence have the Government done in claiming that Rwanda is a safe country, and in ensuring that the way it deals with asylum claims from LGBT refugees is equal to the way it does so for others? What is the refusal rate compared to those seeking asylum in Rwanda who are not LGBT individuals? If the Minister cannot answer those questions, there is no way that the Government can claim as a matter of fact that Rwanda is a safe country for those seeking asylum there, given that asylum claims seem to be turned down, according to Human Rights Watch, on the basis of sexuality or gender identity.
The Government have not referred to their own impact assessment on the first treaty, the memorandum of understanding with Rwanda, from May 2022. It said that the Home Office was concerned about the treatment of LGBT people in Rwanda and that cases of “ill treatment” towards this group were “more than one off”. What has changed between May 2022 and the impact assessment for this Bill, which says that ill treatment of LGBT+ people in Rwanda no longer takes place and that these “more than one off” issues of discrimination and ill treatment have stopped?
Finally, I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. The latest US Report on International Religious Freedom on Rwanda shows clear evidence of discrimination against certain religious practices, even though the laws of Rwanda protect religious freedom. Examples are cited, including that pressure has been put on religious leaders and organisations on multiple occasions when that religious leader or organisation criticises the Rwandan Government’s policy. Recently, the Muslim community has been targeted about its call to prayer practices and has had a number of repressive actions taken against it by the Rwandan police. Noble Lords should remember that many of the people arriving on our shores via irregular routes are of Muslim faith, coming from Muslim countries. I ask the Minister what assessment has been done on religious freedom. Have the Government come across the issues that the US Report on International Religious Freedom has identified? What commitments have they got from the Rwandan Government that these kinds of practices will stop?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this group is concerned with members of specific social groups. I welcome the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton: the Government have repeatedly put forward plans in legislation which appear to ignore the very real danger posed to members of certain social groups, including LGBT+ people, in many countries around the world including Rwanda. It again raises the issue of refoulement and the danger it poses; my noble friend Lord Coaker has already spoken about refoulement and has tabled amendments that would address this concern.
I also welcome the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Dubs and spoken to by my noble friend Lord Cashman who, alongside Humanists UK, has pointed out the dangers posed to the religious minorities or those who have no religion in Rwanda.
This group has been interesting. It has been a relatively short debate but has focused on the core issues raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti about the false dichotomy between individuals and groups in general. I think it was my noble and learned friend who said that the effect of the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord would be that the Minister is not tied to the Government’s stated view that Rwanda is a safe country; rather, it would be for the courts to decide that in individual cases where, for example, someone may be gay.
Surely involving our courts in the decision-making process goes to the very heart of the absurdity of the Government making a blanket decision that Rwanda is a safe country. It is doing no more than dipping our toe into the court system by asking it to review individuals who are particularly vulnerable. The amendment is not in any way driving a coach and horses through the legislation; it is trying to reflect concerns for vulnerable individuals through well-established practices within our courts. We support it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as we have previously set out, the purpose of the Bill is to stop the boats and end the perilous journeys being made across the channel as it is the busiest shipping lane in the world. These journeys are overwhelmingly made by young, fit men in search of better job opportunities, who are travelling from a safe country. Males represented 88% of small boat arrivals in the year ending September 2023. This is a similar proportion as each year from 2018 to 2021.
Since January 2018, 75% of small boat arrivals have been adult males aged 18 and over. We need a strong deterrent to stop illegal migration and measures to prevent removals being frustrated; we have therefore taken bold steps. However, to ensure that we are meeting our international obligations, Clause 4 provides that a Home Office decision-maker or a court or tribunal can consider a claim that Rwanda is unsafe based on compelling evidence relating specifically to a person’s individual circumstances.
As the Government have set out, since the partnership was announced, UK officials have worked closely with the Government of Rwanda to ensure that individuals relocated under the agreement will be safe and that their rights will be protected. The Government’s legal position, published on 11 December 2023, further sets out that the treaty, and the evidence pack, provide for compliance with the Government’s substantive obligations under international law. Therefore, no one will be removed to Rwanda if they face a real risk of serious and irreversible harm.
I turn to Amendments 38, 40, 43, 45 and 51 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and Amendment 41 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. These proposed amendments to Clause 4 would undermine one of the principles that the Bill is seeking to address; namely, to limit the challenges that can be brought against the general safety of Rwanda, even with the signed treaty and updated evidence presented by the Government.
The legislation is clear and affords the appropriate safeguards to ensure that decision makers make a decision about the particular circumstances of each case. The Bill already allows decision-makers and the courts to consider certain claims that Rwanda is unsafe for an individual person due to their particular circumstances, despite the safeguards in the treaty, if there is compelling evidence to that effect.
I of course entirely understand the desire of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, to get clarity and certainty on this issue. For people who identify as LGBT+, that consideration would include any assessment of any compelling evidence reviewed in line with the principles outlined in HJ (Iran)—as referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—that being LGBT+ would mean that Rwanda was not safe for them in their particular circumstances.
As in all cases under the provisions of the Bill, individuals will be given the opportunity to provide that compelling evidence that they would be at risk in their particular circumstances if they were relocated to Rwanda. That would include any alleged harm as a result of an individual’s gender or sexuality. As I say, any such claims would be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and in the case of LGBT+ claims, that would include any assessment in line with the principles outlined in HJ (Iran).
I make it clear that the Rwandan penal code does not punish homosexuality or relations between people of the same sex. The constitution of Rwanda includes a broad prohibition of discrimination and does not criminalise or discriminate against sexual orientation in law or policy. As regards the FCDO advice, which I was asked about, paragraphs 173 and 174 of the policy statement deal with this, stating:
“As experts on the bilateral relationship between the UK and Rwanda and its development over the past thirty years, FCDO officials based in the relevant geographic and thematic departments working closely with colleagues in the British High Commission in Kigali have liaised with the Home Office throughout the production of this Policy Statement … Information drawn from their institutional expertise as to the in-country situation in Rwanda, and Rwanda’s history of compliance with its international obligations is reflected as appropriate throughout”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised concerns about the unequal treatment of women in Rwanda during Monday’s debate. The Rwanda country report refers to the National Commission for Human Rights, or NCHR, which is a constitutional commission provided for by the Rwandan constitution. The NCHR is made up of seven commissioners. Each of them has a specific area of focus, including the rights of women. There is a commissioner who is a focal person for or who is in charge of those rights.
The country report concludes that the general treatment of women is good. Women and children’s rights, among those the NCHR monitors, have seen an improvement since the creation of the NCHR. That is reflected in the laws and the constitution, which provides for specific groups’ rights; for example, women, children, and the disabled. The situation is the same for women as for those who are disabled. They are allowed to be elected, and at each administrative level at least 30% of representatives have to be women. In Parliament, more than 60% of representatives are women; the current Rwandan cabinet is 50% women, and five out of the seven commissioners in the NCHR are women.
Women’s rights are respected in every area. Although the NCHR receives some complaints about rights to property, Rwandan family law was amended to allow women to inherit from parents in 1999. The country information note also refers to the police response to victims of gender-based violence and the Gender Monitoring Office, which considers specific issues relating to gender-based violence. The National Women’s Council is represented from village level and at every level above and is a channel for sharing information on anything regarding gender-based violence. It is the responsibility of local leaders to ensure that there are no gender-based violence issues in their area of control. Police monitor what is going on; they can investigate and come up with a report or action.
Furthermore, the rule of law index, which ranks countries on indicators including equal treatment and the absence of discrimination, ranks Rwanda 26th out of 142 countries worldwide and first out of 34 countries in the region. That is a measure of whether individuals are free from discrimination—based on socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or gender identity—with respect to public services, employment, court proceedings and the justice system. I add that the 2022 US State Department human rights practices report on Rwanda noted:
“Women have the same legal status and are entitled to the same rights as men, including under family, labor, nationality, and inheritance laws. … The law requires equal pay for equal work and prohibits discrimination in hiring decisions”.
As I indicated at the start, this clause provides the foundations for the Bill as a whole; it is fundamental to the effective operation of the scheme, and the amendments put forward would serve only to weaken its effectiveness. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply and to those who have spoken. What the debate has shown, short as it was, is that the issue of social groups and how they fit into the legislation is very important. Many points were made on various issues that were all extremely valuable, including the wonderful examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, referred to the ongoing discrimination even after decriminalisation took place here; the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, made criticism of the equality impact assessment; and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to Human Rights Watch’s latest report.
In addition to those points, what this debate has teased out—and this fits in with the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—is what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, referred to as the “false binary”. It is a critical issue. For this, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlile, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Even after the Minister’s reply, it remains unclear how one treats someone who has not personally experienced persecution, because, for example, they have hidden their sexuality, their religious views or their political views, but who is a member of a group that has a well-founded fear of persecution were there to be an honest expression of their sexuality or their political and social views or a display of their ethnicity or race. How would one treat those people? The false binary does not allow one to take into account the effect of being a member of a group, as opposed to—as my noble friend Lord Carlile referred to it—being “about me”.
I ask the Government to consider carefully whether, without any undermining of the Bill and its purposes, the introduction of the amendments that I have tabled would not add an important element of clarity, both for those assessing claims—the Ministers, the Government and immigration officers—and for the courts. Subject to that, and on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments to Clause 4 in the name of Baroness Chakrabarti, restore the jurisdiction of domestic courts by rendering the future safety of Rwanda (evidenced by UNHCR advice) a rebuttable presumption and restoring the ability for UK courts and tribunals to grant interim relief.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, this group goes to the heart of domestic, constitutional, rule-of-law concerns about the Bill. I share Amendments 39, 44, 49, 50, 52 and 53—the bulk of the group—with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is also a supporter of this group but gallantly withdrew his name because he is prevented from being here today. These amendments will restore the proper jurisdiction of our courts. In a moment, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, will explain them, but for now I beg to move.
Baroness Hale of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I shall explain why I am proud to support this vital group of amendments to Clause 4 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. They restore to the courts of this country the role which is properly theirs under our centuries-old constitutional arrangements, which respect the separation of powers between Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary.
I must apologise to the Committee that prior commitments prevented me speaking at Second Reading—although I was there for the all-important closing speeches—and attending the first two days of the Committee’s considerations. I have, however, followed the proceedings closely and have been hugely impressed by the quality of the debate.
I agree with so many noble Lords that reversing the very recent findings of fact in our Supreme Court with absolute and for ever conclusions as to the safety of Rwanda, ignoring international law, and disapplying the Human Rights Act are of the gravest concern. However, it is also of the gravest concern that the Bill ousts the jurisdiction of His Majesty’s courts and tribunals to consider matters which are properly theirs to consider, in a constitution which respects the rule of law. It is for the courts to decide whether the Executive have violated, or propose to violate, the rights of individuals—rights they are given, as the Supreme Court made clear, not only by international law and the Human Rights Act but by other UK statutes and by the common law of the land, of which we are so rightly proud.
Amendment 39 restores to the Executive the ability to consider the general safety of the Republic of Rwanda, not just the particular circumstances of a particular individual. This reflects the concerns already expressed in Committee, not only that the situation in any country may change very quickly but that it makes no sense to be able to examine the circumstances of a particular individual but not the evidence that hundreds or even thousands of people may be imprisoned or tortured there. This amendment would also cater for the concerns raised by the previous group of amendments about members of a particular social group.
Amendment 44 restores the same ability to evaluate such vital country information to courts and tribunals considering decisions to remove individuals to Rwanda.
Amendment 49 restores the ability of decision-makers, whether in government or in our courts and tribunals, to look at evidence that the Republic of Rwanda will or may refoule people. Refoulement, as the Committee well knows, means sending people to places where they are at risk of persecution.
Amendments 50, 52 and 53 also restore to our domestic courts and tribunals the jurisdiction to grant interim relief to claimants, preventing their removal to Rwanda until their cases have been properly considered. Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, also restores the jurisdiction of courts and tribunals over possible refoulement but not the possibility of granting interim relief, so, with respect, though commendable in itself, it does not go quite far enough.
I remind the Committee that Clause 5 of the Bill allows for the possibility that a Minister of the Crown may comply with interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights. As a matter of sovereignty, it would be odd indeed if an international court could grant relief to people within the United Kingdom when our own courts and tribunals have been deprived by statute of any say at all. In my experience as a judge at the highest level in this country, there is a great deal of respect between our own courts and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. If and when Rwanda were to become a safe country, our courts would find it so and the Strasbourg court would almost certainly agree. On the other hand, if our own courts are unable to consider the matter, the international court would have to scrutinise the decisions of the UK Government with great care—an outcome which many noble Lords may think regrettable.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, my noble friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury regrets that he cannot be in his place today to speak to the amendments in this group tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale. I wish to associate my remarks with theirs and to emphasise how important the restoration of the jurisdiction of the domestic courts is in considering also UNHRC evidence and the ability to grant interim relief. This is no mere technicality. This jurisdiction might make the difference between sending an asylum seeker to Rwanda while their claim, or an aspect of their claim, is pending or not doing so.
Many of those who have been earmarked for removal will have fled from perilous circumstances in their places of origin. What they need is the certainty of knowing that they will not be removed from the country in which they seek asylum while their cases are pending. Clause 4 includes provisions for a court or tribunal to grant interim relief if they are concerned that the person faces a,
“real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm”
in Rwanda.
Through debate on this group of amendments, we are considering whether courts and tribunals may benefit from greater discretion for the express purpose of the well-being and future risk of the individuals themselves. We have seen the multiple difficulties faced by the Government in sending asylum seekers to Rwanda. Bearing that in mind, is it really plausible that, having sent an asylum seeker to Rwanda, the Government will then be able to return them to the United Kingdom on the basis of evidence that should have been considered while their case was reviewed here? This seems neither efficient nor plausible.
There is also a need to consider advice from the UN Refugee Agency in reviewing the safety of Rwanda, recognising its crucial role in administering many of the services to support more than 110 million people who are forcibly displaced around the world. That agency serves on the front line in supporting people, and it understands the particular challenges faced by those seeking safety. The agency knows of what it speaks; the courts and tribunals should be able to draw on this expertise as they make their judgments.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I very strongly support what has been said but want to draw attention to the statement, published today, from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. I will not read the whole statement, just one paragraph which is supportive of this group of amendments. It states:
“The combined effects of this Bill, attempting to shield government action from standard legal scrutiny, directly undercut basic human rights principles. Independent, effective judicial oversight is the bedrock of the rule of law—it must be respected and strengthened. Governments cannot revoke their international human rights and asylum-related obligations by legislation”.
Has the Minister read this and what is his response to the UN high commissioner?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I rise very briefly on that point to support the noble Baroness. We have heard in previous groups the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr, who is not in his place, and other noble Lords, that the debates which we are having in this House are being keenly viewed outside this House and very keenly in the United Nations Human Rights Council.
It is a depressing fact today that the top news story on the UN global news website is commentary on this Bill going through this Parliament. The UN Human Rights Council, which will be gathering next week, will be discussing the atrocities in Sudan and the Israel-Gaza conflict. It is a time of great turmoil and danger for many people, but the fact that the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, today in the preparatory meetings of the council singled out the United Kingdom and the safety of Rwanda Bill as an illustration of the undermining of basic principles of the rule of law and of the risk of delivering a serious blow to human rights is deeply troubling.
The statement referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, which was made today, said:
“Settling questions of disputed fact—questions with enormous human rights consequences—is what the courts do, and which the UK courts have a proven track record of doing thoroughly and comprehensively. It should be for the courts to decide whether the measures taken by the Government since the Supreme Court’s ruling on risks in Rwanda are enough”.
The statement continued:
“You cannot legislate facts out of existence”.
I appeal to Ministers considering this Bill. Many in the world are watching us. We have led in these areas. We should be leading the discussions in the Human Rights Council about global abuses of the rule of law and human rights. We should not be being singled out for abusing them ourselves.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support these amendments for a very fundamental reason. The separation of powers is crucial for the freedom of all our people and I find it very distressing that the Government have not understood how deeply offensive this element of these proposals is.
It is deeply offensive simply because it purports to say that something is true which is not true. It suggests that the sovereignty of Parliament extends to the decision on whether something is or is not. That is a decision which has always been the purview of the courts, simply because the courts have a structure that enables them to listen to the evidence on all sides and make a decision at the end.
I fear that the Government have presented this because it is inconvenient that the courts should take a part in it. The price of liberty is inconvenience. You cannot be a free nation unless you accept that there are processes that are embarrassing to Governments, to Oppositions, to people of standing, to people who have got other views. You have to accept that it is the price we pay. This Government are suggesting that, because they have got to get something through before the end of the year because they said they would, they can claim that inconvenience is something they will not accept.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I want to follow the remark made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, when she referred to the general safety of Rwanda outside the particular circumstances of anybody who might be sent there for asylum. I apologise that I was not able to be at Wednesday’s meeting, but, on reading Hansard, I noticed that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, did not answer a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, regarding the renewed imprisonment of the journalist Dieudonné Niyonsenga. These were grave allegations. If the Government are aware of the general safety within the justice system of Rwanda, have they made representations about the renewed detention and alleged torture of this journalist, which has become a source of international concern?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Whitaker, who reminded us of the importance of the law in protecting the rights of individuals against states. It is also a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and yet another speech in which he said that the debates and discussions on these groups of amendments bring us to fundamental principles of democracy, including the rights of law, freedom of speech and the separation of powers. Debating and discussing these in the context of the Bill is an important reminder of the power and responsibilities of this Chamber.
I am pleased to support the amendments of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, on reasserting the role of the domestic courts. To the noble and learned Baroness and my noble friend I say that it shows what a strange world we live in that, when the current Minister for Illegal Migration was Solicitor-General, he is reported to have told the Government that ignoring interim relief would put us in breach of the ECHR and that they should act with great trepidation. Now he is no longer Solicitor-General but is responsible for illegal migration, and he seems to have forgotten the advice he gave the Government. He could do with reading his own advice. All this, of course, is “so we are told”.
We are also told that the Attorney-General has had serious worries about this, but of course nobody can know about that because legal advice is always kept secret. Although he is the Advocate-General for Scotland, the Minister is not acting in a legal capacity but as a Justice Minister of some sort, and no doubt he will have read the comments made in the other place by various Members about how the Bill works with respect to the interaction with the Scottish judicial system. This is a parallel universe in which we exist, but, none the less, these are all extremely important amendments.
In speaking to my Amendment 48, I wish to highlight a particular aspect that goes alongside Amendment 39 and the others in my noble friend’s name. As a barrack-room lawyer, I take on board the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, with respect to my inadequate amendment and the fact that it does not include interim relief. I apologise profusely for that oversight. In due course, it may return on Report with interim relief.
On a serious point, the Supreme Court said that the main reason it found Rwanda not to be a safe country in general was the risk of refoulement. The Government have gone to great length, in the treaty and in other things they have published, to say that they have dealt with all the concerns the Supreme Court had—although we note that, in its report published a few days ago, the JCHR continues to assert that there are problems that need to be considered.
I draw attention to Clause 4, which allows individuals who have compelling reasons to argue against their deportation under this Bill and the Illegal Migration Act. I remind noble Lords that even this minor concession of allowing individuals to do so, rather than debating the general safety of Rwanda, was regarded as a step too far by many in the Conservative Party and the Government.
My amendment seeks to delete Clause 4(2). I am grateful for the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, although he is not in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. The particular aspect I draw noble Lords’ attention to is that, although an individual can present compelling circumstances, and try to persuade the Government that this Bill should not apply to them and that they should not be deported to Rwanda, it does not allow them to do so if they say that they should not be sent there as there are reasons why they might be refouled—in other words, sent to a third country.
Under Clause 4(2), they are prohibited from arguing that in the courts. Subsection (2) says this is so
“to the extent that it relates to the issue of whether the Republic of Rwanda will or may remove or send the person in question to another State in contravention of … its international obligations”.
It includes the word “will”. An individual cannot even argue that they “will” be sent to another country, never mind that they “may” be—the Government included the word “will”. I find that extraordinary; it is almost that an individual cannot argue in a court, as a matter of fact, that they will be refouled. They cannot say, “I have compelling evidence that I will be sent to a third country”. It is extraordinary that legislation would say that you cannot as an induvial—let alone the point about general safety made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti—argue in a court that you will be refouled. The court could dismiss such an argument, of course, but it would be up to the court—that is the whole point of the courts.
I take the point about interim relief, but I want justification from the Government as to why an individual cannot take that argument to a court, an immigration officer or the Secretary of State. The Home Secretary, or an immigration officer, cannot consider an individual saying to them, “I will be refouled if I am sent to Rwanda”. How on earth is that consistent with the principles of democracy of this country, of which we are all so proud? That is why I tabled the amendment, and I would like to hear the Government’s justification.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to an interesting debate on this important point.
Clause 4 provides that a Home Office decision-maker, or a court or tribunal, can consider a claim that Rwanda is unsafe only
“based on compelling evidence relating specifically to the person’s individual circumstances”.
Subsection (2) prevents a decision-maker or the courts considering any claim where it relates to whether Rwanda
“will or may remove or send the person in question to another State in contravention of any of its international obligations”.
Where the duty to remove under the Illegal Migration Act does not apply, subsections (3) and (4) prevent the courts granting interim relief unless that person can show that they would face
“a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm”
if they were removed to Rwanda. This is the same threshold that can give rise to a suspensive claim based on serious and irreversible harm under the Illegal Migration Act. Subsection (5) provides that the consideration of “serious and irreversible harm” will be in line with the definition set out in the Illegal Migration Act, with any necessary modifications. Any allegation relating to onward removal from Rwanda is not an example of something capable of constituting serious and irreversible harm, as the treaty ensures that asylum seekers relocated to Rwanda under the partnership are not at risk of being returned to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened.
Regarding the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, spoke to in opening, I remind noble Lords that the evidence pack published alongside the Bill details the evidence the United Kingdom Government have used to assess the safety of Rwanda. It concludes that, alongside the treaty, Rwanda is safe for the purposes of asylum processing, and the policy statement outlines the key findings. As experts on the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and Rwanda and its development over the past 30 years, FCDO officials based in the relevant geographic and thematic departments, working closely with colleagues in the British high commission in Kigali, have liaised with the Home Office throughout the production of the policy statement.
As my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and I set out in earlier debates, the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Rwanda have agreed and begun to implement assurances and commitments to strengthen Rwanda’s asylum system. These assurances and commitments provide clear evidence of the Government of Rwanda’s ability to fulfil their obligations generally and specifically to ensure that relocated individuals face no risk of refoulement. In answer to the points raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, which were adopted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, and by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, from the Opposition Front Bench, among others, the position is that a person cannot argue this fundamentally academic point over a long period of time, occupying court resources. It is a point rendered academic because of the provision of the treaty governing the Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for stating clearly that the Government of Rwanda have begun putting the safeguards in place. That is consistent with what he said earlier in Committee—that the Government of Rwanda are moving towards putting safeguards in place—but he accepted that Rwanda will be a safe country only when those are place, which may be after Royal Assent. Will an applicant be able to argue, even after Royal Assent, that Rwanda is not safe until the measures that are being moved towards are put in place?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, on the passing of the Bill, the Act will decree that Rwanda is safe. Just because work is being done to render a place safer it does not make it unsafe.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister just said that Rwanda is becoming safer, but in his earlier comments he said that it has begun to put measures in place, and he has previously confirmed to me that until they are in place, it cannot be determined that Rwanda is safe. The Bill will decree that it is safe before the measures are in place so that it is safe. Surely someone would be able to argue in a court that it is not safe until those measures are in place. That is what the Minister just said.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, what I said was that on the passing of the Bill, Rwanda is safe. What I say is that it is—
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I did not. I said that just because safeguards have not yet been fully put in place, it does not mean, as a result, that Rwanda cannot be deemed safe.
Lord Deben (Con)
If Rwanda is not safe now, but it will be safe, then the period between now and the point at which it will be safe must be one in which somebody could argue that it is not safe, otherwise it does not mean anything. My noble and learned friend has himself said that it is not safe now but will become safe. I am not one who thinks that we cannot have an extraterritorial arrangement, but I do not understand the logic that says that it is not safe now, it will be safe, but you cannot appeal to the courts in between those times otherwise it is just academic. This is a use of “academic” that I do not really understand.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I reiterate my previous answer: the fact that further work is being done does not mean that the safety or otherwise of a place is conditional on the completion of that further work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, cited the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, concerning a journalist. She is quite correct: I did not address that specifically when I spoke earlier. The question was not pressed on me subsequently, but given that the noble Baroness has returned to it, I will look into the matter with officials and correspond.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I have one final point for the Minister. If this legislation decrees on Royal Assent that Rwanda is a safe country, what is the point of having the safeguards he has mentioned?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, any work being done to improve a place is desirable of itself.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
Does the Minister still stand by the assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, that nobody will be deported to Rwanda until the monitoring committee is up and running? He is talking as though people will start to be deported the moment this Bill passes, which is not what the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, led us to believe.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My noble friend Lord Sharpe confirmed to me a moment ago that the monitoring committee is already operational; it is up and running.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the monitoring committee consists of four people, two of whom are apparently in the pay of the Rwandan Government. Can the Minister reassure us that he thinks it will be completely unbiased?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, in the first instance, the monitoring committee consists of not four but eight people. If I might express the words of my noble friend sitting next to me on the Front Bench, I can give that assurance.
My noble friend Lord Deben quoted John Donne’s line that
“No man is an island, entire of itself”.
I think in that piece of prose, which is one of his sermons, Donne also says the familiar passage about asking not for whom the bell tolls; “it tolls for thee”. None the less, while accepting everything of a universalist nature that my noble friend says about our obligations one to another as humans, I have to say that the Government’s scope for operation is restricted. We can operate within our powers and jurisdiction, must legislate to protect our borders, and cannot seek to exceed our powers.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, raised the point that the progress and content of this legislation are under scrutiny. His Majesty’s Government fully accept that scrutiny and appreciate that it is timely and important because of the scale of the problem that we face. It is a problem faced across all sorts of different countries, and the Government are undertaking to address it by this legislation.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The Minister may be about to speak on this but I did ask a specific question as to the Government’s response to the absolutely damning statement from the UN commissioner for human rights, which was published today and which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also quoted. It talked about
“drastically stripping back the courts’ ability to scrutinise removal decisions”
and
“a serious blow to human rights”.
This is serious stuff. I would like to know the Government’s response.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The noble Baroness indeed anticipated me as I was turning to that point. As she says, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, had touched on that. I have the statement by the United Nations human rights chief. The Government repudiate the charges that he places when he says:
“The combined effects of this Bill, attempting to shield Government action from standard legal scrutiny, directly undercut basic human rights principles”.
We disagree with that.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Will the Minister answer a very simple question? Did the United Kingdom vote for the High Commissioner for Human Rights to take his post? If so, by what right does it now repudiate his views?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
Whether or not we as a country voted for him to take his place does not exclude the possibility of disagreement with anything that any official, be he ever so high, may have to say.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am encouraged by the noble and learned Lord’s statement that the monitoring committee is up and running. He will know that the international treaties committee of this House said that
“the implementation of the Treaty requires not just the adoption of new laws, systems and procedures, but also the recruitment and training of personnel. For example, the Monitoring Committee has to recruit a support team”.
Are we to take it that the Minister is saying the committee has indeed already recruited a support team? If not, it is very difficult to see how it could be described as “up and running”.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
That is the information given to me, but I am happy to look into the matter to reassure the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
Is it that it has recruited a support team, or that it is up and running?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The point I am making is that I have been told the body is up and running. That does not touch on the matter of the recruitment of a support team, which is the basis of the noble and learned Lord’s supplementary question.
From the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, touched on advice said to have been given by the former Solicitor-General and by the Attorney-General. I think he is aware—I have touched on it from the Dispatch Box at earlier stages—of the existence of the law officers’ convention. I will return to it again in a later group, but the essence of that convention is not only that the content of advice given is confidential but also that it is confidential that advice has even been sought. The reason for that, accepted by Governments of every stripe over the years, is to assist with the passage of decision-making and the consideration of legal matters that touch on legislation to be passed. As I said, if I may, I will revert to that in consideration of a later amendment.
The assurances and commitments that the Government have received, together with the treaty and conclusions from the FCDO experts reflected throughout the policy statement, allow his Majesty’s Government to state with confidence that the Supreme Court’s concerns have been addressed and that Rwanda is safe. As the point has been taken in this debate, albeit in passing, I stress once again that this is a matter not of overturning the findings of the United Kingdom Supreme Court but rather of acting on them.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister is being generous in giving way, but what he just said contradicts what he said previously in Committee. At col. 70 of 12 February’s Official Report, I asked about the mechanisms for safeguards. It had been the Government’s position—until today, it seems—that the requirements of the Supreme Court would be met by the implementation of the treaty, which includes the safeguards within it. These include the appeals mechanism and the training and capacity-building. They have to be in place. If they are not in place, the treaty is not operative. Progress is being made towards them, as the Minister said, but he has just said that the Government’s view is that the requirements of the Supreme Court have been met. These comments are contradictory. This is important because, when I asked,
“can the Minister at the Dispatch Box reconfirm that position: that no individual will be relocated before the safeguards—including the appeals mechanism, the training and the capacity-building—are in place?”,
the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, responded:
“I can answer the first part of the noble Lord’s question in the affirmative”.—[Official Report, 12/2/24; col. 70.]
Is that still the case, or did he mislead the House?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The point I was making was in answer to the point raised earlier in the debate by noble Lords, who were characterising the Government’s actions as going back on, or overturning, the Supreme Court’s decision. As I said, the point is that the terms of the Bill and the treaty are a response to the Supreme Court’s decision.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
But it is absolutely clear from the policy statement, and from answers that the Home Secretary gave to the international treaties committee of our House, that the position is not complete in Rwanda until it implements new Rwandan asylum legislation, which has not yet been passed. The Home Secretary was specifically asked when that legislation would be passed by Rwanda, and he was unable to give a timeframe. For the noble and learned Lord to say that Rwanda is now safe, when even the Home Secretary accepts that this law has yet to be introduced in Rwanda, seems to completely contradict the Government’s position. I ask him to reconsider the answer to the question: are the Government saying that Rwanda is now safe, without that legislation in Rwanda?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I think the terms of Article 9 of the treaty are clear. The Act comes into force the day that the treaty comes into force. As to the specific Rwandan legislation to which the noble and learned Lord refers, I am not able to give a categorical answer from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Will the Minister answer a couple of rather simple questions? Has he read the Rwandan legislation? Does he believe it is in conformity with the treaty?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The answer to the former is that it does not fall to me to read the Rwandan legislation; but, given that decisions are taken collectively by the Government, I can answer the noble Lord’s second question in the affirmative.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The Advocate-General for Scotland may not be the right person to express a view in relation to Rwandan legislation, but I assume that somebody in the Government has seen a draft of this legislation. Could he indicate who that is and what that person’s opinion is?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I will look into that. Presumably, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will take this matter under its wing. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, refers to the Home Office. We will look into that and provide the noble and learned Lord with an answer.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Could the Minister confirm, for the benefit of all of us, that the Home Office team in charge of the Bill has not seen the Rwandan legislation and has no idea who has?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, what I have said was that I have not seen the Home Office legislation. I have not been called upon to review it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I would be keen to know what is the basis for the noble and learned Lord’s assertion that Rwanda is safe, which he is putting forward on behalf of the Government.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, it has been a matter that has been canvassed exhaustively already, but it flows from the treaty which the Rwandan Government and His Majesty’s Government have entered into.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Could the Minister tell us whether the draft Rwandan law exists?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, again, if the noble Lord is asserting that the relevant Rwandan legislation is a figment of the imagination of the Rwandan Government or His Majesty’s Government, I am not quite sure I can answer that. However, the point is that the treaty and the work going on—which has already been substantially completed—between the British Government and that of Rwanda must indicate that there is such a piece of legislation.
The assurance and commitments to which I have referred, given to and drawing upon the conclusions made by FCDO experts, reflected throughout the policy statement, allow us to state with confidence that the concerns of the Supreme Court have been addressed and that, I repeat, Rwanda is safe. We do not, therefore, consider it necessary to make the proposed changes to Clause 4 to permit decision-makers or courts and tribunals to consider claims or grant interim relief on the basis of Rwanda’s safety generally or that Rwanda will or may remove persons to another state in contravention of its international obligations. That is contrary to the whole purpose of the Bill. The assurances we have negotiated in a legally binding treaty with Rwanda address the concerns of the Supreme Court and make detailed provision for the treatment of relocated individuals in Rwanda, ensuring they will be offered safety and protection with—it must be emphasised—no risk of refoulement.
I turn to Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. If I may build on a point I have been making, the treaty makes clear that Rwanda will not remove any individual relocated there to another country, except the United Kingdom in very limited circumstances. Article 10(3) of the UK-Rwanda treaty sets out explicitly that no relocated individual shall be removed from Rwanda except to United Kingdom in accordance with Article 11(1). Annexe B of the treaty also sets out the claims process for relocated individuals and how they will be treated. Part 3.3.2 of Annexe B sets out clearly that members of the first-instance body, who will make decisions on asylum and humanitarian protection claims,
“shall make decisions impartially, solely on the basis of evidence before them and by reference to the provisions and principles of the Refugee Convention and humanitarian protection law”.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
If there is no risk of refoulement because of all those processes, all the legislation and all the things the Minister has just read out, in view of his earlier answers will he confirm that all of that is in place now? Or is it due to be in place? And if it is due to be in place, when will that be? How long into the future will all of the various points that the Minister has read out be in place? At the moment, as it stands under the Bill, I cannot go to the Home Secretary or to any immigration official and say I might be refouled, because I will not be allowed to under the Bill. And yet the Minister cannot tell us that all of the processes to protect me from refoulement are in place. So, what am I supposed to do if I am at risk of refoulement?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
If the noble Lord were to be threatened with refoulement, it could only happen to him once the Bill and the treaty were in place. A person could not be relocated to Rwanda until the Bill and the treaty are in place, and once the Bill and treaty are in place, there is no risk of refoulement.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am very concerned with what the Minister has literally just told us. The Minister has just said that, once this Bill has passed, there is no risk of refoulement. Article 10 of the treaty says:
“The Parties shall cooperate to agree an effective system for ensuring that removal contrary to this obligation does not occur”.
Those are not consistent. The effective system has to be in place, because that is what the treaty says; the effective system is not the passage of this Bill. So can the Minister now correct the record?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the Government are working with the Government of Rwanda to implement new protections to the Rwandan asylum system, including the introduction of new legislation. I am reverting to a point that was taken earlier, but I give the same answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Protections offered by the treaty will prevent refoulement from Rwanda to elsewhere.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister, who has been very patient with so many concerned Members of the Committee, but everything that he says very honestly in relation to each question suggests that the safeguards are not yet in place. Therefore, Rwanda is not yet safe, because that was the whole point of the treaty: to offer additional protections and to attempt to assuage the concerns of the Supreme Court. How can all of this be academic? This is not a bathroom that has been plumbed in and we are now just painting the tiles; we do not have the plumbing yet.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the treaty guarantees that anyone relocated to Rwanda will be given safety and support and will not be returned to a country where their life or freedom will be threatened. That directly addresses the Supreme Court’s concerns about refoulement. As to the matter of the use I made of the word “academic”, I was using that in answer to points raised by noble Lords in relation to why the Bill bars the taking of general points of academic interest, which was referring to a point once the Bill and the treaty are in place. Once they are in place, there is no possibility of refoulement from Rwanda without contravention of an international instrument. The point is that, at that stage, argument before the domestic courts would be academic. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I do not think that the Minister has taken on board what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked him. Article 10(3), which is the provision in the treaty that allows relocation only back to the UK, contains the following phrase:
“The Parties—”
that is, Rwanda and the UK,
“shall cooperate to agree an effective system for ensuring that removal contrary to this obligation—"
the obligation being to remove only to the UK—
“does not occur”.
The parties have not yet agreed that. The parties, the UK and Rwanda, therefore accept that, currently, there is not in place an effective system for ensuring that removal contrary to the obligation only to remove to the UK exists. Could the Minister please explain to the Committee how he can possibly say that, at the moment, under the agreement—that is the overarching agreement, not the agreement to agree an effective system for ensuring non-refoulement—such safeguards currently exist? We need an explanation for that.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the point is that the treaty, while it has not been ratified, is a matter of agreement. I spoke about the work—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Further to the Minister’s answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, does the system—the effective system for ensuring that removal contrary to the obligation does not occur—exist?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I am not fully clear that I follow the import of the question that the noble Lord poses. If he will bear with me, I am going to defer answering that point and will do so with him in writing.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Forgive me: I am just trying to understand the Minister’s position on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and pursued by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. The treaty requires the parties to set up a system—it says they shall agree a system. The Minister is saying that Rwanda is safe and implying that that system has been set up, or at least has been agreed, and will come into force the moment the treaty is ratified. Is that the case?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The system has been agreed and will come into place along with the treaty.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Could the Minister then tell us what that system is? When will the House see that system? It would help us to judge how real the remaining risk of removal to a third country is if we could see the system that has apparently been created to ensure that that risk does not come to fruition.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I will expand on the matter in the correspondence to which I referred the noble Lord.
I will go into more detail about the work that has been and is being conducted between Rwandan and British officials. Officials from the UK and Rwanda have worked closely together to strengthen Rwanda’s asylum system. We have already developed and commenced operational training for Rwandan asylum decision-makers and strengthened procedural oversight of the MEDP and asylum processes.
In November 2023, technical experts from the Home Office, working with the Institute of Legal Practice and Development, delivered a training course aimed at asylum decision-makers in Rwanda. It focused on applying refugee law in asylum interviews and decision-making, and on best practice in assessing credibility and utilising country-of-origin information.
Furthermore, as set out in paragraph 14.1.15 of the published country information note on Rwanda’s asylum system, once the treaty is ratified there are provisions for Rwanda to move to a case-worker model when deciding asylum claims. Under that model, for the first six months Rwanda’s decision-making body will consider advice from a seconded independent expert prior to making any decision in relation to a claim.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Under CRaG, the scrutiny period for the treaty has now been concluded, so, for clarification, when will the UK ratify the treaty?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
That is a decision not for me to take. It will be taken by the Government collectively. I am not in a position to give a date to the noble Lord, if he was asking me to give one. In the circumstances, I cannot supply him with any further information.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The Minister just referred to the independent experts who are going to help the Rwandans in relation to their processing of claimants. Our International Agreements Committee said those independent experts have yet to be appointed. Could he give the House an indication of how the appointment process is going? How many have been appointed, and when?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, that is a matter of detail upon which I will have to correspond with the noble and learned Lord.
The Government of Rwanda are committed to this partnership. Like the UK, they are a signatory to the refugee convention and have an international obligation to provide protection to those who are entitled to it. The Bill is predicated on the compliance by both Rwanda and the UK with international law in the form of the treaty, which itself reflects the international legal obligations of the UK and Rwanda.
Taking together the strengthened Rwandan asylum system and the commitment set out in the legally binding treaty—which, once ratified, will become part of Rwandan domestic law—it is unnecessary for a decision-maker, whether that be an immigration officer or a court, to consider any claim made on the ground that Rwanda may remove a person to another state. Furthermore, as I said earlier, that would delay unnecessarily the relocation of individuals to Rwanda, thereby undermining the core of the Bill.
For the reasons outlined, I respectfully ask that noble Lords do not move their amendments.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords—before the Minister sits down—it becomes crucial to know when this Act will come into force. This is not a personal observation, but the Minister has given the most unsatisfactory series of answers about what the position is in Rwanda. Clause 9 of the Bill says:
“This Act comes into force on the day on which the Rwanda Treaty enters into force”.
On Wednesday, I took the Minister through what the statement and the agreement suggest, which is that the Bill comes into force when the steps required for ratification are completed by both countries. The only step required for ratification that is referred to in the policy statement made by the Government, as far as the UK Government are concerned, is the passage of this Bill. So it appears that the Government are envisaging that, almost automatically on the passage of the Bill, they will treat the agreement as ratified. The consequence is that the Bill will immediately come into force. If that is right, it is pretty obvious that the Bill will become law and the Government can deport people to Rwanda when the safeguards are not in place. Could the Minister confirm that my understanding of when the Bill is going to come into force, which I set out in detail last week, is correct?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I cannot go beyond the terms of the clause to which the noble and learned Lord refers. Clause 9(1) states:
“This Act comes into force on the day on which the Rwanda Treaty enters into force”.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
As always, I am grateful to the Committee for its deliberations, but on this occasion I am particularly happy to welcome the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, to those deliberations, and indeed to what I hope will be a long and happy role as a legislator in your Lordships’ House. I think the Committee will agree that she dealt with this important group of amendments with the expertise and clarity that we would have expected. She pointed out the dangers of the “for ever” conclusion that Rwanda is safe and therefore the inability of our domestic courts to ever look at that issue—something that I think every speaker other than the Minister found unsatisfactory and said so more than once.
The noble and learned Baroness pointed out the oddity of a situation where there would be at least the possibility of jurisdiction in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in circumstances where our domestic courts had been stripped of jurisdiction. For those concerned about sovereignty, that seems to be a very odd state of affairs. The one thing that the Bill does not purport to oust is the final jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg—although it attempts to allow Ministers to ignore interim relief from Strasbourg—but it completely ousts all serious jurisdiction of our domestic courts, particularly in relation to the issue of the general safety of Rwanda. That is a very odd and unsatisfactory state of affairs and, again, no one in the Committee other than the Minister appeared to say otherwise.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester and my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett for reminding the Committee what the UNHCR said just today about the Government of the UK attempting to shield themselves from judicial oversight. My goodness me—what would we be saying about any other country or jurisdiction in the world that that was said about by the main refugee monitor at the UN? Furthermore, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for pointing out the significance of this in places such as the UN Human Rights Council, and how shameful it is that an examination of the UK should now be threatening to eclipse the situations in the Middle East and Ukraine. There are almost no words.
When there are almost no words, thank goodness for the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I refer the Committee to Hansard last Wednesday, when he spoke about the “nature of truth” and how we should always be seeking after it and never trying to end that exploration. I say to the Minister that rather more important than any references to John Donne today was the allusion to Al Gore; it is the inconvenient truth that the Government are constantly seeking to avoid with this Bill. It is the inconvenient truth that Rwanda is not yet safe, hence the need for the treaty in the first place and all the mechanisms that need to be brought in and operated under it. This was put so well, repeatedly, by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. There is also the inconvenient truth that we still believe in the rule of law in this country. We still believe in anxious scrutiny of individual cases before people’s rights are put in jeopardy. There is the inconvenient truth that, even if Rwanda became generally safe tomorrow, things could change quickly, as they do in countries all over the world, as was pointed out once more by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Whitaker for pointing out very real concerns about journalists currently detained in Rwanda. We wait for responses “in due course” from the Government about reports of torture of the journalists currently incarcerated there. I was grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Coaker on the Opposition Front Bench. I thought, if I may say so, that the courtesy and deference he gave to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, and the mutuality of respect between them, boded well for the attitude of a future Labour Government. I will hold him to that in due course, I hope.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Yes, in due course.
I say to the Minister that I am sure the Committee is very grateful for his patience and courtesy, as always, but this was a very difficult couple of hours. I do not know whether the word “decree” was a Freudian slip or just some straightforward, slightly shameless honesty. We now live in a country in which we are going to determine something as important as whether another country is safe for asylum seekers, not by fact finding or seeking after truth, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, would like, but by decree. I cannot believe that I am now living in a country where facts of such importance are determined, in effect, by Executive decree.
It is not even by parliamentary decree because Parliament will not have the opportunity to examine all these shadowy mechanisms under the treaty. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, with the able assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, attempted again and again to get answers about these but answers came there none. When will this legislation be brought into Rwanda? Who has seen the draft legislation? Who are the experts? All these are things that the Supreme Court was concerned about.
I remind the Committee that the Supreme Court never doubted the good faith of the Rwandan Government. It just felt that, on the evidence, the mechanisms and cultures were not yet there on the ground. The Minister, courteously and kindly, could not answer any of those questions. Therefore, in addition to stripping our domestic courts of their jurisdiction over such important matters, the Government have singularly failed to assure this Committee that Rwanda is safe and that we should “decree” it so.
I will end unconventionally with a comment made by one of your Lordships’ security staff to me earlier in the day. For obvious reasons, he shall remain nameless.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
He or she or they—I have sort of admitted that it was a gentleman. He said to me that he had heard various comments I have been making. I said, “I am sorry for that; it is all rather depressing, isn’t it?” He said, “My Lady, I think there are all sorts of people that we would like to kick out of our country, but we don’t want to kick out our values”. I think that was a pretty good summation, worthy of any Member of the Committee.
Finally, I say to the Minister: if Rwanda is so safe, or if it will become safe and be safe for a long time, there is nothing to be afraid of in this group of amendments. The Government should not be afraid of His Majesty’s judges or the courts that have been the pride of this country and admired all over the world for so long. For the moment only, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(c) a court or tribunal from considering, in the case of a person who was but has ceased to be an unaccompanied child, a claim that their removal to the Republic of Rwanda would be contrary to their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights based on compelling evidence relating specifically to the person’s particular individual circumstances.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that a person previously recognised as an unaccompanied child has the ability to challenge their removal to Rwanda when they cease to be an unaccompanied child at the age of 18 on the basis that removal would be contrary to their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, this would enable consideration to be given to any rights accrued under Article 8, right to private and family life, by virtue of having lived in the UK for a period of time, including building relationships and connections etc.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving Amendment 46 as an understudy to my noble friend Lord Dubs, who apologises that he cannot be here today because of a long-standing commitment. I will speak also to Amendments 54 and 55 in my name. All the amendments in this group are designed to ensure that we do not overlook the best interests of children who stand to be removed to Rwanda and that we provide a degree of protection for them. These concerns were raised briefly on Wednesday.
Amendment 46, the technical details of which I will not go into as I am advised that the wording may not be perfect, aims to ensure that when an unaccompanied child asylum seeker reaches 18, they are able to challenge a decision to remove them to Rwanda. There are two compelling arguments in support of this. First, having lived in the UK for what could be some time, it would be cruel to uproot an 18 year-old from the life they have forged and the relationships they have developed in order to remove them to a country about which they know nothing.
Secondly, there is the concern put forcefully by the Children’s Commissioner that there is a real danger that the prospect of removal at 18 will result in these children disappearing. This could open them, in her words, to huge risks of exploitation by the kinds of criminal groups that the Bill is supposed to smash. I refer to the Committee’s exchange on morality in our previous sitting. As the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said:
“It is immoral to facilitate the activity of criminal gangs”—[Official Report, 14/2/2024; col. 292.]
and traffickers and it is “our moral imperative” to stop them. This amendment would contribute to this moral imperative.
I turn to the amendments in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Brinton, to whom I am grateful for their support. I am also grateful for the help of ILPA, the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, and RAMP, of which I am an associate. I shall begin by making some general points and then speak to each amendment separately.
My starting point for the two amendments is last year’s concluding observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in which it urged the UK to:
“Ensure that children and age-disputed children are not removed to a third country”.
It expressed deep concern about the potential impact of the Illegal Migration Act, which underpins this Bill, and the lack of consideration for the principle of the best interests of the child. This is clear from the failure to provide a child rights impact assessment until the very last minute of the Bill’s passage, despite repeated calls from noble Lords—and then it amounted to little more than a post hoc justification of the Bill’s measures. Needless to say, there has been no child rights impact assessment of the current Bill. In the debate on the treaty, when I asked whether there would be one, I did not receive a reply.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Brinton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, and I wish to make only a very few short points in relation to Amendments 54 and 55, to which I have added my name. I apologise that I could not be here for the two previous days in Committee, due to prior commitments.
Once again, we are considering the age-old issue of age assessment of young asylum seekers. I will not rehearse the many arguments about the validity of such age assessments using so-called scientific means or, indeed, any other means; I have spoken in this House on many occasions on this very subject. Now, the consequences of these age assessments may be very much worse than hitherto: as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, rightly said, you may be sent to Rwanda, and you might even be sent back and forth like an unwanted parcel. This is really serious: time and time again, we have seen unaccompanied children incorrectly assessed by the Home Office as adults on their arrival in the UK and treated as if they were over 18, only for them to be determined to be children after further assessment.
In addition to the evidence the noble Baroness has just given us from various organisations that have found age assessments to be wrong, we have evidence from local authorities’ children’s services—and noble Lords might think that they would know. They reveal that in the first six months of 2023 alone, 485 children were wrongly assessed by the Home Office as adults. Under the Bill, those 485 children, as well as all the others cited by the noble Baroness, would face removal to Rwanda. Furthermore, should those children seek to challenge the incorrect assessment, Section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act provides that the Home Secretary can still make arrangements to remove them to Rwanda, as we have heard, while the UK courts and tribunals are considering the challenge of the age assessment. There is a real risk, given the numbers we already know about, that children arriving alone in the UK in search of safety will mistakenly be sent to Rwanda before they can access justice. That is truly shocking.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I too support Amendments 54 and 55, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for giving us the opportunity to ensure that the voice of the child is heard in this debate. For we should never forget that both accompanied and unaccompanied children, and those who may well be found to be children, are in the scope of the Bill, which the Government cannot confirm is compatible with convention rights under the ECHR. I spoke earlier in Committee on the universality of human rights, but to remove children from their reach is simply unforgivable. For this reason, I repeat the noble Baroness’s request that a children’s rights impact assessment be published as a matter of urgency.
I believe strongly that changes are needed to Clause 4 if we are to ensure that the welfare and best interests of children are protected. For safeguarding is not a discretionary requirement, and the UK is legally obliged to protect and promote the interests of the child. The fundamental issue that Amendment 55 seeks to address is that the treaty itself excludes unaccompanied children from the partnership agreement, while acknowledging that they may be sent to Rwanda erroneously. This contradiction means that the treaty, in a section entitled “Part 3—General”, provides only vague information about Rwanda’s plans to safeguard children, a group surely more vulnerable than any other we could possibly imagine.
It is not my place to doubt the sincerity of the Rwandan authorities’ commitment to providing child-suitable safeguards, but good intent is no basis for safeguarding, and sending children before the treaty is fully implemented would be a dereliction of our duty to them. This, combined with leaving a potential child with no suspensive legal redress against their removal, is simply unconscionable. If the treaty has identified the risk of sending a child to Rwanda in error, why has no mitigation been put in place? Has it been decided that the risk is tolerable, regardless of all the anguish and trauma it would cause to a child? Can the Minister assure us that all children would be returned in these circumstances? Although it is in the treaty, it is not a legal obligation in the Bill.
The Home Office’s own figures, although incomplete—they do not include the number of children moved into an adult setting—indicate that, last year, 60% of all resolved age dispute cases found the young asylum seeker to be a child. This point was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, but I will emphasise it because of its importance. There are 2,219 children without a parent or guardian, who, if the Bill had been in operation, may have been eligible for removal to Rwanda if a full assessment had not been completed. I therefore ask the Minister: what assessment has been undertaken to evaluate the impact of removing a potential child from the UK’s child support services, and then from the UK entirely, before awaiting the conclusion of all outstanding age assessment challenges?
Age assessments are complex—again, we have already heard this—and therefore it is understandable that visual age assessments by immigration officers can lead to inaccurate judgments. I will not repeat the quote from the Home Office’s guidance on this. Given that errors are an inherent part of the age-verification process, can the Minister reassure us that, at the very least, when an individual’s age is disputed, they will not be subject to removal before having met with a social worker and child protection team for a more comprehensive age assessment?
Under the Bill, the repercussions of inaccurate age assessments are disastrous. Even if a child were to be returned to the UK after they were verified to be a minor, the impact would be devastating for their physical and mental well-being, and it would likely leave an imprint on them for the remainder of their life. The amendment proposed does not hinder the Government’s objective to begin the transfer of asylum seekers to Rwanda, but it ensures that there has been a definitive determination of a person’s age before their removal. It supports the Government in meeting the treaty commitment.
The determination that a young person may be a child, and therefore could deserve all the rights of a child, should and must be reason enough to prevent their removal. A child is a child, regardless of whether they remain with their family or not. Amendment 54 simply seeks to maintain a current safeguard when a child is being considered for removal, which requires the Home Secretary to consult with the Independent Family Returns Panel to ensure that their safeguarding needs are appropriately met. Section 14 of the Illegal Migration Act, which is not yet in effect, disapplied this safeguard.
I do not believe that children seeking safety in the UK should face removal to Rwanda. But, at the absolute minimum, the process should ensure that their welfare and best interests are considered, and maintaining a role for the panel would help facilitate this. If the Government proceed to send minors to Rwanda without appropriate safeguards, vulnerable children will undoubtedly face an intolerable level of emotional distress. I therefore implore the Government to give the utmost consideration to these reasonable and principled amendments.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly back the amendment of my noble friend Lady Lister, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger. I am unclear at the moment about whether the Government are saying that they will do this anyway, even though it is not in the Bill, on the basis that there appears to be a commitment on the part of the Government not to deport any unaccompanied child to Rwanda. Despite the exclusion of anybody, including the Home Secretary, saying Rwanda is not safe, that necessarily involves the Government having a process in mind for how they will deal with any unaccompanied person who comes to this country and says that they are under 18. Can the noble Lord set out for the Committee the process that will be applied and the basis for dealing with an unaccompanied minor saying that an age assessment is wrong and that he or she is under 18? Will there be a right to go to a tribunal or any other court to contest that? If there is not some such process, I am not clear how the Home Secretary can be sure he will comply with his assurance that he will not be deporting unaccompanied minors to Rwanda.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 55, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Brinton. I also support Amendments 78 and 79, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, supported by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. These amendments relate to children who arrive in the UK alone, unaccompanied by any adult.
Lone children have no one. They are some of the most vulnerable members of our society, and their welfare and best interests should be safeguarded. I am glad to see that it is not the intention of the Government of this country or of the Government of the Republic of Rwanda for this scheme to cover unaccompanied children. Article 3 of the Rwanda treaty is clear, stating:
“The Agreement does not cover unaccompanied children”.
Therefore, on my reading, this amendment helps safeguard that intention while upholding the best interests of such children.
If the agreement with Rwanda does not cover unaccompanied children, it seems to me common sense that the United Kingdom should make sure that it is not sending unaccompanied children to Rwanda. The constitutionally proper way for us to be sure of that is after an assessment that an individual is an adult, to allow our courts and tribunals to have an opportunity to fully consider whether an individual is an unaccompanied child, as they claim to be, before the individual is removed.
The safeguard this amendment seeks to maintain and restore is nothing more than due process. I am certain that your Lordships’ House does not wish to see children forcibly sent to Rwanda on the mistaken belief that they are adults, or to allow them to be wrongly treated as adults in Rwanda, potentially placed in accommodation that is unsafe and unsuitable for them, only to have our courts subsequently confirm they are children and order that they be brought back to the UK.
It appears to me that the Government are conscious that mistakes may happen, because Article 3 of the Rwanda treaty also states:
“Any unaccompanied individual who, subsequent to relocation, is deemed by a court or tribunal in the United Kingdom to either be under the age of 18 or to be treated temporarily as being under the age of 18, shall be returned to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 11 of this Agreement”.
That is a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs, and it is not in the best interests of the children concerned.
That is not only my view but the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which stated last year that Section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 was
“clearly not in the best interests of any child and is likely to breach the child’s rights under Articles 6, 8, and 13 of the ECHR”.
Those rights are to a fair trial, to respect for private and family life and to an effective remedy.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this measure is to deter immigration by unsafe and illegal routes. Your Lordships have mentioned the best interests of the child. Is it in the best interests of the child to be trafficked across the Mediterranean from Libya, their body perhaps being found off the coast by some unfortunate fisherman—I have seen reports of this—whose heart is then broken? Is it in the child’s interests to be trafficked across Italy from Lampedusa to the French border, up through France to Calais and then across the channel?
I too believe in serving the interests of the child and agree with much of what your Lordships have said about the horror of such a journey for youngsters under 18, but I strongly oppose any measure or amendment that would weaken the prospect of the deterrence that unaccompanied children, once they are 18, will be removed to a third country, including Rwanda, if it is safe to do so. For this reason, I strongly oppose this group of amendments.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I do not entirely follow the argument of the noble Baroness. If an individual is trafficked across the Mediterranean and the channel, I do not see how the argument about deterrence applies. Their movement to our shores is involuntary; how would the passing of this Bill deter those who did not choose to come here but were trafficked here? I do not really follow the argument.
This is an important group of amendments, for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger. When I was a trustee of the Refugee Council, I was struck by the high number of initial age assessments that turned out in the end to be wrong. The noble Baroness gave some statistics on this. What arrangements are we making or have we made for age assessments of those sent to Rwanda? It is very good that we are not planning to send unaccompanied children there, but we will be sending a number of people who, had they been subjected to the age assessment procedures in our country, would have been found to be children, not adults. Therefore, they will have been wrongly sent to Rwanda. The way to remedy that will be to have in Rwanda a system for age assessment analogous to the one we have in this country. I assume that that is the Government’s intention. I hope the Minister will tell us about it.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I signed Amendments 54 and 55. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Neuberger, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for introducing them. I will not repeat their important comments and scene-setting.
I will also pick up on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, about deterrence. To say that a trafficker or smuggler of a 14 year-old child in north Africa wanting to come across the Mediterranean will be deterred by the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill is extraordinary. However, I will not focus on that.
Amendment 54 seeks to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within families who may go to Rwanda. I asked at Second Reading about special educational arrangements for children being sent with family groups to Rwanda, because it is not evident from what we have seen of the accommodation in Rwanda under the treaty that appropriate education is provided. I commented that, while Rwanda thankfully now has a good and fairly widespread primary system, it does not have a secondary system at all. As I have no idea, can the Minister tell us what arrangements will be made for this very small number of children—given that the number of people going to Rwanda will itself be very small—to continue their education, which, I remind your Lordships’ Committee, is their right under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? Will they be living in an environment that is right for family groups and not in the sort of detention arrangements we have in the United Kingdom? Does he know what the living arrangements will be for this small number of family groups?
I will spend the rest of my time talking about Amendment 55 and all the issues, which have been laid out, around a child deemed to have been an adult in the UK. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and I tabled regret amendments in November to an SI that arose from the Illegal Migration Act on the use of age assessment techniques, and I continue to have great concerns about the medical use of those assessments. But it is not just that—it is also visual assessments and, frankly, guesswork by the people assessing them.
The report she referred to, Forced Adulthood, spoke very clearly about the fact that some age assessments that happen as young people arrive in our country may take 10 minutes, which also includes discussions about how old they say they are. Forced Adulthood says that, quite often, the wrong interpreters have been provided for the young people; we do not even know if they are getting a proper and effective translation that would support them.
A couple of references have been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and possibly the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, to support for young people going through the process. It was not at all clear from the SIs or the debates on the Illegal Migration Act that the sort of protection you would expect for somebody who is, or claims to be, a child—which we see in many other European countries that carry out this age assessment—would be provided for by the Bill or the SIs we covered on 27 November last year. I am very happy to see the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, in his place, as we frequently had this debate.
Can the Minister say what age assessments are being used now, given that the SIs have come into force? Do they include the medical assessments that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to? If so, are they happening under the terms the noble Lord, Lord Murray, outlined at the Dispatch Box? These included that the Home Office would ensure that the individual has the capacity to fully understand the process and is communicated with in a child-friendly and clear way, and that interpreters would be available to assist with understanding information. I could go on. The key phrase was that it would be Merton-compliant.
Young people who say that they are children are now arriving in this country; the Government may disagree with them. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that those processes are now under way? Do the children have—as we fought for but did not win—independent representatives to support them in the process to help them with appeals? For all the other reasons that all noble Lords have spoken about in the debate, once a child arrives in Rwanda, they will find it extremely hard to appeal as—given the process—they are deemed to be an adult upon arrival. This amendment in particular is important because there may be a few who are able to articulate that and are finally believed, but who fell through the net.
There are consequences of getting it wrong. The Forced Adulthood report, which was published in January and refers to figures for last year but builds on figures from previous years, talks about local authorities’ concerns when they have received those deemed to be adults into hotels, but it quickly becomes clear that they are actually children. The consequences of them perhaps being abused and trafficking themselves from those hotels are unconscionable. We must do everything we can to make sure that everyone who is, or believes they are, aged 18 or under gets the support they require—including the transitional support the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was looking for in his Amendment 46.
I hope the Minister will be able to give us some detail that might provide reassurance on that. Even with that, however, we need a clear pathway back for anyone who has been misdiagnosed as an adult and gets to Rwanda, where it becomes apparent that they are a child. Perhaps the Minister can outline exactly how that will happen.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I shall be brief but I will widen my remarks beyond just children. The Committee has made a very thorough examination of the Bill. I admire the quality of contributions from our legal colleagues. The debate has, however, been rather one-sided. The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, is the only person who has touched on the wider issues, which is what the debate is about.
We are not dealing with saints. We are dealing with people entering our country illegally and on a considerable scale. This raises policy issues which are not part of this debate but are very important. Just the backlog of claimants, as I have mentioned, is enough to fill Wembley Stadium. Roughly 80% of the claimants are males aged between 18 and 40. I accept, of course, that children need special treatment, but most of them are young men and virtually all have destroyed their documents, and all have come from a country where they were already safe, mainly France or Belgium.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I apologise for not being able to rise to intervene. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
The Government have claimed that in almost half the age-disputed cases, the people in question were found to be adults. This figure, however, fails to include the many hundreds of children deemed to be adults by the Home Office who were subsequently referred to local authorities and then found to be children. It is children we are talking about in this group of amendments.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
I understand that but I said at the beginning of my speech that I was going to range more widely. There are difficulties concerning children, but the point of the Bill is deterrence. If the Government can deter people from coming here, they are saving themselves a lot of difficulties. If the Government can deter people from sending their children here, often alone, they can avoid the difficulties the noble Baroness and her colleagues have so rightly described.
I have just one other point to make. The British public are very angry indeed. Some 68% want to see effective action; I sympathise with them and would like to find a way to deal with the problem. The Bill clearly has some serious difficulties and it has been strongly attacked in this House without much attention given to the real issue facing the Government—and the next Government—of how to deal with the inflow and the state of public opinion.
In reviewing where we have got to, I have looked at the amendments being discussed. There are at least nine that would render the Government’s policy completely ineffective; they would torpedo it and, therefore, later in this process, will have to be addressed. I am referring to Amendments 1C, 8, 20, 36, 39, 48, 57, 81 and 90. Most of those would pretty much destroy the Government’s policy.
I conclude with a quotation from the former Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, who wrote in connection with a paper produced by the CPS:
“The British public are fair-minded, tolerant and generous in spirit. But we are fed up with the continued flouting of our laws and immigration rules to game our asylum system. And we’ve had enough of the persistent abuse of human rights laws to thwart the removal of those with no right to be in the UK. This must end. Saying so is not xenophobic or anti-immigration”.
I recognise that that is a different note and I am quoting the former Home Secretary, but a lot of people outside this Chamber would agree with that.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Green. For my part, I agree with his assessment. However, it is one of the unfortunate features of the area that our more generous arrangements for handling unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are open to abuse and are abused. We needed to take steps to stop that. That is why, in the Illegal Migration Act, we put into force Sections 57 and 58. In the Nationality and Borders Act, authorisation was given for the utilisation of scientific methods of age assessment, all of which aim to prevent adults abusing our special arrangements for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
All these amendments, in particular Amendment 55, will not have the objective that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, sought to persuade the Committee. She says in her Member’s explanatory statement that the amendment
“avoids a situation in which an unaccompanied child is erroneously relocated to the Republic of Rwanda”.
That is simply not the case. If one looks at the Illegal Migration Act, one will see that Section 57(1) makes it clear that it applies only if the
“relevant authority decides the age of a person … who meets the four conditions in section 2”—
ie, that they are an illegal entrant—and determines their age in accordance with Sections 50 and 51 of the Nationality and Borders Act, using scientific methods. The effect of the provision is to avoid the hazard that there will be repeated challenges which would be suspensive of removal. It does not take away someone’s opportunity to challenge completely the finding that they are, in fact, an adult. It simply says that they have to do that from Rwanda, and there is nothing wrong with that. For those reasons, I oppose these amendments.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this group has been about children. We spoke at length during the passage of the then Illegal Migration Bill about the danger posed to children by the changes in that legislation. To open, I have a couple of questions for the Government. Can the Government give an update on the number of children who have previously been identified as adults but have later been identified as children? How many of them would have been on the list to be moved to Rwanda had the scheme been working?
It is clear that the asylum system is failing, and failing vulnerable children. Beyond the risk of children being sent to Rwanda before their age has been identified, there have been ongoing reports about missing children, children exposed to assault, and children waiting potentially years for a decision on their protections claims. Given this, how can we trust the Government to make the correct decisions for children when it comes to Rwanda?
My noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett said that it was cruel for children who come in under the age of 18 and live here for a number of years to be sent to Rwanda when they get to 18. She rightly said that this provides an incentive for children to disappear when they know that birth date is arriving. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, talked about the age-old issue of age assessment. I know that very well because, as a youth magistrate, one of the first bits of training I did was on age assessment. Despite all the processes which are rightly in place, sometimes you are bounced into making those decisions, both as an adult magistrate and as a youth magistrate. I am very conscious of the difficulty in making those decisions. I think it was last week that somebody referred to Luke Littler, the darts player, and how he does not look like a 16 year-old boy.
All noble Lords have set out the case very well, and I will not go over the same points that they have raised. I will raise a different point, which I have raised in previous debates. This arises out of a trip with my noble friend Lord Coaker to RAF Manston about a year ago, facilitated by the noble Lord, Lord Murray. At that trip, it became evident to me from talking to the officials there that there is a reasonably large cohort of young people who identify as adults. I have debated this with the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—before, and he has written me a letter about it. They identify as adults because they want to work when they get here. They may well have been working in their own countries since they were about 14 years old. They identify as adults, they may look like adults, and they move into an economy—maybe an underground economy—because they want to work. It seems to me that by having the provisions within the Bill, they will have no incentive to identify as an adult. That will be taken away from them. They would prefer to identify as a youth. Have the Government made any assessment of the increase in people likely to identify as youths when they are coming irregularly into the country? I suspect it is not an insignificant figure and that it is actually quite a large figure.
Nevertheless, this is a very important group of amendments, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, which, as we have heard, brings us on to the relocation of unaccompanied children and the subject of age assessments.
Amendment 54 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would reinstate the statutory duty to consult the independent family returns panel in circumstances where we would seek to remove families with children under 18, who fall within the remit of the Illegal Migration Act, to the Republic of Rwanda. This amendment would effectively undo Parliament’s previously agreed position in relation to the removal of families to Rwanda, taking them out of line with those being removed to any other destination, either a safe third country or their home country where it is safe to do so.
I reassure noble Lords that the welfare of a family will continue to be at the forefront of decisions to detain and remove them, regardless of the proposed destination, and we remain in open dialogue with the independent family returns panel about the role that it will have in the removal of families under the Illegal Migration Act.
The intended effect of Amendment 55 is not clear, as the Bill is an additional legislative provision that will apply to removals under the 2023 Act. However, I consider that the amendment is intended to mean that when a decision is made to remove someone under the 2023 Act to Rwanda, Section 57 of the 2023 Act will not apply if there is a decision on age.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for Amendment 76, which inserts a new clause on age assessments. The intended effect of this amendment is that when a decision is made to relocate someone to Rwanda under the Illegal Migration Act 2023, Section 57 of that Act will not apply if there is an outstanding decision on age. It also seeks to prevent the removal of an age-disputed person from the UK to Rwanda if they are awaiting an age assessment decision under Sections 50 or 51 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 or have received a negative decision under these sections and are awaiting a final determination of either an appeal under Section 54 of the 2022 Act or a judicial review application.
It is important that the Government take steps to deter adults from claiming to be children, and to avoid lengthy legal challenges to age assessment decisions preventing the removal of those who have been assessed to be adults. Assessing age is inherently difficult, as all noble Lords have noted. However, it is crucial that we disincentivise adults from knowingly misrepresenting themselves as children. Receiving care and services reserved for children also incurs costs and reduces accessibility of these services for genuine children who need them.
Accordingly, Section 57(2) of the 2023 Act disapplies the yet to be commenced right of appeal for age assessments that was established in Section 54 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, for those who meet the four conditions in Section 2 of the 2023 Act. Instead, under Section 57(4) of the 2023 Act, those wishing to challenge a decision on age will be able to do so through judicial review, which will not suspend removal and can continue from outside the UK after they have been removed.
Section 57(5) of the 2023 Act also provides the basis on which a court can consider a decision relating to a person’s age in judicial review proceedings for those who meet the four conditions in Section 2 of the 2023 Act. It provides that a court can grant relief only on the basis that it was wrong in law and must not on the basis that it was wrong as a matter of fact, distinguishing from the position of the Supreme Court in the 2009 judgment in R (A) v Croydon London Borough Council, UKSC 8. The intention is to ensure that the court cannot make its own determination on age, which should properly be reserved for those qualified and trained to assess age, but instead consider a decision on age only on conventional judicial review principles.
In the scenario whereby the Home Office has doubts over a person’s age, they would not be subject to the duty to remove until such time as a final decision on age has been made by the relevant authority referred to in Section 57(6) of the 2023 Act. We consider that those provisions are entirely necessary to safeguard genuine children and guard against those who seek to game the system by purporting to be adults. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me whether we have looked into the opposite. The honest answer is that I do not know, but I will find out and come back to him if we make any assessment of that.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
When I spoke earlier, I asked whether the scientific age assessment had been introduced. The Minister has just referred to other European countries. I said that all those European countries gave the child an independent representative to work with them and to help and support them. Is that happening for children going through this process in the UK?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Yes. Basically, all individuals will also have access to interpreters. There will be appropriate adults to assist the young person with understanding, as well as providing support with communications. As I said, the interpretation services—
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very sorry, but the language here is important. An appropriate adult need not necessarily be independent of the process that is assessing them. When we debated this during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill, it was made clear to us that that person would not be independent of the process. Is that person independent or, in effect, employed by the Home Office?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, this is a new and obviously complex process, and the full plans for integrating scientific age assessment into the current process are being designed. The statutory instrument that is now in place specifies X-rays, MRIs and so on as scientific methods—they are the building blocks. I will have to come back to the noble Baroness on the question of who is also in the room with the individuals, because I am not 100% sure of the answer.
As has been discussed many times during the course of this Bill and various others, these methods have been recommended by the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee.
I will respond to the comments made last week by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Hamwee, on the incidence of potential children being assessed by the Home Office as adults, which was highlighted in a Guardian article and the published January report that had input from various children’s rights NGOs. According to the assessing age guidance details in the Home Office’s age assessment policy for immigration purposes, an individual claiming to be a child will be treated as an adult without conducting further inquiries only if two Home Office members of staff independently determine that the individual’s physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that they are significantly over 18 years of age. The lawfulness of that process was endorsed by the Supreme Court in the case of R (on the application of BF (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 38.
Where doubts remain and an individual cannot be assessed to be significantly over 18, they will be treated as a child for immigration purposes and referred to a local authority for further consideration of their age, usually in the form of a Merton-compliant age assessment. That typically involves two qualified social workers undertaking a series of interviews with the young person, taking into account any other information relevant to their age. “Merton compliant” refers to holistic, social worker-led assessments adhering to principles set out by the courts in several court judgments dating back to 2003.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I apologise for intervening again, but the Minister referred to the AESAC’s report, which is now being implemented. I will not repeat the detail, but in five different paragraphs it asked questions of the Home Office that it said needed to be further looked at before it could give a clean bill of health. Has that now happened? I will write to the Minister with the references in Hansard to our debate on that, which was on 27 November. Does he know whether the AESAC’s concerns about some of the science have now been answered? They had not when we discussed it on 27 November.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as I pointed out in answer to the previous intervention, the system is still being designed, so I do not know the precise answer to that.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am sorry if that upsets the noble Baroness, but I do not know the precise answer. I will find out more and write.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very sorry for intervening and grateful to the Minister for giving way. We are now back to the same sort of the debate that we had on the previous group, where we are just going round in circles, being told that it is all being developed and that it will all be fine in the future. Yet we are being asked to agree to legislation without protection for children. That is the real issue: it does not provide protection for children.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Government fundamentally disagree with that; we do provide protection for children. As I said, I will come back to the noble Baroness’s specific points. Any decision—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I apologise for also intervening. I was very interested in much of the answer that the Minister gave, and I am genuinely grateful to him for doing his best on this. He said that a judicial review could be taken against the Government where somebody asserts that he or she is under 18, but they have deemed him or her to be over 18. That can be challenged by a judicial review. So, presumably, the courts could stay the deportation until the conclusion of the judicial review. Is that right?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
No. As I understand it, the judicial review will take place when a person has been relocated to Rwanda.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am very interested in that answer, too. Surely that is not right. If a judicial review is possible, it is a matter for the court to decide, in its discretion, whether it should give interim relief pending the conclusion of the judicial review. For example, if it took the view that the person who brings the judicial review would be harmed by being sent to Rwanda before a conclusion of the judicial review, the court would have the power to stay it pending the hearing of the judicial review. There is nothing that I see in this Bill that would prevent that. If there is, could the Minister refer me to it?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I have to respect the noble and learned Lord’s point of view on that; I am afraid that I am not as well up on the court process as perhaps I should be. I will have to come back to him, if he will allow me to do so.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My noble friend the Minister might want to make reference to the powers that this Parliament has already passed in Section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act, which provide for those judicial reviews to be conducted abroad once the section comes into force.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend is right; I might very well want to refer to that.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Murray, referred to this in his contribution, he used the term “simply”. He said that it would simply have to be dealt with by the young person in Rwanda. Does the Minister agree that “simply” is an appropriate word to use in this context?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am not in a position to agree or disagree, because I do not know how the judicial review process take place; I am afraid that I am not a lawyer.
Any decision on age made by the Home Office for immigration purposes is not binding on the civil or criminal courts. Where an individual is charged with a criminal offence and the presiding judge doubts whether the individual is a child, the court can take a decision on the age of an individual before them based on the available evidence or request that a Merton-compliant age assessment be undertaken.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked me a consider number of questions on safeguarding, so I will go into some detail on the safeguarding arrangements. They are set out in detail in the standard operating procedure on identifying and safeguarding vulnerability, dated May 2023. It states that, at any stage in the refugee status determination and integration process, officials may encounter and should have due regard to the physical and psychological signs that can indicate that a person is vulnerable. The standard operating procedure sets out the process for identifying vulnerable persons and, where appropriate, making safeguarding referrals to the relevant protection team. Screening interviews to identify vulnerabilities will be conducted by protection officers, who have received the relevant training and are equipped to handle safeguarding referrals competently. The protection team may trigger follow-up assessments and/or treatment, as appropriate. In addition, protection officers may support an individual to engage in the asylum process and advise relevant officials of any support needs or adjustments to enable the individual to engage with the process. Where appropriate, the protection team may refer vulnerable individuals for external support, which may include medical and/or psychosocial support, or support within their accommodation; and, where possible, that should be provided with the informed consent of the individual.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Perhaps the Minister can clarify this since he is answering my questions. Are we talking about here or Rwanda? Does Rwanda have those kinds of safeguarding systems?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as we discussed in previous groupings, with any of these decisions and any of the evaluations that take place in this country, all the relevant information will be shared with Rwanda. I think that answers the noble Baroness’s question.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry, it does not. I raised a concern, asking a specific question: how can the Government be sure that the complex mental and physical health needs of child asylum seekers will be met in Rwanda, especially as those needs are likely to be intensified by the process of removal on top of what they have gone through to get to the UK? You can send all the information you like from here to Rwanda, but—this is not a criticism of Rwanda but being realistic—what kind of support does it have for traumatised children?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I cannot give details on the very specific question about traumatised children but I will find out, and again, I will come back to the noble Baroness.
Amendments 78 and 79, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, seek to prevent the relocation of unaccompanied children aged under 18 from the UK to the Republic of Rwanda. The Government consider these amendments unnecessary. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be aware that Article 3 of the UK-Rwanda treaty makes specific reference to unaccompanied children not being included in the treaty and that the UK Government will not seek to relocate unaccompanied children under 18 to Rwanda.
Amendments 46 and 56, also tabled by the noble Lord, seek to ensure that a person previously recognised as an unaccompanied child has the ability to challenge their removal to Rwanda when they cease to be an unaccompanied child at 18, on the basis that removal would be contrary to their rights under the ECHR. Our asylum system is under increasing pressure from illegal migration and the Government must take action to undercut the routes smuggling gangs are exploiting by facilitating children’s dangerous and illegal entry to the United Kingdom, including via such dangerous routes as small boats. These amendments would increase the incentive for adults to claim to be children and would encourage people smugglers to pivot and focus on bringing over more unaccompanied children via these dangerous journeys. The effect would be to put more young lives at risk and split up more families.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked a number of questions about the educational opportunities that will be available under the arrangements with Rwanda. I refer the noble Baroness to paragraph 5 on page 3 of the Second Reading letter that I wrote, which details some of those. However, education is also dealt with in paragraph 8 in Annex A to the treaty, and I can go through some of that if it would be helpful. It is headlined “Quality education”, and 8.1 says:
“To support successful integration (and in accordance with the Refugee Convention) … each Relocated Individual shall have access to quality education and training at the following stages (as relevant to their age and needs) that is at least of the standard that is accorded to Rwandan nationals: … early childhood … primary education … catch up programmes and accelerated learning, that is, short-term transitional education programmes providing children with the opportunity to learn content that they may have missed due to disruption to their education or their having never had access to education … secondary education … tertiary education … and … vocational training”.
In addition:
“Rwanda shall recognise foreign school certificates, diplomas and degrees as provided for by MINEDUC regulations”.
I think I also referred in an earlier group to the initial investment of £120 million in 2022 as part of the economic transformation and integration fund, which was created as part of the MEDP. I said then, and I will reiterate for the record now, that the ETIF is for the economic growth and development of Rwanda, and investment has been focused in areas such as education, healthcare, agriculture, infrastructure and job creation.
The Government recognise the particular vulnerability of unaccompanied children who enter the UK by unsafe and illegal routes. It is for this reason that unaccompanied children are not considered for third-country inadmissibility action under the current guidance. Furthermore, the duty to remove in the Illegal Migration Act does not require the Secretary of State to make removal arrangements for unaccompanied children until they turn 18, at which point they will become liable for removal as an adult, either to their home country if safe to do so, or to a safe third country.
In answer to this debate more generally, it seems self-evident—I think my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lord Murray, and the noble Lord, Lord Green, pointed this out—that a child’s best interests are best served by claiming asylum in the first safe country that they reach. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and other noble Lords not to press theirs.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister did not deal with the question—perhaps understandably—about how this House, which has been constituted as a court by the Government, will get a chance to keep under review the question of whether Rwanda is safe. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, said it was coming in a later amendment; it has not come in any of the amendments so far. I simply raise it now to ask the Minister: when is it coming? We will end Committee only an hour or two after dinner, so could he give an indication when we might hear the answer to that question, which has been promised on a number of occasions by the Front Bench?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I reassure the noble and learned Lord that we will have an answer by the end of the evening.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken. I hope those who spoke in support of the amendment will forgive me if I do not spell out what they said, but they strengthened the case remarkably, helping to make a very strong case. I am conscious that other noble Lords want to get on with the dinner-break business so I will be as quick as possible.
I wanted to say something in response to the noble Lords who spoke against the amendment, particularly around the point about deterrence, which a number of noble Lords raised, including the Minister. I just remind them about the impact assessment on the Illegal Migration Act, which said:
“The academic consensus”—
I speak as an academic—
“is that there is little to no evidence suggesting changes in a destination country’s policies have an impact on deterring people from … travelling without valid permission, whether in search of refuge or for other reasons”.
I am sorry, but I do not think that all those arguments about deterrence are very compelling.
The noble Lord, Lord Green, seemed to use what was supposed to be our opportunity to focus on the best interests of children to make a much more general point about a whole list of amendments that are not in this group at all—and I am not sure that that is valid in Committee procedure. He did not make convincing points about children as such. However, he made the point about the British public being very angry. Has anyone asked the British public what they think about children being wrongly assessed as adults and then being put in adult accommodation? I suspect they would not be very happy about that. So I do not see the relevance of the more general point—the noble Lord is trying to get up; perhaps he has some evidence about that.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
The noble Baroness is probably right that the public are not focused on children, still less on the precise means by which they are assessed. However, they are concerned about large-scale, illegal immigration into Britain, which is what I was referring to.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I remind noble Lords that it is illegal only because we made it illegal in the legislation that previously went through this House. There is nothing illegal about seeking asylum; there is an international right to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, questioned the explanatory statement. This has been drafted by a lawyer for me; I will not go into all the legal stuff now. The Minister rattled through section this and section that, and I am afraid I could not even keep up with it, so I will not try to address that; obviously, I will read what he said afterwards. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, said that there is nothing wrong with sending children to Rwanda and expecting them to challenge a decision from there. There is everything wrong with it. Think about it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
There is nothing wrong with sending adults, I said rhetorically, because that is the effect of Section 57. Those who are found to be adults may be sent, and if they wish to challenge that finding, they can do that from Rwanda.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
We are talking about children who have been wrongly assessed. I do not think it is reasonable to expect them to challenge a decision. Other noble Lords made points on this: the sort of legal support they will get there; they will have to do it through video; and then, if they are lucky, they will be sent back.
The Minister simply repeated what we said about two separate senior immigration officers assessing people visually, but he did not engage with the arguments that we put as to why that is inadequate. I sometimes feel as though we take note of the arguments that have been put, look at them and come up with evidence that suggests that they are not strong arguments, only for those arguments to be put all over again. There is no real attempt to engage with what we have said. I am sure that we will come back to this. A number of questions have either not been answered adequately or not been answered at all, so I look forward to the Minister’s letter. I hope that we will get that letter before Report, because there are important questions that need to be answered.
I finish with the image raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, for whose support I am grateful. Do the Government really want us to see images of traumatised children on planes, because we can be sure that when that first plane goes to Rwanda there will be a lot of TV cameras there? Does the Minister really want us to see that image of traumatised children either being sent to Rwanda or being sent back again like parcels, as I said, because they have managed somehow to be assessed as the children that they are? I do not think so.
I will leave it there for now, although I do not think that my noble friend Lord Dubs will be satisfied with the responses that we have had. We will certainly come back at Report with something around children and probably age assessment, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Death of Alexei Navalny
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in the other place by my honourable friend the Minister for Europe on the death of Alexei Navalny. The Statement is as follows:
“I am sure that I speak for the whole House in sending our deepest condolences to Mr Navalny’s family, friends and supporters. We are appalled at the news of his death.
Mr Navalny dedicated his life, with great bravery, to exposing corruption. He called for free and fair politics and held the Kremlin to account. He was an inspiration to millions, and many Russians felt that he gave them a voice. The Russian authorities saw him as a threat. President Putin feared even to speak his name. Putin’s Russia imprisoned him on fabricated charges, poisoned him and sent him to an Arctic penal colony. Mr Navalny was a man of huge courage and iron will. Even from his remote prison cell, he persisted in advocating for the rights of the Russian people.
No one should doubt the dreadful nature of the Russian system. Years of mistreatment at the hands of the state had a serious effect on Mr Navalny’s health. His death must be investigated fully and transparently. The Russian authorities must urgently confirm the location of Mr Navalny’s body to his family and allow them access to it.
On Friday, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office summoned the Russian ambassador to express our outrage at Mr Navalny’s death. We made it clear that we hold the Russian authorities fully responsible. As the Foreign Secretary said over the weekend, those responsible must be ‘held to account’. I assure the House that we are working at pace to explore all options.
As a mark of respect, the Foreign Secretary and his G7 counterparts began their meeting on Saturday with a minute’s silence in honour of Mr Navalny. Our ambassador in Moscow laid flowers at the memorial to victims of political repression on Saturday. The ideals for which Mr Navalny stood and died will live for ever.”
I commend this Statement to the House.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Statement. I do not think that anyone in this House could not have been moved by watching Yulia Navalnaya at the Munich Security Conference. She spoke with remarkable strength and poise in moments of clearly utter grief. I join the Minister in sending our deepest condolences to her and her family.
The death of Alexi Navalny was shocking and yet cruelly predictable. He is yet another victim of the oppressive system that President Putin has built. He was not a saint, but he fought relentlessly and optimistically, with good humour, against the corruption and kleptocracy of modern Russia. He challenged not only Russian autocracy and kleptocracy, but also western hypocrisy and enablement. His campaign was not only against Moscow, but also against the corruption that he saw in London. We must deliver the changes for which he campaigned.
I must admit that, when watching the exchanges in the other place, I was disappointed that the Minister had little to say in response to the questions, without bringing forward any further measures in response to last week’s appalling news. The most consistent ask from MPs in the other place was for an FCDO Minister to come back to the House, ideally before Easter, with a more comprehensive update, particularly to cover things such as additional sanctions—whether against entities, such as the Deposit Insurance Agency of Russia, or personalities, such as Putin and family members—and the progress being made towards repurposing frozen Russia assets, given that Canada and Estonia have started doing this. I was also disappointed with the response to my right honourable friend Margaret Hodge, who asked what steps we are taking to close the sanction-busting oil practices, particularly through routes such as China and India.
My honourable friend Stephen Doughty asked about the support and efforts to secure the release of Vladimir Kara-Murza, whose health is in a terrible state after previous attempts on his life. He is now believed to be top of Putin’s hit list—another brave and vocal opponent of Putin languishing in prison for his beliefs. Of course, he is also a British citizen. I hope that the Minister can tell us what support we are giving to his family.
On all of the above, Leo Docherty said that the Government were working “at pace”. I know what the Foreign Secretary said last week and what the Minister has said—that they will continue to keep the House updated. However, it is not unreasonable to ask of these commitments the assessment on the timing and form of these actions. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, answering Questions last week, gave a very clear commitment on the progress of these points. He was very determined and said that he hoped to raise these issues at the Munich summit. I hope that the Minister can respond. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, also mentioned last week—somewhat to my surprise as I was unaware of it—the further sanctions that the Russian foreign ministry had issued not only to academics and historians but Members of this House, including me. That is a clear attempt to intimidate and attack our freedom to criticise this appalling regime. I hope that the Minister can tell us what sort of response we have given to the Russian foreign ministry on that point.
Of course, Leo Docherty also said:
“There is no space or place for dirty Russian money in the United Kingdom”,
but he did not reference any steps that were being taken or provide an update on the implementation of measures in the recent economic crime Acts. Again, I hope the Minister might reference those specific points. Will the Government launch a new effort to target those networks that are responsible for facilitating and enabling international corruption, which is fundamentally the backbone of Putin’s efforts in his attack on Ukraine? Not a single fine has been issued for breaches of Russian sanctions that have been brought in since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
I hope that the Minister can update us about the new institutions that he has established. I asked for a timeframe in terms of enforcement when we last debated this issue. I hope that he can give us some clear indication tonight. I hope that the Government will soon be able to support the cause for the establishment of an international anti-corruption court. I welcome the sentiments and the commitments given by the Government in relation to the terrible crime of Navalny’s murder but hope that those words can be accompanied soon by bold and urgent action.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, some of us in the Chamber will be spending the rest of the day holding the Government to account and asking probing questions of Ministers. Some of us are frustrated, some of the questions are constructive, but we are carrying out democratic duties as politicians. We do so with utter liberty and take for granted that we are not under personal threat. Alexei Navalny, as the Minister said, paid for the liberty that we have with his life. President Biden has said that his death was
“a consequence of something that Putin and his thugs did”.
Indeed, the Russian Government is now a Government of thugs. It is painful to see many friendly countries sharing a stage with the Russian Foreign Minister, meeting Vladimir Putin, liaising and trading with the Russian Government and supplying them with goods. We still have to deal with them, of course, but they are dealing with a Government of thugs.
There are others, such as Vladimir Kara-Murza, whom the noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred to, who continue to be in danger. It was a real privilege to join my noble friend Lady Brinton to award the Liberal International Prize for Freedom to Evgenia Kara-Murza on behalf of her husband. Can the Minister state whether there is a higher degree of confidence that those in detention will be safe with the scrutiny that the rest of the world places on Russia? I fear that Putin feels that he has impunity. It is no surprise that the presidential so-called elections in Russia are a month away. This was probably a deliberate act to commence an election campaign in Russia, to show what being in opposition to the Putin regime means.
It seems that Russia is now operating under a war economy. I associate myself with the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised, but why are the Government not expanding our sanctions regimes, recognising that Russia now has a war economy? Russia is now spending about 45% of its GDP on the military—an astonishing level. To some extent, it is propping up the entire economy of a nation. Therefore, we need to migrate the focus of our sanctions from individuals and companies towards the whole of the military-industrial complex. That will mean us having difficult conversations with those friendly nations that I referred to, including India and other countries which I have warned about with regard to the rupee-ruble swap for trading in oil for nearly two years now.
If we are to have no impunity for the regime, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, we must ensure that all those involved in the process and associated with Navalny’s death—those involved in the process leading up to his detention, during his detention and now—are within the scope of full and punitive sanctions. We have wider tools available to us now. The global human rights sanctions regime allows immediate and rapid designation. Can the Minister state whether that is a tool that could be used?
It is also worth recognising that we are perhaps at a tipping point regarding Russia and Ukraine, as the Danish Prime Minister and others have warned. Ukraine must have the tools to ensure that, as well as his detractors being under threat, Putin cannot state in the election campaign that he is also claiming ground. The noble Lord, Lord Benyon, told me that the Government would potentially be open to considering windfall tax on frozen assets so that we could release money now that could be used for the Ukrainian war effort. Ukraine is in desperate need of our support now. The UK has frozen an extremely high level of assets, but they need to be materialised for active support for Ukraine. Can the Minister clarify the Government’s position?
I hope that if anything can jolt us into moving faster, it will be this tragic death. I too saw the video and associate myself with the condolences, but perhaps one of the best ways of showing that the thugs will not win is that there are actions by democratic nations as a result of that tragic death.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, for their statements and questions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that it is incredible to think that the process of holding Ministers and the Government of the day to account, which we take almost for granted, is something denied so readily in what is called and perceived as a democracy. The irony is not lost on anyone that, at a time of election of the President in Russia, many have been sidelined and taken off the ballot.
As both noble Lords pointed out, the name of Alexei Navalny is not something that Mr Putin can even utter. There were brave souls in Russia who sought to make statements. One individual was taken off air as he was expressing condolences, which shows the control that people are subjected to and the duress people are under in Russia. I pay tribute—I am sure all noble Lords will agree—to those brave, courageous Russians who have gone out and marked the tragic death of this great leader, who sought to bring about accountability and democracy in Russia. Since he returned on that fateful day after being poisoned, he was, again, immediately detained. Look around the world: who would have the courage and conviction—having been directly targeted by this oppressive culture and regime, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed out—to return to that very land, knowing full well that this might mean the end to his freedoms? In this case, the tragic end was that he paid with his life.
The noble Lord raised the issue of Russian sanctions on UK parliamentarians; I assure him we take that seriously. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about other UK allies who also have relationships with Russia; I will be in India later this week and will have bilateral talks with the Indian Government. I assure noble Lords that I will raise these issues, as I have done previously. Both noble Lords asked about further sanctions and steps we are taking; they know that I cannot state anything specific at this time, but I assure them that we are working on these in the usual way. As I have extended the courtesy, I will seek to inform noble Lords on the Front Benches of the Government’s intention. I again put on record our thanks for the strong support for the sanctions the Government have imposed in this instance.
Noble Lords will be aware of the so-called Navalny list of sanctions on individuals. The Government have acted; of the original 35 names put forward, 29 were specifically sanctioned. I take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, suggested about the broadening nature and using our global human rights sanction regime—it is something I personally advocated for. It is there, it can be done quickly, and it is for egregious abuse of human rights.
We hold Russia accountable for this death and, while it has made statements that it will be fully investigated, the importance of transparency was again reiterated in the summoning that took place recently. In terms of further steps, a G20 meeting is taking place, which my noble friend the Foreign Secretary will be attending. There will be an occasion again to see how, in the wider context of the G20—which includes a number of the countries the noble Lord mentioned, and Russia itself—we can hold Russia to account during those meetings and the platform they provide.
Both noble Lords asked specifically about Vladimir Kara-Murza’s health. Officials in the UK and Moscow have repeatedly raised concerns for his health with the Russians. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who is not in her place but who has been a very strong advocate for him. He is a British citizen, and the Russians are in no doubt about the strength of views and advocacy of the British Government in this regard. We will continue to demand that Mr Kara-Murza must be granted all appropriate medical treatment. We are concerned about his health, and we continue to implore answers from Russia about the basis of his continued detention. I assure noble Lords that we are very seized of that, and the cases of other detainees, and are working closely with the families.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about sanctions and enforcement. The Government have committed £50 million to support the new economic deterrence initiative, which further strengthens our diplomatic and economic tools. The new Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation will strengthen the implementation and enforcement of our trade sanctions. We take seriously the issue of circumvention, allegations of breaches, or evasion of sanctions, raised by the noble Lord. In August 2023, a UK company was fined £1 million in relation to unlicensed trade of goods in breach of the Russian sanctions. I acknowledge the point made by both noble Lords about circumvention of sanctions. We will continue to take evasion of sanctions very seriously. As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, for every step taken forward to tighten the regime there will be those looking at more elaborate ways to circumvent. We are working closely with G7 partners—leaders have tasked the relevant G7 ministries to report back on progress by the two-year mark of Russia’s invasion, and I will share that with noble Lords.
The UK remains fully committed to work with allies and we have introduced specific legislation, explicitly enabling us to keep sanctions in place until Russia pays for the damage it has caused. We support the action mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the EU—that is taken forward. I have said before that we are looking at each step taken by any of our allies and partners on how those seized assets can be utilised effectively. I know that all noble Lords are in agreement that they should be applied specifically to the reconstruction of Ukraine. As I have said, we are focused on that, but are ensuring that the legal basis for asset seizures is watertight.
I hope noble Lords will take the specific answers I have given—I know the noble Lord, Lord Collins, had some reservations but I hope I have provided some degree of detail—and, as I said earlier, I will personally ensure to update both noble Lords, and subsequently the House, on the further steps we will take, including evaluating further sanctions.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his clear response and the very clear Statement. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his very clear support.
What has happened to Alexei Navalny is the same as what happened to Sergei Magnitsky, Bill Browder’s lawyer, who was murdered in prison at the hands of the Russian prison service. It is pretty clear that the killing of Navalny went the same way, although obviously it is early days and things have yet to be proved and established.
Would my noble friend agree that, although it took 70 years to get rid of the murderous Stalinist regime—with interruptions when it was actually our ally—we have the tools, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned, to make sure that the life of this present corrupt and killing regime in the Kremlin is considerably shorter? In a way, these murders are themselves signs of the weakness and the fragile nature of the regime in Moscow.
I am not sure that sanctions have much more to add. I am afraid that the Russian economy, for reasons that are nothing to do with Putin, is rather strong, with high oil prices and Russia’s continued enormous trade and investment in many parts of Asia and Africa, which we should never forget. This is something we must fight against at all times and is getting extremely intrusive in some areas. Would my noble friend also agree that, with the rapid advance of technology, we now have more and more opportunities to get information to the Russian people about the really evil nature of those who govern them, and that we should mobilise this as energetically as I am afraid the Russians try to do the other way? I would like an assurance that, on the side of the modern hybrid warfare of high technology, cyber intrusion and superintelligence, we will stay as determined as ever to make sure that the truth gets through to the Russian people at some stage.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has great insight in this respect: history has shown that, for coercive regimes, an end will be brought about. Normally, it is brought about from within, by the courage of people who stand up for their rights as citizens of a particular country. Although the Russians will determine who will lead them, it is very clear that Mr Putin and his Government have used nothing but repressive tactics on their own citizens, which has culminated in eliminating all political opponents. We will work with key allies and partners to ensure that accountability is very clear. The Government have led on this, and we appreciate the steps that have been taken in the wider context, for example within the ICC against Mr Putin and what he has inflicted on the Ukrainian people.
On sanctions, I remind my noble friend that the UK has sanctioned over 1,900 individuals and entities since the full-scale invasion. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to assets being frozen. Those amount to about £22.7 billion. Without sanctions, we estimate that Russia would have had in excess of $400 billion more to fund the war. So, although I accept that there is circumvention and that the Russians are seeking new, innovative ways to conduct particular derivative operations, that $400 billion has nevertheless been denied to the Russian war machine.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I have been in this House for 20 years and periodically we have these Statements. We recall this list of names: Sergei Magnitsky, Boris Nemtsov, and now Alexei Navalny. Members on all sides of the House have mentioned that stalwart of freedom and democracy, Vladimir Kara-Murza, who I have had the privilege to know personally; he has been here in this House to brief me and others. The Minister has been quite careful not to say very much about the condition of Mr Kara-Murza. I am not going to press him on that, but he has also recorded the fact that Mr Kara-Murza is a British citizen. I would like to know what he is doing in terms of speaking to other UN Security Council members to keep him safe and alive, and to allow him to carry that torch of freedom that proves to be so elusive to the Russian people.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I recognise what the noble Baroness raises. As I said, we are very much seized of the situation with Mr Kara-Murza and making sure that his welfare is very much a matter of discussion not just with our key partners in the G7 and the G20 but directly with the Russians to ensure that he is protected, and his welfare and health prioritised. However, there can be no escaping the fact that he too has been detained in a colony that is restrictive. We directly challenge the basis of his detention. The noble Baroness says that I have taken great care and measure. We want to ensure that his welfare is fully protected, but I assure your Lordships that we will leave no stone unturned in our advocacy with key partners, and directly with Russia, to ensure the freedoms that he stands for and his rights as a British citizen, and to make our advocacy very clear to the Russians that we regard him as one of our own. We will do our utmost to ensure, first, that his welfare is protected, and, secondly, that he is allowed to return to our country.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, when the Minister expresses outrage, sympathy and sadness at the death of Alexei Navalny, he speaks for the whole House, and indeed, I believe, for the whole British nation. As somebody who has had dealings with President Putin in the past, I would say that the premature death of Alexei Navalny, whether at the hands of the regime or indirectly because of the conditions that were inflicted on him, is not a sign of strength but of weakness; not a sign of authority but of cowardice; not a sign of firmness but of fragility deep inside the regime of Vladimir Putin today.
I therefore ask the Minister, on behalf of the Government, to look again at the sanctions policy see where Vladimir Putin is getting the instruments to continue to conduct the war in Ukraine: for example, through Armenia and Georgia, to which exports of critical material have been increasing exponentially. Secondly, can we not now boost the communication that we have with the Russian people, as we did in the days of the Soviet Union, so that they begin to realise the pariah status that has been inflicted on a great nation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. He has great experience and insight: indeed, he has dealt with Mr Putin directly and knows the individual concerned. On his latter point on communications—my noble friend Lord Howell also mentioned technology enablement—that has been a key feature of what we have seen in Russia directly. The fact that at this moment the death of Alexei Navalny was marked in several Russian cities demonstrably shows that, despite the coercion and suppression, people are ready and willing to come out.
We pay tribute to a number of the leaders within the opposition who have also spoken out against these events. If anything, Mr Putin should look to the example of Yulia Navalnaya and her courage and bravery, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. On looking at the sanctions that we have currently deployed and the broader nature of what can be done, I assure noble Lords that we are very much seized of this. Hopefully, we will be returning to your Lordships’ House in the near future to outline additional measures that we are taking. On additional measures and sanctions—the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and I have talked about this extensively on every sanction—I say that these are most effective when we act with our partners. That is why, I assure noble Lords, we are working very closely with the EU, the US and Canada in this respect.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I spoke yesterday to members of our sister party Yabloko in Russia. They are very grateful for the reference to all the people who came out on the streets. It was not just a few cities. They say that it was in towns and cities across Russia. For us, that has to be an important sign that there are people who care passionately about the state of Russia. Their concern is that their voices are not being heard outside Russia at all. I always try to refer to the Kremlin rather than to Russia, because the Russian people are as appalled as we are by what has happened to Navalny. They want things to change but they do not have the power to do that.
I want to echo the points made by other noble Lords about Vladimir Kara-Murza. He was poisoned twice in 2015 and 2017. He was imprisoned in 2022. Last year, he was sentenced to a further 25 years for “treason”, the treason being membership of an opposition party and trying to use his voice. It would be helpful if the Minister could perhaps brief those who have spoken in today’s Statement debate if there is any news of contact. I know that in particular Evgenia, his wife, is very worried about what is happening. But there are many other dissidents also in prison. If the Minister could keep the House informed, that would be enormously helpful.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Of course I give the assurance that we will keep noble Lords informed. The noble Baroness spoke about the sister party to the Liberal Democrats, Yabloko. Indeed, its leader was also giving a statement when he was taken off air. It shows the strength of the Russian people. I agree with the noble Baroness that we should talk about the Kremlin, Mr Putin and his supporters rather than the Russian people. The Russian people are being denied. As we have said repeatedly when it comes to Ukraine, our fight, our challenge, our disputes and our absolute shock over what has happened to Ukraine have been at the instigation of Mr Putin and the Kremlin, and are in no way a reflection of the Russian people.
As we have seen from the tragic death of Alexei Navalny and the continued detention of Vladimir Kara-Murza, those who speak out, who want to represent the people of Russia, are often silenced. You can do nothing but be inspired. I echo again the sentiments expressed earlier: here we are in a democracy such as the United Kingdom where we take these basic, fundamental freedoms sometimes quite lightly. But actually, we are speaking up for those Russian citizens. We are standing up for those brave souls, some of whom, like Alexei Navalny, have paid the ultimate price, with their life, to ensure that their legacy is not forgotten. The biggest tribute we can give is to continue to advocate as such.
Baroness Fall (Con)
My Lords, I want to join others in expressing my dismay and deep sadness at the death of Alexei Navalny. We thank him for his courage, for the hope that he planted and for the reminder, as others have said, that Putin does not speak for all the people of Russia. I lived in Russia as a child; my father was a diplomat and ambassador to Russia. I saw the spirit of the people there, who did defy a regime once—and we hope they will do so again.
Putin’s aggression has delivered the one thing he did not want, which is the invigoration and expansion of NATO. Finland’s entry has been a great achievement, bringing with it one of the largest armies in Europe and the longest border with Russia. Will the Minister confirm whether Hungary is due to vote on Sweden’s membership of the alliance, perhaps even as soon as next Monday? I urge the Government to continue the pressure on Hungary to lift its block.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Again, the noble Baroness provides a very personal insight of her experiences. I recall the time of the great and late Lady Thatcher and her meeting with Mr Gorbachev—that this was someone “we can do business with”. I remember, in my much younger years, the great inspiration that we were seeing the coming down of that wall that was created; the Cold War was coming to an end. Yet here we are in 2024 and many of those issues and challenges, and the antagonistic nature of what Russia presented, are still being realised today.
Therefore, yes, there are many unintended consequences which Mr Putin did not foresee, including the expansion of NATO to new members and a new, increased resilience among existing NATO members, and of course we are looking very much towards Ukraine’s accession. On the point about Hungary, yes, I can assure my noble friend we are very much seized of that. Again, at the moment, I am at the Raisina dialogue in India and I saw on the list the Hungarian Foreign Minister, who I know well personally. I have indicated to my team that, if he is present, I wish to meet with him on the very issue my noble friend raises.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
Given what the Minister and other noble Lords have said, will the Minister comment on the importance of getting the message from the West across to the people of Russia? I am thinking particularly of the BBC World Service, of course—but other news organisations as well. That is part of our soft power. It is one of the few things we can really do in these circumstances.
There is another thing I would ask the Minister to endorse. Mrs Navalny talked about not just the loss of a future, the loss of her husband’s future, but the loss of the future that he held for Russia—Mother Russia and the people that he loved there. Having myself been there several times, had music performed there, and been really welcomed extraordinarily by the Russian people, I think—especially given what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said—of the experience of Dmitri Shostakovich, who of course Stalin tried to keep quiet and almost had killed. In fact, he would have had him killed after the first performance of Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk: there was a terrible review in Pravda, which normally would have spelled the death of someone. So I endorse the importance of the spirit of the Russian people. We may take succour from these great works of art, whether from Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn or Shostakovich, which show that the human spirit somehow prevails. Mr Navalny would want us to think in those positive terms. As Mrs Navalny said, “We will fight on”.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I totally endorse the noble Lord’s statement, views and indeed sentiments. He brings a valuable dimension to the discussion and questions that we have about the strength of UK soft power, including the use of the incredible service that the BBC provides to many countries, including the Russian people. I certainly take on board what he said. As my noble friend said earlier, our fight is not with the Russian people. Indeed, Russian culture through history has enriched not just the Russian people but the world.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I associate the Green Party with the expressions of condolence from all around the House to Alexei Navalny’s family, friends and supporters.
A number of noble Lords have talked about extending sanctions. There is obviously work to consider there, but I want to focus on what is happening in the UK. In December, Transparency International Russia, operating in exile, produced an important report about illegal money transfers for fictitious or overpriced invoices, which is what is known as trade-based money laundering. They total hundreds of millions of pounds, and a very large percentage of that involves UK-based shell companies. We are about to see the long-awaited reforms of Companies House, but the second point raised by the report was about the role of enablers—that is, professional companies and individuals in the UK that are facilitating what is known as the London laundromat. We have been through two economic crime Bills since the Russian invasion, but a Minister conceded to me that we needed to do more. Are the Government planning to do more about the enablers who are not just enabling corruption but enabling Putin’s war?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The short answer to the noble Baroness’s question is yes. She is right to raise the issue of those who profiteer. I mentioned earlier those who look for innovative ways of circumventing the legislation that has been imposed and the steps that have been taken. We need to ensure that the new bodies that have been set up and the new structures and powers that have been given are applied. There will always be deterrence, but there will always be those who seek to circumvent it. We need to close down the loopholes, including the ones that the noble Baroness has highlighted.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, it is reassuring to see all sides of the House with shared purpose in holding the Putin regime to account, but of course it is not just the death of poor Mr Navalny that we mourn. There have been extrajudicial killings on UK soil too. It is not just Russia that we fear; the Government have had to warn China about the intimidation of UK citizens, while the Canadians have accused India of extrajudicial killings of Sikhs in Canada. What reassurance can the Minister give to Russian and Chinese exiles and British Sikhs that they are safe to express themselves freely in the UK?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, our freedoms and our civil and human rights were hard fought for. If you go back a century into our own history, you see the challenges of the brave souls who had to fight for the most basic fundamental freedoms that we now enjoy, including the right of women to vote, which we take now as something quite simple, yet there were great struggles in the past. Our own history lends itself to ensuring that the strength of our communities and the diversity of people that we have today is fully protected. One thing is very clear: I am proud to say the UK is a place where we protect all our citizens, including those who take protection in the UK. That is a proud tradition that we have had over many years and it should continue to be the case. Accountability is a feature of our democracy. I speak for many noble Lords, including myself, who, because of the roles we have, the statements we make and indeed the policies we present, are then subjected to abuse that most people do not see, and it is almost second nature for us. But we must fight for those freedoms and protections and ensure that those who challenge our basic freedoms are given a clear and unequivocal message, as we have done today.
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Monday 19th February 2024
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 View all Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 41-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (15 Feb 2024)
Lord Scriven
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would omit the provision that only a Minister of the Crown can decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, this part of the Committee’s deliberation is on Clause 5, “Interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights”. I will speak to a number of amendments in this group, but it is worth starting by looking at the Government’s ECHR memorandum provided with the Bill. On Clause 5, in paragraph 29 of the memorandum, the Government are very sparse in their view about their determination on interim measures. The memorandum says:
“The Government considers that the provision is capable of being operated compatibly with Convention rights”.
It does not say how the Government consider that to be the case. When the Minister responds to this debate, I am sure many noble Lords in the Committee will look forward to hearing how the Government consider that the provision can be compatible.
It is probably worth putting what we are talking about in context because, listening to some of the debate regarding interim measures, you would think that hundreds and hundreds of these are scattered around denying—as some would say—the UK courts having sovereignty in determining cases. Since 2017, there have been 660 requests against the UK for an interim injunction and only 15 have been granted—that is 2%—by the European Court of Human Rights.
It is interesting to note that, in 2023 regarding the UK, the court received 61 requests for an emergency intervention and only one was granted. We are potentially talking about only small numbers—on average, between five and six interim measures per year. We are not talking about hundreds of interim measures being ruled on and granted by the European Court of Human Rights against the UK. Of course, interim injunctions are only issued by the European Court of Human Rights pending a full judgment where the applicant faces an exceptional and immediate risk of irreparable harm in the meantime.
In Clause 5 of this Bill, it is for the Minister and the Minister alone to decide whether a person could be removed to Rwanda while their case is being decided by the European Court of Human Rights. My first question to the Minister is: in what circumstances would a Minister not wish to comply with an interim measure from the European Court of Human Rights? Are there any cases within the last four years in which the Government would have presumed not to have abided by an interim measure by the European Court of Human Rights?
Case law on the European Court of Human Rights has been clear for 20 years: failure to comply with interim measures is a violation of Article 34 of the convention, under which states undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of the rights of the applicants to bring their claims before the court. Some noble Lords at Second Reading said they disagreed with the court’s view that failing to comply with interim measures was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
However, Article 32 of the convention, which the UK voluntarily signed up to—it was not forced to do so—says that:
“The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention”.
In that sense, the final arbitrator of whether a state should invoke and carry out interim measures is down to the European Court of Human Rights and not a Parliament of one of its states. That is the convention to which we signed up.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendments 58, 60 and 61 in this group, and I share them with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I shall also say a few words about Amendment 63, which I have not signed but which is proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who is sadly unable to be here today, and I said I would say something about his amendment, because I think it is very valuable to the Committee’s consideration.
Amendments 58, 60 and 61 would require the Government to comply with international law in responding to an interim measure of the Court of Human Rights. They would require domestic courts to take such interim measures into account and would disapply offending provisions in Section 55 of the Illegal Migration Act for those specific purposes.
It is difficult to contemplate why the Government want to take specific powers to disapply Rule 39 measures, given, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and others on different days, how few interim measures have been made in the history of the convention against the United Kingdom—something to be proud of—how we have pretty much always complied with them, and how we try to take a position on the world stage to encourage others in the Council of Europe, and powers outside the Council of Europe, to comply with other international courts. I need not develop that too much further; I am sure everyone knows what I am alluding to. I find it difficult to understand.
If certain noble Lords opposite are going to pop up and say there is nothing in international law that says that you have to comply with Rule 39, one answer came from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven: it is ultimately for the court to decide whether Rule 39 is binding in international law or not. When you sign up to the club that is the Council of Europe, do you sign up to the referees of that club, yes or no?
The other thing is this. If it is not a matter of international law that we comply with Rule 39 and we just do it because we are gentlemen—and ladies and noble Lords—then why would we take specific domestic statutory powers to say we can ignore it? It seems very odd and troubling to me—but I would say that, would I not?
Even though I did not sign it, because I take a rather trenchant position on the importance of complying with Rule 39, I think it is important to expose Amendment 63 from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. He was prepared to go a little towards the government position and to say that there might be certain circumstances where a Minister of the Crown may ignore an interim ruling of the court. Remember, the court in Strasbourg makes these only rarely, and only where it thinks there is a real danger that something so bad will happen to the person between the case being brought and a final outcome that the case will be virtually academic, to use a phrase coined earlier by the noble and learned Lord. Here, “academic” means that you will be dead before the final outcome of the case, or you will be sent for torture. That is the territory we are talking about when we talk about interim measures.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is prepared to go further towards his noble friends’ position than I am. In honouring comments from the Government on previous occasions, he tabled Amendment 63, which says that Ministers may sometimes ignore interim measures but only when the Government were not allowed a proper opportunity to argue against the making of the interim measure.
This goes back to a debate that arose during the passage of what is now the Illegal Migration Act, and that now rages on in certain parts of the media and on Twitter: that the wicked old Strasbourg court is constantly granting these interim measures to frustrate our immigration controls and is doing so behind our backs—so-called pyjama injunctions. I have heard all sorts of people who do not often talk about legal process pick up this soundbite of “pyjama injunctions”. The Strasbourg court is granting these ex parte injunctions to applicants without due process—that is the argument that is being made.
The noble Viscount says, “Of course we must have due process, and therefore the Minister can ignore these measures if he thinks we’ve not been allowed due process”. Since the passing of the Illegal Migration Act, which is when this argument was first ventilated, there have been productive discussions between the Government—they are indivisible, but I am talking about that nice bit we call the Foreign Office—and the Strasbourg court, because I believe everybody agrees that there should be due process. Sometimes, you need to make an urgent interim measure to stop someone being put on a plane potentially to ill treatment or death. But, even in that emergency situation, any state or Government should have the opportunity to say, “Actually, you got that wrong, so can we return to that?”
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
The noble Baroness said that the Strasbourg court would make such an order only in dire straits, when there was a matter of real emergency and death was the almost inevitable result. Can she help the Committee with the reasons the Strasbourg court gave last year, when it issued the rule 39 order?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
No, I will not set that out, given the hour. I am talking about the general principle here, and I will not rehearse the specific details of that interim measure. I want to focus on the fact that everybody agrees that due process requires that any state, including the UK, ought to be able to put its case, and, if it cannot do so in an emergency, it should be able to thereafter. My understanding of the Government’s position during the passage of the Illegal Migration Act was that the UK Government were in negotiations with the Strasbourg system to make sure that due process was restored. Even if an emergency interim measure needs to be made, there will be the opportunity to put the other case thereafter—that is the position we are used to in the domestic courts. That seems sensible to me.
I had an amendment to the Illegal Migration Bill, akin to the amendments I have today, and I withdrew it and did not press it at subsequent opportunities because I thought that the UK Government were entitled to have those negotiations with the Strasbourg court. Everything I read suggests to me that these negotiations have been fruitful, presumably because of the endeavours of people like the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who spoke so powerfully about rights, freedoms and the rule of law a few moments ago.
In his reply, can the Minister tell us where we are with those discussions with the Strasbourg court? It seems to me that it would be common sense and better for everybody—not just the UK Government but other states, as well as the Strasbourg system itself, which is so important in the current dangerous times—if that mechanism worked well, so that, even if there occasionally need to be emergency interim measures, it would be clearly open to any state that felt that it had not had the opportunity to put its case to do so subsequently. An interim measure, if not needed, could be set aside. That is my first question to the Minister.
My second question is this: how can we pursue measures of this kind, taking a specific express power for Ministers of State to ignore interim measures of the Strasbourg court, when there are currently interim measures against, for example, the Russian Federation to prevent the execution of prisoners of war in the Ukraine conflict? I am becoming a little tired of hearing the Government speak with two voices: the Foreign Office voice and the Home Office voice. The poor Minister is of course a law officer and has to sit across all of this, but it is not consistent to talk about international law and how everyone must obey it, including the Russian Federation, which, while it is expelled from the Council of Europe, we say is still bound by interim measures of the Strasbourg court.
That is important because, one day, there will be a reckoning for Mr Putin and his cronies, and it may be in the ICC. It will then be relevant that there were interim measures of the Strasbourg court, and particularly relevant if they ignored them. How does that stand with what the Government propose in this Bill?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I strongly agree with the point that the noble Baroness has made. My name is to Amendments 57 and 59. It is rather appropriate that we come to these amendments immediately after the House has considered the murder of Navalny.
There is a precedent for what we are asked to do in Clauses 5(2) and 5(3)—a Russian precedent. In 2016, the Russian Parliament passed a decree enabling the Russian Constitutional Court to ignore rulings from the European Court of Human Rights. It is not a very exact precedent; the Russian Parliament was passing permissive legislation, which permitted the Constitutional Court in Moscow to ignore rulings from Strasbourg.
What we are doing is not permissive but proscriptive and prohibitive. We are being asked to ban all our courts from having regard to or paying any attention to any interim measure from Strasbourg if it relates to a decision on transportation to Rwanda. We are being asked to pass a law which bans any official from paying any attention to a Strasbourg ruling in a relevant case; only a Minister is allowed to decide whether we comply or not. There is no role for Parliament or the courts, and the role of the Executive is strictly at ministerial level. That is extraordinary.
Russia is no longer in the Council of Europe. It lost some of its rights with the second Chechen war and more with the seizure of Crimea, and after the invasion of Ukraine it lost them all. However, we seem to think that we can stay even though the law we are being asked to pass is much more draconian, trenchant, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and hostile to the convention than the Kremlin’s. It is a very strange fact that at this moment—
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I am listening carefully to the noble Lord. In all sincerity, what is the difference between a foreign, unaccountable and anonymous single judge in a court over which the British people have no control, accountability or democratic sanction, and some of the more unappetising and less benign regimes and legal procedures to which he refers?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The noble Lord is well aware that the Strasbourg court has decided to pass various reforms and the anonymity of the judge is a thing of the past. I am not an expert on the Strasbourg court. However, I am a believer that if we maintain that we believe in the rule of law, we cannot pick and choose which bits of international law we comply with. That is a point I put forward at Second Reading and one I feel very strongly about. I do not see how we can, in good conscience, pass Clauses 5(2) and 5(3), which is why I added my name to Amendments 57 and 59 as moved by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, the words that I am about to utter are largely not mine. They are the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, who I am delighted to see in his place, in the preface he wrote to a paper on Rule 39 written by Professor Richard Ekins, professor of law and constitutional government at Oxford, and published by Policy Exchange last year.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann said:
“A ruling of a court such as the European Court of Justice”—
though I think he probably meant, if noble Lords will forgive me, the European Court of Human Rights as his words certainly apply to it—
“is binding upon the parties only if the court had jurisdiction to make it. If it did, a party must comply and cannot complain that it was wrong. If the court did not have jurisdiction, the parties can ignore it.
The European Convention on Human Rights confers upon the Strasbourg Court jurisdiction in all matters ‘concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention’: article 32. It exercises this jurisdiction by the judgments of its Chambers, which, after submissions and argument by the parties, become final in accordance with articles 42 and 44. In this paper, Professor Ekins demonstrates that the Convention does not confer upon the Court, still less upon one of its judges, a power to make orders binding upon a Member State which require it to do or refrain from doing something on the ground that it might at a later stage be held to have been an infringement of the Convention. Not only is there nothing in the language of the Convention which expressly confers such a power but the usual aids to the construction of a treaty – the travaux preparatoires, the subsequent practice of the court – reflect a clear understanding that no such power exists.
What has happened is that one of the rules which the Court has itself made to regulate its own procedures has included a power to ‘bring to the attention of the Parties any interim measure the adoption of which seems desirable’ to avoid a violation of the Convention. The existence of a power to fire such a shot across the bows is practical and sensible. It does not involve the assertion of any jurisdiction to impose a legal obligation. But what has happened in the court’s recent jurisprudence is that this advisory power has been assumed to be a power to grant legally binding interlocutory relief. As Professor Ekins demonstrates, a court cannot in this way enlarge its jurisdiction by its own bootstraps. And if the Court had no jurisdiction to make such an order, Member States are free to ignore it”.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to Article 32, which gives the court the power to interpret and apply the convention. It does not, however, give the court the power to add something to the convention which simply is not there. As Professor Ekins said in the concluding words of his paper:
“In rejecting the Strasbourg Court’s actions in excess of jurisdiction, the UK … would not be failing to honour its international legal obligations; it would be inviting the Court to honour its own legal obligations”.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I would like to follow those who have supported some of this group of amendments. I do not want to follow on to the territory of the European Court of Human Rights. A number of previous speakers, though not the most recent one, have expressed my views perfectly well.
I take issue, briefly, with the lamentable use of the phrase “foreign court” by the Prime Minister, which I regard as an extraordinary breach of British diplomatic history and practice. When he winds up, I would like the Minister to answer the following questions. We accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. We have no member of that court at the moment, lamentably, due to diplomatic ineptitude. Is that a foreign court? We accept the International Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, do we not? We are delighted when the International Criminal Court indicts Mr Putin for abducting Ukrainian children. Do we accept it? Is it a foreign court? We are pretty pleased when the Tribunal for the Law of the Sea rules that the Chinese are ultra vires in seizing large chunks of the South China Sea. Is that a foreign court? I could go on. We have been trying to sustain the dispute settlement procedure of the World Trade Organization against the worst efforts of our closest ally, the United States. Is that a foreign court? We accept its jurisdiction. Could we please stop talking about “foreign courts”, and realise that it is in the interests of this country to stick with the obligations it has undertaken to obey such tribunals?
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I want to speak very briefly to group 5 amendments. Specifically, I go back to the answer that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, gave to me earlier. Yes indeed, the plenary court—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
It might just be helpful if the noble Lord would apologise to my noble friend, to say that he was not in the Chamber at the commencement of this group.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
It was very observant of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, but I was in here. I left to get my notes that I needed, but I am touched by his interest.
On the issue from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the plenary session on 13 November did indeed undertake to de-anonymise the individual single judges involved in adjudication, but that has not yet happened, and there is no timetable for that. So I suppose each of us is half right.
The important thing to state, again, is that the wider context, as touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, is that the public are exceedingly concerned about the issue of illegal migration. It cannot be brushed aside when we talk about arcane legal and legislative points. People are angry and they want answers. As a Parliament, we have to find a way to face up to those very difficult issues. The point I made a week or so ago is that if there is a change of government, the Labour Party is most likely going to have to face those challenges as well. Instead of just criticising the Government, it will have to come forward with some really significant proposals to address those issues.
The Strasbourg court, as it happens, has never asserted or conferred, via member states, the right to authorise the court to grant interim relief in terms of the ECHR convention treaty. Indeed, domestic courts—the Supreme Court and the Appeal Court—have found quite the contrary, as was mentioned by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches earlier.
There is a concern about this battle between parliamentary sovereignty and accountability in this House and in the other place, and the idea that a decision which could have very profound public safety ramifications—this is a tiny minority, but it could possibly—is taken in foreign court with an anonymous judge where the Government are not permitted to present evidence in a timely way. There is no real accountability. I am sorry to say that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, finds it disobliging to call it a foreign court, but that is how many voters, taxpayers and British citizens see it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My complaint about the use of the term “foreign court” was not due to any discomfort, but because people such as himself and the leader of his party encourage people to call courts which are not foreign courts “foreign”. They are courts of organisations which we have endowed with certain powers, and which often have British judges on their tribunals. That is my complaint.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I think that is a moot point, in so far as—
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I am always delighted to amuse the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
Articles 26 and 27 of the ECHR expressly limit the competence of a single judge vis-à-vis the Chamber of the Court or the Grand Chamber. I agree that in a case such as Hirst v UK (No. 2) [2005] on prisoner votes, we—as a Government, Ministers and the Executive—specifically set our face against a decision of the Grand Chamber. That was liable for criticism.
But the fundamental question here is: is the use of Rule 39 interim measures at the heart of what you would call international law? As I will set out very briefly, that is not necessarily the case, because the ECHR makes express provision for the constitution of the court and its jurisdiction. A single anonymous judge at the court breaches the limit of what the ECHR establishes as the competence of that single judge as the legal authority. Indeed, interim measures are not, in effect, de facto rulings of the Strasbourg court at all, and the Minister is therefore not in breach of “international law”. I make reference again to Articles 26 and 27 of the convention.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am very interested in his points about international law and so on. As a matter of basic common sense and logic, does he understand why there is value in the interim measures of any court, domestic or international? Does he understand why it is sometimes necessary to have some kind of mechanism for preventing a case becoming totally academic and preventing the outcome being decided before the case has been properly and finally heard, whether in a domestic or an international court? If he agrees that there is sometimes value in that, and if he has concerns about the way the Strasbourg procedures work, does he not think that the first thing to do would be to try to negotiate reforms to those procedures, rather than just taking domestic powers to ignore them?
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I say, gently, to the noble Baroness that this issue with unrestricted, unprecedented levels of geopolitical change and immigration is sui generis. Therefore, one has to see it through that prism. Yes, broadly and in principle, it is better to negotiate than to withdraw from a convention or another legal regime. But you cannot always use the case that, because Putin has been beastly, we self-evidently and axiomatically have to deal with his breach of international law. After all, invading a sovereign country such as Ukraine is a bit different from some of the other cases the noble Baroness used. It does not mean that you cannot be critical of the overall application of the legal regime we are discussing.
In fairness, my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s amendment is very fair-minded, enabling the Government potentially to present the evidence that, hitherto, they were not able to do in the 2022 case. Indeed, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coker, is eminently sensible—actually, it is rather otiose, because one would always assume that the Home Secretary would seek the advice of the Attorney-General in proceeding in these small number of cases.
Two of the amendments the noble Baroness put forward are clearly wrecking amendments. The amendment that would disapply Section 55 of the Illegal Migration Act would specifically remove the express parliamentary sanction and authorisation of non-compliance with the interim measure, which, in itself, is a draconian move. Amendments 58 and 60 go to the heart of what we assume to be international law, in terms of what is justiciable in domestic law.
Let us be honest and put our cards on the table. This is about tying up the Bill in endless judicial reviews to stop any people being removed and to stop us tackling one of the biggest, endemic, troubling issues in politics. It is about bringing this back under the purview of domestic legislation in order to establish a roadblock via judicial review.
My final point is about the Human Rights Act 1998. It does not give legal effect in domestic legislation to the Strasbourg court’s Rule 39 practice, which is grounded in Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights and is not one of the Commission rights set out in Schedule 1 to the 1998 Act. For those reasons, therefore, there is a very big question mark over the use of Rule 39 interim measures. Are they really international law as we would define it? Noble Lords would be wise to consider that when they come to vote for these amendments.
Lord Hoffmann (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Howard, did me the honour of quoting a passage which I had written in a foreword to the paper by Professor Ekins of St John’s College, Oxford, on the jurisdiction to grant interim injunctions. I adhere to what I said in that foreword, but I ought to go a bit further. I will not go into the reasons Professor Ekins gave. He looked into the terms of the treaty, the travaux préparatoires and what the court had been saying until relatively recently, and he came to the conclusion that it had simply invented the power to grant interim injunctions. Indeed, the court in Strasbourg does not even have the power to grant final injunctions. If it is determined that there has been a breach of the treaty, what is to be done about it is a matter for the Committee of Ministers and not for the court itself.
However, the power to grant an interim injunction is an important part of the armoury of any court. Anyone who has held judicial office will know that it usually involves not so much any question of law but a practical question of deciding what lawyers perhaps rather frivolously call the balance of convenience between facts, which means the power to balance the possibility of injustice in one direction or the other. That is to say, you say to yourself, “Well, what is the position? Assuming that he turns out to be right but I don’t stop this going ahead, what injustice will he have suffered; and likewise, if I do stop it, what injustice will have been suffered by the person who has been stopped?” You weigh these things against each other and come to a practical conclusion.
It seems to me that it was sensible for the original treaty not to have included a power to grant interim injunctions, because this is essentially a practical and local matter which ought to be considered by English courts—by the courts of this country—and particularly not by a court in Strasbourg, whose sole function is to say what the terms of the convention mean. What the convention means is what it says it means, and that is perfectly well understood. However, the power to grant injunctions seems really to be a question for local courts.
If we go ahead with Clause 5, we have the bizarre situation in which the courts are, by virtue of the other clauses we discussed earlier, prevented from themselves granting interim injunctions. For the reasons I have given, I wholly supported the amendments proposed earlier today by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and my noble and learned friend Lady Hale. They seem absolutely essential to enable our courts to give justice.
On the other hand, however, what we have is a provision by which the orders of a court which, in my view, does not have jurisdiction can nevertheless be enforced, provided that the Minister—like the Emperor at the Colosseum—puts his thumb up rather than his thumb down in relation to those particular orders. That seems an extremely strange situation. For that reason, I am unwilling to support the amendment that gives effect to the interim injunctions in our report, but I certainly supported the amendments that were moved earlier.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendments 58, 60 and 61, to which my most reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury has put his name. I am very glad to be in support of the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, on these amendments.
We come, of course, to the question of the place of the European Court of Human Rights. I am very grateful for the comments that have been made about that, particularly from the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Hannay, about it not being a foreign court but an international court. Earlier today, we heard from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, about the relationship that we have with the European Court of Human Rights—a relationship where we learn from the wisdom of international friends; where we bring our own wisdom and shape each other’s thinking and practice. It is a relationship of mutual respect for justice and for each other. These seem to me to be very important qualities as we look at the international situation of a very divided world today.
My most reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury referred in his speech at Second Reading to the danger of a “pick and choose” approach to international law, which threatens to undermine our global standing and the principle of universality. I agree. It is profoundly disturbing when, on the face of this Bill, we do not find assurance of compliance with European and UN approaches to human rights or an adequate mechanism for addressing our own processes of law and the risk of serious harm. This is about principles, values and rules to which we should aspire as the foundation of human dignity in an enlightened and humane society.
In the scriptures honoured by Jewish and Christian people alike, the prophet Isaiah speaks of one who will,
“proclaim justice to the nations”.
With this Bill, do we run the risk that countries less wedded to the rule of law and justice, seeing us as an example to follow, will do so for all the wrong and tragic reasons?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, and in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which are less powerful protections.
We as a country proclaim our compliance with the rule of law. We signed up to a convention that set up a court that would be the ultimate determiner of what that convention meant. That court, over a period of time, habitually issued Rule 39 statements or orders. Almost invariably, they are complied with. The court itself, in a case called Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey in 2005, said that those orders made under Rule 39 were binding in international law, not domestic law. If we had set up that court to be the final arbiter of what the convention meant, then we should accept it. How could I not, having heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, with his leading counsel, the noble Lord, Lord Howard? They are two of the most effective advocates of their generation—therefore, not to be relied on because they are advocates, putting the contrary view.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
The noble and learned Lord kindly referred to the Answer that I gave at the Dispatch Box, which I think was a correct analysis of the law, but I am sure that he would agree that it is important not to conflate the Ministerial Code, and the obligations placed on the Minister, with the position in our law, which is the separate law. We have a dualist system as opposed to a monist system so the fact that there is a Ministerial Code does not mean that we are obliged to follow international law, wise though it may be to do so.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I completely agree with that. The Ministerial Code is to be enforced politically, in many respects, not by courts. However, if the position is that it is a breach of international law not to comply with Rule 39, how could a Minister be acting lawfully? I assume that this Government are committed to the rule of law and therefore if it is a breach of international law not to comply with Rule 39—which is what the European Court of Human Rights says, and we are a country that abides by the law—is it not reasonable for that to be struck down on judicial review? I could be wrong about that and would be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I have given notice, with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. That is because, notwithstanding the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, its provisions are in plain breach of the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law and in breach of the rule of law.
Although complications have been cited and expanded on, the reasons for this are very simply stated. Article 32 of the convention states that the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights
“extends to all matters concerning the interpretation”
and
“the application of the convention”.
Critically, in the event of
“dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide”.
That is an approach that is not unknown to our own law in certain circumstances. Rule 39 of the rules of the European Court of Human Rights provides for the court to make interim orders.
In Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, referred, which was a case decided by the court in 2005, and Paladi v Moldova, decided by the same court in 2009, the European Court of Human Rights said that the failure of a member state to comply with interim measures is a breach of Article 34 of the convention. That article states that member states undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of the right of the court to receive applications from any person.
Reference has been made to a lengthy and elaborate argument in a Policy Exchange document, published in 2023 during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill, by Professor Richard Ekins, in which he contended that the power to make interim measures was outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. That is the document with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, expresses his agreement. What is clear is that Article 32 confers on the court the right to determine the extent of its jurisdiction in the event that it is disputed. That article says so in the plainest terms, and, as a member state, we have signed up to that.
What is also indisputable, and is accepted by Professor Ekins, is that since the decision of Mamatkulov in 2005, the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly upheld the binding nature of Rule 39 interim measures, and the UK Government have never once challenged before the Strasbourg court that decision and the binding nature of interim measures. Indeed, the United Kingdom has not only complied with such measures but called on other states to comply with them. It has supported resolutions and declarations that assume that Rule 39 is legally binding.
International law has, therefore, reached a settled state of practice and agreement between member states and the Strasbourg court. Whatever other course might properly be taken in the future—that could include matters concerning the way in which these orders are dealt with, about which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, complained—it is clear that it would be a breach of international law and the rule of law for that settled agreement and practice to be peremptorily and unilaterally jettisoned by the United Kingdom acting alone. That is a basic principle of international law.
The wording of Clause 5 reflects similar, but not identical, provisions in the Illegal Migration Act. The challenge by Members of this House to those provisions in that Act were rejected by the Government and voted down in the other place. Should we then just placidly accept them now? I believe that it would be quite wrong to do so. This is yet another example of a blatant breach of the United Kingdom’s legal obligations. The other amendments in this group are worthy attempts to leave Clause 5 in the Bill but, in effect, to neuter its current intent and effect. My contention is that our constitutional role in this House impels us to reject Clause 5 in its entirety, and not provide it with any blanket of legitimacy, either in its current form or with amendments.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I was in a queue waiting to pay my bill at dinner and therefore arrived a few minutes late. I am very grateful for the Committee allowing me to speak.
I listened with particular interest to two of the most distinguished lawyers in this House: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, with whom I sat on the Court of Appeal regularly, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. There is undoubtedly a potential dispute. Without going into what it should be, Clause 5(2) and (3) exclude the English court. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, complained about the international court; ought we not to be complaining that the English court is excluded?
If there is to be a dispute with the Court of Human Rights, we might bear in mind that we are a member of the Council of Europe. If we blatantly refuse to follow the ECHR at Strasbourg, we might be turfed out, like Russia. Would we want to be the second country after Russia to be excluded from the Council of Europe? Some might not care, but others might think it would not look very good.
What I am complaining about is that Clause 5(2) and (3) will stop our domestic court making a decision. That seems a very good reason to support some, if not all, of the amendments.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, these amendments all concern the response to interim orders of the European Court of Human Rights—not a foreign court, I entirely accept, but a court of which we are a member. At Second Reading, I absolutely accepted that courts, particularly domestic courts, will need to have powers to make interim orders—to stop a child being taken from the jurisdiction, or to stop someone disposing of assets, knocking down a building or any number of different matters that ought to be ruled on immediately, rather than waiting for the worst to happen.
However, the granting of such orders, particularly if they are obtained ex parte—that is, in the absence of the other side—is always subject to stringent safeguards, and none seemed to be honoured when the court in Strasbourg determined that the Government could not remove an asylum seeker to Rwanda. We still do not know who the judge was; there is no record of his or her reasons. That is why I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, whether she could enlighten us as to the reasons why the order was made. She told us that they would be made only in extremis, when an individual was likely to suffer death or something similar, but there is no explanation of the reasons or any basis on which they came to that conclusion. We do not know what the reasons were.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Hence, as I think I said, many of us across the Committee agreed with what some Ministers opposite proposed last year: that the Strasbourg process for interim measures should be reformed to encourage greater transparency and the possibility of rectification, and to give states that felt they would like to correct an erroneous interim measure the ability to do so.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
Indeed, but not only were reasons not given; the Government were not given an opportunity to come back on a return date, which is the norm on interim applications. All this amounts, effectively, to a breach of natural justice on any basis.
Nor is the comparison with the availability of domestic interim remedies wholly analogous, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said. The Government are, of course, a valued member of the court in Strasbourg. If, at a full hearing, the court determined that there had been a wrongful removal then the Government would be expected to comply, as they have always done in the past. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made clear in his address to the House at Second Reading, and as we have already heard this evening, there is very considerable doubt, to put it neutrally, as to whether the court has any power to make such an order. Other countries are extremely doubtful about the legality of the rule. Of course there is talk of improving the procedure, as the noble Baroness said. That may or may not transpire.
But I understand—although it is a slightly peculiar provision—why the Government have decided to give the Minister the powers that he has under Clause 5. Otherwise, the whole policy could potentially be undermined by an unnamed judge’s decision, given without reasons. Even the most fervent supporter of the Strasbourg court must be a little uneasy at that state of affairs.
I do, however, echo the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer: do the Government consider that the exercise of this power under Clause 5 would be amenable to judicial review and, if so, on what grounds? The Government must have taken a view about that. The answer to the question would, I suspect, be relevant to whatever side of the argument you favour.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as someone who was called to the Bar many years ago and has not subsequently done a great deal of law directly, I have been interested, amused and dazzled by the breadth of learning that we have heard.
I would like to make a couple of remarks. I start with what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said. We live in a world where we have domestic jurisdiction, but also where everyday life is very significantly affected by all kinds of international agreements and arrangements, and we all benefit from that. Against that background, it is important that that system remains stable and respected; if it does not, we will all suffer.
We have heard this evening the arguments as to whether there is jurisdiction in respect of interim injunctions from the ECHR. I personally do not feel qualified one way or another to make a value judgment about that. What I do think is important is that, once you have got the interim injunction—and I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said—that is a piece of evidence that is relevant to the issues that we are discussing.
On balance, the interim injunctions—there are not many of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said —are evidence that something is not quite right. I am therefore concerned about the provisions in Clause 5 that we have been talking about: there will be a power with the Minister to set aside a piece of evidence, which I believe has come from a respectable source, that something is not right.
I think the remarks of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, were very important. Regardless of international law, this is important in the context of domestic law, where there is real evidence—and I think it is real evidence—that something is awry. If you are to have some provision of the kind that we are considering this evening, there has to be a presumption that it will be adhered to but also that, if you are concerned, there is some kind of mechanism to set it aside, rather than the other way around.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, as a signatory to the stand-part proposition in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, I will confine my remarks to the question of whether it is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, and thus to international law, for a contracting state to disregard interim measures issued by the European court under Rule 39. Spoiler alert: it is, and the question is not so difficult as some noble Lords have suggested.
I declare an interest as a member of the Bar who has appeared for 30 years or so in that Strasbourg court, both for applicants and for states, and who has therefore been on the wrong end of some Rule 39 measures, including at least one which the court had to be persuaded to reverse. So I welcome the steps that the European Court of Human Rights is taking, partly at the instigation of this country’s Government, to improve its procedures and make them more transparent, including, as the court itself announced on 23 November last year, the attribution of interim measures to the judges who made them.
We have heard a lot about the Policy Exchange paper of last May. The arguments have been very well summarised in other speeches, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, who has spoken to them a couple of times. Happily, I do not need to take your Lordships through those arguments or, indeed, the detailed rebuttals of them, which will be found in the Bingham Centre report of July of last year. Both reports are footnoted in the Constitution Committee report, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has referred. The reason that I do not need to do that is that the position was made completely clear in law by the European court, in a judgment that has been referred to: the 2005 judgment of the Grand Chamber in Mamatkulov v Turkey.
It has been mentioned, but I will say a little more about it. Of the 17 judges who ruled on this issue in the Grand Chamber, a clear majority of 14 held that Article 34 of the convention, which guarantees the effective exercise of the right of application to the Strasbourg court, is violated when a state fails to comply with interim measures. For 13 of those 14, violation follows automatically from a failure to comply. The 14th thought that there was a violation if, as in Mamatkulov itself, applicants are as a matter of fact prevented from effectively exercising their right of application,
Three judges dissented: those appointed by Turkey, Russia and Liechtenstein. Their dissent is long and tightly argued. Policy Exchange would have been proud to publish it. Its authors looked at the text, the preparatory materials, state practice, the analogy with the International Court of Justice and the relevant rules of international law—all ground covered subsequently by Professor Ekins and tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann. They accused the court, just as Professor Ekins did, of exercising a legislative rather than an interpretative function.
Court cases, unlike academic debates, produce clear winners and losers. The result of Mamatkulov, since followed in other judgments, is quite simply conclusive of the matter. The arguments advanced by the dissenting judges, and later by Professor Ekins, were decisively rejected. Why does this matter? Again, noble Lords have had reference to it: the reason it matters is Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides two things of importance. First,
“the jurisdiction of the court shall extend to all matters concerning the interpretation of the convention”.
Secondly, as my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton said:
“In the event of dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide”.
That is really it. The European Court interpreted Article 34 in Mamatkulov as requiring compliance with interim measures issued by the court because, as the court put it in its judgement at paragraph 135, interim measures
“play a vital role in avoiding irreversible situations that would prevent the Court from properly examining the application and when appropriate securing to the applicant the practical and effective benefit of the Convention rights asserted”.
That ruling is binding, as the United Kingdom agreed it would be when we signed and ratified the convention, including Article 32. Perhaps we should not be very surprised that a treaty means what the court constituted to interpret it says that it means. Even the dissenting judges did not suggest otherwise. They did not like the majority judgment, but neither did they describe it, in a word recently used by Professor Ekins, as “lawless”. They accepted it.
State practice since the Mamatkulov decision is supportive of it. The Committee of Ministers, of all the Council of Europe states, resolved in 2010 that
“the Court’s case law has clearly established that Article 34 of the Convention entails an obligation for States Parties to comply with an indication of interim measures made under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court”.
The requirement on states parties to comply with interim measures was reiterated in the Izmir Declaration of 2011 on the Brussels Declaration of 2015, to which of course the United Kingdom was a party. It was endorsed in very clear terms by the French Conseil d’Etat as recently as 7 December last year, when that senior court required a person deported to Uzbekistan in breach of interim measures to be repatriated at the state’s expense.
In a recent email to noble Lords, Policy Exchange described its own 2023 paper as “authoritative”. I am afraid that whoever wrote that was high on their own supply. It is supported neither by the court whose job it is to provide authoritative interpretations of the convention nor by state practice, nor even, subject to anything the Minister may say, and I will be listening carefully, by our own Government. That at any rate is what I take from the last paragraph of the ECHR memorandum on the Bill.
To throw this established position into doubt might once have been merely eccentric; in current conditions, it is positively dangerous. As recently as 2005 there was a culture of compliance. The Strasbourg court could say, in Mamatkulov, paragraph 105:
“Cases of States failing to comply with indicated measures remain very rare”.
However, the “good chaps” theory no longer prevails in the Council of Europe. Russia challenged the jurisdiction of the court in 2021 when it required Alexei Navalny to be immediately released from prison due to the risk to his life and health—interim measures strongly supported by our Government—while Poland challenged it last year when its previous Government refused to comply with interim measures relating to the politicisation of its judiciary.
Supranational courts do not have bailiffs to enforce their decisions. The fabric of international law—that “gentle civiliser of nations”, as it was once described—is easily torn but not so easily repaired. It can be torn by acts such as that which is proposed to us—acts that enable or facilitate actions in breach of international law.
Clause 5 is peculiar, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, have both said. If Rwanda is as safe, as the Government invite us to declare, Clause 5 is unnecessary. If it is not safe, Clause 5 will compound the injustice of Clause 4. Either way, Clause 5 extends the damage already done by Section 55 of the Illegal Migration Act because it severs the link, praised by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, between non-compliance and procedural reform. If we accept this clause, we will not only be authorising Ministers to contravene this country’s obligations; we will be handing an excuse to illiberal Governments across the continent to do the same, and worse. We should be ashamed to do so.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am not a lawyer and I do not wish to refer to any of the legal aspects of the amendment; there has already been enough of that in the excellent contributions from noble and learned Lords. I just want to address the point about why the United Kingdom should feel that we are particularly vulnerable to this court.
There has been reference to other countries that have had interim measures granted against them. It is of course the case that the interim measures relating to the Rwanda MEDP have a high profile. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, seems to continue to be uncertain as to why the interim measures were given. I think he knows that, on the day that the court issued the interim measures, it also issued the statement of the decision when it notified the UK Government of the interim measures. These are public documents and they are online.
The interim measure relating to the case of NSK was put in place on the grounds that that the individual should not be removed to Rwanda until the ongoing domestic judicial review process was concluded. That is the reason the court gave for that case. I am not a lawyer and I know the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is, but it sounds reasonable to me that while a domestic—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Just one moment—I will say what is reasonable and the noble Lord can say it is not. I think that, if there is an ongoing domestic judicial review process but the Government decide to deport that individual before it has concluded, there are reasonable grounds there. I will happily give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
With respect, a statement of conclusion does not give any of the reasons for coming to that conclusion.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
It gave the decision that the ongoing domestic judicial review process should be concluded.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Of course it is right that NSK’s application for an interim injunction was heard by the High Court—by the lead judge of the Administrative Court—and the interim relief application was refused. That was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which agreed with the single judge that there should be no interim relief. Application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reed. It was only the European court that decided to grant the interim relief. It appears that our own domestic courts at all levels and at great levels of distinction were satisfied with the Government’s statement that they would return NSK to the UK in the event that his judicial review challenge succeeded. Why does the noble Lord say it is right for the European court to form a view by way of press release when our own courts, in detailed judgments, had considered all the arguments and decided the other way?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I thank the noble Lord. I said that the court issued a press release; I did not say it made a judgment by press release. I think that is taking it a little too far.
The noble Lord states that the domestic judicial processes had been concluded, but the court said that they had not. All I am relaying to the Committee is the decision that was made. In my view it is reasonable, but I am not a lawyer, as the two noble Lords are. That was the reason the court made the decision, and the Government accepted it.
The point I wanted to make is that there were five other cases that day, which are not referred to as frequently. The requests for two interim measures were granted in order for the court to consider the cases in greater detail. That is correct, yes? Two were refused, which has not been mentioned so far, and one was withdrawn because the Home Office had changed policy in the meantime. Looking at the consideration of cases on that day, I do not think you would come to a conclusion—with three accepted, two refused and one withdrawn—that there was some deliberate blocking of the measure.
That prompted me to ask what the record of the UK has been on interim measures over the last years. There have been 178 applications overall, with most of them withdrawn, since 2021. We have fared fairly well against Germany with a total consideration of 264. That compares with 478 cases for France. We are doing quite well as far as cases against the UK go. If this is judicial blocking, and therefore the motives are to empower the courts to stop what the Government want to do, we need to look at the record of the decisions.
In 2021 five interim measures were granted against the UK and nine were refused. In 2022, five were granted against the UK and 12 were refused. In 2023—the most recent data—one interim measure was granted against the UK and 13 were refused. Far from this being judicial blocking—these cases are all to do with expulsions and relocations; this is not just in general terms—the UK’s system has worked really rather well, especially when compared with those of Germany and France. I would have thought that this is something that the Government would want to protect.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the ancient court known as the Sanhedrin, at its full complement, sat with 71 judges and had a rule that the most junior judge would give judgment first. I understand the reason was that, if the senior judges had spoken and the junior judge disagreed, that would be arrogant; if they agreed, it would be impudent. I find myself speaking after the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Etherton, who disagreed. Therefore, whichever side of this argument I take, it seems I am going to be guilty of both. I ask forgiveness from each of them.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I will spoil any questions as to which way I will go by saying that I respectfully agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, and the reasons he gave for supporting Professor Ekins’ paper. It was interesting that, in opening the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said that for about 20 years the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights has been clear. That is true, but it begs the question: since the European Court of Human Rights has been there for rather longer than 20 years, why did the noble Lord limit his position to 20 years? The answer is that if he had said “for 23 years” the jurisprudence would have said something completely different.
What is remarkable in this area is that this is not a new question. As I said at Second Reading, the question whether the European Court of Human Rights should have the jurisdiction—and this is a question of jurisdiction—to issue interim injunctions or interim measures was specifically debated by the contracting parties back in 1949, and it was deliberately not put into the text in 1950. It was a deliberate omission, not an oversight. The states considered whether the court should have the power and, no doubt for reasons similar to that set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, decided that it should not. That caused no problem at all.
Year after year, the court operated perfectly well without this power. It ruled, in terms, that it did not have this power in 1991 and, a decade later, in 2001, it upheld that ruling. As I said at Second Reading, you then have a judicial volte face in 2005, and the judgment from which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, quoted. It is an open question, and it is interesting to consider why there was this volte-face by the European Court of Human Rights. I suggested that it might have been “jurisprudential envy”, because the International Court of Justice held that it had the power to issue interim injunctions. But, of course, that is different, because the statute of the ICJ, particularly the French version, provides a basis in the foundational document of that court for it to have that jurisdictional power.
With respect, question of whether the court has a power to issue these interim measures rests on very slender foundations. How is it now said that the court has the power, and we are bound by it? The primary argument put this evening has been based on Article 32, which provides that the court has jurisdiction to decide on the operation of the convention. What is interesting about that argument is that it is not used by the court itself, which, so far as I am aware, has not based its jurisprudence on the fact that Article 32 gives it the right to say, “This is what our jurisdiction is, and this is what we are doing”. It is outside commentators who have tried to find a proper basis—because Article 34, which the court does rely on, is not one—for the court’s jurisdiction. It is rather like the archer who scores a bull’s-eye not by firing the arrow at the target, but by firing it and then drawing the target around it.
One comes to the conclusion that people would like the court to have the jurisdiction and then say, “Ah, well, there must be a basis for it—what about Article 32?” But it is not an argument that the court itself uses, and it is also a false argument. Article 32 is about disputes about the convention and its operation; they are to be resolved by the court. It is not a grant of unlimited jurisdiction to the court to defy the express terms of the convention, including Article 46.1, which says that states are bound only by final judgments and therefore, by implication, nothing else—and by the history of the convention, which, as I have set out, is contrary to the court having these powers.
Article 32 is not the “get out of jail” card. This is not a new point. A similar point came before the Supreme Court in the case of Pham in 2015—what would happen if the European Court of Justice exceeded its jurisdictional powers? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, dealt with that issue in paragraph 90. I do not need to go through the answer, but it certainly was not, “Well, the European Court of Justice has a power to interpret the treaties, and if it says it has the power to do this, that or the other, necessarily it does”, which would be the analogue to the Article 32 argument.
With the greatest of respect, Article 32 simply will not do as a basis on which to found the jurisprudence of the court. Of course, there are other points to be made as to the process of the court, and those have already been set out by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. For those reasons, the point underlying many of the amendments in this group—that the court has jurisdiction to issue these interim measures and they are binding in international law—is wrong. Therefore, these amendments ought to be resisted.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker would ensure that a Minister of the Crown making a decision on an interim injunction consults the Attorney-General. This would ensure that, before making a decision on compliance with any interim measures issued by the ECHR for the purpose of blocking a person’s removal to Rwanda, the relevant Minister consults the Attorney-General, creating an additional safeguard. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, introduced his speech by saying he was not going to be arrogant or impudent, so I will adopt the same approach in my speech, which will be brief. I am not going to go into the legal arguments—many eminent lawyers have done that—but I am going to go into the politics and address what seems to me to be the question that has been left hanging in the air.
Yesterday morning, I watched the television and Mr Michael Tomlinson, the Illegal Migration Minister, was on our screens and he was absolutely explicit: he said that the flights will take off as soon as the Bill becomes an Act and the treaty comes into force. He said they will be going pretty much immediately. There was no question of the niceties of Rule 39 and all the other things we have been talking about; the subject simply did not come up. That is the politics of it: when the Bill becomes an Act, the treaty comes into force and those flights will be taking off.
My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer went into how the decision on Rule 39 might be made. The question he, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, asked, was, would it be subject to judicial review? To me, that is the question hanging in the air, and I look forward to the Minister’s answer, because as far as I can see it will be for the Attorney-General to make that decision, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, and she will be doing that as a law officer. Today’s Daily Telegraph said—I do not know how it knows this—that when Mr Tomlinson was Solicitor-General, he had written legal advice saying that it would be illegal to go against Rule 39. I know it is private advice; nevertheless, that was in today’s Daily Telegraph.
So, there are two issues. First, the Illegal Migration Minister was explicit about the flights taking off on the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill. Secondly, what is the status of judicial review of any Rule 39 decision?
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Committee for an exceptionally lively, informed and learned debate on this matter. The consideration of obligations to obtemper interim measures—interim indications from the European Court of Human Rights—seemed to gravitate around two poles. On one hand we had the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Hannay of Chiswick, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and others. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne spoke powerfully, my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough added his weight, and we heard supportive contributions from my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, who spoke from the Cross Benches offering, if I may say so, a qualified view as to the obligation to obtemper any such interim measures.
The scheme of the Bill is to enact Clause 5 to put beyond doubt that the decision about whether to comply with an interim measure, in proceedings relating to the intended removal of a person to the Republic of Rwanda under, or purportedly under, a provision of or made under the Immigration Act, is in the hands of a Minister of the Crown. The requirement for a Minister of the Crown is to exercise the decision personally, which reflects the seriousness of the decision to be taken.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Why, then, does the Victims and Prisoners Bill, as presented by the Government, require the Secretary of State to consult the Attorney-General before amending the victims’ code, if there is this long-standing convention that the Government are indivisible and the Attorney-General will always be consulted on important matters? Also, why is this significant decision potentially to ignore interim relief from the Strasbourg court for Ministers and not Parliament, given that the Government’s central argument in this Bill is about parliamentary sovereignty?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I think the answer to the first point is that the Victims and Prisoners Bill relates to victims, a matter on which the Attorney-General, exercising her supervision over aspects of the criminal legal system, would be in a good position to answer. That distinguishes it from this measure. However, that is only my instinctive answer. So as not to mislead the Committee, if the noble Baroness is content then I will write to her on the topic. I am grateful for her nod of agreement. As to whether this should be for Parliament as opposed to the Executive, in the form of the Minister, I can only repeat that the scheme of the Bill and the Government’s intention is that this decision should lie with the Minister responsible.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, made two points, the second of which echoed the question anent judicial review posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Our position is that the decision on the part of a Minister to comply with an interim measure is not amenable to judicial review. His other question related to the views expressed by my honourable friend in the other place the Minister for Immigration about flights taking off as soon as the Bill passes. While this Committee is engaged in detailed legal scrutiny, my honourable friend is speaking in public about the Bill’s policy: to see to it that these flights take off as quickly as possible and the deterrent effect of which my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and I have spoken should take effect.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
Why is it not susceptible to judicial review? Ouster of the courts normally involves at least a provision in a Bill. There is no such provision here. Ousting the courts by a statement from the Dispatch Box in the House of Lords is very unusual.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I am not in a position to go into detailed discussion on this point, but I have given the Government’s position on the amenability of judicial review in relation to these decisions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
Could the Minister indicate when he might be in a position to debate it?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I undertake to correspond with the noble and learned Lord on that.
Amendments 58, 60 and 61 would bind the United Kingdom Government, preventing a Minister of the Crown or discouraging domestic courts from considering the individual facts of the case or the determination of the domestic courts as to whether a person would face a risk of serious and irreversible harm if returned to Rwanda.
The amendments would also require the United Kingdom courts to take account of an interim measure issued by the Strasbourg court, potentially supplementing the ECHR’s decision, rather than making their own independent finding about whether a person would face a real risk of serious and irreversible harm.
Finally, the disapplication of Section 55 of the Illegal Migration Act would lead to a conflict between the duty to remove established by the Act and the effect of an interim measure issued by the Strasbourg court. That would create uncertainty as to which will prevail.
Clause 4 includes a specific provision enabling the United Kingdom courts to grant an interim remedy preventing removal to Rwanda where it is satisfied that a person would face a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm. Those measures have been designed to ensure that our courts are not out of step with the Strasbourg court; the serious and irreversible harm test is broadly the same that the Strasbourg court applies. Clause 4 would have our courts apply the same test as the Strasbourg court when considering the position of a person who might be sent to Rwanda. There is no reason why the United Kingdom courts, which we would expect to be in possession of all the evidence and facts in the case when making such a decision, cannot be relied upon to reach their own decision rather than being required to have regard to another court which may not have complete information on the case.
The Government submit that these amendments risk hampering or thwarting our efforts to stop the boats and to remove people with no right to remain in the United Kingdom.
There have been references from various quarters about the absence of my noble friend Lord Hailsham today. I indicate to the Committee that he was courteous enough to contact me directly and let me know what the position was. He has tabled Amendment 63, which relates to rules governing Rule 39 procedures. In support of that, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, was the first to make inquiries of the Government as to what the position is in relation to the changes in the procedures. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who also discussed this. On 13 November 2023, the Strasbourg Court announced proposed amendments to its rules and practice concerning interim measures, including the naming of judges who make the decisions on interim measure requests, interim measures communicated as formal decisions, considering state representations before interim measures are indicated, and parties being able to request reconsideration of an interim measure.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, referred to his observations at Second Reading, expressed again today, concerning the differences between procedures when interim remedies are sought in our domestic courts and the case that is hitherto applied in the European court. I do not intend to repeat in any detail the points the noble Lord made. The point was that in relation to that case, as the noble Lord described, there was what amounted to a breach of natural justice, as it would be identified in a domestic court, as the United Kingdom was unable to put its case. As the noble Lord pointed out, in the domestic sphere, a person is able to seek and be granted an interim remedy.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful that the Minister was kind enough to inform the Committee about the November reforms from the Strasbourg court, so surely all these natural justice concerns have now been met.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I gave the noble Baroness a list of the recommendations, or the proposed amendments to the rules, but I do not see them as answering all of the concerns which the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, expressed, and with which I agree. The question of the ability to go to court directly after an indication has been made, or an interim interdict or injunction in our jurisdictions has been granted, and to argue the point with the court, does not form part of the reforms to the direct ability to challenge which the Strasbourg court has announced.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
The Minister said, and I agree, that nothing in Clause 5 requires the United Kingdom to breach its international obligations. Does he agree that, if a Minister, in compliance with Clause 5, decides not to comply with an interim measure, that would place the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations, or have the Government thrown their lot in with the dissenting judges and with Policy Exchange?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, ultimately the matter for the Committee to take into account—I appreciate that I am not giving the noble Lord an answer—is where this leaves our domestic obligations, not our international ones.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
Surely it is relevant to this Committee, if we are being invited to pass Clause 5 into law, to know whether or not, in the Government’s view, it will enable or facilitate a breach of international law by a Minister acting in reliance on it. The Minister does not seem to be able to tell us whether he takes that view or not. I read the human rights memorandum as taking the orthodox view that there is a breach of our international obligations when interim measures are disregarded by a Minister. Is the Minister telling us that the position has changed since that memorandum was drafted?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, in addressing the Committee, I outlined that the position in relation to international measures is that they must be incorporated into domestic law before they take on binding character for our domestic courts.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I do not believe there is any dispute in this Committee about the proposition that the Minister has just delivered himself of. However, we are not talking about domestic law; we are talking about international law. If the Minister cannot answer the question now, will he add it to what is, I am afraid, the lengthy list of questions on which he has kindly offered to write to the Committee in due course?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, in view of the hour and the information which I have to hand, and given the stark terms in which the noble Lord expresses himself, that might perhaps be the better course.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Is it not the case that the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is that it depends? We know from the Policy Exchange paper and many other sources that there have been many cases where Rule 39 indications have not been complied with by states parties, including France, Italy, Albania and Slovakia. It all depends on the circumstances, does it not?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend but the answer “it depends” renders the matter, to a certain extent, even more complicated and emphasises the number of considerations that I will have to take into account in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. While I am grateful to my noble friend for his contribution, my undertaking to write to the noble Lord remains in place.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this predominantly technical debate on the view of the UK’s legal position if it were to ignore an interim measure from the European Court of Human Rights. The final intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the Minister’s answer leave me just as confused as when we started the debate. It reminds me why, after I graduated 40 years ago, when I was offered the chance of becoming an NHS manager or going to law school, I chose to become an NHS manager. That was hard enough.
Clearly, noble and noble and learned Lords have raised several issues, but because of the lateness of the hour, I will not repeat them all. There is the issue of judicial review, which is quite bizarre. If a Minister’s sole decision on such an important issue cannot be judicially reviewed, particularly if the position is completely irrational, I think most noble Lords would agree that it would be easy for international law to be broken and for the individual to have no recourse even to our own domestic courts. As many noble Lords have said, the perverseness of Clause 5 as it stands is that it is preposterous that even our own domestic courts are ruled out from making any interim judgments. The Minister has not been able to give any convincing answer as to why that is.
A number of noble and noble and learned Lords asked this question in different ways, which the Minister, in answering, still ignored: if an interim decision is of such a serious nature, why would a Minister of the Crown wish to ignore it? It is hard to conceive why a Minister would wish to do that, particularly if there is no judicial review. It makes the individual completely reliant on a rational Minister making a decision devoid of the policy of the Government, which is absolutely central to stop the boats. It gets the Minister in a political and legal position that is highly suspect both for the individual on the receiving end of the decision and for the Minister having to make it. I am absolutely convinced of that, based on the views that have been raised.
Of all those views raised, the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, about the judgment and Articles 32 and 34 is one that I felt was definitive, as, I think, did many other noble Lords. However, the Government refused to accept that and continue to insist that Clause 5 is not in breach of international law and is not in any way a dilution of the separation of powers. I believe that this issue will come back on Report, and quite rightly so. Depending on what the Government say, I am sure that it will be a bone of contention for the House. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Coaker
“Reporting requirementWithin 60 days of this Act receiving Royal Assent the Secretary of State must provide a written report to Parliament setting out— (a) the number of individuals relocated under the Rwanda Treaty,(b) the current location and immigration status of any individuals relocated under the Rwanda Treaty.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Secretary to report to Parliament on the operation of the Rwanda Treaty.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, with Amendments 66 and 67 we get to the meat, in many respects, of the Bill. We also start to try to understand why the Committee has debated at great length many issues of principle, and the contrast between the views of those who see it as perfectly reasonable for this House to overturn the opinion of the Supreme Court and those who think it raises issues of very serious constitutional principle.
It is important that your Lordships understand why the Government are going to such great lengths to give effect to the Illegal Migration Act and to pass this Bill. I have asked the Minister a couple of times now and he will have to come forward with numbers as I have been unable to understand quite what difference this will make.
The first thing is that it is necessary for there to be a reporting requirement, as in Amendment 66, where the Government have to come forward with various numbers with respect to the numbers of individuals who will be deported and what will happen to them when they are in Rwanda. But, for me, Amendment 67 goes to the nub of it. We have heard many of the legal objections, which we support, but we also believe that the Government have yet to persuade any of us that the Act will be workable. In fact, we know that many Ministers have described it both in private and public as unworkable and have criticised it, saying that they do not know why the Government have put all their eggs into one basket and are obsessed with Rwanda, with no visible impact on what has been happening.
Let us see whether the Minister can help us out here. Under the provisions of the Bill and its relationship with the Illegal Migration Act, we know that, despite whatever the Government have done, at a cost of nearly £400 million, no asylum seekers have yet been sent to Rwanda. Given that we have this huge investment of effort, can the Government tell us the number of individuals whom they expect to send to Rwanda? The Appeal Court said 100; Ministers have said a few hundred. What is the actual figure? I say to the Minister that there will be a working paper in the Home Office even if he says the answer is unclear. There will be a working assumption; the Government will have had talks about how many individuals they expect to send.
We know that the Government want a flight off. They do not care how—they just want to get one off as soon as possible so that the Prime Minister can pose with the plane in the background. What is the timetable? Will we have one flight or a couple of flights every week? This is why we have bothered with the Bill; we have had three days in Committee in the House of Lords, it went through the other place, and we have a couple of days coming up on Report. What is the purpose of that apart from being able to say that a plane will take off?
Can the Minister say how many asylum seekers are due for deportation under the Illegal Migration Act? Originally there was going to be a retrospective element to that Act from its First Reading. An amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, got the Government to agree that it would be from its enactment. That was some time in the middle of July, I believe. What is the number of asylum seekers who have come by irregular routes and who are now subject to deportation from this country? I saw in the Daily Telegraph today that it was 33,000. Is that wrong? If it is wrong, what is the figure? Michael Tomlinson MP, the Minister responsible for illegal migration, was asked on television yesterday whether it was 22,000. He did not say it was not 22,000; he made some reference to whatever, but he did not say it was not that. I calculated that the number of small boat arrivals since then is 16,628, so is it 33,000, 22,000, 16,628 or another figure? If it is another figure, how many of those asylum seekers who have arrived through these irregular routes do the Government expect to send to Rwanda? If the Government are driving a coach and horses through many of the democratic principles of this country, we would like to know why we are doing it. What is the purpose of it?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 76A, in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. This is a probing amendment to allow the Minister to expand on some of his helpful comments in an earlier group with regard to how the monitoring committee and the joint committee will operate.
When we started the Bill and I first read the treaty, I was not at that stage quite appreciative of how significant the monitoring committee and the joint committee would be when it comes to making decisions about the preparedness of when Rwanda would be a safe country. I was not aware at that stage, when I read the treaty, because at that stage, I was not aware that I was a decision-maker as to whether or not Rwanda would be safe. According to the Advocate-General, however, I am a decision-maker because I am a Member of Parliament and it is now a decision of the court of Parliament: this creature that has now come up from the grave to sit in judgment of a third country’s record on safety.
It is also relevant because the monitoring committee and the joint committee will be the supervising bodies, to some extent, with regard to the overall operation of the start to the end of the relocation processes. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is absolutely right: we do need more information about it, because we are gradually learning about what some of the estimates may be for the numbers to be relocated.
The Hope hostel in Kigali can accommodate 200 people, with an average processing time of a fortnight. On the previous day of Committee, we did the maths, as the Americans say. Well, we can do some more maths now, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has helped us. If we believe the Daily Telegraph, which occasionally is a reliable journal of Conservative thinking in this country, if there are 30,000 people, on the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Murray’s, impact assessment of the Illegal Migration Act, which, of course, we will take as read, that is £5.6 billion plus the £400 million down payment, so a neat £6 billion.
The Minister, in an earlier group, outlined the very high cost of accommodating existing asylum seekers in hotel accommodation. We know, through the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, that the Home Office decided on the most expensive and least efficient means by which to accommodate asylum seekers. Nevertheless, that is £2.9 billion a year—so, on any reckoning, the number of those who will be relocated to Rwanda will take at least a decade at a cost of at least £6 billion. There is no means by which the Government can have a more effective way for the British taxpayer than efficient accommodation and processing here in this country. There is no way the Government can square any of it to make the Rwanda scheme cheaper for the British taxpayer.
Ultimately, we are looking not just for value for money but for whether we can make the decision that Rwanda is safe and the mechanisms are in place.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Before the noble Lord moves on to the other bits, can he give us some estimate of how much it will cost the British taxpayer if he and his friends succeed in perforating this Bill like a sieve so that it has no deterrent effect and we have an ever-growing number of people coming here having to be put up in hotels at immense cost to the UK?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has been here during the various days in Committee. He will have heard last Wednesday what the Government’s own estimate is regarding the deterrent effect of the Illegal Migration Act. That ranges towards the top element of deterrence of 50%. That is not ours or the Opposition’s but the Government’s estimate of the likely impact of the Illegal Migration Act, and that is the mechanism by which this is brought about. A 50% deterrence would be roughly 16,000 people.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Well, that is the deterrent effect. Assuming that of those who are coming, 50% on a regular basis are deterred, then over the long term there would still be 50% coming by boats. That is not my estimate, it is the Government’s estimate.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Before I give way, presumably what the noble Lord wants to get to is a deterrent effect of 100%, so that the boats are stopped, which is what we all want. But so far I have not found anything in any government documentation of policy that says that anything they are going to do will bring about 100% deterrence. Has the noble Lord found it?
Lord Lilley (Con)
I asked the noble Lord for his estimate of what will happen if we have no deterrent effect and there is an ever-growing number of people crossing the channel. Is it possible even to reach a figure? It must be enormous.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Permanent Secretary at the Home Office was unable to do so. That is why he sought ministerial direction. Home Office civil servants sought ministerial direction because the Permanent Secretary said that the Government’s policy was not proven value for money.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I will address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and then happily give way to the noble Lord.
The valid question is, “If this Bill will not work, what would work?” We know that this Bill will not work, so the better deterrent effects are those policies such as relocation and resettlement agreements, which comply with international law and have policing mechanisms attached to them. That is called the Albania deal. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that this has been a success.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
From a sedentary position. I agree with the noble Lord. I think Hansard picked it up: a successful 90% deterrent. The noble Lord heard me at Second Reading saying that we welcomed the Albania deal. An internationally legal, efficient, effective resettlement and relocation agreement is what works. This is not any of those. I happily give way to the noble Lord, Lord Murray.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It is very interesting that the noble Lord should refer to the effectiveness of the Albania arrangement. The document that the noble Lord likes to refer to in relation to the ministerial direction on deterrence came before the Albania deal, the 90% drop and the tangible evidence that deterrence works that we saw as a result of the Albania deal. We can extrapolate from the experience of the Albania deal to say that deterrence will work more generally if we can be sure that a significant proportion of those crossing the channel in small boats are sent to Rwanda for third-country processing.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Even for the noble Lord, it is a bit of a leap to say that a negotiated relocation agreement with Albania has been a deterrent because they may have thought we were going to send them to Rwanda. Even factually, I am afraid that he was incorrect. The noble Lord knows that the ministerial direction sought on the migration and economic development agreement with Rwanda was specifically for this Rwanda agreement. He also knows that when the Permanent Secretary was giving evidence in December, after the Albania agreement was agreed, he said that no circumstances had changed with regard to his view for value for money for this agreement. The Permanent Secretary still believes that the Rwanda agreement will not propose to be value for money. I agree with the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office.
The monitoring committee will have eight members, as the Minister said, and its terms of reference are online. The Minister said earlier that it would be independent of government, and that is true to an extent—if you think that four members being appointed by one party and four by another constitutes independence, because when it is being established, each party will appoint them. The key thing from our point of view is the ability of the monitoring committee to, as the Minister wrote in a letter to me,
“ensure all obligations under the treaty are adhered to”.
It will not, because it cannot—the monitoring committee has no powers of enforcement. It will be able to refer aspects it considers important to the joint committee, but it is under no duty to publish any of those recommendations or any of its findings, which can be significant. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, said, the safeguards that must be in place as far the Government are concerned will be considered to be in place only if the monitoring committee has said that they are in place. We in Parliament will not know; but we are supposedly the decision-makers when it comes to whether Rwanda will be safe.
The joint committee, under Article 16, can make only non-binding recommendations to the parties. So, there is a monitoring committee that does not have a duty to publish its findings and cannot ensure adherence to the treaty. It can make only recommendations to a joint committee, which can make only non-binding recommendations, and which itself is not duty bound to report to the body that is apparently to be making the decisions: Parliament.
I asked how we would then change this if the circumstances changed. Even if we in Parliament found that out from a monitoring committee and joint committee that do not report to us, how would we change it? The noble and learned Lord rightly said that no Parliament can bind its successors. That seemed to imply that a future Parliament could change this arrangement. Well, it cannot, because, of course, no Parliament can bind its successors, but no Parliament can bind a Government on making or ending treaties—that is a prerogative function. How can we in Parliament change the treaty if we decide that Rwanda is no longer a safe country? I hope the Minister can explain that to me when he winds up.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I want to speak in support of Amendment 67, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I have listened to the last hour or two—I have lost count of how many hours of debate there have been—and have restrained myself, perhaps uncharacteristically, from intervening. There were contributions from, for example, my noble friend Lord Anderson, who has great experience, having appeared in courts in which I have not; from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who has been a very senior Minister; and from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, who has given judgment in some of the relevant cases. I thought I would leave it to them to deal with the legal aspects.
I come to this as a lawyer who has spent 38 of the last 40 years as a Member of one or other House of this Parliament. I am concerned about the balance between the legal position created by a piece of draft legislation and the role that we legitimately have in these Houses, particularly in the other place, which is more democratically accountable than we are, although we are reluctant to deny at least some level of democratic accountability.
I do not understand this concept of deterrence. There are two views on deterrence, and they are simply stated: either you believe that the provisions are deterrents, or you believe they are not. You can actually make pretty respectable arguments both ways. It seems to me that the deterrent that would stop people coming in small boats is to deal with the cases efficiently, which has not been done at least until very recently—in other words, to ensure that those who make what might well in the vast majority of cases be unjustifiable and inadmissible requests to be allowed to remain in this country, leave this country, after due process, as quickly as possible—and to ensure that Parliament retains some oversight so that it can see that the new law is being dealt with in a way of which we are not ashamed and that accords with British legal standards. Amendment 67, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will allow me to say is modest, would at least allow Parliament to have that oversight of public spending and the way a new and unusual law operates to ensure it is fair and that there is value for money.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
That is an interesting thought, but I wonder whether it underlays this provision. I had assumed, until the noble Lord spoke, that it is drafted in that way to exclude the Carltona principle—namely, to prevent a civil servant acting in the name of a Minister of the Crown.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
That may not be the reason why it has been so drafted, but it is my interpretation of one of the consequences of that drafting.
The point I am making is that that construct, whereby a Minister of the Crown is a private person only for the purposes of that clause, seeks to exclude Parliament’s oversight of the actions of that person. At least Amendment 67 makes a respectable attempt to ensure that parliamentarians in both Houses can review the potential operation of certain issues under this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised the issue of numbers—very well, if I may say so. The leader of the Opposition, who was a young barrister in my chambers at one time and was noted for his determination and accuracy, told the nation that about 100 people would go to Rwanda. Others have suggested a figure of about 200. Would the Minister be kind enough to confirm the actual number of places that exist in Rwanda for people who would be sent there under this Bill? I believe it to be certainly less than 200, but that is based only on attempting to find out the figures through various articles I have read online. If we are really talking about fewer than 200 people, then what is all this about, and why is Parliament not to be allowed to draw the country’s attention to the fact that this is really a pig in a poke—a political construct designed to deceive people into believing that it will stop the boats—and take appropriate parliamentary steps? That is not what will stop the boats.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the poke is very difficult to interrogate. One of the provisions of the treaty is about reception arrangements and accommodation, which goes to the point that the noble Lord has just made. I hope that the Minister will agree with our Amendment 76A, which is about transparency and the workings of the treaty. It is only through the joint committee that we could have any hope of understanding the day-to-day implementation of the treaty. It is only if we have something like Amendment 76A—we are not wedded to the particular drafting of it—that we will be able to understand. We need a reporting mechanism to Parliament in order to scrutinise, which is one of the major reasons that we are here, what actually happens—if it ever does happen.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, are we not in danger of simply adding to the bureaucracy of the Bill by demanding an extra measure of reporting or an extra way of scrutinising? We have Questions four days a week, we have Questions for Short Debate. There is hardly a debate I have been in that did not end with a noble Lord’s question to a Minister about one matter or another, seeking precise information.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, it is certainly the case that we ask for a lot of information, but if there is no obligation on the Government to provide the information, where do we go from there?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this relatively short debate. Just for the record, I point out that my noble friend Lord Hailsham extended the courtesy of letting me know that he would be unavailable today, which I appreciate.
This legislation builds on the Illegal Migration Act 2023, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, and other immigration Acts. It does not seek to replicate the provisions of the Illegal Migration Act for other case types. It is limited to the issue of the safety of Rwanda and makes some consequential changes to give proper effect to the presumption that Rwanda is a safe country.
The Government are considering plans for delivery of the provisions of the Illegal Migration Act in light of the Supreme Court judgment. Provisions in the Illegal Migration Act to support removal of people to Rwanda whose asylum and human rights claims are inadmissible will be commenced after Parliament has given its view on the safety of Rwanda.
As drafted, Amendment 67, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asks for information normally used only for internal government planning. This is not information that is normally shared since it is not Parliament’s role to examine the details of internal operational planning, nor is it necessary to meet the Government’s primary objective of ensuring that flights can relocate people to Rwanda.
However, I can confirm that, where claims are declared inadmissible for those who are subject to the duty to remove, the Government will provide support and accommodation in line with Section 9 of the Illegal Migration Act. Furthermore, in response to both Amendments 66 and 67, once the partnership is operationalised and flights commence, as soon as practicable following Royal Assent, removal data will be published online in the usual manner as part of the quarterly immigration statistics.
With regard to reporting on the current location and immigration status of any individuals relocated under the Rwanda treaty, it would be wholly inappropriate for the Government to report on personal data pertaining to the locations of relocated individuals in this manner. We believe that is also unnecessary. As we have set out, the treaty provides that no one relocated will be removed from Rwanda except, in very limited circumstances, to the UK. We have also been clear that anyone relocated who wishes to leave Rwanda voluntarily is free to do so.
The UK and Rwanda will co-operate to ensure that removal contrary to this obligation does not occur, which may include systems for monitoring the locations of relocated individuals. However, this would be with their express consent only and would, of course, not be for wider sharing or publication. This is in addition to the robust monitoring mechanisms already in place via the monitoring committee to ensure the effective operation of the partnership in practice and the well-being of those relocated, the findings of which will be reported in line with the agreed procedures set out in the monitoring committee terms of reference and enhanced monitoring plan, which, as set out earlier in this debate, are published online.
I turn to Amendment 76A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. The terms of reference set out clearly that during the period of enhanced monitoring, the monitoring committee will report to the joint committee, which is made up of both UK and Rwandan officials. This is set out in Article 15(4)(b), in accordance with an agreed action plan, which will include weekly and bi-weekly reporting, as required. As per Article 15(4)(c) of the treaty, the monitoring committee will make any recommendations to the joint committee which it sees fit to do. The monitoring committee will otherwise produce a formal written report for the joint committee on a quarterly basis over the first two years of the partnership, setting out its findings and making any recommendations.
Following notification to the joint committee, the monitoring committee may publish reports on its findings as it sees fit. At least once a year, it will produce a summary report for publication. I have set out that the treaty includes enhanced provisions to provide real-time independent scrutiny of Rwanda’s asylum procedures aimed at preventing the risk of mistreatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR before it has the chance to occur. This addresses the findings in the Supreme Court proceedings that under the previous arrangements, as set out in the memorandum of understanding, the work of the monitoring committee would necessarily be retrospective. The treaty further provides at Article 15(9) for the monitoring committee to develop a complaints system that can be used by relocated individuals to lodge confidential complaints regarding alleged failure to comply with the obligations agreed, and that the monitoring committee will investigate all such complaints received directly during the enhanced three-month monitoring period.
Since the partnership was announced, UK officials have worked closely with the Government of Rwanda to ensure that individuals relocated under the agreement will be safe and that their rights will be protected. For example, the treaty sets out at paragraph 3 of Part 2 of Annex B a new process for Rwanda’s first instance body, responsible for making decisions on claims for refugee or humanitarian protection status at first instance. These changes, which will require the introduction of a new domestic asylum law, will move Rwanda’s asylum system to a caseworker model and address the Supreme Court’s conclusions as to the system’s capacity.
The UK Government have already worked with Government of Rwanda to build the capacity of their current asylum system. This work has included agreeing detailed standard operating procedures, reviews of contracts for services the Government of Rwanda have procured—for example, with accommodation facilities and medical insurance companies—and new or revised training programmes. The Home Office has also conducted ground visits, detailed guidance reviews, table-top exercises and walk-throughs to map out the end-to-end process of this partnership and better identify prospective areas for strengthening. This is in addition to ongoing training and capacity building for Rwandan officials within the refugee status determination process. Home Office officials are working on a daily basis with the officials in Rwanda to deliver this partnership.
I do have an answer for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, as to how the joint committee can report to Parliament. It is not the answer that he will want, but it is all I can say at the moment. The joint committee is due to meet this week, when discussions on treaty implementation will continue. Senior Home Office officials will be in attendance, and I hope to have more to say on this before we get to Report.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The question that is being asked all the time is: how does Parliament keep it under review and raise the question that the country is no longer safe? That is not an answer.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I appreciate that it is not the answer that the noble and learned Lord was seeking—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
Sorry, but it is not an answer at all to the question: how does Parliament in some way or another keep the question under review? The Minister has given an answer to a completely different question.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I do not believe I have, my Lords. What I am trying to say here is that the joint committee has to make reports to Parliament in order for Parliament to keep it under review. That is what is under discussion at the meeting this week. So it does answer the question—perhaps not in the way that the noble and learned Lord would like, for which, obviously, I apologise.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful for that comment. Just for the record, it is 11.13 pm on the last day of Committee, and it might be that the Government are thinking about something that we have been talking about. I thank the Minister for that. We will have an update with regard to how the joint committee operates. However, in order for Parliament to make its judgment, it must have access to independent information. The joint committee is the two Governments, so it does not really meet the criteria of Parliament making a judgment on the basis of Rwanda being safe, if the only information that we can use to make that judgment is that of the Government of Rwanda.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, we have gone into the operation of the joint committee and various other bodies in considerable detail today, so I am not going to rehash those now. I am sure we can refer back to the record.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me about the timetable. Obviously, I would say this, but the treaties need to be ratified and laws need to be passed, so I am afraid I cannot give a timetable at the moment.
With regard to numbers, as we have discussed many times before, the scheme is uncapped so I cannot provide a commentary on the possible likely numbers.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
What steps beyond the passage of this Bill are required for the UK Government to ratify the treaty?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Again, I say to the noble and learned Lord that we had a lengthy debate about that a couple of weeks ago on the International Agreements Committee report, and those are the steps that will be required of the Government. Also, as discussed before, the Government of Rwanda still need to pass their new laws in order to be able to ratify the treaty.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am not sure that is an answer. Apart from the passage of this Bill, which is the only thing that Mr Jenrick’s statement referred to for what was required for the UK to ratify the treaty, what else is required?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am sorry, I disagree. I think I answered the question about what has to happen in order for the treaty to be ratified. It was under discussion at considerable length in the International Agreements Committee debate that we had three or four weeks ago, whenever it was.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
The Minister has just said that the numbers are uncapped, but in the walkthroughs and exercises, some of which have taken place in Uganda, someone will have told the Government how many spaces are currently available in Rwanda. How many spaces are currently available in Rwanda?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I do not have the precise number. I will find it and write to the noble Lord. As I say, the fact is that the scheme is uncapped. In a perfect world, we would not send anyone to Rwanda because the deterrence would work. Surely that is the point, as alluded to by my noble friends Lord Lilley and Lord Murray, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who pointed out that deterrence is entirely a binary argument. The Government take one view and others take another.
I think I have answered most of the questions—or at least I have tried to, although I appreciate not necessarily to all noble Lords’ satisfaction. We will have more to say before Report. The Bill buttresses the treaty. Alongside the evidence of changes in Rwanda since the summer of 2022, it enables Parliament to conclude that Rwanda is safe and provides Parliament with the opportunity to do so. For the reasons I have outlined, the amendments are not necessary, and I therefore respectfully ask noble Lords not to move them.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I do not often say this to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, but that was a really disappointing response, partly because the Committee is seeking numbers and information and numbers were there none. The Government will have assumptions about what is happening. The other place has spent months and months debating Rwanda and this place has spent months doing so too; we have spent weeks on this Bill, including three days in Committee.
What I was asking with Amendment 67—and I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Purvis, for their support—was what the Government’s assumption is about the number of people who are going to go to Rwanda. It is no answer to say that the numbers are uncapped. That is a Civil Service response; it is what you say when it is difficult to answer and you do not want to do so.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
It is quite wrong to insult the Civil Service.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Well, it is someone’s idea of how to answer that particular question, but it is not an answer.
I worked out the number of small boat arrivals myself, simply by counting the Home Office’s own statistics from the middle of July to the end of 2023, which came to over 16,000. According to the law that the Government have passed, all those people are waiting to be deported, but the only answer that the Government give is Rwanda.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is quite right to make the point about Albania. Albania works because it is Albanians being sent back to Albania. It is not a Rwandan deal with people from all over the world supposedly being sent to a third-party country. I quite agree with respect to that. If the Government had other treaties like this one organised, they would not have half the problems that they do, so the noble Lord is right to make that point.
The Minister has made no attempt to say the number waiting for deportation under the Illegal Migration Act. I worked it out for myself by looking at the statistics. If I can work it out using the Government’s own statistics, why can the Minister not come to this Chamber and tell us what the number is? Where are they? We read time and again that the Government have lost most of them or do not know where many of them are. That was part of the purpose of what I said.
I want a timeline because I am interested. If this is the only thing the Government are saying is going to work with respect to dealing with the small boats crisis and it will act as a deterrent, surely, we deserve some idea about the Government’s timeline. If it is going to act as a deterrent in the way the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said, then people would know that there will be planes every week taking hundreds of people. We read from the Court of Appeal that Rwanda can only take a few hundred people, yet there are tens of thousands waiting to be deported. That is not a policy; it is a gimmick. It is a way of trying to pretend that something is going on.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will give way in a moment.
Why can the Minister not give us some numbers and facts? That is all we were asking for. I hope and I would expect, frankly, that we get a bit more about the numbers the Government are working towards. They will have working assumptions they are working towards, and this Chamber deserves to know what they are.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I bet if he were to ask the Australians their estimate of the number they would have to send to Nauru before it had a deterrent effect, they would not have been able to give a figure. They would have probably given a figure that was much larger than what turned out to be the case. I can, in the privacy of this Room, since no one will report it, say from speaking to civil servants about the Albanian situation that they were expecting to have to deport far more people before it had any effect. It started to have an effect even before they had deported one new person; they were only deporting people who arrived before the agreement took effect.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, about Albania. There is no question between us about Albania. Of course, it acted as a deterrent, because it was a situation in which Albanians leaving Albania to come to this country knew that they were going to be sent back there. We got an agreement between the UK Government and Albania. It was a proper returns agreement that people knew was happening, so it had the deterrent effect the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is hoping for.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is fully aware that the people he is referring to are economic migrants who have no right to be here. Therefore, a proper returns and resettlement agreement is completely legitimate. They are not asylum seekers.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
With respect to the answer the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, gave us and the amendment I was speaking to, this Chamber deserves more numbers from the Government. We need to understand what the Government are doing. The whole government policy on small boats is built on deportations. If you ask the majority of people in the country, they would expect that the Government are going to deport thousands upon thousands to Rwanda. The reality is that there will be a few hundred at best. What sort of policy is that to deal with the scale of the problem the Government face? We deserve better than that. I will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Coaker
“Return of individuals due to serious criminal offences(1) A Minister of the Crown must lay a statement before Parliament within 30 days if both of the following conditions are met—(a) the Secretary of State has approved a request from the Republic of Rwanda to return to the UK a person previously relocated under the terms of the Rwanda Treaty, and(b) the person specified in paragraph (a) had their permission to remain in the Republic of Rwanda revoked owing to the person’s participation in serious crime.(2) If Parliament is notified of the conditions being met as set out in subsection (1)—(a) a motion must be moved by a Minister of the Crown to be debated on the floor of the House of Commons, and(b) the motion must require the House to—(i) consider the statement laid before Parliament under section (1), and(ii) consider whether or not as a result of the contents of the statement, there should be a suspension of the Rwanda Treaty.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would ensure that Parliament is notified of any individuals involved in criminal activity who are transferred from Rwanda to the UK, and that the House of Commons is able to both debate the case and discuss its implications for the future of the Rwanda scheme.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very small amendment. I tabled this amendment because I read that, according to what the Home Secretary said, it will be possible for people who have sought or been given asylum in Rwanda to be returned to this country if they are guilty of a serious offence.
Can the Minister say whether the Government have any idea of the numbers that they expect to be returned, or is it just a small number, as the Home Secretary said? What is the definition of a serious crime that would require somebody to be returned to the UK from Rwanda? Can we refuse somebody who is in Rwanda and the Rwanda Government are seeking to return on the basis that they have been guilty of a serious crime? Can the UK Government refuse to accept them back from Rwanda, if that is the case? If they are successfully returned to the UK from Rwanda because of the serious crime that they have committed, or the national security threat that they pose, what is their status when they are back in the UK? If we chose to do so, would we be able to deport them to another country?
This is a probing amendment; I was just curious, when I heard the Home Secretary talking about the possibility of criminals who had been deported to Rwanda being returned to the UK. It would be helpful to have a few answers to those questions. I beg to move.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for Amendment 68, but I cannot support its addition to the Bill. We do not consider such a change necessary, as individuals would be returned from Rwanda only in extremely limited circumstances, which we have agreed to in this legally binding treaty.
The first question that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, posed was to ask the Government again for numbers, as he had in the previous amendment. I do not think that any attempt to estimate likely numbers of people committing serious crimes is something that the Government could be expected to provide. If somebody who has been relocated to Rwanda commits a very serious crime, there is a chance that they could have their status revoked. In these limited circumstances, they may be removed to the United Kingdom, but only after they have served any prison sentence in Rwanda. This will ensure the non-refoulement element of the treaty will not be breached.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Could the Minister define the prison sentence? Is it any prison sentence, or is it a sentence of two, four or five years?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The provision in the treaty is reserved for the most serious crimes—one punishable by five years or more imprisonment.
The amendment would necessitate, in the rare event of such returns to the United Kingdom, parliamentary consideration as to whether the Rwanda treaty should be suspended. However, it does not follow that, because an individual is returned from Rwanda to the United Kingdom because of serious criminality, the whole treaty is called into question. The return of individuals to the United Kingdom, including in these circumstances, is envisaged expressly by the treaty. It would be an example of the treaty functioning as it should, not a reason for its suspension.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The Minister quite rightly says that it is in the treaty—under Article 11, I assume. But that article says that the person will come back to the United Kingdom only with the relocated individual’s consent. If that consent is not given, what happens in this instance?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I will have to revert to the noble Lord with an answer to that question, which is a hypothetical situation I had not considered.
The Government have set out the expense caused to the British taxpayer of billions of pounds in relation to illegal migration. As my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom has pointed out on more than one occasion, our primary concern is the dreadful cost in life that it is inflicting. That is why we need bold and novel solutions towards ending it. Deterrence is a key element of the Rwanda partnership. Ultimately, we need to stop people making dangerous and illegal journeys across the channel. It is vital that we can show those who enter the United Kingdom illegally that they will not be permitted to remain here, thus breaking the model of the people smugglers and helping us to put an end to their vile trade. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his reply. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord True, for his encouragement—I have about half an hour now.
The serious point is that that was very helpful. This is a niche little amendment, but it is quite important. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, because I had not actually picked that up. It is a niche amendment but this is worth asking questions about, to get some detail from the Minister, and I am grateful for his response. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(3) This Act expires at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which it comes into force.(4) But the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide that subsection (3) is to cease to have effect and that this Act is accordingly to continue be in force.(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.(6) A draft under subsection (5) may not be laid before Parliament unless the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report based on evidence obtained by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that the Government of the Republic of Rwanda is fulfilling its obligations under the Rwanda Treaty.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would insert a sunset provision for the Bill to expire two years after commencement unless Parliament decides that it should remain in force and the Government has produced a report containing evidence that the Rwandan government is fulfilling its Rwanda Treaty obligations.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, in moving Amendment 91 I am grateful to my friends the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Blunkett, for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is in his seat and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was in touch with me today to apologise for not being able to be here this evening.
I want to keep my comments as short as possible, given the hour and the fact that some of the issues have already been debated in Committee. However, there is merit in discussing the value of a sunset provision, now that each of the Bill’s clauses has been scrutinised.
The fundamental issue, which I fear has not yet been fully addressed by the Government Benches, is that we are being asked to make a permanent judgment on the safety of Rwanda on the basis of the yet to be implemented arrangements outlined in the treaty. This is, of course, against the opinion of our highest court. Furthermore, it is simply not arguable on any rational basis that Rwanda is safe at present, when, as the Minister himself has conceded, Rwanda is moving towards having the required protections in place.
At present, it remains the opinion of this House that the treaty should not be ratified until Parliament is satisfied that the protections it provides have been fully implemented. This amendment simply probes what other mechanism could be used to enable Parliament to revise or review its judgment on the safety of Rwanda, if the Government do indeed proceed with ratification.
This is not a wrecking amendment; rather, it enables the Rwandan partnership to continue if the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees can confirm that Rwanda is fulfilling its obligations under the Rwanda treaty, even if, on these Benches, we do not believe this to be an approach befitting our nation’s values.
I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the UK or Rwanda in trying to fulfil these obligations, and they may well provide the basis for a future assessment of the safety of Rwanda, if fully realised. But good faith is no basis for a sound legal judgment, and this amendment therefore provides Parliament with the opportunity to revisit the issue after a fixed period. At present, the evidence simply is not there that the necessary steps have been taken to ensure that the treaty protections will be in place to protect a very vulnerable grouping from injustices.
The treaty itself envisages initial shortcomings, for which increased monitoring is proposed. UNHCR has yet to observe substantial changes in the practice of asylum adjudication that would overcome the concerns of the Supreme Court. Two years, then, seems a plausible timeframe in which to operationalise the required changes, given that the Minister has stated at the Dispatch Box that the Rwandan authorities are expediting the changes that are needed.
Importantly, the terms of reference for the monitoring committee also stipulate that it will cover the first two years of the partnership. If it is the opinion of the Government that a sunset clause is not necessary, I give the Minister another opportunity to answer the question posed by many in this Chamber: how will the Government ensure that the obligations of the treaty—here I quote the treaty—
“can both in practice be complied with and are in fact complied with”?
This is an even more critical question, given that any recommendations arising from the monitoring arrangements in the treaty are non-obligatory.
I remain of the belief that it is not the role of Parliament to impose a factual and legal determination on all courts, for the fundamental reason that—I hope noble Lords will forgive me for stating the obvious—declaring another nation state safe does not in fact make it so. But, if the Government are choosing to place what some have called a “judicial blindfold” on our courts, we must explore what independent and expert scrutiny can come to bear on the question of the safety of Rwanda. Other noble Lords have commented on what might be an appropriate mechanism, and I implore the Government to give due consideration to this. Surely, we cannot leave a conclusive legal fiction on the statute book, irrespective of the evidence.
By signing off Rwanda as safe without a method to evaluate whether the treaty has been fully implemented, we will expose asylum seekers to a real risk of refoulement, especially given that there is limited suspensive legal remedy for those facing removal. This is no light matter, given that they may go on to face torture or serious mistreatment, from which they once fled—a trauma that cannot be undone. Providing no legal or parliamentary accountability for the terms of the treaty is both absurd and an abdication of our nation’s commitment to justice. I therefore hope that a solution can be brought forward, ahead of Report, to this unprincipled omission. I beg leave to move my amendment.
Lord True (Con)
The right reverend Prelate obviously speaks with the authority of the Church of England. Is it the view of the Church of England that Rwanda is not safe?
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I cannot speak on behalf of the Church of England. We are not whipped on these Benches, and I speak for myself. I do not know for certain whether Rwanda is safe or not, and our courts seem to think they cannot state whether it is safe or not. I suggest that we need to review that in two years when we have more evidence.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to detain your Lordships at this late hour. I shall try to be very brief. This amendment, particularly proposed new subsection (6), is remarkably similar to an amendment put forward earlier in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, which I characterised as outsourcing decision-making to the UNHCR. I had a little spat with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about that and the right reverend Prelate, who spoke in favour of the amendment, denied that it was outsourcing. Very graciously, the noble Baroness intervened to say that that was the effect of her amendment and that she would consider making it, in her words, less rich when she brought it forward on Report.
This amendment falls into exactly the same trap. In proposed new subsection (6), on the renewal of the Act after two years, the decision is again outsourced to the UNHCR. I will not go through all the reasons I gave in my earlier speech as to why that is entirely inappropriate but, for those same reasons, this amendment is also completely inappropriate.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will briefly comment on the relationship between Rwanda and the United Kingdom contained in the treaty. A lot has been said about the treaty being inadequate and how it depends on what happens in future. The noble and learned Lord took a certain amount of flak during earlier debates in Committee when he was asked what the treaty is doing if Rwanda is safe. He suggested that it might make it safer. The rather scornful response to this observation was somewhat unfair. The treaty contains a number of obligations and is entirely typical of treaties in that respect. These obligations use the word “shall” and are directed to future activity.
The general principle of international law is that a treaty is binding on the parties and must be performed in good faith. That principle is embodied in the maxim “pacta sunt servanda”. We take that very seriously. If a party breaks the terms of a treaty, provided there has been a fundamental change of circumstances, as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties makes clear, the treaty in effect comes to an end. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, spoke of the possibility of a coup and seemed to suggest, as the proposer of this amendment did, that because Parliament had determined that Rwanda was safe, we would be stuck with that determination.
I respectfully disagree. The treaty bears close reading. I will not refer to it at this stage of proceedings, but Clause 8(1) makes its nature clear, Articles 14, 15 and 16 concern the arrangements for monitoring and Article 22 provides a dispute mechanism. Further, the treaty will end on 13 April 2027 in any event. These seem to me to be sufficient safeguards built into the treaty, but if there is a coup or a fundamental change of circumstances, or any Government think that Rwanda is unsafe, the treaty can be brought to an end, at least until a subsequent agreement has been reached. To suggest that Parliament must somehow not be satisfied that there are obligations in international law seems to me unreal.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I respect the noble Lord and am listening carefully to what he is saying, and as always, he makes well-considered arguments. I have a genuine question. I agree with everything he said, but only the Executive, under the prerogative power, would be able to make the judgment to end that treaty. Parliament cannot do it. Is that correct?
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord is entirely correct about the prerogative, but Parliament, perhaps unusually, in considering this Bill has the opportunity to see the treaty and the obligations contained within it. Parliament should look at those obligations and see whether it is satisfied with the terms of the treaty and whether it provides sufficient safeguards. These are relevant factors for Parliament to consider but, ultimately, I accept that the noble Lord is right—it is for the Executive to decide.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way again. In essence, that was my argument in the previous group when it came to the necessity for us to have the information for the monitoring committee and the joint committee, given the circumstances, to allow us to form that view. Ultimately, we do not have the power to bring the treaty to an end or amend it because it is a prerogative power. We are, therefore, very limited as to what we are able to do if there are changes of circumstances in Rwanda that our Government and their Government do not then wish to change within the treaty.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
That shows very little faith in a Government of whatever colour. This particular Government will take a view as to whether or not there was a breach of the treaty in relation to the various safeguards contained within it. The Opposition are proposing to repeal the legislation in any event, so the matter might well disappear as a result of such an Act. We must credit the Executive, however, with the power to review and seriously consider if there was a sufficient change of circumstances—a coup, for example—to warrant a different approach.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford in moving the amendment. We have gone through, in some detail, the question of when this Bill is going to become law and whether it will become law before the changes are effected as a result of the new treaty.
Noble Lords will remember that the Home Secretary is asking us to bear in mind the key part of his evidence that the position has changed since the Supreme Court judgment: namely, the treaty for the provision of an asylum partnership, which was laid before this House in December. Obviously, it is only when the provisions of that treaty are implemented that the position will have moved on from what the Supreme Court found, because the Home Secretary quite rightly is not challenging the finding of the Supreme Court; he is saying the position will change when the treaty is given effect to.
Obviously, this House is very sceptical of what Ministers are saying about when the treaty changes take place. Earlier in the afternoon, Ministers were unable to identify when the law in Rwanda would be changed to give effect to it. Ministers were not able to tell the Committee at all when the monitoring committee was going to recruit a support team, independent experts were going to be appointed to advise the first instance body, and all the other things set out in paragraph 19 of the International Agreements Committee report. We have no idea at the moment whether this Bill will be brought into force before the changes envisaged by the agreement and therefore the place will then become safe, so I am very surprised the Government are willing to go ahead with it before the changes are implemented.
That is the beginning. As far as the end is concerned —as this amendment is concerned with—Ministers will be aware that the agreement that gives effect to the changes, which remedies the problems identified by the Supreme Court and accepted as problems by the Government, ends on 13 April 2027, unless the agreement is renewed. I assume, though I invite Ministers to confirm, that if the agreement with Rwanda is not extended beyond 13 April 2027, it is the Government’s intention that the Rwanda Bill will come to an end. If that is not the position, how on earth could the Government contend that Rwanda continued to be a safe country after 13 April 2027?
In any event, the possibility of changes of circumstances are something that Parliament should be able to debate. The two-year sunset clause the right reverend Prelate is proposing is a means by which that debate could take place. Everybody who has debated the Bill in this House agrees it is a very grave thing that the Government are seeking to do by promoting the Bill. The idea that it is a permanent state of affairs that can never be looked at again without the consent of the Executive promoting another Bill is an inappropriate way to deal with it.
For all those reasons, I submit that this Committee should agree to the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate. However, I am extremely interested to know what the answer is to the position if this agreement with Rwanda is not extended beyond 13 April 2027.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. Because of the lateness of the hour, I will not repeat any of the arguments for why the amendment is needed. I will add an extra point, again looking at the treaty. It was partly alluded to by my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed. Amendments to the agreement are by executive order. This Parliament is being asked to say that Rwanda is safe. Rwanda is safe on the basis of this treaty; that is the basis on which this Parliament is being asked to say that Rwanda is safe.
However, Article 20 on amendments to the agreement states:
“This agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement between the Parties”.
Therefore, tenets that are deemed to make Rwanda safe based on the judgment of the Supreme Court could, by executive order, be amended. This Parliament would not be able to change its view that Rwanda is safe. The treaty could be changed.
Therefore, when this treaty falls on the date that has been said in two years’ time, it is quite right that this Parliament should therefore be able to look at everything in the round, including any amendments to this treaty, to determine whether Rwanda is still safe. That is why this amendment is needed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Once again, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. As we have heard throughout today’s debate, we have to do more to break the criminal gangs’ business model, and to deter illegal migrants. These journeys are extremely dangerous. People have lost their lives attempting to cross the channel, as is well reported. These journeys are also unnecessary, as those making these crossings are coming from safe countries, such as France, where they could have claimed asylum. I say respectfully to the right reverend Prelate that that is surely the fundamental issue.
While the Government have made progress towards stopping the boats—with small boat crossings down by a third in 2023, while the numbers of illegal migrants entering some European countries have risen by 80%—we still need to do more. By delivering our key partnership, relocating people to Rwanda and not allowing them to stay in the UK, we will prevent people making these dangerous crossings, and we will save lives.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for tabling Amendment 91, but we do not think it is necessary. It is clear from the evidence pack that the Government published on Thursday 11 January, and from the treaty itself, that Article 15 of the treaty enhances the role of the independent monitoring committee, ensuring that obligations under the treaty are adhered to in practice. I am sorry that I will be going over some old ground, but, as my noble friend Lord Howard pointed out, this is not dissimilar to some earlier amendments.
We have repeatedly made clear that the monitoring committee will have the power to set its own priority areas for monitoring, unfettered access for the purposes of completing assessments and reports, and the ability to publish these reports as it sees fit. Crucially, the monitoring committee will undertake real-time monitoring of the partnership for at least the first three months. This period of monitoring can be extended if required. The monitoring committee will be able to urgently escalate issues prior to any shortcomings or breaches placing a relocated individual at real risk of harm. This will include reporting directly to the joint committee co-chairs within 24 hours in emergency or urgent situations.
To expand on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I also refer the right reverend Prelate to my remarks earlier. Article 4.1 of the treaty sets out clearly that it is for the UK to determine the timing of a request for relocation of individuals under the terms of the agreement, and the number of such requests made. This means that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty if there had been, for example, an unexpected change to the in-country situation in Rwanda. As is the case in many scenarios, the Government would be able to respond and adapt as necessary and there is therefore no need to include a sunset provision as suggested.
Rwanda has a long history of supporting and integrating asylum seekers and refugees in the region; for example, through its work with the UNHCR to host the emergency transit mechanism. A specific example of Rwanda’s successful work with the UNHCR is the memorandum of understanding between Rwanda and the UNHCR to host a transit facility in Gashora for asylum seekers fleeing civil war in Libya, which has operated since 2019.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is correct: if the agreement is not extended beyond the date he mentioned, in effect, it dies. Rwanda has a strong history—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
If the agreement dies, will the future Act die with it?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I understand it, yes.
Rwanda has a strong history of providing protection to those who need it, and it currently hosts more than 135,000 refugees and asylum seekers who have found safety and sanctuary there. The terms of the treaty we have negotiated with Rwanda address the findings of the UK domestic courts and make specific provision for the treatment of relocated individuals, guaranteeing their safety and protection. I invite the right reverend Prelate to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Before the Minister concludes, I would be grateful if he could say what the mechanism will be for ending this legislation, if the treaty is not extended. Could he also answer my noble friend’s question on amendments to the treaty? It is long-standing practice that amendments to a treaty must come before Parliament through the CRaG process. Can he confirm that that would be the case?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am not expert on treaty law but, as far as I understand it, that is the case. I am afraid that I do not know the process behind the noble Lord’s question; I will have to find out.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have participated in this debate. Given the late hour, I hope they will forgive me for not going through the particulars; I am sure that everybody wants to get home at this stage.
It has been genuinely very interesting to hear the different perspectives on this matter. I am not yet entirely convinced; I want to reflect on this and speak to others about whether we might come back to this on Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.