Written Statements

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Written Statements

Thursday 22 February 2024

Serious Fraud Office: Contingencies Fund Advance

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Written Statements

[The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)]

I would like to inform the House that a cash advance from the Contingencies Fund has been sought for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

The advance is required to cover costs relating to the investigation and prosecution of very large cases pending parliamentary approval of the 2023-24 supplementary estimate. Part of the SFO’s supplementary estimate will seek an increase in both its resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and net cash requirement in relation to these cases.

This reflects funding arrangements agreed with HM Treasury, whereby through the supplementary estimates process the SFO can access the HM Treasury Reserve for the additional costs of cases that are individually over 4% of the SFO’s non-ringfenced resource DEL.

Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £22,253,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the SFO. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £22,253,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

The advance will be repaid upon Royal Assent to the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill.

[HCWS278]

Post Office: Proposed Legislation and Financial Redress

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

On 10 January, the Prime Minister and I announced a major step forward in response to the Horizon scandal. The Prime Minister confirmed that the Government will introduce new primary legislation to make sure that those convicted as a result of the Horizon scandal, which began in the 1990s, are swiftly exonerated and compensated. Our announcement attracted widespread support in both Houses of Parliament and beyond.

With a number of the cases over 20 years old, some of the victims have sadly passed away, and many others are in declining health or have lost faith in the system and do not wish to engage further with it.

The Government recognise the constitutional sensitivity and unprecedented nature of this legislation. The Government are clear that this legislation does not set a precedent for the future relationship between the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary. The judiciary and the courts have dealt swiftly with the cases before them, but the scale and circumstances of this prosecutorial misconduct demand an exceptional response. We are keen to ensure that the legislation achieves its goal of bringing prompt justice to all of those who were wrongfully convicted as a result of the scandal, followed by rapid financial redress.

Progress to date

Over the last 6 weeks, the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice have been working at pace to determine the most effective approach to this unprecedented intervention, which will deliver long overdue justice to postmasters, respectful of the separation of powers and constitutional balance. This has included consultative engagement with relevant stakeholders across interested groups as well as parliamentarians, including the Chairs of the relevant Select Committees. In addition, detailed work has been undertaken to collect and analyse the available data from the Post Office, the criminal justice system and others to establish suitable criteria and understand the impacts of this intervention.

Scope of legislation

The legislation, which will be brought forward shortly, will quash all convictions which are identified as being in scope. That scope will be defined by a set of clear and objective criteria which will be set out in the legislation and will not require any element of discretion or subjective analysis in order to be applied. The legislation will prescribe criteria, each of which will need to have been met, to determine the convictions to be quashed.

The criteria will include:

Prosecutor(s): the legislation will specify who the prosecutor was in the relevant case. The Horizon inquiry has heard evidence of the egregious behaviour of the Post Office’s investigatory practices. It is therefore proportionate that the Government legislate to quash these prosecutions where the prosecutor is, in effect, discredited. In addition, two cases have been quashed by the Court of Appeal which were prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) but based on evidence provided by the Post Office. It is therefore reasonable to include CPS cases within the Bill’s scope. However, we will not include any convictions from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). No convictions prosecuted by DWP have been quashed. Due to the nature of these cases, most DWP convictions relied on physical evidence; and when Horizon data was used it was not relied on, this evidence was corroborative of, rather than essential to, the case. The existing and established Court of Appeal processes remain available to those cases.

Offence dates: a set timeframe will ensure convictions are only quashed where the offence took place during the period that the Horizon system (and its pilots) was in operation (with exact dates confirmed in due course).

Offence types: the legislation will specify which offences are in scope, ensuring these align with the offences known to have been prosecuted by the Post Office. This means that only relevant offences such as theft and false accounting will be in scope. Non-related offences such as offences against the person will be excluded.

The contractual or other relationship of the convicted individual to Post Office Ltd: only sub-postmasters or their employees/officers or family members, or direct employees of the Post Office will be within the defined class of convictions to be quashed.

Use of the Horizon system at the date of the offence: the convicted person will need to have been working (including working in a voluntary capacity) in a Post Office that was using the Horizon system software (including any relevant pilot schemes) at the time the behaviour constituting the offence occurred.

It is intended that the convictions in scope of this legislation will be quashed at the point of commencement.

Territorial Extent

At the time of the original announcement, it was stated that the Bill would legislate on an England and Wales only basis. Since then, we have been working closely with other jurisdictions on this important matter and wish to see equitable outcomes for postmasters delivered across the whole of the UK.

In Scotland and Northern Ireland, prosecutions in this matter were undertaken by the relevant authorities in those legal jurisdictions. The Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly have the responsibility of holding those systems to account. We believe victims in those jurisdictions are best served by local decisions tailored to the judicial systems in Scotland and Northern Ireland; as such, the UK parliamentary legislation will proceed on an England and Wales basis.

While it is for the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Executive to decide on, and progress, their own approaches to the quashing of convictions, we will work with them to ensure those are compatible with the UK compensation scheme, so that compensation can be paid to victims across the whole of the UK.

Financial Redress

As noted in my statement on 10 January, the legislation is likely to exonerate a number of people who were, in fact, guilty of a crime. The Government accept that this is a price worth paying in order to ensure that many innocent people are exonerated. The Government will seek to mitigate the risk that such people will receive financial redress when they have not been wronged. That mitigation will require, as a condition of access to financial redress, that the individual signs a statement to the effect that they did not commit the crime for which they were originally convicted. This and any other aspects of the process will be in line with best practice principles on fraud prevention. This statement will be part of their wider application for redress. Any person found to have signed such a statement falsely in order to gain compensation may be guilty of fraud. Along with other aspects of the financial redress arrangements, this will not need to be part of the legislation.

Outside the legislation, we shall provide a route to full, fair and rapid financial redress for quashed convictions. This will be paid on the same basis across the UK, regardless of where or how the conviction was quashed. Claimants receive an interim payment of £163,000 within 28 days of applying. They can then choose between an up-front settlement offer topping up their redress to £600,000, or having their financial redress considered on an individual basis. Their reasonable legal costs will be met.

The Government will continue to engage closely with relevant stakeholders as they continue to prepare the legislation for introduction to Parliament, with the aim of achieving Royal Assent as soon as possible before summer recess. As the quashing of convictions is processed, the resultant financial redress will be delivered as swiftly as possible.

[HCWS283]

Ukraine War: Trade and Business Support

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

This week marks the two-year anniversary of Russia’s unprovoked and illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The UK and its allies stand united with Ukraine in condemning the Russian Government’s reprehensible actions, which are an egregious violation of international law and the UN charter.

Daily, Ukrainians continue to defend themselves against Russian aggression, while also working to emerge from it as a strong, sovereign and free country.

Following the outbreak of the full-scale war, the UK has now wholly or partially sanctioned over 96% —£20 billion—of the goods traded with Russia. This includes every item Russia has been found using on the battlefield to date. We will continue to maintain pressure on the Russian regime to secure peace.

The UK will continue to support Ukraine to defend its sovereign territory through the training of its soldiers and the provision of military aid, but we are also laying the foundations for a private sector-led economic recovery with UK businesses at the forefront of reconstruction efforts.

The Government has enabled UK and Ukrainian companies to trade more easily.

Last year, we signed Ukraine’s first digital trade agreement, which supports Ukraine’s transition to a digitally-led post-conflict economy. To help unlock necessary private capital at scale to aid economic recovery, and as part of the UK’s commitment as hosts of the Ukraine recovery conference 2023, we spearheaded development of the London framework for war risk insurance and donated £20 million to the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency’s Ukraine trust fund, which supports trade finance and considers war-risk insurance for select real-sector projects.

Earlier this month, we put in place a world-leading extended tariff liberalisation for an additional five years on almost all goods, with eggs and poultry to be extended for two years, continuing to provide much needed economic support to Ukraine and its businesses.

We are connecting UK businesses with their Ukrainian counterparts to unlock new innovations and shared expertise.

The UK-Ukraine business bridge offers a platform through which UK businesses can connect with partners across the global private sector to engage with Ukraine’s repair, reconstruction and recovery opportunities. This includes supporting businesses to attend international conferences and events such as ReBuild Ukraine, providing a platform to champion and promote UK private sector expertise. The UK-Ukraine TechBridge, formally launched last month, will nurture tech talent and promote skills development in a priority sector for both our nations.

The Government are advocating for the interests of UK businesses.

The UK-Ukraine infrastructure taskforce, co-chaired with the Government of Ukraine, offers a strategic dialogue to agree where and how UK companies can best support critical infrastructure projects.

Ukraine must be able to defend itself and to support this we are deepening our defence-industrial relationship, using commercial and strategic partnerships between UK and Ukrainian companies to support the recovery of Ukraine’s industrial base.

As the Prime Minister made clear in his most recent visit to Ukraine, the United Kingdom will continue to do everything in its power to support Ukraine’s fight against this brutal invasion, for as long as is needed. A more prosperous Ukraine is one that can best safeguard its own citizens. And a more secure Ukraine supports wider UK and global security.

[HCWS282]

Energy Charter Treaty: UK Withdrawal

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)]

The Government have today announced that the UK is withdrawing from the energy charter treaty (ECT).

The statement follows the Government’s announcement on 1 September 2023 that the UK was reviewing its treaty membership in the event that the modernised treaty was not adopted by November 2023. The modernised treaty was not adopted, and the review has now concluded. It has carefully considered the views of stakeholders in business, civil society and Parliament following extensive engagement.

The energy charter treaty was signed in 1994 to promote international cooperation in the energy sector in eastern Europe and central Asia following the break-up of the Soviet Union, primarily to facilitate investment in fossil fuels. However, the failure of the modernisation process means the treaty is no longer fit for purpose. The treaty means British taxpayers could bear unfair financial risk as the Government implement the necessary policies to secure the UK’s energy supplies and decarbonise.

The UK has been a strong advocate for modernising the treaty to better align it with modern energy priorities, international treaty practice and commitments on climate change. However, over a year after contracting parties reached an agreement in principle on modernisation, following two years of negotiations, there is still no clear route for adopting the modernised treaty. I am clear that the UK cannot remain in an unmodernised treaty that does not align with our unwavering commitment to energy security and net zero.



I am proud of the UK’s strong and stable investment climate. Twenty-three billion pounds were invested in UK low-carbon sectors in 2022 alone, and the review into the UK’s ECT membership particularly considered investor and business interests. Business groups supported withdrawal over remaining in the unmodernised treaty, and the UK will now join Italy, France, Germany, Poland, Luxembourg, Spain, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Denmark, and Portugal in leaving the treaty. Alternative protections for investment and trade in the energy sector will remain with all but four out of 48 of the treaty’s existing signatories. Following withdrawal, the UK will remain an attractive destination for investment in the energy sector due to its favourable environment and strong rule of law.

The UK will now initiate the process to withdraw from the energy charter treaty. The UK is required to give a one-year notification of withdrawal, removing treaty protections for new investments made after this period.

[HCWS279]

UK Sanctions Strategy

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

Today, HM Government are publishing their first sanctions strategy.

The world is more complex and more dangerous. It is marked by hostile states, terrorist organisations, cyber-threats, criminal gangs, and a whole range of challenges to our interests and values.

Sanctions are an important tool we have to respond. In recent years, the UK has built formidable sanctions capability and transformed its use of sanctions as an instrument of foreign and security policy. Working alongside our partners and allies, our carefully deployed sanctions are tackling malign activity and making a difference—from disrupting Russia’s war machine to confronting human rights abuses and violations in Iran.

Our new sanctions strategy sets out our approach and priorities since the passage of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. It covers our objectives; the responsible design and targeting of sanctions; and how we collaborate across Government and with international partners and the private sector to maximise impact. It emphasises our renewed push to bear down on efforts to get around our sanctions and the further investment made in strengthening sanctions implementation and enforcement. It underlines that the UK remains fully committed to working with allies to pursue all lawful routes through which Russian assets can be used to support Ukraine.

Sanctions remain a mainstay of our response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We are publishing the strategy as we prepare to mark two years since that terrible and illegal step and as we demonstrate further the UK’s unwavering support for Ukraine. This includes today’s announcement of a package of over 50 designations targeting the Russian military-industrial complex and Russia’s major revenue-generating industries, including energy and metals.

And following the tragic news of Alexei Navalny’s death, the House will have seen our announcement of the targeted designation of six individuals heading up the penal colony where Alexei Navalny suffered such brutal mistreatment by the Russian authorities.

Sadly our sanctions remain all too necessary in other parts of the world. We have used sanctions in support of regional stability in the middle east and the Red sea by targeting Hamas leaders and financiers, key Houthi figures involved in attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and extremist settlers in the west bank. We have also used our sanctions this year to target malign cyber-actors, entities propping up the brutal Myanmar military regime three years after the coup, and those undermining peace and stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We will also be publishing a post-legislative scrutiny memorandum for the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 in early March. The memorandum provides a summary and a preliminary assessment of the provisions and implementation of the Act, including the legislative amendments that have come before this House to strengthen our approach.

I thank the House for the continued support and engagement to ensure our sanctions are as effective as possible in advancing global peace and security and protecting the UK.

A copy of the strategy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS281]

Baby Loss Certificates

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)]

I wish to inform the House that the new baby loss certificate service has launched today.

As the House will be aware, the Government published the independent “Pregnancy Loss Review” in July 2023, alongside our response. The review examined the impact on families of not being able to formally register a baby or pregnancy loss before 24 weeks’ gestation.

In an interim report provided to me in 2022, the review recommended that the Government introduce a voluntary scheme to enable parents who have experienced a pre-24 weeks baby or pregnancy loss to record and receive a certificate to provide recognition of their loss. The recording and issuing of a certificate to bereaved parents who want one will provide comfort and support by validating their loss. I subsequently committed to introduce a certificate of baby loss in the women’s health strategy for England—July 2022.

Either parent is entitled to a certificate of baby loss if they have experienced a loss under 24 weeks’ gestation, are at least 16 years of age, and at least one parent was living in England at the time of the loss.

I am pleased that we are able to offer this on a retrospective basis to those who have already experienced a baby loss. Initially, this will be available to those who have experienced a loss since 1 September 2018. This will be continually assessed, and we will extend eligibility as soon as we can.

Delivering this important service highlights our continued commitment to delivering on the women’s health strategy and is an important step forward in supporting parents to provide recognition of a life lost.

[HCWS277]

Local Government Stewardship Update

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)]

All hon. Members will recognise the critical role local councils play in providing essential statutory services to their residents and being accountable to the communities they serve. Where councils do not meet the high standards that we set for local government, it is right that the Government intervene in order to protect the interests of residents. Today I am informing the House of a best value inspection of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, confirming the final decision to appoint commissioners to Nottingham City Council and providing an update on the existing statutory interventions in Slough Borough Council and Birmingham City Council.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

It is a matter of public record that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets was subject to statutory intervention under section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999 between December 2014 and September 2018. This followed an inspection by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and an inspection report published in November 2014, which identified best value failure, particularly in relation to grant making, property disposal and publicity spending. As the then Secretary of State, my noble friend Lord Pickles, noted when initiating that intervention on 4 November 2014:

“The abuse of taxpayers’ money and the culture of cronyism reflects a partisan community politics that seeks to trade favours and spread division on the rates. Such behaviour is to the detriment of integration and community cohesion in Tower Hamlets and in our capital city.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 666.]

It is also a matter of public record that Mayor Rahman and his agent, who was also the cabinet member for resources, were found to have been guilty of election offences by an election court in 2015 and were banned from standing for elected office for five years, and that the conduct of making grants amounted to the corrupt practice of bribery under section 113 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.

Commissioners were withdrawn and functions returned in March 2017 on the condition that the council continued to achieve against its best value plans and report regularly to the Secretary of State on its ongoing compliance with the best value duty. In June 2018 a Local Government Association (LGA) corporate peer review concluded the authority was now “on a positive trajectory” but that to continue to improve, it must

“be forward looking and learn the lessons of the past”.

Following that peer review and recognising the role of the then Mayor and chief executive in providing leadership to drive change, Ministers took the decision to end the intervention in September 2018.

It is clear to me that the council has made significant progress in the past years to improve governance and assurance processes. A recent corporate peer challenge by the LGA highlighted a range of areas in which the council does very well. These include strong relationships with statutory partners and that the council knows its places well. However, some recent changes have the potential to undermine the improvements that allowed the previous intervention to end. These changes include significant churn at the senior management level, which has resulted in a number of interims in the senior management of the council; the use of policy advisers and expansion of the mayoral office, which has reportedly resulted in the creation of a “two council culture”; the review of the constitution; changes to the grant regime, given the election court judgment of 23 April 2015 and the improvements put in place by commissioners previously; weaknesses in the scrutiny function; the decision to bring some services in house and the need to realise substantive savings in the short term. While the Mayor has a clear democratic mandate, and change to the way the council is organised to deliver priorities is not itself a cause for concern, given the history of the council, changes made to arrangements that were necessary to ensure compliance with the best value duty could mean that compliance is now at risk.

To support the council to continue to make arrangements to secure improvement in its governance arrangements and other areas linked to the past intervention, I am clear that the Government require direct independent assurance that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets is compliant with its best value duty. Therefore, I am today informing the House that the Secretary of State has exercised the powers granted to him by Parliament under section 10 of the 1999 Act, to appoint Kim Bromley-Derry CBE DL as lead inspector and Suki Binjal, Sir John Jenkins and Philip Simpkins as assistant inspectors to carry out an inspection of the council’s compliance with its best value duty.

The inspection will occur in relation to specified functions where we have concerns. This includes the council’s functions under part 1 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972, and the strength of associated audit and scrutiny arrangements, with particular attention to potential changes to constitutional arrangements, budgetary proposals and medium-term financial planning, the appointment of senior management posts, the use of policy advisers, the expansion of the mayoral office, the policy and practice of grant making, functions that relate to the appointment and removal of an electoral registration officer and returning officer, the funding of electoral registration and local elections work, the use of resources for elections and the maintenance of the independence of the returning officer, and the arrangements to bring services in house, such as Tower Hamlets Homes and leisure services. Given that our concerns also relate to wider decision-making functions, and whether expectations for effective and convenient local government are being met, the inspection will also consider decision-making in relation to those functions, encompassing leadership, governance, organisational culture, use of resources and impact on service delivery.

The lead inspector has been asked to report findings by 31 May 2024, or such later date as may be agreed.

Once the inspection is complete, we will carefully consider the inspection report. If it shows that the council is in breach of its best value duty, we will then consider whether or not to exercise powers under section 15 of the 1999 Act.

This action is not undertaken lightly, and my Department is committed to providing the council with whatever support it may need to support compliance with its best value duty. I will update the House in due course.

Nottingham City Council

On 13 December 2023, I announced to the House that the Secretary of State was “minded to” appoint commissioners to take over certain functions at Nottingham City Council. Commissioners would replace the existing improvement and assurance board, chaired by Sir Tony Redmond, with immediate effect. I also announced that the commissioner team, if appointed, would consist of three appointments: a lead commissioner, a commissioner for finance, and a commissioner for transformation.

These proposals followed the evidence provided in Nottingham City Council improvement and assurance board’s latest reports, also published on 13 December, which included the board’s assessment that the council is still not acting at the required pace to make the necessary improvements; and the council issuing, on 29 November 2023, a section 114 notice due to an inability to balance the budget for 2023-24. The Secretary of State concluded that the council is continuing to fail to comply with its best value duty. He was minded to escalate the current intervention arrangements in order to secure compliance with that duty and to ensure that the necessary improvements are made at pace for the benefit of the local community.

I invited representations by 2 January 2024 on the intervention package proposed in December from the council, and any other interested parties, especially the residents of Nottingham. The Secretary of State and I have now received the representations on his proposals, which we have considered carefully.

We received a total of 70 representations, including from the authority, the Nottingham Labour group, 16 Labour councillors, local MPs, 35 from members of the public, four local businesses, two community leaders, Unison and eight partner organisations.

The representations presented a mixture of support and opposition for the proposals to appoint commissioners. The representation from the council made clear its preference for retaining the improvement and assurance board, but stated that it will co-operate with commissioners if appointed and noted the proposed commissioner team. It requested that any decision to appoint commissioners is taken expeditiously and that a smooth transition is ensured.

Having considered carefully all of the representations received, and all other developments since the “minded to” decision, the Secretary of State and I are satisfied that no further issues have been raised which were not known at the time we made the “minded to” decision and that no change is warranted to the position outlined in that “minded to” decision. The Secretary of State is satisfied that Nottingham City Council is continuing to fail to comply with its best value duty, and that the necessary improvements are still not being made quickly enough. I am today confirming that commissioners have been appointed to Nottingham City Council and new directions have been issued.

The Secretary of State, as proposed in December, has decided to appoint three commissioners: a lead commissioner, a commissioner for finance, and a commissioner for transformation. This team structure reflects the most pressing priorities at the council as highlighted in the improvement and assurance board’s latest reports, namely weaknesses in finance and transformation, along with an underlying culture of poor governance. The Secretary of State is today appointing individuals to the roles of lead commissioner and commissioner for finance. The chosen commissioners have a proven record of leadership, finance, transformation and strong governance, together with the specific expertise relevant to their functions. We will appoint a commissioner for transformation in due course.

Tony McArdle OBE (lead commissioner) has extensive experience in local government and is the former chief executive of Lincolnshire County Council, and Wellingborough Council. Tony has experience in multiple interventions and best value roles, including as current chair of the London Borough of Croydon improvement and assurance panel, former lead commissioner at Northamptonshire County Council, and best value inspector at Thurrock Council.

Margaret Lee (commissioner for finance) previously worked at Essex County Council where she held the posts of section 151 officer and executive director for corporate and customer services for 13 years. Margaret also has experience of interventions and best value roles, including as former finance commissioner at Slough Borough Council, finance lead on the London Borough of Croydon improvement and assurance panel, and best value inspector at Thurrock Council.

The commissioners have been appointed for two years, or such earlier or later time as the Secretary of State determines. The Secretary of State is clear that the directions should operate for as long, and only as long, and only in the form, as necessary. The Secretary of State and I wish to again place on record the instrumental role the improvement and assurance board, under Sir Tony Redmond’s leadership, has played in Nottingham City Council’s improvement journey to date. Indeed, the current situation would be even more challenging without their dedication and sustained efforts over the past few years. Commissioners are today replacing the board with immediate effect. The Secretary of State and I are clear that we expect a managed transition from the improvement and assurance board to the commissioners and that momentum is not lost, particularly over the critical budget setting period for 2024-25. We are supportive of the commissioners drawing on reasonable support to facilitate this transition, including from the former board members, if they wish and in the terms they deem reasonable.

The commissioners will be asked to provide their first report within the next six months. Further reports will be provided every six months, or as agreed with the commissioners.

As with other interventions led by my Department, the council will be directed to meet the costs of the commissioners, along with such reasonable amenities and services and administrative support as the commissioners may reasonably require. The fees paid to individuals are published in appointment letters which are available separately on gov.uk. I am assured this provides value for money given the expertise that is being brought, and the scale of the challenge in councils requiring statutory intervention.

Slough Borough Council

Slough Borough Council has been in intervention, with commissioners appointed, since 1 December 2021, after an external assurance review found the council had failed to meet its best value duty. Following the commissioners’ first report on 9 June 2022 the intervention was expanded on 1 September 2022. The intervention is due to end on 30 November 2024, though we have always been clear that the Secretary of State may decide to extend directions beyond this date, or that it may be appropriate to return functions before this time.

When I last updated the House on 14 September 2023 on the commissioners’ third report, it was clear that while progress was being made and there was cautious optimism that the council was moving in the right direction, there were still significant challenges. It was vital that the council accelerated the pace of improvement to make substantial changes in the months ahead.

I am sorry to report that while the fourth report submitted to the Secretary of State on 17 January 2024 does record continued progress in some areas, including the political leadership, children’s social care and special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), procurement and contract management, the pace of improvement has been insufficient and inconsistent given the stage of the intervention, and there is still a lot to do before the council will meet its best value duty.

It is of concern that the council has not accelerated the pace of improvement, especially on tackling organisational transformation and developing a future operating model, and continued financial instability remains a concern. Commissioners are now of the opinion the Government need to consider the nature of the intervention beyond the current timelines. I have today written to commissioners to request a further assessment of progress in April 2024 to allow the Secretary of State and I to decide whether further intervention is required beyond November 2024. That report will need to cover:

An assessment of continued best value failure including progress against each of the directions and against the best value themes published for consultation by DLUHC last summer;

A view on timeframes needed for the authority to deliver its best value duty;

Whether the current directions are sufficient and necessary for the authority to meet its best value duty.

In the immediate term, it is essential that the council demonstrates fresh resolve in implementing the changes required to deliver a sustainable council that the residents of Slough deserve.

I will update the House on further progress with the intervention and next steps at that time.

Birmingham City Council

The Government intervened in Birmingham City Council in October 2023, and in January the commissioners wrote to the Secretary of State to set out their initial findings and progress of the intervention. I am today publishing that letter. The financial challenges facing the council are acute and, while it is encouraging that commissioners have made early progress, the situation is worse than they had initially expected. It is vital that the council continues to listen to, and work with, commissioners to ensure their savings plans are delivered to achieve a balanced budget for 2024-25 and beyond. The financial implications of the failed implementation of the Oracle system and the potential equal pay liability also remain a significant challenge. Commissioners have my full support in taking whatever steps are necessary to drive the required improvements. I expect to see demonstrable progress from the council in the commissioners’ first full report, which is due in the spring, and I will update the House on further progress with the intervention and next steps at that time.

Conclusion

I want to acknowledge in today’s announcement the work of the dedicated staff who deliver the important services of councils on which local residents depend. I also want to thank the commissioners for all they do. I will deposit in the Library of the House copies of the appointment letters for the Tower Hamlets inspectors, the appointment letters for the Nottingham City Council commissioners together with the directions and accompanying explanatory memorandum, and the report and letter I have referred to, which are also being published on www.gov.uk today.

[HCWS280]

Intelligence and Security Committee International Partnerships Report: Government Response

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)]

On 5 December 2023, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament published its report entitled “International Partnerships”.

The UK’s international intelligence alliances are fundamental to the work of the Government and we are grateful to the Committee for devoting time and attention to this subject. Today, the Government are publishing our response to this report.

Copies of the Government response have been laid before both Houses.

[HCWS284]

UK-Related Domain Name Registries Consultation: Policy Response

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)]

In July 2023, the Government launched a consultation in relation to internet domain name registries and domain name abuse. This consultation asked for views on the Government’s proposals for regulations defining prescribed practices and requirements, which are to be introduced following sections 19 to 21 of the Digital Economy Act 2010 coming into force. Specifically, the consultation asked for views from the relevant parties on the draft list of misuses and unfair uses of domain names in scope, and proposed principles which will underpin the prescribed dispute resolution procedure.

It is important we undertake this work to ensure that the UK will continue to meet international best practice on governance of country code top level domains in line with our key global trading partners and our future global trading commitments.

As outlined in a previous statement of 20 July 2023, the DEA 2010 sets out the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology’s powers of intervention in the event that any UK-related domain name registry fails to address serious, relevant abuses of their domain names, posing significant risk to the UK electronic communications networks and its users.

We received 39 responses to the consultation, which closed in August 2023. In November 2023, the Government published a summary of the responses received and have since been analysing the responses, consulting with technical and industry experts to develop our policy response.

We have today published the Government policy response to the consultation. A copy of both this document and the summary of responses will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.

We will now set out in secondary legislation the list of misuses and unfair uses of domain names that registries in scope must take action to mitigate and deal with, alongside the registry’s arrangements for dealing with complaints in connection with the domain names in scope. This will provide additional certainty for UK users that appropriate procedures will continue to be in place to help address abuse of UK-related domain names.

[HCWS276]