House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
We will not tolerate anti-Muslim hatred in any form, and we will seek to stamp it out wherever it occurs. We are appointing an independent adviser to tackle the scourge of anti-Muslim hatred, to join our independent adviser on antisemitism. We have a programme for tackling anti-Muslim hatred, which includes the consideration of definitions. It also includes £117 million of funding to protect Muslim places of worship and faith schools until 2028.
Debbie Abrahams
Despite what the Minister says, many believe that the Government’s two-year delay in coming up with a definition on Islamophobia—the Conservatives are the only political party in the UK to have taken so long—reflects their indifference to the fear, discrimination and hatred that thousands of Muslims experience. Why has it taken so long?
Felicity Buchan
We do not agree with the all-party group on British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia; we believe the most appropriate term is “anti-Muslim hatred”. Let me explain why. In this country, there is freedom of religion, and also freedom to criticise a religion. What someone cannot do is discriminate against or show hatred to me because of my religion.
Mr Speaker
Alex Cunningham is not here. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
A senior Conservative who went on to become Prime Minister said that Muslim women “look like letter boxes”. A Conservative candidate for London Mayor said that she wants to defeat her Muslim opponent to make things safer “for our Jewish community”. A former Conservative deputy chairman said that Islamists have “got control” of the Mayor of London. Are those incidents of anti-Muslim hatred the kind of incidents that the Minister just said will not be tolerated?
Felicity Buchan
We have made it very clear that a number of these comments we just do not accept—we think they are wrong—but before the hon. Lady throws abuse at Conservative Members, she should take a look at what is happening on the Labour Benches. Hers is the only party that has been sanctioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission for institutional racism. Her party has now given the Whip back to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), even though the Labour party said that his comments were deeply offensive. The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has also had the Whip suspended because of antisemitism.
Anneliese Dodds
It is important that we do not trade abuse about these very serious issues. [Interruption.] With respect, that was the tone that I adopted. Where there are issues with political parties, rather than laughing about them, we should take action. That is what the Labour party did after the EHRC investigation. Sadly, the Conservatives have not acted to develop a definition of anti-Muslim hatred. We have changed, but the Conservatives have not. A definition was promised, and an adviser was appointed to develop one five years ago—perhaps the Minister is unaware of that—but today there is still no definition. There is no adviser now, no active anti-Muslim hate crime working group, no hate crime strategy, and minimal action on tackling online hate. When are the Government going to wake up to this problem?
Felicity Buchan
As I said, this Government are completely committed to supporting our Muslim communities. We have said that we will appoint an independent adviser. We have made more money available to protect mosques and Muslim faith schools. I am visiting my local mosque, al-Manaar, this afternoon/early evening to attend an Iftar. If one looks at the composition of the Conservative Front Bench and at how diverse the people there are, one can see clearly that our party is committed to diversity and equality.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
The Minister for Equalities (Stuart Andrew)
Our 2021 HIV action plan sets out actions to achieve no new HIV transmissions by 2030 in England. To deliver that, the Department of Health and Social Care is investing more than £4.5 million between 2021 and 2025 to deliver the HIV prevention programme.
Peter Gibson
Happy St Cuthbert’s day, Mr Speaker. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all the work done in the fight against HIV, but does he agree that if we are to reach our commitment of zero transmissions by 2030, we need a four-pronged approach that includes improved sex education, an expansion of opt-out testing, better availability of pre-exposure prophylaxis, and finding the 13,000 people with HIV who are lost to care?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend’s suggestions are right. Through opt-out testing, we have identified 1,000 cases of undiagnosed and untreated HIV. We have expanded that testing to a further 47 emergency rooms, so that we can find even more people. On the availability of PrEP, we are gathering evidence to understand why some population groups who would benefit from it are not accessing it; this is still an important area of work for us as a Government.
Maggie Throup
Since the funding has been secured for opt-out HIV testing in very high prevalence areas as part of the HIV action plan that I published when I was Minister for public health in 2021, the scheme has far exceeded expectations; over 4,000 people were newly diagnosed with HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C in just four cities in 21 months. The scheme also disproportionately identified women, people of black African ethnicity and older people with those blood-borne diseases. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on progress in expanding the programme to an additional 47 hospitals across England, including in Derby and Nottingham, and confirm that work is under way to ensure that opt-out testing will continue beyond April 2025?
Stuart Andrew
I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for the amazing work she did in the Department; the initiative has been a great success story. It is amazing that we have been able to find more cases, which is precisely why an extra £20 million has been allocated to increase the testing. I will write to colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care about what will happen post 2025, but we are doing lots of other work with partners, such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, to ensure that we do everything we can to make this important goal a reality.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In Northern Ireland, we have a proactive HIV action plan, but it is always good to share information about the work that is done here, and the work that is done back home. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland on extending the HIV action plan guidelines to Northern Ireland? Let us exchange good ideas and move forward together.
Stuart Andrew
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should always share information and best practice. I will make sure that colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care hear his request and ensure that happens. At the end of the day, it is in all our shared interests to get to that goal by 2030.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on behalf of Israeli victims of Hamas. This Government are appalled by reports of sexual violence since 7 October in Israel and Gaza. I am working closely with Cabinet colleagues on the issue. It is important to continue to highlight the fact that many hostages, both male and female, have still not been released, and they face the daily threat of rape, sexual assault and violence. Across Government, we have been meeting with their families. Just last week I met with the Hostage and Missing Families Forum, and I know that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have also done so in recent months.
Nicola Richards
A United Nations report recently confirmed that sexual violence was used against Israeli women on 7 October. Last week I raised concerns with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office that women did not feel that they could trust the UN enough to speak about their experiences. Victims of sexual violence deserve a voice and to be treated with respect, so what can my right hon. Friend do to encourage the international community to unite in calling out sexual violence and those who seek to deny that it happens?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the issue. She will be pleased to know that just last week, following calls from the UK, Lord Ahmad, the Minister in the other place, attended the UN Security Council to express deep concerns about the findings of the UN special representatives of the Secretary-General on their recent visit to the region. The UK is leading work internationally through our preventing sexual violence initiative, and through dedicated funding, totalling £60 million, to prevent conflict-related sexual violence and to strengthen justice and support for all survivors.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
It was this Conservative Government who introduced mandatory gender pay gap reporting for large employers, to shine a light on the gender pay gap and promote action to close it. As a result, the gender pay gap has fallen by approximately a quarter over the past decade.
Mr Campbell
I thank the Minister for her response. Can she indicate whether the narrowing of the gender pay gap over the past 10 years has been less pronounced, in percentage terms, among women on lower incomes than among those on larger salaries?
Maria Caulfield
Actually, the results from our gender pay gap reporting are slightly different: it is in higher-paid professions that the gender pay gap seems to exist, but that is because women are often in low-paid work. The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the issue. Next month, we are introducing a pay rise of 10% for the lowest paid through an increase to the national living wage. After the national insurance cut, added on to the cut in January, people will be almost £900 better off in work.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
The issue is not just the gender pay gap; there is also the gender pension gap, the lack of women on boards, and the importance of making sure that we have a pipeline of talented women at every level. Yesterday, I was with the community interest company, Women on Boards, and its clear message to the Minister is, “Please can we have more action and fewer initiatives, to ensure that we make real progress in getting women in our companies, at every level?”.
Maria Caulfield
We absolutely are taking action. We are planning to introduce the pay transparency pilot, because in high-paid jobs, salaries are often not advertised, and women end up being paid less than men for the same role. It is such action that will make a difference to women across the country.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)
In March 2023, I appointed Helen Tomlinson as the Government’s first menopause employment champion. We are working across Government and with employers to increase awareness and develop policies to support women experiencing the impact of menopause at work. We recently launched new guidance on the Help to Grow portal to empower businesses to educate their organisation about menopause.
Gerald Jones
Last July, we saw the introduction of the British Standards Institution standard on menstruation, menstrual health and menopause in the workplace. Earlier this month, the International Organisation for Standardisation voted to develop an international version. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the BSI, countless grassroots organisations, individuals including my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), and the menopause all-party parliamentary group, who have all worked tirelessly to ensure that menopausal women in this country are given the support that they so deserve?
Mims Davies
I am absolutely delighted to welcome all of that work. I also welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) was able to join us in a roundtable discussion at Gower College. In fact, Jane from the BSI was one of a number of women to join our first menopause roundtable for International Women’s Day at No. 10, where we celebrated the BSI and its international achievements. Helen Tomlinson, too, has been recognised internationally.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
All forms of religious hatred have absolutely no place in our communities, and we work with police and community partners to monitor and combat it. We are taking a broad approach to tackling religious hatred, and are engaging extensively with experts to explore how religious hatred is experienced by British communities and how it affects different faiths and individuals.
Fleur Anderson
There has been an appalling surge of antisemitism and Islamophobia in recent months, but the anti-Muslim hatred working group has been suspended since March 2020, and the hate crime strategy is four years old; we clearly need a new one to tackle the hate crime in our communities. Will the Minister commit to restarting the anti-Muslim hatred working group and bringing forward a new hate crime strategy?
Felicity Buchan
As I said in answer to previous questions, we will appoint a new adviser on anti-Muslim hatred. We are engaging with the Muslim community at senior levels. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities have recently met Tell MAMA, which plays a very important role in tackling hate crime. This Government are completely behind our Muslim communities, and we will absolutely do the right thing for them.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s comments. We are all behind her, and endorse what she said, but can she give me some idea of recent progress she has made on delivering the Inclusive Britain action plan?
Felicity Buchan
We have been doing lots of work on that, and will releasing the report today.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will briefly pay tribute to my constituent Henry Wuga, whose funeral took place earlier today. Henry, who came to Glasgow on the Kindertransport, was a truly remarkable man. He and his late wife Ingrid made an enormous contribution to Scotland and the world through their work as holocaust educators. His legacy is truly immense, and I am sure that the House will join me in sending our thoughts to Henry’s family. May his memory be a blessing.
The increase in antisemitism and Islamophobia is eye-watering. It should be of serious concern to us all. Urgent action is needed on both fronts, and community cohesion and dialogue must be a priority. In recent months, there has been a 335% increase in Islamophobic hate cases in the UK. None the less, and despite our just having had the International Day to Combat Islamophobia, the UK Government have not convened the anti-Muslim hatred working group in more than four years. Now that the next anti-Muslim hatred adviser has quit over extremist threats, we need concrete answers. When will the Government take tackling Islamophobia seriously?
Felicity Buchan
On behalf of the Government, I pass on my condolences. We have made it incredibly clear that the Government are completely committed to tackling anti-Muslim hatred. We have upped the amount of money going towards the protection of mosques and Muslim faith schools. We are about to appoint a new anti-Muslim hatred adviser. This is an effort across Government. I completely agree that the levels of both anti-Muslim hatred and antisemitism that we see at the moment are not acceptable. That is why we are dealing with it.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)
The Government have a programme of initiatives to support disabled people and people with health conditions in starting, staying and succeeding in work. That includes Access to Work, Disability Confident, and a digital information service for employers, which aim to increase inclusivity and accessibility for disabled people in the workplace.
Marco Longhi
The Beacon Centre for the Blind in Sedgley does amazing work. Meeting Kaydee and Nathan, who are partially sighted employees, was an inspiring experience. My visit to the centre served as a strong reminder of the significant day-to-day challenges that vulnerable people experience in doing things that able people take for granted. What more can the Minister and her Department do to raise awareness and better support charities such as the Beacon Centre and its users?
Mims Davies
I met representatives from the Disability Charities Consortium yesterday, and some of those matters were discussed. We have invested £2 billion in improving inclusivity and accessibility at work for disabled people and people facing health barriers. We have hundreds of jobcentres across the country, and fantastic work coaches are tapping into extra support through our network of disability employment advisers to assist people just like Kaydee and Nathan.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adjustments are often vital for helping disabled people in their job, but Scope says that disabled workers face many issues with the Access to Work scheme, including a long wait for an assessment, a cap on costs, and low awareness of the scheme among disabled people. Only 40% of them know about it. Will the Minister work with her Cabinet colleagues to improve the Access to Work scheme and prevent the disability employment gap from widening?
Mims Davies
The Access to Work scheme is a demand-led personalised discretionary grant, but working with employers, looking around occupational health and other interventions to support people are equally as important. I can assure the hon. Lady that I met my officials yesterday about the Access to Work scheme. I am looking at any delays, any impacts and any changes every couple of weeks to ensure that people who want to work and need support can get it in a timely fashion.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
I am pleased to announce today that the independent inclusion at work panel has launched their report on achieving fairness and inclusion for all in the workplace. The report, part of our inclusive Britain agenda, sets out how employers can do away with ineffective, divisive and poor-quality diversity and inclusion practices. It notes that the UK employs almost twice as many diversity and inclusion workers per head as any other country. Instead, we should focus resources on interventions backed by evidence, which will benefit all people. I thank the panel for their hard work and thoughtful consideration on this issue.
Selaine Saxby
My young disabled constituent Ella Wakley in Braunton goes to college, but her blue badge is accepted on buses only after 9.30 am, which is too late, so she has to pay for herself and her travel assistant. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that improve accessibility for people such as Ella, who are trying to get on with their everyday lives?
Kemi Badenoch
As ever, my hon. Friend is a great advocate for her North Devon constituents. In the national bus strategy, the Department for Transport committed to conducting a wholesale review of the English national concessionary travel scheme. That will include reviewing eligibility and extensions to travel times for older and disabled people.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Last week, the Minister for Women and Equalities rightly called the comments of Conservative party donor Frank Hester about the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) “racist.” It has since emerged that Mr Hester has said that a group of Indian members of staff should
“climb on the roof, like on the roof of the train”
and has made reference to “Asian corner.” Does the Minister agree that those comments are racist—yes or no?
Kemi Badenoch
I understand why the Labour party insists on bringing this issue up over and over again, but Mr Hester has apologised for his comments, we have welcomed his apology, and we are drawing a line under it. We are focused on what matters to the people of this country. I had letters last week from people telling me that we were wasting time focusing on issues that were not relevant to them. We need to focus on what matters to the British people.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
Boys lag behind girls at every level at school, creating a gender attainment gap that has been in place for some 30 years. Will the Minister meet headteachers and a working group to see what we can do to reduce that gap?
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
I should be happy to. We want all children to reach their full potential.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Kemi Badenoch
I am not going to take any lectures whatsoever from Labour Members. This is a good time to remind the House that it is only the Labour party that has been sanctioned for institutional racism by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It continues to disappoint its members. Where is the Forde report? Why is the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) complaining that nothing has been done about racism in the Labour party? We will take no lectures from them.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Despite an overwhelming consultation response and promises from the Government, caste as a protected characteristic still hangs over the Hindu community. We have now established that the current provision could be removed via statutory instrument. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to remove it once and for all before the general election?
The Minister for Equalities (Stuart Andrew)
I commend my hon. Friend, who has been working diligently on this important issue. Our view is that we need to do that through primary legislation. I recognise that it is important to many of his constituents and others, so I would be more than happy to meet him to see whether we can discuss a way forward.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Stuart Andrew
If only that cheer was for me.
The hon. Lady raises a really important point—it is something I feel really passionately about myself, and it is going to increase in prevalence as we get generations becoming older, because people have been more out in recent years. I have been speaking to people about this important area of work, and will continue to raise it with colleagues in relevant Departments.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
I know the whole House will join me in congratulating Vaughan Gething on his election as Welsh Labour leader and expected election as First Minister of Wales, and also in offering Mark Drakeford our best wishes on his retirement. The Government I lead will always work tirelessly to benefit the lives of people across the United Kingdom, and I look forward to working constructively with the new First Minister to deliver for the people of Wales.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Giles Watling
The people of Clacton have had a tough time with the cost of living, and I am doing everything I can to support them. With that in mind, does my right hon. Friend agree that cutting inflation is the very best way to do that, and that today’s statistics are very welcome? Can he reassure my constituents that he will continue working hard to get inflation as low as possible, in order to protect their savings, help with their bills and give them the financial security they deserve?
The Prime Minister
Today’s figures show that our plan is working. Inflation has fallen to 3.4% from its peak of over 11%, down by almost 70%—the steepest fall since the 1980s, and now at the lowest level since September 2021—and people’s pay packets are going further, with real wages growing for eight months in a row and taxes being cut by £900 for the average worker. That is why we need to stick to the plan to deliver a brighter future for our country.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his words in welcoming Vaughan Gething to his post as First Minister of Wales. As the first black leader of any European Government, it is a historic moment that speaks to the progress and values of modern-day Wales. I also pay tribute to Mark Drakeford for his long, steady service in Wales.
With violent prisoners released early because the Tories wrecked the criminal justice system, 3,500 small boat arrivals already this year because the Tories lost control of the borders, the NHS struggling to see people because the Tories broke it, millions paying more on their mortgages, a Budget that hit pensioners and a £46 billion hole in his sums, why is the Prime Minister so scared to call an election?
The Prime Minister
As I said in January, my working assumption is that the election will be in the second half of the year. I must say, I thought that out of everybody, the Leader of the Opposition would be the most grateful, because he has now actually got time to come up with a plan for Britain. We are all looking forward to finally seeing it.
Keir Starmer
Oh, we are ready—just call it.
Let us just take the Prime Minister’s Rwanda policy. When the Tories first announced this gimmick, they claimed it would settle tens of thousands of people. The Home Office then whittled it down to a mere 300. Four times that number have already arrived this month, and the backlog stands at 130,000. Can the Prime Minister see any flaw in his plan to deport less than 1% of that backlog?
The Prime Minister
Since I became Prime Minister, the number of small boat crossings is actually down by over a third. That is because we have doubled National Crime Agency funding and we have increased illegal immigration enforcement raids by 70%. We have closed 7,500 bank accounts, deported 24,000 illegal migrants and processed over 112,000 cases—more than at any point in the last two decades. It is crystal clear, as we are seeing from the Labour party’s opposition in this House, that while we are committed to stopping the boats, the Labour party would keep them coming.
Keir Starmer
The tragedy is we know the Prime Minister does not even believe in the Rwanda gimmick. He tried to stop funding it, but he is now so diminished that his entire focus is stopping his MPs holding the sword of Damocles above his head—perhaps even literally in the case of the Leader of the House. His great hope is to placate those in his party with a couple of empty planes, praying they will not notice when the flights stop going, the boats are still coming and the costs keep mounting. How has he managed to spend £600 million of taxpayer money on a gimmick to deport 300 people?
The Prime Minister
It is crystal clear that not only does the Labour party not have a plan to fix this issue, but the truth is it does not actually care about fixing this issue. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about gangs. When we gave the police new powers to crack down on the people-smuggling gangs, he spent months campaigning and voting against it. But thanks to our new laws, 900 criminals have been arrested and 450 have been convicted, serving over 370 years behind bars. If it was up to him, those criminals would still be out on our streets. The truth is that, if he was not the Labour leader, he would still want to be their lawyer. [Hon. Members: “More!]
Keir Starmer
I have prosecuted more people smugglers than the Prime Minister has had helicopter rides, and that is a lot. [Interruption.] I have done it. This Rwanda gimmick is going to cost the taxpayer £2 million for every one of his 300 people that they deport. I know the Prime Minister likes to spend a lot on jet-setting, but that is some plane ticket. It is the cost of Tory chaos, and it is working people who are paying the price. The man he made his Immigration Minister let the cat out of the bag when he said the Prime Minister’s
“symbolic flights…will not provide a credible…deterrent”.
We know the Prime Minister himself thought it would not work. If the people selling this gimmick do not believe in it, why should the country?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is very keen to talk about who he prosecuted. He is a bit less keen to talk about when he defended Hizb ut-Tahrir. But when it comes to this question of how to deal with people who are here illegally, his values are simply not those of the British people. After all, this is the person who campaigned to stop the deportation of foreign dangerous criminals. A dangerous criminal was jailed for dealing class A drugs after he fought to keep him here. A gangmaster was convicted of carrying a knife after he fought to keep him here. So whether it is representing terrorists or campaigning for criminals, it is clear whose side he is on, and it is not the British people’s.
Keir Starmer
It is genuinely sad to see the Prime Minister reduced to this nonsense. Let us take another example, which I started with. [Interruption.]
Keir Starmer
After 14 years of Tory chaos in the prison system, the Justice Secretary was reduced to begging the Prime Minister either to send fewer offenders to prison or to release them even earlier. I must say I have sympathy for anyone trying to get an answer out of the Prime Minister. So what is it going to be: fewer criminals behind bars in the first place, or more released early on to our streets? Which is it?
The Prime Minister
Thanks to our record and plan, violent crime has fallen by 50%. We have recruited more police officers, given them more powers and kept serious offenders in prison for longer. What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s record? He voted against greater protection for our emergency workers, opposed tougher sentences for violent criminals and failed to give police the powers they need. It would be back to square one with Labour—soft on crime and soft on criminals.
Keir Starmer
You can see why he doesn’t want an election, Mr Speaker, why his party have lost faith in him, and why half his Cabinet are lining up to replace him—no answers, no plan, no clue. The Prime Minister has never had the courage to stand up to his party, so let me help him out and say to them what he wishes he could say: the mortgage mayhem, the waiting lists, the criminals walking free—they are the cost of Tory chaos. And if they cannot bring themselves to stop the endless games and gimmicks, and stop putting themselves before country, they should pack up, go home, and waste somebody else’s time. It wasn’t that difficult, was it, Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about his ideas, but we are two weeks on from the Budget. The shadow Chancellor found time to make a one-hour speech last night, and we still do not know how Labour is going to pay for its £28 billion black hole. But while he tries to talk down Britain and the progress we are making, today’s news shows that the plan is working—inflation down, energy bills down, wages up, pensions up, and taxes cut by £900. That is the choice: higher taxes and back to square one with Labour, or tax cuts and real change with the Conservatives.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The Prime Minister
May I start by thanking my hon. Friend for her excellent work campaigning on this issue? She is right: employers should offer their staff understanding, support, and flexibility while they are undergoing fertility treatment. The best way to improve the experience of those undergoing treatment, both women and their partners, is through voluntary approaches. That is why I join my hon. Friend in encouraging all companies to sign up to the fertility workplace pledge.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
With his Back Benchers looking for a unity candidate to replace him, which of the now numerous born-again Thatcherites on the Labour Front Bench does the Prime Minister believe best fits the bill?
The Prime Minister
It was surprising, Mr Speaker, to hear all this talk about the 1970s from the shadow Chancellor in particular, but if you see what is happening in places like Birmingham, where taxes are going up by 21% and services are being cut—whether that is social care, children’s services, or in some streets the lights literally being turned off—it is unsurprising why they are talking about the ’70s. I just say that what they have done to Birmingham, the Conservatives will never let them do to Britain.
Stephen Flynn
Of course there is a serious point to be made here, because the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned of the conspiracy of silence that exists between the Labour party and the Conservative party when it comes to £18 billion of looming public sector cuts. Indeed, just last night it outlined that the fiscal rules of the Labour party and the Conservative party are, in effect, identical. With such continuity on offer, the public are right to be anti-Westminster, aren’t they?
The Prime Minister
I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman quoting the IFS, because it also described the recent SNP Budget as, in its words, “misleading”, and said that
“pain is almost certainly coming”.
It is a savage tax and axe budget, because here is the reality: while NHS spending in England is going up in real terms, in Scotland it is going down; while taxes are being cut by the UK Government, the SNP Government are putting them up. That is the contrast, and where the SNP or indeed Labour are in charge, it is working people who pay the price.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important local issue. Any application for a toll revision will be considered by the Transport Secretary at the right opportunity when it has been received, but I am told that there are plans in place to create a new locally led focal group of key stakeholders to ensure that there is a real opportunity for them to make their views about crossings heard, and I know that she will play an active role in that group.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Yesterday saw the Northern Ireland Assembly for the first time in its history exercise its new veto powers to prevent the application of new EU law that would harm our ability to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is something that the DUP campaigned to achieve when others were calling for rigorous implementation of the protocol. To his credit, the Prime Minister was able to work with us to deliver the real changes to the protocol that will help to restore Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom and its internal market.
Will the Prime Minister now assure me that the Government will continue to faithfully implement the measures outlined in the Command Paper, “Safeguarding the Union”, including fully restoring our place within the United Kingdom and its internal market and ending the unnecessary checks on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend again on his leadership of Unionism. I agree that it has been an encouraging few weeks, and I salute the work of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in representing the future of Northern Ireland. I assure him that we will implement our commitments at pace, including further regulations to be laid before this House in the coming days to take power to deliver those commitments on UK internal trade. We are also hosting the first meeting of the UK East-West Council and establishing Intertrade UK, but it comes down to this fundamental point, and I know that he will agree: Northern Ireland’s place is stronger in the Union, with locally elected politicians in place representing the needs of all parts of the community.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to the way that my right hon. Friend has engaged with the Government on this important issue for his local community. As he acknowledged, our plan is working to cut the use of asylum hotels, and we will have closed 100 hotels next week, on top of cutting small boat arrivals. I know that he is talking to the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), about how best to accommodate a smaller number of asylum seekers safely at RAF Scampton, while recognising the council’s ambitious plans for regeneration. I fully support those discussions, and the Government are committed to the site being used for accommodation for the shortest possible time and then released for the benefit of the local community.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I am very sorry to hear about the experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent, and I am sure she will be raising it with the local NHS trust as well. The NHS is, of course, recovering from a difficult two years, but it has received considerable backing from this Government, including record investment, as was acknowledged by the NHS chief executive officer just the other week, and a plan to improve productivity in the future. We have invested in 5,000 new beds over the last year and more ambulances. All of that is contributing to lower waiting times, waiting lists coming down and an improved A&E performance over the last year.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Unlike both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party, who believe in top-down targets that decimate the green belt, we believe in local people having a say over their local communities. That is why we are committed to protecting and enhancing the green belt. The national planning policy includes strong protections to safeguard this important land. I note that my hon. Friend’s local plan is currently under review by the council, which has indicated that it will be updating it, and I hope my hon. Friend and her constituents engage with that process to help shape Guildford for future generations.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have explained to the Opposition repeatedly that the findings from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification initiative are gravely concerning. It is clear that the status quo is unsustainable, and we need urgent action now to avoid a famine. The UK is doing all it can to get more aid in and prevent a worsening crisis. Two thousand tonnes of UK-funded food aid, including flour and hot meals, is being distributed by the World Food Programme in Gaza today, as we speak, and it is enough to feed more than 275,000 people. We will continue to do everything we can to alleviate the suffering that people are experiencing.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The Department for Education is mounting a significant intervention in Herefordshire’s children’s services, including expert improvement advice, a commissioner with statutory powers to direct the council, and a two-year improvement partnership with Leeds. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Department is closely monitoring the council’s progress.
Sir Bill Wiggin
I thank my right hon. Friend for taking this terrible situation so seriously. The permanent secretary at the Department for Education visited Hereford recently, so he will know that the new Conservative council is trying to mend the damage done by the previous Green and independent authority to far too many young people and their families. As a father, does my right hon. Friend agree that progress is still far too slow? Will he meet me to discuss what more we can do?
The Prime Minister
Like my hon. Friend, I am concerned to hear that children in Herefordshire are not receiving the level of service that they should expect. I know that Ministers have revisited the commissioner’s latest report, and while some improvements have been made, I agree that it is very clear that the pace of change is not what it should be. My hon. Friend has been right to campaign tirelessly on this. I assure him that Ministers continue to hold the local authority to account, but I will be happy to meet with him to discuss his concerns further.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am sorry to hear about that specific issue in the renal unit. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not being familiar with the details, but I will make sure that the Department looks into it and that the NHS is provided with all the support that it needs to rectify the situation.
Sir Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his dedicated work to pass the Down Syndrome Act. I thank him also for highlighting World Down Syndrome Day, and we will host a reception in No. 10 to mark the occasion. As he knows, when the grounds for abortion were amended, Parliament agreed that doctors were best placed to make those difficult decisions with women and their families. He also knows that it is a long-standing convention that it is for Parliament to decide whether to make any changes to the law on abortion. These issues have always been treated as an individual matter of conscience.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I will happily look into the issues that the hon. Lady raises, but in the first instance I am sure that that would be a question for the SNP Government in Scotland to answer, to ensure that they are providing for their constituents. We have a strong track record of investing in local communities right across Scotland with our levelling-up funding and investment partnerships. She will know that housing is a devolved area, but I will happily look into the issue.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for his championing of his area and for his passion to preserve its character. Although there are no current plans to redraw the boundaries, I understand his desire, especially with London being run by the Labour Mayor. With nightlife decimated, crime increasing and the Mayor raising taxes on hard-working people by more than 8%, London can certainly do better. The only way for pride to be restored in London is with Susan Hall as its new Mayor.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
As the Chancellor recently pointed out, living standards are £1,700 higher in real terms than in 2010. If the hon. Gentleman wants to protect working people in this country, perhaps he should have a chat with his shadow Chancellor about her plans to impose £28 billion of tax rises on everyone in our country.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has been an excellent campaigner for Wrexham, putting it on the map after years of decline under the Labour party. It is the heart of one of Wales’s investment zones, with our plan for towns helping to regenerate the local high street and improve public safety. I can tell my hon. Friend that with a great campaigner like herself, the next five years will only look brighter for Wrexham.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I addressed this last week, and the Minister for Women and Equalities addressed it just half an hour ago.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you and the Prime Minister will be welcome in the Arun district of my constituency, where developers are trying to build over every vineyard, horticultural nursery and piece of agricultural land. Will he point out that the last place to build homes is prime agricultural land, especially in an area where developers have enough permissions to meet the council’s targets for the next five years?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that sustainable development must be at the heart of our planning system. That is why we are committed to meeting the housing needs of our communities by building the right homes in the right places, making sure that everyone makes best use of brownfield land, conserving our countryside. That is also the point he makes, which is important. I have been crystal clear: we must protect agricultural land. Food security is incredibly important and we need our farmers to produce more Great British food.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
We know the Prime Minister has received advice about the legality of the Israel-Gaza war, that he has had time to consider it, and that Governments can and do publish such advice. Will he tell the House what steps he is taking to act on that advice in reviewing UK arms sales, in supporting the proceedings of the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court, and in exercising the UK’s vote at the UN Security Council?
The Prime Minister
We continue to call for Israel to respect international humanitarian law and for civilians to be protected. Too many civilians have been killed and we want Israel to take greater care to limit its operations to military targets. Those are points that both I and the Foreign Secretary have made repeatedly to Prime Minister Netanyahu. We have previously assessed that Israel is committed and capable of complying with international humanitarian law, and of course we always keep that under review.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Prime Minister will be aware of plans by National Grid to build a network of 50-metre-high pylons through much of rural Lincolnshire. This is causing much consternation, particularly in rural villages. Can my right hon. Friend assure my residents that when Ministers finally consider the consultations that come forward from National Grid, they will give sympathetic consideration to putting some of the sections underground?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the concerns of his constituents. He will recognise the balance we need to strike by making sure that we give our country the energy security it needs but doing it in a way that is respectful of the impact on local communities. I will make sure that Ministers take into account the concerns he raised and that all the views of local constituents are taken into account.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
Given that the Prime Minister’s and his Government’s days are numbered and that they will soon be in opposition, will he use the small amount of time available to him to join 138 United Nations member states in recognising the state of Palestine?
The Prime Minister
Our position has been consistently clear. We will recognise the state of Palestine when it makes the most beneficial sense for the overall peace process. Of course we are committed to an ultimate two-state solution, but in the here and now what we are calling for is an immediate, sustained humanitarian pause that would allow for the safe release of hostages, including British nationals, and would allow more aid to reach Gaza. We urge all sides to seize the opportunity, and continue negotiations to reach an agreement as soon as possible.
HMRC Self-Assessment Helpline
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement on the Government’s decision to close the HMRC self-assessment helpline every year between April and September.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I thank the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), and others, for raising the important issue of HMRC’s customer services and its plans to provide better services for taxpayers.
As Members probably know, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has announced that it is halting planned changes to its helplines, but aims to encourage more taxpayers to self-serve online. It has listened to the feedback and recognises that more needs to be done to ensure that all taxpayer needs are met, while also encouraging those who can to make the transition to online services. Making the best use of online services allows HMRC to help more taxpayers, and to get the most out of every pound of taxpayers’ money by boosting productivity. HMRC helpline and webchat advisers will always be there for taxpayers who need support because they are vulnerable or digitally excluded, or have complex affairs. I recognise that such reassurances were not communicated clearly enough yesterday.
Of course, the pace of this change needs to match the public’s appetite for managing their tax affairs online. The changes in the self-assessment VAT and PAYE helplines announced by HMRC will therefore be halted while it engages with stakeholders, which means that the phone lines will remain open as usual. HMRC will now work with stakeholders—including me—while continuing to encourage customers to self-serve and gain access to the information that they need more quickly and easily by going online or to the HMRC app, which is available 24/7.
James Murray
I thank the Minister for his response, but the question that I am tempted to ask is, “Who on earth is running the Treasury?”
This morning, just after we had requested the urgent question, we found out that the Chancellor had told HMRC to “pause” this change. That is a U-turn of quite extraordinary speed and indignity, following HMRC’s announcement yesterday that it would be permanently closing its self-assessment helpline altogether for half the year, from April to September. This morning a Treasury source said
“ministers have halted this change immediately”,
implying that those Ministers had been taken by surprise by the announcement. Can the Minister tell us whether any Treasury Ministers had any involvement in the decision announced yesterday, or whether HMRC’s announcement was made without any ministerial involvement?
In announcing the closure of the helpline, HMRC’s second permanent secretary and deputy chief executive said that the changes would
“allow our helpline advisers to focus support where it is most needed—helping those with complex tax queries and those who are vulnerable and need extra support.”
Can the Minister confirm that HMRC’s plans to help those who are vulnerable and need extra support are now in tatters after the Chancellor’s chaotic U-turn? I note that reports of the Chancellor’s position refer to a “pause” of the change, rather than a scrapping of it altogether. Can the Minister confirm that the self-assessment helpline will now remain fully open this year? If this plan is merely paused, will HMRC still be looking at months-long periods of closure of the helpline in the future?
It is clear that yesterday’s announcement of the helpline’s closure came not as part of a comprehensive, orderly or effective plan to help customers to move online, but rather as a panicked response to the collapse of HMRC’s service levels to an all-time low; and it is clear from today’s chaotic U-turn that this Government are fundamentally unstable, and have given up on serious governing.
Nigel Huddleston
I am sure the hon. Member is aware that HMRC is a non-ministerial Department. Ministers set strategy and work closely with the Department on operations and communications. It is important to recognise that 67,000 people work for HMRC. They go to work every day and try to do the right thing, and it is important to recognise that many people there work very hard.
The overall strategy is absolutely right and I completely support it, and I will give the hon. Member an example of why we need to encourage and support the move to online services. In 2022-23, HMRC received more than 3 million calls on just three things that can easily be done digitally: resetting online passwords, getting one’s tax code and getting one’s national insurance number. That involves almost 500 people working full time to answer just those calls, and such resources could be redeployed. The hon. Member can be reassured that those who are not digitally savvy and those with difficulties will always be able to access services, including telephone services.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
May I thank the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor for listening to the howl of pain that came from ordinary taxpayers when they saw the announcement yesterday? Those who contact the HMRC hotline are the most law-abiding, tax paying people across this land.
This morning, the Treasury Committee has published more data showing that it is increasingly difficult to contact HMRC by telephone. While I fully endorse what the Minister has just said about the long-term strategy to move people online, it cannot be done by randomly shutting down HMRC’s telephone lines.
The Minister had an excellent digital track record in the private sector before he came into Parliament. May I urge him to use that experience to make this much more of a gradual transition for those law-abiding citizens of ours?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend and the Select Committee for their work in this area. I know that HMRC customer service has been an area of focus for her and others for some time, and we appreciate the input. I recognise that she acknowledges the potential opportunities and the upside to encouraging more people to go online, but the point she makes is really important. HMRC has taken the feedback with good grace, because it is important that we move at the speed at which the public are willing to move. Of course, some people are not willing or able to move to purely online services.
I am sorry for not responding earlier to the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) on whether the telephone lines will stay open. Yes, of course they will.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
This is absolute chaos. The proposal to permanently close the self-assessment helpline for half the year was truly half-baked and irresponsible, as were the planned restrictions to the VAT helpline. The reversal is welcome, but the fact that the announcement was made at all highlights the disconnect at the heart of HMRC’s customer operations. As the Federation of Small Businesses has pointed out,
“customer service levels are at an all-time low”—
a view backed up by the Public Accounts Committee. At a time when the Chancellor’s policies are fiscally dragging more people into PAYE, the proposal was typically tone deaf to people’s needs.
Fran Heathcote of the PCS union has said that
“the combination of low-pay and micro-management”
is “rife across the whole” of HMRC’s customer service department. The Minister said that HMRC is a non-ministerial Department, but we know that it has been told what to do by the Chancellor overnight. When did the Government get notice of the announcement? Was it a reaction to the Chancellor’s decision to cut HMRC’s budget by £1.6 billion next year? Will he now ensure that the cut is reversed and order HMRC to recruit more customer service staff, and will he now instruct HMRC to make the reversal permanent?
Nigel Huddleston
As I outlined a few moments ago, I think we can all appreciate that in order to serve customers, and particularly those who most need support, we need to ensure that those who do not need to go online have alternative channels—by the way, the customer service levels are higher in online channels—and the use of the app, which I encourage all individuals to use. Those who can go online will find a very effective and efficient service, so this is absolutely the right strategy and one that I completely and utterly support. We have also previously had a trial closure of the lines, and the report released yesterday showed that it worked quite well.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about redeployment. HMRC is proactive in notifying people who, for example, do not need to provide a self-assessment form. I think more than 1 million people were notified last year that they did not need to do so. Following other changes in Government policy, we have also communicated that those on high incomes—up to £150,000, for example—but do not have complex tax affairs do not need to provide a self-assessment return. There is a broad package going on here to enhance and improve customer service, but we recognise that many people like and would prefer a telephone service.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Despite extensive Government investment in rural broadband in my constituency, there remains a lack of connectivity, with small businesses, the elderly and the vulnerable still having difficulty going fully online. What can the Minister do to ensure that nobody will be left behind in Derbyshire Dales?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend makes the really important point that there are still people in this country, including in her constituency, who are not digitally aware or who are digitally excluded for a variety of reasons. That is why an important part of our strategy is to ensure that those who are digitally excluded, and those who are vulnerable or have particularly complex affairs, can always reach a human being.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
This is another chaotic Government U-turn, with the Chancellor taking the decision this morning to scrap plans to close HMRC phone lines less than 24 hours after the measures were announced. A Treasury source admitted this morning that closing HMRC’s helplines would be to
“the detriment of the general public and the vulnerable who need access to the helplines to support them with tax matters. ”
This is part of a wider malaise within Tory broken Britain where many of my Slough constituents cannot speak to a doctor when they want to, cannot register for an NHS dentist and much worse besides. So why was this decision taken in the first place?
Nigel Huddleston
I mentioned in my opening comments—I will stress it again because it is important that nobody scaremongers about this—that it was never intended, and never would have been the case, that the vulnerable, the digitally excluded or those with complex affairs would be unable to access these services, even with the proposals set out yesterday. On that particular point, the hon. Gentleman is just wrong.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, which I welcome. Last September, in this very place, I raised the issue of heavy fines being imposed on self-employed constituents for late submission of self-assessment forms, even though no moneys were owed. I met the Minister in post at the time, but will the current Minister please write to me with an update on progress?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I reiterate that there is a very good reason why HMRC’s structure and relationship with Government is as it is, because it would be inappropriate for Ministers to interfere with individual tax affairs. However, I would be more than happy to raise his point with HMRC and respectfully ask that it pays it due attention. Of course, the Government set broader policy.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
As a former financial controller of a small business in a rural place, I have used those helplines extensively, not least in sorting out disputes when HMRC has got its data wrong. Given that our own experience is that the website’s process is byzantine, that the waits on the phone lines are inordinately long, and that £36 billion of tax goes uncollected by HMRC every year, how can anyone have any confidence that the Treasury is working effectively?
Nigel Huddleston
Very simply, we have one of the lowest tax gaps reported in the world, at about 4.8%, precisely because of the clarity of the tax system and the efficiency of HMRC in gaining the tax that is owed. Of course there are customer service challenges, and I am having conversations with HMRC about that. HMRC is also held to account in the Chamber, the Treasury Select Committee and elsewhere, as appropriate. It is important that we recognise that HMRC received 38 million telephone calls and 16 million pieces of correspondence in 2022-23. If it were a private sector business, we can see how it would make sense strategically to move, where appropriate, as much of that activity as possible online, where it can be dealt with more appropriately and often more quickly.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
The Women and Equalities Committee, which is currently carrying out an inquiry on the rights of older people, this week met Independent Age and a range of stakeholders in Andover. They made the point that older people need to be able to access all services on the telephone, as people who are disabled or have a visual impairment find online services difficult. To be able to communicate effectively, people who are hard of hearing need websites with a British Sign Language overlay. Independent Age and the stakeholders I met were horrified at yesterday’s announcement on the closure of the helpline.
What consultation has there been with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), in her expanded role as Minister for Disabled People, on the potential impact of these changes? When Members of Parliament deal with HMRC on constituency casework, it now tries to push us into using the telephone rather than email. Can the Financial Secretary assure me that vulnerable people will still be able to use telephone services? Will he comment on the contradiction between how Members of Parliament and the public are dealt with by HMRC?
Nigel Huddleston
I assure my right hon. Friend that we are having live conversations with HMRC about how it communicates with Members of Parliament on behalf of our constituents. Some Members tell me that they would prefer a telephone call, whereas others would prefer email. It is important that we have both. I am more than happy to communicate views and opinions from across the Chamber on that point. I am well aware that one of the biggest areas of concern about yesterday’s announcement, and one of the reasons why the feedback has been so loud, is that vulnerable people, including those with disabilities, might not be helped. It was never the intention or the plan that such people would be unable to access online, webchat or other channels.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Minister has spoken about members of the public who are willing and able to access services online. Members have to complete our own self-assessment form. I am willing and able, but I still need access to a telephone helpline. He said that 500 people are needed to answer the same three questions, which obviously cannot be handled by the online system. Following this announcement, is he confident that HMRC has the digital tools necessary to cater for more than 12 million self-assessment taxpayers?
Nigel Huddleston
I need to correct the hon. Lady, as the vast majority of the points I raised could be handled online, including through the app. One of the things we must do is communicate far more clearly. A fair point has been raised in the Chamber today, and I will continue to discuss it with HMRC, because there are clearly some challenges with communicating what is available, where help exists and so on, but there is a wealth of information on the digital offerings, particularly the app, and I encourage people to adopt them, where possible. The hon. Lady makes a valid point that people who cannot adopt them will need other help, and we are listening.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is clear that HMRC made a serious mistake, and the Government acted commendably quickly in intervening to put matters right. I am sure they will now take a close interest in what happens next. As a matter of policy, will the Minister ensure that, whatever the future holds, it will not be anything so sudden or brutal, and that there will be a trial period before anything so dramatic is implemented across the board?
Nigel Huddleston
As I mentioned a few moments ago, there has been a trial closure of telephone services. The recently reported results show that the trial worked quite well. As we heard overnight and are hearing again in the Chamber today, the important challenge is that the confidence behind that has not been effectively communicated. The reassurances that I personally received on what will happen to help those who are not able to access online services—including the disabled, those without digital access and those with particularly complex cases—were not communicated. That is important to making sure that, as HMRC moves forward and policy is developed, we move at a pace with which people are comfortable.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I hope that HMRC’s screeching U-turn is a result of the Minister’s action. If it is, I congratulate him on stepping in so quickly. Does he agree that, at a time when more and more people are being dragged into complex tax returns because of fiscal drag, when 1 million people had their calls to HMRC unanswered in January and when a record number of people are putting in their tax returns late because they cannot get information, HMRC should not have adopted such a policy? Will the Minister give us an assurance that this is not temporary and that whatever help income tax payers require to pay their tax will be made available?
Nigel Huddleston
I give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance on the latter point. As I have outlined several times today, I think we can all recognise that the move to digital, where appropriate, will relieve the burden on the people answering telephone calls and on some other services, allowing them to deliver precisely the end goal that he describes. Simplifying the tax system is a goal of Government policy. I gave an example of people on high incomes with relatively simple tax affairs—those who pay through PAYE, for example—and we are trying to remove as many of those people as possible from self-assessment. I completely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s points.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Although decisions on individual tax cases are rightly managed independently by HMRC, political and public pressure saw this ridiculous decision squashed. What steps will Ministers take to improve the accountability and performance of HMRC?
Nigel Huddleston
There are a variety of channels and tools, including my ministerial oversight. The Treasury Select Committee and other bodies also play an important part. I am not suggesting in any way, shape or form that I am removing myself from responsibility for HMRC, as I have ministerial oversight. If colleagues have concerns, they can always raise them with me. It is my job to raise those concerns with HMRC.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I chair the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group.
Does the Minister accept that one of the more disgraceful aspects of this episode is that neither the trade unions nor the staff appear to have been consulted prior to yesterday’s announcement? Does he accept that this is no way to conduct industrial relations or to deal with staff? How does he see yesterday’s announcement in the light of the Public Accounts Committee’s comments that the Department has to improve its ability to reach out to taxpayers and that it needs additional resources? Why are the Government now restricting customer access to the Department?
Nigel Huddleston
HMRC and I have heard and respect the views of the PAC and other bodies, including their recommendations and suggestions for improvement. Of course, many of these bodies suggest that the continuing move towards digital and online is an important part of that process. As I have said, I do not have day-to-day operational responsibility for HMRC, but I do have oversight. I proactively requested a meeting with the unions several weeks ago, and that is what I have tended to do in all my ministerial roles.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
This is a welcome U-turn, but does my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems is HMRC’s chronic lack of productivity? Is that not made worse because so many people are working from home?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend is correct that a focus on productivity is key, and I can assure him that these are exactly the kinds of conversations that I am having. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is leading a cross-Government review of productivity. HMRC staff are required to work in the office for 40% of the time. I have asked HMRC to assess and monitor the productivity of staff who are working from home versus staff working in the office, and there is very little difference. Because of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend and others, I will keep an eye on it.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The reprieve is welcome, but if we are to keep these helplines open, can we at least resource them properly and make them work? I spoke to a chartered accountant in my constituency this morning, and he tells me that when he recently phoned HMRC with a complex query on behalf of a client, it took 40 minutes to get an answer. When the phone was answered, there was an acknowledgment of the problem. He suggested that the answer might lie in his client’s wife’s data being incorrectly ordered, at which point he was told that the staff were allowed to handle only one case per call, and that he would have to hang up and phone back, with another 40-minute wait for an answer. Surely that is no way to treat a customer.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point, and I am happy to raise it with HMRC.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I am regularly contacted by constituents who have had poor services from HMRC, as I am sure many of my colleagues are. These people are pretty certain that they would still be waiting had they not got their MP involved. My constituent Mr McCall retired to care for his terminally ill wife in 2021, but has since been chased repeatedly by HMRC to provide a tax return for 2022-23. He does not use email and has described the diabolical experience he has had with the phone line; he waited 50 minutes for an automated voice, and the line then went dead. Does the Minister accept that that service level is not acceptable at all, and things must improve? Would he like to take the opportunity to apologise to Mr McCall for the distress that HMRC has caused him?
Nigel Huddleston
Yes, I am sorry to hear about those circumstances for the hon. Lady’s constituent. As I said, I have to be careful given the need to keep at arm’s length in individual cases, but she also raises a broader policy point. A lot of training and work goes on. I repeat that some 60,000 people work for HMRC, many of whom are dedicated, hard-working and well-trained individuals, and they often do a thankless job, but she makes a valid point, and I will happy raise that issue. I spoke incorrectly a few moments ago, so may I take the opportunity to correct what I said, Mr Speaker? HMRC staff are required to work in the office 60% of the time, not 40% of the time.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Government were forced to extend the state pensions top-ups through to April next year because of unacceptable delays on the Department for Work and Pensions/HMRC helpline for that issue. The Minister has mentioned that a review will take place; will that helpline be in its scope? It is a concern to many, many constituents.
Nigel Huddleston
As I say, I have ongoing engagement with HMRC. It is operationally independent, but I do have some oversight, and ministerial guidance is appropriate. I appreciate all the comments made by hon. Members today. These will be live conversations, and HMRC is listening to the conversations today. I will be happy to raise with it the points that she makes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, let me thank the Minister for a positive response, and for trying to solve the problems; we appreciate that. Constituents have told my office about their struggle to get through to HMRC on the phone lines. There is no doubt that people still rely on services that allow them to speak to an individual. That is so important, as it is for us as MPs. We had 1 million calls unanswered in January alone, which illustrates clearly the problem that the Minister is trying to address. Does he not see that there must be an enhanced service for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to ensure that all calls are answered and dealt with? The better option of a personal phone call is right, and we need a drastic change to be made.
Nigel Huddleston
It is important that HMRC commands respect—to a broad degree, it does—across the House and among our constituents, because that is how we can ensure that we comply with tax requirements. Where there is confusion, uncertainty or a valid question, it is important that people can get help, advice and support. For some people, it is appropriate to go online to get that, but that is not the case for everybody. As I said, the comments made today are very much appreciated. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, as I have said many times, it is important that all of us encourage and support the digitisation of these services, and the adoption of the app by our constituents, because that will help ensure that the time available is focused on those who most need help and support.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2024
National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2024
Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Act 2024
Bishop’s Stortford Cemetery Act 2024.
Hong Kong Security Legislation
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the security and human rights implications of Article 23 in Hong Kong.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his urgent question. Yesterday, Hong Kong’s Legislative Council passed new national security legislation unanimously under article 23 of the Basic Law. The Bill, which rushed through the legislative process, and is likely incompatible with international human rights law, will come into force on Saturday. Since 2020, we have seen Hongkongers’ rights and freedoms deliberately eroded as a result of the Beijing-imposed national security law, and this law continues that pattern.
Yesterday, His Majesty’s Government made it clear that the law’s overall impact will be to further damage the rights and freedoms enjoyed throughout Hong Kong. It will enable the authorities to continue their clampdown on freedoms, including freedom of speech, assembly and the media. It will further entrench the culture of self-censorship dominating Hong Kong’s social and political landscape. It fails to provide certainty for international organisations, including diplomatic missions, operating there. Broad definitions will negatively affect those who live, work and do business there.
Although Britain recognises the right of all jurisdictions to implement national security legislation, Hong Kong is also required to ensure that laws align with international standards, rights and norms as set out in UN treaties, the Sino-British joint declaration and its Basic Law. Hong Kong is an international city. Respect for the rule of law, its high degree of autonomy and the independence of its well-respected institutions have always been critical to its success. The British Government have urged the Hong Kong authorities to respect rights and freedoms, uphold Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and the rule of law, and act in accordance with its international commitments and legal obligations.
Let me conclude by welcoming the contribution our growing Hong Kong diaspora make to life in the UK; they are safe to live here, and exercise the rights and freedoms that all other British residents enjoy. We will not tolerate any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the UK. This law has no effect in the UK, and we have no active extradition treaty with Hong Kong.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I welcome the Government’s statement, but it does not go far enough. Article 23 allows sentences of up to 14 years’ imprisonment if an individual fails to disclose that another person indicated an “intention to commit treason”, which includes peaceful protest or voicing discontent. If a journalist discloses information deemed to be a “national secret”, they will be jailed for 10 years. Since the passage of the national security law in 2020, the people of Hong Kong have endured relentless oppression, in contravention of the Sino-British agreement, yet the UK has done very little to hold those responsible to account. I remind my right hon. Friend that the United States, which did not sign that agreement, has sanctioned 42 people, including senior individuals, in Hong Kong, whereas the UK has sanctioned none.
I have two questions as a result. This legislation harmonises Hong Kong’s and China’s national security systems, with devastating consequences for human rights; it also changes business and legal arrangements. Last year, the US Government warned US businesses that they can no longer rely on the protection that the rule of English common law affords in Hong Kong. Why have the UK Government not done the same for our businesses? Secondly, we now know that Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office internal documents show that the Department paused targeted sanctions against Chinese officials in November 2023. One document states:
“FCDO has paused consideration of this work indefinitely”.
As one of the parliamentarians whom China has sanctioned, I must say that that is a terrible decision, and it flies in the face of the evidence. Will the Government publish those documents, and make a statement explaining why they no longer wish to sanction Chinese officials?
Mr Mitchell
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments, which I will deal with as best I can. He indicated just two or three of the defects in this appalling legislation. He was right to identify them. He did not ask me whether the legislation is in breach of the Sino-British joint declaration. In fact, it is not; the Hong Kong Government are legislating for themselves. The British Government declared in 2021 that China is in ongoing breach of the Sino-British joint declaration.
My right hon. Friend asked about the rule of English common law and the warnings given by the Government of the United States. The British business community is extremely experienced and well able to reach conclusions for itself, but if ever the British Government’s advice were sought, we would always give it. He talked about targeted sanctions. I know that he is sanctioned; I hope that he will bear that with the necessary fortitude. It is outrageous that he and others should be sanctioned in that way. We do not discuss our approach to sanctions on the Floor of the House, but my right hon. Friend may rest assured that we are keeping all such matters under regular review.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Hong Kong’s new national security law is the latest degradation of the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong. It is causing fear and unease not only to Hongkongers, but to UK and other foreign nationals living and working in Hong Kong, as well as international businesses and organisations operating there, and many outside Hong Kong. Article 23’s provisions apply to Hong Kong residents and businesses anywhere in the UK. We have seen where that can lead; there was the frankly appalling attack on a protester in Manchester in December 2022. What steps are the UK Government taking to counter the threat of transnational repression, especially towards the 160,000 Hongkongers who have come to the UK via the British national overseas passport route? Many will feel unsafe and unprotected, and are denied access even to their own pensions. I ask on their behalf, does the Minister accept that the law not only “undermines” the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration, as the Foreign Secretary put it, but represents a clear breach? If so, will he say that to his Chinese counterparts?
The Minister says that he does not talk about sanctions, but it is of concern that although the US thinks sanctions are appropriate, the UK Government seem to be sitting on their hands. In the constant absence of the Foreign Secretary, can I ask the Minister whether the Foreign Secretary accepts that his “golden era” with China was a strategic mistake that undermined British influence over Hong Kong, set us on a rodeo of inconsistency towards China and failed to stand up for the UK’s national security interests? Can we expect the Foreign Secretary to deliver the strong, clear-eyed and consistent approach that is needed?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his comments. I agree entirely with what he said about article 23. He chides me for not saying more on the issue of sanctions. The point I was making—I hope that he will accept that this is common to both parties when in government—is that we do not discuss our application or consideration of sanctions, or sanctions policy, on the Floor of the House, but when we feel it is necessary to act, we certainly do.
The right hon. Gentleman asks me about the view of the Foreign Secretary, given his long career and understanding of China from his time as Prime Minister. The Foreign Secretary has spoken out very clearly on the change that has taken place since he was Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether the legislation is a breach of the Sino-British joint declaration; as I have said, we decided in 2021 that China was in ongoing breach of that. On the issue of whether it is a breach of international law, the Bill specifically says that it will be compliant with international law. I suspect that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The shadow Foreign Secretary slightly stole my script about the “golden era” of Sino-British relations trumpeted by then Prime Minister Cameron. While the Minister says that things have changed since then, one thing has not changed: communist China was a totalitarian state then, and it is a totalitarian state now. Is it not about time that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office learned that lesson?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend speaks with great experience on these matters from his time on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I agree with him about the nature of China. The question was whether China would respect the Sino-British joint declaration and recognise the uniquely brilliant features of Hong Kong as an international trading city. It is a matter of great regret that politics have trumped economics in that respect, as perhaps it always will in the case of China.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the urgent question. Let me try to get some answers from the Government about a response to what communist China has done, and critically what we can do in the UK about Confucius Institutes. Back in May 2022, the Open University bragged about being the first online Confucius Institute. Until 2023, the Government were allocating at least £27 million to Mandarin-language teaching, channelled through university-based Confucius Institutes. Will the Minister confirm that that has stopped? There is some confusion about that.
In relation to the comments made by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the Governments of countries such as the United States and others believe that sanctions are possible. The Netherlands and Germany have discouraged their universities from engaging with the Confucius Institutes; Sweden has gone as far as I would, by banning them. On providing answers, there are practical things that the United Kingdom can do about what is going on in Hong Kong. Will the Government consider ending the rights of Confucius Institutes in the UK? And will the Minister clarify the Government’s allocation of funding to Mandarin-language teaching through those institutes?
Mr Mitchell
We are very much aware of the Confucius Institutes and the way in which they operate. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we always keep such matters under review. If we have any changes to make to what we are doing, we will be sure to announce them in the House.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
There is no doubt that article 23 will have a chilling effect on freedom and human rights in Hong Kong. It is designed to further stifle all criticism of the Chinese regime and its policies, both inside and outside Hong Kong. Given the number of UK dual nationals in Hong Kong, what plans do the Government have to protect UK citizens from political persecution by China, both here and in Hong Kong? Will the Minister look again at extending the BNO passport scheme to children born before 1997?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the Chair of the International Development Committee for her comments. As she knows, we created the British national overseas route in 2020, which creates a pathway to permanent citizenship for British national overseas passport holders. It is working extremely well. Of course, we always keep it under review, but we have no current plans to change it.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It was supposed to be “one country, two systems”, but that has clearly disappeared. The bigger picture is that it is increasingly clear that China is openly pursuing a competing interpretation of the international rules-based order. Nowhere is that more evident than in Hong Kong. The independence of the judiciary has disappeared, along with freedom of speech and of the press. Hong Kong’s own democratic structures have been severely challenged and eroded. The new national security legislation will see the introduction of closed-door trials, detention for up to 16 days without charge, and the lowering of the bar of when life sentences can be imposed. I believe my right hon. Friend the Minister has business experience in Hong Kong, so what impact does he think these new draconian measures will have on the international community doing business with Hong Kong in the future?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the former Chair of the Defence Committee for his question. During my business career, I was in and out of Hong Kong very regularly. It is quite extraordinary how Hong Kong’s brilliant pre-eminence in business is being undermined by this legislation and, indeed, by much other legislation and acts by the Chinese Government. Hong Kong was built on independent institutions, a high degree of autonomy and openness to the world. All those things help to increase the economic activity, the living standards and the wealth of a country or a city, and it is deeply regrettable that this does not appear to be recognised by the Government of China.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
This is yet another nail in the coffin of Hong Kong democracy, and I cannot believe that we are here yet again talking about the matter. My thoughts are with the families of Hongkongers who are here. They must be looking at this and wondering what it means for them. The Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill was passed in this place yesterday, and, given that China is next in line to join, we did not get a cast-iron assurance during the debate that Britain would stop it from joining the CPTPP. In his role as Foreign Minister, would the right hon. Gentleman care to give that assurance now? Should China be joining the CPTPP while it is doing things such as this?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is an extremely experienced parliamentarian and knows that I will not add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade said here yesterday. She did, however, talk about the threats to citizens in Hong Kong and here. I will add to what I said earlier that we suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong in 2020, and that was absolutely the right thing to do.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Why are the Government continuing with their policy of continuous appeasement of China?
Mr Mitchell
I do not recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes. We have relations with many regimes whose values and views we do not share. That is the nature of international diplomacy and international business. None the less, I can assure him that British Ministers are forthright in their interactions with their Chinese counterparts, as he would expect.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I have some sympathy for the Minister, because I think he shares my sense of shame. I was one of the parliamentary delegations that went to Hong Kong after the one country, two systems deal went through. Our job as parliamentarians was to find out what local people thought of the agreement. I can remember these all-party groups assuring the people of Hong Kong that they would be safe and secure in their democracy and that it would not be challenged. What the Minister says is not very encouraging. This is not just a totalitarian, communist dictatorship, but a ruthless dictatorship. There are sanctions that we could be taking. Some of us in the House have begged the Government to do an audit of the extent of Chinese influence in this country, including how many companies they have taken over. How big is their influence? It is massive. The whole of the electrical distribution in London and the south-east is directly owned by a Chinese company. Surely we can take real sanctions against that country, which has gone back on everything it promised over Hong Kong.
Mr Mitchell
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening sympathy and support, which is always very welcome. In respect of the audit of Chinese involvement, much of that work is effectively done by brilliant British investigative journalists. He will have read, as I have, many of the reports that they have published. It is one of the differences between China and Britain: we have an open, free and democratic system, which enables us to scrutinise and pursue these matters in a way that is not possible in China.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
The message that this legislation sends out is that political control trumps all else, including the economy. Bearing that in mind, what assessment has the deputy Foreign Secretary made of this national security law both in relation to economic stability, competitiveness and performance in the city of Hong Kong, not least in relation to the confidence of foreign investors, and the potential impact on social cohesion?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. and learned Friend makes an extremely shrewd point. The impact of this legislation is, of course, devastating in the areas that he identifies. This is not legislation that is scrutinised in the way that we understand legislation to be scrutinised. It is not subject to consultation or scrutiny by genuinely democratically elected Members, but that is merely one of the defects that has been identified during this session.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, which I chair, heard very powerful testimony this morning from a young Hongkonger who had been a political prisoner in Hong Kong. We will now see more people enduring the indignity of political imprisonment, and the BNO passport visa can be withheld on the basis of the applicant having been in prison. Surely that is something that must be reviewed.
Mr Mitchell
That is not a matter, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, only for us. But he is right in his fundamental understanding, as he has set out, about the breach of the law that is going on. As he might have seen, Volker Türk, the UN human rights lead, has said that it looks, on the face of it, incompatible with international humanitarian law.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Having also been at the Hong Kong all-party group meeting this morning, I, too, heard the powerful testimony given by those pro-democracy activists who have suffered so much in advocating their cause.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. In his opening, he said that the law does not apply here; of course it does not, but that is not how the Chinese see it. It is for them an extraterritorial law. It outlaws external interference that intends to interfere in Hong Kong affairs, bans the work of non-governmental organisations advocating for human rights and civil liberties and might also affect those Hongkongers in the UK who are working in the UK civil service or the UK armed forces. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that active discussions are happening across government, with the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence and others, to ensure that Hongkongers living in the UK have the protections necessary against any future Chinese prosecution?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend knows a great deal about these matters and speaks with great wisdom on them. He is right to speculate that these discussions are taking place across government. They take place through formal mechanisms most of the time. But I suspect that he is concerned about the possible misuse of Interpol, which is an issue that has been raised, and which we take extremely seriously in the requirement to protect individual rights and uphold article 3 of Interpol’s constitution. He may rest assured that we continue to watch over these matters with all possible concern and rigour.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister, as always, for his answers. As has been stated today, the action is in clear breach of the Sino-British joint declaration and of human rights laws, in which I and others in this House take a particular interest. I have heard clearly what the Minister has said, but a number of concerned Asian constituents in my area have contacted me about the message that this sends to those who have left the Chinese regime. They raise concerns about the protection of those who live and work here. If we cannot hold the Chinese to their word, we have to ask whether anyone is safe. What message does the Minister have for my constituents?
Mr Mitchell
At the end of his interesting contribution, the hon. Gentleman asked a philosophical question, and I think he seeks a rhetorical answer. By the very way in which he expressed his question he made clear precisely what the dangers are. We have seen throughout the trial of Jimmy Lai that this is a political prosecution. Once again, we call for his immediate release. Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about this being a breach of the Sino-British joint declaration, a point that was made earlier. As the Hong Kong Government are legislating for themselves, it may or may not be a breach technically, but we have been perfectly clear since 2021 that China is in ongoing breach of the declaration.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question and the questions of others present.
Bills Presented
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Victoria Atkins, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Oliver Dowden, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary James Cleverly, Secretary Gillian Keegan, Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary David T. C. Davies, Michael Tomlinson, Andrea Leadsom and Gareth Davies, presented a Bill to make provision about the supply of tobacco, vapes and other products, including provision prohibiting the sale of tobacco to people born on or after 1 January 2009; and to enable product requirements to be imposed in connection with tobacco, vapes and other products.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 189) with explanatory notes (Bill 189-EN).
Private Parking (Regulator) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Emma Hardy presented a Bill to establish a regulator of privately-owned car parks; to make provision about the powers and duties of that regulator; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 June, and to be printed (Bill 185).
Standards in Public Life (Codes of Conduct)
Wednesday 20th March 2024
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Standards in Public Life (Codes of Conduct) Bill 2023-24 View all Standards in Public Life (Codes of Conduct) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a statutory code of conduct for Ministers of the Crown; for a statutory code of conduct for Members of the House of Commons and Members of the House of Lords; for a statutory code of conduct for councillors in England; and for connected purposes.
We are here today in the mother of Parliaments: a place that is steeped in our country’s history, from passing Acts of Union to overthrowing a tyrannical monarch; a place that Chartists and suffragettes fought for the right to be in; and a place that has approved our country’s most important human rights and equality legislation. However, many people across our great country and nation states feel that the MPs and Ministers who sit in the UK Parliament and make new laws on their behalf no longer represent them. People across the country feel that while they play by the rules, too often too many of us do not. They are engaged every five years or so in a general election, but rarely in between. While they struggle to make ends meet, public money is treated by some as a personal fiefdom to bestow on their chums and benefactors.
When people lose faith in democracy, they seek political extremes. Polling from the Institute for Government recently showed that two thirds of our constituents said that
“they do not think the current government behaves to high ethical standards”.
Likewise, polling from the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition found that two thirds of voters believe that UK politics is becoming more corrupt. Our democracy is fragile, and the reputation of those of us in this place as being in it for ourselves will, if not tackled, lay the groundwork for some of the country’s most abhorrent forces. That is what I seek to address in the Bill. While I am proud to be a Labour MP, the Bill is not party political. The reality is that when one party is seen as behaving in a way that lacks integrity, it affects not just that party but the reputation of politicians on both sides.
In the context of the cost of living crisis and the flailing economy, some might describe attempts at political reform as somehow ephemeral, but that misunderstands that our political and economic crises are two sides of the same coin. The failure to provide political stability has deterred the private sector investment that we need to supercharge economic growth. Taxpayers’ money is being wasted on scandals as wide-ranging as Carillion, Greensill and personal protective equipment procurement, precisely because the seven principles of public life, commonly referred to as the Nolan principles—selflessness, honesty, integrity, leadership, objectivity, accountability and openness—are not at the heart of public life.
My Bill sets out proposals to address the current gaps in achieving those principles by defining what is needed to promote, adopt and regulate the expected standards of behaviour of MPs, Ministers and councillors. First, my Bill would put the ministerial and Members’ codes of conduct on to a statutory footing, and introduce a national statutory code of conduct for local councillors. Secondly, it would establish a new commissioner for ministerial standards: a fully independent office protected by statute. Thirdly, to mirror that arrangement for MPs, it proposes that the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, which currently oversees the code of conduct for MPs, is established as an independent statutory office. Finally, it would establish a new ethics commission to review how our parliamentary system can develop to reflect the modern, inclusive, empowering democracy that we want to become in the 21st century and beyond.
I will take each measure in turn. My Bill proposes that the ministerial code, including the seven Nolan principles, be put on to the statute book. That would bring us in line with the code in Northern Ireland and add both greater credibility to, and awareness of, the code. This measure has received cross-party support. Even the former Chancellor George Osborne told the “Leading” podcast that
“it would be a great…agenda to put the ministerial code on a statutory footing”.
I wholeheartedly agree, and that is what my Bill would do. It is absolutely right that the Nolan principles, which are currently guiding principles, would also be codified. Right honourable and honourable and lay colleagues on the Committee on Standards have stated:
“Though the Independent Adviser has not, historically, launched investigations into breaches of process or constitutional principle, neither the code nor the Adviser’s terms of reference make this clear.”
My Bill would address that lack of clarity by empowering the new commissioner for ministerial standards to act independently from the Prime Minister and launch their own investigations into allegations of breaches of the code and/or the Nolan principles.
As an independent and statutory office, the office of the new commissioner for ministerial standards would also be protected from the vagaries or displeasures of Prime Ministers. We have very recently seen prominent examples of decisions not to ask the current adviser on ministerial standards to conduct investigations—decisions made by the Prime Minister on the whims of the day. The fact that in the last four years Parliament has seen two holders of the role resign indicates the tensions regarding those decisions. I know that this measure also enjoys deep and widespread support, including from the Institute for Government.
Furthermore, my Bill proposes that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should also become a statutory office and that, under its purview, in addition to Members being investigated for potential breaches of code of conduct rules, Members could be investigated for serious and serial breaches of the Nolan principles. Paragraph 17 of the Members’ code expressly prohibits the commissioner from investigating allegations solely about breaches of the seven principles of public life.
Reform of our politics also needs to extend to town halls across the country. We all know from our constituencies that the vast majority of councillors work tirelessly trying to make a difference in their communities, but unfortunately a minority use their positions for their own purposes and threaten our democracy as a result. My Bill would also apply to local councillors, who are often a member of the public’s first contact with an elected official. If we rightly want to empower councils and communities to do more, and because, as US Congress Speaker Tip O’Neill once said, “All politics is local”, we must strengthen codes of conduct in local government. My Bill proposes a standardised national councillor code of conduct, which includes the Nolan principles and is accompanied by a statutory accountability system.
Finally, I turn to how we address the issue that I raised at the beginning of my speech: the disengagement of people from the political process and the dangerous decline of our democracy. My Bill would set up an independent ethics commission of constitutional and legal experts to advise Parliament on system-wide reforms. The ethics commission would work alongside a citizens assembly to come up with recommendations to restore confidence and rebuild engagement in our political system, securing our democratic future. I urge Members on both sides to support my Bill, to strengthen our standards in public life and to restore the public’s trust in us as their elected representatives in Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Debbie Abrahams, Dr Dan Poulter, Layla Moran and Caroline Lucas present the Bill.
Debbie Abrahams accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April, and to be printed (Bill 188).
Point of Order
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dentistry and oral health.
When launching the NHS dentistry recovery plan exactly six weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care repeatedly assured the House that the plan was backed by £200 million of new funding. She said:
“There is £200 million on top of the £3 billion that we already spend on NHS dentistry in England.”
She made that very clear, adding:
“this is additional money. I have prioritised dentistry across the board, but this is £200 million of additional money—in addition to the £3 billion that we spend in England.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 264-66.]
We were all therefore very surprised to hear the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), explain to the Health and Social Care Committee yesterday that the plan to deal with the crisis in NHS dentistry was not in fact backed by any additional investment. She explained that it was all coming out of the £3 billion that is currently so underspent.
As those two statements stand in direct contradiction with one another, I fear that either the Secretary of State or the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House. As we celebrate World Oral Health Day, I hope that you may be able to advise me, Mr Deputy Speaker, on how we can seek clarity on this issue and have the record corrected on the Floor of the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order and for giving forward notice of it. She will know that Ministers are responsible for the accuracy of what they say in the House, whether in the Chamber or before Select Committees. Although it is not a matter for the Chair, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her concerns, and if the Minister or the Secretary of State thinks that a correction is necessary, I am sure that one will be forthcoming.
Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill
Wednesday 20th March 2024
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024 View all Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am pleased to present the Bill for its Second Reading. It will quash the convictions of those affected by the Post Office Horizon scandal in England and Wales—one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in our nation’s history. The legislation will clear the names of sub-postmasters whose lives were ruined because of the Horizon scandal: those wrongly convicted of or cautioned for offences of false accounting, theft and fraud, all because of a faulty IT system that the Post Office had implemented.
Instead of listening to whistleblowers such as Alan Bates when they raised concerns, the Post Office viciously pursued them for the shortfalls. Some were suspended or dismissed; hundreds were prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned; others were harried as thieves by their local communities. Several were driven to suicide. The Government cannot turn back the clock or undo the damage that has been done, but we will seek to right the wrongs of the past as best we can by restoring people’s good names and ensuring that those who have been subject to this tragic miscarriage of justice receive fair and full redress. The Bill represents a crucial step in delivering that.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The whole House appreciates the efforts that the Government are making to rectify this problem at last, but I appeal to them to listen to the cross-party representations made from both sides in this House and all sides in Northern Ireland, including by the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Justice Minister for Northern Ireland, who have appealed for the fewer than 30 people in Northern Ireland who have been affected by the scandal to be included in the Bill.
Kemi Badenoch
We are working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive. We have carefully considered the territorial extent of each piece of legislation, and we are rigorous in our commitment to devolution. The hon. Gentleman should be assured of the amount of work that is taking place to ensure that we get the Bill done properly in a way that will not have unintended consequences. I thank him for that point.
This new legislation will quash all convictions that meet the clear and objective conditions laid out in it. We recognise that postmasters have suffered too much for far too long, which is why convictions will be quashed automatically when the Bill receives Royal Assent, removing the need for people to apply to have their conviction overturned.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I understand entirely why the Bill is necessary. She will agree that it is important that we do not, through the Bill, set any precedent for the interference of this House in individual convictions, unless there are exceptional circumstances such as these. That means that the Bill must be tightly drafted. At the moment, condition E—the last of the conditions that she has mentioned—is that
“at the time of the alleged offence, the Horizon system was being used for the purposes of the post office business.”
Why is that not phrased differently to say that Horizon-based evidence was presented in the case against the person convicted? There is a material difference between those two things. I just seek to understand why she has chosen that formulation rather than the alternative.
Kemi Badenoch
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point about the final condition in the Bill. That is something that we considered, but it would likely have required a case-by-case, file-by-file assessment of each prosecution. That would have added significant time and complexity, which is what our solution avoids. One thing that I have been keen to emphasise is that speed and pace are critical. This has taken far longer than I would have wanted, and I would not have gone for a solution that would have impeded this and created complications.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I put on the record my thanks to and commendations for the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for the way in which he has approached the groundwork for the Bill.
Among those excluded from the scope of the Bill are those who went to the Court of Appeal and lost their case, or were not given leave to appeal to the Court. What we now know would have been quite useful in many of those cases. Should we enlarge the scope of the Bill to include those who lost their case at the Court of Appeal or were not given leave to appeal in the first place, as many of them may well be truly innocent?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. That is also something that we considered carefully. It is part of the trade-off that we had to make in doing something unprecedented: Parliament overturning convictions. We respect the judgment of the Court of Appeal—it has gone to an appellate judge. We are willing to consider some of those cases individually just to ensure that nothing has been missed, but the Bill has been drafted in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary. We want to ensure that we are bringing everyone with us. Concerns such as his have been raised, but this is more or less the consensus that we think will get the Bill done, and allow redress, as quickly as possible.
Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I will elaborate on this point further when I speak—hopefully, if I catch Mr Deputy Speaker’s eye—but there is already data about the cases that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) referred to, those that are outside the Horizon case itself but were attempting to get themselves exonerated on the basis of other data. As far as I can see, they failed precisely because they were not part of the Horizon case, so I ask the Secretary of State to return to this issue before Report and look at whether we can solve that problem.
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. That is something we can look at again at further stages of the Bill. We understand the issue that hon. Members are trying to resolve, and agree with them that we need to make sure that everybody who deserves justice gets justice, but we also have to be careful to make sure that we are not exonerating people who we know for a fact have committed crimes.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I commend her work and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), not only in recognising the plight of these people and putting in place compensation for their suffering, but in ensuring that these criminal convictions are expunged from their record. It is really important for these people that they regain their standing within their communities.
As my right hon. Friend has rightly said, so many of these whistleblowers were failed by the current law: the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. It is really vital that we not only put that right, but have a good look at the law again. I know that a framework review is going on, and have spoken to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend about what more can be done. I have tabled a whistleblowing Bill that will sort this problem out. It lands within the Department for Business and Trade—it is something that is within my right hon. Friend’s gift. Will she support my private Member’s Bill on Friday?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she does in chairing the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing. She is right that this issue needs consideration, and we are going to look again at the whistleblowing framework—it is something that comes up time and time again in many respects. I will not comment yet on her private Member’s Bill, because I have not seen it, but I thank her for all her work on this issue.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome this Bill. I know that it is groundbreaking and possibly sets some nerves off with the judiciary, but I think the judiciary need to look at themselves and how they have dealt with some of these cases.
On the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) raised, a small number of cases are not within the scope of the Bill. I perfectly understand why, but we have to get those cases looked at again, because evidence has come out in the Sir Wyn Williams inquiry that was not available at the time. Will the Secretary of State commit to at least sit down with the judiciary to look at these cases and emphasise the fact that there is new information, and that responsibility for some of this injustice has got to lie with the justice system?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The courts dealt very swiftly with the cases before them—perhaps a bit too swiftly. That is why the sub-postmasters suffered so many miscarriages of justice, and it is right that we make their exoneration as simple and quick as possible, so while my priority is passing this Bill for the bulk of the people who have suffered, that does not mean we will not be able to look at other scenarios later and see if we can find solutions where we genuinely believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice. That is not for me to do at the Dispatch Box—it will not be up to Ministers. There will be caseworkers who will carry out that work, but we have to be careful to make sure that we are exonerating the right cohort.
Mr Jones
I hear what the Secretary of State says, but I would just say to her that this is a small number of people and they have to be looked at. Can I ask that she shows the same zeal that her hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has shown in his approach to this process? We need a commitment, not to get these cases sorted today—I accept that the Secretary of State cannot do that—but that the Department will look at them. I think that will send quite a strong message out to people.
Kemi Badenoch
The Department can always do that. This is something that we believe is so critical in order to make sure everybody gets the justice they deserve, and we need to make sure that we carry out the process in such a way that everyone has confidence in it. We can continue to look at cases and see if there are other solutions, but as the right hon. Gentleman has rightly said, that will be outside the scope of this Bill.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and I also pay tribute to the exceptional work of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and the way in which he has engaged in what is a sensitive issue, not least constitutionally. Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is not ideal under any circumstance for this House to trespass upon the legitimate preserves of the independent courts? It should only do so under the most exceptional circumstances. There is a case that this is one of those instances, but while we can legitimately criticise failings in the criminal justice system—such as in disclosure, which is part of the system—it is important that we do not get into the territory of impugning the individual decisions of judges made in good faith on the evidence properly before them.
One thing we could do to emphasise the exceptional nature of the Bill would be to introduce a sunset clause, so that at an appropriate time when the Bill has served its purpose—perhaps some way in the future, once those who need to be found and contacted have been able to come forward and have their convictions quashed— it would no longer be the constitutional anomaly that it might otherwise be if it stayed on the statute book indefinitely.
Kemi Badenoch
I am very happy to consider a sunset clause. My hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point, and I really appreciate the fact that he can see the tightrope that we are walking: getting justice for postmasters while not interfering with judicial independence.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I think it is important that we emphasise the wholly exceptional nature of this legislation, but we are dealing with wholly exceptional circumstances—we hope. The point about disclosure is one that I cannot make strongly enough, and we have to look again at our presumptions about machines and what they produce when it comes to criminal litigation.
Can I press my right hon. Friend to reiterate the wholly exceptional nature of this legislation? I think we need to be careful when it comes to a sunset clause, because we do not want to end up frustrating the purpose of the Bill, which is to deal with the hundreds of people who have lost faith in the system and might be difficult to track down and identify. I am not particularly in favour of a sunset clause, but we do need to emphasise the exceptional nature of this legislation.
Kemi Badenoch
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. I am very happy to emphasise that, and will do so again later in my speech. I do enjoy it when we have two lawyers who disagree on a particular point; I will be taking this as their application to join the Bill Committee.
The Bill includes a duty on the Government to take all reasonable steps to identify convictions that have been quashed. It also creates a duty to notify the original convicting court, so that records can be updated and people’s good names can be restored. Other records, such as police records, will be amended in response. The Bill makes provision for records of cautions for relevant offences relating to this scandal to be deleted. While the financial redress scheme will be open to applicants throughout the UK, the Bill’s measures to overturn convictions will apply to England and Wales only.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
We on the Business and Trade Select Committee heard absolutely harrowing accounts from postmasters of what they had gone through as a consequence of the Post Office’s actions, but many of those cases took place many years ago. Can the Secretary of State be confident that the audit process in an organisation such as the Post Office will in future identify what has happened at an earlier stage, and does she agree that legislation such as this should never come before this House again—that this should not happen?
Kemi Badenoch
I believe that the inquiry being led by Sir Wyn Williams is currently looking at that issue. It is important that audit processes work at the highest level, and that people are able to rely on and have confidence in them, so I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point.
On the question of territorial coverage, as I said earlier to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), my Department will continue working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Scottish Government to support their approaches to addressing this scandal, ensuring that every postmaster who has been affected receives the justice they deserve, irrespective of where in the United Kingdom they are. Indeed, my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), the Minister for postal affairs, has already met Justice Ministers in the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to offer our support.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I accept that the Department is very keen to respect the devolved settlements in both Northern Ireland and Scotland, but can I stress to the Secretary of State that there is political consensus in Northern Ireland, and Ministers in the newly restored Executive would welcome Parliament acting in this particular area?
Due to the nature of devolution in Northern Ireland, we have to have a public consultation, so in the best-case scenario we are looking at well towards the end of this year before we can replicate legislation here in Westminster. As this was a national scandal, it does require a national solution to avoid a situation of inequity in which some postmasters in parts of the UK are exonerated while others are still waiting.
Kemi Badenoch
I take the point the hon. Member makes very seriously. We do understand, but we want to make sure that we do not create any possible unintended consequences by legislating on devolved issues, so we are working hand in glove with the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure this goes through as quickly as possible. We know that the numbers there are much smaller, and that the postmasters there have been identified. He is right to raise the point, but I want to reassure him that we have every confidence that we will be able to get this done at the same pace.
Liam Byrne
Could I put that question in a slightly different way? The Minister for postal affairs has set out an ambitious timetable for the passage of this law, the overturning of convictions and the dispensation of compensation, with it all possibly being done and dusted—with hope, and a following wind—by the end of July. Could the Secretary of State commit to a similar timetable when it comes to the cases that have been raised in Northern Ireland?
Kemi Badenoch
That is certainly something we can encourage the Executive to work to, but I cannot personally make that commitment because it would not solely be up to me. However, I just want to reassure the House that this is something we care about. We are not prioritising England and Wales because it is England and Wales; we are doing what we can as quickly as we possibly can to make sure that we do not create problems later by rushing and not doing things properly. I think that that is a good and ambitious target, but it would not be up to me to make such a commitment.
I am aware that the approach we are taking in this Bill is a novel one. With it, Parliament is taking a function usually reserved for the independent judiciary, as my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) and for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) have said. However, I am equally aware that the postmasters’ long and punishing fight for justice must now be swiftly drawn to a close. The circumstances surrounding the scandal are wholly exceptional, and they demand an exceptional response from Government, so I would like to take this opportunity to reassure the House that the introduction of the Bill is in no way a reflection on the courts and the judiciary, which have dealt swiftly with the cases before them.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I would like to commend both the Secretary of State and her team for bringing forward this Bill. The sub-postmasters have faced a miscarriage of justice that has taken many people’s breath away. I am aware that this is specific and focused legislation, but two South Ribble constituents came to see me who had been Royal Mail customers, and they described scenarios of prosecutorial practice very similar to what sub-postmasters were subject to. Would the Secretary of State consider expanding the scope of the legislation in future to other people who may have been subject to poor treatment?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I can look specifically at the cases she raises, but I think they may actually be covered by this Bill. I would be wary of expanding the scope too broadly. The consensus we have with the CPS, the judiciary and so on has been achieved by the legislation being very tightly scoped, but we do want to make sure that people who have been at the end of an injustice can have those wrongs righted. I am very happy to look at the specific cases of her constituents.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I am very clear that this Bill is about correcting convictions that were made in error. However, there are of course a number of employees—direct employees—of the Post Office who were never convicted, but had their good name ruined and their careers destroyed, and have found it very difficult to gain employment because they were unable to get references from their previous employer. Indeed, probably the worst thing that happened to them is that they were identified in their community as people who were perhaps stealing from pensioners or treating members of their community unfairly. This Bill will do nothing for them. Could the Secretary of State outline what the Post Office is doing to contact those individuals who were disciplined by the Post Office and dismissed, so that they too can have justice?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right that many people had their reputations traduced because of what happened with the Horizon scandal. Where shortfalls were falsely made by the Post Office and they had to pay, we have compensation schemes to address those sorts of wrongs. Because this Bill is specifically about overturning convictions, it cannot apply to them, but where they have suffered other damage, we have compensation schemes that we hope will apply in those circumstances.
We have not taken the decision to legislate in this way lightly. Given the factually exceptional circumstances of the Horizon scandal, the number of postmasters involved and the passage of time since the original convictions, it is right that the state now acts as quickly as possible. Any further delay would be adding further insult to injury for postmasters who have already endured what I believe is an arduous wait. Indeed, some have lost trust in the system, and want no further engagement. In many cases, the evidence they would need to clear their names no longer exists.
However, I must make two points clear to the House. First, the Government’s position is that it will be Parliament, not the Government, that is overturning the convictions, so there will be no intrusion by the Executive into the proper role of the judiciary. Secondly, this legislation does not set any kind of precedent for the future. It recognises that an extraordinary response has been necessitated by an extraordinary miscarriage of justice.
On this Bill receiving Royal Assent, no further action is required by the victims of this scandal to have their convictions quashed. The Government will take all reasonable steps to notify the relevant individuals and direct them to the route for applying for compensation. Further details of this process will be set out in due course.
Liam Byrne
The Secretary of State is being characteristically generous in giving way again. The evidence the Select Committee heard was that many people seeking compensation for the injustice they have suffered found it very complicated and very confusing to understand the range of case law required to put in particular kinds of claim—for example, for loss of reputation. When she triggers the notification provisions, would she reflect on something she could add, which is a tariff to help people put in claims for the right kind of compensation? What none of us would want to do, having overturned the convictions, is to let people get short-changed on the compensation. Providing a standardised tariff could cut through so much of the complexity and help people get what they are due.
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I know that is a recommendation from his report, and it is something we are actively looking at and considering. As the Bill progresses through the House, there will be many suggestions that we will be able to look at to see whether it can be improved in any way. However, we must make sure that we do so in a way that does not jeopardise any of the objectives of the Bill—any of them at all.
As I was saying, further details will be set out in due course, and there will be a process for anyone to come forward where their convictions meet the criteria but we have been unable to identify them. The new primary legislation will be followed by a route to rapid financial redress on a basis similar to the overturned convictions scheme, which is currently administered by the Post Office, so we do not need provisions in the Bill to deliver that scheme. My Department, not the Post Office, will be responsible for the delivery of redress related to the quashing of these convictions. The Minister for postal affairs will return to the House at a later date to provide details on how we intend to deliver that redress.
Mr Kevan Jones
I welcome the changes that have been made in the compensation. Some of the proposals—for example, for fixed sums—are going to make a lot of cases easier to sort out. I do not feel comfortable having the Post Office anywhere near this, frankly, and neither do the sub-postmasters. Will the Secretary of State think about a system of compensation that in practice cuts out the Post Office? There is no trust there among the sub-postmasters. Do I personally have any faith in the Post Office? No, I do not.
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. That is one reason why my Department will be looking after the redress delivered by the scheme.
Sir David Davis
Let me reinforce the point made by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). There are people writing to me this week about the current handling of their cases by the Post Office and Post Office lawyers; frankly, it is barbaric. The Post Office needs to be taken out of it.
Kemi Badenoch
I reassure my right hon. Friend that this is something I am looking at in great detail. The Post Office has clearly been a dysfunctional organisation for a very long time, and that is one reason why I have been actively taking steps to look at the management and processes in place, which, as he rightly says, many of the sub-postmasters have lost faith in.
It goes without saying that work to offer prompt financial redress alongside the Bill continues. As of 1 March, 102 convictions have been overturned through the courts. Of those 102 cases, 45 people have claimed full and final redress, and of those 35 have reached settlement. The Post Office has paid out financial redress totalling £38 million to postmasters with overturned convictions. Under the Horizon shortfall scheme, as of 1 March, 2,864 eligible claims have been submitted, the vast majority of which have been settled by the Post Office, and £102 million has been paid out in financial redress, including full and final settlements and interim payments.
Finally, under the group litigation order scheme, working from the same date, 132 claims have been submitted, 110 have been settled by my Department, and £34 million has been paid out in financial redress, including full and final settlements and interim payments. Officials in my Department are working hard to get those cases settled quickly, and we have made offers within 40 working days in response to 87% of complete claims.
In summary, the Bill amounts to an exceptional response to a scandal that was wholly exceptional in nature, and has shaken the nation’s faith in the core principles of fairness that underpin our legal system. We recognise the constitutional sensitivity and unprecedented nature of the Bill, but I believe it is essential for us to rise to the scale of the challenge. The hundreds of postmasters caught up in this scandal deserve nothing less. Of course, no amount of legislation can fully restore what the Post Office so cruelly took from them, but I hope the Bill at least begins to offer the closure and justice that postmasters have so bravely campaigned for over many years, and that it affords them the ability to rebuild their lives. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to be at the Dispatch Box to welcome the Bill; in doing so, I candidly recognise the difficult legal and constitutional position it represents. I will outline why I believe it is required, and the exceptional nature and caveats that we should all realise on Second Reading.
The Horizon scandal is, quite simply, one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in British history. It robbed people of their lives, their liberty and their livelihoods. As we now know, driven by a misguided belief that technology was infallible and workers dishonest, the Post Office prosecuted innocent people. Indeed, they were the very people in whom the Post Office should have had the most faith—those who delivered vital services in all our communities.
Those prosecutions caused unimaginable pain and suffering, which no amount of compensation can ever alleviate. To add insult to injury, the journey to justice for the sub-postmasters has been mired in a great many delays and barriers. Some of the people affected have, tragically, passed away before having had the chance to see justice.
The Bill will free hundreds of innocent people of their wrongful convictions, and it affords us the chance to make a huge stride in righting the wrongs of the past. That is why Labour will give it our support. However, this must be just one of several steps still to come if amends are ever to be made for this most insidious of injustices. The convictions must be overturned, compensation must be delivered at pace, and justice must be sought from the independent inquiry.
We must recognise today for what it is: a victory for the sub-postmasters. To have the strength of character to lose everything, and then to get back up and fight is truly humbling, and the recognition and admiration that those people have earned is absolutely right. Nevertheless, Members across the House will be acutely aware of the unprecedented nature of this legislative action. We all recognise that we should not have needed to get to this point, and it is important to explain why we are taking this step, why we believe this is an exceptional case, and why therefore this should never be repeated in future. I hope in this speech to do that.
I wish to recognise the work of the many people who have got us to this landmark occasion. First, no Member could deny that we would not be where we are today, pursuing this particular route, were it not for the recent ITV drama “Mr Bates vs the Post Office.” Although the Horizon Post Office failure is a scandal to which the House has been responding for some time, the drama brought the story to a wider audience and reinvigorated the campaign. It is a powerful reminder of the way that art and culture can be used to tackle injustice and raise public awareness. I thank everyone who was involved in that project, including my constituent Julie Hesmondhalgh.
Secondly, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and Lord Arbuthnot in the other place, and all those colleagues who championed constituency cases from the beginning. Their tireless campaigning has been instrumental in getting us here to today.
Thirdly, I want to recognise the attention that the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), has given this matter and the progress he has achieved so far. I thank him for working cross-party on the design of this legislation, and for keeping me and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) regularly updated. I also note that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who is in his place, was the first to get to grips with this scandal in the way that was required. He will be leaving this place in the coming months, and I hope that will do so with a sense of pride in the work he did, and I thank him very much for it.
However, today must be a moment when, above all else, credit and recognition go to the sub-postmasters and their courageous search for justice. They have been unrelenting and undeterred, and we owe them a great deal. To be jailed or bankrupted because of faulty IT, and to have no one believe that their character mattered more than numbers on a spreadsheet, is why the scandal struck such a nerve with the public. Without the bravery of the sub-postmasters, we might never have known that this injustice took place—it is worth taking a moment to reflect on that.
The Bill will overturn 690 cases that were prosecuted by the Post Office and Crown Prosecution Service. We know it is a vital step in the course for justice for sub-postmasters, but we also recognise that doing so undermines a fundamental principle of our democracy: the separation of the judiciary and the legislature. Overruling the courts in this way could set an incredibly dangerous precedent, and one that I hope we will never use again. In an era of ever-creeping populism, there is a real threat that the well-intentioned actions we take today could be abused in future for completely unwarranted purposes.
Mr Kevan Jones
I concur with my hon. Friend’s statement about the separation of powers. Does he agree that it is time for the courts and judicial system to reflect on their role in the scandal, and on why they did not raise red flags when they should have done? The hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said that we should not criticise individual judges, but some of them acted in a way that, frankly—I say this knowing some of the cases as I do—did not reflect the best of our judiciary.
Jonathan Reynolds
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful contribution. Many things go beyond the Bill and the independent inquiry that we are currently looking at, regarding the role and experience of our constituents in the legal system, how Government and Executive agencies function, and the evidence given to Ministers and the accountability we seek from that. A great deal has to change as a result of this. I understand his point.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being generous with his time. Does he also agree that we must look not only at how lawyers have handled this but, more importantly, at those who produced the evidence in the first place to persuade prosecutions? I hope he will agree that lessons must be learned by those who blindly said, “These people are probably guilty” and built up a case around that when, as we have found, that was not the case.
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank the right hon. Member for making those powerful points, which reflect on the nature of the evidence that was given. One of his hon. Friends has already made the point about the role of technological, computer-based evidence in the legal process. To be frank, there is also the Post Office’s approach to the data as it saw it, which I assume it believed to be a way of unveiling wrongdoing, rather than questioning that data. Most of our constituents ask, “How could the number of convictions have gone from five or six a year to 50 or 60 without that being flagged in some way?” Clearly, the powers that be—at the time—thought the data was revealing wrongdoing, rather than necessarily revealing something going wrong.
We can see from the contributions we have already had that all Members participating in today’s debate and who will participate in the Bill’s future stages are mindful that what we are saying is not only important, but might be referenced in future considerations. In that vein, let me clearly state that this legislation, although far from ideal, is the only option on the table for us to resolve this horrible injustice. But let me further state that any incoming Labour Government would never use this kind of action again. There are exceptional circumstances to this case that make it unique, rather than it being a moment to set a precedent for handling any future injustices.
The Post Office Horizon scandal took place over decades, and there is at least a decade’s worth of investigations that demonstrate the falsehoods behind many of the convictions made against sub-postmasters. That bank of evidence will only grow from the independent inquiry led by Sir Wyn Williams. The challenge to righting this wrong is not a lack of clear evidence, but a sheer volume of cases that is overwhelming the appropriate route to justice through the Court of Appeal. I lament that our justice system is under such strain, and it would be remiss of me not to point out that a better serviced Criminal Cases Review Commission could have avoided the extraordinary step that we must now take.
In addition, we must also recognise that a cohort of sub-postmasters with convictions are understandably reticent to take part in another process in a criminal justice system that so badly failed them the first time around. For the purposes of the historical record, an important qualification for taking this step is the scale of cross-party support that the legislation is attracting. I have raised that point with the Minister before, and I believe it to be an essential safeguard.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
May I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his cross-party and collaborative approach, which has brought us a significant step forward? I recognise the points he makes on the scale of the problem, which is why we have to act in this way. It is probably the least worst option for how we deal with this.
May I push back gently on his point that we have only started to act significantly since the TV drama? We welcome the public outcry that came as a result of the drama, the new attention that has been focused on the issue and the 1,200 new claimants who have stepped forward, but I push back because it is important that the public know that we were acting prior to the drama. We implemented the shortfall scheme in 2020, the inquiry back in 2020 and the GLO compensation scheme in 2021. The Horizon Compensation Advisory Board was put in place early in 2023, and the fixed-sum awards of £600,000 were put in place in autumn last year. We also had the overturned convictions and the exploring of different ways to do that on a mass basis. All these things were in place by the time of the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Act 2024, which we considered in December last year, and which the shadow Secretary of State and I spoke to during its consideration. Much work has been undertaken. We very much welcome the new impetus we have all got from the attention that the drama has brought about.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am always keen to hear from the Minister. I thought I was fair in making the point he raises in my introductory remarks. I simply make the point that the constitutional significance of legislation like this requires a level of public consent. The statement that the Prime Minister made in January, just after Prime Minister’s questions, would not have been possible without the sheer breakthrough in public consent and the demand for change and for justice that came from that. I will always be fair to the Government’s Ministers, and I point out even to some of their critics that we were dealing with things. We had the legislation that colleagues had worked on. It is fair to say there was less interest in some of that in the Chamber before we had the television programme, but let us be frank that we had the impasse of people not wanting to go back to the process. The estimate we had at the time was 10 to 15 years. That is what brought us to that point, and we have to recognise that, as well as paying tribute to the role that arts and culture can play in bringing things to an audience, which we should welcome.
Finally, I think I speak for everyone in the Chamber when I say that in no way does anyone take lightly what we are proposing to do today. This action is unprecedented, and we should make every effort possible to ensure that such action never again has to be considered.
Sir David Davis
This legislation is not totally the first precedent. There have been cases relating to people who were shot in the first world war for cowardice and then exonerated after the event, and so on. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree with the notion that we should put a sunset clause on this provision, to ensure that it in no way becomes a precedent?
Jonathan Reynolds
When we look at the precedents, it is interesting to note that there is clearly a legal difference between quashing a conviction and a pardon after an event has taken place, which is the precedent we are more familiar with. I am receptive to what colleagues are saying about a sunset clause from a judicial or safeguarding point of view. Clearly we want to capture as many people as possible who deserve to have their convictions quashed. When we get to Committee, which I assume will be on the Floor of the House, I am sure there will be an attempt to do that.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Is not the point about a sunset clause that none of us knows what is around the corner or what the future holds? Once this legislation has expired, the law of sod dictates that somebody somewhere will come up with a case that requires to be dealt with. That is eminently possible. A sunset clause would serve no useful purpose, other than smoothing a few ruffled judicial legal feathers.
Jonathan Reynolds
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and we do not want to do Committee stage on Second Reading. We are hearing about the necessity of ensuring that, where cases fall beyond the specific circumstances—to be fair to the Government, I understand why the legislation has been drafted in this way to address this particular cohort, for simplicity and straightforwardness—they can still be identified. Some of that could be done on the numbers, but we will have time to explore this matter in Committee.
Ian Paisley
On the issue of consent, the shadow Secretary of State is right to point out that all sides of the House have consented to this legislation, and that is what makes law change flow much easier. A lot of good will has been expressed about Northern Ireland and increasing the territorial extent of this legislation, but that good will butters no parsnips—as someone else in the House often says. The fact of the matter is that, ultimately, we must ensure that Northern Ireland is included in this legislation. If a motion came forward to instruct the House to extend the Bill to cover Northern Ireland, would the Opposition support it, so that those fine words and good will are turned into strong action?
Jonathan Reynolds
I will say something specifically about the territorial extent of the Bill, but the straightforward answer is yes, there are circumstances here to which we should listen. I hope the hon. Member will not mind me saying this, but when all political parties in Northern Ireland are in agreement on something, it is usually worth listening and understanding why that might be the case. I will address specifically how we might deal with that matter later in my remarks.
Liam Byrne
The shadow Secretary of State is making a brilliant speech. Does he agree that we might want to reflect on measures to de-risk the speed of paying compensation? It is important that we overturn convictions, but it is also right that we accelerate compensation. Just because the Department is running the scheme is not necessarily a guarantee that payments will flow quickly. This morning, the Business and Trade Committee crunched the data on the GLO scheme, and unfortunately it would appear that 14% of offers have taken more than 14 days, 4% have taken more than 80 days, and 2% have taken more than 100 days. We obviously need to get the measures right, and there are lots of issues at play, but de-risking the speed of compensation sounds like something we should reflect on.
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks and for all the work the Select Committee has done to assist this process. He is right to say that while it is one thing to pass the Bill, what everyone wants is for it to be a route to speedy compensation as soon as possible. I welcome some of the changes we have seen, such as the optional £600,000 up-front payment available to people to get through some of the complexity of the cases. When the Select Committee published its report, it looked at the recommendation to include in the Bill deadlines for the Government to pay compensation, but we have since received useful information about how binding limits might restrict the most complex cases in an undesirable way. In his closing remarks, will the postal affairs Minister undertake on behalf of the Government to reflect on that point, because everyone will want to be able to say, “We care, and we have pushed forward the need for compensation payments to flow smoothly.”
Mr Kevan Jones
I have to say to my good friend the shadow Minister that this is where I depart from the Select Committee. The advisory board has been very clear that we need to make the system simple. To be fair to the Government, they have listened on the lump-sum payments. What we need is to get those simple cases out of the system—I am not sure they are “simple”—and concentrate on the complex cases. Knowing the nature of some of those cases, they will be complex. It is not just the Government or the advisory board saying that. Talk to the lawyers who are putting cases in. There is a lot of work to be done on those cases; they are not straightforward and they will take time. Putting an arbitrary deadline on them might lead to their not being properly addressed, and some cases will be about more than £600,000. Although it is a good idea to try to speed up the system, some of the steps already taken by the Government will do so.
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my right hon. Friend for that. The work of the advisory board on all this has been invaluable and is very much appreciated. We can all accept that a number of cases may seek compensation payments well in excess of £600,000 because of the scale of the loss and the complexity. No one would want or seek to do anything to prevent those cases from concluding in the way that is necessary. I simply ask the Minister to reflect on how the Government can give assurances on the best way to do that.
I come back to the issue raised by colleagues from Northern Ireland about the territorial extent of the Bill’s provisions and the desire to overturn the convictions of the small but significant number of affected sub-postmasters in Northern Ireland, who would otherwise fall beyond the scope of the legislation. I can tell colleagues that the Labour party supports the calls made. I understand that this would be a complex constitutional undertaking, but given that every party in Northern Ireland and, I believe, every Minister in the new Assembly are calling for inclusion in the Bill, we must recognise that.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Because this is an unusual case, the Scottish Government have specifically asked that the Bill also take in Scotland. I understand that the Labour party supports that position too, but we have not really heard any rational reason why Scotland and Northern Ireland are excluded from the Bill.
Jonathan Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman will not mind my teasing him about a call for Unionism from the Scottish National party. [Interruption.] Just on this issue! As I understand it, the issue is that the Scottish judiciary does not support inclusion.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
That is ridiculous.
Jonathan Reynolds
Hon. Members will have a chance to speak; I cannot speak for every part of the judiciary in the UK, but I believe that that is the issue. The nature of the always distinct legal system in Scotland is a key part of this, whereas in Northern Ireland it is slightly more complicated.
Mr Carmichael
I fear that the issue is not so much with the Scottish judiciary as with the prosecuting authorities, given the remarks already on the record from the Lord Advocate. If I may, I will offer the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), through the shadow Minister, a rational reason: it is about political accountability. The lines of political accountability lie through the Scottish Parliament and the Crown Office. There are good and compelling reasons about delay for making an exception for Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to the requirement for a full public consultation. Those arguments do not apply in Scotland.
Jonathan Reynolds
I hear what the right hon. Member says. I can foresee it being seen as reasonable to extend the legislation to Northern Ireland in a way that will not apply to Scotland, given the position of a lot of colleagues in Scotland and without the Scottish Parliament and Scottish judiciary wanting to be part of that extension.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The shadow Secretary of State is making a powerful speech, particularly about the impact on the lives of the sub-postmasters. The 28 or so in Northern Ireland have experienced the same turmoil as those in Great Britain. We thank the shadow Secretary of State for his endorsement of Northern Ireland’s inclusion in the Bill. We would make a further call for that today.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for those words. I know that colleagues from Northern Ireland are keen to bring forward an amendment on that. I ask Ministers to reflect on the scale of political support that we have seen and are seeing, and to take the issue away for further consideration before the Committee stage, so that justice can be brought to the 27 sub-postmasters—I think—in Northern Ireland.
To conclude, for many people who watched the ITV adaptation of the Horizon scandal in January, it will have been hard to believe that the ongoing tragedy was not a work of fiction, so egregious and pernicious have the impacts been on people’s lives. However, it was not a TV show. It is very real and has had real-world impacts. Lessons must be learned and justice must be served. In the weeks after the drama, I believe attention sadly had to be turned away from the sub-postmasters and their needs, and the conversation became much more about the soap opera that has been seemingly ongoing with the management of the Post Office. Addressing that issue will demand serious attention, but the priority today should be providing sub-postmasters with justice. It is welcome that we have returned to that core issue today.
Labour will support the legislation. It is right that innocent people have their convictions overturned, not just so that they can begin to turn the page on the scandal, but so that it leads to the quick access to compensation that everybody rightly deserves. Not every story will finish with a happy ending. As we know, some people did not live to see this, and others have lost so much that their lives could never be put right. However, the actions we can take in this place can go at least some way to ensuring that the next chapter of the story of the sub-postmasters will be their own and will be based on the principles of justice and fair treatment that everyone wants to see.
Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I hope the Secretary of State will not take this amiss and will understand that I mean no criticism of her or her Minister of State, or indeed his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), when I say that the Bill represents the best of a bad job. Everybody has said it already; there is a difficult trade-off between natural justice and a fast, low-stress solution for the postmasters. That is what this Bill attempts to achieve.
That being said, it is not the way I would have done it. It is not what I would have proposed. The courts should and could have considered all the cases in which the convictions were based on Horizon evidence in one set of proceedings. I took senior legal advice on this; it would have been perfectly possible to take three or more former Supreme Court justices out of retirement, give them a courtroom and task them to deal with this in three months. They could have bracketed very similar cases together—there would have been hundreds in those categories—and then they could have focused on the ones that were really difficult. Regrettably, it is rumoured that the judiciary itself rebuffed that course of action, which I think was unwise and plain wrong. As the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) pointed out, the judiciary has a responsibility, too. That is why we have gone this route, and I have every sympathy with what Ministers are trying to do.
Even so, the Bill still risks lumping the genuinely innocent majority with a very small potentially guilty minority. Each difficult case could have been dealt with on its individual merits rather than abandoning due process in the rush to bring this disgraceful episode to a close. We got into this situation by failing to follow proper processes, and I am wary that the Government, almost by default, are again failing to follow proper process to extricate themselves from this historic mess.
Despite my misgivings, I will not stand in the way of the Bill, because it will serve the vast majority of postmasters to secure justice for them. For that reason, I will support the Bill. However, that is not to say that the legislation will not continue to create problems of its own. I recommend that Members read some of the early reports before Report stage. The BAE Systems Detica report, which everyone should read, is a six-month review of the Post Office’s fraud and non-compliance issues in 2013. It paints a picture of complete chaos in the Post Office’s accounting systems—not just Horizon but all the accounting systems. Over a decade ago it was known that:
“Post Office systems are not fit for purpose in a modern retail and financial environment”.
Note that it refers to “systems”—plural—not just Horizon. The report goes on to say that ATM—cashpoint—accounting was clearly flawed and that
“removing the ATM reduces the risk of SPMR being suspended”.
By SPMR the report means sub-postmasters, and I am afraid that suspended means persecuted, as that was outcome. That was not Horizon related.
That matters because dozens have come forward to raise concerns over a second IT system used by the Post Office, called Capture. Again, documents show that Capture was known by the Post Office to have issues early on. The culture of denial in the Post Office over the decades is truly extraordinary. The Bill will exclude people who have already had their appeal cases heard and rejected. Those rejections may well have occurred because the evidence that the appeals were based on was not Horizon but some other failure of the accounting systems. We must be careful not to give up once we pass the Bill, but to see if we can also absolve people who are not guilty because of the wholesale chaos that existed.
Sir David Davis
I give way to probably the best-informed man in the House on this matter,.
Duncan Baker
My right hon. Friend makes a good point: the Post Office main accounts would have had debtors saying that they were owed money—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Will the hon. Member please face the Chamber, so that the whole House can hear him?
Duncan Baker
My apologies. The debtors would have said that those innocent sub-postmasters owed the Post Office corporate accounts what we now know to be tens of millions of pounds. But they were wrong—that was fictious and they were not owed that money. Will we ever get to the bottom of that and restate the Post Office’s accounts, which must have been materially wrong year after year throughout that period from 2010?
Sir David Davis
My hon. Friend has more experience of this issue than anyone, and he reinforces my point. Frankly, if I had a magic wand I would force the Post Office to re-audit every set of accounts for the last 20 years and give back the money, but that will not happen: it would drag on forever, and we know the stress that it is causing postmasters even today. My worry is that we may feel at the end of this process that we have solved the problem, but there will be some—perhaps only dozens or hundreds, not thousands—who will be left not absolved or exonerated, but who deserve to be. That is the risk of this approach.
Liam Byrne
Given the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, will he reflect on whether we should include in the scope of the Bill those who went to the Court of Appeal initially but lost, or those who were not given leave to appeal, on the basis that we simply did not know then what we know now? Should we provide for that handful of cases—perhaps under 40—in the Bill rather than exclude them?
Sir David Davis
Those are precisely the cases I am focusing on; there may be others that we do not know about but they are the most obvious ones. I agree but, again, if I had a magic wand, I would use the mechanism that I mentioned of unretiring a few Supreme Court justices and saying, “These are more complicated and require a bit more insight. You can’t deal with these en bloc. Will you please reconsider them?” On the one hand, I want to exonerate people who are truly innocent but, on the other, postmasters still call me up and say, “Whatever you do, don’t exonerate the guilty.” It seems to me that the best way is a judicial or quasi-judicial route over and above what we are doing here. No doubt we will debate that at some length on Report.
I will still support the Bill because, at the end of the day, it is the difficult compromise that the Government have found. They have got to where they are by talking to everyone, including the right hon. Member for North Durham, who is not in his place just now, and taking all the expert advice. The Bill is necessary.
I had a telephone call just yesterday from a victim of the scandal, which I mentioned in my earlier intervention. Her name is Janet Skinner, and she is not my constituent but she called me anyway. She told me that 15 years later, she is still going through misery and, despite having promised me that they would not, Post Office management are putting her through an inquisition, demanding documents from her from 15 years ago. During that time she was in prison and had to sell her house, so she probably has no documents, given the disruption of all that. The Post Office itself will have those documents somewhere, and if it does not, it ought to have them.
That barbaric mindset is still going on from, frankly, a sickeningly inadequate and self-absorbed Post Office management, as we saw when they gave evidence to the Committee of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). That is a problem, and we have to get the Bill under way as fast as possible. I pay enormous credit to both the junior Ministers who have dealt with this, my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and for Sutton and Cheam. They were both formidably good at their job at a time when the whole Whitehall and Post Office system was desperately trying to ignore the issue. They did a heroic job of dragging it back up the priority list. The Minister needs to force the Post Office to solve the problem, or, as the right hon. Member for North Durham said, force someone else in its place to put this right quickly, easily, gracefully and with minimum stress for the postmasters.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I have been listening intently to everything that has been said today. I would like to reflect on the number of times I have stood here and talked about the Horizon business. I do not want to repeat my previous remarks, but I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) said, which has been repeated in this Chamber many times.
We are coming close to a point where we may see movement towards justice for sub-postmasters. The exoneration Bill is vital to that. I am deeply disappointed that Scotland has been left out of the Bill. I have been working hard with the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), and I have had many meetings with Northern Ireland MPs from all parties. If Northern Ireland is to be included in the Bill, I can see no reason why Scotland cannot be.
Sir David Davis
I have every sympathy with the hon. Lady and in particular with Northern Irish Members on this matter. Northern Ireland is a very special case in so many ways, for reasons we all know. Is there a reason why the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government could not simply replicate the Bill and carry it through?
Marion Fellows
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There is absolutely no reason, and the Scottish Government are indeed prepared to do that. There is ongoing work on that, but it will mean that Scottish victims will have to wait longer for exoneration.
Mr Carmichael
The Scottish Parliament has provisions in its own Standing Orders for emergency procedures, just as we have. It would be open to it to do it in three days, if it chose to.
Marion Fellows
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am surrounded by lawyerly people and I am not a lawyer. In fact, I sat in a room last night for a briefing where I was surrounded by lawyers and even the lawyers were agreeing that they could not agree on the right way forward. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and the Scottish Government will do that, but they cannot do it until we see what happens with the Bill as it is brought towards enactment and until we can take into consideration all the amendments that may be necessary for Northern Ireland. That will create a delay. Yes, the Scottish Government can—I cannot say they will, because I am not a Member of the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government—and it is possible for the Scottish Parliament to pass a Bill in three days, but it must be aligned with the exoneration Bill passed here. Otherwise, Scottish victims will not be treated equitably and fairly.
On 10 January, the Minister spoke in this place to, I believe, the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and said he saw no reason at that point why there could not be UK legislation. At an Interministerial Standing Committee on 12 March, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said that he saw no reason why that could not happen. Yet a few days after that the Bill arrived in Scotland with no mention of Scotland at all. It is the Scottish Government’s belief that the Bill could be amended to take into consideration the differences in legal terms. For example, amendments would be needed to bring about alignment on embezzlement and to cover all the different crimes, if you like—well, not crimes, because the sub-postmasters did nothing wrong—so that the Bill would apply in Scotland. The Bill could clear the decks of all the things sub-postmasters were charged with and convicted for, so it is all possible. The issue is one of timing, with sub-postmasters in Scotland being told, “Okay, you’ve waited, but you’ll have to wait longer.”
In this place, and right across the work I have done over the past few years on the Post Office, there has always been cross-party agreement on getting things sorted out for the victims. As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said, that is the point of the whole thing. It is about the victims. It is about what has happened since “Mr Bates vs the Post Office” was broadcast. I sat with my daughter-in-law, who is herself a lawyer—I don’t hold that against her—and she kept saying, “Is this true, Marion? Is this true?” and I had to say that yes, it was.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Lady once again for the all the work she does. As I have said to her on a number of occasions, our officials are working together on a weekly basis and I have met my counterparts in Scotland on this issue. She will acknowledge that the UK Parliament is taking a political risk. This is unprecedented and unpopular in some quarters. Does she not accept that, as politicians, there are times when we have to stand up and accept the political responsibility and accountability for doing the right thing in our own jurisdictions, just in the way the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said?
Marion Fellows
I agree with the Minister—of course I do—but let us think back to the victims. Scottish victims should not have to wait any longer than victims across the rest of the United Kingdom. If the Scottish Government were to expedite a Bill in the Scottish Parliament without knowing exactly where this Bill will end up—already today there has been talk of amendments to it to help Northern Ireland—then that would not be right either.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. I am absolutely willing to listen to the case she is making—that we could, in theory, amend the Bill to cover Scotland—but I do not, if I am being honest, follow the logic that it would take longer to pass a Bill affecting Scottish sub-postmasters in the Scottish Parliament than to amend the Bill before us. I do not agree that extending it to Northern Ireland would in any way adversely affect the Scottish situation.
Marion Fellows
The hon. Member has every right to disagree with me, but I come back to my main point. The Scottish legislation would have to mirror what is done here so we treat victims across the piece the same way, but there would have to be certain amendments made because of Scots law. That is my point: we cannot do it in Scotland until it is done here, so that it mirrors what has been done here.
The other point I want to make is that this has nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly. The whole business of Horizon arose here under Post Office Ltd, which is wholly owned by the UK Government as the single shareholder. There is therefore a logic to saying that the mess was made here, so it should be cleared up here. No matter whether there ends up being a separate Bill in Scotland with this Bill relating only to England and Wales, everyone across parties agrees that this must be sorted. The Bill is not really what we would all want to do—it is unprecedented, there are risks and so on—but at the end of the day it has to be done. The Scottish Government understand and support that, but want it done here to cover everyone.
Shailesh Vara
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady, who has been very generous in giving way. She says that the Scottish Government want to see what happens here. We have heard that a Bill can be passed in three days. Once the Bill goes through this place, then in a matter of days, not weeks, it can be replicated in Scotland and passed in 72 hours. Given that the matter has been going on for years and years and years, I fail to see what the big issue is with having a few days more so that a Bill can get through in Scotland.
Marion Fellows
There is absolutely no guarantee that it would just be a few days more. There are the different timings of Scottish Parliament sittings and a lot of other considerations that the right hon. Gentleman will not know about and does not normally need to know about. I will be seeking to amend the Bill—I will take advice and then attempt to do what is going to be done for Northern Ireland. I am well aware that that may seem a futile exercise to some, but this is democracy and this is what has to be done from a Scottish perspective, and I am more than happy to take that on.
I would like to close with some messages that have already come out from Members across the Chamber.As a constituency MP, I first had a meeting with sub-postmasters in 2015, two months after I was elected. I had no notion of what Horizon was, or of the damage that it was doing to my sub-postmasters. Over the last almost nine years—and more recently, since “Mr Bates vs the Post Office”—I have had to listen to grown men, and also women, trying not to cry because of what the Post Office had done to them. None of them, not one, was actually charged or prosecuted. They just went on putting their own hard-earned cash into their tills so that they could open their post offices the next morning. I have pleaded with all those people, and I plead again with people across the UK who have been affected, to come forward, but the problem is the lack of trust. Those who were prosecuted are suffering, but so are those who were not. They are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. They are traumatised by what has happened to them.
I also want to raise, very briefly, the case of those who worked for partners of the post office: people who worked for the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, Scotmid or CJ Lang who were sacked by their employers and could not get an equivalent job, and who were depressed and ill for years as a result. We really must take those people into consideration. I understand that a Bill cannot be a magic wand and make everything go away, but I think it imperative for the House to keep at it. I agree with my right hon. Friend—and I call him that gladly—the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that we cannot impose a time limit, because it might mean that people did not receive justice or redress.
I should be happy to speak to the Minister later and catch up with all the to-ings and fro-ings between Scotland and this place, but I still stand here saying, “This is what the Scottish Government have looked at, and this is what they want, because they think it is best for the victims in Scotland.”
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
It has been a privilege to sit here listening to the amazing contributions from the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State—I thank the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) for his kind words—and all the other Members whom we have heard from and will hear from after my own short contribution.
As we have just been reminded by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), we have been coming here time and again for years and years, often repeating ourselves—but we have to repeat ourselves: that is the point. The shadow Secretary of State talked about that powerful ITV drama, “Mr Bates vs the Post Office”, and how it prompted a public outcry. I became a Minister in February 2020, shortly after the group litigation order case that was featured towards the end of that drama, and I am pretty sure that the email Alan Bates was typing to send to the postal affairs Minister was sent to me. He was sending quite a large invoice, which I politely declined to pay at the time.
I had pages and pages of Mr Justice Fraser’s judgment to look at and reflect on. I was in a different position from my predecessors, who maybe should or maybe should not have sat there and read the runes and seen what was going on—why there were so many people involved, and why the number of prosecutions was going up and up over 20 years. What I did have were those pages of damning judgment from Mr Justice Fraser.
I think that the public outcry that arose from the ITV programme has given power to the current postal affairs Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who has been working tirelessly. He has read out a timetable showing the incredible amount of work that he has been doing since I left that role. I know that he is a man who understands what justice and fairness look like following his experience of financial scandals such as the miscarriage of justice at HBOS Reading. He was a constant “come to me” in that role. If anyone was going to delve into this work, it was always going to be my hon. Friend. I think that the documentary helped him to pull some of the levers that junior Ministers sometimes need to pull in order to be heard, and to enable us to swim through the treacle in other Departments in order to get things done, so more power to his elbow.
That brings me to why we are doing this in the first place. The central issue is often seen as a software failure. Even in the documentary it was a deliberate dramatic plot device to show a computer sitting in the corner of the post office, blinking away like a slightly alien life force that was draining the money away. But it was not a software failure; it was a human failure. We all know that software goes wrong—we remember the millennium bug—but the problem here was group-think and people doubling down for reputational management, which was pushing back and making sure that the postmasters believed that they were the only ones experiencing these issues. We know now, and we quickly came to know, that hundreds of people were in the same position.
The fact that this was a human failure means that we need a human solution. We have to be humans first and politicians second. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw spoke of watching grown men trying not to cry. I am not the best at doing that myself, although I am not directly involved. I recently attended the presentation of the GG2 Asian awards round the corner from here, and to my surprise I saw Hasmukh Shingadia, Vijay Parekh, Vipin Patel and Seema Misra. Members may remember Seema’s story in particular; she was pregnant at the time when she was charged in West Byfleet. Those people were receiving awards and recognition, and it was lovely to see the outpouring of support for them in the room.
Shailesh Vara
Those are the people who received the awards, but does my hon. Friend agree that an award is due for every single sub-postmaster?
Paul Scully
For sure. We cannot do enough for these people. They have been cast out as pariahs in their communities. They have been charged, they have been put in prison, they have lost houses, families and health, because of a body that is ultimately owned by the state. We, as a collective body, have destroyed these people’s lives. There is not enough that we can do for them.
We are looking at what is in the Bill and at all the other compensation schemes as well, but we have to act. We are having to conduct this mass exoneration in the first place not just that the wheels of justice turn slowly, but because these people are so triggered, whether by PTSD or simply by total mistrust of the system, that they do not want to go through another process with someone in authority saying kind words, warm words, and then letting them down for the second time—or worse. It is actions, not words, on which we will be judged. When I stood up at that Dispatch Box, I knew that whatever I talked about, I could not expect the postmasters to trust me. I knew that they would trust me on the basis of my actions, and I know that my hon. Friend the current Minister feels the same way.
I welcome the Bill. It is important for us not to let perfection be the enemy of the good. Let us get this done, because we cannot come on to the second Bill and these people’s compensation until they have been exonerated—not pardoned, for they have done nothing wrong. Let us make sure that we accentuate that as well. That is why I am keen for us to rush this legislation through. Yes, we need to scrutinise it, but it is a short Bill, so we can do that quickly, and then we can get on to that life-changing money that I—that we—keep talking about, and try to restore some semblance of their lives to those whose lives have been destroyed.
This is Second Reading, and we will get into the specifics in Committee and on Report, but let me offer a few possible solutions. The solution that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) talked about earlier—bringing back judges—would at least add capacity to the system. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who is no longer in his place, previously said something similar when he said that we do not necessarily need this kind of law, which is, frankly, trampling quite a lot on the independence of the judiciary. That is why the Government had to move really carefully, which is one reason for some of the concerns raised by the Business and Trade Committee about the people who have not been able to go to appeal, or who will not be included because they have been refused leave to appeal or have failed in their appeal.
There is still more that we can do for victims of this scandal. They will be able to appeal at another time, but maybe there is something we can do, in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested in their contributions, to accelerate their cases and not just let them have to go through the same situation that they would otherwise have done. May I respectfully suggest that that may be the case for Scotland and, indeed, Northern Ireland? I am not an expert or a lawyer, and it is not for me to give advice, but it occurs to me that if the proposed amendment does not go through and the territorial extent stays as it is—that is for this place to judge in other stages of the Bill—perhaps there are other methods that we can use to make sure that postmasters in Scotland and Northern Ireland do not receive compensation more slowly.
We all want this to be done as quickly as possible. The postal affairs Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, has talked about getting the majority of the compensation delivered by August. Clearly, that is not going to happen, because we have only just got this Bill through, so we will have to exonerate the postmasters. However, if we can get the Horizon shortfall scheme and the rest of the GLO largely done by that time, and restore these people’s lives to some sense of normality, then we can do the rest of it. We still have not finished, because we have to get Sir Wyn Williams’s report back and get the investigation done.
Some previous contributors to the debate said that it might take weeks or months to deliver the compensation, and that there might be complications. I remember speaking to the solicitors who represented the 555 people involved the GLO. I said, “If we gave you lots and lots of money and you distributed it, how long would it take?” The answer was about 18 months. It is about how we apportion the money and work it through—the same kinds of things that the advisory committee has been wrestling with—and the solicitors would have to do that internally. It is not a matter of giving people life-changing sums of money in one block and then everybody is okay; it is about making sure that we can work through the system, which will inevitably take time.
When I made Sir Wyn Williams’s investigation non-statutory, it was to get speed into the system to make sure that we did not have to “lawyer up”, as it was described. I always wanted money to go to the victims, not to lawyers talking about the same things again. As I say, if we can get the compensation out, we have to get the answers. We keep on talking in this place about the Horizon scandal, the infected blood scandal and any number of scandals, and I keep hearing people say that it must never happen again. Do you know what? It usually does. Why? Because we talk and talk about it, but we do not learn the true lessons or get the answers.
Sir David Davis
One of the things we need to consider, both now and later, is how we stop this happening again. I reiterate the point I made in my speech: when the inquiry looked at it, there was systemic failure right across the board. My hon. Friend is right to say it was a human failure, a system failure and an organisational failure. The Post Office is an arm’s length department. What we are finding with this and other cases is that arm’s length departments are disasters when it comes to correcting mistakes and delivering accountability. Does he agree that we should think about that when we are doing this?
Paul Scully
As usual, my right hon. Friend is absolutely on point. In our Department, we had a number of arm’s length organisations, which is true of other Government Departments as well. They are representatives of the Government, and we elected politicians or the Government will inevitably be held accountable; if there is no direct relationship, it is very difficult to speak from the Dispatch Box with enough authority and information to be able to take that accountability.
Shailesh Vara
I commend my hon. Friend for a very passionate and committed speech. The point about learning lessons is crucial. I fear, as do others in this Chamber, that in the old times we would say that the file is sitting on a shelf, collecting dust; nowadays, it would be archived and just stay there. Does my hon. Friend agree that serious attention needs to be paid to ensuring that we learn from this episode and the countless other occasions when things go wrong? There needs to be some sort of set-up to make sure that other bodies—voluntary organisations or those at arm’s length—actually take on board what has been said.
Paul Scully
Absolutely; that is a really good case in point. I hope my right hon. Friend will be in the next Parliament to help drive this through. I have said I am stepping down, so I will not see Sir Wyn Williams’s final report—not from these Benches, anyway. I hope the House takes it to heart and drives through the lessons learned.
I recommend a book by Matthew Syed, called “Black Box Thinking”. He compares accidents in the NHS with accidents and near accidents in the airline industry. With aircraft, even just a near miss gets learned from not only by the airline in question; it has to be passed on to every airline in the world. There is a collective sense of learning in the industry.
Chris Stephens
I have enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s considered speech so far. When he was a Minister, did he have a potential solution for what my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) mentioned: the Asda employees in Scotland who have been caught up in this scandal?
Paul Scully
I did not, but the issue is worth looking at. This is a human scandal, and it is not just about the postmasters who were directly affected. I am not sure how we start to unpick that as it gets wider and wider, but I hope and trust that the Government will reflect on it as we do the wider learning.
Kevin Hollinrake
I was tempted to intervene on two of the interventions I heard, but that is impossible here. It is certainly possible that the person who had the contractual relationship with the business concerned, such as a small post office, could submit a claim to the Horizon shortfall scheme, which could include amounts that should be paid to individuals who worked for them so that they can be compensated through that route.
Given that we are looking at public sector or quasi-public sector organisations, it would be dangerous to assume that there is a problem with governance. As my hon. Friend said, from the Back Benches I dealt with a number of scandals that involved private sector organisations, such as Lloyds and the Royal Bank of Scotland—we saw years of obfuscation around similar kinds of problems. We should not jump to conclusions. We should probably let the inquiry report first, and have a debate from there.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend makes a really good point. To follow on from the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, it is difficult for us as parliamentarians, and doubly difficult for Government Ministers, to speak with authority on behalf of a public organisation—rather than the private sector, which we do not speak on behalf of—without necessarily having all the facts, because there is only so much we can drill into.
Obviously, we want to right the wrongs of the past and make sure as best we can that the people’s situations are restored so that they can have a future for themselves and their families. There is also the case of the Post Office itself. The Post Office still has more branches than the banks and building societies put together. I know that there have been closures in certain areas—that is a whole other debate, perhaps for Westminster Hall—but none the less, the Post Office has a massive impact on people’s lives, especially in rural communities. We must not forget that when we are looking at the Post Office, its brand and its overall aim. This is not a reflection on the current management or anything like that. We have to give the Post Office a future.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on this issue and other issues protecting local post offices and looking at the range of services they can offer to the community. Has he had any further reflections about the role of post offices in communities? I also want to thank him specifically for the work he did to support my constituency. Perhaps, now that he has left the Government, he can tell the House his own thoughts on post offices as part of the local community and the potential for new services to be based in them.
Paul Scully
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s kind words regarding when we worked together on his constituency issue. We ask the Post Office to do a lot of work of social value and economic value, and those often conflict. It is difficult to get that right. We cannot ask the Post Office to turn a good profit as if it was just another bank, as well as to do the things we sometimes expect as parliamentarians, especially when we talk about our own constituencies and those in more rural areas. That is something we have to give careful consideration to. My original point is that while we are righting the wrongs of the past, we have to remember that this is an important organisation for our country and our constituents and we have to give it a future as well.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Can I begin by declaring an interest as a member of the Horizon compensation advisory board? It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). When he was a Minister he grasped this issue and drove it forward, and I am sad to see that he is standing down at the next election. One thing he can claim great credit for is being the only Minister I have dealt with, apart from his successor, who had compassion and wanted to sort this out. Okay, we had some quite heated disagreements on occasions, but at least he was prepared to listen. He brought a unique set of skills, and when he leaves the House he can have this great achievement for the individuals affected as a great credit to his parliamentary record.
I welcome the Bill. It was a solution put forward by the Horizon compensation advisory board, and I want to pay tribute to Professor Chris Hodges, Lord Arbuthnot and Professor Richard Moorhead, who sit on the advisory board with us. When we came up with this plan, did we think that the Government would agree to it? No, we did not. Were we shocked when they did? We were. I will not say what Chris Hodges said privately at one meeting because it would be unparliamentary.
This was a difficult thing to do and it comes after years of heartache and a lot of campaigning by the sub-postmasters. Alan Bates has already been mentioned and I pay tribute to him and the 555. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, if they had not taken that court case, the dam would not have broken—this is down to those individuals who had the tenacity to do that. Over the years, has it been easy for those individuals? No, it has not. As someone who has been involved for many years, I can tell the House that we did sometimes doubt ourselves and ask whether we were missing something. We were not missing something; it was a complete injustice. But when the system and the state are against a person, it takes great courage and tenacity to continue. I know that some had self-doubt along the way, but all credit to them—they stuck with it.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It is not just the Horizon case; it is also Hillsborough, Grenfell, Windrush and the contaminated blood scandal where people are still waiting for compensation. The state and the justice system, which are there to protect citizens, actually become the enemy of the citizen. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to find a way for people to get quicker redress and have their cases heard, rather than the state saying that it cannot be wrong in any circumstances and leaving these people to fight for such a long time to get justice?
Mr Jones
I agree totally with my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to him. In all these debates over the years, he has always been on my right hand side arguing for his constituents. I thank him for his work and his persistence.
My hon. Friend also raises a bigger point. When the state get things wrong—badly wrong in this case, but he mentions other cases as well—it goes into tortoise mode and says that it cannot be wrong. Well, it has been wrong. I am not making a party political point here, because is not one. Across the House we need to come up with a system of dealing with these cases, in terms of the transparency of information that we need to get out of the system and of having a swift compensation system for putting things right. We need to work on that in the next Parliament on a cross-party basis. As the Minister said earlier, he was involved in a number of cases that involved not the state but the private sector, but they were very similar. This is something I would certainly like to work with colleagues on.
I also want to thank the Minister for his work. I would not describe him as a show pony in politics; he is the steady shire horse of this place. He is solid and determined and he pushes on, even when obstacles are put in his way. I also give credit to him for the cross-party work he has done. He has not seen it as point scoring. He has worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and other Members across the House and I really appreciate that. I would just say to any new Ministers after the election: if you want two examples of how to do the job, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and the Minister are it and they should take credit for that.
Today’s Bill is historic. We are doing something very unusual and there is a delicate balancing act to be struck between this place and the judiciary. I understand that. I always respect the judiciary, but I also reflect on the fact that it has some questions to answer in this process. We had the trade union movement for the lawyers earlier on when the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) were on their feet—it would not be a debate without that lobby coming in—but the judiciary needs to ask the question: how did we get into this position? There was a pattern here, and robust questions were not asked. The hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that we should not attack judges, but the conduct of certain judges in some of these cases was not very sympathetic to the victims, and we need to reflect on that. I do not think this place should interfere with the judiciary. The instant reaction that this is a fight between Parliament and the justiciary is wrong, but in this case the judiciary got it wrong.
The other area that desperately needs to be looked at is the use of computer evidence in court cases. At the moment, there is no reference to computer code in law. After the election, or sooner, we need an urgent review to reflect how computers are not static machines. They might be machines, but their software and code are ever changing. That is important.
I support the current approach, although I accept that some people are not comfortable with it. As the Minister said, only 103 cases have been dealt with so far, so I will explain why I am committed to this approach. Last year I had a phone call from an individual from the north-east—I do not want to identify him—who said that his friend’s wife had been prosecuted and that he thought it might be a Horizon case. I said, “Get him to speak to me, or I can go to see them.” It took quite a few months for him to persuade his wife to meet me.
It was only when I went to see the victim in her small council flat in the north-east of England that I understood why such people never come forward. This woman had run a successful sub-post office, but she was prosecuted by the Post Office. She should have a comfortable retirement and a highly respected name in the local community in which she still lives, but she does not. She is traumatised by her experience, and she was very reluctant to see me. She was terrified and kept asking, “My name won’t be in the paper again, will it?” I said, “No, no one will know what you have told me.” She would never have come forward to go into a court process. I have subsequently spoken to the family to reassure them that, if the Bill is enacted, the victim will not go to court. This woman is terrified. Her good name will be cleared, and she will have access to the compensation that she rightly deserves.
That is just one example, and there are numerous others. People ask whether the Bill is a messy way of doing it, but I do not think it is, because people like that victim would never have justice without it. Some people might be uncertain about what we are doing, but I am not. These are unique circumstances, and I do not think they set a precedent. We can ensure that these people have their good name restored.
When the newspapers have said that a sub-postmaster stole money that they did not steal, it takes a lot for them to stay in their small community. This happened 20 years ago and the victim is still traumatised, which is why this Bill is the right approach.
I welcome last week’s announcement that fixed awards will be offered through the Horizon shortfall scheme. The advisory board was pressing for this, and the Minister championed it too. These awards are a good way of ensuring that we deal with cases speedily. I read the Select Committee’s report, and I disagree on the time limit. We need to settle the straightforward cases—they are not all straightforward, but some are.
The Minister, like me, does not want to pay lawyers. It will be better if we can avoid paying lawyers by ensuring that the compensation goes to the victims, and fixed awards are the way to do it. I consider this to be like a bucket, and we need to take out the simpler cases. We then need to consider the more complex cases, which will take time. It is easy to say that officials are deliberately slowing down the system, but I do not believe that at all. Even the lawyers representing these people need time to do it. As the Minister knows, some cases will be very expensive, more than the £600,000 compensation award. This is the right approach.
Matt Rodda
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent and powerful speech, and I particularly concur with his description of the enormous challenges that many victims face. Does he agree that the nature of any review or policy development is particularly important? If we can find a way to speed up the compensation by dealing with the slightly less difficult cases first, it could benefit everyone and may reduce the costs to the Government and the public.
Mr Jones
I think it is. In fairness, the Minister wants to get these cases done quickly, as does the advisory board. One controversial thing is that some people will get a little more money than they lost. I am comfortable with that, because I would sooner they get the money than it go to the lawyers or the process be dragged out. If we can get those cases dealt with speedily—some progress has been made on that—we can then get the effort and force put into sorting out the more complex ones.
Sir David Davis
The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that some people may get a little more money than perhaps come out of the arithmetic, but would most of us not pay anything to avoid what they have gone through?
Mr Jones
Exactly. If somebody gets more money out of this than they have in quantum lost, I am comfortable with that, as I believe is the Minister. It is better putting it into their pockets than into the pockets of lawyers, who will take their time, with this adding to the trauma that these people will have in dealing with these cases over many years.
Let me turn to the Bill’s Horizon pilot scheme provisions, because we have to address not only the Horizon scheme but the pilots that came before it. Condition E for overturning a conviction in the Bill is that the “Horizon system” was being used at the time of the offence. Clause 8 makes provision in respect of
“any version of the computer system known as Horizon (and sometimes referred to as Legacy Horizon, Horizon Online or HNG-X) used by the Post Office”.
We know that there is a difference between those pilot schemes and the actual Horizon scheme that took over—I know that, having been able to recite some of these things in my sleep.
People used a Horizon pilot scheme in the north-east as early as 1996—one went on to be convicted and others lost their livelihoods and were made bankrupt. I recognise that 1996 is the start date in the Bill, but I checked the Post Office’s website again this morning and it says that the roll-out and pilots of the Legacy Horizon system, as referred to in the Bill as part of condition E, started in 1999. So what systems were people piloting in 1996? Were they piloting Legacy Horizon? If they were, that would be at odds with what is on the Post Office’s website. I would like the Minister to refer to that and provide clarification in his wind-up, as a lot of those cases were in the north-east of England, in the area I represent.
Let me turn to another system, one that was pre-Horizon: the Capture system. As I understand it, it was software developed by the Post Office itself. I came across it through a case that had been referred to me. Given all the publicity about the Horizon scheme, it amazed me that the Post Office did not come clean and say, “Oh, by the way, we had Horizon, pre-Horizon and the Capture system beforehand.” If we look at the cases, we see that this was very much because of the attitude of the Post Office towards the prosecutions. We had sub-postmasters who were accused of stealing money and their contracts were terminated. In some cases, they were prosecuted. There was a ridiculous situation in Coventry, where a woman was taken to court and prosecuted. The judge threw out the case on the first day, saying there was no case to answer, but lo and behold, what did the Post Office do? It took a private prosecution against her to recover the £30,000 it claimed she had stolen, which bankrupted her. That shows the mentality of those in the Post Office.
A lot of those cases mirror Horizon cases. I have referred 10 cases to the Minister, five of which relate to individuals who went to prison. As I have done before, I put on record the excellent reporting by Karl Flinders of Computer Weekly and Steve Robson of the i newspaper on those cases. It has been down to me, those two and others to do the detective work, so we need the Post Office to turn up the heat and ensure we get answers. Will the Minister tell the Post Office that it is not a good idea to threaten legal action against journalists? This week, after his latest story, Steve received a phone call threatening him with legal action. That is not very bright, especially as he had all the evidence to back up his story. If that is still the attitude of the Post Office, that shows why the current management need to go.
I understand why the Government cannot include Capture in this legislation, but we need a mechanism to deal with those cases because Capture is important. I have 10 cases, but there are clearly more out there. Clause 7 gives the Secretary of State powers to make “further consequential provision” by regulation. Will that provide a potential way to include Capture cases? The Minister has all the information and he is on top of the brief. I raise the issue today and I will propose an amendment in Committee to see whether we can flesh out the matter, but we need a way to deal with those cases. I have 10 cases, but there are certainly more out there.
Sir David Davis
I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that point. I referred in my speech to the 2013 BAE study that highlighted Capture, ATM cash management and a variety of other issues associated with audit failure, and basically described a chaotic management system. Earlier postmasters may not have been exonerated by subsequent analysis because people were looking at Horizon and nothing else, but we owe it to them to get this right, even if that is after this Bill has moved through the House.
Mr Jones
People might think that because the system is not Horizon, the Bill does not apply to them, but the cases I am dealing with show that there was an injustice. I have spoken to individuals who went to prison. The computer systems were not same, but the Post Office showed the same attitude in the way it went at individuals. It did not believe the postmasters—they were going to be found guilty, come what may.
Paul Scully
That approach to the investigation and the presumption of guilt was what my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) was referring to in relation to her constituents and Royal Mail, as it was before ownership had transferred. The case did not get as far as prosecution, but investigation officers, the same kind of people that we have seen at the public inquiry, made that presumption.
Mr Jones
I have seen some of those individuals at first hand at the public inquiry. People have said that everyone who is going to make a case has come out of the woodwork already, but that is not true. People are still coming forward. I am hearing about cases on a weekly cases. I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House who are keeping me busy by referring cases to me. Please send them to me—I am quite happy to help deal with them. I noticed this morning that there are another three cases in my inbox. The hon. Gentleman makes the key point that we need to look at those individuals to ensure we get some type of justice for them. I have to say that I was surprised by this, but, following the television programme, nearly 1,000 new cases came forward on the Horizon shortfall scheme alone. We may wonder what these people were doing all this time. Well, in some cases, they were not aware of what was happening. In other cases—
Mr Jones
They were hiding, yes, because of shame and things such as that. It is only now that we realise what a massive miscarriage of justice this was that people have had the confidence to come forward. This Bill will help with that.
I shall come off Capture, because I think the Minister has got my point, but I return to those cases that have already gone to appeal. I do not criticise the Government on this, but we must find a system for dealing with those few cases that have gone through. It is no good the Court of Appeal hiding behind the fact that they have gone through, because, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has said, new evidence has come out of the inquiry that was not available to the courts at the time. We cannot just leave those people hanging—I cannot remember off the top of my head how many individuals there are, but there are not that many.
Kevin Hollinrake
Let me just clarify that point. A total of 1,200 people have come forward since the TV dramatisation. Seven people have taken their case to the Court of Appeal and been heard, and six have been refused leave to appeal, which makes a total of 13 in that cohort.
Mr Jones
What a fine research assistant the Minister is! He is right: the number is in single figures. Let us look at those cases. Let us see whether we can move forward on this. I am not criticising the Government for not including those individuals. I understand why they are not in the Bill, but we need to look at them. There are things that came out of the inquiry that would have changed the outcome in some, but perhaps not all, of those cases. If we do not look at them, those people will be left outside the remit of the Bill.
On the territorial extent of the Bill, I think the case was made earlier in relation to Northern Ireland. I see no reason why the Bill should not include Northern Ireland. We have cross-party support for it in Northern Ireland, and, as I understand it, the Executive are on board as well. We need to recognise that in Committee. I have to say to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) that I have less sympathy with the idea of including Scotland in the Bill. Not because those individuals should not get justice—they should—but because the issue is different in Scotland. There are, in fact, two issues. First, there is the legal position: the way things are prosecuted in Scotland is very different from how it is done in the UK. Furthermore, there is a mechanism to do it, so the Scottish Government just have to get on and do it. I accept what she is saying about waiting to see what we do, but they would need cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament if that were to go forward. I do hope, however, that some amendment on Northern Ireland is brought forward in Committee, and I would certainly support it.
Finally, let me talk about the notification of individuals. Reference was made earlier to record keeping, which was not brilliant at the Post Office. We have to try to find “reasonable steps”, as the Bill says, to notify individuals. We need to look at that, because, again, some of these cases will be legacy cases. Sadly, some people will have passed away before they were able to get justice. Perhaps we need to say how we get to those cases that are possibly more difficult to get to than others.
To conclude, the Bill is long overdue, which makes this a historic day. I think of the woman I sat in front of in her council flat in the north-east of England, whose life has been ruined for the past 20 years, and who has had daily trauma because of the injustice and financial heartache that she and her family have faced. With the Bill, she will finally get justice; if that is the one thing I do in my time in this House, it will make me very happy.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and that poignant ending, with which we all empathise. He has done an enormous amount get us to this point, and I thank him for it. There is no doubt that today is a very good day. It has been brought about by the Secretary of State, Ministers past and present—they are not show ponies at all—the Prime Minister, particularly through his actions at the beginning of this year, and the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). I have worked with her many times, and I thank her for all her work.
All those people must take credit for where we are, but it has taken an awfully long time. The Minister was right that an awful lot of work has gone on behind the scenes to get to this moment. Equally, I have total empathy with the comments I receive from members of the public that it should not have taken the turbocharging of an ITV drama to put right this scandal when people across the United Kingdom knew that the situation was utterly wrong. I sometimes wish that there was as much palpable anger in our communities about other scandals as there is about what has happened to sub-postmasters, so that we could fix some of those problems.
Let us not be too critical, however. We should applaud today’s lifting of the barriers, by quashing convictions, to speed up the compensation that is due to people. As has rightly been said across the House, the judiciary will raise concerns. That is only to be expected, but I conceptualise this as an unprecedented situation that requires an unprecedented solution. The odd conviction that was warranted may slip through the net, but this has been going on for more than 15 years. As has also been said, we must not let perfection be the enemy of the good; that sums up the whole predicament and issue fairly well.
Being a new MP in this place—albeit not such a new MP any more—and being able, by quite some accident, to talk about the matter with a degree of personal feeling has been a great privilege. I never expected that in 2014 I would become a sub-postmaster for a company that had purchased a supermarket with a post office in the back of it, or that in 2015 Budgens of Aylsham, which was the post office that I was the sub-postmaster for, would become the best post office in the entire country. I am very proud of that, and it has meant that my speaking about this issue has picked up quite a lot of attention. It has been a real privilege to bring my voice to the campaigning. I suspect that I will probably be the only serving MP who has been a sub-postmaster for the foreseeable future.
What brings the debate home to me is that I could so easily have been caught up in this problem. Had we purchased that supermarket a couple of years beforehand, I could have been suffering the consequences faced by so many of the men and women we are representing this afternoon. I still remember my stepfather wandering into my office and saying, “Well, you’re the finance director, Duncan. You will be the nominated legal sub-postmaster.” We thought very little of it, other than when I was given a postman’s hat at the staff Christmas party. I remember going on the Post Office training courses. Without a shadow of a doubt, the people I met were always good, decent, law-abiding citizens—the sort of people we saw in the drama documentary and about whom we have spoken so often. Every single one of us in the Chamber this afternoon will have constituents who have been caught up in this matter.
The right hon. Member for North Durham talked about people being traumatised; that is absolutely true. In the past three or four weeks, I have sat with a lady who ran a post office in my constituency. She said, “Duncan, I have seen you on the television. Will you come round and talk to me? I was running a village post office. I haven’t been able to sleep for years because I lost money, and I want to know whether I could be recompensed.” The Minister was incredibly helpful. He immediately gave me all the links for where I could help that lady. She and I sat down and went through her books and records for the best part of an hour, totting up a few of her columns. At the end of that process, I said, “I want you to sleep better tonight. I do not think you have lost any money; I think that you are one of the lucky ones. You may have had some losses in one year but gains the next because the system just did not work.”
Mr Jones
We need to get that message out. I have quite a few cases in which people were not prosecuted, but they put money—a lot, in some cases—back in. The hon. Gentleman just spoke about ensuring that people come forward to get redress, and that is important. Some feel that they are not victims because they were not prosecuted or did not lose their livelihoods, but I have one case in which someone put in £80,000 over a period, and those people need redress.
Duncan Baker
The right hon. Member is absolutely right. The people watching this debate, or reading a report about it, must always remember that they can come forward, seek redress, and get help and support. If all else fails, contact your local MP. Most of us just want to help the communities and the people we are so privileged to represent. I entirely take his point.
I was very lucky in the case of the woman I was dealing with. I could say, “You can sleep easy tonight, because you are one of the lucky ones. The system did not work properly.” That closure—being told that—lifted a weight off her shoulders. We in this place often have the ability to open doors that people cannot open themselves. I was so pleased to be able to help.
That lady represents what we keep talking about. Sub-postmasters and mistresses were pillars of their community. Everybody in their village or town knows that those people were criminalised and simply not believed. That is where the whole of this sorry period started. In the business that I ran, I remember being incredibly worried, when the tills went down, that we had lost money. I knew one thing for sure: the staff were not taking money. I trusted them entirely.
The problem was the culture at the Post Office, which had become a corporate beast. It was losing its soul in the early 2010s, when there was an enormous push to be a stand-alone organisation, to not be reliant on the Government, and to sell, sell, sell financial products. I remember going to a 2016 Post Office conference and meeting Paula Vennells. The irony is that the conference was called “Together”, but while it was going on, hundreds of men and women up and down the country were being convicted for crimes that they had not committed. That is not very collegiate.
The legislation may not be perfect.There are Department for Work and Pensions convictions that I have taken up with the Minister that are not included in the Bill, and I know the reasons why—or his explanations. That does not mean that I do not support what we are doing today, but I certainly want to say this: we are not there yet. I think this whole situation is going to run and run for many years to come.
I do not say that light-heartedly, because I think that real closure for people up and down the country does not just mean compensation and convictions being quashed; it means criminal prosecutions of those within the Post Office who knew what had happened, but did not take the actions that they should have taken. I suspect we will see those prosecutions come forward in the years to come. I have probably said seven or so times in this place that Fujitsu needs to face some real questions. Of course, it will—it has already accepted that it will contribute compensation—but how on earth could a piece of software written by a multibillion-pound corporation have had a back door into it with no audit trail, through which somebody could simply alter figures? That is absolutely frightening. As I mentioned before, it prompts questions about the accounts of the Post Office and its auditors. So many problems will never be fixed.
As I have also said many times, I want a figure for how much money was stolen from all of those innocent sub-postmasters. Nobody has ever been able to tell me what that figure is.
Duncan Baker
Or even where it went. We could add up the figures that were taken off innocent men and women in the ITV drama alone, but across the country, I suspect it was tens of millions of pounds—possibly even more than £100 million. That figure needs to be identified, so that we understand the full scale of what happened here. Of course, the inquiry will conclude later this year, which will finally give us some real evidence of what went wrong.
Although I have summed up by saying there are still many questions to answer, we must remember that today is a very positive day for many, many people who are watching who were caught up in this situation. I say again, and place it on the record, that it is nice when the House comes together. There are a great number of people in the Chamber this afternoon who have done an enormous amount of good, and can hold their heads very high that we have got to this place today.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
First, I welcome this piece of legislation and thank the current Minister, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake); the former Minister, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully); and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who guided me through some of the issues when I first became involved in this matter. It has been a long battle, but the job of this House when it identifies an injustice is to ensure that that injustice is addressed, and this was an injustice.
I am still baffled by how we ever reached this stage—how Post Office officials, Ministers and judges did not question how people who had so much to lose suddenly turned into thieves in their tens and hundreds. This did not happen over a long period of time. It was identified over a short period of time, yet those people were prosecuted unquestioningly. Indeed, some who knew the facts felt that because they had started going down this route, they had to continue to justify it, even if that meant withholding information and pretending that it was only one or two people so that others were not alerted to what was happening. It was an injustice.
I have heard arguments today that we have to tread very carefully with this legislation—that it is very delicate, that it could annoy the judges, and everything else. As the right hon. Member for North Durham has pointed out, the judges were also responsible, because they heard evidence. Did they question it as rigorously as they ought to have done? I do not know—I do not know many of the individual cases—but it is quite clear that many similar cases were coming before the courts, and somebody should have asked, especially given that the people who were being brought before those courts had so much to lose. Their reputation was destroyed, and up until this point, they had not engaged in that kind of behaviour.
I am not all that sensitive about stepping on some judicial toes with this legislation. This House has on many occasions been quite happy to overlook some of the legal issues in the context of Northern Ireland—exonerating, or giving letters of comfort to, people who had been guilty of murder, and so on—so I do not really have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that we have to be very concerned to tread carefully in relation to this piece of legislation.
There are just two issues that I want to raise. The first is the issue of those who have gone through the Court of Appeal already or have had their leave to appeal rejected. Given that, in most cases, the evidence that was presented and the judgments that were made would have been made on the basis, or at least partly on the basis, of trust in technology—the very thing we are saying was wrong in the cases of those we are now seeking to exonerate—means that we should be looking at those cases. Whether or not they are dealt with on a one-to-one basis, they should not be ignored, because the same kind of evidence used in those appeal cases was used in the court cases. Again, it would be an injustice not look at those particular issues. Regardless of how that is dealt with, and whether we should include the appeal cases totally or they should be looked at individually, I think we cannot ignore that one.
Of course, the issue I really want to address is clause 9 on the territorial extent of this Bill. I have had conversations with the Minister, and I know he is sympathetic and understands the issues in relation to Northern Ireland. However, when I listen to the arguments, I really do not think there is a case for excluding Northern Ireland from the scope of the Bill. Yes, justice is a devolved issue, and the Minister has said on other occasions when I have raised this with him that we have to be very careful of the political sensitivities. However, I have to say that there was not much concern in this House about political sensitivities when we put through a list of Bills the length of my arm that were controversial. People in Northern Ireland did not want those Bills taken in this House, and the parties were divided on them.
In this particular case, there is no division and there will be no kickback from any party in the devolved Administration. In fact, the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Justice Minister—the three Ministers who will be responsible for this—have all written to the Minister indicating that they would be fully supportive. They would be fully supportive because they believe that it would not be possible to keep in step with the timing of the legislation that will go through here, and the reason for that is quite clear. It is the way in which the Northern Ireland Assembly is obliged by law to consult on legislation.
I do not even know whether the legislation would first have to be included in the programme for government, which would be one step, and after it had been included in the programme for government, consulted on. However, even if it we only have it as stand-alone legislation outside the programme for government, there is a 12-week consultation period. As the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister have pointed out, that means legislation could not even be considered in the Northern Ireland Assembly this side of the summer recess, so we would be talking about the autumn. There is a compelling case not only because there is no opposition, but because, if it were to go down the route of the Northern Ireland Assembly, it would be delayed.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that the number of cases is small—I have heard different figures, but we are talking about no more than 30 cases—but that cannot justify the delay, which he is eloquently describing, in keeping these people from their recourse to justice?
Sammy Wilson
I think that is right. Some people may, of course, turn that argument around and say, “It’s only a small number of cases, so why should we be concerned?” But although the number may be small, since this issue has become so public there is public outrage on behalf of those who have been unfairly treated. Many people who have spoken to me about this have not been affected personally by the Horizon scandal, but there is a sense of injustice that some people were affected in such a way—they lost their reputation, their money, their business, in some cases their families, and their peace of mind—and there is a need not to delay any longer if at all possible. One way of ensuring that there is no such delay is to include Northern Ireland in the Bill.
When the Secretary of State was asked about this issue she said that she wanted to avoid unintentional consequences. Those unintentional consequences were unspecified because we did not get any examples, but I do not see how there could be unintentional consequences from including Northern Ireland in the Bill. It is a tight piece of legislation. It specifies who is covered by it, what offences are covered, and the way that the exoneration would be implemented by having records removed and so on. I cannot see where the unintended consequences would be, and I find that argument fairly weak.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman has described the logistical problems. Does he agree that if the territorial provisions were extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland, all that would be required are legislative consent motions from the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, which would be a cleaner and more efficient way of dealing with this issue for people in Northern Ireland and Scotland?
Sammy Wilson
I am not even sure that in Northern Ireland a legislative consent motion would be required, simply because the Executive has already indicated that they would be happy for Northern Ireland to be included. I do not see how this would tramp on any political sensitivities, and it cannot have unintended consequences.
Another argument has been, “But look, you’re going to upset the judiciary.” In my view it doesn’t matter whether the judiciary are upset by a decision made in this House or in the Assembly. If they are going to be upset, they are going to be upset. I suspect they will not be, however, because I am sure that many of the judges recognise that in the light of evidence that has now become available, the decisions made have to be looked at again anyway. I do not think there is an argument there.
Another argument that was made, I think by an Opposition Member, is that politicians in devolved Administrations should take the risk and take responsibility for the job they are required to do. I do not mind politicians taking responsibility for things they have been responsible for, but this was not an issue that politicians in Northern Ireland, or indeed Scotland, were responsible for. The Post Office was not a devolved issue; it was reserved. The prosecutions were initiated by actions taken by the Post Office. To say, “You’ve got to man up and take responsibility”—I am not so sure that that argument stands when this is a national issue. The Post Office is organised on a national basis, and the compensation will be organised on a national basis. Therefore, to me there is no responsibility there for the devolved Administrations.
Mr Carmichael
As a matter of fact, the situation is different in Scotland, where prosecutions are taken in the name of the Procurator Fiscal Service or the Lord Advocate, depending on the forum, and they receive only the report from the Post Office. The prosecution decision is made by the prosecuting authorities. I understand that in other parts of the United Kingdom the Post Office can prosecute in its own right, but that is not the situation in Scotland and that is why it is different.
Sammy Wilson
I am not going to enter into a debate about Scotland, because I do not have enough knowledge of the situation, but surely the way around this issue relates to the individuals responsible for having taken the prosecutions and for advising the Scottish Government. That is perhaps where we should be looking. If they are all satisfied that the decision should be taken here in Westminster, why not include that in the Bill? I am sure the Scottish nationalists can argue their case very well.
The one thing I would say as a Unionist is that I am pleased that the SNP recognises that there is a role for Westminster. If the Scottish Government want to give some of their powers to Westminster on this particular issue, I will take that as a Unionist win.
Marion Fellows
The fact is that the Scottish Government want the Bill to go through for all four nations of the UK, and they would give a legislative consent motion for that to happen. That surely indicates that in this case, as the right hon. Member has already said, this issue arose here and should be sorted out here. In Scotland and in England, there were prosecutions by the CPS; the prosecutions that this place will exonerate through the Bill are not only Post Office prosecutions.
Sammy Wilson
I am not going to become a kind of spokesperson for the Scottish National party on this particular issue; I am arguing the case for Northern Ireland, but I also believe there is a parallel. I know that there will be differences, and we have heard the arguments back and forward today as to why Scotland might be treated differently and everything else, but there is a sour taste in people’s mouths because of the injustice over the Horizon scandal. Let us not let that persist.
If there is a way of sweetening the issue and dealing with it respectfully, impacting on everybody and ensuring that those who have had this cloud hanging over them—those who have lost out financially and in many other ways—can be exonerated and sorted out, let us do it quickly and fairly and ensure that we put this injustice behind us as quickly as we can.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). He says that he is proud as a Unionist to see this decision being taken here, but I say to him gently: be wary of Scottish nationalists bearing gifts of UK accountability, because essentially that is where we have come to today. I will pick up the point about territorial jurisdiction later, but I first want to say a word or two of more general application.
A lot of people in this debate have spoken about this legislation being unprecedented and about the concerns of some in the legal profession and the judiciary and the discomfort they feel. Those feelings of discomfort are entirely appropriate and legitimate, and I would be more concerned if they were not there. However, it is because of the wholly exceptional nature of the situation facing those prosecuted as a consequence of the deception of the Post Office and Fujitsu and the misuse of the Horizon software that we should have a Bill of this sort. I, along with my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, have no difficulty in supporting the Bill.
I should declare an interest as a recovering solicitor: it is 22-and-a-half years since I surrendered my practising certificate, no doubt to the relief of many. To my former colleagues I would say that it is worth asking why we have courts in the first place. Essentially, we have courts because it is important that there are bodies able to give the general public confidence that the various vehicles of the state work properly and that people can get justice. Do they get it right all the time? No, of course they do not. When I was a solicitor, we often used to say, “Justice has to be seen to be done, and it often has to be seen to be believed.”
Let us not forget that the judiciary are like the rest of us; if they are cut, they bleed. They are vulnerable to the same human foibles as us. They ultimately have to be accountable for people at moments like this. Those who have said that the judiciary need to take a look at themselves are right to say that. I take mild exception to the suggestion that somehow or another the doctrine of the separation of powers builds an impenetrable wall between the different legs of the constitution. It does not.
This House created the very institution of the Supreme Court barely 20 years ago. We interfere all the time in the running of the courts by setting their budgets and telling them what rules of procedure and evidence they can follow, and nobody takes exception to that. What we are dealing with here is an interference of a different order altogether, but it is one that conforms to the principle that there are occasions when this House, as a sovereign Parliament, has to act and intervene. I think the nature and scale of the injustices that have been visited on people here absolutely justify that.
The question about territorial jurisdiction is an important one. I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who, incidentally, I rate very highly—at the risk of killing her political career stone dead by praise. I have enormous respect for how she has managed the all-party parliamentary group on post offices and the very measured and effective way she has prosecuted the case for postmasters, sub-postmasters and Post Office employees. That applies not just in relation to the Horizon scandal, but in the day-to-day operation of the Post Office itself.
It pains me to find myself in a different place from the hon. Lady. I said to her last night that I am still open to be persuaded, but my starting point has to be that we judge the issue by the outcomes for the postmasters themselves. Essentially, can we get those affected in Scotland to the same place by allowing the Scottish Parliament to do its job, constitutionally as it is charged to do, or, in order to get everybody in the same place at the same time, do we have to do it here?
Chris Stephens
To kill the right hon. Gentleman’s political career, I should say that I have the same respect as he has for my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). As he said, this debate is about how we can best get justice to the victims. Can I offer as a solution something that is happening now? The Criminal Justice Bill, which has not reached all stages of the parliamentary process, already has a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament for the areas of the Bill that impact Scotland. Perhaps that is a way of getting around the territorial debate. If Scotland and Northern Ireland were put there, it would allow legislative consent both in Northern Ireland and Scotland to happen concurrently, at the same time as the legislation is passing here.
Mr Carmichael
That is one way in which the procedure could be done. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw that the question of quashing convictions is just one element of justice. The other important element is that those who were responsible for initiating the prosecutions must be accountable. That accountability would be missing if the provisions for Scotland were put in this Bill or the Criminal Justice Bill. That accountability is important for the quality of justice, if it is achievable within the timescale; we are balancing competing demands.
The position of Northern Ireland is qualitatively different because there is a statutory requirement for a 12-week consultation. The Scottish Parliament does not have that requirement, so it would be able to proceed.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
I apologise for not being here at the beginning, as I was chairing the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. The other leg of justice that must be served is compensation, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman was coming to anyway. Compensation is not just for those who were convicted, as a lot of people out there dipped into their own pockets and paid money to the Post Office to keep the heavies away and prevent prosecution. Those people also need to see justice. One of the big things is moving the legislation forward so that all that happens and the money gets to the people.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman is right. If he has been listening, he will have heard me speak on a number of occasions about my work to support constituents who are pursuing claims as part of the historic shortfall scheme. That would be the route to compensation for the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers.
We have taken a particular approach quite deliberately and for good reason. Because the Post Office function is reserved legislatively to the United Kingdom Parliament, as a United Kingdom operation, the compensation should be paid on a UK-wide basis. However, the decisions to prosecute were taken in Scotland, by law officers accountable to the Scottish Parliament. For that reason, it makes sense for the Scottish Parliament to deal with the consequences of those prosecutions.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I do not necessarily have the answer, but the problem is that if the Scottish Parliament quashes the prosecutions, there could be a hiatus while we wait for Westminster to do something and the money arrives. It is a chicken and egg situation. I would much prefer the Scottish Parliament to sort it and to have the resources to compensate, but unfortunately in the UK that is not the world we live in.
Mr Carmichael
I do not think it is unfortunate, but highly fortunate and deliberate, that we are in the UK, but we will save that debate for another day. The compensation can and will be paid on a UK-wide basis. Given the timescale that the Government have outlined so far, we would expect the convictions to be quashed on the basis of this Bill by the middle of July. That gives the Scottish Parliament time to meet the same timescales, so that victims in Scotland have their cases quashed by that time.
Kevin Hollinrake
The right hon. Gentleman is making some important points about the way the prosecution systems work in different parts of the UK, which we must take into account. On the point by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) on paying redress, the key thing is overturning the conviction. Once that conviction is overturned, wherever in the UK, that individual will have immediate access to the redress scheme wherever they are in the UK. There is no hiatus, as he described it.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the Minister for that. Those who are not convicted will have access to compensation through the historic shortfall scheme—a process available to them at the moment.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Bill relates only to overturning convictions. There is a discussion about territorial extent, which I understand and am happy to continue to discuss. The three compensation schemes—the Horizon shortfall scheme, the group litigation order scheme and the overturned conviction scheme—are all UK-wide, so that whatever detriment is experienced, wherever they are in the UK, there is no delay to compensation. There is no difference, in terms of compensation, between one part of the UK and another. We are keen to expedite it wherever it is in the UK and we have work to do.
Mr Carmichael
I do not really need to answer that, so I will take the hon. Lady’s intervention.
Marion Fellows
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. One of the issues about timing, and it is about timing, is that I think everyone would agree that it is best that every victim is exonerated at the same time. As we do not yet have the programme for the timing of the Committee and Third Reading stages, it is possible that the Scottish Parliament could be in recess. It will be in recess as early as 29 June, a full month before this place.
Mr Carmichael
That is a political decision for the Scottish Government, who control the Scottish Parliament’s business, to take.
Marion Fellows
May I gently correct the right hon. Gentleman? The recess dates are not set by the Scottish Government; they are set by the parliamentary board.
Mr Carmichael
They are set by the Parliamentary Bureau, of which the majority of members come from the SNP and the Greens. I have kept this fairly broad in its terms. Can I just say gently to the hon. Lady that if the Scottish Government, instead of trying to evade political accountability, would take their responsibilities seriously and get on with it, they would get on with the drafting of the necessary legislation? If they want to wait and see how it all works here, to see if there are further amendments, then of course they can do so. They should be mindful of the fact that, apart from this one point, on the substantive provisions in the Bill there is complete unanimity across all parties in the House. So I would not see this as a Bill that is likely to attract amendment on the substance.
If the hon. Lady wishes to introduce her amendments relating to jurisdiction at a later stage, then that is another matter altogether. If we consider the consequences for the substance of the Bill, we would effectively be writing a whole new part of it. For example, if we have regard to the offences for which compensation is to be paid, very few are terms of art in Scots law, so we would be writing a new Bill to be inserted here.
Why are the Scottish Government so resistant to getting on and doing what they are constitutionally charged to do, when they could do it if they started now, in a timescale that brings everybody to the same place? The hon. Lady herself said that compensation had to be done equitably and fairly. I put it to her and to her colleagues that the consequence of their route being followed would be Scottish victims having justice of a lesser quality, because the decisions about prosecution are accountable to this House in England, and there would be no such accountability for decisions on prosecution if they were to be taken in the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Carmichael
Can the hon. Gentleman sitting to my left explain to me why he thinks that is not true?
Chris Stephens
I will—and I am always to his left, as he knows. If the Parliament discusses legislative consent, that is where the accountability takes place. I say to the right hon. Gentleman again—he does not need to answer it today, because the Bill will go through other stages and the Minister said he is considering it—that I hope he will consider the Criminal Justice Bill example and legislative consent as a solution to the issue.
Mr Carmichael
It is a solution to the issue inasmuch as it is another means of doing the same thing that the hon. Gentleman’s party wants to do in respect of the Bill, but it is not a solution inasmuch as it allows that level of accountability, and it is the accountability that matters.
The current Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain, has already said, on the record, that
“not every case involving Horizon evidence will be a miscarriage of justice and each case must be considered carefully and with regard to the law. It is also important to recognise”
—as others have said here—
“the important…constitutional role of our Appeal Court in Scotland and that due process must be followed.”
That is a qualitatively different approach from the one that is at the heart of the Bill. The Lord Advocate may be right, but that is where she has to explain herself; and she also has to explain the decisions that were taken by her predecessors. It is 30 years ago now, but I did start my legal career, meagre and modest though it may have been, at the Crown Office in Edinburgh. Elish Angiolini, whom we were fêting here a week or two ago for her report on the workings of the Metropolitan police, was my first boss when I was a trainee solicitor there. My second boss was Frank Mulholland—now Lord Mulholland —the second Lord Advocate who would have had responsibility for some of these cases. All of them will have to be accountable in their own way.
The current Lord Advocate will of course be accountable, and it is obvious from the statement she gave to the Scottish Parliament that her work is already fairly well advanced. She has confirmed that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission wrote to 73 potential victims of the Horizon scandal in 2020. She has also confirmed that the Crown Office has identified another 54 cases that are being reviewed by prosecutors, and that many of those cases have been contacted by the SCCRC as well. As of March 2024, 19 people have come forward to have their cases reviewed. Eight of them have been referred to court, with six having their cases cleared. The remaining two cases are still pending an outcome.
Given the amount of work that has been done and given the nature of what the Lord Advocate has said on the record, it makes, to my mind, absolutely no sense for the Scottish elements of this one narrow part—on the decisions to prosecute—to be taken differently. It comes down to accountability, and if we have learned nothing else throughout this whole sorry episode of the Horizon system and Post Office Ltd, surely we have learned that, at the end of the day, accountability makes a difference.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I will return the conversation to the subject of Northern Ireland, but only briefly, because the issues have been aired reasonably well already today.
Let me first put on the record my own and my party’s welcome for the Bill, and thank the Minister for the work that he has done so far. We certainly recognise that this is a highly exceptional situation that justifies the approach that has been taken. We cannot be certain that we will never face a similar situation at some time in the years or decades ahead, but this situation does warrant that approach, because it is about exoneration, and concepts such as pardons do not quite fit the bill. It should be clearly on the record that there should never have been prosecutions, and that any convictions should be entirely void. The words “amnesty” and “pardon” suggest that something wrong had been done prior to those developments.
I thank the Minister for his ongoing engagement, specifically in respect of the conversations I have had with him about Northern Ireland. I also thank the Opposition Front Benchers for making it clear that they are open to the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the Bill.
I want to explain briefly why we believe that action is warranted in Westminster in that regard. This is, essentially, a UK-wide scandal that requires a UK-wide solution. The Post Office is a reserved matter, so we need a UK-wide response. The issues that have come about were not in the gift or control of the devolved Administrations, who could not have sought to prevent them, even if they had had the foresight to identify the problems that were emerging.
The difficulty now is that if Northern Ireland is left to act separately, we will see further injustice emerge. The Executive have just been restored, and they have other priorities at present, such as getting up and running. However, even if the Assembly had been functioning for some time, the process would require a public consultation on how business is done in Northern Ireland. Not carrying out such a consultation would pose the ongoing risk of a judicial review, which would further complicate matters and probably elongate the process. That would be counterproductive, so the public consultation has to be priced in.
A Bill will take time to draft, and the Department of Justice can look at what has happened in England and Wales, but there would still need to be a minimum of eight weeks—in practice, probably 12 weeks—for the public consultation. That would then have to be evaluated, and any legislation introduced in the Assembly would go through its own process. Even with the best will in the world, I do not see how the process could be concluded until well into the autumn of this year, and it could take longer. That would create a situation in which some of the victims of the scandal who have received false convictions will be waiting longer for justice than their counterparts everywhere else in the UK. Given that exoneration is the gateway to compensation, they would be further penalised, in the sense that they would be doubly delayed—in receiving exoneration and in accessing compensation—so natural justice leans heavily towards the Administration in London taking action on behalf of Northern Ireland.
In response to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), I want to stress the scale of the political consensus on this issue in Northern Ireland. That is rare, but it is precious whenever it does emerge. There is a sense that we want this to be done as quickly as possible, and we want to be pragmatic. I utterly dismiss the notion that Parliament is treading on devolved toes by acting in place of the Executive and the Assembly. Right across the political spectrum, the parties want this to happen, so there will be no political blowback on action being taken. Obviously, it has to be done on a case-by-case basis, but given the extraordinary circumstances of this situation, there is an overwhelming argument for Northern Ireland to be included in the Bill.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s summation shortly. I hope that he can give an indication of whether he is willing to accept amendments in Committee, subject to the proper motions being put in place to facilitate changes to the legislation as currently drafted.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
We are now over two decades into this scandal, with the victims still suffering the ongoing consequences of this injustice: unjust prison sentences, bankruptcy, ostracisation from communities, family breakdown and homelessness. Tragically, as we have heard, this scandal has led to some people taking their lives. According to the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, at least 60 sub-postmasters had died without seeing justice or receiving compensation as of 10 August 2023, and at least four had taken their own lives. All our thoughts continue to be with their families.
This scandal has been a seismic tragedy at every stage. The mental toll and stress that victims have faced is beyond what many of us can begin to comprehend. This scandal has been defined at every turn by an abuse of power, disregard for sub-postmasters’ lives, the passing of blame and perpetual delay.
This Bill is an important step forward in addressing the greatest miscarriages of justice in our country. It will mean that hundreds of innocent victims will have their rightful innocence returned to them. However, this is just one of a number of actions that need to be taken to make amends and to correct this terrible injustice. We need to see convictions quashed, compensation delivered urgently and justice sought from the independent inquiry.
Along with other colleagues, I pay tribute to Alan Bates and the many sub-postmasters who have campaigned and worked tirelessly to see justice. This Bill marks an important victory for sub-postmasters, and I pay tribute to their bravery and perseverance in the face of so much suffering and adversity. They have had so much taken from them, and yet they have kept fighting. This is truly remarkable, and it is wonderful to hear the tributes that have been paid by so many across the House and also across our country.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for all his work fighting on behalf of sub-postmasters, and to Lord Arbuthnot for his years of work on tackling this injustice. I also thank the Minister for postal affairs, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for all his work, from the Back Benches as well as from the Front Bench. There have been many Members across the two Houses who have highlighted the injustice suffered by sub-postmasters, and I extend the Opposition’s appreciation for the work they have done and for the cross-party nature of the campaigning that has gone on thus far.
I think we can all agree that the influence of the ITV drama “Mr Bates vs the Post Office” has been very significant in this campaign. The Minister has done a huge amount of work, but there is no denying that that programme has brought to the attention of the wider public the scandal that has affected so many sub-postmasters. However, it should not have taken the release of that drama to get to where we are today. This is in no way a criticism; it is a recognition of the fact that certain scandals have needed that wider attention from the media, from programmes and documentaries, before attention is received. But we are where we are, and it is encouraging to see the steps that have been taken.
This Bill will quash the convictions of the sub-postmasters and others who worked in the Post Office branches who suffered as a result of the Horizon scandal. As has already been said, and I further stress, the quashing of these convictions must not set a precedent. The Bill undermines a key part of our democracy, the separation of the legislature and judiciary. As has been said earlier, it is a constitutional anomaly. We must understand the weight of this so that such action is never considered again. The legal solution of this Bill is a wholly exceptional and isolated case, where these necessary actions will be taken to match a miscarriage of justice unprecedented in both scale and impact. As the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), has made clear, an incoming Labour Government would never use this kind of action again.
I echo the comments on the territorial scope of today’s Bill and restate that the Labour party supports the calls to extend the provisions of the Bill to the cases in Northern Ireland. Every party in Northern Ireland and every Minister in the new Assembly is calling for their inclusion in the Bill. Their exclusion will sadly only delay the exoneration of victims in Northern Ireland all the more, so I hope the Minister will seriously consider this decision and what can be done further, and take on board the points that have been made by hon. Members including my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary.
We have heard many powerful contributions in today’s debate, and there is broad agreement on the Bill’s necessity. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) highlighted his misgivings, and he described the Bill as representing
“the best of a bad job.”
Of course, he extended his support and highlighted the Bill’s unprecedented nature.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) made the case for speed in granting compensation. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) raised important concerns about the potential limitations of setting deadlines for paying compensation. While ensuring the proper handling of complex cases, I hope the Government will take those points into consideration.
My right hon. Friend also raised important points about the need for the judiciary and the Government to learn broader lessons from this scandal so that they can be applied to other scandals, a number of which have been mentioned in the debate, including the contaminated blood scandal and the Windrush scandal. It is encouraging to see such eagerness to reflect and learn so that things do not have to go this far before being addressed.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) has been a tireless advocate and campaigner for justice for sub-postmasters, and she rightly highlighted the need to continue our laser-sharp focus on supporting victims. She and others in her party relayed, once again, the concern that Scotland has been left out of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) spoke powerfully about his time as postal affairs Minister. As he is standing down, I commend him for his work in the Department and for his wider cross-party work on a number of issues, including Myanmar with me and many other colleagues. We wish him well in his future endeavours. Like others, he raised the need to learn lessons and to ensure that, when we say that scandals of this scale must never happen again, we truly ensure that they never happen again.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) spoke powerfully about his career as a sub-postmaster. He brings insight to this debate and the campaign, and he reflected on how he has supported his constituent who has faced trauma, and how he has drawn those lessons into the Minister’s work. I was struck by the way in which he reflected on the wider issues.
The hon. Gentleman said that work is needed on the Post Office’s culture in tackling wider systemic issues, and he said that the Post Office is “losing its soul”. As we look to the future, I hope the Government will consider how we make the necessary reforms so that the Post Office is fit for purpose. He rightly said that Fujitsu needs to be held accountable, and that it should pay compensation. Although that is outside the scope of this Bill, the Minister and others need to ensure that Fujitsu pays for what was caused by its technological failures.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made a powerful case for those whose appeals have been rejected, and he argued that their cases need to be reconsidered. I know that the Minister has responded and will look at those issues closely. The right hon. Member also made the point about territorial scope, reinforcing the point about the need for Northern Ireland to be included in the Bill. The point about the 12-week consultation has been made consistently, as it means that the 27 or 30 Northern Irish cases will face huge delays. That means further suffering, so it is important for the Government to consider including Northern Ireland, as we have called for.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) made the case for the Scottish Government to introduce legislation in parallel in Scotland. Much work has been done in Scotland and the case for needing to work in parallel, in lockstep, to ensure that there are provisions in Scotland has been made. The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) spoke about prosecutions that should never have taken place. Once again, he made the case for Northern Ireland’s inclusion and for avoiding delay.
We have heard many powerful testimonies from victims who have said that they lost decades of their lives to this scandal. Katie Downey, who set up the group Lost Chances for the Children of Sub-postmasters to support the children of some of the victims of the scandal, said that when her father was made bankrupt by the scandal she was 11 years old and her family had to flee to France. She stopped speaking for two years as a result of the trauma; her childhood was shaped by this injustice. We must not forget the wide-reaching impact of this scandal on family members. There are children, spouses, parents, close friends and neighbours who have not only journeyed with the victims, but suffered themselves and lived out the consequences of this injustice.
Seema Misra was jailed on her son’s 10th birthday, while she was pregnant, after being pronounced guilty of stealing £74,000 from the post office she ran—she had been wrongly accused. Ms Misra and her husband had been trying for a baby for eight years and what should have been one of the happiest moments of their lives became a nightmare. She was put under suicide watch in prison and describes how she reached “rock bottom”. Those are only two stories of the horrors that have defined the lives of victims.
Today, I thank colleagues from across the House for powerfully sharing the examples of the cases they have dealt with, be they those of constituents or cases they have come across through their campaigning work. I also thank colleagues for the tireless work they have done in advocating for those people, telling their stories, talking to Ministers and persisting. These people’s stories and voices must be central in shaping our next steps in the pursuit of their compensation, of justice and of their exoneration. We welcome this crucial piece of legislation, but it is by no means anywhere close to an end point. It is merely a further step in the right direction in securing justice for the sub-postmasters.
We support the work of the independent inquiry in uncovering the full and precise truth of all that has unfolded in the Post Office. Truth and justice has been denied to sub-postmasters at every turn, and I hope that the inquiry will finally provide the transparency that is desperately needed. There is much still to be done in the pursuit of justice for sub-postmasters, and we must all continue to support them and do all we can to right the many wrongs they have suffered.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I call the Minister, may I remind those who have contributed to the debate that it is very important to get back for the wind-ups, including for the beginning of the one by the shadow Minister? I call Kevin Hollinrake.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
For Members of the House, the wider public and, most of all, the victims of this horrendous scandal, today’s Bill cannot come soon enough. The day that the convictions are finally quashed, redress is finally paid and those victims can get on with their lives cannot come soon enough. The Bill will quash relevant convictions of individuals who worked, including on a voluntary basis, in post office branches and who suffered as a consequence of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal. It will quash, on a blanket basis, convictions for various theft, fraud and related offences during the period of the Horizon scandal in England and Wales.
The Bill is an exceptional response that recognises the constitutional sensitivity and unprecedented nature of the situation. The Government are clear that given the factually exceptional nature of the case, the legislation does not set a precedent for the future relationship between the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary. The scale and circumstances of the prosecutorial and investigatory misconduct means that a rapid approach is needed to deliver long overdue justice, while respecting the separation of powers and delicate constitutional balance.
I first spoke on the matter from the Back Benches some years ago, in the context of other scandals involving the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Bank, after a gentleman called Paul Marshall, a barrister involved in the cases, wrote to me drawing parallels between the Post Office Horizon case and the banking scandal. It was back in March 2020 that I first spoke about the issue and Lee Castleton’s tragic case. Because of the scale of the injustice, the depth of the damage and the despair, and the unacceptable delays in delivering justice, we must act in this exceptional manner.
I will touch on points raised in contributions to the debate. I thank the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), for their collaborative approach. I join them in thanking one of my predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), on the tremendous job he did. We all wish him well in whatever he chooses to do in his new life, but I remind him that he still has work to do in this place because we have much work to do.
I gently push back on some of the points made by the shadow Minister, who said that the TV drama had stimulated the work that has gone on in recent weeks and today. We are public servants and we should respond to public outcry, so I welcome the new attention focused on the issue by the general public, the media and the House. However, I remind hon. Members and, most importantly, the victims that we put many measures in place to try to deal with the matter, not always as successfully or as quickly as we would have liked: the Horizon shortfall scheme and the inquiry, which started in 2020; the group litigation order compensation scheme; the Horizon compensation advisory board, on which the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) sits so effectively; and the £600,000 fixed-sum awards for those whose convictions had been overturned, which was put in place last autumn. The exploration into how we might overturn convictions more quickly began some months before the TV dramatisation came to our screens. Indeed, the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Act 2024 assigned a deadline date that proved difficult for some of the victims.
The shadow Secretary of State pointed to possible service level agreements, in response to issues raised by the Business and Trade Committee about timings for compensation. As he and the shadow Minister know, there are service level agreements in the current compensation and the group litigation order compensation schemes that say there will be a response to 90% of final claims submitted within 40 days. We are hitting 87% against that metric, so we are making progress. We are considering such agreements in elements of the new scheme and other schemes, so I will come back to the House about that.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde raised the point about Northern Ireland, as many other Members have, and we are taking that very seriously. We are sympathetic to the issue, particularly as the Assembly is newly formed. The requirement for public consultations in that jurisdiction may delay things, and we will bear that in mind in our deliberations.
The shadow Minister quite rightly raised the point about the impact of this not just on the victims, but on the victims’ families, their children and their spouses. Indeed, terrible things have happened to many of those families, including break-ups and suicides. We have all witnessed on our TV screens the extent of this problem. We will certainly consider mental health support for the affected individuals.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) talked about a sunset clause. Interestingly, following his intervention on a sunset clause, three other legal opinions on a similar matter did not all agree with his point. The key thing is that all convictions are quashed the day this legislation comes into effect, which should be in July. Irrespective of the fact that we may not have identified somebody in the list of people whom we will write to following the passing of this Bill, their conviction will have been quashed. If they come forward to self-certify and we look at their case, that conviction will have already been quashed; we just need to mark the record.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) spoke about political accountability, which I shall come back to a bit later, because he raises some very important points. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr David Davis) said that this matter should have been dealt with in the courtroom. I think that we would all have preferred to see that. I have described this process in the past as the lesser of two evils. We must acknowledge that the first of the 983 convictions were overturned in 2021. Thus far, only 102 convictions have been overturned. That pace of progress cannot be countenanced, which is why we have taken this particular approach. I thank him, though, for his kind words on my work, but I reiterate that the Secretary of State has been hugely supportive of everything that I have been asked to do and that I wanted to do in this space. The same applies to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and many other Ministers right across Government.
Let me turn now to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), for whom I have a great deal of time and with whom I have spent a great deal of time working on this issue. Her work on the all-party group on post offices is also invaluable. I fully understand her points about Scotland. She wants to ensure that her legislation works simultaneously with this legislation. We believe that that can happen in Scotland. There are no barriers as such with Scotland in the way that there are potentially with Northern Ireland. We also must bear in mind that the Lord Advocate tends to have a different opinion as to whether this is the right way to go about things. In taking this route, we have had to make some difficult political choices. One is to exclude cases that have been heard by the Court of Appeal. That is the decision that we had to take here—as I say, these were very difficult choices. The point about political accountability is important, which is why we decided to use this objective criteria route. The hon. Lady’s objective criteria would have to be different. For instance, Scotland has a different prosecutorial system, so the legislation cannot be identical. There are differences whichever way we look at this, so I am sure that this debate will continue.
Ian Paisley
I thank the Minister for giving way. He knows that we have huge admiration for the way that he has tried to wrestle his way through these issues. At the end of these proceedings, I intend to lay an instruction to the House motion. Is that necessary? Can the Minister tell us now that he will take this on and include Northern Ireland in the Bill?
Kevin Hollinrake
I understand the hon. Member’s point. I can tell him from this Dispatch Box that it is something on which we will continue to have dialogue. I have talked to his colleagues today and yesterday. In fact, I met the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Justice Minister yesterday to discuss these matters. They raised some interesting points that we need to take into account. I am very happy to keep those conversations ongoing, so I will happily have a further conversation with him after this debate.
Chris Stephens
The Minister is showing his customary politeness and kindness. He has outlined the discussions with Northern Ireland. The main issue is how we get a solution that satisfies everyone across these islands, so will he also have those discussions with the Scottish Government, particularly around the territorial issue, and will he say something about Asda employees in Scotland who are also caught up in this?
Kevin Hollinrake
I absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We want everything to happen simultaneously. Our ambition is to get the legislation passed by July. If people choose the fixed sum award route, we can pay compensation rapidly. They have two choices of route to take. The £600,000 can be delivered very quickly—literally within weeks of passing the legislation. We want to pass the legislation by July; we could be paying compensation as quickly as by August. Exactly the same thing can happen in Scotland if the Scottish Government effect the legislation at the same pace. My officials are working with officials of the SNP-led Government in Scotland on a weekly basis to try to ensure that that is the case. I have met with my counterpart in the Scottish Government to talk about this issue.
I did not quite get the hon. Gentleman’s point about employees. He might want to intervene on me again, so I can address it properly.
Chris Stephens
A number of Members have mentioned, as I have, the particular issue of Asda employees in Scotland. Has the Minister thought about that?
Kevin Hollinrake
Employees generally are an issue, because they do not have a contractual relationship with the Post Office, which is required to enter the compensation scheme, but if the company itself did have one it could make a compensation claim that could then be passed on to that individual. I am very happy to discuss individual cases with the hon. Gentleman, or with other Members.
I pay tribute again to all the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. I agree that this was a case of human failure as well as technological failure, and that the wheels of justice are moving too slowly. That is why we have stepped in in this way. I am always grateful for the work of the right hon. Member for North Durham, not least on the Horizon compensation advisory board. He has made some important recommendations, which we have adopted. He gave a four-legged analogy about the person I am: he called me more shire horse than show pony, which I take as a compliment. I would describe him in a four-legged way as well: he is a cross between a terrier and a rottweiler, and he is highly effective in the way he approaches this issue.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about convictions relating to pilot versions of Horizon. That is why we have set the date at 23 December 1996. That is the first point of the roll-out of an application called Pathway, which was a predecessor Horizon application. We think that the legislation, and therefore the redress schemes, capture—if I can use that word—cases that relate to the pilot schemes in clause 8.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we look at the Capture system slightly differently. Capture is a stand-alone spreadsheet rather than a network computer system. There is no remote access, for example. The key thing is that what we are doing here is exceptional and unprecedented. We have the body of evidence because it has been before a court. Part of the reason the court made its decision in 2019 was based on the Horizon issues, as it put it. We do not have that body of evidence with Capture. We are keen to talk to him to ensure that we look at the evidence. That conversation will continue.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the power to make consequential provision. We do not see that as giving us the ability to include another group of people; there are different reasons why that power is in the Bill. It is for matters that are a consequence of the Bill, which we do not think is the right vehicle to include people, for example, who have been affected by the Capture system. As I say, we will continue to discuss that.
As I said earlier, we understand the arguments about Northern Ireland, and we will continue to engage, as we will with other Members of this House. In terms of reasonable steps, the process is in development. It is about marking the records and writing to individuals. When we have passed the legislation, we will write literally that day, or the next day, to those individuals to say, “You’re conviction has been quashed,” and we will give them details about how to claim compensation.
Mr Kevan Jones
I know that the Minister is committed to ensuring that everyone is contacted. What about the legacy cases—when people have passed away? Will someone try to contact their estates, for example?
Kevin Hollinrake
Those are challenging issues. The key thing—I hope the right hon. Gentleman takes this in the right way—is that what we are doing here to quash convictions does not require people to come forward. When the conviction has been quashed, we will contact the most relevant person in that context. Those people can take forward a claim in exactly the same way, and it will be considered in exactly the same way, as any other claim. The estate, the families, can claim compensation.
Mr Jones
I agree with the Minister, but I think this needs to be given some thought. Perhaps the advisory board might look at legacy cases in which people have passed away, because those entitled to compensation might not come forward. We might have further discussion about that.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very happy for us to look at that, and to work with the right hon. Gentleman and the advisory board. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him, Lord Arbuthnot, Sir Chris Hodges, and Professor Richard Moorhead for their work in this area. We will continue to work closely alongside the right hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) recognised the work of people other than me on this matter—not least the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. I recognise that he is the only serving postmaster in this place, so we always listen carefully to what he says. Like him, we encourage people to come forward to claim compensation.
The people not included in the legislation—those who have been convicted as a result of prosecution by the DWP—can still appeal in the normal way, and I encourage them to do so if they feel that there are grounds for that. My hon. Friend asked about Fujitsu and the quantum it is due to pay. Our view has always been that we should let the inquiry conclude and determine responsibility. We will then know the extent of the compensation bill, and that will be the right time to have a conversation about contributions, for which Fujitsu has already accept a moral responsibility; we welcome that. Although the Post Office has had a chequered past in this regard, I believe that it has a very bright future, and we are keen to ensure that it does. We should always keep that in mind.
I understand what the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said about the territorial extent of the Bill. As I said, I met the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and the Minster of Justice for Northern Ireland yesterday, and I will continue to do so. We are determined to ensure that measures are brought forward as quickly as possible in all areas of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member makes a compelling case about the need for public consultations in his jurisdiction. We are aware of that. There are 26 cases in Northern Ireland, and we are keen to ensure that they are overturned as quickly as possible. We will continue work to ensure that that happens.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland talked clearly about ensuring that prosecutors are accountable for their role. Decisions were taken in Scotland. He was right to say clearly that a legislative consent motion does not offer the same level of parliamentary accountability, and I think we should all reflect on that. His final words were “accountability makes a difference.”
The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) talked about his preference for the measures to be UK-wide. We understand that; we have had several conversations and will have many more, I am sure. I understand his point about the risks of judicial review and of delays to public consultation. He feels that he makes an overwhelming argument. We will keep those conversations going.
I concur with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, and echo her tribute to Alan Bates, Jo Hamilton, Lee Castleton, journalist Nick Wallis, campaigner Dan Neidle, another journalist Tom Witherow, Lord Arbuthnot, Karl Flinders and many others, including many Members of this House. We pay tribute to them for their work. We recognise the profound impacts that the Horizon scandal has had on those who were falsely accused. It has taken too long to get to this point, and our ambition is to get this legislation through both Houses by July and compensation paid to the victims by August. Through this Bill, we will exonerate those who were so unjustly convicted of crimes that they did not commit and provide fair redress as swiftly as possible. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill (Programme)
Wednesday 20th March 2024
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024 View all Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text
Petitions
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
This petition calls on the Government to protect the rural character of Rutland and the Stamford villages, and thousands of acres of the best and most versatile agricultural land, by saying no to Canadian Solar and its use of Uyghur blood labour and no to the Mallard Pass solar plant. I thank the 3,414 people who physically signed the petition —that is a colossal number for an extremely rural area—and give a huge thank you to the Mallard Pass Action Group for its leadership and dedication, in particular Sue Holloway, Helen Woolley and Adele Stainsby, who are in the Gallery today, as well as Tony Orvis, Philip Britton and Trevor Burfield. The petition is also delivered in tribute to Keith Busfield.
The 3,414 petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and reject the proposed development of the 2,175-acre Mallard Pass solar plant on the Rutland and Lincolnshire borders.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the proposed Mallard Pass solar plant should be rejected; further that the inappropriate scale of this development would lead to irreversible damage to the community due to the loss of quality, productive agricultural land, the loss of the natural character of the countryside, lasting damage on biodiversity and the environment, damage to historical assets and identity, and the risk of a solar plant produced by forced labour in the developers’ supply chain.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002919]
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I rise to present a petition signed 5,825 times on behalf of six-year-old Sharlotte-Sky Naglis, who tragically lost her life thanks to John Owen, who was driving over the speed limit while under the influence of both drugs and alcohol. Following this tragedy, Mr Owen fell into a temporary coma, and under the current law his blood could not be tested without his consent, despite it being able to be taken without it. Therefore, this petition—thanks to Sharlotte’s inspiring mother Claire—seeks a change to the Road Traffic Act 1988, and the petitioners request
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to reform Section 7A(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and remove the requirement for consent for the testing of a suspect’s blood in the event of death by collision with a motor vehicle.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North,
Declares that following the tragic death of a six-year-old Sharlotte-Sky Naglis in June 2021, delays were caused to the sentencing of her killer due to the legal requirement of consent for a blood sample to be tested; notes that this was extremely difficult for the family of the victim.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reform Section 7A(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and remove the requirement for consent for the testing of a suspect's blood in the event of death by collision with a motor vehicle.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002922]
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I rise with a petition from the sophisticated electorate of the Glasgow South West constituency. I pay special thanks to Cathy Young and Nicola Stewart from the Scottish Infected Blood Forum—particularly for the tie I am wearing today, which is a birthday present for me. They are making a reasonable point, as are many constituents in Glasgow South West, about the recommendations for compensation for those affected by infected blood lodged by Sir Brian Langstaff in April 2023. Those recommendations have still not received action from the Government, and the petition declares
“that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow South West,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002932]
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Yesterday at Treasury questions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), said:
“I gently say to the right hon. Lady that I stand by every word I said when I gave evidence, twice, to the infected blood inquiry. The Government have an absolute moral responsibility, not just to pay the compensation owed, but to pay it as speedily as possible.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 804.]
My constituents have one clear response: if the Chancellor accepts the case, why has it not been done?
This petition from the constituents of Denton and Reddish therefore calls on the House of Commons to urge the Government to implement the recommendations in the second interim report of the infected blood inquiry without delay.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Denton and Reddish.
Declares that people who received infected blood and who as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002935]
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Too many people have died without justice or compensation for being provided with infected blood. Their families suffer today, and such injustices are deepened given that the interim report has not been implemented and the interim compensation payments have not being paid, when there is an opportunity for that to be done.
I thank Sir Brian Langstaff, who is due to publish his report in May, Sir Robert Francis, who has worked on the compensation payments, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for the tenacious way in which they have sought to secure compensation and learning from one of the greatest tragedies of the last 50 years.
Yet there was nothing in this year’s Budget to say that the compensation would be paid. People and their families have suffered enough. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons should urge the Government to implement the recommendations of the second interim report of the infected blood inquiry without delay.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of York Central,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002938]
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Suffolk Coastal and the wider Suffolk area. It recognises that Barclays bank will close its Leiston branch in May, which means Barclays will have closed all eight of its branches in Suffolk Coastal, including Aldeburgh, Felixstowe, Halesworth, Martlesham Heath, Saxmundham, Southwold and Woodbridge.
Furthermore, we are concerned that rural areas such as Suffolk are more likely to be at risk of bank branch closures. Meanwhile, the Financial Conduct Authority has been given extra powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, and we are very concerned about the assessment of the justification of the closure by Barclays, which the FCA is expected to validate.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Barclays to keep open its last remaining branch, in Leiston in Suffolk Coastal, and to require the Financial Conduct Authority to publish its assessment of the justification given by Barclays for the closure of its Leiston branch.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Suffolk Coastal and the wider Suffolk area,
Declares that Barclays Bank has stated it will close its Leiston branch; further that this means Barclays will have closed all of its branches in Suffolk Coastal including Aldeburgh, Felixstowe, Halesworth, Martlesham Heath, Saxmundham, Southwold and Woodbridge; further that the petitioners believe that rural areas like Suffolk are more likely to be at risk of bank closures; further recognises the powers of the Financial Conduct Authority given under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 regarding access to cash and bank closures; and further that it is concerned at the validity of the assessment of the justification of closure by Barclays.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Barclays to keep open their last remaining branch in Leiston is Suffolk Coastal; and to require the Financial Conduct Authority to publish its assessment of the justification given by Barclays for closure of its Leiston Branch.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002936]
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I present a petition from hundreds of residents of Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth town asking for improved access to GP appointments. Many local residents feel that they have to wait for too long for appointments, are having to phone up at 8 o’clock to try to get an appointment or do not have face-to-face appointments when they need them, and that their health outcomes are worse as a result. They absolutely acknowledge that GP staff are working incredibly hard to meet the needs of patients, and many local surgeries are run very well with good access to appointments. However, others are not, and they are asking for more support from the Government. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitioners, and take immediate action to ensure that access to GP appointments is improved.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that more support is needed for doctors' surgeries so that it is easier for people to get a GP appointment when they need it; further that GP staff are working incredibly hard to meet the needs of patients, but the Government needs to do more to ensure that patient needs are met; further that 4.5 million people are going to Accident and Emergency departments in hospitals a year because they cannot access a GP appointment.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitions and take immediate action to ensure that access to GP appointments is improved.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002937]
Scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I suppose I ought to begin by wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) a very happy birthday, based on what he was saying about the birthday present he has just received.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as you and other occupants of the Chair often remind us, topical questions are supposed to be short and to the point. But I having been unsuccessful in catching Mr Speaker’s eye during topical questions to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office last week, and following my point of order later that day, he kindly granted this Adjournment debate to explore what would otherwise have been a very short topical question: where is the Foreign Secretary and why is he not answering questions in this House? We now have the opportunity to explore that in a little more detail, and I am grateful to Mr Speaker for that.
We might as well acknowledge at the start that, even though we have more time than might have been expected to explore this issue, I suspect that the Government’s response will be relatively short, and that the Minister will simply suggest that the House must wait patiently for them to publish their response to the Procedure Committee’s recent report on this issue within the usual timescale.
However, that does not change the reality that the appointment of David Cameron as Foreign Secretary in the House of Lords has had immediate and practical consequences for Members of this House, and it raises wider questions about the relationship between the two Houses, the accountability of Ministers more generally, and the kind of precedent that his appointment has set. The Government should be prepared to answer those kinds of questions at any time, and they should certainly have thought some of those things through before the appointment was made. If they are going to smash up conventions by appointing a Foreign Secretary from the Lords, they should not have to hide behind conventions about timescales for responding to Select Committee reports before trying to justify that decision and deal with its consequences.
There are therefore two interlinked themes that it is worth exploring. First are some of the practical implications and consequences relating specifically to the current Foreign Secretary being a member of the House of Lords, but there are also the wider principles involved about how Ministers—especially those who sit in the Lords—are scrutinised by the elected House.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I spoke to him beforehand, and I well understand the issue he brings to the House. There is a clear disconnect between the essence of elected democrats and the scrutiny of Secretaries of State who sit in Cabinet, and moreover the electorate. Does he agree that in order to tackle this issue and ensure that all Secretaries of State are liable to answer to Members of the House of Commons, more must be done to overcome this issue in future and ensure that it does not become a regular occurrence?
Patrick Grady
I thank the hon. Gentleman—another important parliamentary convention has now been observed with his intervention in the Adjournment debate. I am grateful for and agree very much with the point he makes, and we will look at all that in a bit more detail. Indeed, most of us will be familiar with the context that he started to describe.
The Prime Minister announced on Monday 13 November that David Cameron would be appointed to the House of Lords and would serve as Foreign Secretary. Mr Speaker wrote to the Procedure Committee on 22 November requesting that it explore options for enhanced scrutiny by the House of Commons of senior Ministers in the House of Lords. The Procedure Committee, of which I and some other Members present are members, published its report and recommendations—including the key recommendation that the Foreign Secretary should appear before this House to answer questions—on 17 January 2024. Two months later, we are still waiting for the Government’s response.
As I said in my point of order last week, there have been two sessions of FCDO questions since that report was published, and no sign of the Foreign Secretary. In fact, there have been three sessions of FCDO questions since his appointment, and if the usual rota continues, we can extrapolate that there ought to be another three sessions before the summer recess. FCDO Ministers have responded to 10 urgent questions, including one today, and made eight oral statements since the new Foreign Secretary was appointed. There have been 22 written statements from FCDO Ministers in the Commons, three of which have been on behalf of FCDO Ministers in the Lords, including one in the name of the Foreign Secretary himself. As each question session passes, and as each urgent question is answered or statement made, the accountability gap grows wider, the frustration of Members of this House increases and the absurdity of the situation becomes clearer.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I welcome this debate. As Lord Cameron has agreed, and as has been re-instigated, he is now taking half an hour of questions in the Lords directly to him, not to other Ministers. In the House of Commons we get no minutes and no questions to the Foreign Secretary. That cannot be right for a democratic Chamber, can it?
Patrick Grady
Absolutely. That is precisely why it is important that we have the opportunity to draw these points to the Government’s attention. Incidentally, I do not know whether he has written it down or said it anywhere, but around the time of his appointment there were indications from Lord Cameron that he would be happy to co-operate with accountability mechanisms, but they do not seem to have been put in place, and I will come back to that.
Accountability is particularly important, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, because we are living through times of significant global turmoil, with perhaps some of the biggest threats to the established rules-based order of peace and security since the second world war. There is no guaranteed or permanent mechanism for Members of this elected House as a whole to directly question and scrutinise the work of the Government’s chief diplomat, their roving ambassador on the world stage, their voice in the corridors of foreign powers: His Majesty’s Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. David Cameron, Baron Cameron of Chipping Norton.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. Our constituents are writing to us at this time about the challenging situation we see in Gaza, and clearly they want answers from the person who is making decisions. Given the lack of accountability in the system when there could be war crimes being committed—not least by our own country in trading arms—it is absolutely right that we should have the opportunity to scrutinise. Does he believe that we need to ensure that we have a Foreign Secretary who is elected democratically from our country and that they should not be sitting in the House of Lords?
Patrick Grady
Yes, precisely. The key point is accountability to this elected House, and I will come on to that in more detail. We have been elected to hold the Government to account, and we are being denied that opportunity because of decisions made by the Prime Minister.
Much of this comes down to what the Prime Minister and the Government wanted to achieve by the appointment of David Cameron in the first place. It might have shaken up the world of breaking news and podcast analysis for a few days. It might have signalled some kind of change in direction of the Government’s priorities. It might have calmed the blue wall, even if at the same time it was slightly worrying the red wall. It also sends a strange message to every Conservative Member of this House—perhaps every Member other than the Prime Minister himself—that none of them are good enough or have the necessary skills or experience at this point in time to be the Foreign Secretary. That applies not least to the immediately previous Foreign Secretary. He may have been redeployed to be Home Secretary, but he has still essentially been judged by the Prime Minister not to be the right person for the job.
The end result, as we have already heard in interventions, is woefully inadequate opportunities for Members of the Commons to scrutinise effectively the work of the Foreign Secretary and, by extension, the Foreign Office as a whole. Many of us have a huge amount of respect and regard for the Minister for International Development, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) —not something people will often hear SNP Members say about Conservative Ministers. However, he now has to effectively deputise for the Foreign Secretary in this House, without any additional ministerial support having been provided in the Commons team, as far as I can tell, so by definition he has more to deal with than before. It must stretch him and his team, no matter how deftly and effectively they try to work. No matter how capable any of the Ministers are, none of them can truly answer on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, for the simple reason that they are not the Foreign Secretary. They will not have been in the meetings he has been in, been on the trips he has been on or attended the summits he has attended, so all their answers, all their responses to questions and all their positions outlined in statements are second-hand at best.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who cannot be here this evening, wrote a powerful letter to the Procedure Committee when it was considering this matter. He highlighted the ongoing situation of his constituent Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been arbitrarily detained by the Government of India for nearly seven years. I have heard from many of my constituents who share those concerns about the treatment of Mr Johal. My hon. Friend’s letter, and his point of order in the House on 10 January, drew attention to what he called the “extraordinary lack of response” from the Foreign Secretary to letters about this case and his frustration about not being able to raise these concerns directly with the Foreign Secretary on the Floor of the House. Such frustrations and concerns were present in other evidence taken by the Procedure Committee and have been heard in other departmental questions, urgent questions, statements, points of order, in Westminster Hall debates and even in interventions right here this evening.
The Procedure Committee considered a range of options and possibilities for enhanced scrutiny of Lords Ministers, particularly the Secretary of State. It looked at previous suggestions of holding question sessions in Westminster Hall or one of the larger Committee Rooms, or convening a special Grand Committee either here in the Chamber or elsewhere, but it came to the conclusion that the simplest and most straightforward way to scrutinise the Foreign Secretary would be for him appear in the Chamber during departmental questions and for any relevant UQs or statements and to answer questions from the Bar of the House.
The Hansard Society suggested in its evidence that there may be some practical and presentational issues with the Foreign Secretary standing, presumably at a lectern, at the Bar of the House while other Ministers continued to answer from the Dispatch Box. I think the word used was “ridiculous”. Perhaps some of us would have some sympathy with that, but it should not be insurmountable. Then there is the question of whether the Lords would need to give permission for one of its Members to appear in the Commons or whether the Commons would need to agree to some kind of resolution to make changes to its Standing Orders. But none of that should be insurmountable. All of these issues, starting with the actual appointment of the Foreign Secretary, are in the gift of the Government.
Ultimately, whether the Foreign Secretary comes to answer questions in this House, like pretty much everything else that happens here, is for the Government to decide. The Government can make it happen or they can choose not to make it happen. By choosing not to do so, they will send a message about exactly what kind of regard they have for this House, for the mandate we have for our constituents and, therefore, for our constituents themselves.
We can recognise that the appointment was not totally without precedent. The Procedure Committee’s report and the very thorough and helpful Library briefing on the subject both list various examples of Ministers and Secretaries of State who have served in the Lords in recent and not-so-recent times, but that does not mean that those situations were not also sub-optimal in how the Ministers were scrutinised and held to account. There have been some attempts to distinguish between Secretaries of State for various Government Departments and those that have been considered great offices of state. However, the concept of a “great office of state” is not written down anywhere, and any Prime Minister at any time could choose to change or divide the responsibilities of the Treasury, Home Office or the FCDO, which not so long ago was the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before one of the many former Prime Ministers we have had in recent years merged it with the Department for International Development.
In each case where a Secretary of State has been appointed in the Lords, whether that was Lord Mandelson as Business Secretary or Baroness Morgan as Culture Secretary, the governing party at the time said that it was all fine and there were lines of accountability to the Commons, and the official Opposition at the time were suitably outraged and said it was an appalling state of affairs that would never happen on their watch. That tells us a lot about the interchangeability of the two major parties in UK politics and the imperative of any incumbent Government of whatever colour to maintain the established status quo of constitutional convention and practice.
Perhaps that starts to get us to the broader points of principle at play and the broader question of whether the Government and the Prime Minister, or indeed any past or future UK Governments and Prime Ministers, really care all that much about scrutiny by this House and the role of the Commons more generally. The established principle in this Parliament and the devolved institutions is that the Executive is drawn from, and accountable to and through, the legislature. There are plenty of examples around the world where members of the Executive—the equivalent of Ministers and Secretaries of State—are not drawn from the legislature. In many of those cases, however—we think particularly of the United States—there is an incredibly thorough vetting and approval process. Appointment hearings in the United States Senate can take days or weeks, even for relatively junior appointments.
Closer to home, in Scotland’s Parliament—indeed, we saw it happen today in Wales with the appointment of the new First Minister—the appointment of Scottish Government Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers must be agreed to by Parliament before they are approved by the King. Incidentally, that includes the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland, who are not Members of the Scottish Parliament but appear in its Chamber, which is designed to accommodate them, so they can sit or stand and answer questions and be held to account by the elected Members.
A process for approval of Ministers by a vote of the legislature could quite easily be adopted in this Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) tried to introduce something precisely to that end through a ten-minute rule Bill in a previous Session. In some respects it ought to be a formality, because if the Government can command a majority that accepts the Prime Minister’s decisions about ministerial appointments, it should be able get those appointments through. At the very least it would allow some public deliberation and questioning about the wisdom of individual appointments and the relevant experience, suitability, and perhaps outside interests, of Ministers-designate. I am sure that people might have had questions about the Foreign Secretary’s outside interests upon his appointment. Such accountability is not something that a Government confident in their decision making and command of a majority in the House should be afraid of.
There have also been questions about reciprocity: if Ministers who are Lords are to appear before the Commons to take questions, should Ministers who are MPs appear before the Lords? On the face of it that might not seem an entirely unreasonable question, but it comes back to the point about accountability, which is relevant to the intervention from the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). Members of the House of Lords have been appointed to their positions for the rest of their lives by the Prime Minister of the day, or perhaps because they are a bishop in the Church of England or someone’s ancestor. Members of the House of Commons are accountable to their voters. Our constituents make a choice about who should represent them and we make representations on their behalf, not least by asking questions of Ministers—that comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for York Central.
The question of whether the Minister is elected is slightly beside the point. In this debate, I do not expect a response from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) on behalf of the people in his constituency; I am putting questions on behalf of the people of Glasgow North to the Government, and I expect and look forward to a response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office. As the hon. Lady said, our constituency inboxes are full of huge issues, none bigger at the moment than the situation in Israel and Gaza and the need for an immediate ceasefire. However, there is no way for any of us to put those views directly to the Foreign Secretary. I have no method of putting that point on the record directly to him, and of receiving a response on behalf of the people of Glasgow North.
That leads us not just to questions about the scrutiny of Lords Ministers by the Commons, but to the role and purpose of the second Chamber, the accountability of unelected parliamentarians, the relationship between both Houses and the relationship between the legislature and the Executive. That goes back to the point that I, and many others, have made before: meaningful reform of the Lords is not possible without meaningful reform of the Commons. Meaningful reform of the Commons would mean the Government—in particular, the Prime Minister—giving up significant powers of patronage, appointment and executive control. Neither of the main parties wants to give that up once it has achieved power.
There is a reason why the Labour party has been promising and failing to deliver meaningful reform of the House of Lords for over 100 years. Giving up the power to directly appoint Members to the House of Lords would be a significant diminution of the Prime Minister’s powers of patronage. Fully or even partially electing the Lords would inevitably challenge the assumed supremacy of the Commons. The first priority of any UK Government on acquiring power is to retain that power; that will not change after the next election, no matter the outcome.
The Minister will tell us all to wait patiently for the Government’s official response to the Procedure Committee’s report, and perhaps even tell us that it will be published soon or before the recess. We can take a pretty good guess at what it will say. If the Government wanted the Foreign Secretary to appear before this House at departmental questions or at any other point, they would have already made arrangements for that to happen.
Constituents in Glasgow North, some of whom were represented by the hon. Member for Rochdale (George Galloway) once upon a time, will look on with confusion, disappointment and increasing disenchantment. The Scottish Parliament is not perfect, but its procedures for scrutiny of Ministers and accessibility to the wider public are light years beyond what is in place in Westminster. Just as there is reason why the Labour party has repeatedly failed to reform the Lords, there is reason why the SNP refuses to take seats in the unelected House.
When Scotland becomes independent, perhaps there will be some kind of second Chamber of Parliament, or a stronger system of participative and deliberative democracy through citizens’ assemblies to explore proposals before the legislature takes them forward. Whatever the shape and form, it will be decided by the people of Scotland, who are and always will be sovereign in Scotland, irrespective of the conventions and traditions of Westminster. A Foreign Secretary in an independent Scotland—certainly one with an SNP Government—would work to uphold peace and human rights around the world, invest in poverty reduction and tackling climate change, and represent a country proud at last to be free of nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
The longer Westminster diverges from that vision, transparency and accountability, and the more Prime Ministers, of whatever flavour from whatever wing of whatever party, think they can avoid scrutiny by elected parliamentarians and appoint their friends, donors and allies to positions of power without consequences, the more the people in Glasgow North and across Scotland will come to realise the difference that we can make and will make with independence.
George Galloway (Rochdale) (WPB)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), my successor as the Member of Parliament for the most educated place in Britain. It was once said that the Glasgow Hillhead constituency had the highest pro rata subscription rate to the New Statesman of any constituency in the land. He showed it in the erudition, albeit on a rather Ruritanian state of affairs, of his contribution. I am grateful to him for securing this debate and for giving me time that might otherwise have been appropriated by him to make this contribution.
“Some chicken, some neck,” Mr Churchill famously said. To paraphrase Mr Churchill, some Secretary of State, some time. This is not comparable to Peter Mandelson being the Business Secretary in the House of Lords; this is a time of great international peril, where foreign affairs is undoubtedly the biggest single item in our inboxes. It must be true: there are millions on the streets. Well, it is certainly true of my inbox. There are millions on the streets about Britain’s foreign policy. There are demonstrations daily and weekly all over the country. People are seized of our role in international affairs. I have never known a time like it—and there cannot be many Members in the House who have participated in more foreign policy issues, from the 1980s until now—when our people are so occupied, and many are preoccupied, by our role in the world.
What I am about to say is in no sense disrespect for the current occupant of the Foreign Secretaryship. Quite the contrary: he is a big improvement on his predecessor, and he is a cut above his likely successor. I do not demur at all from the idea that Lord Cameron is a skilled international diplomat. Our problem, as a country which is forever lecturing other people on the quality of their democracy, is that we now have an unelected head of state, an unelected Prime Minister and an unelected Foreign Secretary, the second most important piece on the Treasury Bench. That is Ruritanian. It is actually rather absurd if you start to consider it.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North was adumbrating the possible outcomes of a lectern being erected just at that white line there. The microphones would need to be adjusted and faced that way instead of towards you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is ridiculous. If there was a will, there would be a way. The silence from the Government in response to the Procedure Committee’s beseeching of them to find a solution to this situation is eloquent, as such lengthy silences always are.
We have a situation where daily, if not hourly, new and dramatic foreign policy developments are occurring. Just this day, for example, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced that the port being built in Gaza with the rubble of the homes destroyed in the bombing, including the skulls and the bones of the people destroyed with the houses and lying unburied under the rubble, is being built for the deportation of millions of Palestinians from the territory—an act of ethnic cleansing of the foulest kind. We would have expected a statement from the Foreign Secretary in the light of such a dramatic development, but statement came there none, and good has come there none. His able deputy—and I share the hon. Gentleman’s feelings for the Minister of State; he is a fine man, and I have known him for a very long time—cannot possibly cope with all this workload as, effectively, Lord Cameron’s deputy in this place, his vicar on earth; but even if he could, he would still not be the Foreign Secretary. We cannot continue to be a democratic country—
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be brief, because it is very unusual for a Member to come in after an Adjournment debate has started and then to intervene. Let me add that it is important for everyone who does intervene to stay until the end of the debate.
Chris Stephens
Thank you for that strict reminder, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he or I were to secure an urgent question, the same principle would apply and the Foreign Secretary would not be here?
George Galloway
Indeed, could not be here—for reasons which are what? Are they about architecture? Kindly guide me with your eyebrows as you normally do, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I am going on for too long; I am not entirely sure about the timing of all this.
As a matter of architecture, for a democratic Chamber to be bereft of the presence of its principal diplomat and the country’s principal diplomat, at a time of massive international tension, is completely absurd. On this day in 2003, our country went off to fight the most disastrous war that we have fought for well over 100 years. It was a disastrous decision, but at least it was a decision that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary of the day were ready to, and had to, defend each and every single day. The debates—not many of us who are here now were involved in them, except thee and me, Madam Deputy Speaker—were of the fiercest and most urgent kind. But we may now be on the brink of world war three. Little Macron may be about to march his legionnaires into Odesa, creating the gravest international crisis since the second world war, and we will not be able to question our Foreign Secretary about it. We will have to wait for the morning editions to learn what the Government intend to do.
War in Ukraine, war in Gaza, maybe war against Iran, war in the Red sea, war everywhere; Foreign Secretary, nowhere—nowhere, at least, where he can be questioned by the people in this country who are elected to question him. That is the point, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is our duty to hold Ministers to account, but by definition, in this situation we cannot hold the occupant of this office to account. We talk about great offices of state. At such a time of high tension, there can be no doubt that the second most important office of state in Britain today is that of the Foreign Secretary, but he is outwith our reach. We cannot, as we once did, rub shoulders with him in the Division Lobby; we cannot even see him in the Members’ Tea Room. We cannot bump into him in the Corridor. We cannot in any way impress on him that millions upon millions of our fellow citizens and our constituents have this or that concern or point of view on the great issues of the day. This is untenable, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am seeking to inject some note of urgency and passion into this because it is an untenable situation.
I wish that it had been possible to find one Conservative Member who was capable of being Foreign Secretary. It would have been much easier, and this debate would not be happening, but none of them was up to the job. It is therefore immediately incumbent on the Government to bring forward a solution whereby we are able to look in the eyes of the second most important politician in the state and press upon him the political preoccupations that occupy the concerns of millions of us.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (George Galloway). I agree with every word he said, and I am not sure that I have ever been in a position to say that.
I rise to make a few observations about the Procedure Committee’s report, which was not an easy one. I do not think that any of us came into this place with the idea that we would willingly invite Members of the House of Lords to come and sit on these green Benches and address us, and I do not think that any of us want to accidentally encourage this Government or future ones to appoint more Secretaries of State in the House of Lords because they can get away with it. Finding a bit of accountability does not make it all right. However, the simple fact is that the Government appointed somebody from the House of Lords as the second most important member of the Government at probably the most dangerous time in the world in my adult lifetime, resulting in a situation whereby we cannot question him or impress our views on him before he goes around the world, and we cannot hear from him about what he has said at all his meetings.
I actually think that the appointment of Lord Cameron was a very good one. He is an incredibly able politician and, from the look of it, he has been working incredibly hard to represent our national interests around the world. I will not criticise the individual who has been appointed, but surely the Government can see that this is not a tolerable situation for the elected House to be placed in.
The Procedure Committee tried to come up with some sort of solution that gave us a bit of accountability, accepting that we could not find a perfect solution. We started with our predecessor Committee’s views on the appointments of Lord Mandelson and Lord Adonis back in 2009. The Committee recommended having question sessions in Westminster Hall every couple of months, but the problem we had with that is that Westminster Hall is not big enough. If Lord Cameron were to appear in Westminster Hall to answer general questions about foreign affairs, or even on a single topic, we might find that substantially more MPs would want to ask questions than could be safely accommodated, which would equally apply to any Committee Room in this place. Then we would have to work out whether we would have balloted questions in advance, which is not generally done in Westminster Hall. We would have to put in place a whole load of arrangements that we have never had before for the relatively short time left of this Parliament.
I hope that Lord Cameron is Foreign Secretary for a long time, which would mean that such arrangements are needed for a lot longer, but if we rule out Westminster Hall and any Committee Rooms, the only thing we are left with is conducting question sessions in the House of Commons Chamber. We did not have general support for the idea of having a Member of the House of Lords sitting on a green Bench and addressing this House from the Dispatch Box, and there is not a great deal of precedent for that. It leaves only the Bar of the House as the place to conduct such sessions. We even talked about the idea of Lord Cameron beaming in from the screen, like President Zelensky did or like Boris Johnson did when he was answering Prime Minister’s questions when he had covid. Not having the Foreign Secretary here, so that we could look him in the white of his eyes, would have been imperfect too.
If we believe that this House should have some level of scrutiny of the Foreign Secretary, there is no alternative to it taking place in this Chamber, and the Procedure Committee came up with the least bad option of that happening at the Bar of the House. We would have no problem with the Government saying, “Let’s have him on that Bench and at the Dispatch Box,” but it would be equally imperfect to have him here for general Foreign Office questions. We could have recommended that he come here for a dedicated half-hour question time, like he does in the House of Lords. The problem is that that would give the one Secretary of State in the House of Lords greater accountability in the House of Commons, because he would answer questions for a whole half an hour a month, whereas any other head of Department probably answers only a handful of questions in their half an hour of question time. We could then have more scrutiny of the Secretary of State in the Commons than in the Lords, which would not be perfect either.
All the options we have are terrible, but this was not the starting point of the Committee or the House; it was the position we were put in by the Government and we were trying to find the least bad way of fixing it. I hope the Minister does not resort to nit-picking about individual ideas. I hope he engages with the general principle that if the Government choose of their own volition to have one of the great offices of state held by someone who is not a Member of the House of Commons, there should be opportunities for the House of Commons to have regular scrutiny of that individual. We should be able to question them on what they are doing and try to impress on them the views of this House, so that they can present them around the world.
Alternatively, should we just leave it and accept that this is the way it has always been, given that Ministers in the Lords do not appear in this Chamber? I think that the balance we need to strike is that if someone of that seniority is dealing with issues of the level of importance we are seeing at the moment, we have to find a way forward in this situation. I have great regard for the Minister for Development and Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), but with the best will in the world, he is not the Foreign Secretary. We need to be able to question the Foreign Secretary on the big issues.
Hopefully the Minister will give us the good news that the Government have come up with a preferred way for this to work, so that we can get on with this rapidly. That is what a modern democratic Parliament has every right to expect. If we are going to have Ministers in senior positions who are not Members of this House, we must find a way of scrutinising them, as is done in nearly every Parliament around the world that appoints Ministers who are not in that Chamber. They find a way to do it. This is not rocket science, and it is not without precedent. We can find a way of doing it, so let’s get on and do it.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on bringing forward what is a genuinely interesting and surprisingly well-attended Adjournment debate. I think it is the best-attended Adjournment debate I have taken for some time. Were I in mischievous mood, I would gently refer him to the answers that I gave him on 18 November, 29 February and 12 March and resume my place, but alas mischief eludes me and I will give him as full an answer as I can.
Obviously the Government are considering the very good and serious report into this situation from the Procedure Committee. It is not an anomalous situation—it has arisen before—but it is right that we should consider it in a modern light. In the meantime, while we are waiting for the Government’s full consideration, there are a number of ways in which the Foreign Secretary is being held to account by Parliament as a whole. In the House of Lords, he answered questions on 21 November, 5 December, 15 January, 16 January, 13 February, 12 March and 15 March.
I know that the House of Lords is not a place where the Scottish National party goes to play. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have debated this on a number of occasions, I think that is a great shame. I understand that the party’s plans and vision to break up the kingdom failed—with the support of the Scottish people, I am pleased to say. After that juncture, SNP Members would have done well to accept that that was a once-in-a-generation vote and that they were plausibly going to be here for some time if people continued to elect SNP Members to this House. It would therefore have been wise of them to stick a few people in the upper House so that the views of their party and that part of the electorate could be represented in that part of Parliament. They chose not to. Consequently they are now unable to question the Foreign Secretary when he stands to answer questions in the Lords, but that is their prerogative.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that our constituents’ voices will not be heard in the other place, and that it is us who are elected to bring those voices forward. On 17 October, the Foreign Secretary at the time invited all Members of this House over to the Foreign Office to ask questions. Could the Minister explain why the Foreign Secretary has not made himself available, even in an informal way off the record, so that Members of Parliament from the House of Commons can scrutinise him over his decision making?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will have an opportunity to ask that question of the Foreign Secretary’s colleagues when they next come to the House. I cannot answer the particulars because they pertain to the Foreign Office.
In the meantime, there will be opportunities to ask questions of the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). Although it is true that he is not the Foreign Secretary, he is in the Cabinet and is bound by collective agreement. He sits in discussions at the highest level on all matters relating to foreign affairs, and he has answered questions in this House on 14 November, 21 November, 27 November, 7 December, 11 December, 12 December, 19 December, 8 January, 10 January, 24 January, 26 January, 29 January, 30 January, 21 February, 27 February, 28 February, 12 March and 19 March. Members of this House have had opportunities to ask questions of him—a man who sits in Cabinet and who knows the Foreign Secretary’s mind. I am sure he will be very grateful to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow North about his workload, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend is a very capable individual, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (George Galloway) said, and workload is not a problem from which he suffers.
While we await the Government’s response to the report, it is possible for Members to write to the Foreign Secretary. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow North has written to him once and, having done so, I assume that he asked all the questions he would like to ask. If he has not, he is welcome to write a second letter.
There is a broader point that I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) when I was before the Procedure Committee, which is that there is an historical dimension that works with the grain of what the Committee is saying. This issue first arose, as you will probably know from your history lessons, Madam Deputy Speaker, in 1674, when the Commons chose to summon two peers, the Duke of Buckingham and the Earl of Arlington, to answer questions—the Duke of Buckingham because he was considered to be lascivious, wicked and scandalous in his lifestyle, and the Earl of Arlington because he favoured papists. They were admonished by the Commons and sent on their way.
The response of the Lords was to point out that their House, too, had privileges, and that it is not within the power of the Commons to forcibly summon Members of the House of Lords to the Bar of the House. The Lords passed a Standing Order that said that Members of the House of Lords could not be summoned here.
However, it was still clear that Members of the House of Lords could be invited, and there have been a number of instances in which Members of the House of Lords have been invited to this House and have answered questions. In 1779, the Earl of Balcarres and Earl Cornwallis were brought here to answer questions about the Army’s conduct during the American revolution. In 1805, Lord Melville came to this House at his own request, having been impeached—he asked that the House gave him an audience. Lord Teignmouth was questioned twice about Indian affairs in 1806 and 1813. More famously, the Duke of Wellington came to give an account of the peninsula war in 1814. I raise these points because we are all aware that there have been moments in not-so-recent history when commoners have come to the Bar. The last was in 1957, when Mr Junor was summoned over an issue in the press.
My point is that if the Commons wants to, it is capable of inviting a Member of the Lords to come to answer questions here. To a certain extent, history places the solution at the disposal of the hon. Member for Glasgow North: the Commons could invite the Foreign Secretary now to come to the Bar of the House to answer questions. However, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman is looking for something more routine, and for that I am afraid he will have to wait until the Government respond to the report.
In conclusion, it is right that we have this debate; it is important that there is scrutiny of the Government and of the Cabinet, and that is what this Government seek to provide.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Health and Social Care
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Gentleman articulates the case against Labour-run Wales with great power. There is £200 million on top of the £3 billion that we already spend on NHS dentistry in England.
[Official Report, 7 February 2024, Vol. 745, c. 264.]
Victoria Atkins
We have finite resources. As I have said, this is additional money. I have prioritised dentistry across the board, but this is £200 million of additional money—in addition to the £3 billion that we spend in England.
[Official Report, 7 February 2024, Vol. 745, c. 266.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care:
Errors have been identified in the responses I gave to the hon. Members for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and for Arfon (Hywel Williams). The correct responses should have been:
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Gentleman articulates the case against Labour-run Wales with great power. There is £200 million as part of the £3 billion that we will spend on NHS dentistry in England.
Victoria Atkins
We have finite resources. I have prioritised dentistry across the board. This is £200 million as part of the £3 billion, that we will spend in England.
Petitions
Southall Crown Post Office
Ceasefire and the state of Palestine
Ceasefire and the State of Palestine
Ceasefire in Gaza
Ceasefire in Palestine
Face to face banking services
Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill
Wednesday 20th March 2024
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Paternity Leave (Bereavement) Act 2024 View all Paternity Leave (Bereavement) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 March 2024 - (20 Mar 2024)
The Chair
Before we commence today, I have a few preliminary reminders: please switch off electronic devices or put them on silent; no food or drink is allowed, as we all know. If you can get any speeches to Hansard in an electronic format, that would be very helpful. My selection and grouping list for this sitting is available online and in the room. There will be a single debate on all clauses and amendments.
Clause 1
Shared parental leave: entitlement in the event of death of mother
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) are to be made by statutory instrument.”
This amendment would require commencement regulations to be made by statutory instrument.
Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 1, line 16, leave out
“Shared Parental Leave and Pay”
and insert “Paternity Leave”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Clause 3 stand part.
New clause 1—Paternity leave: special provision in cases of bereavement—
“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 80A (entitlement to paternity leave: birth), after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) In relation to cases where a child’s mother dies, this section has effect as if—
(a) subsection (1)(a) were omitted;
(b) after subsection (1) there were inserted—
“(1A) But in a case where both the child and the mother die, the regulations may provide that an employee who satisfies those conditions is entitled to leave under this section despite the fact that the leave cannot be taken for that purpose.”;
(c) subsection (4A) were omitted.’
(3) In section 80B (entitlement to paternity leave: adoption), after subsection (6B) insert—
‘(6C) In relation to cases where a person with whom a child is placed or expected to be placed for adoption dies, this section has effect as if—
(a) subsection (1)(a) were omitted;
(b) after subsection (1) there were inserted—
“(1A) But in a case where that person dies and the child—
(a) dies, or
(b) is, having been placed for adoption, returned, the regulations may provide that an employee who satisfies those conditions is entitled to leave under this section despite the fact that the leave cannot be taken for that purpose.”;
(c) subsection (4A) were omitted.’
(4) In section 80D (special cases)—
(a) after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) Regulations under section 80A or 80B may—
(a) make provision specifying circumstances in which a bereaved employee may work for the employer during a period of leave under that section without bringing the particular period of leave, or the employee’s entitlement to leave under that section, to an end;
(b) make provision about redundancy of a bereaved employee after a period of leave under that section.’;
(b) in subsection (2), after ‘subsection (1)’ insert ‘or (1A)(b)’;
(c) after subsection (2) insert—
‘(3) In subsection (1A), “bereaved employee” means an employee who—
(a) takes leave under section 80A in a case where the child’s mother dies, or
(b) takes leave under section 80B in a case where a person with whom the child is placed or expected to be placed for adoption dies.’”
This new clause would make special provision for paternity leave in cases where a mother (in the case of birth) or a person with whom a child is placed or expected to be placed for adoption (in the case of adoption) dies.
Amendment 5, in title, line 1, leave out from “about” to end of line 2 and insert
“paternity leave in cases where a mother, or a person with whom a child is placed or expected to be placed for adoption, dies”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley? That is especially true as Members from Northern Ireland spoke on Second Reading to express their hope that if the Bill became law at some point, it could also be adopted in Northern Ireland. I genuinely hope that can be the case.
Upon learning of my success in the ballot, my ambition was to champion a legislative measure that could bring about lasting change and meaningful improvements in the lives of individuals and families to make their lives a little easier. I extend my gratitude to organisations such as Gingerbread, the Fawcett Society and the Childhood Bereavement Network for their invaluable support and guidance through this process.
I also place on record my thanks to and support for the hon. Member for Broxtowe, who was instrumental in leading the work on this vital issue when he introduced his ten-minute rule Bill. The hon. Gentleman has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of his constituent, Aaron, who, I am pleased to say—although I know we are not meant make reference to this—is in the Public Gallery this morning. When Aaron tragically lost his wife Bernadette shortly after the birth of their son, Tim, he did not have access to a statutory leave right because he had moved employer in the months before Tim’s birth. The current rules put Aaron, and other parents in this tragic position, without access to leave to care for their child, safe in the knowledge that they have a job to come back to when they are ready and able to do so.
I also put on record my thanks to Simon Thorpe, who had to endure the heartache of losing his partner not long after the birth of their child. Simon has made it clear that as an employer now, he would not have been able to offer any more than five days’ compassionate leave if a member of his team found themselves in the same circumstances. Surviving partners and spouses should not be left at the mercy of whether they have an understanding employer. I hope the Bill will remedy that.
The Bill will put on the statute book a right to leave on the first day of the bereaved partner’s employment, providing them with the support and protection they need. It will introduce this entitlement and provide support and security to employed parents in the tragic circumstance of losing their partner around the same time as becoming a new parent, if they do not meet the continuity of service requirement to qualify for a statutory parental leave entitlement—in other words, if they have not been in their job for the required length of time to qualify.
The loss of a partner in a life-altering ordeal and navigating that profound grief alongside the demands of caring for a new child must undoubtedly pose an immense challenge. My heartfelt condolences go to those who find themselves in this terrible position. As the father of a three-year-old, I genuinely cannot think of anything worse than losing my wife and the mother of my son while having to raise him alone, as well as managing with the idea of whether I can keep my job.
Thankfully, only a small number of individuals find themselves in this situation, with around 180 maternal deaths within 12 months of childbirth a year. However, the most recent data published by MBRRACE, which monitors maternal deaths, stillbirths and infant deaths, highlights how maternal death during pregnancy is currently at a 20-year high. While the numbers are still mercifully low, it is important that parents in this position need not rely on the good will of their employer to take time away from work to care for their child and, indeed, to grieve.
As Members will have seen, the amendments make extensive changes to the Bill as introduced. Rather than going through which clauses will stand part of the Bill, I will therefore focus on amendments and, in doing so, detail what the Bill as revised will contain, and which parts of it will stand part of the revised Bill.
Let me begin by setting out the detail in new clause 1 which, as the Committee will have seen, makes substantive changes to chapter 3 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which deals with paternity leave. The new clause has several purposes, all of which are integral to the Bill.
First, the new clause establishes that paternity leave will be used as the vehicle to deliver the entitlement. Having discussed that matter with the Government, I have concluded that paternity leave is a more appropriate vehicle to deliver the entitlement, a key reason being that the central feature of a shared parental leave scheme is that the mother or adoptive parent is already entitled to maternity or adoption leave or pay, and curtails that entitlement in order to create an entitlement to shared parental leave. For a bereaved partner to qualify for shared parental leave, then, the deceased parent must have had a recent history of employment. If the deceased parent did not have such a history—for example, in the case of a stay-at-home mum—there would be no shared parental leave entitlement for the surviving parent to access. By contrast, paternity leave entitlements are independent of whatever entitlement the other parent has, so the choice of this mechanism brings more parents, such as surviving partners of deceased stay-at-home mums, into the scope of the entitlement.
Secondly, the entitlement establishes that the surviving partner of a parent who has opted to take adoption leave is in the scope of the entitlement. That allows the surviving parents of adopted children and of children born through surrogacy arrangements to be included, meaning that we can offer the entitlement to a wider range of parents, who will also benefit from it at a very challenging time for them.
Thirdly, the removal of the requirement that the regulations stipulate a continuity-of-service requirement will enable surviving parents to take leave from their first day in a new job, in the tragic situation in which their partner has died and they need to care for their child. That is essential to deliver the intention behind the Bill and ensure that continuity of service is no bar to taking this kind of leave when it is needed.
Fourthly, the new clause removes the requirement that regulations must provide that a parent who has taken shared parental leave cannot then take paternity leave. This gives the Secretary of State the power to provide that a parent who took shared parental leave before the death of their partner can still take paternity leave.
Fifthly, the new clause allows provision to be made for situations in which the child also dies. It gives the regulation the flexibility in such cases to allow the employee to stay on paternity leave for a period, despite the fact that they would not be taking the leave for the required purpose of supporting the mother or caring for the child.
Finally, the new clause introduces two new powers, the first of which provides the ability to introduce, through regulations, enhanced redundancy protection to bereaved employees when they return from extended paternity leave. The second power enables regulations to be made to allow bereaved parents to have keep-in-touch days during their extended paternity leave. For the Committee’s understanding, KIT days enable employees to work for their employer for a limited number of days without their right to paternal leave and pay being affected.
As I have set out, new clause 1 forms the heart of the Bill, as it contains its most important provisions. On that basis, I propose that the Committee accepts it and adds it to the Bill. I also propose that amendment 4, which is consequential on new clause 1, is accepted.
Amendment 1 removes clause 1, as the changes made by new clause 1 will effectively replace its context. I tabled amendment 1 to indicate my intention to vote against clause 1. Amendment 1 has not been selected by the Chair, but we can achieve the same effect by voting against clause 1.
Amendment 5 amends the long title, because it needs changing to more accurately represent the amended scope of the Bill’s content as a result of the changes made by new clause 1. I propose that the Committee accepts the amendment.
I have tabled amendment 2 to indicate my intention to vote against clause 2. I am enjoying looking across at Members who seem confused by what I am saying about voting against and for different amendments. I speak as a long-serving Whip, so if I find it confusing, there is not much hope for other Members, but I do think I am following it, thanks to the Clerk’s advice. Amendment 2 has not been selected by the Chair, but we can achieve the same effect by voting against clause 2.
Currently, clause 2(1) contains a broad Henry VIII power that enables the amendment of any Act of Parliament previously passed. I am sure the Committee will agree that the removal of such a broad Henry VIII power is a good thing. Clause 2 also includes other unnecessary provisions, such as a power to make transitional and saving provisions, and a stipulation that the affirmative procedure will apply to the regulations. To clarify to the Committee, that stipulation is unnecessary because the powers of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that are being amended by the Bill are already subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause 3 sets out the extent of the Bill, which is England, Wales and Scotland. It also gives the Secretary of State the power to commence the Bill in regulations. Those two provisions have not been amended. Amendment 3 adds a standard legal provision to clause 3, setting out that the commencement regulations must be made by statutory instrument. I propose that amendment 3 is accepted, and that clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill. I will wait for Members’ remarks and close as the process allows.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore and will keep my remarks brief as I know we do not have much time.
Darren Henry
As the hon. Member knows, I am delighted that the Bill has got to this stage. For years now, I have pushed to make this vital change in law, following a local surgery in Broxtowe with my constituent, Aaron.
I agree with the amendments put forward, and I am grateful for the work undertaken by the hon. Member to achieve this level of support. It is important that he is taking the Bill through the House to stop individuals finding themselves in this position in future. I am particularly glad to see that cases of adoption are included. However, I am disappointed that pay is not included. I have previously placed on record my thoughts on the matter so I will not do so at length today, but I hope that pay will be added to the legislation in future to benefit all those who find themselves in a situation such as the one Aaron did.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I congratulate both colleagues—the hon. Member for Ogmore and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe—on bringing forward this vital piece of legislation. It is interesting that there is a public perception about what we do in this place, and this Bill is exactly what people do not see. It has come about from a surgery appointment that showed a clear gap in shared parental leave. I congratulate both Members on the important work that they have done on this issue. I hope that those of us who are introducing the Bill never have to go through those tragic circumstances, but if we do, we should be comfortable and confident that we and our constituents will benefit from it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. The Bill will provide bereaved parents with the support and protection that they need during one of the most devastating periods of their lives. Although we estimate that the number of people affected by these circumstances is thankfully low, the emotional strain and physical toll of caring for a new child while grieving the loss of a partner is simply unimaginable. I am pleased that the Government are able to support this important piece of legislation.
On Second Reading, the ambition of the Bill gained cross-party support in the House, and I am pleased to hear a similar sentiment being expressed today. Since Second Reading, we have discussed our plans for the Bill with stakeholders and we look forward to continuing to work with them. I also thank my right hon. Friend—sorry, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe; it is only a matter of time. His tenacious campaigning efforts were a key factor in getting the Bill to this stage.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I echo the Minister’s sentiments on the cross-party support for the Bill. I particularly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe. I remember when he came to see me several months ago to tell me about the case of his constituent in relation to my birth trauma inquiry. I was pleased to support this Bill, and I spoke in his related debate in Westminster Hall on his ten-minute rule Bill. I am delighted that the Bill has been taken forward and that we are finally closing this legal loophole to support constituents like his.
Kevin Hollinrake
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her campaigning work on a slightly separate but related issue. She does a fantastic job and we are making great progress. This place is no stranger to repetition, but it shows that persistence pays, and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has done a fantastic job pressing for change over a number of years, so he deserves the accolades he has received today.
I am glad to be working with the hon. Member for Ogmore, who has been incredibly collaborative and constructive in his discussions. I am sure he will deliver the Bill in good time and I thank him for his hard work and approach.
It was necessary for the Government to move a motion in the House to issue an instruction to allow the Committee to consider amendments to the Bill that would otherwise be out of scope. The instruction was debated and approved in the House on 5 March. Let me briefly summarise the changes to the Bill’s scope that it permits. First, we felt it was necessary to broaden the Bill’s scope to enable us to consider paternity leave as well as shared parental leave as the appropriate vehicle to deliver the entitlement. Secondly, the Bill’s scope was expanded to allow the Committee to consider the inclusion of bereaved fathers and partners who have their child through other routes, such as adoption or a surrogacy arrangement.
On the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ogmore, new clause 1 provides many of the key provisions of the revised Bill. It establishes the legal method—paternity leave—that will be used to deliver the entitlement, and it expands the group of parents who can be included in the entitlement. I am pleased that we have been able to extend the Bill’s scope to include the parents of children through domestic adoption and to give us the power to include in regulations those who are parents through surrogacy and international adoption. No parent with a newly born or adopted child should be in a position in which they do not have access to statutory leave to care for their child in the event of the death of their partner.
Crucially, the new clause requires regulations to be made that set out that a surviving parent can take this kind of leave even if they do not meet the continuity-of-service provisions, and that enable a surviving parent to take paternity leave even if they have previously taken a period of shared parental leave prior. The new clause also enables the regulations to make provision for the tragic situation in which the child also dies. The regulations can allow a surviving parent to remain on leave for a period after the child’s death because the Bill sets aside the requirement that in such circumstances parents must use their leave to care for the child or support the other parent.
New clause 1 also gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that enable a parent to take keeping-in-touch days while they are on paternity leave, and the power to make regulations to give enhanced redundancy protection to parents who take paternity leave in such tragic circumstances, after they return to work. The provisions in the new clause are essential to deliver the intent of the Bill, so I agree with them. As Members will have seen, the provisions of new clause 1 will replace those in clause 1, so it is necessary to leave out clause 1.
Amendment 5 changes the long title to accurately reflect the Bill’s amended contents. I agree that it is necessary to ensure that the long title accurately reflects the Bill’s contents.
Like the hon. Member for Ogmore, we intend to vote against clause 2, which contains provisions that we do not consider to be necessary, including a wide-ranging Henry VIII power, a power to make transitional and savings provisions, and a stipulation that an affirmative procedure will apply to regulations. To clarify for the Committee, such a stipulation is not necessary in relation to the substantive powers because the powers in the 1996 Act that the Bill amends are already subject to the affirmative procedure. As is standard practice, the power to make commencement regulations is not subject to a parliamentary process.
Amendments 3 and 4 are largely technical. Amendment 3 refers to the statutory instrument necessary to commence the Bill, while amendment 4 is consequential on new clause 1. I agree that the amendments are necessary.
Let me address the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe made about pay. Again, he has been a doughty campaigner on this issue. I understand his concern, but we do not believe that it is right. Currently, no statutory pay entitlements, including statutory maternity pay, are available on the first day of a job. This is because employers, apart from small businesses, are required to contribute towards the cost of statutory parental pay, as well as meeting the costs associated with their employee’s absence from work, and new employees have not yet had time to make reasonable contributions towards their employers’ businesses. But I am sure that will not stop my hon. Friend campaigning on the issue in future.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
We come to this place to be a voice for our constituents, and I thank the Government for supporting this Bill—including the amendments that may or may not be voted for or against.
On that point around pay, I gently make the point to the Government that I fully endorse the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe that there should be pay associated with this to support those families. I cannot imagine the agony of losing your partner and being left—hopefully, at least—with your baby and then facing the injustice of finding out that you do not have the leave not only to live through and recover from your trauma, but to care for that baby. This is important. We come to this place to right wrongs, and, today, the two hon. Gentleman, who I call my friends—the hon. Member for Ogmore and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe—have done that. I thank them both for righting those wrongs. This is why we come to this place.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend makes some very strong and worthwhile points, and I thank her for those.
To conclude, I would like to thank the Committee members for their valuable contributions. This Bill is an important extension of support and protection for parents facing one of the most challenging situations of their lives. The Government take pride in endorsing this private Member’s Bill, aligning our efforts with an unwavering commitment to bolstering workers’ support and to cultivating a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy.
I thank all hon. Members, but I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe and the hon. Member for Ogmore for working with me to develop this Bill into a piece of legislation that will work effectively for parents and businesses alike. I look forward to working with them during the future stages of the Bill.
Chris Elmore
I start by thanking the Minister most sincerely. There is a process with private Members’ Bills —perhaps I am issuing state secrets from the Government and Opposition Whips Offices—where handout Bills are worked through to ensure that private Members’ Bills can be delivered. This was not one of those Bills. I say this sincerely: the Minister, and indeed his officials, have been incredibly constructive in working with me to ensure that we do not let the perfect get in the way of the good, as the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands—I call her my right hon. Friend—says a lot in her Procedure Committee work, although I do not think that she invented the phrase. This Bill is that; we have made a significant step in the right direction, and, throughout the course of employment rights legislation, these things often started as leave, and then moved to the next step, and so on and so forth. Indeed, I do not think that shared parental leave was in legislation until the Cameron Administration, and I think that paternity leave was invented by the Blair Administration. These things move and change throughout history, regardless of party politics.
That brings me to my broader point. I pay tribute again to the hon. Member for Broxtowe, because he has been a huge advocate for his constituents, but he has also been very good in lobbying me—a skill in itself—to convince me to take on the Bill. However, as I said on Second Reading, I do not want this Bill to help many people, because the whole point of it is to support people in their darkest hour, and nobody—Conservative, Labour, Scottish National party or Plaid Cymru—would want anybody to face this horror: the joy of being a parent and the unimaginable loss of losing a partner. Being a parent should be nothing but joy—and exhaustion, particularly when they are first born. It should not be about just blind grief. I am trying to understand how that feels, but I cannot imagine it, and I hope that I never have to face it. The numbers are small—and thank God for that—and I hope that they always remain small.
I would like to place on the record, although I mentioned them briefly, the Minister’s officials. I have had an insight into the work of the civil service over the past few weeks, and all I can say is that I am hugely impressed by it. The work that they have done has been wonderful. I also thank my staff, particularly my researcher, Alex Williams, who has spent many an hour working through this Bill, including with civil servants—I thank him for that. It is always nice to get one’s staff in the Hansard records, as it is not always something that we manage to do.
I thank all Members for their contributions. It is right to say that this House works best when it works cross party. These are the things that are not seen. This is genuinely a Government and Opposition Bill, and that is how these Bills should be; they should be about cross-party working as often as we can.
To move to a technical point, I reiterate the importance of this piece of legislation, and I hope that as we move to our decisions, under your stewardship, Mr Paisley, we will get the noes and ayes in the correct place—we will see how this works out. I hope that the Bill can proceed successfully to the next stage, to Report and Third Reading. It is my intention to vote against clause 1; I understand the procedural reasons for that. Good luck, Mr Paisley.
The Chair
Thank you, Mr Elmore. I am sure that colleagues were listening very closely to Mr Elmore as he made the argument about where no means aye—reaffirmed by the Minister. Therefore, when the Question is put, colleagues will hopefully respond in the way that both Mr Elmore and the Minister have argued and reasoned for today.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 1 accordingly disagreed to.
The Chair
We now come to clause 2, where, once again, no means aye.
Clause 2 disagreed to.
The Chair
Back to normality.
Clause 3
Extent, commencement and citation
Amendments made: 3, in clause 3, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) are to be made by statutory instrument.”
This amendment would require commencement regulations to be made by statutory instrument.
Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 1, line 16, leave out
“Shared Parental Leave and Pay”
and insert “Paternity Leave”.—(Chris Elmore.)
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Paternity leave: special provision in cases of bereavement
“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 80A (entitlement to paternity leave: birth), after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) In relation to cases where a child’s mother dies, this section has effect as if—
(a) subsection (1)(a) were omitted;
(b) after subsection (1) there were inserted—
“(1A) But in a case where both the child and the mother die, the regulations may provide that an employee who satisfies those conditions is entitled to leave under this section despite the fact that the leave cannot be taken for that purpose.”;
(c) subsection (4A) were omitted.’
(3) In section 80B (entitlement to paternity leave: adoption), after subsection (6B) insert—
‘(6C) In relation to cases where a person with whom a child is placed or expected to be placed for adoption dies, this section has effect as if—
(a) subsection (1)(a) were omitted;
(b) after subsection (1) there were inserted—
“(1A) But in a case where that person dies and the child—
(a) dies, or
(b) is, having been placed for adoption, returned, the regulations may provide that an employee who satisfies those conditions is entitled to leave under this section despite the fact that the leave cannot be taken for that purpose.”;
(c) subsection (4A) were omitted.’
(4) In section 80D (special cases)—
(a) after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) Regulations under section 80A or 80B may—
(a) make provision specifying circumstances in which a bereaved employee may work for the employer during a period of leave under that section without bringing the particular period of leave, or the employee’s entitlement to leave under that section, to an end;
(b) make provision about redundancy of a bereaved employee after a period of leave under that section.’;
(b) in subsection (2), after ‘subsection (1)’ insert ‘or (1A)(b)’;
(c) after subsection (2) insert—
‘(3) In subsection (1A), “bereaved employee” means an employee who—
(a) takes leave under section 80A in a case where the child’s mother dies, or
(b) takes leave under section 80B in a case where a person with whom the child is placed or expected to be placed for adoption dies.’” —(Chris Elmore.)
This new clause would make special provision for paternity leave in cases where a mother (in the case of birth) or a person with whom a child is placed or expected to be placed for adoption (in the case of adoption) dies.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Title
Amendment made: 5, in title, line 1, leave out from “about” to end of line 2 and insert
“paternity leave in cases where a mother, or a person with whom a child is placed or expected to be placed for adoption, dies”.—(Chris Elmore.)
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
The Chair
During the debate, Mr Elmore said that these are the things that are sometimes unseen. Well, today, these things have been seen and hopefully heard. This is a very important moment, because we are sending a private Member’s Bill to the next stage of becoming legislation. Congratulations to all Members—to those who have moved and to those who have spoken—to the Minister and to the officials as recorded.
Westminster Hall
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Access to Migraine Treatment
(8 months, 1 week 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
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to migraine treatment.
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Let me start by stating the blooming obvious: migraine is not just a headache. It is a complex neurological spectrum condition, of which a headache is just one possible symptom. This is a very strong early message to anyone suggesting that migraine attacks can be cured with a couple of paracetamol: it is time to learn and to be better. Listen to this debate and to the testimonies of those living with this debilitating condition, and help us together overcome the stigma surrounding migraine, which for centuries has acted as a barrier to accessing quality treatment for those suffering.
Before I get into the full swing of things, I want to express my gratitude to the House authorities for organising a survey to which more than 500 migraine patients responded. I am grateful to each and every one of them, and to others who reached out to me separately to share their experiences. Some of those testimonies have been eye-opening and some have been quite harrowing. I will endeavour to include as many as I can in this speech. As ever, my thanks go to the National Migraine Centre and the Migraine Trust not only for their support for this debate but for their round-the-clock work to support people living with migraine.
We cannot have a Westminster Hall debate without a bit of a history lesson at the beginning, so I did a bit of a dig through the history of migraine and found that the earliest known references to it date back thousands of years to ancient Egyptian times. The father of medicine, Hippocrates, was the first to document clinical observations about migraine in about 400 BC. Classifications of headache were first outlined in the first century AD by Aretaeus of Cappadocia, whose category of heterocrania displayed many similar symptoms to migraine. Galen wrote of severe pain affecting almost half the head in the second century, and the Iranian physician al-Rāzī devoted an entire chapter of his book to the symptoms and treatment of migraine in the 9th century. Then in the 17th century, Thomas Willis published his theory that megrim owed to the dilation of blood vessels within the head.
Throughout the years, key figures are reported to have experienced migraine. They include leaders such as Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte, Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, Woodrow Wilson and John F. Kennedy; great thinkers such as Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche and Charles Darwin; artists such as Van Gogh; writers such as Virginia Woolf; and actors such as Elizabeth Taylor, Hugh Jackman and Gwyneth Paltrow. There is even strong speculation that the trippy nature of “Alice in Wonderland” was inspired by Lewis Carroll’s own migraine attacks with aura. In his diaries from 1885, Carroll talks of the
“odd optical affection of seeing moving fortifications followed by a headache.”
His works led to the term “Alice in Wonderland syndrome” being coined to describe
“Certain hallucinations peculiar to migraine”.
In Carroll’s diaries of 1856, he records a trip to see William Bowman, one of the top ophthalmologists of his time, to discuss the visual disturbances in his right eye, which Bowman was unable to formally diagnose. Perhaps that was because it was not until the 1870s that visual manifestations of migraine began to gain more widespread recognition among medical professionals.
Migraine is than twice as likely to affect women, but in that period it was believed that we weak women merely had hysteria and fragility of the mind, unlike the ambitious men who got migraine only because of how hard they were working. Women being taken seriously in healthcare is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Although I greatly welcomed the women’s health strategy, I was a little disappointed not to see migraine more formally mentioned. Perhaps the Minister will discuss that with me separately.
The 1870s were 150 years ago, and we might naively assume that in that time the magnificence of medical innovation has created cures and solutions that mean that people no longer suffer the terrible symptoms of migraine. Back in 1954, the then Minister of Health told those affected by migraine:
“Cheer up; there is a good deal of work going on, mostly under the Medical Research Council”.
That led to a response in 1960 by John Rankin, then the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan, who said.
“For six years, and long before that time, the good work, so we are informed, has been proceeding, yet nothing appears to be happening.”—[Official Report, 4 March 1960; Vol. 618, c. 1671.]
More than 60 years later, despite migraine affecting roughly 10,000 people in every constituency in the UK, a Hansard search informs me that there has been no full debate on migraine in Parliament since the 1960s.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her powerful and extremely well informed speech. One of those 10,000 in the Kettering constituency is Lisa, who has written to me to say,
“I spend most of my weeks, either with a migraine or with the after effects, which include complete exhaustion that can last two or three days. I have medication that does not always work. I get facial paralysis and will often have slurred speech, light sensitivity, nausea, dizziness, along with immense pain and pressure in my head. It is an awful existence.”
I want to pass on to my hon. Friend that Lisa adds,
“I am so glad to know that it is being debated in Parliament today.”
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for passing on Lisa’s remarks. She is one of millions in the country living with this condition and experiencing the debilitating effects. I hope that, following today’s debate, we will see improved access to treatment. I ask my hon. Friend please to pass that on to Lisa.
As I said, there are 10,000 people in every constituency but no debates in Parliament since the 1960s. I make special mention of Lord Londesborough for raising a question on migraine in the other place in October last year, rightly arguing that this invisible disability deserves much greater priority and resourcing across the NHS.
It is 60 years since the last parliamentary debate. Those suffering the crippling effects of migraine alone might feel that, even now after all that time, little progress has been made, but I am here to be optimistic. New treatments, such as CGRP blockers, are proving highly effective for many migraine patients, helping to reduce the severity, longevity and frequency of migraine attacks. For many taking CGRP blockers, they are often called a lifeline. One patient responded to our survey, saying that CGRP injections have “virtually eradicated my migraines”.
Although new effective treatments are being developed, they are not easy to access through the NHS. Across today’s debate, I will outline the key difficulties being faced by patients at each stage of the migraine journey, and will outline possible solutions to improving access to treatments and, ultimately, the lives of migraine patients. That is something that I think we can all agree is very much beyond politics.
Let us start with the basics and discuss what it is like to live with migraine. We had an example from Lisa, the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). When experiencing a migraine attack, common symptoms can include a severe headache; nausea and/or vomiting; visual disturbance, such as blurry vision, spots of light or zig-zag lines; sensitivity to light and sound; an inability to concentrate and brain fog; difficulties forming words, which is not helpful in this place; and fatigue.
Interestingly, I had experienced migraine for years before I recognised some of the symptoms linked to it. I recall sitting at home reading “Managing Your Migraine” by Dr Katy Munro last autumn, with a coloured pen in hand, underlining all the symptoms that I experience when I get a migraine attack; and there were eight different symptoms. A severe attack can leave sufferers bed-bound in agony, with curtains closed, cowering in the darkness, unable to eat, unable to think clearly, and utterly miserable. Attacks can be completely debilitating, and I have experienced my fair share of them.
I am not the only hon. Member who lives with migraine. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) is unable to attend today but asked me to read his testimony in his absence. He said:
“I have suffered from migraine since I was a young man. It used to be extremely debilitating, but in recent years I have been able to minimise significantly the severity and frequency of attacks. There are so many different causes and triggers of migraine. For me, it is stress related. Manage my stress and I can usually manage my migraine.”
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) said:
“I first experienced migraine in my early teenage years, when I regularly had to be excused from school. I remember being particularly distressed at the disorientation and confusion, as well as the extreme headache and nausea, of course. Migraines have become no less debilitating as I have grown into adulthood but they have become less frequent, and I generally know what to expect when symptoms start, and what medication to take. Like my father before me, I now watch my 12-year-old son experiencing his first migraines and the confusion it brings. As much as I can empathise with my son, I am only too aware of how little I can do to relieve his distress.”
The frequency of migraine attacks can vary. Some people will experience a small number of attacks over a lifetime, some one or two a month, but for others migraine can become chronic, meaning that headache is present more than 15 days a month, with at least eight of those having other migraine symptoms. That is the condition that I live with, as do around a million other people in the UK. For me, that means that I have a headache all day, every single day. Although they vary in severity, they are none the less draining, particularly on the many days when they are coupled with other migraine symptoms.
Recently, I spoke to Mollie Campbell, a brilliant young woman who like me lives with chronic migraine. Her journey helps to outline some of the difficulties that patients face in accessing treatment. In her own words, she remembers her first attack vividly:
“on a normal day, I woke up in agonising pain in my eye, eyebrow, and head. When I say ‘pain’, I mean torturous and excruciating pain, the kind that makes you roll around on the floor sobbing in agony.”
Mollie sought help from her GP, but it took months, several misdiagnoses, a number of unsuitable drugs being prescribed and, eventually, her paying to access a scan privately before she was eventually diagnosed with chronic migraine. Unfortunately, Mollie’s story is not uncommon. It can take patients months, if not years, to get a diagnosis.
A commonly expressed sentiment is that GPs do not always take the condition of migraine seriously. One patient who responded to our survey explained that they waited
“five and a half years from first presenting to a doctor taking them seriously and investigating”.
Another said that
“it took 19 years to be diagnosed with migraines”,
and another:
“Doctors just don’t seem to know or understand enough about it and I have been fobbed off a lot.”
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I was contacted by a constituent who wishes to remain anonymous and who suffers from debilitating hormonal migraines. She is frustrated by the lack of general awareness among medical professionals, GPs in particular, about the specific treatment and medication that those who suffer from that type of migraine need. Does the hon. Lady agree that to make progress in addressing the condition, we need to ensure greater knowledge among medical professionals about the specific treatments needed by those who suffer perimenopausal and menopausal migraines?
Dehenna Davison
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will be interested in a paragraph that I will be reading out shortly, which addresses his very point.
Another testimony said:
“I have suffered migraines for approximately four to seven years but never went to the doctors until recently through fear of being dismissed.”
Some believe that is because GPs across the board just do not know enough about migraines. One GP said to the Migraine Trust:
“In medical school, neurology is a small part. Unless you have specifically chosen to do neurology, you will not have any formal training.”
GP training on migraine and headache disorder is patchy at best, and often relies on local champions spearheading that, rather than a more formalised structured. Our clear ask to the Minister, therefore, is to ensure improved training on headache and migraine as part of the medical training for GPs, to ensure that early diagnosis is possible.
For those who get a diagnosis, seeing a neurologist or headache specialist is a crucial step in helping with ongoing management, not least because specialist treatments cannot be accessed through primary care—I will return to that point shortly. On waiting lists to see specialists, experiences vary, but the broader picture is not as positive as it could be. Two patients outlined how, after many years of waiting for a diagnosis, it took a further four years from that point until they saw a neurologist. One said:
“I waited five months to receive an appointment letter then another five months until the actual appointment date”,
and the other said that they:
“waited 15 months to see a neurologist who then referred me to a specialist. I have been waiting for seven months for that, with no appointment yet.”
Even when eventually under the care of a specialist, some outlined that the continuity of care was not there. One patient said:
“I was prescribed a treatment to try, and was discharged, and then I had to be re-referred to try and alternative when the first option didn’t work.”
Recent analysis from the Migraine Trust found that, on average, it takes 29 weeks to access a neurologist or headache specialist, which has doubled from 15 weeks in 2021. Even then, neurologists may specialise in other conditions such as stroke and Parkinson’s rather than headache and migraine. Part of the issue is a lack of neurologists and headache specialists around the country. The UK has around 1.1 full-time equivalent neurologists per 100,000 people, versus four per 100,000 in France and Germany. Regional variations mean a postcode lottery, with major disparities between waiting lists from trust to trust. Here, our key plea to the Minister is to ensure that more specialists are trained to plug the gaps in neurology and headache specialists and, ultimately, to speed up access to treatment.
Once a diagnosis is in place, the obvious next step is treatment. Often, GPs will prescribe acute medications such as triptans to help manage attacks when they occur. For those suffering more frequent migraine attacks, preventive medications can be prescribed, but many of those were not designed specifically for migraine, such as topiramate, an epilepsy drug, amitriptyline, an anti- depressant, or candesartan, for the treatment of high blood pressure. Some people do report an improvement in the severity and frequency of their migraine attacks, many do not, and can in fact experience negative side effects from such medications. Nevertheless, there are now treatments designed specifically for migraine, such as CGRP blockers, as already referenced, and there are many different kinds, such as wafers that dissolve on the tongue, injections or infusions.
However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines are, for many, getting in the way of early treatment. Take, for example, the CGRP blocker erenumab—I always pronounce that wrong. A 2021 study in the Journal of Clinical Medicine by Maraia, Ricci and others found that, as a treatment for the prevention of migraine, erenumab successfully reduced the mean number of monthly migraine days and the acute medication used per month in 96% of cases—a real success story. However, NICE recommendations state that the drug
“is recommended as an option for preventing migraine in adults, only if…they have 4 or more migraine days a month”
and
“at least 3 preventive drug treatments have failed”.
Let us take a second to understand that. If someone is struggling with migraine, they must try three drugs that are not designed for migraine, usually for at least three months each, and if those are unsuccessful, they may be able to access a drug that is specifically designed to prevent migraine attacks. That makes little sense, and it can delay patients’ access to successful treatments for months, if not years. One survey respondent said:
“Getting treatment has been difficult. To access the latest treatments, you have to fail so many preventatives.”
The American Headache Society and migraine expert Professor Peter Goadsby suggest that CGRP blockers should be available as a first-line therapy, not as a last resort. We support that call, so I ask that the Minister requests that the NICE guidelines are updated to allow specialised treatments such as CGRP blockers to be accessible first, which would provide earlier, much-needed relief for migraine patients.
Similarly, despite NICE approval for many CGRP blockers, whether individual NHS trusts even allow access to them is a postcode lottery. One respondent said:
“Once help is found, though, it can be difficult to access as it depends on which area you live in.”
Another said that
“my NHS trust only allows the trial of one of the anti-CGRP drugs and if it doesn’t work you are not allowed to try another as it’s not funded.”
A Migraine Trust freedom of information request, which I found shocking, found that only 29% of trusts in England allow access to CGRP medications. Here we make yet another ask of the Minister: the postcode lottery in access to CGRP medications should be addressed and fixed, perhaps through fresh NICE guidance and a dedicated push from the Department of Health and Social Care for trusts to allow more access to these life-changing medications.
Another key change that could help those living with migraine to access positive treatment sooner would be allowing treatments such as CGRP medications to be prescribed by primary care practitioners. I have spoken of the success of some CGRP blockers, yet they can be prescribed only by specialists, such as neurologists, who can have extensive waiting lists, as we have discussed. Even if someone sees a specialist, they need to demonstrate that other treatments have been ineffective. If specialist drugs could be prescribed in primary care as a first resort, we could reduce dramatically the impact of chronic migraine on patients. Pilot work in Scotland has seen community pharmacy playing a greater role in prescribing drugs to prevent and manage migraine. A further ask for the Minister, if he will forgive me, is a review of CGRP blockers and other new treatment options, so that they can be prescribed in primary care.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. On making the blockers more widely available, does she agree that, as well as the requests that she has put to the Minister, there should be discussion and consultation with the devolved institutions, so that people right across the United Kingdom can avail themselves of the same?
Dehenna Davison
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I said, migraine is a condition that does not discriminate. Roughly one in seven people in the world live with migraine, so it is as relevant in the devolved authorities as it is anywhere else. We want to ensure that migraine patients across the whole of the UK have access to the best possible treatment.
For those who cannot access CGRP blockers or alternative treatments through their local NHS trust, or who simply cannot bear the extensive waiting lists to see specialists, drugs bought privately can be incredibly expensive. For example, rimegepant is around £270 per month when taken as a preventive, Botox injections for migraine are around £700 every 12 weeks and Vyepti infusions are around £600 every 12 weeks, and that does not include the cost of seeing specialists and having the prescriptions written, which of course means an additional fee. For those on low incomes, those options are completely inaccessible without NHS treatment, yet some are unable to access them regardless because of the decisions of their local NHS trusts. One survey respondent said:
“I had to spend £8,000 on CGRP treatment privately before moving to a hospital who would fund me under the NHS.”
Nobody should be priced out of quality healthcare, particularly when that healthcare can be truly life changing.
In all, I have outlined a number of tangible steps that could be taken and which would have a real and positive impact on those living with migraine, but let us return to Mollie’s story because, sadly, her experience is an example of how the current system does not always work for patients. In her words:
“Four and a half years later, there is not one second of any day in which I am not in pain. My pain is an average of 7/10 a day, and it soars up to 10/10 at least ten times a day...When it reaches these levels on a daily basis, every single day, you simply cannot live life normally anymore. I can no longer work, see my friends, or do any of the hobbies I used to enjoy. Every single thing that brings me pleasure is now impossible for me.”
For those living with severe chronic migraine, the huge detrimental impact on day-to-day life should not be understated. I have reached the point where I get anxious making plans, either for work or with family and friends, for fear that a severe attack may mean that I have to cancel at the last minute. With attacks seemingly getting more and more frequent, it feels increasingly like cancellation is an inevitability. This may sound really silly to some, but it is a really human example for me. I am a lifelong Swiftie and I managed to achieve the holy grail of getting Taylor Swift tickets for the Eras tour, but I am petrified that on the day a migraine attack might hit and take away my opportunity to see her live, because I would be devastated. Some might say that that is a silly example, but it is one of the things that are on my mind. If someone is living healthily, they do not have to have those sorts of considerations when making plans.
Many survey respondents reported similar concerns. One said:
“Migraine has impacted every job, social occasion and holiday over the last 15 years...It’s caused me countless days of agony. Migraine is a curse I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.”
Another said:
“I can’t make plans with people due to migraines making me cancel them last minute. I missed an expensive, once in a lifetime concert opportunity that I had been waiting 12 years for as I had a migraine that day. I had to leave a friend’s funeral early and not attend his wake due to a five-day migraine.”
One said:
“I have missed many family gatherings—New Years, Anniversaries etc. I have also missed events that I have purchased tickets to as I have been too unwell, losing out on both money and experiences.”
Another said:
“I gave up working 14 years ago, stopped socialising and even dread going on holiday, and travel was the thing I always most looked forward to.”
I received an email yesterday from June about her daughter. She is 35 and her migraine attacks are so severe that, in June’s words,
“she can no longer look after her children. At this moment in time,”
she
“cannot complete a simple jigsaw with her two-year-old daughter. This is my daughter who gained a first in her degree...She is upset about missing out on so much of her children’s lives, aged 5 and 2.”
I raise these examples to show that migraine has more than just a trivial impact on the individuals who are suffering; it has a real impact on them and on their loved ones and wider circle.
Many also spoke about the impacts of migraine on their working life. Mollie had just embarked on her dream internship when migraine hit, so she was unable to complete that internship and has struggled to work since. She is not alone. Many here will know that I gave up my ministerial role, as migraine meant that I could not keep up with the additional demands of government. Research by the Migraine Trust found that 29% of people with migraine had to move from full-time to part-time work and 25% had left a job altogether. One survey respondent said:
“I have been at risk of losing my job in the past due to having to take time off for migraines.”
Another said:
“I recently lost my job due to the number of migraine related absences I had.”
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. In the light of what she has just said, I will say that many people who suffer from migraine lose their job and have difficulty even accessing the likes of personal independence payment, because migraine is so debilitating whenever it happens but it is also unpredictable. Their life can become awkward when it comes to just doing things normally, but they have difficulty accessing PIP because of it.
Dehenna Davison
I agree with the hon. Member. In severe cases, migraine is absolutely a disability. It ruins lives. There is a separate discussion to have with the Department for Work and Pensions—I do not want to put all the pressure on the Department of Health and Social Care—about how it addresses chronic migraine and intractable migraine when making its assessments. I thank the hon. Member for raising that really important point, which came through from a number of our survey respondents as well.
Some workplaces make adjustments, such as allowing flexible working, but there are also reports of workplaces not making suitable adjustments. One respondent said:
“There is a complete lack of understanding that chronic migraine is a disability and employers are not willing to make allowances for this condition in the way they do with other disabilities.”
Shockingly, the Migraine Trust found that 56% of migraine patients said that their workplace had not made reasonable adjustments. That is why the organisation has launched its workplace pledge this week to encourage employers to make small, often low-cost adjustments that can make a huge difference for staff with migraine. We must remember that with one in seven people living with migraine, there is a good chance that even if someone does not, at least one of their colleagues probably does.
The impact of migraine on the workplace is not just confined to individuals dealing with the stress of potentially losing a job and income; there is a wider impact on the economy too. The Work Foundation has found that migraine causes between 28 million and 43 million lost work days per year in the UK, at a cost of around £4.4 billion. When we add the cost of that absenteeism to the cost of presenteeism—showing up and putting on a brave face but not being able to function normally —the Migraine Trust estimates that the total cost is closer to £9 billion.
We often talk about the need to improve productivity here in the UK, so surely helping those living with migraine access quicker and better treatment so they are able to work and fire on all cylinders would be a great step forward. That is especially so when coupled with the fact that, according to the Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research, the excess fiscal costs to the Government of one person living with migraine come to £19,823. That is the cost for one person, when there are 10 million in the UK battling the illness.
Giving up work for health reasons is not a choice that anyone makes lightly. For many, as well as the financial cost, there can be a significant cost to people’s mental health. Research by the Migraine Trust found that 78% of those living with migraine said it had a negative impact on their mental health and 65% reported experiencing anxiety as a result. People are missing work, cancelling arrangements with friends, missing out on social experiences that they have been looking forward to—and paid for—and feeling like they are a burden on their family. Others may not believe them, and they may wait months if not years to see a specialist; or they have the hope of trying another preventive that might work, only to have that shatter when it is another one that does not do so, and all the while they are living with excruciating pain. They are losing friends, losing relationships and feeling like they are losing their mind.
For some people such as Mollie, the darkness takes over entirely. She said that
“deep inside, I still had that same passion for life that all people in their twenties do. I want nothing more than to go outside and live my life, but this condition has me trapped in my own living room. My pain is now so severe, it has impacted on my mental health so intensely I contemplate suicide every single day of my life and have almost succeeded at times simply because I want the physical pain to end”.
We are here today to help people such as Mollie. We have a responsibility to help them and the millions of others suffering through migraine who need a lifeline. By improving access to treatments we can give them that lifeline. I hope the Minister will agree to meet me and the two brilliant charities represented here today to discuss further how we can do just that together.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I ask hon. Members who wish to be called to bob.
Sir Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) on securing the debate. It is hard to imagine that this issue has not been discussed in Parliament for such a long time. That is especially true, as she so brilliantly articulated, given its impact on so many people in every one of our constituencies. One in seven people suffer from migraine, and over 1 million suffer from chronic migraine, so the impact on people’s lives and on families is widespread.
I am fortunate that I am not one of those one in seven people, but I have the experience of living with someone who suffers from chronic migraine. When we do not suffer from migraine, we do not understand how debilitating it can be. We cannot comprehend how it can take over someone’s life and stop them doing the things they most want to do—that they get pleasure from, that they live for. When that migraine seizes them, they just cannot do anything. They have to lie in a darkened room and cannot function in the way we expect and hope people can function.
Some of the statistics are concerning and saddening. My hon. Friend touched on the fact that 29% of respondents surveyed by the Migraine Trust had had to move from full-time to part-time work. That impacts not just what they do, but their whole family, what they can expect from life and their ambitions for the future. It can change the course of their lives. It is also concerning that 43% of those surveyed felt that their workplace did not believe them when they came in and said they had had a migraine. My hon. Friend touched on the sense of a migraine being just a bad headache. That is not what people have to live with and what they experience; this is something that seizes them totally and utterly.
We need to be more open about the wider impact that this is having on so many people. The fact that 34% feel discriminated against at work is just so wrong. I hope that by talking about this issue and highlighting its impact on so many people, we can improve understanding, not just among the Minister and those in his Department, but in workplaces right across the country, so that they can adapt and work with people who suffer. In that way, they can ensure that those people can give their best all the time while dealing with something we would not wish anyone to have to deal with.
The loss of days worked has a wider impact on businesses and individuals, so we have to start thinking differently, not just in our hospitals but, as has been touched on, in general practice and pharmacy as well. If people were suffering from a more visible disease or condition, the Government would be not just spending £150 million a year but looking at investing so much more in treatment and research so that they could deal with it. Sadly, migraine is one of those conditions where there is not one single answer that can be rolled out to deal with what every single person is suffering.
More and more people in this country are turning to A&E to be treated for migraine, but it is not the best place for them to be treated; it is not good for the hospitals or the individual. All of us in the room will know how important it is to get the right primary care and the right level of support for people, so that they can prevent migraine as much as possible, because when it has set in, it is so much more difficult to treat.
We also see understaffing. We have 1.1 neurologists per 100,000 people in the United Kingdom, compared with four per 100,000 in France and Germany. In addition, so few GPs have the true specialist knowledge they need to be able to sit down with their patients, talk through this issue and have a proper understanding of the type and range of treatments best suited to that individual. The Minister will talk about how all GPs cover neurological conditions, including migraine, in their basic training. However, with the prevalence of migraine in society, we need general practitioners to have not just a bit of general knowledge on it, but more specialist knowledge, certainly in the larger practices. We can then get those individuals who are unfortunate enough to suffer from migraine the specialist advice, treatment and knowledge they need. As we are so short of neurologists across the NHS, we must ensure that the burden is lifted away from our hospitals.
I would put in a particular plea in relation to pharmacies. It is not always that easy to see a doctor when a migraine is starting to emerge—when the indicators that it is about to hit start to show themselves. That is why it is important to ensure that support and help are widely available. I urge the Minister to go back to his Department and use his characteristic imaginative, thoughtful and revolutionary style to encourage it to be a little more bold and radical in its thinking—to be a little more “action this day”, as opposed to having another report. There are many things that can make a difference to people’s lives very quickly. One is ensuring that we make better use of our pharmacies, thereby lifting the pressure off the wider NHS. Another is ensuring that there is better training for GPs so that larger practices have that specialist knowledge.
I will finish with a final plea. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland mentioned CGRP blockers. We are all aware that there is not a silver bullet to this problem, but they are one of those things that give so many sufferers a little hope that there is something that can actually help. It is awful that people in many parts of the country cannot access them; they are not in a position to get the help they desperately need. I urge the Minister to go back to his Department and to look at CGRP blockers closely, along with the other actions that have been suggested. He could do something transformative for the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and lift the misery they have to live with far too often.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) on having secured this important debate. I am going to be a little bit cheeky: it is always a privilege and a delight to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson, but I have absolutely no memory of him advocating radical and bold behaviour from the Dispatch Box when he was Chief Whip—in fact, quite the opposite.
Migraine treatment is a serious subject. In November last year, I was privileged to host an event for the Migraine Trust. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland did an incredible job of setting out the history of migraine and explaining in detail the challenges that sufferers face. When I agreed to host an event for the Migraine Trust, I thought I understood migraine and recognised the symptoms and impacts and how sufferers endure the most horrible events in their lives. That was right up until I spoke to some of the sufferers who were there that evening.
We have focused on the one in seven people—the 10,000—in each of our constituencies who suffer from migraines, but I was particularly struck by the chronic migraine sufferers who were there that evening. They are triggered endlessly by such a radical thing as light, and they were having to stand in that room with dark glasses on and with ear plugs in to avoid noise. They were telling me about the food and drink they avoided rigorously, because they could identify each individual trigger that would perhaps set off a period when they would have a migraine literally every single day for days on end. It was eye-opening for me, because I thought I understood migraine after the first attack I had when I was about 10 years old.
We should not focus exclusively on our own experiences, but I remember my first attack to this day. I blame my father—I blame him for many things—because he took me to McDonald’s when I was 10 years old. The blue light in those McDonald’s in the early 1980s—I can remember where this McDonald’s was; it was in Southend—triggered a migraine in me that day, and I did not understand what was happening to me. That is the challenge for children: they do not understand and they cannot process that this is something that, if they lie down quietly and take their medications, they may get through. It impacts their education and their entire childhood because they become anxious, as my hon. Friend detailed. They become anxious and worry endlessly about when the next one will come. Of course, as we know, stress can trigger migraines, so the sheer act of worrying about the next migraine can in fact trigger one.
My evening with the Migraine Trust talking to those chronic migraine sufferers was incredibly eye-opening and made me absolutely determined to redouble my efforts to tackle the lack of knowledge and the stigma that surrounds migraine. I was quite surprised to hear from only one constituent ahead of the debate, but I want to focus on her story, because many of the issues have been highlighted today. She has suffered from migraines for 30 years—30 years in which it has impacted every single job she has had. Not a single employer has understood that this is not just a headache, but something utterly debilitating, and that she will not be able to attend work or function normally. As a result, she has had extreme difficulties with her employers. Her ask of me is that I advocate to the Minister—and I do so now—that we should perhaps look at considering migraine as a disability, because, to be frank, it absolutely is.
My constituent also talked at length about exactly the point my hon. Friend highlighted about medications. As we have heard, there is no one silver bullet; some medications will work for some people, and some will work for others. It is almost a process of trial and error, with someone going three months with a medication that they know is not working—going through the different steps and jumping through the hoops—so that they can demonstrate that it has not worked and then move on to the next stage of medication.
I want to talk briefly about the stigma and how some of us are too embarrassed and ashamed to talk about this issue. I remember taking beta blockers for migraines when I was a Minister, so let me talk about the side effects of beta blockers and how impactful they are. When I stood at the Dispatch Box, beta blockers made me feel stupid, slow and dull. The one thing that everyone expects a Minister to do at the Dispatch Box is to answer a question immediately, wittily and with facts tripping off the tongue instantly. When I was taking beta blockers, I found that I simply could not do that. I would stand there and feel dull, detached and as if I was not really in the room.
I stopped taking beta blockers and resorted to a type of medication that is hugely stigmatised. Botox is approved by NICE for migraine and is, for me, incredibly effective, but it is incredibly expensive because I cannot get it on the NHS. I was frantically tapping on my phone—I was not sending messages; I was using the calculator—to work out how much I might have spent on Botox over the past 15 or so years. It appears to add up to a phenomenal £20,000—just to ensure that I can stand in this place, talk relatively coherently and, at times, make sense.
I remember vividly being sat in the Tea Room and not being able to think of the right word. I thought, “Well, that’s fine. We all get a little bit of brain fog when you get to my age,” but it was not that, and it got worse and worse. The longer I sat there, it was not just that I could not think of the right word; I could not think of any word, and then I found that I had been sat in the Tea Room silent for about half an hour because I could not actually speak. As I mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire, who is sitting next to me, is a former Chief Whip, and he would no doubt have been absolutely delighted if I had gone through entire spells of not being able to speak. I am sure the current Chief Whip would also be very happy if I lost the power of speech. But it is absolutely terrifying, and has a profound impact.
I resort to expensive treatments that are socially stigmatised. Everybody assumes that it is vanity—I prefer to use the phrase, “Two birds, one stone.” The impact those have means that I can live my life, but it is not a choice available to very many people. That is the stark reality. As Monica would tell us, she wants the new CGRP medications to be more easily available. She wants them to be available in every NHS trust so that there is no postcode lottery. Most of all, she wants the stigma to be beaten down so that she never again has to explain to an employer what a migraine is, and that it is not just a headache.
It was fascinating to hear the tales of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who cannot be here, about not only their migraine experiences, but watching a child suffer from them. As I said, I blame my father for my migraines, and my daughter blames me for hers. There is clearly quite a significant genetic link to suffering. We need to have much more research and investigation into not only the condition more widely, but some of the specifics we have heard in this debate.
We need to reflect that stress can be a phenomenal trigger of migraine, and we therefore need to be much more holistic in the way we approach it and think about how we manage our lives. If my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) was here, she would undoubtedly be making a pitch for a new Government Department for wellbeing, and that approach could sit very firmly in that. If we address the mental health challenges around stress, we can also address the challenges of migraine. I do not pretend that we can address all of them—there is clearly a crucial and important role for medication, which needs to be much more widely available.
I finish with the thought that this is a complex, difficult subject. There is no silver bullet, but what we require in this place is a real drive from the Department to make sure it is thinking about including migraine in all of its health strategies. I stand here as the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, and I was really struck by the fact that women are more than twice as likely as men to suffer from migraine. If we look around this Chamber today, it appears, as ever, that it is a male problem. We cannot allow things like the women’s health strategy, which is crucial, and which I welcome, to be about stereotypical women’s conditions. We also have to have a thread that weaves through the fact that in almost every health condition, women are under-represented in research and in how it is treated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland mentioned, too often we are deemed hysterical as opposed to actually ill. My final comment to the DHSC is: please, can we make sure that the impetus on the women’s health strategy is maintained and kept up, and that we do not allow it to become about just reproductive health? It has to include the whole of women’s health to make sure that we are being treated fairly.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I commend the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) on not just bringing this debate, but all the work she has done on raising awareness and campaigning for those who suffer with migraine. Like many, I spent a long time not realising that I was getting migraines. I am very lucky—I do not get migraine very often, and I know I am very fortunate in that, but when I do, I am absolutely floored. I tend to get clusters due to stress, as others have mentioned. I am very fortunate that it does not happen very often, but it took me many years to realise that that was what was happening. I was very lucky that I had a GP who was able to understand what I was saying to them. I now know what my triggers are and what I need to do when it happens. That does not make it any easier to deal with, but at least I know what needs to happen.
It is common for many of us to know what migraine is, but the fact that we have not had a debate about it in this place for so long—even when so many in this Chamber alone are talking about our own personal experiences—says that, even here, it is not something that we want to talk about very often. I give huge thanks to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland for ensuring that we are, and we definitely need to do so more often.
We have heard from others how prevalent the condition is, but we still fall so far short in addressing its stigmatising nature. We have heard others say, “It’s just a headache”, and that it is easy to look past. I suppose I was very lucky that, in one of my earliest jobs, my boss suffered from migraines, so there was a level of understanding there. But that was just fortunate circumstance, and we need to have much clearer opportunities for anyone suffering from this condition.
There has definitely been improvement, albeit the waiting times for treatment in Scotland, England and Wales are lengthening, according to the figures put out by the Migraine Trust. We all need to be doing better in that sense, but the Scottish Government are certainly supporting a very high standard in migraine care, with 86% of health boards giving access to the CGRP blockers. That is welcome, but we cannot rest until that is 100% everywhere, and we certainly cannot be complacent.
We know that migraine attacks can signify impact on all aspects of a person’s life, as we have heard, and there is so much more that we could do. We have heard about CGRP blockers, which are one medication, but there are others. I have personally done some work looking into the potential for alternatives like psilocybin, about which we have had some debates previously in this place. I think it was last June, or thereabouts, that I met Professor Jo Neill at the University of Manchester, who highlighted some of the challenges that it faces simply in trying to research the potential for psilocybin. It is still classed as a schedule 1 drug, like crack cocaine or heroin, so the blocks to simply researching what is possible are a massive hurdle to moving forward what could be a significant and useful treatment for many people. As we have heard, not all treatments work for all people, and everybody will have the thing that works best for them. A vast body of research exists, but again, so much more could be done. I ask the Government to consider again what more they could do about those blocks in particular to make research slightly more straightforward, so that we can all have a much better understanding of what is possible.
There are glimmers of hope, and the Centre for Sustainable Delivery has published the “National Headache Pathway”, which will help to drive standards further in migraine care across the NHS, certainly in Scotland. The SNP continues to push the UK Government on the right for flexible working. There is a right to request flexible working in legislation; we think that it should be a right, not simply a request. A Migraine Trust report called “Heading in the wrong direction” said that there should be greater awareness of the pathways that exist for managing migraines, and revealed that half of Scottish health boards said that
“they had undertaken work to review their headache and migraine pathways.”
Again, that is encouraging, but a half is only a half—it is still not enough. As I have mentioned, Scotland was found to have the best access to medication, but more still needs to be done. The Migraine Trust report said:
“There are less than 80 GPs with Special Interest…for headache and migraine across the UK”.
That is simply not enough. People are very lucky if they find one with that understanding, but given that we are talking about universal healthcare, 80 GPs across the isles of the UK is nowhere near enough.
Robert Music, the chief executive of the Migraine Trust, said:
“Not only are patients struggling, but poor management of migraine is putting unnecessary additional strain on an already struggling NHS. We are seeing rising A&E admissions for migraine across the UK. There is a shortage of GPs, consultants and nurses specialising in headache to meet the need that we know exists, and a broad lack of understanding of the condition, meaning patients are not being treated in the right place or at the right time, if at all.”
That is simply not good enough for any of us, and we need to be pushing. I hope debates such as this help to raise that awareness, show that this is a very serious condition and that we need to be doing so much more. Dr Brendan Davies, the chairman of the British Association for the Study of Headache and consultant neurologist at Royal Stoke University Hospital, said,
“Migraine is the most common of all the neurological disorders yet is vastly under-recognised. The time has come for a nationally agreed educational framework and quality standard for primary care, as we have with other important long-term conditions.”
As I and my party persistently advocate for enhancing devolved powers, it will be no surprise to anyone present that we would like to see further devolution of employment powers, so that we can address the issues previously mentioned on employment and flexible working options. While not addressing treatment, that would at least help individuals to best manage their condition in a way that works for them. If we could all look to identify the best treatments, it would be beneficial not just to the individuals but to the economy.
Each passing day that the Government neglect to use their reserved powers to address workplace changes underscores the need for us to be able to make these decisions in Scotland. I hope I will hear something positive from the Minister. Everyone in here is coming from the same place; we recognise that while a great deal has been done, significantly more can be done. It is on all of us to embrace and take forward this challenge. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on what steps we could take both immediately and in the longer term, and I once again commend the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland on bringing today’s debate.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) for opening the debate and sharing her personal experience of how the condition has affected her, which was very powerful for others to hear. We have heard some fantastic contributions today. We know that one in seven people in the UK are living with migraine, and that women are disproportionately affected. I agree with the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), that this needs to be addressed. Women are under-represented in research and development more generally and we need to understand why—beyond reproductive issues—in the women’s health strategy.
Migraine attacks can be hugely debilitating. They can last between four and 72 hours or even longer, often causing pain, vomiting and dizziness. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North about the impact on children, and very movingly from the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson) about the all-consuming impact on family life. They affect every part of life, including social life, education and employment, yet they are often misunderstood and under-diagnosed.
Migraines affect people’s ability to access full employment, with 29% of those who suffer reporting that they have had to move from full time to part-time work, and a further 25% having left a job altogether. People listening to this debate who might think they are in control of their careers—maybe even at the Dispatch Box—will find it very powerful to understand that they are not alone. This adds to the number of people who are economically inactive because of long-term sickness, which has risen to more than 2.5 million—an increase of more than 400,000 since the start of the pandemic. That has a huge impact on our economy and on individuals’ health, wellbeing and ability to support themselves and their families.
I am deeply concerned that the measures laid out by the Government to tackle the leading health-related causes of economic inactivity are not ambitious enough. I join the former Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire, in exhorting the Government to take greater action and governance. The Access to Work scheme faces huge backlog, so we want to hear from the Minister today what the Government can do to support those suffering from debilitating migraines and help them access work.
Furthermore, support from employers is vital to everyone living with chronic migraines. We have heard a debate about whether this should be considered a disability, but even those who are identified as disabled and are working for Disability Confident employers do not report much better experiences than those working for employers that are not members of that scheme. We need more action from the Government to ensure that disabled people and those with long-term conditions such as chronic migraine can access the support they need at work.
As with too many medical conditions, waiting lists are long. Once someone is diagnosed, it can take up to 29 weeks for them to access a neurologist or headache specialist. Fourteen years of Government mismanagement have left our NHS unable to deliver a full and comprehensive range of health services, which is impacting on care and treatment for migraines.
That is why Labour will build an NHS fit for the future, providing it with the staff, technology, resources and reform that it needs to improve patient care, cutting waiting lists and ensuring timely diagnosis and treatment for the millions of people affected by migraine by getting the NHS working around the clock. That will give staff the opportunity to earn more for working weekends and evening shifts. Getting local hospitals working together will mean that the NHS can deliver the extra 2 million operations, scans and operations a year that are needed. What measures will the Minister take to tackle those waiting lists, particularly the services around neurology?
We have heard today how new treatments can give hope to those suffering from migraines. CGRP antibody medicines have been approved by NICE to prevent migraine in adults. However, as we have heard, only 52% of sufferers are offered them; people have to take a long route before becoming eligible. NICE last updated its guidance in this area in 2021. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister is having further discussions with NICE about ensuring wider access to migraine treatments.
Migraine is a condition that can be isolating and debilitating. We know that pressures on mental health services are acute, but with 78% of respondents to the Migraine Trust’s survey saying that migraine impacts their mental health and 65% reporting that they have experienced anxiety as a result of migraine, it is vital that we consider the mental health impacts of living with migraine.
I am keen to see Labour’s proposals for a whole-Government strategy to improve mental health outcomes and make early interventions becoming a reality for people. That is why the next Labour Government would implement an ambitious plan to cut waiting lists by recruiting over 8,500 additional mental health staff, providing access to mental health support in every school and delivering an open-access mental health hub for children and young people in every community. That would help to redress the current situation in which young people and children do not have sufficient understanding of the debilitating effects of this illness.
Finally, further research into migraine is really important, because we still do not fully understand what causes it; the SNP spokesman spoke very eloquently about the need for research into its causes. We would support our research community with a new regulatory innovation office, which would make Britain the best place in the world to innovate by speeding up decisions and providing clear direction based on a modern industrial strategy. The new office would help to improve outcomes for those living with migraine, tackling the NHS backlog by accelerating the approval for clinical trials, the number of which has fallen off a cliff under this Government, and delivering better access for patients to the latest treatments.
Those living with migraine should be able to access care when and where they need it, and the next Labour Government will ensure that we have the staff and resources needed to improve waiting lists and the right research environment, which would improve access to new treatments.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) for securing this very important debate. I know that she has long been a champion for those living with migraine, and that her own ongoing struggle with chronic migraine, which she talked about, made it difficult, if not impossible, on some days to keep up with the demands of her ministerial role. Since leaving that role she has continued to shine a light on the impact of migraine at work and on what it means to live with migraine.
I also pay tribute to the outstanding charities that support the estimated 10 million people in the UK who live with migraine. For example, the Migraine Trust does fantastic work in empowering, informing and supporting patients, and in driving improvements in treatment and care.
I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson) and for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), and the hon. Members for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) and for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) for their contributions to the debate. In those contributions, almost all right hon. and hon. Members talked about the stigma around migraine, with many setting out their own personal experiences of it. We all know that awareness is key to addressing discrimination, so I very much welcome each and every contribution to this morning’s debate.
Migraine is one of the most common neurological conditions, affecting about 10 million people in the UK, yet in this House we very rarely speak about it and its impact. Many of us have first-hand experience of migraine, or at least some insight into the enormously debilitating effect that it can have on people living with it. Indeed, my own sister, Andrea Stephenson, who I know you know, Mr Mundell, and who many other Members may know, suffers from migraine and I have seen the impact that it has had on her over the years.
As we have heard this morning, migraine is a severe and painful long-term health condition and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland so eloquently said, it is so much more than just a really bad headache. Anyone who lives with migraine knows that it can have a very significant and negative impact on quality of life. Perhaps the cruellest aspect of the condition is its ability to strike with little or no warning, disrupting people’s ability to perform even the most basic daily tasks. Migraine symptoms can last for days, affecting all aspects of life, including family and work life and the ability to engage in social activities. Even between attacks, migraine can impact on quality of life, especially when people try to limit daily activities to prevent another migraine.
Although the human cost is important—it is the most important factor—it is worth reflecting on the economic cost, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire set out so well in their speeches. That is why timely access to appropriate and effective care and treatment is so important. Accurate, timely diagnosis can ensure that people can access migraine treatments as early as possible, helping them to get the care that they need to treat attacks when they strike and prevent future ones. There is no specific test to diagnose migraines; for an accurate diagnosis, GPs must identify a pattern of recurring headaches along with the other associated symptoms. Migraines can be unpredictable, sometimes occurring without the other symptoms normally associated with the condition, so obtaining an accurate diagnosis can take some time.
The NICE guidelines on headaches and the diagnosis and management of headaches in young people and adults, last updated in December 2021, set out best practice for healthcare professionals in the care, treatment and support of people who suffer from headaches, including migraine. They aim to improve the recognition and management of headaches and migraine with more targeted treatments to improve the quality of life for people with headaches and reduce unnecessary investigations. NICE has also produced a clinical knowledge summary on migraine. Clinical knowledge summaries are concise, accessible summaries of the current evidence for primary care professionals, focusing on the most common and significant presentations in primary care. They give trusted information to support safe decision making and improve standards of patient care.
The usual treatment approaches to migraine are designed to either stop or prevent attacks. Treatment for acute migraine includes medications such as analgesics, triptans and antiemetics. Treatments to stop or reduce the frequency of migraine attacks include medications such as beta blockers, tricyclic antidepressants and anti-epileptics. We are committed to supporting timely and consistent access to new, effective medicines for NHS patients, so I am pleased that in October 2023, NICE published technology appraisal guidance recommending Rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine. Rimegepant is recommended where patients have tried at least two triptans but they did not work well enough; where patients cannot take triptans or where they were not tolerated; or where other medication has been tried but did not work well enough. In separate guidance, last year NICE also recommended Rimegepant as an option for preventing episodic migraine in adults where at least three previous preventive treatments have failed, opening a way for 145,000 people in England to choose that option.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I appreciate the Minister’s setting out all that has been done. A few hon. Members mentioned CGRP blockers. I am sure that an exciting announcement may be coming, but if not, can the Minister reassure us that they can be looked at, to ensure that something emerges and is done about them?
Andrew Stephenson
My right hon. Friend anticipated my next point. Several hon. Members mentioned the difficulties experienced by some patients in accessing CGRP blockers. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry in his intervention. I note my right hon. Friend’s concern, and the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland about the NICE guidelines being reviewed to allow specialist treatment such as CGRP blockers to be made available as a first-line therapy.
NICE develops its recommendations independently, based on an assessment of the available evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and through extensive engagement with interested parties. It is right that those decisions are taken independently on the basis of the available evidence, so it would not be appropriate for me to intervene directly. However, NICE keeps its recommendations under active surveillance, and if significant new evidence emerged it would review its guidance. I very much hope that NICE has been listening to what has been said by hon. and right hon. Members in this debate and looks at the emerging evidence from charities, such as the Migraine Trust, which might prompt it to review the guidance.
The NHS in England is legally required to make funding available for treatments that have been recommended by NICE. If there are any concerns about the availability of a NICE-recommended treatment in a particular area, it is important that hon. and right hon. Members raise those with their local integrated care boards in the first instance. However, I would be more than happy to look into situations where Members still have concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland raised the issue of CGRPs and prescribing rights in primary care. That is an interesting point. I have asked the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to look into this matter and I will write to my hon. Friend in the coming days.
Similarly, I will take away the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire about what more we can do to better utilise our local pharmacies. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), is responsible for pharmacy policy. She has already overseen the roll-out of Pharmacy First, ensuring that more conditions than ever before can be addressed by pharmacists, rather than people having to wait to see a GP.
At the moment, we expect that patients suffering from migraine would normally be treated first by their GP. If this failed to resolve the problem, patients would be referred to a consultant neurologist for further investigations and tests. We recognise the challenges within secondary care, in terms of waiting list size and the length of wait, with patients waiting far too long to access the specialist care they need. Neurology is particularly challenging at the moment, with a need for more neurologists, specialist nurses and allied health professionals.
We are committed to reducing waiting lists. To this end, we commissioned NHS England to develop a long-term plan for the NHS workforce for the next 15 years, which was published in June 2023. This sets out how we would deliver the doctors, nurses and other professionals that will be needed, also taking into account improvements in retention and productivity. The plan looks at the mix and number of staff required and has set out the actions and reform across the NHS that are needed to reduce the supply gap and improve retention. The plan will help ensure that we have the right number of staff with the right skills to transform and deliver high-quality services for the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire all raised the issue of awareness amongst GPs. UK medical schools determine the content of their own curricula. The delivery of these undergraduate curricula must meet standards set by the General Medical Council. The standards require the curriculum to be formed in a way that allows all medical students, by the time they complete their medical degree, to meet the GMC’s outcomes for graduates, which describe the knowledge, skills and behaviours they must show as newly registered doctors. Therefore, whilst not all curricula will necessarily highlight specific conditions, they all nevertheless emphasise the skills and approaches that a healthcare practitioner must develop to ensure accurate and timely diagnoses and treatment plans for patients, including for migraine.
All healthcare professionals, including GPs, are responsible for ensuring that their clinical knowledge remains up to date and for identifying learning needs as part of their continuing professional development. The Royal College of General Practitioners has developed e-learning resources to update primary care clinicians on the nature of migraine, the different diagnoses and how to approach a patient with headache.
Through NHS England’s getting it right first time—or GIRFT—programme, we are also offering practical solutions for managing the demand for services within secondary care. There have been major advances in treating neurological conditions, including migraine, but services often struggle to keep pace with innovation, which has a significant impact on outcomes for people living with those conditions. GIRFT is a national programme which is designed to improve the treatment and care of patients through in-depth, clinically led review of specialties to examine how they are currently being done and how they could be improved. The GIRFT national specialty report for neurology, published in September 2021, makes a number of recommendations applicable to migraine. For example, the report highlights that providing support and advice to GPs in diagnosing and managing patients with headache can improve management of patients without a patient necessarily having to be seen as an out-patient. GP access to CT and MRI imaging would also enhance GPs’ ability to manage headaches in the community using appropriate guidelines.
As several right hon. and hon. Members said, research is key. Investing in research is a key component of supporting people living with migraine. It plays a vital role in providing those working in the NHS with the evidence they need to better support patients and provide access to pioneering treatments, diagnostics and services. The Department of Health and Social Care funds research through the National Institute for Health Research, which has funded and supported a range of research projects on migraine over the past five years, including studies to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of drugs to prevent and treat migraines, and resources and training on self-management. For example, a study that is close to completion is looking at the comparative clinical cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for adults with chronic migraine.
I once again thank right hon. and hon. Members for their insightful points. I hope they and my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland are reassured by some of the measures I have outlined today. I recognise that we must go further, and I assure them that I will continue to support people living with migraine through system transformation, NIHR research and exploring and investing in new treatments to ensure we are delivering real results for patients on the ground.
Dehenna Davison
I am very grateful to the Minister for his remarks, and particularly for the fact that he has already actioned some of the points we raised by asking the MHRA to look into primary care prescribing. He also said that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), is potentially exploring the further use of pharmacies, which is clearly a positive step.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson) made the brilliant comment that we clearly need to tackle migraine differently. I hope there can be a bit more oomph from the Department when it comes to recommendations from NICE. I appreciate that independence is crucial, but by raising awareness as we are doing today, and hopefully with some input from the Minister, we can perhaps still ask for another review without asking NICE specifically what to put into its guidance.
I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who attended. They made some very interesting points and raised the cases of constituents living with this horrible condition. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire talked about the wider impact of migraines, which many of us touched on. This is a health condition that does not just come on every so often; it has a wider impact on a person’s life and causes anxiety. It is about the in-between days when they are wondering when an attack might next strike. I am grateful to the Minister for recognising that and for talking about his own family’s experience of migraine, given that his sister suffers from the condition.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for sharing their experiences of migraine. Though their experiences were different in some ways, they were very similar in others, such as in the severity of attacks and the anxiety about how to tackle them. I was absolutely staggered by the amount that my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North has spent on tackling her migraine. Botox can be an incredibly effective treatment, yet so many are unable to access it on the NHS, despite it being an approved treatment. That is another lifeline that we need to address. She raised the case of Monica, her constituent, who has had issues with her employer. I completely agree with my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Midlothian that migraine should formally be considered a disability, so that employers not only should, but have to put in place reasonable adjustments.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry—
Dehenna Davison
South Antrim. I have my DUP colleagues confused—I can only apologise. It is because they both share a brilliant passion for Northern Ireland and for tackling the issue of migraine. I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) for raising DWP assessments and the difficulty people have in accessing support when they are out of work as a result of chronic migraine. We have heard the statistics about how many people unfortunately have to give up work as a result of this disease, so hopefully we can take that up with DWP next time so that it can review its processes. Certainly, having chronic migraine listed as a formal disability would be a positive step in helping ensure that that is done.
The hon. Member also discussed the point around the devolved bodies. We heard some great testimonies from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Midlothian, about the positive steps being taken in Scotland and particularly the number of Scottish trusts that allow CGRP blockers to be prescribed. As he rightly said, that number is still not 100% and we need to go further to make sure that new, innovative treatment options that can work for so many people can be accessed by all those who are struggling.
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), not only for responding here, but for getting in touch with me in advance of today’s debate so we could share a few notes about the impact chronic migraine can have. She is right to raise the impact on children—I did not particularly cover that in my speech, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North touched upon it, given that she started experiencing migraine at such a young age. In some ways, it is even more terrifying for children because there is that lack of awareness of what is happening when a migraine attack strikes. Again, that is one example of how we need to get this right, in order to give people a better quality of life.
The hon. Member for Bristol South also talked about long-term workplace inactivity. Frankly, the best way we can tackle that is by getting people earlier diagnosis and earlier treatment that actually works. Part of that, as has been mentioned, comes down to knowledge and I am grateful to the Minister for talking about how medical training is outlined and done. It is great to hear that there are e-learning modules specifically on headache and migraine available for GPs and other medical practitioners to access—but I say we need to be bolder and I say we need to go further.
Off the back of this debate, therefore, I will be contacting some of those medical bodies to ensure they know just how debilitating and difficult migraine can be, in the hope that they can ensure not only that their educational modules are top notch and delivering the right information to the right people, but that people are taking those modules. They are not an optional extra; they are an absolute necessity.
I have probably missed some bits—yes, I have: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who is no longer in his place, for raising a point about knowledge, particularly of hormonal migraine, which many people experience. It is right that we continue to research that and make sure that medical practitioners have the knowledge they need.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) also raised the experience of his constituent. Again, it was another human story that tells the tale of chronic migraine; another human story that tells the tale of just how difficult this blooming thing can be. I am grateful to all hon. Members here today for taking part in the debate, for getting involved and for showing that there are people here in Parliament who care. To people watching at home, I say, “We are here, we hear you and we are going to do all we can to make this better.” I will keep nagging the Minister until we really see improvements in migraine care.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered access to migraine treatment.
Conduct of Elections
(8 months, 1 week 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
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I will call Wendy Chamberlain to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the conduct of elections.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. We are approaching a general election at some point this year, or maybe next, and it will not be a snap general election. A lot has happened since the previous one in December 2019, and the country has experienced a number of events since then, but the intention of this debate is to note that a number of changes to our democracy will be fully tested for the first time in a general election since 2019. It is worth while assessing whether those changes have improved our democratic systems, or whether they are tools for the current Government to improve their position.
In the 2019 Conservative manifesto the Government committed to a number of changes, including the scrapping of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, updating and equalising boundaries through the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020, and maintaining first past the post. I wonder whether the former vice-chairman of the Conservative party and now Reform MP, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), agrees with that, given that he is now a member of a party that is committed to electoral reform and has signed up to the Make Votes Matter good systems agreement. It is always worth noting that the only other country in Europe that has the first-past-the-post system is Belarus.
In additional, the Government committed to maintaining the voting age of 18, introducing voter ID, and restricting postal vote harvesting and foreign interference in elections. It is a pity they have been slow to move on that issue when it comes to party finances. They also committed to preventing that intimidation of candidates and voters, and I am sure we can all agree with that.
The Government also committed to introducing a constitution, democracy and rights commission within the first year of the new Parliament. In December 2020, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee held oral evidence sessions on the subject of a commission but, other than independent reviews of administrative law and the Human Rights Act 1998, the reports of which have resulted in further consultations, there is no commission.
Indeed, the Constitution Unit has suggested that the Government’s failure on that manifesto commitment is because the underlying goal is to bolster their position and weaken parliamentary and judicial checks, and that a more fragmented review process may help to obscure the combined effort of any reforms and divide opponents. I hope the Minister will provide clarity on the future of the commission and whether it will come into being before the election.
As MPs, when people come to us for assistance, the first thing we do is check that they are our constituents. We do that by finding out where they live. I am sure the vast majority of MPs point out on their standard automated acknowledgment that the person who has emailed must be a constituent in order to get assistance. It is important to note that constituencies are not organised on that basis, but on the number of registered voters within them.
The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 set a tolerance of 5% of the electoral quota to produce what the Government insist are equal constituencies, to ensure that each vote applies equally. That has resulted in huge differences in the constituencies to be fought in the upcoming general election. Only 55 of the 533 English constituencies remain unchanged by boundaries. The geographical boundaries have shifted and the names of some of the new constituencies are a mouthful, linking areas that are not necessarily linked in other obvious, definable ways.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. She brings many things to Westminster Hall and the Chamber that are of great interest to us all, and I thank her for giving me the chance to intervene. The changes in the 2020 Act apply to the United Kingdom parliamentary elections, police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales, and local elections in England. Some provisions apply to Northern Ireland Assembly elections and local elections. Does the hon. Lady agree that all provisions of the Act should apply to all elections in all regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Wendy Chamberlain
The hon. Member always brings an additional dimension to debates. From a democratic perspective, it is important that devolution is respected where it exists. It is also important to recognise that the Welsh and Scottish Governments did not provide legislative consent to the Elections Act 2022 and are looking to legislate themselves. I want to see consistency across our electoral systems in the UK. As a Scottish MP, I always enjoy speaking to voters, regardless of the election, and understanding how clever and able they are. They know exactly what to do with the different electoral systems for the different institutions.
I want to touch on the impact of overseas voters. The legislation on overseas voters means that UK nationals who live overseas are no longer affected by the rule saying that if they have lived overseas for more than 15 years, they cannot vote. One challenge with that change is that we do not know where overseas voters are likely to vote. In many cases, local authorities do not keep electoral registers that go back more than 15 years, and we are basing the estimates on where people assure us they lived previously. We have a 5% rule, which makes each vote count equally in equally sized constituencies, and the change introduces an unknown number of people to a number of constituencies. Will the Minister talk about what the Government have done to ensure that overseas voters are registered in the right place? What are the estimates for the numbers of people registered?
The Minister will be pleased to know that I am not about to talk at length about first past the post—as a Liberal Democrat, that is something I always do—but it is worth pointing out that trust in politics is at an all-time low, and that a system that is arguably unable to deliver fair votes and make everyone’s vote count is unlikely to improve that situation. In my constituency, only two votes separated the Liberal Democrats and the SNP in the 2017 general election—I should add that I was not then the Liberal Democrats’ candidate—and many more constituents voted for someone other than the winner. That is what marginal seats mean, and it is important that we recognise that.
Unlock Democracy’s recent report, “Register Every Voter”, illustrates some of the challenges that the Government’s approach has produced in terms of whether electoral registers support our democracy. The report evaluated registers on the basis of four considerations: register completeness is
“the extent to which every person who is entitled to be registered, is registered”;
register accuracy
“can be usefully defined as the extent to which there are no false entries on the electoral registers”;
register equity
“refers to the extent to which there is an even distribution in the completeness of the electoral register across educational, socio-demographic, ethnic, gendered or other groups”;
and administrative robustness means that electoral registration processes
“must be deliverable without errors which can lead to citizens not being able to vote or the trust in the system being undermined. This requires sufficient staffing, resource and capacity.”
The report estimates that up to 8 million people are missing from the electoral register or are not correctly registered to vote. Unsurprisingly, it finds:
“Those who were under registered were more likely to be in urban areas…more mobile; private renters; younger; from Asian, Black, Mixed or ‘other’ ethnic backgrounds; non-UK nationals; from lower socio-economic groups and with lower qualifications”.
I would argue that those are exactly the people who need good politics and good support from locally elected representatives.
Even more concerning is the fact that the number of people registering to vote is falling. As MPs, that should concern us all. An increase in the UK population of 6% since 2011 has not been reflected in voter registration. I accept that registration usually increases at the time of a general election—we have not had one of those for a while—but the overall trend is worrying. Will the Minister indicate what the Government are intending to do about that? Will the Government seriously consider automatic voter registration, which is used by half of the world’s countries?
Voter identification requirements may also be playing their part. In an urgent question last September I highlighted the Electoral Commission’s report that warned that disabled people and the unemployed find it harder to show accepted voter ID, as do younger people and people from ethnic minorities. It also reported that on average a higher proportion of people were turned away in more deprived areas, compared with less deprived areas. The Local Government Information Unit reported that approximately 14,000 voters were not given a ballot paper because they could not show an accepted form of ID, and significantly more were deterred from voting because of the ID requirement.
Jim Shannon
Northern Ireland has had voter ID for a number of years—this is not a criticism; I am trying to be positive—and it has been successful. I think it is a matter of what the Government can do to help people to get their IDs. There is a proactive campaign in Northern Ireland to make that happen. I say genuinely, constructively and honestly that voter ID in Northern Ireland has worked because the Government went overboard to make it work.
Wendy Chamberlain
The hon. Member and I rarely disagree and we can find points of consensus. One thing that Northern Ireland has done very well is that it has been much more proactive in getting people registered to vote, working in schools and elsewhere, which means that in some respects voter ID is less of an issue because people have been encouraged to vote and have the right ID at an early stage. Having one and not the other makes things much more difficult for people. If people do not have voter ID or acceptable voter ID, it can suggest that the Government are comfortable with the idea that those people are not in a position to be able to vote.
The Commons Library briefing on voter ID states that 90% of voters were likely to think that voting was “safe” after last year’s local elections in England, but that pattern was unchanged since before voter ID was introduced, so introducing voter ID has made no difference to public perception of the safety of voting. The Government response to the Electoral Commission report in November last year rejected a number of the commission’s recommendations that arose from the report. Given that the Minister was responsible for that response, will he advise what additional measures will be available for the GE, particularly for groups such as disabled people, to ensure that those who are entitled to vote can?
I have already mentioned the Elections Act 2022 in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Strangford. It included measures to address the impact of candidate and voter intimidation—I am sure we all want to see less of that, particularly when MP security and safety has been back in the public eye and discussed in recent weeks—but it is fair to say that those elements of the Act did not constitute the areas of debate when the Bill made its passage through Parliament. In addition to voter ID, the concerns expressed by other parties, including my own, were about finance and the independence of the Electoral Commission.
It is accepted that the next election will be the most expensive ever, and not just because of recent high inflation levels. We know who that will disproportionately benefit: the current party of Government, the Conservatives. The Electoral Commission said in November that it saw no reason to substantially raise the spending limits. We are seeing reporting on huge increases in literature that is being delivered—as a Liberal Democrat, I deliver a lot of leaflets—and also in terms of social media. When we look at disinformation it is really important that we get things right. The data rules that are changing are also part of the challenge. Simply put, the changes reward the biggest pockets. Social media and other means of communicating with voters are important, but I believe that being out on the doorsteps and speaking to voters is most effective, particularly from the trust perspective.
In the last couple of weeks there has been a lot of discussion about the Government’s donations, particularly from their donor Frank Hester. The Government have said that his comments were wrong and racist, but have not ruled out accepting future donations and, importantly, have not ruled out granting a peerage to Mr Hester—something that seems to happen quite a lot with Conservative donors. I hope the Minister can find reassure us on that.
Does the Minister generally agree that big money is potentially a further drain on public trust in politics, and that a cap on political donations would help with that? It would also level the playing field. Myself and parliamentarians from smaller parties such as the SNP and Plaid Cymru would benefit, and I would argue that that is not a bad thing because plurality of opinion is important. We have created a system in which two parties are in the lead, and nothing changes.
To conclude, it is quite clear that there has been a number of changes since 2019, and we will see at the general election whether the fears that I expressed this morning are going to be upheld or the Conservatives have made changes that do not have such an impact. Despite all the arguable rigging of the rules, all the polls currently suggest that the changes the Conservatives have made will not help them now, nor in October, November, December or even January. If they genuinely believe in the changes they have made to our democracy, they should call a general election now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for instigating this debate. The topic set out on the Order Paper is “the conduct of elections”, which is a wide canvas. We had no reference to any specific points the hon. Lady was going to draw the House’s attention to, so I am working from manuscript notes based on my own knowledge as elections Minister.
Let me shoot stone-cold dead two foxes that the hon. Lady has tried to set running round Westminster Hall this morning. First, she said that she thought the Elections Act 2022 and subsequent guidance was—I quote directly —“a tool of the current Government to improve their own position.” It is absolutely not. I say gently to her that she cannot turn around in good faith and in all conscience and say that our electorates need to have faith and confidence in the robustness, resilience, honesty, transparency and integrity of the system, and then say, in almost the juxtaposed breath, that the Government were trying to rig the rules in their favour.
If the hon. Lady does not believe me, I ask her to look at the evidence and the facts. I suggest to the House that the results of last year’s local elections demonstrate beyond peradventure that even if they had been planned to improve the position of the Government, the plan did not work. They were not results that my party welcomed. I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s fox is not only shot but buried on that point. I take her point entirely that the public need to have faith in the system, and I politely suggest to her that it is our job as parliamentarians, along with our colleagues across the local government sector, to ensure that the public have that. Her opening remarks did not help in that important endeavour.
The second fox I want to shoot and butcher is that we are in some way undermining the independence of the Electoral Commission. The commission’s independence is sacrosanct. The chairman and the chief executive of the commission know that, and we work well and closely together. I made that point very clearly on the Floor of the House when I made my statement. We have to have faith and confidence in the robust independence of the commission, and that is a ditch I will die in to defend.
The hon. Lady raised a number of other issues. She described almost as some sort of elections equivalent of the Russian revolution our revocation of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. It was not an ancient piece of UK constitutional architecture; it was always envisaged to be a temporary piece of legislation, wisely brought in by the then coalition partners—the coalition of which the hon. Lady’s party was a key and important part—to provide stability and confidence for the markets and the electorate that there was a secure and stable Government that, having inherited an absolute horror show of a financial legacy from the Labour party, would take difficult decisions to restore the nation’s finances. The Act was always envisaged to be temporary; it is no longer required. It is for no other reason that it was revoked.
The hon. Lady spoke about the boundary reforms, which were long overdue. She will remember, although it was before her time and mine, that there was a bit of horse-trading between my party and hers and we had a referendum on changing the first-past-the-post system. My side won and her side lost, but the Liberals seem to be very poor losers and, rather like the SNP, who always try to resurrect the question of an independence referendum, they keep picking away at the scab of first past the post. I am not entirely sure that the electorate are with them on that, given the results of the referendum that was held on changing the voting system.
The Boundary Commission review of parliamentary seats was long overdue. We know full well that that will now take place every eight years, so the next review will be required to report by 2031 and will be based on the registers as at December 2028. It is about time we had that as part of an iterative process, to ensure that as populations grow and shrink, and new housing development comes on stream, our parliamentary boundaries broadly reflect an equal number of constituents to ensure that it really is one Member, one vote, and all of us are equal in this House.
Simon Hoare
I might in a moment, but the hon. Lady covered a lot of ground and I want to give respect to her by covering the very serious and sensible points that she made.
On voter ID, the underpinning of the Act and the subsequent statutory instruments that we have brought forward is that we cannot rest on our laurels. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that in broad terms, the way our elections have been conducted in this country has been robust and fair, and everyone—both those who have won and, more importantly, those who have lost—has accepted the results, but I do not think we can rest on our laurels. She will know, as I do, that we are living in a changing world, in which western democratic principles are under acute pressure, and the rise of populism and social media brings challenges that our forefathers had not foreseen. To that purpose, we reflected on, reviewed and updated the rules that govern our electoral processes, in order to ensure that they are fit for purpose and demonstrably capable of being changed and reformed.
There is a very long list of qualifying documentation for voter ID, and 99% of all voters have at least one form of acceptable ID, and many have more. There is also the voter authority certificate, which is free and lasts for three years. That meets the needs of the 1% of the population who do not have an acceptable form of ID. We have a list, which is quite long, but it is not carved in tablets of stone. I hope the hon. Lady will welcome my saying that this is an iterative and organic process: as technologies change and new forms of ID come on board, Government will of course respond. We reviewed the situation post the local elections of 2023 and we will have to do a quick review post the coming elections in May 2024. Tweaks could easily be made, if required, in preparation for the general election later this year. I think that is the right way to go.
Turnout for the local elections in 2023 was broadly commensurate with that in previous years. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, rightly referenced the fact that within boundaries of the United Kingdom, voter identification has been an accepted part of the electoral landscape in Northern Ireland—again, with no demonstrable negative impact on turnout.
The hon. Member for North East Fife and I share an absolute keenness—as do the Government, the Electoral Commission and local government—to maximise our attention to what all the survey work has pointed to, which is driving up registration and participation of those we might colloquially describe as hard-to-reach groups. That can be students, the very elderly, people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, or those with disabilities—in particular disabilities that make it a challenge to come into new spaces, or to meet and interact with new people.
We take this matter absolutely seriously and I want to put it clearly on the record that we want to make sure that anybody and everybody who is eligible to vote in any electoral event has the right to do so, and that if they wish to exercise that right they must be free to do so. We are deploying the strength and power of gov.uk, working with the commission, turbocharging the engines of local government communication, and reaching out to faith groups, disability groups and the voluntary sector. We are focused, Exocet-like, on driving up registration in those communities, as well as participation, with a greater awareness of voter ID. That is key and it is right. If the hon. Lady and I agree possibly on nothing else in this debate, I hope that she will welcome that.
On overseas votes, the hon. Lady repeated a line that is the third fox that I need to shoot in response to her remarks. A qualifying overseas voter cannot just choose willy-nilly which constituency to register in. I appreciate that sitting in the ivory tower of Marsham Street, one can sometimes seem slightly caught between theory and practice, but on Monday I visited a local authority election office, where I completed some of the applications processing—I did it all fairly and was supervised! We admitted two applications, but one was not sufficient because the applicant said they had been on the paper register but that had not been digitalised. Such applications are then put into the “pending” box and further proof of ID is required to prove where the individual, if qualifying, lived in that constituency and therefore that they have a right to vote there. I know that some feared that parties would organise themselves to motivate people to apply to vote in their most marginal seats, but one has to demonstrate without any form of a doubt that they have a link to that last constituency. That is important.
The hon. Lady asked what I thought the numbers may be. We assess that the potential quantum, in totality —including those already qualifying to be overseas voters under the old 15-year rule—to be about 3 million.
Wendy Chamberlain
I want to make it clear for the record that that was not a third fox. I was not suggesting in any way that there would not be robust processes in place for people to register in a particular seat. I was asking about the numbers, because I think the Minister must accept that if we are making an estimate of 3 million, we cannot say exactly where those 3 million will be, and the numbers will alter the overall electoral register in each affected constituency.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady makes a good and clear point. Clearly, when it came to the subsequent boundary review—at a time when, one would have to presume, those who had qualified would have already taken up and exercised that right—those who were reviewing our parliamentary boundaries would take those numbers into account. That is the one number that will never move, because one will not be able to change a historical link to a constituency.
The hon. Lady made an important point about devolution and different settlements. I assure her that while there are differentials between the nations of the United Kingdom, the four of us who are charged ministerially with dealing with elections, and the Northern Ireland Office, work closely together to ensure that parity can be delivered as and when it can, and when it is deemed to be desirable, and to try to maximise the points that the hon. Lady talked about—namely, simplicity and transparency across these islands.
The hon. Lady mentioned automatic voter registration. Again, that is something that any Government would keep under review. We have decided that individual registration is the best way. We all talk about rights, but sometimes we do not talk about responsibilities, and I actually think that that individual motivation to register—deciding to go on the electoral register, obviously without being forced to vote—begins a contract between the young qualifying adult and the state in all its manifestations.
This has been a fascinating debate, which we now draw to a conclusion. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Fife. I just hope that I have assured her on the two key charges that she levied against us: the commission’s independence is clear and without challenge; and we are in no way trying to gerrymander. The Conservative party is the oldest political party in the world. We have always extended and widened the franchise, and that is a historical tradition that we intend to continue.
Question put and agreed to.
Sri Lanka: Human Rights
(8 months, 1 week 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 human rights in Sri Lanka.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. Sri Lanka’s 2009 conflict ended in a horrific bloodbath. Tens of thousands of Tamils were killed in the final months, with accusations pointing to intentional targeting of civilians by the Sri Lankan military. That dark chapter remains open, with an estimated 70,000 to 170,000 Tamils unaccounted for and presumed dead. The Government’s continued denial of war crimes, crimes against humanity and even genocide fuels anger and blocks the path towards healing. The situation for Tamils, and indeed other minority groups, such as Muslims, in Sri Lanka remains precarious. Impunity reigns, human rights violations persist and heavy militarisation casts a long shadow. Sri Lanka’s failure to address accountability and pursue transitional justice mechanisms hinders any hope for lasting peace and reconciliation.
The international community’s call for accountability has not translated into concrete action, and the United Nations Human Rights Council rightly identifies the lack of accountability as the critical missing piece to Sri Lanka moving forward. We have seen decades of ineffective governance and policies driven by nationalism, which was a root cause of the conflict, continue to plague the nation, contributing to its current political and economic crises. It is vital that the international community continues to hold Sri Lanka accountable for past and present human rights violations, because only through the effective mechanisms for international investigation and prosecution can Sri Lanka achieve meaningful justice and reconciliation and finally turn a page on this dark chapter.
Sri Lanka has witnessed a chilling escalation in a suppression of Tamil remembrance this past year. As Tamils prepared to commemorate Maaveerar Naal remembrance day, and even during the ceremonies that took place, police actively disrupted events, physically blocked people from attending, destroyed memorials with violence and arrested participants. That is not a new tactic—Tamils in the north-east have historically faced harassment leading up to Maaveerar Naal—but last year, crackdowns intensified despite court orders permitting the commemorations.
Since the memorial, fear and injustice have gripped the Tamil community. The notorious Prevention of Terrorism Act was once again wielded, leading to arrests of Tamils simply for carrying decorations or attending remembrance ceremonies. Even those providing logistical support with vehicles or generators faced arbitrary detention. That draconian law, which is a stain on the country’s human rights record, has fuelled decades of abuse: prolonged detentions, disappearances and torture, particularly against Tamils and Muslims. Those are the horrific realities of the PTA. Stronger action from the UK is crucial to abolish that Act.
The shadow of militarisation looms over Sri Lanka’s Tamil north-east population. Despite Sri Lanka boasting one of the world’s largest militaries, a staggering 18 of its 20 military divisions occupy the north-east region, with 14 concentrated solely in the north. That overwhelming presence comes at a steep cost: Sri Lanka spends more on its defence than it does on healthcare and education combined. There have been recent claims of de-escalation and demilitarisation, but that has not occurred, so concrete action is needed. The UK must continue to push with its international partners for the de-militarisation of the north-east, dismantling the intrusive presence and allowing Tamils to rebuild their lives free from the constant shadow of the military.
As Sri Lanka tackles its economic woes, the UK must acknowledge the lack of political will to protect Tamil livelihoods and urge an end to the land grabs of Tamil land. Frustration continues within the Tamil community in Sri Lanka and overseas, which has long demanded a lasting solution that tackles the root cause of conflict. Years of empty promises and unmet aspirations from successive Governments have only fuelled those demands.
In February 2023, Tamil protestors defied intimidation and surveillance to stage a four-day protest across the north-east, in a powerful rejection of the 75th anniversary of independence day. That served to symbolically reclaim Tamil homeland and issue a clear set of demands, including the end to military occupation, justice for the Tamil genocide and uncovering the truth about those who disappeared.
President Wickremesinghe pledged to solve the ethnic crisis and hold talks with Tamil parties, but those efforts have proven fruitless: the Tamil community awaits concrete action, not empty words. The country is clinging to a troubling legacy; those accused of war crimes against Tamils continue to enjoy protection, with some even receiving pardons and diplomatic postings. That blatant disregard for accountability exposes the shortcomings in the justice system and underscores the current administration’s tolerance for impunity.
There is a clear lack of political will to deliver justice for Tamil victims, and that is evident even in high profile cases. The unresolved Trinco 5 killings, which were high- lighted both by the UN Human Rights Council and during recent Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus trade discussions, stand as a stark example. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has aptly noted that not a single emblematic case has resulted in conviction. Sri Lanka’s path forward hinges on genuine commitment to accountability—a path they have yet to take.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I very much support what my hon. Friend has been saying. I agree that settling this issue and getting the right human rights for those Tamils who are suffering—many of whom have fled over here into many of our constituencies—is important.
However, there is also another side of this. The need for the Sri Lankan Government, as a result of not resolving this issue, to station so many army divisions and spend so much on the military is one of the reasons why the Chinese were able to secure a 99-year lease on the Hambantota port. The Chinese are able to have their ships in that port because the Sri Lankan Government is bankrupt. That has a very big impact on the UK’s wider views on the far east.
Elliot Colburn
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is increasing concern about Chinese influence on the island. That is something my right hon. Friend has spoken very powerfully on, and I hope that the Government have listened.
Sri Lanka has a long history of truth commissions—they have held over 15 since independence—but none of them have delivered meaningful justice or accountability, and the proposed truth and reconciliation committee seems destined to follow the same path. The Tamil community remains deeply sceptical; it advocates for an independent international mechanism with the power to investigate and prosecute impartially. The Government however appear to view the TRC as a way to escape international scrutiny at the UN Human Rights Council.
Truth-telling is crucial for transitional justice, but it should not come at the expense of holding perpetrators accountable. The Sri Lankan Government’s past failures to deliver on those promises raises serious concerns. A genuine TRC should prioritise justice for victims, not serve as a tool for escaping international pressure.
Sri Lanka’s commitment to the UN Human Rights Council process has crumbled. After failing to show meaningful progress on resolution 30/1, they shockingly withdrew their co-sponsorship of it in 2020. Even the limited progress that has been made is now being reversed. A recent UN report from September last year painted a bleak picture:
“Sri Lanka suffers from a continuing accountability deficit”.
From war crimes, to recent human rights violations, corruption and abuse of power, the path to justice remains blocked. No Government has established a judicial mechanism to deliver justice in the emblematic cases outlined by the UN Human Rights Council. Allowing Sri Lanka to continually renege on its international commitments weakens the credibility of the UNHRC and its member states. The fight for accountability must not be abandoned.
Sri Lanka’s war crimes remain unpunished. Despite overwhelming evidence, no perpetrators have faced sanctions under the UK’s new Magnitsky Act-style legislation. This inaction stands in stark contrast to Canada, which sanctioned former President Rajapaksa for his wartime actions, and the US, which sanctioned General Shavendra Silva—whose division still stands accused of horrific abuses. The UK must act; holding war criminals accountable is essential for justice and a crucial step towards a more peaceful future.
I believe that the UK’s relationship with Sri Lanka needs a critical review. Military co-operation must be suspended until Sri Lanka removes personnel implicated in human rights violations from its security forces. The UK should also refuse diplomatic access and diplomatic roles to anyone accused of such abuses. Trade deals and concessions require re-evaluation in light of Sri Lanka’s failure to uphold human rights commitments, and sanctions are a potential tool to pressure reform.
Furthermore, the UK should make all future bilateral and multilateral ties with Sri Lanka contingent on concrete progress, that includes reconciliation among ethnic and religious groups. Sri Lanka should investigate and prosecute war crimes and human rights violations, return stolen land, resolve disappearances and reduce the military presence in former conflict zones. Ultimately, the island must demonstrate respect and uphold the rights and freedoms of all its people, regardless of ethnicity or religion. Investigating and prosecuting human rights abuses is critical to achieving that. By linking its support to those vital changes, the UK can play a significant role in pushing Sri Lanka towards a more just and peaceful future.
Sri Lanka’s human rights record casts a long shadow and demands a firm international response. The UK, along with other nations, has a crucial role in holding the country accountable. First, those accused of human rights crimes cannot escape unscathed. Targeted sanctions against officials can deliver a powerful message. Additionally, the principle of universal jurisdiction allows countries to pursue legal action against perpetrators on their own soil, regardless of where the crimes were committed.
The International Criminal Court offers another avenue for justice. The UK can collaborate with civil society to submit communications to the ICC’s prosecutor, urging a preliminary examination of potential crimes that fall under that court’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, Sri Lanka’s potential breaches of human rights treaties cannot be ignored. The International Court of Justice can be used to address the issues we are talking about —specifically, torture, enforced disappearance and racial discrimination.
Trade concessions granted to Sri Lanka under the developing countries trading scheme should not be unconditional. The UK can leverage those benefits by making them contingent on demonstrable progress in three key areas: the military must be purged of those implicated in human rights abuses, the Prevention of Terrorism Act must be repealed, and those responsible for well-documented human rights violations must be brought to justice. By employing that approach, the UK and the international community can send a clear message that human rights violations will not be tolerated. Those actions can and will exert significant pressure to push Sri Lanka towards a future in which the rights of all its people are respected. In particular, the Tamil people should achieve the peace, justice, accountability and truth that they have so long fought for.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
You threw me there, Dame Maria. I expected that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) would be in front of me. I am very pleased to be called to make a contribution. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), who regularly speaks up for minorities and raises human rights issues in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber; we appreciate his efforts.
I have spoken about human rights in Sri Lanka before. It is hard to come back and say that things have not changed, but unfortunately they have not. That is why this debate is so important—the hon. Gentleman outlined that very clearly. I will speak about the freedom of religion or belief, which is encompassed within the definition of human rights. Taking away human rights affects religious belief, and taking away religious belief affects human rights—the two are married together. Whenever we talk about one, we talk about the other.
The question for us today is how can we address this? More reasonably, how can we be part of the process of securing human rights for a needy people? Their history makes my heart sore, as it does for anyone who has compassion. They have lost everything—their dignity, their possessions, their human rights and their freedom of religious belief—all because of an autocratic regime that, as the hon. Gentleman said, spends more on defence than on feeding the country, health or education. It moves me to tears when I think about it.
I believe that steps can be taken and progress can be made on reconciliation through accountability, justice, acknowledgement and a correction of the situation for religious minorities. That must be considered by our Government and the Minister. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place—I always am—because he clearly understands our feelings and thoughts. I hope that he will provide some assurance on the issues, given that our Government develop foreign policies.
I am also pleased to see in their places the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), and the shadow Minister for the Scots Nats, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara). He and I have been good friends in this House for many years. We have spoken on issues together and have had different adventures overseas, visiting some of those countries where the suppression of human rights and religious freedom is rampant. Although we have different outlooks on the constitution, we have the very same opinion on the issue of human rights, and our social consciences are married together, as indeed is our faith, which we hold strongly.
Sri Lankan Government agencies unlawfully occupied the property and religious sites of minority Tamil and Muslim communities. Additionally, in September 2023 a judge resigned and fled the country after he received death threats for a ruling that he made against the Department of Archaeology, which had constructed a Buddhist monument on the site of a Hindu temple. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I speak out for those with Christian belief, other beliefs and, indeed, no beliefs, because that is what I believe in my heart and that is where I come from. If a Hindu temple is disrespected and a Buddhist temple is built on it, that is against the human rights and the religious belief of those of a Hindu faith in Sri Lanka. That is done because it is encouraged by a Government who have little or no concern or respect for any other religion.
How do we address those issues? I hope to outline that, but the major issue is that we should be using aid to change the opinion of the authorities in Sri Lanka. As acknowledged in the briefing for this debate, Sri Lanka’s Online Safety Act and other proposed and enacted laws have severely limited civil liberties. How are such laws impacting on freedom of religion or belief?
The rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are heavily intertwined with the fate of FORB, as I mentioned at the beginning. I can never get myself away from that definition of where we are and how I and many others in the Chamber and further afield see it. We must ensure that our foreign policies—this is where the Minister and our Government come in— encourage compliance with article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights, which Sri Lanka ratified in 1980. It was ratified, but no action was taken, and I am disappointed that the Sri Lankan Government have disregarded article 18 in its totality.
FORB is also intricately linked with women’s and girls’ rights. I mention that because some of the things that are happening in Sri Lanka are bestial and disgraceful. The Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act, which governs marriage in the Muslim community, contains numerous provisions that violate the rights of women and girls, including by allowing child marriage without setting any minimum age.
I get real angst when I think about that. I look at my grandchildren and think how, if they were living in Sri Lanka, they could be abused—they could be married at the age of nine and 15, even though their bodies and emotions are clearly not in any way ready for that to happen. As a father and grandfather, how could I not condemn what the Sri Lankan authorities are doing against young women, and especially young girls? The Act stipulates that only men can be judges in the quazi—family—court, which makes it easier for men than women to obtain a divorce. It does not require a woman’s or girl’s consent to be recorded before the registration of her marriage, which should be an absolute precondition.
I am ever mindful that the Minister is not responsible for what is happening in Sri Lanka. I just ask him if there have been any discussions with the Sri Lankan authorities in relation to this specific issue to ensure that there will be no under-age marriage whatsoever.
Following on from that, in cases of child marriage, the penal code in Sri Lanka permits under the MMDA what would otherwise constitute statutory rape. In no country in this world should the statutory rape of young girls be permitted. Those girls, who have not reached puberty, can be abused by people just because they have got the right to do it by the law of the land. When it comes to the MMDA and the divorce Act, what are the Government and the Minister doing, and what are we doing as a people of conscience, to help those young ladies in Sri Lanka?
The UK must take laws into account as well as helping to develop aid strategies and distribution policies for Sri Lanka. Additionally, the UK must consider the position of refugees in Sri Lanka. There are lots of refugees there. I think that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to 14 divisions in the north of Sri Lanka who are there primarily and objectively to intimidate all the Tamils, the local populations, and local religions as well. How can that be disregarded by our own Government or by our own people?
There are several religious minorities in Sri Lanka, including the Ahmadis. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and I were in Pakistan and had an opportunity to see and meet the Ahmadis on a regular basis. I really have to make a plea for them. They fled from persecution in Pakistan and are still awaiting resettlement in other countries.
I am conscious that I am asking the Minister a lot of questions, but I do so because I feel they must be put on the record, and very strongly feel that we need answers to them. While the resettlement considerations may not be in the realm of the UK’s authority, are there ways in which we can help Sri Lanka to develop policies and processes to ensure that the rights of refugees are protected? Can we work with Sri Lanka, for instance, and relevant communities and Governments to resettle the refugees in third countries? We should have a role, working alongside other countries to make that happen.
Finally, will the UK be able to take in such refugees as part of its UK resettlement scheme for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? That is a question that we must ask ourselves. We cannot solve the world’s problems by ourselves, but we can play a role in making lives better by bringing such refugees to our shores. Equally, we can help them to resettle elsewhere. We have international obligations to fulfil.
I conclude with this as I am ever mindful that others want to speak and want to give them all a chance to contribute to the debate. I have spoken about human rights in Sri Lanka on many occasions, because the stories that I and others hear in this House move me to do all that I can. The question for our Government must be: have we been moved as much to do all we can? If not, will we begin to be moved today?
We take the right to live, the right to work and the right to hold our own beliefs for granted in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we are tasked with the responsibility of speaking up for those who do not have those human rights—including freedom of religious rights—in Sri Lanka. I believe that we must speak for those who have no voice. In our debate today, I want my voice and the voices of others in the Chamber to be the voices for the voiceless of Sri Lanka, who need us to speak up for them and to do our best for them.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing the debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has so frequently spoken in support of the Tamil people.
I hope that I am a friend of the Tamil community: a community that is hard-working and entrepreneurial, and that has given so much to our country and our capital city. It has an almost obsessive desire to educate its children to ensure that they are the future doctors, lawyers, engineers and accountants who will make such a great contribution.
I am well aware of the tenacity of the Tamil community. In the 14 years since the end of the Sri Lankan civil war, I have stood alongside Tamils in my constituency of Mitcham and Morden on the road to justice, peace and accountability. Those 14 years have presented so many challenges and such little progress, but so much pain.
Not only have we called for accountability for the terrible war crimes committed 14 years ago, but we are calling for an end to the human rights abuses that are still being experienced by the Tamil community in Sri Lanka today. That starts with repealing the sixth amendment, which continues to be a barrier to Tamil self-determination. The sixth amendment criminalises support, in Sri Lanka or abroad, for the establishment of a separate state within the territory of Sri Lanka. Anyone convicted of violating the sixth amendment faces losing their passport and will not be able to sit for public exams or even qualify for a trade that requires a licence. It prevents Tamils at home and abroad from coming together freely to express their political aspirations.
It is not just about the sixth amendment—we need to go further than that. The 13th amendment stops elected members of provincial councils from using their powers and instead gives them to unelected governors controlled by the Sri Lankan President. That leaves Tamils powerless when the state takes ancient Tamil places of worship and converts them into Sinhala Buddhist temples. Tamils have nowhere to go.
Back in the UK, I had hoped that at the last Cabinet reshuffle we might have got a Foreign Secretary who would take some action on Sri Lankan human rights—a Foreign Secretary who had more than warm words for British Tamils calling for justice. What did we get? We got Baron Cameron of Chipping Norton, who has spent his time out of office being paid by a Chinese state enterprise to promote a commercial court in Sri Lanka, promoting a Rajapaksa-era mega-infrastructure project.
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she should not be criticising colleagues who are sitting in the House of Lords.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
I will then make a statement of fact: David Cameron worked on behalf of a Chinese state enterprise to promote a commercial port in Sri Lanka, promoting a Rajapaksa-era mega-infrastructure project. I do not believe that that was in the interests of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, and I do not think it was in the interests of this country, either. My Tamil constituents deserve better.
There seems to be an attitude in the Foreign Office, which I have witnessed during Labour Governments and Conservative Governments, of there always being a need for discussion and encouragement. Nothing that I have seen in Sri Lanka over the years since the civil war suggests that the Sri Lankan Government will ever react to anything but force and determination, rather than encouragement or negotiation. Hundreds of thousands of people who disappeared during the civil war have still not been found, and not one person has been prosecuted for committing a war crime.
There are more questions than there have ever been. On occasion, it seems to me to be just ticking a box and some mealy-mouthed diplomacy. Tamils deserve a UK Government that will take the lead in calling for Sri Lanka to repeal the sixth amendment, which would give Tamils in Sri Lanka and abroad the ability to come together and call for the political solution they hope for. Then we would have a Government with a principled position on Sri Lanka.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Maria. I too would like to thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing the debate and for the way he opened it. I would also like to thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for their excellent contributions. As hon. Members will be aware, this House is well acquainted with the issue of Sri Lankan human rights. We have discussed it often because it is important. It should matter not just to us and to the diaspora, but to all who care about human rights, international law, justice and accountability.
However, we have to be realistic. We have debated and highlighted these issues for decades in this place, and yet the situation in Sri Lanka remains largely unchanged; unfortunately, I suspect the community will say they have heard it all before. From a glance at Hansard this morning, I found Russell Johnston, the Liberal MP for Inverness, urging the Government in 1975 to do more to end human rights abuses in Sri Lanka; in 1984, Plaid Cymru’s Dafydd Wigley pleading with the Government not to forcibly repatriate the Tamils to Sri Lanka, given the levels of sectarian violence; in 1985, a very young right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), demanding an arms embargo on Sri Lanka due to its appalling human rights record; and, exactly a decade later, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) asking for those fleeing the regime’s persecution to be granted asylum in the UK. Even at the start of the new millennium, Elfyn Llwyd from Plaid Cymru was urging the cancellation of arms export licences to Sri Lanka following verified reports of extrajudicial killings. On and on it goes: as recently as last December, Members of this House quite rightly and properly raised the hugely important issues of fundamental human rights in Sri Lanka.
If nothing else, we in this House have over many years shown tenacity and resilience. We will appeal once again to the UK Government, as a believer in the rule of law, to use their position and strength to encourage the Sri Lankan Government to finally abide by their international obligations and act in accordance with the accepted international standards of human rights.
As we have heard so often in these debates, Sri Lanka is a founding member of the Commonwealth, and we know that the Commonwealth foundational principles are peace and democracy. By no stretch could Sri Lanka be considered to be a champion of those principles when the Tamil minority, numbering just around 11% of the population, is still subject to human rights violations at the hands of their Government.
In its 2022 country report, the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor said that Sri Lanka’s human rights practices included credible reports of unlawful and arbitrary killings, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, a lack of an independent judiciary, violence against journalists, serious restrictions on internet freedom, restrictions on freedom of movement, serious Government corruption and a lack of accountability for gender-based violence and crimes involving violence targeting members of national, racial and ethnic minority groups. The US State Department concluded that the Sri Lankan Government took minimal steps to identify, investigate, prosecute and punish officials who committed human rights abuses or were engaged in corruption, saying there was impunity for both. By any standard, that is a damning report. If we are honest, though, none of it would come as a surprise to any of us in this House who have watched Sri Lanka’s treatment of the Tamil minority over the years.
From the state’s inception, the Tamil minority has been treated as outsiders in their own land. The Ceylon Citizenship Act of 1948 effectively rendered Tamils stateless, leading to the deportation of many thousands of Tamils to India between the 1960s and 1980s. That was quickly followed by the 1956 Sinhala Only Act, which made Sinhalese the only official language of Sri Lanka, completely excluding Tamil and making it abundantly clear that Sri Lanka’s Tamils, as well as their history, language and culture, had no place in that new country. Given that level of state-sponsored discrimination, it is little wonder there has been such an appalling catalogue of violence and atrocity crimes perpetrated on the Tamil people.
Time and again, Tamils have been the victim of oppression and systematic violence, which dates back to the 1950s and continues to the present day. Violence, including serious accusations of widespread sexual violence, is being perpetrated against women and girls by both the Sri Lankan military and Sinhalese mobs during the numerous anti-Tamil pogroms, which stretch back decades.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman just reminded me in what he said that along with the things that we ask for, we need accountability for those who carried out some of those despicable—and worse—crimes. That ensures that they do not think they are getting away with the crimes that they have carried out and that there will be accountability in the courts of the land. They will get their justice in the next world, but you, Dame Maria, I and many others want to see them get their justice in this world.
Brendan O’Hara
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. He is right, and I will touch on that momentarily.
It is absolutely essential that there is accountability and that people are held to account. We must use what powers we have to ensure that that happens, because various UN bodies, Human Rights Watch and other human rights organisations have long criticised successive Sri Lankan Administrations for failing to investigate seriously and prosecute those responsible for the most grievous of human rights abuses. Amnesty International has identified that despite mounting global pressure to act, those violators have gone scot-free. The issues have remained unaddressed, and groups pressuring the Government to act have been harassed and marginalised.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington talked about the 1979 Prevention of Terrorism Act. That has been an area of real, grave concern for many of us. The Act has allowed arbitrary arrests, detention without charge, false confession and torture of anyone suspected of terrorism. The Government have used that Act for 40 years to arrest and detain opponents and suppress the Tamil community. More recently, it has been used to detain protesters and anyone speaking out against the Government, even if their comments were made on social media. However, there are now real fears that its replacement, the Anti-Terrorism Bill, may be actually worse, and that the Government’s attitude towards minority groups has not changed one iota.
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has already stated that the new Anti-Terrorism Bill does not get anywhere close to sorting out the defects in the Prevention of Terrorism Act, saying:
“It is deeply regrettable that the proposed legislation does not remedy any of these defects”.
Earlier this month, Human Rights Watch reported on the proposed new laws, which it says will “severely curtail civil liberties”. The new laws, including an Online Safety Act, an Electronic Media Broadcasting Authority Bill and a Non-Governmental Organisations (Registration and Supervision) Bill, will grant broad powers to security forces and severely restrict the right to freedom of assembly, association and expression. They will impact on not only the civic space, but the business environment.
Sri Lanka appears to be going backwards in its adherence to the principles of upholding and protecting fundamental human rights that we hold dear. As the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden said, that represents a collective failure by the international community. It says that we and our partners have not done nearly enough to pressure the Sri Lankan Government to change their behaviour. Thus far, I believe that we have not used all options open to us. Is it not time that, as well as discussing and debating in this place, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office persuading and pressuring in its place, the UK actually flexes its muscles where it can? It should apply targeted Magnitsky sanctions against those who can be identified as active or complicit in human rights abuses. Other countries can do it, and other countries have done it. That is the very least that the victims of the war—both living and dead, both here and in Sri Lanka—could and should expect from us.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. We have heard some really strong speeches and interventions today, not least from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn). I congratulate him on bringing forward this really important debate. I thank the Members who have contributed today. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined the incredible importance of the freedom of religious belief, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) spoke powerfully about the need to protect human rights in Sri Lanka, and the need to protect the Tamil community.
Issues of human rights and international law will always be central to how the Labour party approaches international affairs. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this topic. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), the shadow Foreign Minister for Asia and the Pacific, is currently travelling on parliamentary business so she has asked me to speak in her place.
There are many close ties between the UK and Sri Lanka and many living links between communities in both countries. Sri Lanka is a member of the Commonwealth and has been through a challenging period of economic crisis in the last few years. It is also, quite rightly, one of the FCDO’s 32 human rights priority countries, which is clear recognition of the serious ongoing human rights concerns there, including concerns for the rights of minority groups.
The Labour party believes that central components of the UK’s approach to Sri Lanka must be support for human rights, for accountability and, importantly, for reconciliation. Sri Lanka’s long civil war has left deep scars on the people of that country and, in the final months of that war, thousands of civilians, mainly from the Tamil community, lost their lives. That period included extensively documented reports of atrocities, torture and extra-judicial killings. It is deeply troubling that, 15 years since the end of that bloody conflict, so few people have been held accountable for their actions and little progress has been made. It remains an elusive search for justice. The reality is that the Sri Lankan Government have sought to evade accountability and delay scrutiny. It is therefore important that we call that out as unacceptable and we will continue to do so.
Many colleagues and hon. Members, from across the House, will be aware of the strength of feeling on these issues among many in the diaspora communities of our country. Many people write to us with concerns about the ongoing lack of accountability for what happened during that terrible period. I know many colleagues across the House, many of whom cannot be here today, have received that correspondence.
Justice and accountability are critical elements of building a durable and inclusive peace. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, the shadow Foreign Minister for Asia and the Pacific, welcomed the announcement, made in May last year, that the Sri Lankan Government will be undertaking a national unity and reconciliation commission. However, there are many outstanding concerns. Several major non-governmental organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have raised concerns about the commission. There appears to be a genuine lack of confidence in the milestones involved. Progress in transitional justice depends on the support of victims and their communities and it needs to be properly resourced. It needs to be independent and it needs to be transparent. It needs to be a proper truth and reconciliation commission that gives confidence to the international community. Can the Minister, therefore, outline the Government’s view on the commission, and what progress has been made with it?
With domestic justice processes being so long delayed and denied, we must also look at alternative routes. I want to mention two. First, are the UK Government willing to consider human rights sanctions against those deemed responsible for grave human rights abuses during the civil war? The Minister might tell me he cannot commit, but will he at least acknowledge that key allies of the UK, such as the US and Canada, have already imposed sanctions, including against General Silva? What is stopping us doing the same? Can he answer that today?
Secondly, on international routes to legal accountability, will the Minister make it clear whether he believes, based on the evidence at the International Criminal Court, that there is a case to be answered to prosecute international crimes committed during Sri Lanka’s civil war? Will he let us know if the UK Government are supporting that process in any way?
Tamil communities, as well as other minority communities, continue to face harassment, land seizures and marginalisation, including against civil activists. Just last week, eight Tamil Hindu worshippers were arrested while engaging in festival rituals. They were detained for more than 10 days and allegedly subjected to abuse. That only serves to sustain and deepen tensions and divides between the communities. Will the Minister outline what steps his Government are taking through their funded programmes in Sri Lanka on human rights to address the long-standing issues facing minority communities, particularly the Tamils?
We all want to see a pathway for Sri Lanka to become a pluralistic, multicultural democracy in which all people can flourish, but for the people in Sri Lanka and its diaspora whose lives were destroyed by this terrible civil war, truth, accountability and reconciliation are essential stages on that journey. I hope the Minister can give confidence to our constituents right across the country and those who care deeply about human rights that the UK Government are doing their part to support justice and peace.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I believe this is the first time we have been joined in such an endeavour during our time in the House together, Dame Maria, and it is a huge privilege to serve under your chairmanship. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing the debate, and I congratulate him on the way in which he presented what he had to say to us. Somewhat similarly to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), I am standing in for the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), as she is unable to attend, but it is my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government to the excellent and interesting debate we have just heard. I am extremely grateful for the contributions of all hon. Members who have spoken. I will seek to respond to all points raised, and if I omit any, I will of course immediately write to hon. Members.
One point I want to pick up at the outset, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, is to do with the British military engagement in Sri Lanka, but I hope to pick up the rest of his points during my remarks. The British strategy for defence engagement in Sri Lanka focuses primarily on professional military education, strategic leadership and international development. We continuously monitor the context and viability of the approach to ensure that UK assistance is in line with our values and consistent with our domestic and international human rights obligations, and assures the process of selecting appropriate personnel for any UK-sponsored training.
I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who was questioning me just an hour or so ago on issues to do with Hong Kong. I recognise the specific interest and experience he brings to a debate like this because of his knowledge and understanding of reconciliation, conflict and healing. I heard him say—and how right he is—that he speaks up always in this House for human rights and for the voiceless.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) spoke movingly on behalf of her Tamil constituents, and I will seek to come to at least some of her comments. Likewise, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) raised important issues from his experience of these matters. The hon. Member for Cardiff North raised a number of points that I will come to, but she asked me two specific questions. The first was about human rights sanctions, and as I think she inferred, we certainly keep such matters under review as appropriate, but she will not be particularly surprised to hear me say that we do not discuss them in advance and neither would we discuss our thinking across the Floor of the House. She also, secondarily, made a point about the importance of accountability. I will come to some of this in my further remarks, but I want to be very clear to her that we regard transparency and accountability as fundamental parts of reconciliation. I will say more about that in a moment.
Let me turn to the current situation. Human rights in Sri Lanka remain a priority for the Government, and we monitor closely the situation and developments there. The fact that Sri Lanka is a human rights priority country for the British Government reflects our concerns about a range of human rights issues and, quite rightly, hon. Members have highlighted a number of those concerns.
Civil society continues to face surveillance, intimidation and harassment by state authorities. Those points were eloquently set out during some of the contributions we have heard today. We are concerned about a trend towards a more constrained civic space, including the use of laws to limit freedoms of expression and assembly, such as the misuse of the international covenant on civil and political rights, or the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which was mentioned earlier. Britain continues to call for the replacement of the draconian PTA with legislation that is consistent with Sri Lanka’s international obligations and to uphold a moratorium on the use of the provisions of the PTA.
We are also concerned about the Online Safety Act, which was recently passed. It has the potential to restrict severely online communication and could criminalise many forms of expression. Proposals to strengthen the regulation of non-governmental organisations and broadcast media raise fears of efforts to restrict civic space.
Elliot Colburn
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. On the point about the online space, it is indeed being encroached on internationally. In fact, here in the United Kingdom, the Tamil Guardian and other Tamil publications have faced deplatforming from places like Meta, Facebook and Instagram, for example, due to complaints made elsewhere in the world under the auspices of the PTA and other bits of legislation. Can he perhaps take away the question of how we can protect the rights of Tamils to express themselves freely online when they are outside the geographical space of the island?
Mr Mitchell
Yes, I will certainly take that away, as my hon. Friend requests, and I hope that some of what I will have to say will assist in addressing that point. We want to encourage the Sri Lankan Government to hold comprehensive consultations with stakeholders and enact amendments to align legislation with Sri Lanka’s human rights obligations.
As this House acknowledged in a debate—I think, in December—a number of different communities, including Tamils and Muslims, face marginalisation by state authorities. There have been increasing tensions around land, which have sometimes centred around religious sites, such as the most recent incident at a Hindu temple in Vavuniya. These actions and incidents have troubling implications for freedom of religion or belief. There have been reports of state-sponsored settlement of traditional pastureland in Batticaloa, which threatens the livelihoods of local farmers. These events have increased the risk of communal tensions and stoked perceptions of forced displacement from traditional Tamil areas in the north and east of Sri Lanka. There have been several incidents of heavy-handed policing of peaceful protests and commemorations, and the ongoing special police operation, which is ostensibly aimed at combating drug trafficking, has raised serious concerns over arbitrary arrests, seizures of property and ill treatment in detention.
I now turn to what Britain specifically is seeking to do: promoting human rights, reconciliation and justice, and accountability. Those are key strands of the UK Government’s policy towards Sri Lanka. The Minister of State for the Indo-Pacific, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, raises our concerns about the human rights situation in Sri Lanka on a regular basis. When she visited Sri Lanka in October, she raised concerns with the President, the Foreign Minister and the Justice Minister, and she again saw the Sri Lankan Justice Minister when he was in Britain last week.
When in Sri Lanka, my right hon. Friend met the governor of Northern Province, Tamil representatives and members of civil society. She raised the need for progress on human rights for all communities in Sri Lanka, and the need for justice and accountability for violations and abuses committed during and following the armed conflict. The British Government have an £11 million programme that supports human rights and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. We have specific projects and programmes that help to tackle the legacy of the conflict, support civil society and democratic processes, promote gender equality and reduce inter-community tensions.
We have been a leading member of the core group of countries in the United Nations Human Rights Council that work to improve human rights, justice and accountability throughout Sri Lanka. We have worked within the UN human rights system to raise concerns and build international support to strengthen human rights. We used our statement to the UN Human Rights Council on 4 March to raise our concern on recent legislative developments relating to human rights, reconciliation and civic space.
Our statement urged the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure meaningful consultation on the proposed commission for truth, unity and reconciliation. Britian has stressed the importance, as I mentioned in my early remarks to the hon. Member for Cardiff North, of transparency, accountability and inclusivity in any process, and of building meaningfully on past work and recommendations that address the root causes of conflicts and impunity.
The British delegation in the UN Human Rights Council led work on the most recent resolution on Sri Lanka. We remain ready to support Sri Lanka in addressing the UK-penned resolution 51/1. In the resolution, we focused international attention on the human rights situation and shortcomings. We succeeded in renewing the mandate of UN human rights experts to report on these issues and to preserve evidence of abuses and violations—turning specifically to the point the hon. Lady made—committed during the armed conflict, so that justice can be pursued. We call on the Government of Sri Lanka to engage constructively with all UN human rights initiatives, and to take up the offers of support available to them.
There are some positive signs. We welcome steps taken by the Sri Lankan Government to address some of the community grievances, and civil society and international community concerns. The release of some disputed lands is a helpful step, as is the release of some long-term PTA detainees. We welcome the Government’s initial steps to engage with representatives of the Tamil community on a long-sought political settlement. We have urged the Government to consider further confidence-building measures and engagement. We welcome steps taken by the Government of Sri Lanka to improve connectivity between the north and countries in the region, including through regular flights. That should help increase economic opportunities for Tamils and others in those communities.
I will conclude on this note. Britain closely monitors human rights developments in Sri Lanka. We welcome the ongoing attentions and contributions of right hon. and hon. Members, and the spotlight they bring to this issue. We are concerned by the ongoing land disputes, the continued harassment and surveillance of civil society and the limitations on freedoms of expression, assembly and association, including through recent and proposed legislation. We will continue to urge the Sri Lankan Government to adhere to their human rights obligations, fulfil their commitments on transitional justice and legislative reform, and take steps to build trust in their institutions.
Our projects and programmes in Sri Lanka will continue to target the drivers of conflict and support improvements in human rights. Ministers and officials will continue to engage with the Government and wider society on human rights and transitional justice. We will remain a leading voice on the international stage, working with civil society and through the United Nations to deliver meaningful human rights improvements for the Tamils and all the people of Sri Lanka.
Elliot Colburn
I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh)—I have not yet had a chance to congratulate her on her damehood.
We cannot allow the lack of progress to continue. We will no doubt be back here again, not least because our Tamil constituents will demand that of us. As the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden said, particularly in London we are lucky to be blessed with large Tamil populations. I represent many Tamils in my Carshalton and Wallington constituency. They are excellent community voices. They are very active in our community, and are keen UK citizens. They are active in our public services—something like one in 10 doctors is Tamil, and a Tamil was on the team of doctors who came up with the first covid vaccine at Oxford. We thank the Tamil population for their contribution to the UK, and commit ourselves to doing all we can for them to secure peace, justice and accountability.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered human rights in Sri Lanka.
Defibrillators
(8 months, 1 week 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
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered public access to defibrillators.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Maria.
Every year, 160,000 deaths—nearly a quarter of all deaths in the United Kingdom—occur as a result of heart and circulatory diseases. Of that figure, an estimated 100,000 people die each year from sudden cardiac arrest. Shockingly, the survival rate for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest has been persistently low, at around 8.5%. There is an urgent need for parliamentarians and the Government to improve the survival rate and radically change the way we approach cardiac arrest.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on defibrillators, I have heard some deeply moving stories that have led me to conclude that public access to defibrillators should be one of the Government’s foremost priorities. The APPG has undertaken a detailed inquiry into public access to defibrillators, which was published today. Its primary aim is to understand the impact of out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest and the need for improved public access to defibrillators. The plain reality is brutal: without defibrillation or cardiopulmonary resuscitation, someone’s chances of surviving cardiac arrest drop by 10% every minute. If a sudden cardiac arrest victim does not receive CPR or defibrillation within 10 minutes, they are unlikely to survive.
The quicker a defibrillator can be accessed, the more likely someone is to survive cardiac arrest. However, the APPG found that there are considerable regional disparities in access to defibrillators. The National Institute for Health and Care Research found that deprived areas had far more limited access: while 45% of the most affluent areas had at least one device, the figure was only 27% for the most deprived areas. Further, according to the journal Heart, people in England and Scotland’s most deprived areas are between 99 metres and 317 metres further away from their nearest 24/7 defibrillator than those in more affluent areas. Rural areas are also at a significant disadvantage: while 64% of urban areas have at least one device, the same can be said for only 36% of rural areas. Ambulance response times in rural areas are also considerably slower than in urban areas, heightening the risk of death by cardiac arrest. That should make access to defibrillators an imperative in those areas, but, much though I would like it to be, that is not currently the case.
Given the sad truth that socioeconomic factors, education, diet and stress can increase or decrease someone’s chances of cardiac arrest, that all goes to show that we need to improve public access to defibrillators significantly, especially in disadvantaged communities.
Sir Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I know that he has done so much on this issue. In Stone in Staffordshire, we have the amazing charity AEDdonate, which does so much on installing defibrillators. One of the key points that it always hammers home is the importance of having defibrillators registered so the emergency services know where to direct people. Does my hon. Friend think that is critical to ensure that we get the best use out of them?
Jonathan Gullis
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend about the need, which I will come to later, to ensure that devices are registered. Having visited AEDdonate myself, I can say that it is made up of fantastic custodians working incredibly hard, not just in rural Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent but across the country, to make sure there is access. I know that my right hon. Friend is a doughty champion for its cause, as well as for the community he serves in ensuring access to these lifesaving devices.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for bringing this subject forward. Many in the House, and others, will be aware that I brought the Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) Bill to the House in 2020. The Government at the time accepted the necessity of having defibrillators in schools, and that was a fantastic milestone in this campaign, which the hon. Gentleman has taken further. Does he agree that it is one thing to have defibrillators installed, but that more must be done to educate people in schools, such as teachers, and teachers’ associations, to use defibrillators properly and make the most out of them, thereby saving more lives?
Jonathan Gullis
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is a great champion for the people of Strangford and it was an honour to visit his local community with him and see the fantastic work that he is doing there. That Bill still has my full support. I will come to the importance of improving education, so that it is not just a one-off. It needs to be repeated year in and year out, so that children in particular are immune to seeing what will be a distressing scene but, most importantly, have the muscle memory and are able to put that lifesaving support into action. The Minister himself is regularly saving lives, not just in his constituency but across his wider region, with the work that he does, so I am sure that he will understand the importance of persistent and regular education and training.
In September last year, I was pleased to see the Department introduce the community automated external defibrillator fund. This £1 million investment will help to increase access to these lifesaving devices and put an extra 2,000 defibrillators on the streets. That is an important step forward by the Department, but I urge the Minister to do far more to address the clear imbalances that I outlined.
The APPG on defibrillators and I have concluded that there is no co-ordinated national strategy to ensure that defibrillators are placed in areas with the highest need. With previous research illustrating that cardiac arrest is more likely in deprived areas, the Government must ensure that those areas have better or at least equal access to lifesaving equipment to more affluent areas. At this moment in time, that is simply not the case.
With over 30,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the UK each year and a survival rate of just one in 10, it is crucial that bystanders and emergency responders can locate and access the closest defibrillator immediately. The British Heart Foundation, NHS England, St John Ambulance and Resuscitation Council UK provide the NHS with vital information about the location of defibrillators. The Circuit is a nationwide, data-led map of defibrillators in the United Kingdom. Currently, over 86,000 have been registered, but it is estimated that tens of thousands are still unaccounted for.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for giving such an excellent speech. Hayling Island Community Responders is a voluntary emergency response group in the Havant constituency. The responders carry defibrillators and train volunteers to use them. They are often the first people on the scene in a medical emergency. Will my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister join me in supporting community responders, encouraging more defibrillator training and encouraging more volunteers to join community medical response groups across the country?
Jonathan Gullis
I thank my hon. Friend for the undoubted effort that he puts in regularly in his constituency to raise the profile of that fantastic community group of dedicated volunteers. That relates to the point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson). These groups, who go in day and day out, do not expect much money at all, but try to do everything that they can at cost, in their own time, to literally save lives. I wholeheartedly congratulate the organisation that my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak) referred to, and I congratulate him on using this opportunity to mention its name and ensure that it is in Hansard for all the right reasons. Ultimately, those people are lifesavers, quite literally, and without them our community would be poorer. I am grateful to him for giving me an opportunity to praise them.
It is vital that “defibrillator guardians” register their device on The Circuit, so that ambulance services can access their data. The national view provided by The Circuit means that if 999 is called in the west midlands but the call handlers of the West Midlands Ambulance Service are all busy, the call can be diverted to call handlers elsewhere, who can locate the nearest defibrillator if it has been registered.
By creating a comprehensive AED map, The Circuit provides data identifying where defibrillators are needed. The “Complete The Circuit” campaign by the Express led to a further 16,000 defibrillators being registered, but we need to ensure that every lifesaving device is registered. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify whether the Government will pursue that.
Since becoming the chair of the APPG in January 2023, I have made a conscious effort to monitor public access to defibrillators in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. I have visited several local organisations and groups over the past year to see what access they have to a defibrillator. For example, in October 2023, I was delighted to visit Linley and Kidsgrove rugby club, which had written to me earlier last year about getting a defibrillator on site. It was an honour and a privilege to present the club with a CellAED, which will ensure the wellbeing and safety of players, spectators and the wider community. The device is portable, meaning that it can be taken to away games, too, which could prove vital.
It was also fantastic to visit the Jolly Carter pub in Middleport, which installed a defibrillator late last year after a charity drive to raise funding for one. When I met the landlady, Nicola Fisher, I was surprised to hear that the defibrillator had already saved the life of a man involved in a car crash. The Ford Green pub, which I visited in May, also got its own defibrillator last year, thanks to the hard fundraising efforts of Jayne Bushell and her team. The pub is at the heart of a very busy local community, and the defibrillator could help save lives. And a defibrillator that I personally donated towards—thanks to Mr Rob Matthews bringing the campaign for it to my attention—is now located on Chell Heath Road in the Bradeley and Chell Heath ward. Slowly but surely, public access to defibrillators is improving, but it is essential that we do everything we can to rapidly speed up the process to better protect the public.
The APPG’s report suggested mandating that every emergency vehicle must have a defibrillator. At an APPG session in May last year we heard the tragic story of Naomi Issitt, who tragically lost her 18-year-old son Jamie because a defibrillator was not available when he collapsed at two in the morning. Shamefully, ambulances did not arrive within the required response time, and the police car was not equipped with a defibrillator despite the force believing it had one. The sad reality is simple: had the police car been equipped with a defibrillator, Jamie might still be with us today.
The APPG also found that only one in 11 police cars have access to a defibrillator. We sent freedom of information requests to all the police forces in the UK, and we found that many forces have defibrillators in less than 1.5% of vehicles. We met a representative of Lancashire police who told us that the majority of specialist police vehicles—roads and armed-response vehicles—already carry defibrillators, but most standard police vehicles do not.
Putting a defibrillator in every emergency vehicle and ensuring that all emergency workers know how to use them could help save lives. If only ambulances and specialist police vehicles have these lifesaving devices then there is a high possibility that a police officer could get to the scene of a cardiac arrest and be unable to help in the way that they would wish. Jamie’s death should be a wake-up call. I urge the Minister to consider urging emergency services to better protect the public and ensure that all vehicles are equipped with these lifesaving devices.
Alongside improving access to defibrillators, we need to ensure that people know how to use them. As a former teacher, I know just how important education is in developing people’s understanding of key issues like this. The APPG made it clear that integrating comprehensive first aid training with a strong focus on CPR and defibrillator use can play a pivotal role in equipping younger generations with lifesaving skills. I am pleased that every state school is now mandated to have a defibrillator through the Government’s Defibs4Schools programme. That is an important step forward in widening access to defibrillators, and saving lives as a result.
However, there is a concern that legislation fails to mandate that schools must store their defibrillators on the outside of buildings. I sadly need to revisit the tragic story of Naomi Issitt. She told me in an evidence session that, as well as the issues surrounding the emergency services’ lacklustre critical response time, Jamie had collapsed near a school that had a defibrillator equipped, but because the defibrillator was located inside the school premises, it was inaccessible. The APPG and I agree that it is essential that defibrillators in schools and other public places are accessible 24/7 to heighten the chances of survival through quick access to a defibrillator.
Alongside having physical access to a defibrillator, it is vital that the public are aware how to use them. The fact that the survival rate is depressingly low is due in part to the lack of skills and confidence in performing lifesaving CPR among the UK population. With survival dependent on rapid support, it is the responsibility of policymakers and politicians to campaign to ensure that as many people as possible have those lifesaving skills.
According to a survey of over 4,000 adults conducted by YouGov, over a third have never learned CPR. Nearly half cited a lack of awareness about where to learn, and a quarter of respondents said they lacked the confidence to learn. Those figures are striking. We need to find radical solutions to better equip the public with the skills needed to save lives.
The APPG and I heard from Dr Thomas Keeble, a consultant cardiologist and associate professor at Anglia Ruskin University, who revealed that defibrillators are used in only one in 10 cardiac arrests where lifesaving defibrillators are available. His research revealed that not only are people inadequately equipped with lifesaving CPR skills, but they lack the confidence to use a defibrillator when it is available.
The APPG and I have met some incredibly inspiring individuals and groups over the past 12 months, including Mark King from the Oliver King Foundation. The foundation was established in 2012 following the tragic death of 12-year-old Oliver at a school in Liverpool. Oliver died from sudden arrhythmic death syndrome, a hidden heart condition that kills 12 young people every week. The foundation, set up by Oliver’s father, Mark, provides training in defibrillator awareness and first aid, and has placed 5,900 lifesaving devices in schools and organisations across the United Kingdom. At an APPG session, the foundation emphasised the importance of education, telling me that confidence is key when using a defibrillator, and that removing the fear factor is vital when teaching children how to use it.
The Defibs4Schools programme is a welcome step, but I urge the Minister to consider rolling out CPR training in primary schools. In addition, it is essential that we extend the regulations to ensure that defibrillators should be part of first aid sessions too. These are simple yet effective ways to bridge the gap and empower individuals to become first responders from a young age.
Alongside bettering young people’s understanding and confidence with defibrillators in schools, the APPG has heard that many European countries require people to undertake first aid training to complete a driving test. That is another way in which we can help to develop public awareness and, ultimately, save lives. In Switzerland, applicants must demonstrate that they have undertaken 10 hours of first aid instruction from a Government-approved company to complete their theory test. Germany also requires seven hours of first aid training—nine lessons of 45 minutes each—for all categories of driving licence. Similar models are used in the Czech Republic, Austria, Slovenia, Hungary and the Baltic states. In the UK, around two thirds of young people aged between 21 and 29 have a driving licence. That presents us with a remarkable opportunity to empower a significant portion of the population with life-saving capabilities.
Let me turn to VAT on defibrillators. Defibrillators vary in cost, but the average unit is around £1,250. That is a considerable expense for many groups, charities and sports clubs, especially considering that a sizeable portion of that is the 20% VAT. On average, small businesses, community groups, charities and private users must pay added tax on top of all defibrillator purchases, bringing costs up by £200 to £500 per defibrillator.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) regularly raised this when he was a Minister in the Department. Sadly, he could not make it to this debate, but he wanted to reiterate his support for the Government to re-evaluate this. Some charities are exempt from paying VAT on defibrillators: not-for-profit hospitals; charitable institutions that provide care or medical or surgical treatment for disabled people; and rescue or first aid services. However, most sports clubs and community groups do not qualify.
Last summer, I visited AED Donate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire has mentioned. It obviously supports the placement and use of automated external defibrillators in local communities. It told me that the removal of VAT would have allowed them to install another 223 additional defibrillators in communities in 2023—they could not do that because of VAT. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that.
Improving survival rates for sudden cardiac arrest rests on increasing public access to defibrillators. It is of paramount importance that we tackle the clear barriers that are preventing lives from being saved by improving public access in disadvantaged areas and through better education. I hope that this debate, which I thank all my hon. and right hon. Friends for engaging with, will raise awareness and that the Minister will take some of my suggestions on board.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on securing this important debate. I know that he is a passionate and vocal supporter of increasing access to life-saving public defibrillators and first aid training. I pay tribute to the work of the all-party parliamentary group on defibrillators and look forward to reading its report in due course. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friends the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson) for their contributions to this short debate.
Public defibrillators can really be the difference between life and death for people who suffer what are known as out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. According to the British Heart Foundation, automated external defibrillators, AEDs, are used by bystanders in around only 10% of these types of incidents, but early defibrillation—within three to five minutes of collapse—can increase survival rates by as much as 50% to 70%. That is why we are working hard to increase the number of community defibrillators, increase public awareness and tackle the wider causes of heart attacks. I am proud that we have introduced the community automated external defibrillators fund. The £1 million match fund allows communities across England to bid for AEDs in places with high footfall, in more remote areas that have longer waiting times for emergency medical responses, in areas with high numbers of vulnerable people, and in areas that host activities that mean they are more likely to be needed.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I congratulate the Department of Health and Social Care on that fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and I referred to the charity AED Donate. There is a lot of charitable work going on in this sector. I wondered whether it would be possible for the Minister to arrange for the charity to meet up with suitable officials, so that it can best understand how it can deliver the Department’s aims and so that the Department has an understanding of what it is delivering in communities across the country.
Andrew Stephenson
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. I join him in paying tribute to that organisation. I would be happy to arrange a meeting with relevant officials in the Department.
Our partners on the programme of rolling out defibrillators are Smarter Society and the London Hearts charity. They have been assessing applications for delivering additional AEDs, working with a wide and diverse range of groups. The first hundred devices that Smarter Society distributed were fully funded, and our partners at the University of Warwick helped us to prioritise the areas of greater deprivation without an AED in situ.
I am delighted to update hon. Members and tell them that, as of 12 March, Smarter Society and London Hearts have now delivered 1,590 AEDs and are working to deliver more. I would also like to pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friends in the Department for Education, who are ensuring that every state school has access to a defibrillator. I am told more than 20,000 devices have been delivered to almost 18,000 schools. That will drastically increase the chances of surviving cardiac arrest for pupils and school staff across England.
The Department for Education has supported schools in making the defibrillators available to the community, having offered external heated defibrillator cabinets to primary, special and alternative provision schools in areas of deprivation, where access to defibrillators is typically lower. It has also provided internal cabinets to secondary schools with two or more defibrillators, so one device can be placed at a sports facility where cardiac arrest is more likely to happen.
All state-funded schools are required to teach first aid as part of the mandatory relationship, sex and health education curriculum—another positive change made by the Conservatives since 2010—since we have been in government. That involves children over 12 being taught CPR and the use of a defibrillator. The Department for Education has also provided awareness videos showing how simple the defibrillators are to use, and it is encouraging schools to share the videos in staff meetings and assemblies. That will ensure that as many people as possible are able to respond in an emergency.
I know that making defibrillators as affordable as possible is important to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, as he set out in his speech. The Government and I agree, although we have to keep these matters under review. He will appreciate that matters relating to VAT are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Although having access to defibrillators is important, just as important is knowing where they are, so that they can be used in a time of crisis. That is why the NHS is working in partnership with the British Heart Foundation, the Resuscitation Council UK and the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives to set up The Circuit, which my hon. Friend talked about. The Circuit is a national database that will make it easier for ambulance services quickly to identify the nearest defibrillator when assisting someone who is having an out of hospital cardiac arrest.
As of 1 March, there were 86,337 defibrillators in the UK—68,509 in England— registered on The Circuit. We encourage everyone with an AED to register it. I can assure the House that all defibrillators granted by the community automated external defibrillator fund must be registered on The Circuit. The registration is completed by what is known as a defibrillator guardian—someone nominated by the organisation hosting the device. That role involves registering it on The Circuit, regularly checking the defibrillator to ensure that it can be used, and keeping the record updated. As I hope my hon. Friend appreciates, that is both an effective and a pragmatic approach to ensuring that defibrillators are where we think they should be, and that they continue to be ready for use in times of crisis.
I reinforce the fact that defibrillators are designed for ease of use. If there is one message I want to land in today’s debate, it is that these simple devices are easy to use, yet life-saving. Anyone can use them without formal training. That said, training is actively helpful in increasing the confident use of defibrillators in a community setting. For that reason, the NHS has partnered with St John Ambulance to help people gain the skills they need. That includes a national network of community advocates championing the importance of first-aid training, and training up 60,000 people, which will save up to 4,000 lives a year by 2028.
I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to those organisations and others that work tirelessly to improve defibrillator access and first aid training in communities across the country. Their contributions are crucial in getting help for people in some of the toughest moments of their lives and I cannot thank them enough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North has raised the idea of requiring defibrillator training as part of driving tests. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) was a strong supporter of that as my immediate predecessor in this role. While this is primarily a matter for the Department for Transport, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North will continue to make representations in this area. I assure him that the Government are always happy to engage in those discussions.
I am also aware of my hon. Friend’s interest in ensuring that all emergency vehicles carry AEDs as a matter of course. While the Government fully recognise that the equipment carried by emergency vehicles is an operational matter, I encourage all services to consider the benefits of carrying AEDs as a matter of routine.
On a personal note, I would like to pay tribute to David Brown, the incredible team leader of the Pendle, Padiham and Burnley community first responder team, of which I am part. I was backed up by David on the first ever cardiac arrest I attended as a community first responder almost 10 years ago. He does incredible work delivering CPR training across Pendle, as well as putting in thousands of hours as a volunteer with the North West Ambulance Service.
I would also like to pay tribute to my late constituent, Ruth Sutton. In 2016, Ruth saw a photo of me in the local newspaper unveiling a new community defibrillator in the Pendleside village of Blacko. She contacted me to see how we could get even more defibrillators across Pendle. Over the following months, she worked with me and the North West Ambulance Service, investigating possible locations to install new defibrillator cabinets. By 2018, Pendle had the best coverage for public access defibrillators in Lancashire, with 20 cabinets installed: a real, lasting legacy of a remarkable lady.
I hope that our prevention and treatment work, including the forthcoming major conditions strategy, which my Department is in the final stages of drawing up, will act as a guiding light for a faster, simpler and fairer NHS. In combination with our efforts to increase defibrillators and increase first aid training across the country, we will improve our ability to intervene in an emergency situation and to save lives.
I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North for securing this incredibly important debate. I look forward to working with him long into the future to make progress on this vital issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Prevention of Future Deaths Report: Terance Radford
(8 months, 1 week 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
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform UK)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered lessons learned from the Terance Radford Prevention of Future Deaths Report.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. Today, I want to tell the story of two men. One of them, Terance Radford, was born on 11 August 1931 and died on 19 April 2019, aged 87. Terance was an upstanding citizen, a gentleman who made an outstanding contribution to his country, well-loved and well-respected throughout the community. The other man is a gentleman called Gavin Collins. He was a thief—that is the best way that I can explain it.
I will talk briefly about Terance—or Terry, as his family call him—and what kind of man he was. It is important to say that we are talking about not just a name, but a person, whose lovely family are in the Public Gallery on his behalf. Terry was an amazing dad and grandad, and all his family loved and respected him. They were, and still are, in awe of everything that he achieved in his life. He was born in Mansfield Woodhouse, which is the next constituency. The MP there, by the way, is Ben Bradley, who is very supportive of the case.
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman means the hon. Member for Mansfield.
Lee Anderson
Sorry—the MP there is the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley). I apologise, Dame Maria.
Terry was born in Mansfield Woodhouse and lived there all his life. He was proud of his village, and he cared deeply about his community. He went to the national school and had a traditional upbringing. His dad was a miner and his mum was a housewife who created a loving home for Terry and his three sisters. He excelled in his studies, and when he left school he went to work for the Metal Box Company in Mansfield, which was a major local employer and a place where my mother and many of my friends worked, actually. To further his education, Terry went to a local college to study engineering at night school, and he excelled. He went on to do his national service, in which he served in the Royal Navy as a petty officer working on minesweepers. He was an incredibly brave and dedicated man. When Terry had done his service, he went to work for Rolls-Royce in the aero-design team—he worked proudly on the RB211 fan blades. His job regularly took him to the United States for several weeks at a time to work for their sister company, and he always enjoyed coming back and sharing his knowledge with younger people.
When he was in his 50s, Terry decided to become a teacher; he worked at Valley Comprehensive School in Worksop, teaching woodwork and metalwork until he retired. Despite always having a demanding job, that was not enough for Terry. He always tried to serve his community in the best way that he could. He was a local councillor for many years and also took the post of head governor at several local schools in the Mansfield area. He was also a justice of the peace—a job that he enjoyed from 1971 to 1985.
Everyone in the community valued Terry for his honesty and integrity. He would always take time to help people. He was what we would probably call a salt-of-the-earth type of gentleman. He loved life. He was highly intelligent, a great conversationalist and great fun to be with. Everyone in his family loved to spend time with him. Terry was extremely fit for his age—he was 87 years old when he died. He used to go to the gym and use all the apparatus there, and he would go swimming three times a week, but his favourite time was time spent with family and friends, and especially with young people. He liked to spend time with his grandchildren and their friends. He was the family rock, the hub, the person his family would go to if they needed advice or comfort. That is a brief description of the type of chap that Terry was.
I will now talk about Gavin Collins. On 9 November 2017, Gavin was in court being sentenced to five months for an offence that he committed in May 2017. He had spent time on remand, which meant he was released the following day. He was re-arrested for offences including burglary and theft, all committed in December 2017. On 11 July 2018, Gavin Collins was sentenced to three years for burglary and theft from a dwelling. That is the sentence he was released early from.
On 4 April 2019, Collins’s paperwork was sent to Governor Archer at His Majesty’s Prison Ranby, who granted Collins early release for 18 April 2019; it was agreed that Gavin would go home on a tag. At that time, Collins was in segregation away from all the other prisoners because he had set fire to his cell twice and injured a prison staff member with a plastic knife. Collins had been placed on report. On 13 April 2019, the police informed the prison that they had decided not to pursue a criminal investigation as it was a matter that could be dealt with by the prison directly; that is a failure there. There are statements that Governors Archer, Cope and Fretwell had conversations on 15 April 2019 regarding Collins’s early release date. They were looking at a release date of 18 April due to the upcoming bank holiday—Friday 19 April was Good Friday. Collins was due to be released anyway on 29 April, but the investigation of him setting fire to the cell would have gone beyond that. The very earliest date for his release should have been 29 April, and that had always been scheduled.
On 16 April 2019, Collins woke up other prisoners in the night shouting that he was dying. He was medically checked over and found to be medically fit. Later that day, he was lying down on the ground in the exercise yard. He claimed to have been poisoned by methadone. The doctor was made aware of his behaviour. On 18 April, Collins was released in the early morning from HMP Ranby. A family friend collected him and said that he did not look right; he was talking funny and his behaviour was strange, as though he had been on drugs. The friend took him home and told family members how concerned he was for Collins. That was when the trail of havoc started.
On 19 April 2019, Collins forced his way into several people’s homes and stole three cars. He crashed the first two cars and then forced his way into a woman’s home by smashing the back door. Collins then used blood from his injuries to daub crucifixes on the heads of the women and her children, while talking about God and making threats to kill them. He then stole the woman’s car, which he used to drive into Mr Radford. Before he got out, he shouted, “I’ve killed him, I’ve killed the devil.”
Mr Radford had just gone out for his morning walk and was waiting near a bus stop, minding his own business. He died at the scene. Collins was later jailed for 21 years for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, but Terry’s death need not have happened. Terry might still be here today had it not been for the failures of HMP Ranby and the three governors who made the wrong decision to release Collins, which ultimately led to the death of Terry Radford.
Terry’s family are sat in the Public Gallery today, and they think it is unacceptable. I think that is putting it mildly; it is actually criminal. They are unable to find out the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings of the prison governors concerned; had the proceedings taken place in a criminal court, they probably would have known by now. They attended the inquest every single day and found out the names of the people responsible for letting Collins out of prison. They saw the faces of the governors and watched them as they told untruths throughout the process, but the coroner knew the truth and got to the bottom of it. It is all now in the public domain and accessible to everyone, but the family are still not allowed to know what happened to the people who let Collins out of prison. That is wrong.
Terry’s family think that, as usual, the wrongdoers are protected and innocent people are left with no closure. They are doing their very best to move on, but they cannot move on because they want to know what has happened to the people who were ultimately responsible for the release of Gavin Collins, and then for their father’s—Terry’s—death. They think, and I agree with them, that the governors should have faced a criminal court for their actions, not just disciplinary proceedings. They do not understand why no one within the justice system wanted to take this further.
How could the governors get away with taking the law into their own hands by releasing the prisoner when they had no authority to do so? Why was it not investigated by Nottinghamshire police? The family know that the police went to HMP Ranby on the day of the incident to retrieve records. If the police had investigated thoroughly, they would have known what had happened. If the coroner could work out what had happened, then why could the police not do so? Should Nottinghamshire police have investigated this failing? I think they probably should have. In the prevention of future deaths report, the coroner’s answer to the question, “Was Mr Radford’s death avoidable?” was, “Yes.” Had Collins remained in prison, Mr Radford might have been here today.
There are many failings in the whole investigation, and many similarities, sadly, with the stabbings in Nottingham city last year. The family feel that no lessons have been learned. They want to know what actions have been taken against the individuals responsible, and whether any of them have been dismissed, downgraded or transferred from the Prison Service. The fact that they are not allowed to know makes them feel as if there has been a cover-up. Their wish is that none of these people are still working within the Prison Service, as that would be an absolute travesty.
I want to ask the Minister to look at the family here in the Public Gallery. This family, who lost Terry. We have two of his sons here; they have lost their dad—their loving father. They have come here today for justice. They want closure. I want him to look at them in the eyes when he rises to speak and to tell them what happened to those governors.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for setting the scene so well, with the compassion and understanding that we expect of him and he has delivered on many occasions. Our sympathies are clearly with the family who are here seeking justice and understanding of what took place. The hon. Member has outlined the case very well, and I just want to make a few comments. It will not take very long, Dame Maria, but I think it is worth putting them on record because of the implications of the case.
I am pleased to see the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), here. We seek an understanding of what happened, how it happened and why it will not happen again. That is what I want to speak about.
When I read the details of the case, I was sickened and shocked. My thoughts immediately went to the family of, as the hon. Member described him, a spritely old gentleman, who had holidays planned and was enjoying a full life when it was taken from him by someone who had demonstrated that he had absolutely no regard for human life. To see this early release under curfew has undoubtedly shown, and sown concern about, a major flaw in the process.
The Minister is a compassionate man, who understands the issues. In his response, he will try to answer the questions we all have, and his response to the coroners’ report and recommendations is clear. The family of that gentleman and others in this place have asked how this was allowed to happen in the first place. How could a man who could not be kept under control in prison have been expected to abide by curfew obligations once released? The hon. Member for Ashfield clearly outlined the attitude of the man in prison, what he did, his threats to staff and his destruction of property. The ordinary person would say that he could not understand why this man was ever released, and yet because legislation or guidance did not directly say this, unfortunately, Terance Radford died.
To me, this is an indication of how decisions are made looking at the letter and not the spirit of the law. This was not about justice, compassion and understanding for family. No reasonable person could have determined that the spirit of this curfew option was for people such as this—I do not normally use this word—thug who had set fires and attacked prison guards in custody. Yet there is such a fear of impinging on the human rights of the prisoner that it must be black and white that this is only an option for those for whom it is safe. I firmly believe that we must come away from this fear and instil in our decision makers—in the courts of the land and in the authorities who make decisions—the confidence that judgment can and should be used, and that they will be supported in such decisions.
The lesson of Terance Radford is, I believe, a shame on society. It was a shame and disgrace that Gavin Collins could be released under the scheme. Here today we must ensure that this slavish adherence to the letter of a law, or omission of expressly stated reasoning, is never—and never can be—sound reason for releasing dangerous people on to our streets until we absolutely have no choice to do otherwise. We must have confidence in the law of the land and in the justice that we seek, support and wish for. This lesson is a hard one. It has been hard for the hon. Member for Ashfield to tell his personal story in this room today. It is harder still for Terance’s family, who grieve his loss and the grief of a society who understand how badly we have failed Terance, and them.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for what I believe is the first time, Dame Maria. I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for obtaining this important debate today, and for the humanity he brought to his speech. My thoughts are with Terance Radford’s family and friends for their bravery throughout this time, and for coming here today.
I have read the coroner’s report, the Ministry of Justice’s response and—perhaps most powerfully—what Terance’s family said in the aftermath of the killing. Terance, or Terry, was an 87-year-old grandfather who had served this country—a retired teacher and a former magistrate who was simply waiting for a bus before he was struck and killed by a car driven by a man released from prison the day before.
I will focus today on the specifics of the case, the wider issues within our prison, probation and justice system, and finally, the issues that remain within the home detention curfew system and other early release schemes. Three crucial issues in this case were ignored before the release of the driver whose actions killed Terance. First, he was being kept in a segregated wing after committing acts of violence, yet this was not considered to be a factor to prevent early release. Secondly, an ongoing investigation into his behaviour was still outstanding. Thirdly, the probation service had not done a proper risk assessment about his release. The report by the corner is damning—organisations not talking to each other, risk assessments not being carried out, and gaps in the early release scheme not being closed until it was too late.
Terance was failed by the justice system and by the Government. One key purpose of prison is to keep the public safe. We need to uphold confidence and support for our justice system, as other Members have said. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his, as always, careful and considerate remarks.
Cases such as this have shaken our constituents’ faith in the justice system, and no more so than that of Terance Radford’s family and friends. According to reports, the driver had assaulted prison officers, threatened to kill an officer and set two fires to the prison. That is not an isolated case. Yes, the specific factors cited around home detention curfew may have been case-specific, but too often we have seen individuals released from prison without proper risk assessments and without different services talking to each other. We have seen three serious case reviews—Damien Bendall, Jordan McSweeney and Joshua Jacques—where individuals were released after incorrect or insufficient risk assessments, sometimes by staff with too little experience, and then the offender went on to commit a serious further offence.
We might ask why our justice system is in this state. For 14 years, we have seen a crisis in our criminal justice system—crises in our courts, our prisons and our probation sector. The loss of experienced staff and a high turnover in the staffing of prisons and the probation service means a crisis in which ever-bigger gaps are forming—gaps that create more victims.
The report from the former chief inspector of probation was damning. Too often, proper risk assessments are not happening. I am repeating myself, but that is no coincidence; time and again we see serious cases like this, where an individual has died, a report is released finding gaps, the Minister comes to this place and tells us that it is all broadly fine, and we are expected to wait until the next serious report to repeat the cycle.
It is on that subject that I want to probe the Minister on how we prevent that from happening, being quite aware that there is an outside chance that I might be in his position after the general election. The Government are currently looking to expand home detention curfew in the Sentencing Bill. Last Monday, in a statutory instrument debate, I asked the Minister when that Bill would be coming back. We have since read in The Sunday Times that the Justice Secretary has been having angry phone calls with No.10 about this, so I will give the Minister another chance: could he confirm when the Sentencing Bill will come back to this House? Do the Government still plan on expanding home detention curfew?
Likewise, if it is expanded, what specific safeguards will be in place to protect victims of crime, including victims of domestic violence? How will the Government ensure that there are adequate probation officers to carry out the required risk assessments if more people are released on home detention curfew? The Ministry of Justice impact assessment estimates that an additional 850 offenders will be managed by probation as a consequence of the changes. The probation service is already overstretched; how will it cope with an additional 850?
I also want to put on record my concern about the lack of transparency on the end of the end of custody supervised licence—ECSL—scheme. It is another scheme to release prisoners early, and it is now being expanded to release more prisoners, yet the Minister says that the Government will only publish numbers annually. Also on the ECSL scheme, I have seen an example where a victim of domestic violence saw their abuser released and housed near them. It was only after an intervention and escalation that alternative housing was found somewhere else. What is specifically being done to protect victims when prisoners are released early under the ECSL scheme?
We know that our criminal justice system is in crisis. It is heartbreaking and wrong that people such as Terance—a man in his 80s just waiting at a bus stop—end up featuring in reports and having their names echoing around this place, when those years of his life should have been spent with his family and loved ones. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing a debate on this important issue. It is, as we have all seen, inevitably a sad debate, given the nature of the tragic events we are discussing.
First, I express my deepest sympathy to the hon. Member’s constituents and to Mr Radford’s family and friends. I want to highlight, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), did, the dignity that they have shown throughout what has been an horrific set of circumstances. The circumstances of Terance’s—Terry’s—death are truly terrible, and my thoughts are with them and the rest of his family. I also extend my sympathies to the other victims of Mr Collins’s crimes that day.
The hon. Member for Ashfield has rightly been tenacious in raising and pursuing this matter, and I am conscious that, prior to my appointment to my role in November 2023, he engaged with my predecessor. I have taken the time to read carefully his extensive correspondence with the previous Ministers.
The circumstances of this crime, and the other serious offences committed on 19 April 2019, are not just deeply troubling but deeply upsetting. I am grateful to the coroner for her work in highlighting areas in the home detention curfew policy, as it was at the time, that require action. That helps to ensure that we have updated, improved policies and practices in place to help prevent things like this from happening again.
I note the shadow Minister’s points, but I am going to focus on the specifics of the case, rather than ranging more widely into the broader political sphere. We took the findings and recommendations in the coroner’s report extremely seriously. I will explain the Government’s actions in response, although I fully appreciate that those will not lessen in any way the pain and the loss to Terry’s family and friends. I acknowledge that the internal investigation into the case identified errors and failures, which it is also important for me to speak about.
It may be helpful for me to say a little about the home detention curfew scheme, or HDC, under which Collins was released. It has been in place for over two decades, having been created and introduced in 1999 by the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw. It is a tool in successfully managing the transition of eligible offenders from custody back into the community. It does so by enabling certain prisoners to be released before their normal automatic release date while remaining subject to significant restrictions on their liberty, including a curfew, which is monitored by electronic tag. The scheme is limited to certain types of offenders: all sexual and serious violent offenders, for example, are excluded from it, as are those subject to Parole Board release. Offenders are required to undergo a robust risk assessment to ensure they are released only if there is a plan in place to manage them safely in the community.
I am sorry to say that, having looked into this case following the hon. Gentleman’s tabling of the debate, the process in Collins’s case was clearly found to have fallen short of what was expected and what people had a right to expect. Although the offences for which Collins was serving his sentence were correctly identified as eligible and suitable for HDC, the risk management planning was undertaken without all the relevant information being obtained, as the hon. Gentleman has highlighted. That included information about the mental health of Mr Collins at the time. I will say a little more about the investigation and its findings.
Protecting the public must be our overriding priority, and it is therefore right to keep HDC policy and practice under review, to ensure that it remains as robust and safe as possible. Of course, that must mean learning lessons and taking action when something goes tragically wrong, as it did on this occasion. Every failure or serious incident committed by someone who has been released on HDC is, rightly, taken incredibly seriously, and what happened in the case of Terry’s death was truly appalling.
I should have mentioned at the beginning that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for painting a very human picture and making this House, and those following our proceedings, very much aware that this is a real person. This was someone who served his community, served his country, and was much loved by his family and friends. He was only going about his normal daily life, which he should have been able to enjoy peacefully. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making this a very human story and bringing that across in our debate.
We have taken actions to investigate what happened and address the concerns raised by the coroner. I would never wish in any way to detract—in what I say or in the lessons learned—from the huge impact that that has clearly had.
I will turn now to the lessons learned from the prevention of future deaths report. The report raised three central concerns about the HDC policy that was in place at the time of Collins’s release. First, the coroner —I pay tribute to His Majesty’s coroner, then Her Majesty’s coroner, for the work on this—highlighted that the prisoner in this case, at the time he was released on HDC, was being held in prison segregation due to his poor conduct in custody and concerns about the risks he might present to others in the prison, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Ashfield in his remarks. The coroner rightly raised concerns about release in that context and, as a result, we have since taken action to address that issue.
The policy framework has been amended to ensure that those in segregation are not released on HDC unless the most senior governor in the prison, the governing governor, has specifically considered those circumstances and determined that the offender can be safely managed in the community. It is now the policy that no one is released on HDC directly from segregation, unless the risks have been explicitly considered and a decision actively made at the time of release that HDC remains a safe and appropriate route.
Secondly, the report highlighted that the policy at the time required decision makers to consider the risks that the offender might present to those at the proposed curfew address, but not to the public more widely. Rightly, changes have been made to address that, too. The policy now in place requires that, when considering a prisoner for release on HDC, account must be taken of the risks presented overall to people in the community, not just those at the address the offender is going to. It has been made clear that those wider, more general risks must form part of the process of determining whether an offender is safe to be released on HDC.
Thirdly, concerns were raised that the HDC policy contained insufficient guidance on the need to share information properly between the various agencies and professionals involved in managing releases. I fully agree that such information sharing is vital to ensuring that any risks or concerns about a potential release are picked up and acted on. Therefore, again, the policy framework has strengthened the requirement to draw on information from all relevant departments of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and from external agencies, including the police and social services, when making such HDC decisions. Again, it has been made clear that prisoners are not to be released on HDC if any important risk-management information is missing. The failings—let us call them what they are—and tragic circumstances of this case underline the importance of prisons, probation and the wider system working together to ensure the safe release of prisoners on HDC while maintaining public protection.
The hon. Member for Ashfield, entirely understandably, asks about the officers at HMP Ranby involved in this case, and the decision to release Collins on HDC. A thorough internal HMPPS investigation was conducted by senior managers into the release of Collins and the decisions leading up to his release on HDC, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted. That investigation concluded that Collins should not have been released from on HDC from HMP Ranby in April 2019, as the decision to release was not in line with HMPPS policy—I have already highlighted that not all relevant information about risk had been obtained to inform that decision.
The investigation also found that, as Collins had been subjected to adjudication proceedings, the HDC process should have been paused to allow those proceedings to take place. It also made a number of recommendations about policy and practice that have been taken forward, in addition to the changes I have described to the national policy framework to strengthen the approach to assessments, information sharing and decision making on HDC.
In the light of the investigation, HMPPS did decide that there were sufficient grounds to bring disciplinary proceedings against staff at the prison. As part of any internal disciplinary process, if the investigator finds any evidence that a criminal offence could have been committed, the matter is referred to the police to investigate. No evidence of criminal conduct by the three members of staff at HMP Ranby was found, so the matter was not handed to the police.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the police in that context. I am conscious that he will be aware that the police operate independently of the Government and indeed of the Home Office, their sponsoring Department, for want of a better way of putting it, and they make their own decisions. I am sure that his point will have been heard in that context, and I suspect that, knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, he will have communicated those points directly to Nottinghamshire Police on behalf of his constituents. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that, absent criminal proceedings or public trial, there has been no public process around this.
Concluding that there was no evidence of criminal conduct, HMPPS then took action under its own disciplinary proceedings. I appreciate the points the hon. Member for Ashfield makes, and I understand why he makes them. Although it pains me, I am legally unable to disclose the details of those disciplinary proceedings, as I am advised that to do so would be acting in breach of the law. I totally appreciate and understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes as, prior to taking this portfolio in November of last year, I served for a number of years as the Minister for Victims and Community Safety. I appreciate the importance of closure and of people being able to move on, even in a tiny way.
That said, I am sure that the process and decisions in this case have been looked to very carefully by senior officials in HMPPS. Following the hon. Gentleman’s securing of this debate, as well as the research I have done and the information I have asked to be provided with for it, it is an issue I intend to return to with my officials. I will continue to look into the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If it is helpful to the hon. Gentleman, I offer him a meeting with relevant senior HMPPS officials and me to discuss how that disciplinary process works and the legal implications of it. I suspect he would rightly put across his point there courteously but firmly. If he indicates that is helpful, I would be happy to have that conversation with him. I appreciate it will not go anywhere near as far as he may wish, but it may none the less be of some help. I leave that offer with him.
Lee Anderson
I completely understand that the Minister would be breaking the law to tell us what sort of disciplinary measures were taken on the three governors. However, can the Minister confirm whether the three governors are still working in the Prison Service?
Edward Argar
I am afraid, as I have said, I am unable to give any details on the nature of that disciplinary process in the Chamber. I hear everything the hon. Gentleman says, and I hope he will take up the offer of a conversation. That is his choice, and I will respect whatever decision he makes on that.
We take our responsibility to keep the public safe very seriously. Where there have been lessons to learn from horrific and tragic cases such as this, where the most horrendous outcome has occurred, we have taken decisive action to address and respond to the issues raised. I am incredibly grateful for the contributions to this debate, for its tone, and for the approach adopted by the hon. Member for Ashfield. I repeat my heartfelt condolences to Terry’s family and friends, who have suffered so terribly. I reiterate my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate and allowing us to cast a light on important issues that are of great concern both to those in the Chamber and more widely. I hope he will consider the offer of conversation.
Lee Anderson
Obviously, the family will be very disappointed with the outcome of the debate. I know that. Although I was encouraged by some of the things the Minister said about strengthening the framework—that is good news—we have governors who cannot carry out the most basic of tasks. Anybody in this room today would know that Mr Collins should not have been released on that day. Strengthening frameworks is all well and good, but when there is incompetence at the highest level—they are supposed to be carrying out the framework—it will not work.
Anybody who was part of that prison system at that time and who read Collins’s report would have said he was not fit for release. It appears to me that they just wanted to get rid of him and get him out of there, because he was a nuisance in the system. The consequence of that is the people sat in the Public Gallery, without their dad and without their family member. Strengthening frameworks is all well and good, but if we have incompetent people at the very top in the prison system, it is pointless.
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
May I join others today in sending deepest sympathies to the family members of Terry who are with us today?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered lessons learned from the Terance Radford Prevention of Future Deaths Report.
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume at a time that I will give noble Lords.
Data Protection and Digital Information Bill
Wednesday 20th March 2024
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 2022-23 View all Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 30-I(b) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (20 Mar 2024)
Lord Clement-Jones
Member’s explanatory statement
To avoid confusion between the reversable pseudonymization mentioned in the bill regarding medical data and non-reversable pseudonymization, this amendment tries to distinguish between both.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, we are beginning rather a long journey—at least, it feels a bit like that. I will speak to Amendments 1, 5 and 288, and the Clause 1 stand part notice.
I will give a little context about Clause 1. In a recent speech, the Secretary of State said something that Julia Lopez repeated this morning at a conference I was at:
“The Data Bill that I am currently steering through Parliament with my wonderful team of ministers”—
I invite the Minister to take a bow—
“is just one step in the making of this a reality—on its own it will add £10 billion to our economy and most crucially—we designed it so that the greatest benefit would be felt by small businesses across our country. Cashing in on a Brexit opportunity that only we were prepared to take, and now those rewards are going to be felt by the next generation of founders and business owners in local communities”.
In contrast, a coalition of 25 civil society organisations wrote to the Secretary of State, calling for the Bill to be dropped. The signatories included trade unions as well as human rights, healthcare, racial justice and other organisations. On these Benches, we share the concerns about the government proposals. They will seriously weaken data protection rights in the UK and will particularly harm people from marginalised communities.
So that I do not have to acknowledge them at every stage of the Bill, I will now thank a number of organisations. I am slightly taking advantage of the fact that our speeches are not limited but will be extremely limited from Monday onwards—the Minister will have 20 minutes; I, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and colleagues will have 15; and Back-Benchers will have 10. I suspect we are into a new era of brevity, but I will take advantage today, believe me. I thank Bates Wells, Big Brother Watch, Defend Digital Me, the Public Law Project, Open Rights Group, Justice, medConfidential, Chris Pounder, the Data & Marketing Association, CACI, Preiskel & Co, AWO, Rights and Security International, the Advertising Association, the National AIDS Trust, Connected by Data and the British Retail Consortium. That is a fair range of organisations that see flaws in the Bill. We on these Benches agree with them and believe that it greatly weakens the existing data protection framework. Our preference, as we expressed at Second Reading, is that the Bill is either completely revised on a massive scale or withdrawn in the course of its passage through the Lords.
I will mention one thing; I do not think the Government are making any great secret of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, drew my attention to the Keeling schedule, which gives the game away, and Section 2(2). The Information Commissioner will no longer have to pay regard to certain aspects of the protection of personal data—all the words have been deleted, which is quite extraordinary. It is clear that the Bill will dilute protections around personal data processing, reducing the scope of data protected by the safeguards within the existing law. In fact, the Bill gives more power to data users and takes it away from the people the data is about.
I am particularly concerned about the provisions that change the definition of personal data and the purposes for which it can be processed. There is no need to redraft the definitions of personal data, research or the boundaries of legitimate interests. We have made it very clear over a period of time that guidance from the ICO would have been adequate in these circumstances, rather than a whole piece of primary legislation. The recitals are readily available for guidance, and the Government should have used them. More data will be processed, with fewer safeguards than currently permitted, as it will no longer meet the threshold of personal data, or it will be permitted under the new recognised legitimate interest provision, which we will debate later. That combination is a serious threat to privacy rights in the UK, and that is the context of a couple of our probing amendments to Clause 1— I will come on to the clause stand part notice.
As a result of these government changes, data in one organisation’s hands may be anonymous, while that same information in another organisation’s hands can be personal data. The factor that determines whether personal data can be reidentified is whether the appropriate organisational measures and technical safeguards exist to keep the data in question separate from the identity of specific individuals. That is a very clear decision by the CJEU; the case is SRB v EDPS, if the Minister is interested.
The ability to identify an individual indirectly with the use of additional information is due to the lack of appropriate organisational and technical measures. If the organisation had such appropriate measures that separated data into differently silos, it would not be able to use the additional information to identify such an individual. The language of technical and organisational measures is used in the definition of pseudonymisation in Clause 1(3)(d), which refers to “indirectly identifiable” information. If such measures existed, the data would be properly pseudonymised, in which case it would no longer be indirectly identifiable.
A lot of this depends on how data savvy organisations are, so those that are not well organised and do not have the right technology will get a free pass. That cannot be right, so I hope the Minister will respond to that. We need to make sure that personal data remains personal data, even if some may claim it is not.
Regarding my Amendment 5, can the Government explicitly confirm that personal data that is
“pseudonymised in part, but in which other indirect identifiers remain unaltered”
will remain personal data after this clause is passed? Can the Government also confirm that if an assessment is made that some data is not personal data, but that assessment is later shown to be incorrect, the data will have been personal data at all times and should be treated as such by controllers, processors and the Information Commissioner, about whom we will talk when we come to the relevant future clauses.
Amendment 288 simply asks the Government for an impact assessment. If they are so convinced that the definition of personal data will change, they should be prepared to submit to some kind of impact assessment after the Bill comes into effect. Those are probing amendments, and it would be useful to know whether the Government have any intention to assess what the impact of their changes to the Bill would be if they were passed. More importantly, we believe broadly that Clause 1 is not fit for purpose, and that is why we have tabled the clause stand part notice.
As we said, this change will erode people’s privacy en masse. The impacts could include more widespread use of facial recognition and an increase in data processing with minimal safeguards in the context of facial recognition, as the threshold for personal data would be met only if the data subject is on a watchlist and therefore identified. If an individual is not on a watchlist and images are deleted after checking it, the data may not be considered personal and so would not qualify for data protection obligations.
People’s information could be used to train AI without their knowledge or consent. Personal photos scraped from the internet and stored to train an algorithm would no longer be seen as personal data, as long as the controller does not recognise the individual, is not trying to identify them and will not process the data in such a way that would identify them. The police would have increased access to personal information. Police and security services will no longer have to go to court if they want access to genetic databases; they will be able to access the public’s genetic information as a matter of routine.
Personal data should be defined by what type of data it is, not by how easy it is for a third party to identify an individual from it. That is the bottom line. Replacing a stable, objective definition that grants rights to the individual with an unstable, subjective definition that determines the rights an individual has over their data according to the capabilities of the processor is illogical, complex, bad law-making. It is contrary to the very premise of data protection law, which is founded upon personal data rights. We start on the wrong foot in Clause 1, and it continues. I beg to move.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of Amendments 1 and 5 in this group and with sympathy towards Amendment 4. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will remember when I was briefly Minister for Health. We had lots of conversations about health data. One of the things we looked at was a digitised NHS. It was essential if we were to solve many problems of the future and have a world-class NHS, but the problem was that we had to make sure that patients were comfortable with the use of their data and the contexts in which it could be used.
When we were looking to train AI, it was important that we made sure that the data was as anonymous as possible. For example, we looked at things such as synthetic and pseudonymised data. There is another point: having done the analysis and looked at the dataset, if you see an identifiable group of people who may well be at risk, how can you reverse-engineer that data perhaps to notify those patients that they should be contacted for further medical interventions?
I know that that makes it far too complicated; I just wanted to rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on this issue, before the new rules come in next week. It is essential that the users, the patients—in other spheres as well—have absolute confidence that their data is theirs and are given the opportunity to give permission or opt out as much as possible.
One of the things that I said when I was briefed as a Health Minister was that we can have the best digital health system in the world, but it is no good if people choose to opt out or do not have confidence. We need to make sure that the Bill gives those patients that confidence where their data is used in other areas. We need to toughen this bit up. That is why I support Amendments 1 and 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, anonymisation of data is crucially important in this debate. I want to see, through the Bill, a requirement for personal data, particularly medical data, to be held within trusted research environments. This is a well-developed technique and Britain is the leader. It should be a legal requirement. I am not quite sure that we have got that far in the Bill; maybe we will need to return to the issue on Report.
The extent to which pseudonymisation—I cannot say it—is possible is vastly overrated. There is a sport among data scientists of being able to spot people within generally available datasets. For example, the data available to TfL through people’s use of Oyster cards and so on tells you an immense amount of information about individuals. Medical data is particularly susceptible to this, although it is not restricted to medical data. I will cite a simple example from publicly available data.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I, too, support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. As this is the first time I have spoken during the passage of the Bill, I should also declare my interests, but it seems that all the organisations I am involved in process data, so I refer the Committee to all the organisations in my entry in the register of interests.
I want to tell a story about the challenges of distinguishing between personal data and pseudonymised data. I apologise for bringing everyone back to the world of Covid, but that was when I realised how possible it is to track down individuals without any of their personal data. Back in November or December 2020, when the first variant of Covid, the Kent variant, was spreading, one test that was positive for the Kent variant came with no personal details at all. The individual who had conducted that test had not filled in any of the information. I was running NHS Test and Trace and we had to try to find that individual, in a very public way. In the space of three days, with literally no personal information—no name, address or sense of where they lived—the team was able to find that human being. Through extraordinary ingenuity, it tracked them down based on the type of tube the test went into—the packaging that was used—and by narrowing down the geography of the number of postcodes where the person might have been ill and in need of help but also in need of identifying all their contacts.
I learned that it was possible to find that one human being, out of a population of 60 million, within three days and without any of their personal information. I tell this story because my noble friend Lord Kamall made such an important point that, at the heart of data legislation is the question of how you build trust in the population. We have to build on firm foundations if the population are to trust that there are reasons why sharing data is hugely valuable societally. To have a data Bill that does not have firm foundations in absolutely and concretely defining personal data is quite a fatal flaw.
Personal data being subjective, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, so eloquently set out, immediately starts citizens on a journey of distrusting this world. There is so much in this world that is hard to trust, and I feel strongly that we have to begin with some very firm foundations. They will not be perfect, but we need to go back to a solid definition of “personal data”, which is why I wholeheartedly support the noble Lord’s amendments.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I hesitate to make a Second Reading speech, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, cannot resist rehearsing these points. However, it is important, at the outset of Committee, to reflect on the Bill in its generality, and the noble Lord did a very good job of precisely that. This is fundamental.
The problem for us with the Bill is not just that it is a collection of subjects—of ideas about how data should be handled, managed and developed—but that it is flawed from the outset. It is a hotchpotch of things that do not really hang together. Several of us have chuntered away in the margins and suggested that it would have been better if the Bill had fallen and there had been a general election—not that the Minister can comment on that. But it would be better, in a way. We need to go back to square one, and many in the Committee are of a like mind.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, made a good point about data management, data control and so on. Her example was interesting, because this is about building trust, having confidence in data systems and managing data in the future. Her example was very good, as was that of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who raised a challenge about how the anonymisation, or pseudonymisation, of data will work and how effective it will be.
We have two amendments in this group. Taken together, they are designed to probe exactly what the practical impacts will be of the proposed changes to Section 3 of the 2018 Act and the insertion of new Section 3A. Amendment 4 calls for the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the changes within two months of the Bill passing, while Amendment 301 would ensure that the commencement of Clause 1 takes place no earlier than that two-month period. Noble Lords might think this is unduly cautious, but, given our wider concerns about the Bill and its departure from the previously well-understood—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
My Lords, a Division having been called, we will adjourn for 10 minutes and resume at 4.48 pm.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
As I was saying, it is important for the framework on data protection that we take a precautionary approach. I hope that the Minister will this afternoon be able to provide a plain English explanation of the changes, as well as giving us an assurance that those changes to definitions do not result in watering down the current legislation.
We broadly support Amendments 1 and 5 and the clause stand part notice, in the sense that they provide additional probing of the Government’s intentions in this area. We can see that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is trying with Amendment 1 to bring some much-needed clarity to the anonymisation issue and, with Amendment 5, to secure that data remains personal data in any event. I suspect that the Minister will tell us this afternoon that that is already the case, but a significant number of commentators have questioned this, since the definition of “personal data” is seemingly moving away from the EU GDPR standard towards a definition that is more subjective from the perspective of the controller, processor or recipient. We must be confident that the new definition does not narrow the circumstances in which the information is protected as personal data. That will be an important standard for this Committee to understand.
Amendment 288, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement- Jones, seeks a review and an impact assessment of the anonymisation and identifiability of data subjects. Examining that in the light of the EU GDPR seems to us to be a useful and novel way of making a judgment over which regime better suits and serves data subjects.
We will listen with interest to the Minister’s response. We want to be more than reassured that the previous high standards and fundamental principles of data protection will not be undermined and compromised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief, interrupted but none the less interesting opening debate. I will speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones; I note that I plan to that form of words quite a lot in the next eight sessions on this Bill. I thank them for tabling these amendments so that we can debate what are, in the Government’s view, the significant benefits of Clause 1.
In response to the points from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the appetite for the reforms in the Bill, we take very seriously the criticisms of the parties that he mentioned—the civil society groups—but it is important to note that, when the Government consulted on these reforms, we received almost 3,000 responses. At that time, we proposed to clarify when data would be regarded as anonymous and proposed legislating to confirm that the test for whether anonymous data can be reidentified is relative to the means available to the controller to reidentify the data. The majority of respondents agreed that greater clarity in legislation would indeed be beneficial.
As noble Lords will know, the UK’s data protection legislation applies only to personal data, which is data relating to an identified or identifiable living individual. It does not apply to non-personal, anonymous data. This is important because, if organisations can be sure that the data they are handling is anonymous, they may be able to more confidently put it to good use in important activities such as research and product development. The current data protection legislation is already clear that a person can be identified in a number of ways by reference to details such as names, identification numbers, location data and online identifiers, or via information about a person’s physical, genetic, mental, economic or cultural characteristics. The Bill does not change the existing legislation in this respect.
With regard to genetic information, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Kamall and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, any information that includes enough genetic markers to be unique to an individual is personal data and special category genetic data, even if names and other identifiers have been removed. This means that it is subject to the additional protections set out in Article 9 of the UK GDPR. The Bill does not change this position.
However, the existing legislation is unclear about the specific factors that a data controller must consider when assessing whether any of this information relates to an identifiable living person. This uncertainty is leading to inconsistent application of anonymisation and to anonymous data being treated as personal data out of an abundance of caution. This, in turn, reduces the opportunities for anonymous data to be used effectively for projects in the public interest. It is this difficulty that Clause 1 seeks to address by providing a comprehensive statutory test on identifiability. The test will require data controllers and processors to consider the likelihood of people within or outside their organisations reidentifying individuals using reasonable means. It is drawn from recital 26 of the EU GDPR and should therefore not be completely unfamiliar to most organisations.
I turn now to the specific amendments that have been tabled in relation to this clause. Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would reiterate the position currently set out in the UK GDPR and its recitals: where individuals can be identified without the use of additional information because data controllers fail to put in place appropriate organisational measures, such as technical or contractual safeguards prohibiting reidentification, they would be considered directly identifiable. Technical and organisational measures put in place by organisations are factors that should be considered alongside others under new Section 3A of the Data Protection Act when assessing whether an individual is identifiable from the data being processed. Clause 1 sets out the threshold at which data—and, therefore, personal data—is identifiable and clarifies when data is anonymous.
On the technical capabilities of a respective data controller, these are already relevant factors under current law and ICO guidance in determining whether data is personal. This means that the test of identifiability is already a relative one today in respect of the data controller, the data concerned and the purpose of the processing. However, the intention of the data controller is not a relevant factor under current law, and nor does Clause 1 make it a factor. Clause 1 merely clarifies the position under existing law and follows very closely the wording of recital 26. Let me state this clearly: nothing in Clause 1 introduces the subjective intention of the data controller as a relevant factor in determining identifiability, and the position will remain the same as under the current law and as set out in ICO guidance.
In response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others on pseudonymised personal data, noble Lords may be aware that the definition of personal data in Article 4(1) of the UK GDPR, when read in conjunction with the definition of pseudonymisation in Article 4(5), makes it clear that pseudonymised data is personal data, not anonymous data, and is thus covered by the UK’s data protection regime. I hope noble Lords are reassured by that. I also hope that, for the time being, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will agree to withdraw his amendment and not press the related Amendment 5, which seeks to make it clear that pseudonymised data is personal data.
Amendment 4 would require the Secretary of State to assess the difference in meaning and scope between the current statutory definition of personal data and the new statutory definition that the Bill will introduce two months after its passing. Similarly, Amendment 288 seeks to review the impact of Clause 1 six months after the enactment of the Bill. The Government feel that neither of these amendments is necessary as the clause is drawn from recital 26 of the EU GDPR and case law and, as I have already set out, is not seeking to substantially change the definition of personal data. Rather, it is seeking to provide clarity in legislation.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I follow the argument, but what we are suggesting in our amendment is some sort of impact assessment for the scheme, including how it currently operates and how the Government wish it to operate under the new legislation. Have the Government undertaken a desktop exercise or any sort of review of how the two pieces of legislation might operate? Has any assessment of that been made? If they have done so, what have they found?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Obviously, the Bill has been in preparation for some time. I completely understand the point, which is about how we can be so confident in these claims. I suggest that I work with the Bill team to get an answer to that question and write to Members of the Committee, because it is a perfectly fair question to ask what makes us so sure.
In the future tense, I can assure noble Lords that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will monitor and evaluate the impact of this Bill as a whole in the years to come, in line with cross-government evaluation guidance and through continued engagement with stakeholders.
The Government feel that the first limb of Amendment 5 is not necessary given that, as has been noted, pseudonymised data is already considered personal data under this Bill. In relation to the second limb of the amendment, if the data being processed is actually personal data, the ICO already has powers to require organisations to address non-compliance. These include requiring it to apply appropriate protections to personal data that it is processing, and are backed up by robust enforcement mechanisms.
That said, it would not be appropriate for the processing of data that was correctly assessed as anonymous at the time of processing to retrospectively be treated as processing of personal data and subject to data protection laws, simply because it became personal data at a later point in the processing due to a change in circumstances. That would make it extremely difficult for any organisation to treat any dataset as anonymous and would undermine the aim of the clause, significantly reducing the potential to use anonymous data for important research and development activities.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kamall, Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, for their support for a number of these amendments. Everybody made a common point about public trust, particularly in the context of health data.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, we had a lot of conversations during the passage of the Health and Care Act and the noble Lord and his department increasingly got it: proper communication about the use of personal, patient data is absolutely crucial to public trust. We made quite a bit of progress with NHSE and the department starting to build in safeguards and develop the concept of access to, rather than sharing of, personal data. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said about a locked box and I think that having access for research, rather than sharing data around, is a powerful concept.
I found what the Minister said to be helpful. I am afraid that we will have to requisition a lot of wet towels during the passage of the Bill. There are a number of aspects to what he said, but the bottom line is that he is saying that there is no serious divergence from the current definition of personal data. The boot is on the other foot: where is the Brexit dividend? The Minister cannot have it both ways.
I am sure that, as we go through this and the Minister says, “It’s all in recital 26”, my response would be that the ICO could easily develop guidance based on that. That would be splendid; we would not have to go through the agony of contending with this data protection Bill. It raises all those issues and creates a great deal of angst. There are 26 organisations, maybe more— 42, I think—writing to the Secretary of State about one aspect of it or another. The Government have really created a rod for their own back, when they could have created an awful lot of guidance, included a bit on digital identity in the Bill and done something on cookies. What else is there not to like? As I say, the Government have created a rod for their own back.
As regards pseudonymised data, that is also helpful. We will hold the Minister to that as we go through, if the Minister is saying that that is personal data. I am rather disappointed by the response to Amendment 5, but I will take a very close look at it with several wet towels.
We never know quite whether CJEU judgments will be treated as precedent by this Government or where we are under the REUL Act. I could not tell you at this moment. However, it seems that the Minister is again reassuring us that the CJEU’s judgments on personal data are valid and are treated as being part of UK law for this purpose, which is why there is no change to the definition of personal data as far as he is concerned. All he is doing is importing the recitals into Clause 1. I think I need to read the Minister’s speech pretty carefully if I am going to accept that. In the meantime, we move on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kidron
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and another to Clause 1 in the name of Baroness Kidron, would ensure that controllers have a duty to identify when a user is or may be a child to give them the data protection codified by the Data Protection Act 2018.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 2, 3, 9 and 290 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their support.
This group seeks to secure the principle that children should enjoy the same protections in UK law after this Bill passes into law as they do now. In 2018, this House played a critical role in codifying the principle that children merit special, specific protection in relation to data privacy by introducing the age-appropriate design code into the DPA. Its introduction created a wave of design changes to tech products: Google introduced safe search as its default; Instagram made it harder for adults to contact children via private messaging; Play Store stopped making adult apps available to under-18s; and TikTok stopped sending notifications through the night and hundreds of thousands of underage children were denied access to age-inappropriate services. These are just a handful of the hundreds of changes that have been made, many of them rolled out globally. The AADC served as a blueprint for children’s data privacy, and its provisions have been mirrored around the globe. Many noble Lords will have noticed that, only two weeks ago, Australia announced that it is going to follow the many others who have incorporated or are currently incorporating it into their domestic legislation, saying in the press release that it would align as closely as possible with the UK’s AADC.
As constructed in the Data Protection Act 2018, the AADC sets out the requirements of the UK GDPR as they relate to children. The code is indirectly enforceable; that is to say that the action the ICO can take against those failing to comply is based on the underlying provisions of UK GDPR, which means that any watering down, softening of provisions, unstable definitions—my new favourite—or legal uncertainty created by the Bill automatically waters down, softens and creates legal uncertainty and unstable definitions for children and therefore for child protection. I use the phrase “child protection” deliberately because the most important contribution that the AADC has made at the global level was the understanding that online privacy and safety are interwoven.
Clause 1(2) creates an obligation on the controller or processor to know, or reasonably to know, that an individual is an identifiable living individual. Amendments 2 and 3 would add a further requirement to consider whether that living individual is a child. This would ensure that providers cannot wilfully ignore the presence of children, something that tech companies have a long track record of doing. I want to quote the UK Information Commissioner, who fined TikTok £12.7 million for failing to prevent under-13s accessing that service; he said:
“There are laws in place to make sure our children are as safe in the digital world as they are in the physical world. TikTok did not abide by those laws … TikTok should have known better. TikTok should have done better … They did not do enough to check who was using their platform”.
I underline very clearly that these amendments would not introduce any requirement for age assurance. The ICO’s guidance on age assurance in the AADC and the provisions in the Online Safety Act already detail those requirements. The amendments simply confirm the need to offer a child a high bar of data privacy or, if you do not know which of your users are children, offer all users that same high bar of data privacy.
As we have just heard, it is His Majesty’s Government’s stated position that nothing in the Bill lessens children’s data privacy because nothing in the Bill lessens UK GDPR, and that the Bill is merely an exercise to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. The noble Lords who spoke on the first group have perhaps put paid to that and I imagine that this position will be sorely tested during Committee. In the light of the alternative view that the protections afforded to children’s personal data will decline as a result of the Bill, Amendment 9 proposes that the status of children’s personal data be elevated to that of “sensitive personal data”, or special category data. The threshold for processing special category data is higher than for general personal data and the specific conditions include, for example, processing with the express consent of the data subject, processing to pursue a vital interest, processing by not-for-profits or processing for legal claims or matters of substantial public interest. Bringing children’s personal data within that definition would elevate the protections by creating an additional threshold for processing.
Finally, Amendment 290 enshrines the principle that nothing in the Bill should lead to a diminution in existing levels of privacy protections that children currently enjoy. It is essentially a codification of the commitment made by the Minister in the other place:
“The Bill maintains the high standards of data protection that our citizens expect and organisations will still have to abide by our age-appropriate design code”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/23; col. 101.]
Before I sit down, I just want to highlight the Harvard Gazette, which looked at ad revenue from the perspective of children. On Instagram, children account for 16% of ad revenue; on YouTube, 27%; on TikTok, 35%; and on Snap, an extraordinary 41.4%. Collectively, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook made nearly $2 billion from children aged nought to 12, and it will not escape many noble Lords that children aged nought to 12 are not supposed to be on those platforms. Instagram, YouTube and TikTok together made more than $7 billion from 13 to 17 year-olds. The amendments in this group give a modicum of protection to a demographic who have no electoral capital, who are not developmentally adult and whose lack of care is not an unfortunate by-product of the business model, but who have their data routinely extracted, sold, shared and scraped as a significant part of the ad market. It is this that determines the features that deliberately spread, polarise and keep children compulsively online, and it is this that the AADC—born in your Lordships’ House—started a global movement to contain.
This House came together on an extraordinary cross-party basis to ensure that the Online Safety Bill delivered for children, so I say to the Minister: I am not wedded to my drafting, nor to the approach that I have taken to maintain, clause by clause, the bar for children, even when that bar is changed for adults, but I am wedded to holding the tech sector accountable for children’s privacy, safety and well-being. It is my hope and—if I dare—expectation that noble Lords will join me in making sure that the DPDI Bill does not leave this House with a single diminution of data protection for children. To do so is, in effect, to give with one hand and take away with the other.
I hope that during Committee the Minister will come to accept that children’s privacy will be undermined by the Bill, and that he will work with me and others to resolve these issues so that the UK maintains its place as a global leader in children’s privacy and safety. I beg to move.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, in the nearly nine years that I have been in this House, I have often played the role of bag carrier to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on this issue. In many ways, I am rather depressed that once again we need to make the case that children deserve a higher bar of protection than adults in the digital world. As the noble Baroness set out—I will not repeat it—the age-appropriate design code was a major landmark in establishing that you can regulate the digital world just as you can the physical world. What is more, it is rather joyful that when you do, these extraordinarily powerful tech companies change their products in the way that you want them to.
This is extremely hard-fought ground that we must not lose. It takes us to what feels like a familiar refrain from the Online Safety Act and the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, which we are all still engaged in: the question of whether you need to write something in the Bill and whether, by doing so, you make it more clear or less clear.
Does my noble friend the Minister agree with the fundamental principle, enshrined in the Data Protection Act 2018, that children deserve a higher bar of protection in the online world and that children’s data needs to be protected at a much higher level? If we can all agree on that principle first, then the question is: how do we make sure that this Bill does not weaken the protection that children have?
I am trying to remember on which side of the “put it in the Bill or not” debate I have been during discussions on each of the digital Bills that we have all been working on over the last couple of years. We have a really vicious problem where, as I understand it, the Government keep insisting that the Bill does not water down data protection and therefore there is no need to write anything into it to protect children’s greater rights. On the other hand, I also hear that it will remove bureaucracy and save businesses a lot of money. I have certainly been in rooms over the last couple of years where business representatives have told me, not realising I was one of the original signatories to the amendment that created the age-appropriate design code, how dreadful it was because it made their lives much more complicated.
I have no doubt that if we create a sense—which is what it is—that companies do not need to do quite as much as they used to for children in this area, that sense will create, if not a wide-open door, an ajar door that enables businesses to walk through and take the path of least resistance, which is doing less to protect children. That is why, in this case, I come down on the side of wanting to put it explicitly in the Bill, in whatever wording my noble friend the Minister thinks appropriate, that we are really clear that this creates no change at all in the approach for children and children’s data.
That is what this group of amendments is about. I know that we will come back to a whole host of other areas where there is a risk that children’s data could be handled differently from the way envisaged in that hard-fought battle for the age-appropriate design code but, on this group alone, it would be helpful if my noble friend the Minister could help us establish that firm principle and commit to coming back with wording that will firmly establish it in the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I keep getting flashbacks. This one is to the Data Protection Act 2018, although I think it was 2017 when we debated it. It is one of the huge achievements of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to have introduced, and persuaded the Government to introduce, the age-appropriate design code into the Act, and—as she and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, described—to see it spread around the world and become the gold standard. It is hardly surprising that she is so passionate about wanting to make sure that the Bill does not water down the data rights of children.
I think the most powerful amendment in this group is Amendment 290. For me, it absolutely bottles what we need to do in making sure that nothing in the Bill waters down children’s rights. If I were to choose one of the noble Baroness’s amendments in this group, it would be that one: it would absolutely give the assurance and scotch the point about legal uncertainty created by the Bill.
Both noble Baronesses asked: if the Government are not watering down the Bill, why can they not say that they are not? Why can they not, in a sense, repeat the words of Paul Scully when he was debating the Bill? He said:
“We are committed to protecting children and young people online. The Bill maintains the high standards of data protection that our citizens expect and organisations will still have to abide by our age-appropriate design code”.
He uses “our”, so he is taking full ownership of it. He went on:
“Any breach of our data protection laws will result in enforcement action by the Information Commissioner’s Office”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/23; col. 101.]
I would love that enshrined in the Bill. It would give us a huge amount of assurance.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, we on the Labour Benches have become co-signatories to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. The noble Baroness set out very clearly and expertly the overarching purpose of retaining the level of protection currently afforded by the Data Protection Act 2018. Amendments 2 and 3 specifically stipulate that, where data controllers know, or should reasonably know, that a user is a child, they should be given the data protection codified in that Act. Amendment 9 takes it a stage further and includes children’s data in the definition of sensitive personal data, and gives it the benefit of being treated to a heightened level of protection—quite rightly, too. Finally, Amendment 290—the favourite of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—attempts to hold Ministers to the commitment made by Paul Scully in the Commons to maintain existing standards of data protection carried over from that 2018 Act.
Why is all this necessary? I suspect that the Minister will argue that it is not needed because Clause 5 already provides for the Secretary of State to consider the impact of any changes to the rights and freedoms of individuals and, in particular, of children, who require special protection.
We disagree with that argument. In the interests of brevity and the spirit of the recent Procedure Committee report, which says that we should not repeat each other’s arguments, I do not intend to speak at length, but we have a principal concern: to try to understand why the Government want to depart from the standards of protection set out in the age-appropriate design code—the international gold standard—which they so enthusiastically signed up to just five or six years ago. Given the rising levels of parental concern over harmful online content and well-known cases highlighting the harms that can flow from unregulated material, why do the Government consider it safe to water down the regulatory standards at this precise moment in time? The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, valuably highlighted the impact of the current regulatory framework on companies’ behaviour. That is exactly what legislation is designed to do: to change how we look at things and how we work. Why change that? As she has argued very persuasively, it is and has been hugely transformative. Why throw away that benefit now?
My attention was drawn to one example of what can happen by a briefing note from the 5Rights Foundation. As it argued, children are uniquely vulnerable to harm and risk online. I thought its set of statistics was really interesting. By the age of 13, 72 million data points have already been collected about children. They are often not used in children’s best interests; for example, the data is often used to feed recommender systems and algorithms designed to keep attention at all costs and have been found to push harmful content at children.
When this happens repeatedly over time, it can have catastrophic consequences, as we know. The coroner in the Molly Russell inquest found that she had been recommended a stream of depressive content by algorithms, leading the coroner to rule that she
“died from an act of self-harm whilst suffering from depression and the negative effects of online content”.
We do not want more Molly Russell cases. Progress has already been made in this field; we should consider dispensing with it at our peril. Can the Minister explain today the thinking and logic behind the changes that the Government have brought forward? Can he estimate the impact that the new lighter-touch regime, as we see it, will have on child protection? Have the Government consulted extensively with those in the sector who are properly concerned about child protection issues, and what sort of responses have the Government received?
Finally, why have the Government decided to take a risk with the sound framework that was already in place and built on during the course of the Online Safety Act? We need to hear very clearly from the Minister how they intend to engage with groups that are concerned about these child protection issues, given the apparent loosening of the current framework. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said that this is hard-fought ground; we intend to continue making it so because these protections are of great value to our society.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her Amendments 2, 3, 9 and 290 and to all noble Lords who have spoken, as ever, so clearly on these points.
All these amendments seek to add protections for children to various provisions in the Bill. I absolutely recognise the intent behind them; indeed, let me take this opportunity to say that the Government take child safety deeply seriously and agree with the noble Baroness that all organisations must take great care, both when making decisions about the use of children’s data and throughout the duration of their processing activities. That said, I respectfully submit that these amendments are not necessary for three main reasons; I will talk in more general terms before I come to the specifics of the amendments.
First, the Bill maintains a high standard of data protection for everybody in the UK, including—of course—children. The Government are not removing any of the existing data protection principles in relation to lawfulness, fairness, transparency, purpose limitation, data minimisation, storage limitation, accuracy, data security or accountability; nor are they removing the provisions in the UK GDPR that require organisations to build privacy into the design and development of new processing activities.
The existing legislation acknowledges that children require specific protection for their personal data, as they may be less aware of the risks, consequences and safeguards concerned, and of their rights in relation to the processing of personal data. Organisations will need to make sure that they continue to comply with the data protection principles on children’s data and follow the ICO’s guidance on children and the UK GDPR, following the changes we make in the Bill. Organisations that provide internet services likely to be accessed by children will need to continue to comply with their transparency and fairness obligations and the ICO’s age-appropriate design code. The Government welcome the AADC, as Minister Scully said, and remain fully committed to the high standards of protection that it sets out for children.
Secondly, some of the provisions in the Bill have been designed specifically with the rights and safety of children in mind. For example, one reason that the Government introduced the new lawful ground of recognised legitimate interest in Clause 5, which we will debate later, was that some consultation respondents said that the current legislation can deter organisations, particularly in the voluntary sector, from sharing information that might help to prevent crime or protect children from harm. The same goes for the list of exemptions to the purpose limitation principle introduced by Clause 6.
There could be many instances where personal data collected for one purpose may have to be reused to protect children from crime or safeguarding risks. The Bill will provide greater clarity around this and has been welcomed by stakeholders, including in the voluntary sector.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
While some provisions in the Bill do not specifically mention children or children’s rights, data controllers will still need to carefully consider the impact of their processing activities on children. For example, the new obligations on risk assessments, record keeping and the designation of senior responsible individuals will apply whenever an organisation’s processing activities are likely to result in high risks to people, including children.
Thirdly, the changes we are making in the Bill must be viewed in a wider context. Taken together, the UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the Online Safety Act 2023 provide a comprehensive legal framework for keeping children safe online. Although the data protection legislation and the age-appropriate design code make it clear how personal data can be processed, the Online Safety Act makes clear that companies must take steps to make their platforms safe by design. It requires social media companies to protect children from illegal, harmful and age-inappropriate content, to ensure they are more transparent about the risks and dangers posed to children on their sites, and to provide parents and children with clear and accessible ways to report problems online when they do arise.
After those general remarks, I turn to the specific amendments. The noble Baroness’s Amendments 2 and 3 would amend Clause 1 of the Bill, which relates to the test for assessing whether data is personal or anonymous. Her explanatory statement suggests that these amendments are aimed at placing a duty on organisations to determine whether the data they are processing relates to children, thereby creating a system of age verification. However, requiring data controllers to carry out widespread age verification of data subjects could create its own data protection and privacy risks, as it would require them to retain additional personal information such as dates of birth.
The test we have set out for reidentification is intended to apply to adults and children alike. If any person is likely to be identified from the data using reasonable means, the data protection legislation will apply. Introducing one test for adults and one for children is unlikely to be workable in practice and fundamentally undermines the clarity that this clause seeks to bring to organisations. Whether a person is identifiable will depend on a number of objective factors, such as the resources and technology available to organisations, regardless of whether they are an adult or a child. Creating wholly separate tests for adults and children, as set out in the amendment, would add unnecessary complexity to the clause and potentially lead to confusion.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
As I understand it, the basis on which we currently operate is that children get a heightened level of protection. Is the Minister saying that that is now unnecessary and is captured by the way in which the legislation has been reframed?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am saying, specifically on Clause 1, that separating the identifiability of children and the identifiability of adults would be detrimental to both but particularly, in this instance, to children.
Amendment 9 would ensure that children’s data is included in the definition of special category data and is subject to the heightened protections afforded to this category of data by Article 9 of the UK GDPR. This could have unintended consequences, because the legal position would be that processing of children’s data would be banned unless specifically permitted. This could create the need for considerable additional legislation to exempt routine and important processing from the ban; for example, banning a Girl Guides group from keeping a list of members unless specifically exempted would be disproportionate. However, more sensitive data such as records relating to children’s health or safeguarding concerns would already be subject to heightened protections in the UK GDPR, as soon as the latter type of data is processed.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for raising these issues and for the chance to set out why the Government feel that children’s protection is at least maintained, if not enhanced. I hope my answers have, for the time being, persuaded her of the Government’s view that the Bill does not reduce standards of protection for children’s data. On that basis, I ask her also not to move her Amendment 290 on the grounds that a further overarching statement on this is unnecessary and may cause confusion when interpreting the legislation. For all the reasons stated above, I hope that she will now reconsider whether her amendments in this group are necessary and agree not to press them.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Can I press the Minister more on Amendment 290 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron? All it does is seek to maintain the existing standards of data protection for children, as carried over from the 2018 Act. If that is all it does, what is the problem with that proposed new clause? In its current formulation, does it not put the intention of the legislation in a place of certainty? I do not quite get why it would be damaging.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I believe it restates what the Government feel is clearly implied or stated throughout the Bill: that children’s safety is paramount. Therefore, putting it there is either duplicative or confusing; it reduces the clarity of the Bill. In no way is this to say that children are not protected—far from it. The Government feel it would diminish the clarity and overall cohesiveness of the Bill to include it.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, not to put too fine a point on it, the Minister is saying that nothing in the Bill diminishes children’s rights, whether in Clause 1, Clause 6 or the legitimate interest in Clause 5. He is saying that absolutely nothing in the Bill diminishes children’s rights in any way. Is that his position?
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
Can I add to that question? Is my noble friend the Minister also saying that there is no risk of companies misinterpreting the Bill’s intentions and assuming that this might be some form of diminution of the protections for children?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
In answer to both questions, what I am saying is that, first, any risk of misinterpreting the Bill with respect to children’s safety is diminished, rather than increased, by the Bill. Overall, it is the Government’s belief and intention that the Bill in no way diminishes the safety or privacy of children online. Needless to say, if over the course of our deliberations the Committee identifies areas of the Bill where that is not the case, we will absolutely be open to listening on that, but let me state this clearly: the intent is to at least maintain, if not enhance, the safety and privacy of children and their data.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, that creates another question, does it not? If that is the case, why amend the original wording from the 2018 Act?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Sorry, the 2018 Act? Or is the noble Lord referring to the amendments?
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Why change the wording that provides the protection that is there currently?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I assume the noble Lord is referring to Amendment 290.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Okay. The Government feel that, in terms of the efficient and effective drafting of the Bill, that paragraph diminishes the clarity by being duplicative rather than adding to it by making a declaration. For the same reason, we have chosen not to make a series of declarations about other intentions of the Bill overall in the belief that the Bill’s intent and outcome are protected without such a statement.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, before our break, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said that this is hard-fought ground; I hope the Minister understands from the number of questions he has just received during his response that it will continue to be hard-fought ground.
I really regret having to say this at such an early stage on the Bill, but I think that some of what the Minister said was quite disingenuous. We will get to it in other parts of the Bill, but the thing that we have all agreed to disagree on at this point is the statement that the Bill maintains data privacy for everyone in the UK. That is a point of contention between noble Lords and the Minister. I absolutely accept and understand that we will come to a collective view on it in Committee. However, the Minister appeared to suggest—I ask him to correct me if I have got this wrong—that the changes on legitimate interest and purpose limitation are child safety measures because some people are saying that they are deterred from sharing data for child protection reasons. I have to tell him that they are not couched or formed like that; they are general-purpose shifts. There is absolutely no question but that the Government could have made specific changes for child protection, put them in the Bill and made them absolutely clear. I find that very worrying.
I also find it worrying, I am afraid—this is perhaps where we are heading and the thing that many organisations are worried about—that bundling the AADC in with the Online Safety Act and saying, “I’ve got it over here so you don’t need it over there” is not the same as maintaining the protections for children from a high level of data. It is not the same set of things. I specifically said that this was not an age-verification measure and would not require it; whatever response there was on that was therefore unnecessary because I made that quite clear in my remarks. The Committee can understand that, in order to set a high bar of data protection, you must either identify a child or give it to everyone. Those are your choices. You do not have to verify.
I will withdraw the amendment, but I must say that the Government may not have it both ways. The Bill cannot be different or necessary and at the same time do nothing. The piece that I want to leave with the Committee is that it is the underlying provisions that allow the ICO to take action on the age-appropriate design code. It does not matter what is in the code; if the underlying provisions change, so does the code. During Committee, I expect that there will be a report on the changes that have happened all around the world as a result of the code, and we will be able to measure whether the new Bill would be able to create those same changes. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure all uses under this Clause are in the public interest, however they may be described.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am going to get rather used to introducing a smorgasbord of probing amendments and stand part notices throughout most of the groups of amendments as we go through them. Some of them try to find out the meaning of areas in the Bill and others are rather more serious and object to whole clauses.
I am extremely sympathetic to the use of personal data for research purposes, but Clause 2, which deals with research, is rather deceptive in many ways. That is because “scientific research” and “scientific research purposes” will now be defined to mean
“any research that can reasonably be described as scientific, whether publicly or privately funded and whether carried out as a commercial or non-commercial activity”.
The rub lies in the words “commercial or non-commercial activity”. A loosening of requirements on purpose limitation will assist commercial and non-commercial organisations in research and reusing personal data obtained from third parties but will do nothing to increase protection for individual data subjects in these circumstances. That is the real Pandora’s box that we are opening as regards commercial activity. It opens the door to Meta to use our personal data for its own purposes under the guise of research. That seems very much to be a backward step. That is why I tabled Amendment 6, which would require the public interest to apply to all uses under this clause, not just public health uses.
Then there is the question of consent under Clause 3. How is the lawful and moral right of patients, constituents or data subjects to dissent from medical research, for instance, enshrined in this clause? We have seen enough issues relating to health data, opt-outs and so on to begin to destroy public trust, if we are not careful. We have to be extremely advertent to the fact that the communications have to be right; there has to be the opportunity to opt out.
In these circumstances, Amendment 7 would provide that a data subject has been given the opportunity to express dissent or an objection and has not so expressed it. That is then repeated in Clause 26. Again, we are back to public trust: we are not going to gain it. I am very much a glass-half-full person as far as new technology, AI and the opportunities for the use of patient data in the health service are concerned. I am an enthusiast for that, but it has to be done in the right circumstances.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 8, 21, 23 and 145 in my name and thank the other noble Lords who have added their names to them. In the interests of brevity, and as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has done some of the heavy lifting on this, I will talk first to Amendment 8.
The definition of scientific research has been expanded to include commercial and non-commercial activity, so far as it
“can reasonably be described as scientific”,
but “scientific” is not defined. As the noble Lord said, there is no public interest requirement, so a commercial company can, in reality, develop almost any kind of product on the basis that it may have a scientific purpose, even—or maybe especially—if it measures your propensity to impulse buy or other commercial things. The spectre of scientific inquiry is almost infinite. Amendment 8 would exclude children simply by adding proposed new paragraph (e), which says that
“the data subject is not a child or could or should be known to be a child”,
so that their personal data cannot be used for scientific research purposes to which they have not given their consent.
I want to be clear that I am pro-research and understand the critical role that data plays in enabling us to understand societal challenges and innovate towards solutions. Indeed, I have signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, which would guarantee access to data for academic researchers working on matters of public interest. Some noble Lords may have been here last night, when the US Surgeon- General Vice Admiral Dr Murthy, who gave the Lord Speaker’s lecture, made a fierce argument in favour of independent public interest research, not knowing that such a proposal has been laid. I hope that, when we come to group 17, the Government heed his wise words.
In the meantime, Clause 3 simply embeds the inequality of arms between academics and corporates and extends it, making it much easier for commercial companies to use personal data for research while academics continue to be held to much higher ethical and professional standards. They continue to require express consent, DBS checks and complex ethical requirements. Not doing so, simply using personal data for research, is unethical and commercial players can rely on Clause 3 to process data without consent, in pursuit of profit. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I would prefer an overall solution to this but, in its absence, this amendment would protect data from being commoditised in this way.
Amendments 21 and 23 would specifically protect children from changes to Clause 6. I have spoken on this a little already, but I would like it on the record that I am absolutely in favour of a safeguarding exemption. The additional purposes, which are compatible with but go beyond the original purpose, are not a safeguarding measure. Amendment 21 would amend the list of factors that a data controller must take into account to include the fact that children are entitled to a higher standard of protection.
Amendment 23 would not be necessary if Amendment 22 were agreed. It would commit the Secretary of State to ensuring that, when exercising their power under new Article 8A, as inserted by Clause 6(5), to add, vary or omit provisions of Annex 2, they take the 2018 Act and children’s data protection into account.
Finally, Amendment 145 proposes a code of practice on the use of children’s data in scientific research. This code would, in contrast, ensure that all researchers, commercial or in the public interest, are held to the same high standards by developing detailed guidance on the use of children’s data for research purposes. A burning question for researchers is how to properly research children’s experience, particularly regarding the harms defined by the Online Safety Act.
Proposed new subsection (1) sets out the broad headings that the ICO must cover to promote good practice. Proposed new subsection (2) confirms that the ICO must have regard to children’s rights under the UNCRC, and that they are entitled to a higher standard of protection. It would also ensure that the ICO consulted with academics, those who represent the interests of children and data scientists. There is something of a theme here: if the changes to UK GDPR did not diminish data subjects’ privacy and rights, there would be no need for amendments in this group. If there were a code for independent public research, as is so sorely needed, the substance of Amendment 145 could usefully form a part. If commercial companies can extend scientific research that has no definition, and if the Bill expands the right to further processing and the Secretary of State can unilaterally change the basis for onward processing, can the Minister explain, when he responds, how he can claim that the Bill maintains protections for children?
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief because I associate myself with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, just said. This is where the rubber hits the road from our previous group. If we all believe that it is important to maintain children’s protection, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to accept if not the exact wording of the children-specific amendments in this group then the direction of travel—and I hope that he will commit to coming back and working with us to make sure that we can get wording into the Bill.
I am hugely in favour of research in the private sector as well as in universities and the public sector; we should not close our minds to that at all. We need to be realistic that all the meaningful research in AI is currently happening in the private sector, so I do not want to close that door at all, but I am extremely uncomfortable with a Secretary of State having the ability to amend access to personal data for children in this context. It is entirely sensible to have a defined code of conduct for the use of children’s data in research. We have real evidence that a code of conduct setting out how to protect children’s rights and data in this space works, so I do not understand why it would not be a good idea to do research if we want the research to happen but we want children’s rights to be protected at a much higher level.
It seems to me that this group is self-evidently sensible, in particular Amendments 8, 22, 23 and 145. I put my name to all of them except Amendment 22 but, the more I look at the Bill, the more uncomfortable I get with it; I wish I had put my name to Amendment 22. We have discussed Secretary of State powers in each of the digital Bills that we have looked at and we know about the power that big tech has to lobby. It is not fair on Secretaries of State in future to have this ability to amend—it is extremely dangerous. I express my support for Amendment 22.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I just want to say that I agree with what the previous speakers have said. I particularly support Amendment 133; in effect, I have already made my speech on it. At that stage, I spoke about pseudonymised data but I focused my remarks on scientific research. Clearly, I suspect that the Minister’s assurances will not go far enough, although I do not want to pre-empt what he says and I will listen carefully to it. I am sure that we will have to return to this on Report.
I make a small additional point: I am not as content as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding of Winscombe, about commercial research. Different criteria apply; if we look in more detail at ensuring that research data is protected, there may be special factors relating to commercial research that need to be covered in a potential code of practice or more detailed regulations.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. Amendment 6 to Clause 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, rightly tests the boundaries on the use of personal data for scientific research and, as he says, begins to ask, “What is the real purpose of this clause? Is it the clarification of existing good practice or is it something new? Do we fully understand what that new proposition is?”
As he said, there is particular public concern about the use of personal health data where it seems that some private companies are stretching the interpretation of “the public good”, for which authorisation for the use of this data was initially freely given, to something much wider. Although the clause seeks to provide some reassurance on this, we question whether it goes far enough and whether there are sufficient protections against the misuse of personal health data in the way the clause is worded.
This raises the question of whether it is only public health research that needs to be in the public interest, which is the way the clause is worded at the moment, because it could equally apply to research using personal data from other public services, such as measuring educational outcomes or accessing social housing. There is a range of uses for personal data. In an earlier debate, we heard about the plethora of data already held on people, much of which individuals do not understand or know about and which could be used for research or to make judgments about them. So we need to be sensitive about the way this might be used. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister why public health research has been singled out for special attention when, arguably, it should be a wider right across the board.
Noble Lords have asked questions about the wider concerns around Clause 2, which could enable private companies to use personal data to develop new products for commercial benefit without needing to inform the data subjects. As noble Lords have said, this is not what people would normally expect to be described as “scientific research”. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, was quite right that it has the potential to be unethical, so we need some standards and some clear understanding of what we mean by “scientific research”.
That is particularly important for Amendments 7 and 132 to 134 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which underline the need for data subjects to be empowered and given the opportunity to object to their data being used for a new purpose. Arguably, without these extra guarantees—particularly because there is a lack of trust about how a lot of this information is being used—data subjects will be increasingly reluctant to hand over personal data on a voluntary basis in the first place. It may well be that this is an area where the Information Commissioner needs to provide additional advice and guidance to ensure that we can reap the benefits of good-quality scientific research that is in the public interest and in which the citizens involved can have absolute trust. Noble Lords around the Room have stressed that point.
Finally, we have added our names to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on the use of children’s data for scientific research. As she rightly points out, the 2018 Act gave children a higher standard of protection on the uses for which their data is collected and processed. It is vital that this Bill, for all its intents to simplify and water down preceding rights, does not accidentally put at risk the higher protection agreed for children. In the earlier debate, the Minister said that he believed it will not do so. I am not sure that “believe” is a strong enough word here; we need guarantees that go beyond that. I think that this is an issue we will come back to again and again in terms of what is in the Bill and what guarantees exist for that protection.
In particular, there is a concern that relaxing the legal basis on which personal data can be processed for scientific research, including privately funded research carried out by commercial entities, could open the door for children’s data to be exploited for commercial purposes. We will consider the use of children’s data collected in schools in our debate on a separate group but we clearly need to ensure that the handling of pupils’ data by the Department for Education and the use of educational apps by private companies do not lead to a generation of exploited children who are vulnerable to direct marketing and manipulative messaging. The noble Baroness’s amendments are really important in this regard.
I also think that the noble Baroness’s Amendment 145 is a useful initiative to establish a code of practice on children’s data and scientific research. It would give us an opportunity to balance the best advantages of children’s research, which is clearly in the public and personal interest, with the maintenance of the highest level of protection from exploitation.
I hope that the Minister can see the sense in these amendments. In particular, I hope that he will take forward the noble Baroness’s proposals and agree to work with us on the code of practice principles and to put something like that in the Bill. I look forward to his response.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for this series of amendments.
I will first address Amendment 6, which seeks to amend Clause 2. As the noble Lord said, the definitions created by Clause 2, including “scientific research purposes”, are based on the current wording in recital 159 to the UK GDPR. We are changing not the scope of these definitions but their legal status. This amendment would require individual researchers to assess whether their research should be considered to be in the public interest, which could create uncertainty in the sector and discourage research. This would be more restrictive than the current position and would undermine the Government’s objectives to facilitate scientific research and empower researchers.
We have maintained a flexible scope as to what is covered by “scientific research” while ensuring that the definition is still sufficiently narrow in that it can cover only what would reasonably be seen as scientific research. This is because the legislation needs to be able to adapt to the emergence of new areas of innovative research. Therefore, the Government feel that it is more appropriate for the regulator to add more nuance and context to the definition. This includes the types of processing that are considered—
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt but it may give the Box a chance to give the Minister a note on this. Is the Minister saying that recital 159 includes the word “commercial”?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am afraid I do not have an eidetic memory of recital 159, but I would be happy to—
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
That is precisely why I ask this question in the middle of the Minister’s speech to give the Box a chance to respond, I hope.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Researchers must also comply with the required safeguards to protect individuals’ privacy. All organisations conducting scientific research, including those with commercial interests, must also meet all the safeguards for research laid out in the UK GDPR and comply with the legislation’s core principles, such as fairness and transparency. Clause 26 sets out several safeguards that research organisations must comply with when processing personal data for research purposes. The ICO will update its non-statutory guidance to reflect many of the changes introduced by this Bill.
Scientific research currently holds a privileged place in the data protection framework because, by its nature, it is already viewed as generally being in the public interest. As has been observed, the Bill already applies a public interest test to processing for the purpose of public health studies in order to provide greater assurance for research that is particularly sensitive. Again, this reflects recital 159.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on why public health research is being singled out, as she stated, this part of the legislation just adds an additional safeguard to studies into public health ensuring that they must be in the public interest. This does not limit the scope for other research unrelated to public health. Studies in the area of public health will usually be in the public interest. For the rare, exceptional times that a study is not, this requirement provides an additional safeguard to help prevent misuse of the various exemptions and privileges for researchers in the UK GDPR. “Public interest” is not defined in the legislation, so the controller needs to make a case-by-case assessment based on its purposes.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about recitals and ICO guidance, although we of course respect and welcome ICO guidance, it does not have legislative effect and does not provide the certainty that legislation does. That is why we have done so via this Bill.
Amendment 7 to Clause 3 would undermine the broader consent concept for scientific research. Clause 3 places the existing concept of “broad consent” currently found in recital 33 to the UK GDPR on a statutory footing with the intention of improving awareness and confidence for researchers. This clause applies only to scientific research processing that is reliant on consent. It already contains various safeguards. For example, broad consent can be used only where it is not possible to identify at the outset the full purposes for which personal data might be processed. Additionally, to give individuals greater agency, where possible individuals will have the option to consent to only part of the processing and can withdraw their consent at any time.
Clause 3 clarifies an existing concept of broad consent which outlines how the conditions for consent will be met in certain circumstances when processing for scientific research purposes. This will enable consent to be obtained for an area of scientific research when researchers cannot at the outset identify fully the purposes for which they are collecting the data. For example, the initial aim may be the study of cancer, but it later becomes the study of a particular cancer type.
Furthermore, as part of the reforms around the reuse of personal data, we have further clarified that when personal data is originally collected on the basis of consent, a controller would need to get fresh consent to reuse that data for a new purpose unless a public interest exemption applied and it is unreasonable to expect the controller to obtain that consent. A controller cannot generally reuse personal data originally collected on the basis of consent for research purposes.
Turning to Amendments 132 and 133 to Clause 26, the general rule described in Article 13(3) of the UK GDPR is that controllers must inform data subjects about a change of purposes, which provides an opportunity to withdraw consent or object to the proposed processing where relevant. There are existing exceptions to the right to object, such as Article 21(6) of the UK GDPR, where processing is necessary for research in the public interest, and in Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018, when applying the right would prevent or seriously impair the research. Removing these exemptions could undermine life-saving research and compromise long-term studies so that they are not able to continue.
Regarding Amendment 134, new Article 84B of the UK GDPR already sets out the requirement that personal data should be anonymised for research, archiving and statistical—RAS—purposes unless doing so would mean the research could not be carried through. Anonymisation is not always possible as personal data can be at the heart of valuable research, archiving and statistical activities, for example, in genetic research for the monitoring of new treatments of diseases. That is why new Article 84C of the UK GDPR also sets out protective measures for personal data that is used for RAS purposes, such as ensuring respect for the principle of data minimisation through pseudonymisation.
The stand part notice in this group seeks to remove Clause 6 and, consequentially, Schedule 2. In the Government’s consultation on data reform, Data: A New Direction, we heard that the current provisions in the UK GDPR on personal data reuse are difficult for controllers and individuals to navigate. This has led to uncertainty about when controllers can reuse personal data, causing delays for researchers and obstructing innovation. Clause 6 and Schedule 2 address the existing uncertainty around reusing personal data by setting out clearly the conditions in which the reuse of personal data for a new purpose is permitted. Clause 6 and Schedule 2 must therefore remain to give controllers legal certainty and individuals greater transparency.
Amendment 22 seeks to remove the power to add to or vary the conditions set out in Schedule 2. These conditions currently constitute a list of specific public interest purposes, such as safeguarding vulnerable individuals, for which an organisation is permitted to reuse data without needing consent or to identify a specific law elsewhere in legislation. Since this list is strictly limited and exhaustive, a power is needed to ensure that it is kept up to date with future developments in how personal data is used for important public interest purposes.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I am interested that the safeguarding requirement is already in the Bill, so, in terms of children, which I believe the Minister is going to come to, the onward processing is not a question of safeguarding. Is that correct? As the Minister has just indicated, that is already a provision.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Just before we broke, I was on the verge of attempting to answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron; I hope my coming words will do that, but she can intervene again if she needs to.
I turn to the amendments that concern the use of children’s data in research and reuse. Amendment 8 would also amend Clause 3; the noble Baroness suggests that the measure should not apply to children’s data, but this would potentially prevent children, or their parents or guardians, from agreeing to participate in broad areas of pioneering research that could have a positive impact on children, such as on the causes of childhood diseases.
On the point about safeguarding, the provisions on recognised legitimate interests and further processing are required for safeguarding children for compliance with, respectively, the lawfulness and purpose limitation principles. The purpose limitation provision in this clause is meant for situations where the original processing purpose was not safeguarding and the controller then realises that there is a need to further process it for safeguarding.
Research organisations are already required to comply with the data protection principles, including on fairness and transparency, so that research participants can make informed decisions about how their data is used; and, where consent is the lawful basis for processing, children, or their parents or guardians, are free to choose not to provide their consent, or, if they do consent, they can withdraw it at any time. In addition, the further safeguards that are set out in Clause 26, which I mentioned earlier, will protect all personal data, whether it relates to children or adults.
Amendment 21 would require data controllers to have specific regard to the fact that children’s data requires a higher standard of protection for children when deciding whether reuse of their data is compatible with the original purpose for which it was collected. This is unnecessary because the situations in which personal data could be reused are limited to public interest purposes designed largely to protect the public and children, in so far as they are relevant to them. Controllers must also consider the possible consequences for data subjects and the relationship between the controller and the data subject. This includes taking into account that the data subject is a child, in addition to the need to generally consider the interests of children.
Amendment 23 seeks to limit use of the purpose limitation exemptions in Schedule 2 in relation to children’s data. This amendment is unnecessary because these provisions permit further processing only in a narrow range of circumstances and can be expanded only to serve important purposes of public interest. Furthermore, it may inadvertently be harmful to children. Current objectives include safeguarding children or vulnerable people, preventing crime or responding to emergencies. In seeking to limit the use of these provisions, there is a risk that the noble Baroness’s amendments might make data controllers more hesitant to reuse or disclose data for public interest purposes and undermine provisions in place to protect children. These amendments could also obstruct important research that could have a demonstrable positive impact on children, such as research into children’s diseases.
Amendment 145 would require the ICO to publish a statutory code on the use of children’s data in scientific research and technology development. Although the Government recognise the value that ICO codes can play in promoting good practice and improving compliance, we do not consider that it would be appropriate to add these provisions to the Bill without further detailed consultation with the ICO and the organisations likely to be affected by the new codes. Clause 33 of the Bill already includes a measure that would allow the Secretary of State to request the ICO to publish a code on any matter that it sees fit, so this is an issue that we could return to in the future if the evidence supports it.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I will read Hansard very carefully, because I am not sure that I absolutely followed the Minister, but we will undoubtedly come back to this. I will ask two questions. Earlier, before we had a break, in response to some of the early amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the Minister suggested that several things were being taken out of the recital to give them solidity in the Bill; so I am using this opportunity to suggest that recital 38, which is the special consideration of children’s data, might usefully be treated in a similar way and that we could then have a schedule that is the age-appropriate design code in the Bill. Perhaps I can leave that with the Minister, and perhaps he can undertake to have some further consultation with the ICO on Amendment 145 specifically.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
With respect to recital 38, that sounds like a really interesting idea. Yes, let us both have a look and see what the consultation involves and what the timing might look like. I confess to the Committee that I do not know what recital 38 says, off the top of my head. For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept these amendments. I hope that noble Lords will therefore not press them.
Returning to the questions by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the contents of recital 159, the current UK GDPR and EU GDPR are silent on the specific definition of scientific research. It does not preclude commercial organisations performing scientific research; indeed, the ICO’s own guidance on research and its interpretation of recital 159 already mention commercial activities. Scientific research can be done by commercial organisations—for example, much of the research done into vaccines, and the research into AI referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. The recital itself does not mention it but, as the ICO’s guidance is clear on this already, the Government feel that it is appropriate to put this on a statutory footing.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, that was intriguing. I thank the Minister for his response. It sounds as though, again, guidance would have been absolutely fine, but what is there not to like about the ICO bringing clarity? It was quite interesting that the Minister used the phrase “uncertainty in the sector” on numerous occasions and that is becoming a bit of a mantra as the Bill goes on. We cannot create uncertainty in the sector, so the poor old ICO has been labouring in the vineyard for the last few years to no purpose at all. Clearly there has been uncertainty in the sector of a major description, and all its guidance and all the work that it has put in over the years have been wholly fruitless, really. It is only this Government that have grabbed the agenda with this splendid 300-page data protection Bill that will clarify this for business. I do not know how much they will have to pay to get new compliance officers or whatever it happens to be, but the one thing that the Bill will absolutely not create is greater clarity.
I am a huge fan of making sure that we understand what the recitals have to say, and it is very interesting that the Minister is saying that the recital is silent but the ICO’s guidance is pretty clear on this. I am hugely attracted by the idea of including recital 38 in the Bill. It is another lightbulb moment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has these moments, rather like with the age-appropriate design code, which was a huge one.
We are back to the concern, whether in the ICO guidance, the Bill or wherever, that scientific research needs to be in the public interest to qualify and not have all the consents that are normally required for the use of personal data. The Minister said, “Well, of course we think that scientific research is in the public interest; that is its very definition”. So why does only public health research need that public interest test and not the other aspects? Is it because, for instance, the opt-out was a bit of a disaster and 3 million people opted out of allowing their health data to be shared or accessed by GPs? Yes, it probably is.
Do the Government want a similar kind of disaster to happen, in which people get really excited about Meta or other commercial organisations getting hold of their data, a public outcry ensues and they therefore have to introduce a public interest test on that? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I do not think that personal data should be treated in a particularly different way in terms of its public interest, just because it is in healthcare. I very much hope that the Minister will consider that.
Baroness Kidron
““Data community”In this Act, a “data community” means an entity established to facilitate the collective activation of data subjects’ data rights in Chapters III and VIII of the UK GDPR and members of a data community assign specific data rights to a nominated entity to exercise those rights on their behalf.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides a definition of “data community”. It is one of a series of amendments that would establish the ability to assign data rights to a third party.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I hope this is another lightbulb moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested. As well as Amendment 10, I will speak to Amendments 35, 147 and 148 in my name and the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I thank them both. The purpose of these amendments is to move the Bill away from nibbling around the edges of GDPR in pursuit of post-Brexit opportunities and to actually deliver a post-Brexit opportunity.
These amendments would put the UK on an enhanced path of data sophistication while not challenging equivalence, which we will undoubtedly discuss during the Committee. I echo the voice of the noble Lord, Lord Allan, who at Second Reading expressed deep concern that equivalence was not a question of an arrangement between the Government and the EU but would be a question picked up by data activists taking strategic litigation to the courts.
Data protection as conceived by GDPR and in this Bill is primarily seen as an arrangement between an individual and an entity that processes that data—most often a commercial company. But, as evidenced by the last 20 years, the real power lies in holding either vast swathes of general data, such as those used by LLMs, or large groups of specialist data such as medical scans. In short, the value—in all forms, not simply financial—lies in big data.
As the value of data became clear, ideas such as “data is the new oil” and data as currency emerged, alongside the notion of data fiduciaries or data trusts, where you can place your data collectively. One early proponent of such ideas was Jaron Lanier, inventor of virtual reality; I remember discussing it with him more than a decade ago. However, these ideas have not found widespread practical application, possibly because they are normally based around ideas of micropayments as the primary value—and very probably because they rely on data subjects gathering their data, so they are for the boffins.
During the passage of the DPA 2018, one noble Lord counted the number of times the Minister said the words “complex” and “complicated” while referring to the Bill. Data law is complex, and the complicated waterfall of its concepts and provisions eludes most non-experts. That is why I propose the four amendments in this group, which would give UK citizens access to data experts for matters that concern them deeply.
Amendment 10 would define the term “data community”, and Amendment 35 would give a data subject the power to assign their data rights to a data community for specific purposes and for a specific time period. Amendment 147 would require the ICO to set out a code of conduct for data communities, including guidance on establishing, operating and joining a data community, as well as guidance for data controllers and data processors on responding to requests made by data communities. Amendment 148 would require the ICO to keep a register of data communities, to make it publicly available and to ensure proper oversight. Together, they would provide a mechanism for non-experts—that is, any UK citizen—to assign their data rights to a community run by representatives that would benefit the entire group.
Data communities diverge from previous attempts to create big data for the benefit of users, in that they are not predicated on financial payments and neither does each data subject need to access their own data via the complex rules and often obstructive interactions with individual companies. They put rights holders together with experts who do it on their behalf, by allowing data subjects to assign their rights so that an expert can gather the data and crunch it.
This concept is based on a piece of work done by a colleague of mine at the University of Oxford, Dr Reuben Binns, an associate professor in human-centred computing, in association with the Worker Info Exchange. Since 2016, individual Uber drivers, with help from their trade unions and the WIE, asked Uber for their data that showed their jobs, earnings, movements, waiting times and so on. It took many months of negotiation, conducted via data protection lawyers, as each driver individually asked for successive pieces of information that Uber, at first, resisted giving them and then, after litigation, provided.
After a period of time, a new cohort of drivers was recruited, and it was only when several hundred drivers were poised to ask the same set of questions that a formal arrangement was made between Uber and WIE, so that they could be treated as a single group and all the data would be provided about all the drivers. This practical decision allowed Dr Binns to look at the data en masse. While an individual driver knew what they earned and where they were, what became visible when looking across several hundred drivers is how the algorithm reacted to those who refused a poorly paid job, who was assigned the lucrative airport runs, whether where you started impacted on your daily earnings, whether those who worked short hours were given less lucrative jobs, and so on.
This research project continues after several years and benefits from a bespoke arrangement that could, by means of these amendments, be strengthened and made an industry-wide standard with the involvement of the ICO. If it were routine, it would provide opportunity equally for challenger businesses, community groups and research projects. Imagine if a group of elderly people who spend a lot of time at home were able to use a data community to negotiate cheap group insurance, or imagine a research project where I might assign my data rights for the sole purpose of looking at gender inequality. A data community would allow any group of people to assign their rights, rights that are more powerful together than apart. This is doable—I have explained how it has been done. With these amendments, it would be routinely available, contractual, time-limited and subject to a code of conduct.
As it stands, the Bill is regressive for personal data rights and does not deliver the promised Brexit dividends. But there are great possibilities, without threatening adequacy, that could open markets, support innovation in the UK and make data more available to groups in society that rarely benefit from data law. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I think this is a lightbulb moment—it is inspired, and this suite of amendments fits together really well. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that this is a positive aspect. If the Bill contained these four amendments, I might have to alter my opinion of it—how about that for an incentive?
This is an important subject. It is a positive aspect of data rights. We have not got this right yet in this country. We still have great suspicion about sharing and access to personal data. There is almost a conspiracy theory around the use of data, the use of external contractors in the health service and so on, which is extremely unhelpful. If individuals were able to share their data with a trusted hub—a trusted community—that would make all the difference.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I have come across a number of influences over the years. I think the first time many of us came across the idea of data trusts or data institutions was in the Hall-Pesenti review carried out by Dame Wendy Hall and Jérôme Pesenti in 2017. They made a strong recommendation to the Government that they should start thinking about how to operationalise data trusts. Subsequently, organisations such as the Open Data Institute did some valuable research into how data trusts and data institutions could be used in a variety of ways, including in local government. Then the Ada Lovelace Institute did some very good work on the possible legal basis for data trusts and data institutions. Professor Irene Ng was heavily engaged in setting up what was called the “hub of all things”. I was not quite convinced by how it was going to work legally in terms of data sharing and so on, but in a sense we have now got to that point. I give all credit to the academic whom the noble Baroness mentioned. If he has helped us to get to this point, that is helpful. It is not that complicated, but we need full government backing for the ICO and the instruments that the noble Baroness put in her amendments, including regulatory oversight, because it will not be enough simply to have codes that apply. We have to have regulatory oversight.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am also pleased to support these amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to which I have added my name. I am hugely enthusiastic about them, too, and think that this has been a lightbulb moment from the noble Baroness. I very much thank her for doing all of this background work because she has identified the current weakness in the data protection landscape: it is currently predicated on an arrangement between an individual and the organisation that holds their data.
That is an inherently unbalanced power construct. As the noble Baroness said, as tech companies become larger and more powerful, it is not surprising that many individuals feel overwhelmed by the task of questioning or challenging those that are processing their personal information. It assumes a degree of knowledge about their rights and a degree of digital literacy, which we know many people do not possess.
In the very good debate that we had on digital exclusion a few weeks ago, it was highlighted that around 2.4 million people are unable to complete a single basic task to get online, such as opening an internet browser, and that more than 5 million employed adults cannot complete essential digital work tasks. These individuals cannot be expected to access their digital data on their own; they need the safety of a larger group to do so. We need to protect the interests of an entire group that would otherwise be locked out of the system.
The noble Baroness referred to the example of Uber drivers who were helped by their trade union to access their data, sharing patterns of exploitation and subsequently strengthening their employment package, but this does not have to be about just union membership; it could be about the interests of a group of public sector service users who want to make sure that they are not being discriminated against, a community group that wants its bid for a local grant to be treated fairly, and so on. We can all imagine examples of where this would work in a group’s interest. As the noble Baroness said, these proposals would allow any group of people to assign their rights—rights that are more powerful together than apart.
There could be other benefits; if data controllers are concerned about the number of individual requests that they are receiving for data information—and a lot of this Bill is supposed to address that extra work—group requests, on behalf of a data community, could provide economies of scale and make the whole system more efficient.
Like the noble Baroness, I can see great advantages from this proposal; it could lay the foundation for other forms of data innovation and help to build trust with many citizens who currently see digitalisation as something to fear—this could allay those fears. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance that the Government welcome this proposal, take it seriously and will be prepared to work with the noble Baroness and others to make it a reality, because there is the essence of a very good initiative here.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for raising this interesting and compelling set of ideas. I turn first to Amendments 10 and 35 relating to data communities. The Government recognise that individuals need to have the appropriate tools and mechanisms to easily exercise their rights under the data protection legislation. It is worth pointing out that current legislation does not prevent data subjects authorising third parties to exercise certain rights. Article 80 of the UK GDPR also explicitly gives data subjects the right to appoint not-for-profit bodies to exercise certain rights, including their right to bring a complaint to the ICO, to appeal against a decision of the ICO or to bring legal proceedings against a controller or processor and the right to receive compensation.
The concept of data communities exercising certain data subject rights is closely linked with the wider concept of data intermediaries. The Government recognise the existing and potential benefits of data intermediaries and are committed to supporting them. However, given that data intermediaries are new, we need to be careful not to distort the sector at such an early stage of development. As in many areas of the economy, officials are in regular contact with businesses, and the data intermediary sector is no different. One such engagement is the DBT’s Smart Data Council, which includes a number of intermediary businesses that advise the Government on the direction of smart data policy. The Government would welcome further and continued engagement with intermediary businesses to inform how data policy is developed.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry, but the Minister used a pretty pejorative word: “distort” the sector. What does he have in mind?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I did not mean to be pejorative; I merely point out that before embarking on quite a far-reaching policy—as noble Lords have pointed out—we would not want to jump the gun prior to consultation and researching the area properly. I certainly do not wish to paint a negative portrait.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
It is a moment at which I cannot set a firm date for a firm set of actions, but on the other hand I am not attempting to punt it into the long grass either. The Government do not want to introduce a prescriptive framework without assessing potential risks, strengthening the evidence base and assessing the appropriate regulatory response. For these reasons, I hope that for the time being the noble Baroness will not press these amendments.
The noble Baroness has also proposed Amendments 147 and 148 relating to the role of the Information Commissioner’s Office. Given my response just now to the wider proposals, these amendments are no longer necessary and would complicate the statute book. We note that Clause 35 already includes a measure that will allow the Secretary of State to request the Information Commissioner’s Office to publish a code on any matter that she or he sees fit, so this is an issue we could return to in future if such a code were deemed necessary.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry to keep interrupting the Minister. Can he give us a bit of a picture of what he has in mind? He said that he did not want to distort things at the moment, that there were intermediaries out there and so on. That is all very well, but is he assuming that a market will be developed or is developing? What overview of this does he have? In a sense, we have a very clear proposition here, which the Government should respond to. I am assuming that this is not a question just of letting a thousand flowers bloom. What is the government policy towards this? If you look at the Hall-Pesenti review and read pretty much every government response—including to our AI Select Committee, where we talked about data trusts and picked up the Hall-Pesenti review recommendations —you see that the Government have been pretty much positive over time when they have talked about data trusts. The trouble is that they have not done anything.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Overall, as I say and as many have said in this brief debate, this is a potentially far-reaching and powerful idea with an enormous number of benefits. But the fact that it is far-reaching implies that we need to look at it further. I am afraid that I am not briefed on long-standing—
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
May I suggest that the Minister writes? On the one hand, he is saying that we will be distorting something—that something is happening out there—but, on the other hand, he is saying that he is not briefed on what is out there or what the intentions are. A letter unpacking all that would be enormously helpful.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am very happy to write on this. I will just say that I am not briefed on previous government policy towards it, dating back many years before my time in the role.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
It was even further. Yes, I am very happy to write on that. For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept these amendments for now. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I thank the co-signatories of my amendments for their enthusiasm. I will make three very quick points. First, the certain rights that the Minister referred to are complaints after the event when something has gone wrong, not positive rights. The second point of contention I have is whether these are so far-reaching. We are talking about people’s existing rights, and these amendments do not introduce any other right apart from access to put them together. It is very worrying that the Government would see these as a threat when data subjects put together their rights but not when commercial companies put together their data.
Finally, what is the Bill for? If it is not for creating a new and vibrant data protection system for the UK, I am concerned that it undermines a lot of existing rights and will not allow for a flourishing of uses of data. This is the new world: the world of data and AI. We have to have something to offer UK citizens. I would like the Minister to say that he will discuss this further, because it is not quite adequate to nay-say it. I beg leave to withdraw.
House of Lords
Royal Assent
Wednesday 20th March 2024
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Free Childcare Scheme
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the availability of additional funded childcare provision, ahead of the expansion of the free childcare scheme in April.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we are delivering the largest expansion of childcare in England’s history. Latest projections show that more than 150,000 new funded places will be secured by April. We expect that number to grow, collectively saving parents more than £500 million in costs. We continue to support the sector’s expansion, with £400 million of additional funding to uplift hourly rates next year and a guarantee that rates will increase in line with cost pressures for two years after that.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, on these Benches we agree with the ambition of the policy, but delivery of the expansion of the free childcare scheme is falling short. With the charity Coram Family and Childcare finding that parents in some parts of the country are spending over 50% of their income on childcare, and with children needing to be registered for nurseries before they are born, what more are the Government doing to ensure that parents and children get the expansion of free childcare that they have been promised?
Baroness Barran (Con)
It is slightly curious to say that delivery is falling short when the new entitlements start in April of this year. The noble Baroness knows that we have made a significant investment in capital to support local authorities. We have made a number of innovations in relation to the workforce and the uptake of the scheme has been very encouraging. Most importantly—I think the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed this—we have announced very generous funding rates, particularly for younger children.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I think we are surprised at the confidence of the Minister, given that we have seen a 50% increase in the number of nurseries that have closed in just the last year, that 40% of nurseries say they are undecided as to whether they will deliver the new funded offer for two year-olds, and that 20% say that they will but that places will be limited. Why is the Minister so confident about this scheme? We hope she is right, but can she give us more reassurance as to why she thinks it will definitely happen?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The first thing I would say is that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are right that this is a very ambitious expansion of childcare. However, the really significant increase in capacity will be in September 2025, so we have some time to put in place what is needed to deliver on that. The noble Lord talked about the number of nurseries that have closed. I know he is also aware that the childcare workforce has gone up year on year, over 2022-23, and is up by 40,000 places—I mean that the number of places has increased in the past five years by 40,000, while there has been a 1% annual decline in nought to five year-olds.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I understand that there have been reports suggesting that the pressure on childcare places will cause special needs children to be squeezed out of the provision. Could my noble friend clarify the situation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We are aware of the concerns to which my noble friend refers. The House knows that we are doing a great deal to create a fairer special needs system. One of the key things here is the phased implementation of the expansion to the 30-hours offer, to make sure that we develop and continue to monitor the capacity for children with special educational needs.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, why does it take a crisis before the Government act? Is there no forward planning in her department to identify need and do something before it becomes a crisis?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Some people might recognise that the Government are making a very substantial investment in this area. We have already spent more than £20 billion over the past five years to support families with the cost of childcare, and this next step will be another major one.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
I really do not think that the House would wish to cast aspersions on the intention of this policy. Most people would think that it was good and worth supporting. However, can the Minister say whether there is an accurate match between the funds that will be available to the sector from the Government to support this expansion and the need that they have identified for the funds in order to do it successfully? I think she will agree that there has been some doubt as to whether those two numbers match.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I genuinely thank the noble Baroness for her question, because it gives me the opportunity to set out a couple of things. One might want to look at funding rates for different ages of children to see whether there is sufficient funding. The funding for three to four year-olds is almost identical in the new scheme to previous rates. For two year-olds, the Government will pay £8.28 an hour, compared to £6.07 previously, and for those between nine months and two years, £11.22, compared to £6.05. I leave the noble Baroness to draw her own conclusions.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Could the Minister help me? She spoke about entitlement. Could she tell me what the difference is between entitlement and delivery?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government have committed to deliver the number of childcare places needed for those who are eligible and seek to take advantage of the opportunity that the Government offer.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that many families up and down Britain are tearing their hair out over the cost and difficulty of accessing quality affordable childcare? Clearly, delivery is crucial. Would she also agree that childcare is one part of the jigsaw puzzle, and that many working families in Britain are also worried about security of employment and predictability of working hours and income in order to be able to access childcare? What we really need is a new deal for working people that delivers that security, as well as childcare provision.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I know the noble Baroness is well aware of the very substantial increases that we have made in the national minimum wage. To put it in context, the 30 hours of free childcare is equivalent to just under £7,000 per child, which I think she will agree is a substantial contribution to the average family income.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, one of the best things we had under Tony Blair was Sure Start; it was all over the country and children benefited. Why can we not introduce full Sure Start again, like we had 20-odd years ago, so that children up and down the country can benefit?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not sure time permits me to go into everything regarding Sure Start, but I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the family hubs that the Government are rolling out around the country. The learning that we took from Sure Start and put into the family hubs was a focus on disadvantage and the length of time for which families can get support. Sure Start was, understandably, focused on very young children, but those of us who are parents know that one might need support with one’s children at different point as they grow up. That is one of the philosophies behind the family hubs.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Has the Minister looked at comparative data which shows that childcare is so much more expensive and the requirements so much more stringent here than in other countries around the world? It is also the case that calculations have been done in the States to show that, if all childcare was absolutely free, it would eventually be covered by the tax returns from women and other parents who would be freed up to go back to work.
Baroness Barran (Con)
That is exactly what the Government are delivering, and exactly those calculations were behind the Government’s decision to make such an increase. In 2027-28, we will be spending in excess of £8 billion on free childcare hours and early education. To make sure that the noble Baroness is aware, from September 2025 there will be 30 hours of free childcare from when a child is nine months old until they start school.
Children’s Cancer Services
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether a fully funded delivery plan has been agreed in relation to NHS England’s proposal to relocate children’s cancer services away from The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust to other providers across London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
NHS England has decided that Evelina London should be the future location of the principal treatment centre, following extensive engagement with a wide range of stakeholders across the south London/south-east region. A delivery plan has been assessed as affordable by NHS England, with capital funding in place, and remains subject to robust financial scrutiny. Ministers are considering next steps.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer and draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. This is an extraordinary act of self-harm. NHS England, in a decision delegated to the London region, announced that it will be closing the world-leading paediatric cancer services of the Royal Marsden Hospital in Sutton and transferring these to the Evelina Hospital in central London. The Royal Marsden is the largest centre for clinical trials for new drugs for children with cancer in Europe. Its unique co-location with the ICR and the team developing new adult cancer drugs and researching how these can be used to help support childhood cancers means risking the loss of many of these trials and breakthroughs by breaking this bond. Will my noble friend undertake to ask the Secretary of State to call in this decision, as legislation allows her to?
Lord Markham (Con)
First, I thank my noble friend for the tireless work she does on behalf of the Royal Marsden, and convey the views of probably all noble Lords on the fantastic work the Royal Marsden does. The current situation, as I think noble Lords know, is that the NHS has reached a decision. The Secretary of State does have the power to call in exceptional cases, and as a result of that, Minister Stephenson is undertaking a fact-finding mission. I have set up a meeting with him to discuss this, and my noble friend is very welcome to join me at that meeting.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, structural healthcare decisions are among the most challenging, and my worry is that there are greater risks now the Evelina has been chosen. It will be the only principal treatment centre in the UK where neurosurgery is not carried out on-site. St George’s has over 25 years’ experience in caring for children with cancer and a dedicated staff team of over 430 people, only four of whom will be moving to the Evelina. What actions will the Government be taking to monitor and ensure a continuing standard of cancer care for children?
Lord Markham (Con)
Ministers are on a fact-finding mission. I understand the points the noble Earl makes; the NHS made the point that it wants cancer treatment to be co-located alongside an intensive care unit. Following Professor Sir Mike Richards’ review, it believes that it is best to have those services co-located, which is why it has chosen the Evelina. There are pros and cons to every decision, and that is why Ministers are doing further fact-finding.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, this decision is daft on many counts, some of which have already been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. I declare an interest in that I am an occasional contributor to the Royal Marsden Cancer Charity. As has already been mentioned, the Royal Marsden is a world-renowned centre for cancer research, including in children.
Going back to the decision, even if the Royal Marsden was closed down and all the children’s cancer services were shifted to the Evelina, it does not and will not have all the facilities to deliver medical oncology services to children. Compromised children with cancers will then have to be transferred out of the Evelina to other places where radiotherapy is available. Why shut down a centre which last year transferred to intensive care only three children out of 700—all of whom survived —and instead use another centre which does not have major radiotherapy facilities?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord makes some very good points. Following the NHS review and the evidence put forward, specific cancer treatments will take place at University College Hospital London, which has two particular benefits for patients: radiotherapy and proton beam technology. Ministers want to understand and make the points the noble Lord has made, and to see whether this is a decision we are comfortable with. As I said earlier, since January 2024 we have had the power to call in a decision in exceptional circumstances.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we have heard a lot in this House about joined-up thinking, but this is not joined-up thinking. Instead, we are thinking of fragmenting a service which works very well. Co-location is important, in order to enable experts to talk, research and take decisions together. Can the Minister do everything he can to change the decision?
Lord Markham (Con)
I am happy to go through the facts. I hope noble Lords know me well enough to know that I like to look at all the evidence, and, clearly, we are at that stage. I saw an excellent example just the other day in Cambridge, where we are building a new centre to put research and treatment under one roof. That, of course, is what the Royal Marsden has for children’s cancer, so I am aware of the benefits and they will be at the front of my mind.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister understands that cancer cannot be seen as an isolated disease. One aspect of that is how you provide for children in their entirety during the treatment, which does not always involve just cancer but other organs and other parts of the child.
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, and the Royal Marsden has a very good track record on that. As was explained to me on the Cambridge visit, having all those services together under one roof is a definite advantage. When the pros and cons are weighed up, that will definitely be a pro.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware by now that there is considerable doubt, controversy and concern around this decision. He has said—and we all take it in good faith—that the Secretary of State is calling this in at this stage for fact finding. When does he anticipate that such a review of the facts might be finished?
Lord Markham (Con)
It is only now that the facts are starting to come to us. On something as important as this, we definitely do not want to be hurried into it. Normally, I would be saying at this Dispatch Box that I want to “go, go, go”, but on something as profound as this I want to make sure that we are not hurrying into it. All noble Lords will agree that we have a very good service in operation. For instance, I looked at the Royal Marsden’s stats on speed of treatment and diagnosis, and they are excellent. I am afraid I cannot give a timetable because, quite deliberately, I want to make sure that we do not rush into any decision until we know all the facts.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, there seem to be two issues here. One is the seemingly inexplicable nature of the decision, but also the process by which it was made. Can the Minister please talk to his colleague, not only on a fact-finding mission about this decision, but about how decisions such as this are taken within the NHS, what issues are being considered, and which are considered more important than others? It seems to me that there is an imbalance in the decision-making process. Perhaps that is also an issue that needs to be addressed.
Lord Markham (Con)
I want to be fair to the NHS here. It has done an extensive study, with a lot of professionals rating extensive criteria, and they really did believe that in certain areas, the Evelina scored higher than St. George’s and the Marsden. It is a balanced decision; all I can do is absolutely promise noble Lords that we will take all those factors into account.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister is looking at all of this, but given the difficulties of achieving the number of clinical trials in the UK, what effect is anticipated on research because of the proposed relocation of paediatric cancer services? Is there an intention to factor into the final decision the need to expand research capacity for childhood and adult cancers?
Lord Markham (Con)
Among the criteria the NHS has taken into account are clinical services, the patient care experience and research, and it scored the Evelina higher on research. I want to understand that, because many noble Lords will be surprised by that finding. I assure the noble Baroness that research and the ability to do clinical trials, which is a vital component of our life sciences industry, is an important factor in this decision.
Teesworks Project: Audit
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the audit arrangements for the Teesworks project, and of whether they are effective for the scale of the work being carried out.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Swinburne) (Con)
The public and private sector bodies engaged in the Teesworks project are responsible for ensuring that they comply with all relevant audit requirements. Additionally, the Government commissioned an independent review of the project, which we published in February. The Tees Valley Mayor is implementing its recommendations, including recommendations 27 and 28, relating to the internal and external audit functions.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer, but I honestly think that the people of Teesside deserve better than to be fobbed off like this. The independent review published in January said:
“Based on the evidence from the review the governance and financial management arrangements are not of themselves sufficiently robust or transparent to evidence value for money”.
We are told by Ministers that the NAO does not look at individual authorities, so we questioned on 30 January and 7 March just what the arrangements are for auditing this project, so local people can be reassured about the return their significant investment is giving them. We were promised an answer in writing, which has not appeared. In view of the parlous state of local government audit generally, and the nature of the 28 scathing recommendations set out in the review, an NAO financial investigation seems appropriate. Why are the Government still resisting that?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her supplementary question. I assure her that the letter is on its way; I thought that it was already sent, so I apologise if she has not received it yet. As I outlined in my response to the debate on the regeneration of industrial areas on 7 March, it is not the NAO’s role to audit or examine individual local authorities, and its power would not normally be used for that purpose. I have since looked into this, and expanding its remit previously required the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to grant statutory powers. Therefore, given that we have had a thorough independent review, it is time that we learned from it and implemented those lessons rather than repeat it.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, two businessmen are making multi-millions of pounds of profits on the back of £0.5 billion-worth of taxpayers’ investment, without them putting any of their own cash at risk or taking any liabilities until they are negated against guaranteed income streams. The Tees Valley Review said that these generous contractual arrangements should be renegotiated, as the businessmen are making super-profits at the expense of local taxpayers. Do the Government agree with that finding and the suggested change that needs to be made?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I can assure this House that the mayor has accepted all the recommendations in that report and is enacting them now. We have asked for a report in six months’ time on how much progress has been made. We expect that there will be significant progress, including any renegotiation of those contracts.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. In the debate, I thought that we had established that the mayor was dealing with only a limited number of the recommendations, particularly on governance. There is a whole raft of others that he did not address in his letter. Neither we nor the public in Tees Valley have heard from the Government on what they will do to ensure that proper procedures, which have been undertaken by other local authorities for generations, are adhered to in Tees Valley. Can the Minister reassure us that there will now be a tendering and procurement process that is understandable in the public sector, even though this is a public/private arrangement? Will that take place, particularly given that the Secretary of State just last week transferred to two of the development corporations set up within the Tees Valley money from the local authorities without consulting them?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I assure the House that all procedures are being followed and, where necessary, they are being tightened as a result of the review. Therefore, where the recommendations need changes to be made, they will be made. Indeed, one of the recommendations affects DLUHC and another, more broadly, affects departments in central government. We are dealing with those now, including one for new systems of governance.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, this project relates to the Government’s wider levelling-up agenda. We heard last week that only 10% of the Government’s levelling-up funds have been spent. What assessment does the Minister make of that?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I already have an outstanding question from one of his colleagues on his Benches from the debate last week. I am trying to find the exact numbers for how much is in progress, given that there is lag between the money being allocated and being spent. I am chasing that and will come back to the House as soon as I have the number.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, returning to the Teesworks project, in writing to the mayor—the noble Lord, Lord Houchen—the Secretary of State said:
“Improvement takes time, and where the recommendations related to cultural change especially it is important that sufficient time is given”.
But is it really right to leave a six-month hiatus? Should the Government not monitor what is happening much more regularly than that, given the level of concern expressed by the independent inquiry into what is happening at Teesworks?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
Again, I can only give an assurance that this will not be waiting for six months. A number of these actions are required immediately and are therefore ongoing. We will be monitoring it both centrally and locally.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, many years ago when I was leader of a council, if I had acted in this way, I would have faced a surcharge. What sanctions are open against the mayor for the activities he has been involved in?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I need to be very clear that the review did not find any wrongdoing. Some governance issues need to be fixed; they are being fixed. On whether commissioners needed to be put in because there was wrongdoing, that is not the case in this instance. Therefore, time has being given to the combined authority to get its house in order. I am sure, as I have been assured, that it is doing so right now.
School Meals for Children
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent remarks by a head teacher in Southampton criticising the quality of school meals for children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I am aware of the recent remarks from a Southampton head teacher. We cannot comment on individual catering arrangements, as arrangements with particular suppliers are made at a local level. Governors and trustees are responsible for ensuring compliance with the school food standards. We encourage local authorities and schools to work with their caterers to address any quality issues when they arise, to ensure that children receive nutritious meals in school.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer. I am grateful too to Mr Ashley for raising this issue, and to the Times and the BBC for picking up on it last week. This is a topic of great concern to all of us. One in three children now leaving primary school is overweight or obese. This, in part, links back not only to what they are eating at home but to an area where the Government have some influence and control, which is school meals. It was 2014 when the regulations were last reviewed; it is time they were looked at again. Much has changed since then. Children are eating far too much sugar these days. We need to reduce it; we need to look after their health and stop abusing them in this way. Will the Government act on that?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government believe that the school food standards are very clear. Schools must ensure that they provide children with healthy food and drink options, that they get sufficient energy and nutrition across the school day, and they clearly restrict foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, in 1825 the great politician Jean Brillat-Savarin coined the phrase “You are what you eat”. It is concerning that, according to research, ultra-processed food makes up 64% of the average UK school lunch. What is the Government’s strategy to both teach and empower children to make the right food choices?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Cooking and nutrition are firmly within the national curriculum: in design and technology they are compulsory between key stages 1 and 3, they aim to teach children how to cook and the principles of healthy eating and nutrition. It is also picked up in the science curriculum; indeed, through the Oak National Academy, we funded a module on cooking and nutrition that will equip children leaving school to be able to cook at least six predominantly savoury recipes that will support a healthy diet.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, is not the problem that the tendering process for school meals is based on cost and not quality? Of course, there is another side to school meals, and that is the famous packed lunch. The experience of teachers and head teachers of packed lunches is that they are mainly filled with bags of crisps, chocolate biscuits, fruit drinks et cetera—not necessarily fruit drinks but canned drinks. Has the Minister any idea how we can ensure that packed lunches as well become a healthy nutritional meal?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord touches on issues relating to how parents bring up their children, which is obviously delicate territory for the Government to pronounce too firmly on. Our messaging around the risks of obesity and on healthy lifestyles more broadly is obviously picked up by parents. Our family hubs also look at things such as nutrition. On the first part of his remarks, I should say that the department centrally offers a service called Get Help Buying for Schools that supports schools to negotiate high-quality and affordable catering arrangements.
Baroness Browning (Con)
I am very pleased to be a member of the committee sitting in this House at the moment looking at ultra-processed foods and obesity. From its evidence sessions that are in the public domain already, the diets of children in school meals, packed lunches and the food that they eat at home should worry everyone in this House. Given what my noble friend has replied today, can I gently suggest that her civil servants please follow the evidence being taken by the House?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I should clarify that I did not in any way want to diminish the importance of addressing ultra-processed foods, but the school food standards already restrict foods that are described as low-quality reformed or reconstituted foods, which include ultra-processed foods.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who has eaten more school meals than I care to mention, most of them very good, and as someone who rather unwillingly teaches food at school at the moment, where we do a lot about nutrition. However, the research from Northumbria University has found that a quarter-pint of milk a day has an enormously beneficial effect on children’s confidence and concentration and against obesity. What plans do the Government have to increase the free school milk programme?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We know that milk is, as the noble Lord says, excellent for children’s growth and development. As part of the school food standards, lower-fat milk or lactose-reduced milk must be made available for children who want it to drink at least once a day during school hours, and it must be provided free of charge to all pupils eligible for free school meals. Schools can offer milk as many times as they wish, but it must be free to infants and benefit-based free school meal pupils when offered as part of a school meal.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Brooke and the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, I am a member of the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee. There are many concerning issues, one being the influence of the food industry. Can the Minister have urgent discussions with the food industry so that it fully understands the impact of high-processed foods and the need for urgent reformulation, to reduce salt and sugar in those foods and to improve the health and well-being of all our young people?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am more than happy to take that back to the department, for Ministers who are directly responsible for this area to talk to the food industry. The noble Baroness will be aware that there has been some success in reducing sugar in breakfast cereals, yoghurts, fromage frais and soft drinks. However, I share her concerns.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Can my noble friend tell us what effect exercise has on the health of school- children?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As my noble friend hints, exercise has a very positive impact on physical health and, crucially, on mental health.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, anyone who saw the pictures in the newspaper article to which the Question refers will be fairly appalled at the quality of the food offered to the children. The head teacher concerned asked how hard it was to bake a potato. Is the real problem that children do not learn how to cook any more and therefore do not see jobs in institutional catering as a viable career? What action is the DfE taking to ensure that the skills exist to meet government guidelines that state that school food should be nutritious, look good and taste delicious?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not sure whether I have to declare my interest as the mother of a chef. I think careers in hospitality are great, but I might be slightly biased. I have already responded on where food and healthy eating fit within the curriculum. We take this very seriously. The specific case that was alluded to in the media related to a PFI contract. Obviously, that gives greater constraints on the ability of a school to negotiate with, or potentially even change, suppliers.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the best source of food for schools is locally sourced, sustainably grown produce from identifiable farms that have an educational relationship with the school through which they teach children how and where their food is made? If so, will she encourage local procurement of school food?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am more than happy to encourage that. Just to take it one stage further, I encourage schools that have the space to follow the example of some schools that I have visited that have their own allotments and grow some of their own food. Some of them keep chickens, for example, and eat their own eggs for breakfast. That is also a great approach.
Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2024
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Harlech
That the draft Order laid before the House on 22 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 March.
Single Source Contract (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Minto
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 22 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 March.
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Fire and Rescue Services) (England) Regulations 2024
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 February be approved.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 March.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Regulations laid before the House on 26 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 March.
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Wednesday 20th March 2024
(8 months, 1 week 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 55-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (19 Mar 2024)
16:38 - Division on Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) - Ayes: 271 / Noes: 228 - Motion A1 agreed.
17:30 - Division on Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B) - Ayes: 285 / Noes: 230 - Motion B1 agreed.
17:44 - Division on Motion B2 (as an amendment to Motion B) - Ayes: 276 / Noes: 226 - Motion B2 agreed.
18:01 - Division on Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D) - Ayes: 263 / Noes: 233 - Motion D1 agreed.
19:00 - Division on Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E) - Ayes: 249 / Noes: 219 - Motion E1 agreed.
19:12 - Division on Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G) - Ayes: 251 / Noes: 214 - Motion G1 agreed.
19:24 - Division on Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H) - Ayes: 248 / Noes: 209 - Motion H1 agreed.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to Motions A1, C, D and D1. Motion A relates to Lords Amendment 1B, which adds to the Bill’s purpose, seeking to ensure that the eventual Act maintains full compliance with domestic and international law. As my noble friend has set out throughout the passage of the Bill, and as the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration made clear in the other place,
“the Government take our responsibilities and international obligations incredibly seriously. There is nothing in the Bill that requires any act or omission that conflicts with our international obligations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/24; col. 659.]
We are facing a global crisis of illegal migration, and it requires us to seek new, bold, innovative solutions to tackle the increasing numbers of people crossing our borders illegally through such dangerous means. Although we are making progress, and small boat arrivals were down by a third in 2023, we still need to do more. That is why we are increasing our partnership work and signing new deals with our European neighbours; we have a plan, of which this Bill forms part.
Although some of the provisions in the Bill are novel, the Bill strikes the appropriate balance of limiting unnecessary challenges that frustrate removal while maintaining the principle of access to the courts where an individual may be at real risk of serious and irreversible harm. As I will make reference to later, Clause 4 preserves the ability of individuals to challenge removal due to their particular individual circumstances if there is compelling evidence that Rwanda is not a safe country for them.
Taken as a whole, the limited availability of domestic remedies maintains the constitutional balance between Parliament being able to legislate as it sees necessary and the powers of our courts to hold the Government to account. Furthermore, the migration economic development partnership with the Government of Rwanda is one part of our wider programme of work to stop the boats. This partnership will act as a strong deterrent while also demonstrating that taking these perilous and unnecessary journeys to find safety, as promoted by smugglers, is simply not necessary. The Bill—and the partnership with the Government of Rwanda—is predicated on both Rwanda and the United Kingdom’s compliance with international law in the form of the internationally binding treaty, which itself reflects the international legal obligations of the United Kingdom and Rwanda.
Motion C relates to Amendments 4 and 5, which do significant damage to the core provisions and purpose provided for in the Bill. They seek to provide a statutory mechanism to qualify the Bill’s deeming provision and so enable decision-makers, including courts and tribunals, to decide that Rwanda is not a safe country if presented with credible evidence to that effect. The amendments remove the prohibitions on courts and tribunals reviewing decisions on the grounds that Rwanda is generally unsafe, as well as on the grounds of risk of refoulement or other non-compliance with the terms of the treaty.
It is the treaty and the published evidence pack that together demonstrate that Rwanda is safe for relocated individuals and that the Government’s approach is tough but fair and lawful. The Government are clear that we assess Rwanda to be a safe country and we have published detailed evidence that substantiates that assessment. This is a central feature of the Bill, and many of its other provisions are designed to ensure that Parliament’s conclusion on the safety of Rwanda is accepted by the domestic courts.
As my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne set out on Report:
“All the Government are doing in the Bill is to reassert their responsibility, as traditionally understood by the principle of the separation of powers, for executive decision-making. There is a reason why it is the Government and not the courts who have that responsibility: because it is the Government and not the courts who are accountable. The courts are accountable to no one—they pride themselves on that—but accountability is at the heart of democracy. That is why the Government are fully entitled to bring forward the Bill and why much of the criticism directed at them for doing so is, for the reasons I have given, fundamentally misconceived”.—[Official Report, 4/3/24; col. 1330.]
I also remind the House that this is not the first time that legislation has been used to determine a country as a safe country. Again, I refer noble Lords to the point made by my noble friend Lord Lilley when we last debated this matter. In 2004, the Labour Government of Mr Blair introduced legislation which created an irrebuttable presumption that a number of listed countries were safe. It was subsequently tested in the courts and upheld.
Furthermore, the courts have not concluded that there is a general risk to the safety of relocated individuals in Rwanda. Rather, the Supreme Court’s findings were limited to perceived deficiencies in the Rwandan asylum system as it was and the resulting risk of refoulement should any lack of capacity or expertise lead to cases being wrongly decided. As we have set out repeatedly, the treaty responds to those key findings.
We cannot allow people to make such dangerous crossings, and we must do what we can to prevent any more lives being lost at sea; nor can we allow our asylum and legal systems to be overwhelmed, our public services to be stretched or the British taxpayer to continue to fund millions of pounds of hotel costs every day.
For the reasons I have set out for not accepting Amendments 4 and 5, the Government also cannot accept Motion D1, which relates to Amendment 6B. Lords Amendment 6B would omit Clause 4 and replace it with a clause that seeks to restore the ability of decision-makers to consider whether the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country and the jurisdiction of domestic courts and tribunals to grant interim relief. This amendment would strike out a key provision of the Bill and is simply not necessary. The court recognised that changes may be delivered in future that would address the issues it raised. These are those changes. We believe that these address the Supreme Court’s concerns, and we will now aim to move forward with the policy and help put an end to illegal migration.
Throughout all our debates on this matter, my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and I have made it clear that we cannot continue to allow relocations to Rwanda to be frustrated and delayed as a result of systemic challenges mounted on its general safety. In this context, the safety of a particular country is a matter for Parliament and one where Parliament’s view should be sovereign. The Bill reflects that Parliament is sovereign and can change domestic law as it sees fit, including, if that is Parliament’s judgment, requiring a state of affairs or facts to be recognised.
That said, there are suitable safeguards within the Bill that do allow decision-makers and the courts to consider claims that Rwanda is unsafe for an individual person because of their particular circumstances if there is compelling evidence to that effect, and to grant interim relief where removal would result in a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm for the individual before their appeal was determined. The threshold for “serious and irreversible harm” is high, and the harm in question must be both imminent and permanent. This reflects the test applied by the European Court of Human Rights when granting interim measures and ensures an appropriately limited possibility of interim relief consistent with what is required by the ECHR.
Furthermore, the Government will ratify the treaty only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty. We have assurances from the Government of Rwanda that the implementation of all measures in the treaty will be expedited, and we continue to work with the Rwandans on this. The legislation ratifying the treaty has passed both chambers and is awaiting presidential sign-off. The legislation implementing the new asylum system will be introduced to the Rwandan Parliament soon and passed at pace.
However, the Bill will preclude almost all grounds for individual challenge that could be used to suspend or frustrate removal where no risk exists. This means that illegal migrants will not be able to make an asylum claim in the United Kingdom, argue that they face a risk of refoulement in Rwanda, or make any other ill-founded human rights claims to frustrate removal. The Bill strikes the appropriate balance of limiting unnecessary challenges that frustrate removal while maintaining the principle of access to the courts where an individual may be at real risk of serious and irreversible harm.
On this basis, and in view of the votes in the other place to disagree with Lords Amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6, by strong majorities in each case, I hope the noble Lord will now feel able to support Motion A. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Coaker
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 1B in lieu—
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this debate in your Lordships’ House. He mentioned that the amendments had been returned from the other place. I say to the Minister that, at some surprise to all of us, it has come back without a single word changed, not a single comma moved or a single full stop inserted—and the Government lecture us about constitutional convention. We have said all along, and I repeat here, that it is not our intention to block the Bill, but it is also part of constitutional convention that the other place reflects on what your Lordships have said and does not just carte blanche reject it, which is what has happened. Who is not respecting constitutional convention now?
Whatever anyone’s view, I do not believe that any of your Lordships, wherever they come from with respect to this debate, can be accused of the following, which a Conservative MP said on Monday:
“Their lordships clearly do not care about the people dying while trying to cross the channel”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/24; col. 695.]
That is just not the case for any single Member of this Chamber. I believe that is not the view of any single Member of the other place or anybody who comments on it in the media. There are real differences between us about how we stop the boats. That is the debate we are having: not about whether one party or the other, or one side or the other, wishes to stop the boats but about the most appropriate way to do it.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, in overturning our Amendment 6, which reinstated domestic courts’ jurisdiction, the Minister in the other place called it “unnecessary” and “wrecking”. Well, it cannot logically be both. Still, to assuage any genuine rather than confected concerns about delays in removal to the future hypothetically safe Rwanda, we now add the stipulation that any interim relief be for
“no longer than strictly necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the case”.
This is a significant concession. Motion D1 effectively prioritises these cases above other vital work of relevant courts and tribunals; it is a genuine legislative olive branch to an Executive that have snapped all others in two. But when they go low, let your Lordships’ House go high. I shall, I hope, be pressing Motion D1 very soon.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, we have some very difficult questions to answer here this afternoon, and there are many Members of this House who may not have quite made up their minds how to vote, if the opinion of the House is sought. I shall be brief. In a few moments, I shall ask a few questions of the noble and learned Lord the Minister, which may help us reach those decisions. But I hope that I speak for everyone in this House in saying that, although we may be viscerally concerned about the provisions of this Bill, we are not here just to obstruct it; we are here to make this a better Bill, in the way in which this House is set up to do.
I will reflect for a moment on the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to the outrageous statement made by a Member of another place about compassion. If we look at this Bill and the previous related Bill together, what does this tell you about compassion? People who would, in some cases, have had a legitimate right to asylum—a legal right to asylum under UK and international law—have now been excluded from applying for asylum, even if they had been tortured in their home country, because they came here in a small boat. Compassion? Is that really compassion?
The fact they are forbidden to apply means they are deprived of all connection with the United Kingdom jurisdiction, which has an immense tradition of judicially reviewing administrative action to ensure that those who are affected by bad decision-making can, in certain restricted circumstances, obtain redress. Before I decide how to vote in these Divisions, I would like to hear the noble and learned Lord the Minister’s answer.
The Minister also referred to the cost of hotels. Well, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said a few minutes ago, I think the figure is £592 million to keep 300 people in Rwanda for three years. That is £1.8-something million per head. I have not looked on the Ritz Paris website for some time—I may have had a meal there once at somebody else’s expense—but my recollection of looking at that website is that one could keep somebody in that hotel for three years, and have some money back, at the price that this process, as the National Audit Office says, will cost the country. Is this a fair and compassionate system, and is it a cost-effective one?
I turn to my second question. The Minister referred to the appropriate legislation to give effect to the treaty being already before the Rwandan Parliament—I think I cite him accurately. My understanding is that the Government accept that Rwanda is a democracy, so is the First Reading of a Bill, in our parlance, before the Rwandan Parliament, a guarantee of any kind that that legislation will be passed without amendment to give effect to the treaty? I do not see it that way. It certainly would be seen as an affront to both Houses of Parliament if Rwanda were to make that assumption about us.
My next question is this. What if our Government, contrary to their instincts, statements, wishes and insistence, find that Rwanda is, after all, as the Supreme Court found as a fact, not a safe country? Will the noble and learned Lord tell us what the Government would then do? How would they set about that problem? What would be the involvement of the monitoring committee? Who would decide that Rwanda was not a safe country after all? Would we simply have complacency, in which we just got on with the job of sending people, at £1.827 million per head, to Rwanda?
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, the phrase “the elected House must prevail” is a meme around this place. We have certainly heard it from both the Government and the Opposition, and we heard it again from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, this afternoon. Most of the time, it is completely right that we bow to the will of the House of Commons. But is it always right?
On the basis of the 25 years I have spent here, I would say that this House has three roles. There are two very obvious ones: one is amending Bills, at which we are jolly good; the other is setting up Select Committees, quite a number of which I have served on, and I would say that we are jolly good at that too. There is a third one, which very rarely comes into place, and that is this House as a backstop, challenging the Commons when it goes too far and flirts with breaking international law, usurping the role of the courts or behaving unconstitutionally in general. Does this Bill, without the amendments being put forward this afternoon, pass that threshold? I would say that it comes perilously near it.
There is also a matter of timing, which troubles me. Obviously, this was not in the Government’s election manifesto, so the Salisbury convention does not apply. How can the Government argue that they have a mandate to legislate for this policy now, forced through in the face of huge opposition in this House and elsewhere, when in six months’ time they will face the people of Britain in an election which will decide what their manifesto should be? Let them put the Rwanda Bill in their next manifesto—let them put it before the British people. The British people, who are much gentler and more sympathetic to people in the situation of those who are to be exported, will give their verdict. I may be wrong, and if the Government win the election they can bring back the Bill and it will sail through without any opposition, because it will be a manifesto pledge. To do this now, when there is more than a suspicion that it is just a device by No. 10 in a desperate attempt to pull a lost election out of the fire, cannot possibly be justified.
If the amendments are defeated today then that is the end of the story, but I hope they will not be. I dare to hope that the Commons will think again. If not, it will be for each individual Member of the House—guided, in our case, by the Whips—to decide whether or not to keep blocking the Bill.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, what a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, with whom I agree. I felt that the Minister’s opening remarks were so full of mistakes that I shall go through them tomorrow in Hansard with a red pen and pass them back to him, if that is all right, so he can see exactly where I think he went wrong.
It was expected that the other place would take out all our important amendments, but at the same time you have to say that it was not the move of a democratically minded Government but that of an authoritarian, tyrannical one. This Government are choosing tyranny over democracy in this instance. We now have the job of revising the Bill again. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, the British public are actually kinder and more concerned than this Government. The Government do not represent the public any more, and it is time they went.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am not a fan of the Bill but I think it is time for it to pass.
I want to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who asked if it is always right that the elected House must prevail. The truth is that the elected House must prevail and that yes, that is always right. We are an unelected House. We have a job to do, but at some point it has to be the elected House that decides in a democratic society.
I want to comment on the remarks made about compassion. I too disapproved of Members of the other place who tried to suggest that anyone arguing against the Bill lacked compassion. That is a ridiculous accusation and does not hold. However, I also make the point that the inference in reply—that anyone who is trying to push the Bill at this point lacks compassion—is equally low politically. It is irritating to have a situation where people start to try to compete with each other in the kindness stakes. The big political issue is that this country has lost control of its border and the asylum system is not fit for purpose. This Bill—not one that I support—is trying to tackle that. No one is doing it because they are lacking in compassion.
There are double standards here. I have heard that anyone who supports this Bill must be verging not just on the right but on the far right, does not care about anyone crossing in the boats and is actually a racist. I have heard that said by people active in political life. I ask that, for the remainder of the discussion that we have, we take each other seriously enough not just to dole out insults but to say that, if we are genuinely committed to tackling the problem of border control, this is the Bill that is on the table now and has been accepted by the House of Commons a second time, and, even if we disagree with it, we have to go along with it.
As for the people who have argued that this was not in the manifesto, the suggestion that there is no public concern about control of the borders has no finger on the pulse of any public. However, it is true that there will be elections shortly. It seems to me that people who feel strongly that this is the worst piece of legislation ever passed will stand on that in their manifesto and will commit, here and now, to overturning the Bill once it goes through. Then we will see where the votes lie and, if the Opposition become the Government, whether they stick with that and tear up the Bill. Fair dos if they do.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I rise to answer one question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. He asked your Lordships to ponder the position of the Rwandan Parliament and said that we must not second guess what it may do. What he forgot to mention is that Rwanda has a monist system, so a treaty entered into by the Government of Rwanda is capable of being relied upon in their domestic courts. As I previously informed the House, the Chamber of Deputies of Rwanda has ratified the treaty, and we now learn from my noble and learned friend the Minister that the Senate of Rwanda has also ratified it. The only matter that remains is for the president to agree the ratification and when that happens, the safeguards in the treaty will apply.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but does his reference to the monist system and the guarantee that it goes through the courts not mean that there is no separation of powers between the political and judicial elements of Rwanda?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
No, that is simply not the case at all. What the noble Lord appears to suggest is that there is a confusion in the Rwandan constitution; I do not see that at all. The point is that they have agreed that treaties will have a kind of direct effect in domestic courts and once ratified, that is indeed the case. The concern by which he sought to encourage noble Lords to support the Motion before us today is, I suggest, simply not on a secure foundation.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak only once in this debate and very briefly, as usual. I should just mention my interest as president of Migration Watch UK. We have been pressing the Government for three years to get a hold of asylum but, regrettably, the situation has deteriorated greatly. There is something missing from the discussion of this subject, and that is the public. There have been plenty of very interesting and capable legal arguments—I do not touch on any of those—but we must not forget that very substantial numbers in this country are concerned about what is happening now on our borders. The Government need to get a grip and if they do not succeed, the next Government will have to tackle it so let us not be too legalistic. Let us see if we can find a way through.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, as I am for their contributions throughout the progress of the Bill through your Lordships’ House, but these amendments do significant damage to the core purpose of the Bill. In relation to political language, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said from the Front Bench but on this subject, I wish to do no more than echo the wise and temperate words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. Her observations, as she said, come from someone who is not a supporter of the Bill, but she spoke about the manner in which arguments should be conducted, and the manner in which this House should treat the views of the other place—not a tyrannical assembly, contrary to the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but elected Members representing their constituents.
In relation to Section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act, which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, addressed from the Front Bench, the matter is touched on in the response to the Constitution Committee which the Government have issued. The use of a Section 19(1)(b) statement does not mean that the Bill is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. There is nothing improper or unprecedented in pursuing Bills with a Section 19(1)(b) statement; it does not mean that the Bill is unlawful or that the Government will necessarily lose any legal challenges on human rights grounds. Parliament intended Section 19(1)(b) to be used as it is included in the Human Rights Act 1998. All such a statement means is that the Home Secretary is not able to state now that the Bill’s provisions are more likely than not compatible with convention rights. A range of Bills has had Section 19 (1) (b) statements in the past. As we discussed at an earlier stage, that includes the Communications Act 2003, passed under the last Labour Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, extends an olive branch, as she puts it, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, came back on that. But the other place saw these provisions, olive branch though they may be. I do not for a second seek to challenge the noble Baroness’s assertion that she is attempting to improve the Bill, but what the other place recognised was that these provisions are integral to the functioning of the Bill. Therein lies the deterrent effect by which the Government intend that illegal crossings of the channel should come down and be deterred altogether.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed on this group of amendments. I will say just one particular thing. This is not an argument between people who want to stop the boats and those who do not: it is an argument about how we do it. The Government need to listen to what has been said, rather than just set up these artificial targets. We of course want to deal with the boats as much as the Government do, but my amendment to Motion A, on which I will test the opinion of the House, seeks to do it in a way that is consistent with the traditions of our country and with the laws, both domestically and internationally. I wish to test the opinion of the Motion A1.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, before I call Motion B, it may assist the House if I say that Amendment 3B in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, would be in lieu of Lords Amendment 2, and that his Amendment 3C would be in lieu of Lords Amendment 3.
Motion B
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 2 and 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, we set out in earlier debates, and this was re-emphasised by Members in the other place earlier this week, the fundamental purpose of the Bill: to firmly place with Parliament—rather than with decision-makers in individual cases or with courts reviewing those cases—the decision on whether Rwanda is a safe country to relocate people to. It asserts parliamentary sovereignty on an issue that this Government are committed to tackling: stopping the boats.
Motion B, as well as Amendments 3B and 3C in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, relate to the status of Rwanda as a safe country. Amendment 3B seeks to make Rwanda’s status as a safe country conditional on the treaty arrangements being fully implemented and continuing to be fully implemented.
The UK Government and the Government of Rwanda have agreed, and begun to implement, assurances and commitments to strengthen Rwanda’s asylum system. In advance of agreeing the treaty, we worked with the Government of Rwanda to respond to the findings of the courts by evidencing Rwanda’s existing asylum procedures and practice in standard operating procedures relating to and reflecting the current refugee status determination and appeals process.
The Government will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty. The legislation required for Rwanda to ratify the treaty has now passed through both Chambers of the Rwandan Parliament—as my noble and learned friend mentioned earlier—and is awaiting presidential sign-off. The legislation implementing the new asylum system will be introduced to the Rwandan Parliament soon.
We have of course worked closely with the Government of Rwanda to ensure that there are safeguards in place to be able to continue to assert that Rwanda is safe. The implementation of provisions in the treaty will be kept under review by the independent monitoring committee, which will ensure that the obligations under the treaty are complied with in practice.
The monitoring committee will report to the joint committee, which is made up of both UK and Rwandan officials. As per Article 15(4c) of the treaty, the monitoring committee will make any recommendations to the joint committee that it sees fit to do.
As set out previously, the monitoring committee will undertake daily monitoring of the partnership for at least the first three months to ensure rapid identification of, and response to, any shortcomings. This enhanced phase will ensure that comprehensive monitoring and reporting take place in real time. 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. Due to the structure of the monitoring committee, the Government cannot support Amendment 3C, which would require the Secretary of State to obtain and lay before Parliament a statement from the monitoring committee that the measures in Article 2 of the treaty had been secured.
The measures within Article 2 include, first, creating a mechanism for the relocation of individuals to Rwanda; secondly, providing a mechanism for an individual’s claim for protection to be determined in Rwanda or for alternative settlement in Rwanda; and, thirdly, providing those relocated to Rwanda with adequate tools to successfully integrate into Rwandan society. The amendment would create an imbalance in the independence and impartiality of the monitoring committee whereby the UK Secretary of State would be required to consult the committee directly. It is the joint committee, comprising both Rwandan and UK officials, that the monitoring committee reports to under the original MoU and under the terms of the treaty.
I remind the House of Rwanda’s track record in providing sanctuary to many refugees and how it has been internationally recognised for its general safety and stability, strong governance, low corruption, and gender equality. In doing so, I refer to the words of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who on Report quite rightly disagreed with
“the continued assertion underlying this group of amendments that somehow Rwanda as a country is untrustworthy unless every single ‘t’ is crossed and every ‘i’ is dotted”.
My noble friend referred this House to paragraphs 54 and 57 of the Government’s report on Rwanda dated 12 December 2023 and said:
“The Ibrahim Index of African Governance, an independent organisation, rates Rwanda 12th out of 54 African countries. The World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report makes Rwanda 12th—the UK, by the way, is 19th. The World Bank scored Rwanda at 16 out of a maximum score of 18 on the quality of its judicial processes. Lastly, the World Justice Project index on the rule of law ranked Rwanda first out of 34 sub-Saharan African countries” .—[Official Report, 4/3/24; col. 1351.]
To conclude, Clause 9(1) of this Bill is clear: the Bill’s provisions come into force on the day on which the treaty enters into force. The treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the amendments in lieu, but they continue to confuse the process for implementing the treaty with what is required for the Bill’s provisions to come into force. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Lord Hope of Craighead
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 3B in lieu—
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to my Motion B2 and to Amendment 3C in lieu.
I asked for these amendments in lieu to be put down because I believe that Lords Amendments 2 and 3, to which I propose Amendments 3B and 3C in lieu, raise important issues to which further thought needs to be given by the other place. I should make it plain that it is my intention, if I do not receive a satisfactory reply, to test the opinion of the House on both amendments.
Clause 1(2) of the Bill states that
“this Act gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country”.
That proposition lies at the very heart of this Bill; everything depends on it. Careful thought therefore has to be given to the use of the word “is” in that statement. What does it mean? What are its consequences and what does it lead to? I have been teased by some Members on these Benches behind me for picking on one of the shortest words in this entire Bill, but there is a really important point here. I am doing what lawyers tend to do and that is to look at words and ask what they really mean. That is why I suggest that we have to get that word right.
Lord Horam (Con)
The noble and learned Lord quite rightly quoted the views of Sir Jeremy Wright, Sir Bob Neill and Sir Robert Buckland from the debate in the Commons on Monday night. He could also, in fairness, quote the response from the Minister, Mr Tomlinson. His response, if I have it right, was that what the Government were looking for by compensation for whether the Bill was actually working in practice was that this was the role of the monitoring committee. There is a danger here of extending the law beyond what is reasonable. There comes a certain point where the law has to be left where it is and the people on the ground—namely the monitoring committee, which is an independent body—have to be the guardians of what happens. Surely that is the role of the monitoring committee, and if it always has to refer back to Parliament, surely there is something deficient with its set-up. I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord to consider that. I understand why he would want this to be referred back by this House, but there is a role for the monitoring committee that we should not ignore.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his point. I imagine that the monitoring committee was put there at the request of His Majesty’s Government because something needed to be done to keep an eye on what was going on in Rwanda. It is made up of people who are independently appointed, with no allegiance to either Government, so one can trust them as looking at the matter dispassionately, and therefore their advice can be trusted. That is why I have introduced the monitoring committee into my amendments as the best way of finding out whether the treaty is being properly implemented.
If I followed the noble Lord’s intervention correctly, I agree with what he is saying. However, on the other hand, I accept the point made by Sir Jeremy Wright that, in the end, Parliament has to have the final say based on the advice which it receives. There has to be some mechanism so Parliament can comment on it before the fact that Rwanda is safe is reversed. How that is to be done I simply do not know, which is why I am anxious that the Government should be able to have another look at it and decide how best to proceed. However, I thought it right that Parliament should have an opportunity to comment before the conclusion is reached that Rwanda is no longer safe. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question.
The Minister in the other place said that my amendments should be resisted because they risk
“disturbing the independence and impartiality of the monitoring committee”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/24; col. 663.]
I simply do not understand that, because the members are all independent and nothing in my amendments would in any way undermine their independence. I am very glad that the Minister here, when he was introducing this debate, did not put that point forward as a reason for resisting my amendments.
As for the Commons reasons set out in the Marshalled List, which I think the Minister here endorsed, they say that
“it is not appropriate … to legislate for Rwanda adhering to its obligations under the Treaty”,
as those obligations
“will be subject to the monitoring provisions set out in the Treaty”.
However, that fails to address the problem that is created by the use of “is”, especially should something go wrong and it is apparent to the monitoring committee that Rwanda is no longer safe. I think the Minister was suggesting that in some way it was wrong that the Government should enter into discussions with the monitoring committee, and that in a way that would undermine its independence. However, I am not asking for that. I am simply asking for it to receive advice—that is all. The advice is given; I am not suggesting that it needs to be discussed or indeed that there should be any sort of conversation, simply that it would be given.
I have probably said enough to make my points clear, and for the reasons I have given, I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I will update the House on a further development in relation to the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. We had the privilege in the Constitution Committee this morning to have the Lord Chancellor give evidence to us. We spoke of the Rwanda Bill and raised specifically with him the question that the effect of the Bill is to say that Rwanda “is” a safe country, and that the Bill once passed means that for ever and ever it will be treated as a safe country. His response, unprompted, was that one of the great protections was the monitoring committee. He said that if the monitoring committee said that the provisions of the treaty were not being adhered to and that was made public—he envisaged that it would be made public —the consequence would be that it could lead to some sort of parliamentary debate or occasion. What he had in mind was not the automatic non-application of the Bill, as with the amendment of the noble and learned Lord. However, there is not much difference between what the noble and learned Lord proposes—namely, that if the monitoring committee says it is not being adhered to, it stops applying—and what the Lord Chancellor said: namely, that there would be the opportunity for a parliamentary occasion. Therefore, I strongly support what the noble and learned Lord said. An unanswerable part of his argument is that this must be sent back to the Commons so that it can express a view and we can hear more from the Lord Chancellor in relation to this.
On a completely separate point, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, before the Question was put. He said that the Rwandan Government— I am not sure quite how it works—were going to put a Bill somehow to the Rwandan Parliament to implement the terms of the treaty. That is separate from the point that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, made. Could the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, give an assurance to the House that the treaty will not be ratified and, therefore, that the Bill will not come into force until the Rwandan Bill has gone through its Parliament and been given effect to?
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, Rwanda is a safe country, Rwanda will always be a safe country. How can I say that? Because shortly we will have an Act that makes it legal fact. But, no matter how often I repeat it to myself, I just cannot make it stick. That is why I think these two amendments in lieu from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, are so important. I refer to Amendments 3B and 3C, which will undoubtedly improve this Bill substantially.
I will mention one other factor. A few kilometres away, over the border in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there is a war going on. More than 100 armed groups are involved in this conflict, and the M23 is in an escalating battle for Goma with the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s troops. This is just a few miles across the border. The situation was described by UNHCR as “catastrophic”. Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced. This is just across the border from Rwanda. I am not going to get into arguments about whether Rwanda at this precise moment is safe, but surely we need to look at what is happening just over the border and put in the amendments the noble and learned Lord has suggested so that we can deal with the situation should it change.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether we are making rather heavy weather of this. Surely, the objective is that, if the situation changes in Rwanda, we stop sending people there. Do we not have a thing called an embassy? Could it not tell us? Is it not going to be in touch with the people on the ground and the administrators of the scheme? It can advise the Government, and if the Government say it is going badly, out we go—pack it up. It is quite simple.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I am puzzled by this amendment. For 18 years, between 2004 and 2022, we had on the statute book an Act of Parliament which said there was an irrebuttable presumption that certain countries on a list were and would always be safe. I do not recall any Member of this Chamber, or anyone in the other Chamber when I was there, demurring. We had on the statute book an Act of Parliament that had no provision for a monitoring committee, and I do not remember any Member of this Chamber or that Chamber complaining about that. For 18 years, we had provisions which had none of the safeguards that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, wants to include—and I do not recall him or any other Member of this Chamber demurring.
As I understand it, the only difference was that we were required to have that list by our membership of the European Union and still would have that list now if we had not left the European Union—and I do not recall anybody in this House saying it was wrong that that situation should persist or using it as an argument for leaving the European Union, so that we could then get rid of it, as we did. So, I think we are now making a bit too much of the lack of provisions and safeguards around one black country when we had no concerns about a list of white countries.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
Is it not the case that that legislation did not simply lack the controls advocated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope? It did not have the controls that are in this Bill. There was no monitoring committee. It simply did not have these controls in that legislation.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register that I am supported by RAMP. I am grateful for the history lesson, but, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury told us, two wrongs do not make a right, and certainly it was without the history of my time in this House and beforehand. We are dealing with this issue, this country and a Bill about this country, and doing it in the right way.
These amendments seek to build on a view that this House has already taken. The fact is that the treaty is locked into the Bill and we are being asked to affirm that the treaty has made Rwanda a safe country. That is not the view of this House. This House made a determination that it should not ratify the Bill until such time as the conditions placed by the International Agreements Committee were put into operation.
This discussion has gone on through a variety of different parts of this House and its Select Committees, but the significant one was the Government’s response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I know Members hoped that the report would reach us before Third Reading, but in fact it did not. It was published the day after, so we did not have time to consider it at that point. What the Government said in response is something they have indicated in other statements:
“We will not ratify the treaty until the UK and Rwanda agree that all necessary measures in the treaty are in place”.
However, in subsequent discussions the Government could not tell us which measures were in place and which measures were about to be in place. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, said in one of his responses that we were “working towards” the country being safe. It is clear that the Government are asking Parliament not only to declare a fact contrary to a finding of fact by the highest court in the land but to believe in the effectiveness of measures set out by the Government to ensure safety that are not yet fully implemented.
For example, the Minister has already referred to the fact that domestic legislation has still to be passed in Rwanda, including and in particular laws on the processes for making immigration decisions and laws for dealing with appeals. These new laws are to be followed by appropriate training and guidance for practitioners before they can be put into operation.
We are also mindful that David Neal, the former Borders and Immigration inspector, gave evidence to a committee of this House yesterday. He told the committee there were pieces of work that the inspectorate did in relation to the safety of Rwanda that were not yet in the public domain. In particular, he referred to the Home Office’s Rwanda country information report, which was subject to Supreme Court scrutiny but, as we understand it, is complete but not yet published. Other material has also not been scrutinised by our independent inspector because there is no longer one in place.
We are told by the Government that we have sufficient material before us to judge that Rwanda is safe. Putting aside the question of whether Parliament is the right place for people to judge whether a country is safe—we think it might not be—we are being asked, with the Bill, to make that decision ourselves. That it is safe was not the view of this House, and the House made a decision on what it wanted to see before it could determine that it was indeed safe. Now the Government are intent on telling us to change our minds. That is what the Government have to convince us to do. This House has taken its view. That view is now before us and the Government are asking us to change our minds —without the exact evidence that the House required being provided.
These are all areas of concern that make it clear to us that the very basic safeguards that the Home Office has set out in the treaty need to be fully implemented before the Bill is passed. These amendments are crucial to making that happen because they would protect us both now and in the future. We on these Benches are pleased to support them.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we are very pleased to say that should the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, wish to test the opinion of the House with respect to Motions B1 and B2, we would be very supportive of them as well. I just say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that the change he has made in Motion B1 from “is” to “will be” is a very significant change, and indeed goes to the heart of the problem that this House has considered on many occasions; namely, that the Government’s declaration in the Bill is that Rwanda is safe and in the treaty that it will be safe should the mechanisms contained within the treaty be put in place. I find it incredible that the Government cannot accept what is basically a very simple amendment, which in a sense puts into practice what the Government themselves have accepted.
I will just reinforce to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made, that the Minister in the other place implied that there was something to think about here and that the Government needed to think about how they responded to Amendments 2 and 3—as they were then—that had gone to the other place. That is why it is really important. Again, it goes back to what I said in the initial part of this debate: when the other place just dismisses amendments, it also denies itself the opportunity to properly reflect on a Bill and how it might improve it. This debate that we are having very much proves the point that we need to pass the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. The Government may wish to adapt part of it to make it more consistent with what they themselves think. None the less, it is a really important amendment. As I say, we would be happy to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, should he choose to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions of noble Lords to this debate. I am grateful in particular to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for the very gracious way he introduced his amendments, as ever.
It is unnecessary, however, to record on the face of the Bill the position the Bill already sets out in Clause 9. This Act comes into force on the day on which the Rwanda treaty enters into force. The treaty sets out the international legal commitments that the UK and Rwandan Governments have made, consistent with their shared standards associated with asylum and refugee protection. It also commits both Governments to deliver against key legal assurances in response to the UK Supreme Court’s conclusions.
I am very grateful to my noble friends Lord Howard, Lord Lilley and Lord Horam for pointing out, perhaps rather gently, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is placing not much faith in the safeguards that the real-time monitoring committee will offer. We believe that this will be much more effective than any other form of scrutiny. My noble and learned friend went through the monitoring committee’s terms of reference in the last group, and I will not repeat those. I will say that the enhanced monitoring that has been discussed—the enhanced phase—will take place over the first three months on a daily basis. An enhanced phase will ensure that monitoring and reporting take place in real time, so that the independent monitoring committee can rapidly identify, address and respond to any shortcomings or failures to comply with the obligations in the treaty and identify areas for improvement, or indeed urgently escalate issues prior to any shortcomings or breaches placing a relocated individual at real risk of harm. That will include reporting to the joint committee co-chairs within 24 hours in emergency or urgent situations. I could go through the various minimum levels of assurance that have been agreed by the monitoring committee, but I fear I would lose the patience of your Lordships.
I have made it crystal clear that the Government will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty. We have assurances from the Government of Rwanda that the implementation of all measures within the treaty will be expedited, and I am grateful for all the work that continues to be done by officials in the Government of Rwanda.
Just to conclude, again I agree with my noble friends Lord Lilley and Lord Howard, that the proper parliamentary response to any changes is of course to change the legislation, either by amendment or appeal. On that basis—
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, he will have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, tell us what the Lord Chancellor said about a parliamentary occasion if the monitoring committee was to advise that Rwanda was not safe. Would my noble friend care to tell us what the parliamentary occasion would be?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Well, no. As I was not party to the comments of the Lord Chancellor, I think it would be very foolish of me to try to second-guess what he may have meant by that comment.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly the Minister, for the careful way in which he replied. There is only one thing I should say, and it is in response to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley: he is absolutely right that there was a list of safe countries in that legislation, and it certainly did not occur to me to question the proposition in that Bill.
But everything depends on the context, and we are dealing here with a Bill that has fenced around with barbed wire every possible occasion, as I said on an earlier occasion, to prevent anybody bringing any kind of court challenge whatever to protect their human rights and other rights in the event of their being faced with being sent to Rwanda. That context transforms the situation entirely from the measure the noble Lord was talking about. That is why, I suggest, it is so important to get the wording of that crucial sentence in Clause 1(2) of the Bill right. It is for that reason that I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hope of Craighead
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 3C in lieu—
“(7) The Rwanda Treaty will have been fully implemented for the purposes of this Act when the Secretary of State has obtained and laid before Parliament a statement from the independent Monitoring Committee formed under Article 15 that the Objectives referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty have been secured by the creation of the mechanisms listed in that Article.
(8) The Rwanda Treaty will cease to be treated as fully implemented if Parliament decides, on the advice of the Monitoring Committee, that the provisions of the treaty are no longer being adhered to in practice.””
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 4 and 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, my noble and learned friend has already spoken to Motion C, so I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, again, my noble and learned friend has already spoken to Motion D, so I beg to move.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
“Decisions in individual claims
(1) Section 2 does not prevent—
(a) the Secretary of State or an immigration officer from deciding (under any applicable provision of, or made under, the Immigration Acts) whether the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the person in question or for a group of persons to which the person belongs,
(b) a court or tribunal considering a review of, or an appeal against, a relevant decision to the extent that the review or appeal is brought on the grounds that the Republic of Rwanda is not a safe country for the person in question or for a group of persons to which that person belongs, or
(c) a decision-maker considering whether there is a real risk that the Republic of Rwanda will remove or send the person in question to another State in contravention of any of its international obligations.
(2) The court or tribunal may grant an interim remedy that prevents or delays, or that has the effect of preventing or delaying, the removal of the person to the Republic of Rwanda, providing such prevention or delay is for no longer than strictly necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the case.
(3) Section 54 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is disapplied for the purposes of this Act.
(4) In this section—
“interim remedy” means any interim remedy or relief however described (including, in particular, an interim injunction or interdict);
“relevant decision” means a decision taking by the Secretary of State or an Immigration officer (under any applicable provision of, or made under, The Immigration Acts) that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the person in question.””
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Motion D1.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Motions E1, F, G, G1, H and H1.
We have now debated at length the individual provisions in the Bill. Far too many lives have been lost at sea as migrants have chosen to leave the safety of safe third countries, such as France, to make perilous journeys across the channel. It remains the Government’s priority to deter people from making dangerous and unnecessary journeys, but this deterrent will work only if we apply the same rules to everyone. Although I have no doubt these amendments are well intended, they will encourage more and more people to make spurious claims to avoid their relocation to Rwanda, as well as undermine legislation passed by Parliament in recent years.
Amendment 7B relates to Section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, “Decisions relating to a person’s age”, to amend the definition of a relevant authority for that section if a person is to be removed to the Republic of Rwanda. Section 57 applies to decisions on age made by a relevant authority on persons who meet the four conditions under Section 2 of the IMA. Section 57 disapplies the right of appeal for age-assessment decisions made under Section 50 or 51 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, prevents a judicial review challenge to a decision on age from suspending removal under the 2023 Act, and provides that the court can grant relief in that judicial review only on the basis that a decision is wrong in law and not because a decision is wrong as a matter of fact. A relevant authority is defined in Section 57(6) as the Secretary of State, an immigration officer, a designated person within the meaning of Part 4 of the 2022 Act and a local authority within the meaning of Part 4 of the 2022 Act.
If somebody is to be removed to Rwanda, this amendment changes the definition of a “relevant authority” in this scenario to mean only a local authority, as defined in the 2022 Act, that has conducted an age assessment under Section 50(3)(b) of the 2022 Act—that is, where the local authority has decided that it will conduct an age assessment itself and inform the Home Office of the result. Therefore, this amendment would result in Section 57 applying only to decisions on age made by local authorities under Section 50(3)(b) of the 2022 Act where the removal is to Rwanda. The amendment would prevent Section 57 of the 2023 Act from applying to decisions on age taken by the other listed decision-makers in Section 57(6) where the removal is to Rwanda—for example, decisions made by the National Age Assessment Board. This would result in treating differently those who are to be removed to Rwanda under the 2023 Act from those removed to another country.
The purpose of the IMA is to tackle illegal migration and create a scheme whereby anyone arriving illegally in the UK will be promptly removed to their home country, or a safe third country, to have any asylum or human rights claim processed. All cohorts who are removed under the Illegal Migration Act should therefore be treated the same for the purposes of Section 57.
On arrival, where an individual claims to be a child without any documentary evidence and where there is reason to doubt their claimed age, immigration officers are required to make an initial age decision to determine whether the individual should be treated as a child or as an adult. This is an important first step to prevent individuals who are clearly an adult or a child from being subjected unnecessarily to a more substantive age assessment, immediately routing them to the correct adult or child process for assessing their asylum or immigration claim.
Current guidance provides that immigration officers may treat that individual as an adult only where that individual has no credible and clear documentary evidence proving their age, and two members of Home Office staff assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that the individual is significantly over 18. This approach to initial decisions on age has been considered by the Supreme Court in the 2021 case of R (on the application of BF (Eritrea) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, UKSC 38, and held to be lawful.
Where that threshold is not met but there remains doubt about the individual’s age, they will be treated as a child and transferred to a local authority for further consideration of their age. This often involves a further, more comprehensive Merton-compliant age assessment, if deemed necessary. This typically involves two qualified social workers undertaking a series of interviews with the young person, and taking into account any other information relevant to their age. The 2022 Act allows local authorities to refer age assessments to designated officials of the Home Office who form the National Age Assessment Board.
The National Age Assessment Board, which launched in March 2023, aims to achieve greater consistency in the quality of age assessments, reduce the incentives for adults to claim to be children, and reduce the financial and administrative burden on local authorities of undertaking assessments. The aim of achieving accurate age assessments is its primary consideration. The board consists of expert social workers whose task is to conduct full Merton-compliant age assessments on referral from a local authority or the Home Office. Local authorities also retain the ability to conduct age assessments themselves. The introduction of the board offers significant improvements to our processes for assessing age. It aims to create a greater consistency in age-assessment practices, improve quality and ensure that ages are correctly recorded for immigration purposes. It will also help to reduce the resource burden on local authorities: where the board conducts an age assessment, it also takes on the legal risk.
The National Age Assessment Board has shown that the social workers working within the Home Office can conduct age assessments to a high standard without political interference, or have their professional integrity as social workers and adherence to social work professional standards inhibited. Every assessment is conducted by two social workers on its own merits and reviewed by a team manager, and achieving accurate age assessment is the primary consideration. As I have set out before, assessing age is difficult, but it is important that the Government take decisive action to deter adults from knowingly claiming to be children. Given that unaccompanied children will be treated differently from adults under the IMA and the obvious safeguarding risks of adults purporting to be children being placed within the care system, it is important that we 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.
We consider that these provisions within the IMA are entirely necessary to safeguard genuine children and guard against those who seek to game the system by purporting to be adults.
Between 2016 and September 2023, there were 11,977 asylum cases where age was disputed and subsequently resolved, of which nearly half—5,651 assessments—were found to be adults. We cannot allow this figure to rise, but by disapplying Section 57 of the IMA for removals to Rwanda, we will undoubtedly open up our systems to more abuse, given that adult males account for 75% of small boat arrivals. It is for that reason that the Government cannot support this amendment: it will simply open the floodgates for more abuse within the system and encourage adults to knowingly claim to be children to avoid being relocated to Rwanda, placing genuine children at risk of being disadvantaged.
Continuing our focus on the Illegal Migration Act, I now turn to Motion F and Lords Amendment 8. This amendment aims to secure a commitment from the Government to set out the process for how we will remove to Rwanda those who meet the four conditions of Section 2 of the Illegal Migration Act—the duty to make arrangements for removal—and who have arrived in the UK since 20 July 2023, the date of Royal Assent of the IMA. Specifically, it requires details on the numbers of asylum seekers impacted and a commitment to publishing a timetable for these removals. The Government cannot accept this amendment. As I have previously set out on Report, it is seeking information normally used only for internal government planning purposes, and this is not something that is normally shared, nor is it appropriate to legislate for such a commitment. We do, however, recognise the importance of having clear and coherent data.
The Home Office routinely publishes data on asylum, enforcement and irregular migration in the quarterly releases—the immigration system statistics quarterly release, and the irregular migration to the UK statistics. This includes information on people arriving irregularly to the UK; volumes and method of entry; information on cases being considered on inadmissibility grounds, including the number of cases who have received a notice of intent and who have been deemed inadmissible; the number of people returned, including breakdowns by destination; and initial decisions on asylum claims. Official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review in line with the code of practice for statistics, taking into account a number of factors including user needs, as well as quality and availability of data.
This amendment is seeking information normally used for internal government planning only, and this is not something that is often shared, nor is it appropriate to legislate for such a commitment. The Government’s primary objective is ensuring flights can relocate people to Rwanda, and, once commenced, provisions in the Illegal Migration Act will support this objective.
Turning to Motion G, Amendment 9 would in effect prevent any removal to Rwanda for someone who has received a positive reasonable grounds decision in the national referral mechanism, irrespective of whether they had been disqualified from the NRM under the Illegal Migration Act, or, in relation to pre-IMA cases, by a decision in an individual case to make a public order disqualification based on criteria set out in the Nationality and Borders Act. Furthermore, confirmed victims with positive conclusive grounds decisions could not be removed from the UK without consideration of the specified factors and, if any of those factors apply, without the consent of the individual concerned.
The Government cannot accept this amendment for reasons similar to those I set out in relation to Amendment 7. It undermines provisions in existing legislation—the Nationality and Borders Act and the Illegal Migration Act—which introduced the means to disqualify certain individuals from the NRM on grounds of public order before a conclusive ground is considered. The provision in the Illegal Migration Act was intended to deal with the immediate and pressing broader public order risk arising from the exceptional circumstances relating to illegal entry into the UK, including the pressure placed on public services by the large number of illegal entrants and the loss of life caused by illegal and dangerous journeys.
Where someone has entered the UK illegally and is identified as a potential victim of modern slavery, we will ensure they are returned home or to another safe country, away from those who have trafficked them. The UK Government are committed to supporting victims of modern slavery and will continue to do so through the national referral mechanism. However, it is vital that the Government take steps to reduce or remove incentives for individuals to enter the country illegally. These illegal practices pose an exceptional threat to public order, risk lives and place unprecedented pressure on public services. The protections that the NRM provides are open to misuse and could act as an incentive for those making dangerous journeys, particularly in light of other ways of staying in the UK being closed off through the Illegal Migration Act.
The UK has led the world in protecting victims of modern slavery and we will continue to identify and support those who have suffered intolerable abuse at the hands of criminals and traffickers. As I set out on Report, we remain committed to ensuring that where indicators that someone is a victim of modern slavery are identified by first responders, they continue to be referred into the NRM for consideration by the competent authorities. For all cases, steps will be taken to identify whether a person may be a victim of modern slavery. If a person is referred into the NRM, a reasonable grounds decision will be made.
Under the treaty, the Government of Rwanda will have regard to information provided by the UK relating to any special needs an individual may have that may arise as a result of them being a victim of modern slavery and human trafficking. Rwanda will take all necessary steps to ensure that these needs are accommodated. The Government of Rwanda have systems in place to safeguard relocated individuals with a range of vulnerabilities, including those concerning mental health and gender-based violence. Therefore, this amendment is unnecessary and would undermine the core purpose of the Bill, which is to create a deterrence—not to create exceptions and loopholes which will lead to further abuse of our immigration systems.
Turning to Motion H, Amendment 10, the Government greatly value the contribution of those who have supported us and our Armed Forces overseas, and that is why there are legal routes for them to come to the UK. Having said that, in response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, subsections (7) to (9) of Section 4 of the Illegal Migration Act, passed by Parliament last year, enable the Secretary of State by regulations to specify categories of persons to whom the duty to remove is not to apply, whether on a temporary or permanent basis.
We want to reassure Parliament that once the UKSF ARAP review, announced on 19 February, has concluded, the Government will consider and revisit how the IMA, and removal under existing immigration legislation, will apply to those who are determined ARAP eligible as a result of the review, ensuring that these people receive the attention they deserve. This Government recognise the commitment and responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether our own or those who showed courage by serving alongside us. We will not let them down. I beg to move.
Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 7B in lieu—
“Age assessment of unaccompanied children
In section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (Decisions relating to a person’s age), insert after subsection (6)—
“(6A) If a person is to be removed to the Republic of Rwanda, subsection (6) does not apply and in this section “relevant authority” means a local authority, within the meaning of Part 4 (age assessments) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which has conducted an age assessment of the person under section 50(3)(b) of that Act.”””
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, my starting point is the treaty, which makes it clear that it does not cover unaccompanied children, as emphasised by the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration on Monday. My sole purpose has been to ensure that, in so far as it is possible, this treaty intention is upheld: that no unaccompanied child is removed to Rwanda because they have been mistakenly assessed as an adult. Wrongful age assessment happens all too frequently, given that the only safeguard, referred to repeatedly by the Minister, is that two immigration officers independently determine age on the basis of a brief assessment of physical appearance and demeanour, which the Home Office itself concedes is notoriously unreliable.
The original amendment would have ensured the status quo ante: that no age-disputed child would be removed to Rwanda until any legal challenge through domestic courts and tribunals was exhausted, and it would have enabled such a challenge to be made on the basis of the facts, not just the law. This amendment in lieu is much more modest and in effect meets the Commons’ formal objection to the original amendment. It would permit an age-disputed child to be removed to Rwanda with a pending challenge on a limited basis, but only if a proper age assessment has first been carried out by a local authority. This would ensure that a Merton-compliant assessment is undertaken, and it is only at this point that so-called scientific methods would come into play.
It was clear that MPs including Dame Priti Patel and Mrs Elphicke, who argued against the original amendment by lauding scientific methods, did not understand that age-disputed children would be sent to Rwanda without any use of scientific methods, never mind the existing Merton-compliant methods. Yet as the Minister in the other place himself acknowledged on Monday,
“assessing age is inherently difficult”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/24; col. 666.]
In this House, the Minister stated on Report that this is “a challenging task”, and that a
“combination … of … methods will deliver more accurate age assessments”.—[Official Report, 6/3/24; col. 1584.]
However, without this amendment, there could be no combination of methods, just a brief, visual assessment that belies the challenging and difficult nature of the task.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly support Motion E1 moved by my noble friend Lady Lister. I will be very brief. This House has consistently supported the rights of children in relation to asylum. These are the most vulnerable people in the whole of the asylum system. If a mistake is made, the consequences would be out of all proportion to the damage done if a mistake is made in the other direction. That is to say, to send a child who is wrongly assessed as being an adult to Rwanda would be an appalling dereliction of our responsibilities to vulnerable young people. If the mistake is made the other way and one more person stays here, I honestly do not think that it will make much difference, because, in any case, the majority of asylum seekers will not be sent to Rwanda even if this legislation were to go through. It is such a modest proposal—almost too modest, if I may say that to my noble friend—but it would be in keeping with the traditions of this House to take a stand in supporting unaccompanied child refugees.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. It would be something of a disgrace if we did not take these measures to protect, to a very limited extent, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion G1. I declare an interest as co-chair of the parliamentary group on modern slavery and vice-chair of the Human Trafficking Foundation.
It is compassion that leads me to insist on the amendment that I put down on Report and bring back again now. We are talking about a group of people who are wholly different from any other group about which the Minister and others have spoken. They do not come here voluntarily, in the normal sense; they are brought here. Some of them are compelled to be here. They may think that they will not be victims, but that is why they are on a boat or in the back of a lorry. This group has no choice. It is not an issue of incentive—which the Minister speaks about—and how on earth can it be an issue of deterrence, since they are not in control?
In the past, the Government have offered evidence that the system of the national referral mechanism is subject to abuse. So far, I think that we have heard of only two cases of abuse out of the thousands of people who have gone through the national referral mechanism. The proposed arrangements in the Illegal Migration Act and the Nationality and Borders Act are absolutely inadequate. How on earth is it fair that someone in this group of people, many of whom will have gone through the traumatic experience of already being a victim, should be re-victimised by being sent to Rwanda? I ask the Members of this House to look at this most disadvantaged and vulnerable group of people, who are compelled to this country, and support my Motion.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion H1 and Amendment 10B in lieu. Having done so previously, I do not intend to rehearse the moral imperatives that underpin this amendment. In responding to the Minister, I will focus on the chasm that yawns between what the Minister in the other place said about what the Government might do post the current reviews of ARAP decisions of ineligibility and their unwillingness to accept this amendment that accomplishes their stated goal: to meet the debt of honour we owe to those who risked their lives in assisting the UK forces.
We are, once again, in a position where we are asked to deny the fruits of our reason and accept that black is white. First, we are asked to accept that, simply by legislative assertion, the Government can turn Rwanda into a safe country for all time, regardless of the facts. Secondly, having followed the somewhat convoluted logic-chopping of the Minister in the other place, we are told that men who braved death, courted injury and are forced into exile as a result of assisting our Armed Forces in fighting the Taliban are to be punished for arriving here by irregular routes—even where, owing to wrongful refusals on our part or possible malfeasance on the part of the Special Forces, they have been compelled to take these routes in the first place.
I will point out the inconsistencies in the reasoning of the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration, when he addressed the predecessor of my Amendment 10B on Monday. In outlining why he wished to refuse it, he said:
“Anyone who arrives here illegally should not be able to make the United Kingdom their home and eventually settle here. A person who chooses to come here illegally, particularly if they have a safe and legal route available to them, should be liable for removal to a safe country”.
What do the words “chooses” and “particularly” mean in that statement, when you are fleeing for your life, having endangered it because of service to this country, and then having been wrongly refused a relocation visa? What sort of choices are available? “Particularly” tacitly concedes the existence of such scenarios in which safe and legal routes are not available and have been wrongly closed off, but the statement determines that we will punish the victims of our own incompetence regardless.
There are two classes of person to whom this amendment applies. First, there are those in Afghanistan and Pakistan whom we are told are awaiting review of their previously determined applications. They should be determined as eligible and granted a visa, and will have no reason to take an irregular route. Secondly, and more importantly, a much smaller number whom this amendment seeks to protect are already here. These people, far from being deterred by this Government’s action, were compelled by it to seek irregular routes or face certain death or torture.
For the last year, the Independent, Lighthouse Reports and Sky have been exposing cases where, owing to the Home Office’s bureaucratic sclerosis and errors—in fact, I think that it is mostly the MoD’s sclerosis and errors—and alleged interference on the part of the Special Forces, Afghans who served either in the Triples or otherwise alongside our Armed Forces were wrongfully denied the ability to relocate and were forced to arrive here by other means. In Monday’s debate in the other place, the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration suggested—not promised—that regulations may be made under Section 4 of the Illegal Migration Act to ensure that these
“people receive the attention that they deserve”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/24; cols. 667-68.]
If that is the intention, what has stopped the promulgation of these regulations before now? The Government have known for at least a year that these people existed and have been on notice for a year that the promulgation of these regulations would be necessary to accompany the Bill, if they had intended to use them to solve this problem.
Effectively, these people are being asked to trust the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and, more broadly, the British Government—the same bodies that wrongfully refused their relocation visas in the first place, failed to protect them and have, in many cases, repeatedly threatened them with deportation to Rwanda. The idea that they would now repose their faith in the Home Office is absurd. In this context, trust is a currency whose value is now completely debased. Rather than wait for these regulations, why not, as the former Lord Chancellor, Sir Robert Buckland, suggested in Monday’s proceedings, simply accept this amendment, which precludes the need for their development?
Which offence do we believe to be more egregious? That of fleeing to a country that asked you to serve alongside its troops via an illegal route, having already been let down by that country’s administrative incompetence? Or having the power and means to pay a debt of honour to those we have exhorted to serve alongside us in our interests but refusing so to do? I believe the latter is shaming, and it is why I will be seeking, in moving my revised amendment, to test the opinion of this House and have the other place examine it, and the consciences of its Members, again.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, but I would like to underline how important it is to support Amendment H1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. I remind noble Lords of the critical difference it would make, by applying an exemption to those who have been employed indirectly in support of the UK Government in Afghanistan, as well as those employed directly.
To illustrate, very briefly, how this makes a difference, I can tell noble Lords that, for the past few weeks, I have been in correspondence with a former Afghan interpreter who was employed by an international agency that had a contract to provide interpreting and translation services to DfID, other government departments and the Armed Forces. His application under ARAP for relocation to the UK was rejected, as was his appeal. My understanding is that this was because he was employed not directly by HMG but through a third party—the agency. In his words:
“I endangered my life and future working for the UK Government in Afghanistan. Everyone in Afghanistan knew I worked for the UK Government. Being rejected by ARAP is an insult to my faithful services to the UK Government”.
This individual has already faced so many threats in Afghanistan that he has fled to a third country, where sadly he still lives in hiding and in fear. Having had his ARAP appeal rejected, he has told me that his situation is now so urgent and unsafe that he feels he has no alternative but
“to take the dangerous route to the UK by land, and if I get killed on my way to the UK it will be better than the problems I am faced with right now”.
If he manages to get here in one piece, despite having no alternative but to come via an unofficial route, he really does not deserve to have his loyalty to the UK rewarded by being sent to Rwanda. This amendment would protect him and, potentially, others like him. I implore noble Lords on all sides of the House to support this amendment, which would acknowledge his faithful service and his willingness to risk his life for us in Afghanistan, by doing what morally is just the right thing to do.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group highlight the cruel reality of this policy for some of the most vulnerable people in the world. What we need is an asylum process that identifies risks and vulnerabilities and then makes a decision on them when people are here.
We know very well that there are people in this country, including Afghans, who are on a waiting list to have their cases heard. People whose age has yet to be determined should not be sent to Rwanda while they are yet to be confirmed as a child. The Government have agreed that it is wrong to send unaccompanied children to Rwanda. So, if that is the case, they need to be extremely careful that they do not do that inadvertently. Children are not cargo that can be shipped from one country to another if the Government later decide they have made a mistake and someone is in fact a child after all.
Data collected by the Helen Bamber Foundation in 2022 found that, of 1,386 children who were initially assessed as adults by the Home Office, 867—that is, 63%—ended up being assessed as children by local authorities. That is the size of the error range that we have to be careful about. The key here is not adults being wrongly assessed as children, but children being wrongly treated as adults and therefore not being safe- guarded appropriately.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord German, and I very much agree with the remarks he made. The Government has got themselves into a right mess with respect to this flagship Bill—partly caused by the fact that they have simply not been listening to the very serious and constructive amendments that noble Lords have tabled to it.
I ask again, because I did not get an answer from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart: what happened to the Government’s plan to discuss this Bill next Monday in the other place and then bring it back on a further round of ping-pong next Tuesday? What happened to that particular plan? The Government are delaying their own legislation and people keep asking me why they are doing it. I do not know, so I am asking the Minister. Why are the Government delaying it until after Easter, when they could have brought it back next Tuesday? Were the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, asked about it? Did they put their views forward or is it simply something that came out of the blue? I know that government Members were asked to be here next Tuesday and then it was stopped. I do not know the answer and people keep asking me. So, I am asking the Government again: what has happened with this flagship, emergency piece of legislation, such that the Government have delayed it themselves? The only defence they have is to turn around and blame us for blocking it, when we have said all along that we will not block it.
I ask again because I need to know the answer, since Conservative Members keep asking me and I say, “Well, ask your own Front Bench”—mind you, those here will not know the answer either. Somewhere along the line, there is a serious point to be made on why the Government are delaying their own Bill by not providing time next week.
I support the remarks of my noble friend Lady Lister on Motion E1 and her very serious points about age assessment. I welcome the anti-slavery amendment tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in her Motion G1. I make no apologies for saying again that I am astonished that Conservative Members of Parliament in the other place, Conservative Peers and others are driving a coach and horses through the Modern Slavery Act, an Act that as a proud Labour Minister I call one of the proudest achievements of a Government who happened to be a Conservative Government. It was flagship legislation that has been copied all over the world, but, in Bill after Bill over the last couple of years, we have seen a gradual erosion of some of the fundamental principles that drive it. I will not repeat the points made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—I should say that I am a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation, as mentioned in the register of interests—but I find that incredible. I hope that noble Lords will take account of the further amendment that the noble and learned Baroness has tabled.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Browne on his Motion H1. I am incredulous that the Government could not accept his amendment in the other place. I think it astonished not just this side of the House but all sides of the House that, even if they did not accept his amendment, they could not find a way when considering it a few days ago of ensuring that this country met its debt to those people who had fought with us when we needed them to. Many of them have been excluded from that support. That is a stain on our country and should have been resolved as soon as possible. The Government had it within their power to do that last week but, as with the other nine amendments, they turned it down. I simply do not understand that.
I accept the words of the Minister, which he will have said in good faith, that this will be revised, looked at and brought forward in due course, and that regulations and secondary legislation will be used. However, there is absolutely no excuse for the Government of the day not standing up in here—they did not do it in the other place—and saying, “We will honour those who honoured us by ensuring that they are protected, and to do that we will accept Lord Browne’s amendment”. They could have done that today, and it would have meant that we had it in the Bill.
Notwithstanding that the Government clearly will not do that, I hope that noble Lords in vast numbers will support my noble friend’s amendment so that when it goes back to the other place to be considered—whenever that will be—Members there will have the opportunity to honour the debt that we owe to those who fought with us in our time of need in the war in Afghanistan. We owe it to them. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who is not in his place, said, in other conflicts to come, when we need support and help, what are we to say to translators, lorry drivers, interpreters and those who are fighting with us? Do we say, “Don’t worry, this country will support you in the aftermath of it?” They will look back at what we have done in Afghanistan and wonder whether we can be true to our word. We should resolve this and support the amendment. I hope that we do so in vast numbers.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful once again to noble Lords for their contributions and acknowledge the points that have been made. However, the Government are unable to accept these amendments.
It is worth me starting by again reading into the record Article 3(4) of the treaty for the avoidance of further doubt. It states that:
“The Agreement does not cover unaccompanied children and the United Kingdom confirms that it shall not seek to relocate unaccompanied individuals who are deemed to be under the age of 18. 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”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, acknowledged, as I have from this Dispatch Box, that assessing age is challenging. That is why the National Age Assessment Board, which I went into in some detail in my opening remarks, was launched in March 2023. I will repeat some of those remarks.
The board was launched to achieve greater consistency in quality of age assessments, to reduce the incentives for adults to claim to be children and to reduce the financial and administrative burden of undertaking assessment on local authorities. The aim of achieving accurate age assessment is its primary consideration. The NAAB consists of expert social workers whose task is to conduct full Merton-compliant age assessments upon referral from a local authority or the Home Office. Local authorities also retain the ability to conduct age assessments. This is not some perfunctory nod in the direction of those who are obviously in a difficult position; it is a very comprehensive age assessment process. Let me make it clear that if an age-disputed individual requires a Merton assessment, they will be relocated to Rwanda only if determined to be an adult after that Merton assessment.
In terms of numbers of people, it was suggested that there were not very many. I will go through those again as well. Between 2016 and September 2023, there were 11,977 asylum cases where age was disputed. Of those, 5,651 were found to be adults. That is over 800 per year. I argue to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that it would be a mistake to put those people into a system that is designed for children. I was quite surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord German, suggesting the opposite. Those are the statistics that I recognise.
As I have previously set out, we cannot allow legislation to pass that would enable those who are to be removed to Rwanda to be treated differently from those removed to another country. The purpose of the IMA and this Bill is to ensure that anyone arriving illegally in the UK will be promptly removed to their home country or a safe third country to have any asylum or human rights claims processed. I will of course make sure that the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Coaker, are carefully scrutinised over the coming weeks. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for being unable to comment on the individual case that she cited.
The Government of Rwanda have systems in place to safeguard relocated individuals with a range of vulnerabilities, including those concerning mental health and gender-based violence. Rwanda has a proven track record of working constructively with domestic and international partners including the UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration and other non-government organisations to process and support the asylum seeker and refugee population. By temporarily accommodating some of the most vulnerable refugee populations who have faced trauma, detentions and violence, Rwanda has showcased its willingness and ability to work collaboratively to provide solutions to refugee situations and crises.
We need to focus on getting flights off the ground to Rwanda to create the reality that everyone who enters the UK via a small boat will not be able to stay but will be swiftly removed. This will help us to continue to stop illegal immigrants from taking dangerous journeys across the channel and to save lives at sea.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Can the Minister answer the question that I put to him and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart? What happened to the Government’s plans to do this next week? It was due to go to the other place on Monday and come back here on Tuesday. What happened to those plans and why have they been ditched?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord will not like my answer, but the scheduling of business is a matter for business managers.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I do not wish to intervene in this little local argument. I thank noble Lords who have supported my Motion E1 with very strong arguments. I thank the Minister for reading into the record Article 3(4). I did not do that because I wanted to save time, but he makes my case for me: the treaty makes it clear that we should not send underage or age-disputed unaccompanied children to Rwanda. That is what this amendment is about.
However, the Minister has shifted his ground, because in previous iterations, he talked just about the two independent immigration officers who were going to provide the assessment based on appearance and demeanour. Now, he is talking about social workers, but how many of those poor children get that far? I do not know whether he can answer that question; I suspect that he cannot. I have not heard anything from the Minister that undermines the case that I and others have made on behalf of these children. I therefore wish to press my Motion and seek the opinion of the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9A.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion G. I beg to move.
Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 9.”
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, the Minister did not refer to my amendment at all in his summing up. However, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10A.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 10B in lieu—
“Exemption for agents, allies and employees of the UK Overseas
(1) Notwithstanding the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the Illegal Migration Act 2023, any earlier Immigration Acts and the other provisions of this Act, the following categories of person may not be removed to the Republic of Rwanda—
(a) agents or allies who have supported His Majesty’s armed forces overseas in an exposed or meaningful manner that now affects their claim for protection;
(b) persons who have been employed by or indirectly contracted to provide services to the UK Government in an exposed or meaningful manner that now affects their claim for protection;
(c) the partners and dependent family members of persons referred to in (a) or (b) above;
(d) persons who were the partners or family members of persons referred to in (a) or (b) above in a manner that now affects their claim for protection.
(2) The exemption in (1) above includes but is not limited to persons eligible for entry to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (“ARAP”) and Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (“ACRS”).
(3) A person seeking to rely upon the exemption in (1) above must give the Secretary of State notice as soon as reasonably practicable to allow prompt verification of available records as to allies, agents, employees, contractors and family members.””
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion H1, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
Wednesday 20th March 2024
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 View all Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 38-I(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (20 Mar 2024)
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that political and moral disapproval must be seen to be a central factor and not a supplementary consideration in any relevant decision.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, as we are starting Committee, I will say a few things about how we should handle the Bill from now on. After Second Reading and the Commons stages, during which there were a large number of sharp criticisms from Conservatives, as well as others, about the quality of the drafting and the coverage of the Bill, I would have expected the Government, between Second Reading and Committee, to have produced a number of government amendments to clarify some of the many imprecisions in the Bill and perhaps to have arranged to meet some of us who had spoken at Second Reading. I am sorry that that has not happened, and I very much hope that, between Committee and Report, the Government will respond to some of the criticisms by bringing forward clarifying amendments, and that the Minister and the Bill team will be willing to meet with us to discuss some of the arrangements.
The lack of engagement is troubling, and the absence of government amendments at this stage is extremely worrying. I recognise that this is very much a Michael Gove Bill and that he, as Secretary of State, probably wishes to get it through, if possible, without amendment. But here we are in the amending House, and the Minister also has a duty, as a Lords Minister, to listen to and engage with the reasoned criticisms made of the many highly imprecise elements in this Bill, and to respond.
I have two amendments in this group. One raises the question of what is meant by “political or moral disapproval”, and whether the word “influenced” in the phrase
“influenced by political and moral disapproval”
is sufficient. The second, Amendment 6, refers to
“any person seeking to persuade the decision-maker”,
as well as the decision-maker.
As the Minister will know, environmental, social and corporate governance has a long history. It goes back to the Sullivan principles from the United States, which I am sure she will remember. They were formulated by Mr Sullivan, a director of General Motors, in the context of apartheid South Africa and set out a number of principles that companies and others should follow when dealing with investments and procurement. Those principles have since expanded into the whole ESG dimension, which we see actively discussed in Britain, the United States and a number of other market economy countries. The right wing in the United States is busily attacking them in favour of what one has to describe as an amoral capitalism, in which profit is the only thing you are ever allowed to think about. I recall that the first person who started attacking the Sullivan principles was Professor Milton Friedman, who strongly believed that companies have no other duties than to pursue the greatest profit possible for their shareholders.
We need to know what is meant by
“influenced by moral or political disapproval”.
My Amendment 1 suggests that it has to be very considerable in order to be a primary cause of the decision, not simply something that comes in as, or can be argued under Clause 5 to have been—we will get to that later in terms of judicial review—part of the reasons why the decision was taken.
One of our many worries about the Bill is the extent to which it opens the door to litigation through a great many of its imprecise terms. The question, therefore, is whether or not any indication of political or moral disapproval begins to get captured under the Bill, or whether this has to be the major reason why such a decision is taken.
I was very struck as I went through the impact assessment and the Explanatory Memorandum by the sheer lack of evidence that much of this has happened. We find a reference to a council that in 2014 discussed whether or not to, and that another council in 2016 discussed whether or not to. Neither of them actually did it, but they discussed it. “That is wrong and we should stop them doing things like that” seems to be a pretty thin basis on which to mount a Bill that has the sorts of penalties which this Bill begins to set out. That is very much part of our concerns.
Amendment 6 raises the question of whether it is not only the decision-maker who is going to be liable but
“any person seeking to persuade the decision-maker”.
Does that mean that the Guardian journalist who writes an editorial suggesting that this should be done is going to be caught by it? Does it mean that the lobby group that sends things to the decision-maker is going to be caught by it? Does it have to be a more direct approach? How do we identify that “any person”? This is the sort of drafting that should not appear in a Bill before this House. It has to be clarified or we shall do our utmost to remove it. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I speak to exactly the same issue as did my noble friend. Mine is a simpler amendment. I work on the basis that the Bill will pass in some form or another and if one does a modest, sensible tweak to a Bill, it has a chance of being incorporated into the final version. My Amendment 2 —purely adds one word: “materially”. This would raise the threshold that needs to be met before a decision is deemed to be in breach of this prohibition. If it is not “materially”, things could be prohibited for something very minor. Having “materially” improves the Bill and makes it more logical—we are looking at things of substance, not things that are minor.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I rise merely to ask my noble friend the Minister to be very careful about her responses to this. I have a huge problem in that I cannot think of a speech that I have made in this House in which there has not been some moral content, because that is the way I think. I cannot help that. I am very concerned about the clarity with which the Bill is written. My noble friend and I go back a very long way. I have to say to her that when she was a civil servant working with me, she would not have produced a Bill like this. She would have been very angry if I had suggested that it should be as loose as all this. I am sorry to remind her of that fact. All I am interested in is that we do not unhappily and by accident cause a whole lot of legal cases that are unnecessary and which we never meant to.
I have some fundamental problems, not least with the specifics of this. I may wish at some later point to discuss the speech that was made at Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Wolfson, but the first point I want to make has nothing to do with the nature of the Bill itself or what it seeks to do. It is about precision. This is an imprecise Bill and it needs to be precise if it is not to be extremely malignant. All I ask is for my noble friend to try to understand that we need precision here, even those of us who in general do not come here with an antagonistic view. We just want to know what it is about, and you do not understand that if you merely read the Bill. I do not want this constantly to be in the courts. It would be much better to get it right now.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Amendments 3 to 5 are in my name. All the amendments in this group have the same objective, which is to find some ways of mitigating the rather unusual and perhaps slightly sinister language of
“political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”—
the language that gives the provision its title. Amendments 1 and 2 seek to achieve that objective by retaining that concept but raising the bar for its application. I agree that this approach may be sensible, and it is one that I encourage the Government to consider very seriously.
My amendments go a little further. I tried to think of ways in which the main provision of the Bill—Clause 1 —could operate without the novel concept of a prohibition on
“being influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”.
I note that this is not an attempt to frustrate the Bill. As the Minister will recall, I spoke in support of the Bill at Second Reading and I support the Government’s intentions. I am suggesting this different way forward because I am not really persuaded that the policy objectives require us to introduce this concept in our legislation. I urge the Government to test more proportionate and more focused ways to achieve those objectives.
As I understand those objectives, the core purpose is to ensure that public bodies, when taking procurement or investment decisions, do not impose a de facto sanctions regime or a de facto ban or boycott on a foreign state on the basis of their own judgments about a territorial dispute, the status of a foreign territory or the presence of a foreign Government in a particular territory. It seems to me that that objective can be achieved equally effectively by focusing the duty in Clause 1 on not having regard to territorial considerations, rather than in the current formulation of a duty not to be influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct. Subject to the exceptions, it would still be the case that if a public authority were to have regard to a territorial consideration, it would probably do so because of disapproval of a moral or political kind of the foreign state’s conduct in the territory. But it would be better if we can get to the result that the Government are pursuing without that language of political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct.
I accept that a criticism of the proposals may be that if we remove that expression “moral or political disapproval” from Clause 1, as my amendments would do, and focus instead on territorial considerations, the main provision of the Bill would not substantially improve on Section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988.
The Bill would supersede the Local Government Act in the part where it prohibits local authorities from considering non-commercial matters in relation to decisions about public supply or works contracts, including
“the country or territory of origin of supplies to, or the location in any country or territory of the business activities or interests of, contractors”.
This part of Section 17 of the Local Government Act would be omitted by the effect of a separate clause in the Bill. But Clause 1, even with the amendment I propose, would still go further than Section 17. In particular, the duty not to have regard to foreign state conduct in relation to territorial considerations, such as the existence of a territorial dispute, would still be able to capture indirect bans or boycotts, which I understand is the Government’s main concern.
I look forward to what the Government have to say. Again, I stress that my main concern is to encourage them to think of ways of tightening the language in Clause 1, and mitigating or perhaps altogether removing this notion of
“political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for my not being able to speak at Second Reading, although if I had, I would have agreed with my noble friend Lord Wolfson on much of what he had to say. I also apologise for slightly jumping the gun on the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, particularly as what he said was so interesting and informative.
I just wanted to question Amendment 1. If one is seeking clarity and certainty, introducing the idea of having a
“primary or sole factor in the decision”
seems extremely difficult to prove, whereas showing that the decision was “influenced” is much easier and, as I understand it, a recognised legal term.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have problems with all the amendments in this group. Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, would elevate “political or moral disapproval” to be the sole or main factor, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, wants to introduce the concept of materiality into influence. Both these would just create huge loopholes, which would allow public bodies to conceal their boycott activities within other factors. Clever lawyers would find ways of writing papers which support decision-making in, say, local authorities or other bodies affected by the Bill, by reference to a whole load of other factors, to support the claim that they were not “materially” influenced by their disapproval of a foreign state, or that it was not the sole or main factor. I genuinely have a problem with the watering-down implied by Amendments 1 and 2.
I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said about his amendments. I understand that he is trying to find a way through by removing the reference to “political or moral disapproval”, but I am not convinced that his amendments work either. In particular, I am not sure what the restriction to “that territory” in his Amendment 4 will do. Let us suppose that the territorial consideration is Ukraine, because it has to relate to a particular foreign territory by virtue of subsection (3). Does that mean that the decision-maker must have no regard to what is happening in Ukraine itself? It seems to me that “that territory” can be related only to the territorial consideration referenced in subsection (2). In that case, it would be Ukraine. If, say, Russia is the foreign state you have a problem with, it seems that you can take account of its activities only in Ukraine. You could not take account of activities that were not in Ukraine—for example, attacks from other places, such as the Black Sea, or whether it takes children from Ukraine back to Russia. If you thought that Russia was the territory—still restricting it to one territory—you have the problem the other way around; you could take activities only in Russia, but not in Ukraine, which is the fundamental problem. That creates an interpretive problem.
While these distinctions might not matter if we are talking about Russia and Ukraine, if you try and then relate it to a council or other public body trying to boycott Israel, and relate that to the complexities of the different parts of the territory around the State of Israel, you may end up finding some odd conclusions on how the reformulation might work in practice. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, is a very clever lawyer and I am not, and I may well have completely misunderstood how his amendment is intended to work.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, because this is the first group, I again state that I think that a lot of these amendments are trying to establish what is intended by the Bill, in a probing way. In that sense, they are very helpful for clarification on the language used. It was clear from Second Reading that most of the people who have since tabled these amendments and are speaking now are not in any way defending BDS; it was clear to me anyway. These boycott schemes are censorious and illiberal, and very often, as was stated at the time, the seeding ground for anti-Semitism in public life. In that sense, I oppose them; I am just not clear how the Bill will actually tackle them.
As we speak, just to use an example, the Rio Cinema in London has just cancelled its Eurovision party on the basis that it will not hold it while Israel still has somebody in the Eurovision Song Contest. I do not know whether this is self-declared BDS; it is a charity, and I am not quite sure how the Bill would apply. The point I kept trying to make at Second Reading was that, so often, I feel that the Bill will miss where a lot of the anti-Semitic censorship is occurring, around the periphery, rather than just in terms of divestment and investment, and so on.
I say that because those of us who are interested in tackling those issues need to have as much free speech as possible. I particularly support Amendment 6 from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire—although both his amendments are interesting—which makes the point about
“any person seeking to persuade the decision-maker”.
That is what politics is, is it not? Trying to persuade a decision-maker—lobbying and trying to have an influence on politics—is surely the job we are all in, even if we disapprove of, in this instance, what someone is trying to persuade about. I just get anxious about this being in a Bill; it sets a dangerous precedent.
Points have been made well by other noble Lords about the use of the language of political and moral disapproval; I want there to be far more political and moral disapproval in politics today than there is. It is an entirely good thing to make that clear. I wish there was a bit more “political and moral disapproval” leadership in general, even though many of us arguing that would disagree over what it should be. That is fair, but it is far better than a kind of technocratic approach. Also, if we are to win the hearts and minds of many of the young people who go along with BDS campaigns, we will have to show our political and moral disapproval, and win them over and seek to persuade them. Noble Lords get the point, but it is not clear how the language in the section to which these amendments refer will help us to tackle the problem that the Bill seeks to address.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I also wish to speak in support of Amendments 1 and 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Wallace. As a former councillor, I can imagine that former colleagues will be absolutely horrified at the scope of the Bill. We are talking about how moral and political disapproval cannot be used as the basis of a decision. Many councillors get into politics because they have moral and political views—they want to change the world and do something about things in their own area. I would welcome clarity, as others have asked for, on how it is to be established whether a decision-maker has been
“influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”.
What means might be used to actually determine this, in the event of needing to enforce action against it?
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have an entry in the register of interests. I seek clarity from the Minister. I may not need it, but I would like to tease it out, to see whether my interpretation of these clauses is correct. My question is about the word “decision”, and what the statutory understanding of that word is. My understanding is clarified by Clause 2(2), which says:
“A ‘procurement decision’ is a decision about a contract for the supply of goods, services or works to the decision-maker.”
That seems to me absolutely clear. I want to clarify if that is also the Minister’s understanding of what a decision in this context is.
I ask that because of an example from the University of Essex student union, which has a policy passed 15 or 16 years ago, described as a BDS policy, which is specifically targeted against the state of Israel. On the student union website that policy is deemed to be an educational policy to stimulate discussion and debate. But the student union, in applying the policy, has chosen specifically to address the purchasing of kosher food products, including those from Israel, in the student union shop.
In the context of the amendments, and in terms of how the general public might understand this, as well as those more directly impacted in the public sector and elsewhere, it would be helpful to know whether I am right in my understanding that the University of Essex student union policy, which has not been turned into a procurement decision, as defined in Clause 2(2), would not be covered by the Bill, because it is merely an educational policy, as opposed to a procurement and economic activity decision. To know that would be helpful in understanding what the scope of the Bill is and is not, and what the legal situation will be when it is enacted, as I presume it will be.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I spoke on Second Reading, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Deben for taking the trouble to read my speech. I wait with anticipation to find out the, no doubt very few, points on which we disagree. That will perhaps be for another day, but I look forward to it.
On these amendments I can be brief, because the central point has already been made: that the proposed amendments, especially those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, would add complexity and increase the likelihood of litigation; I declare the obvious interest in that respect. The amendments would therefore make the Bill not more precise but less.
I say that for three reasons. First, introducing words such as “primary or sole” is an invitation to litigation. My second short point—forgive the legal geekiness, but we are in Committee—is that a quick search of legislation.gov.uk indicates that that phrase does not appear anywhere else in legislation. “Sole or primary” does, so in case we go forward with this, I would invite the noble Lord to flip it round, so that we put the more general word “sole” first, followed by the word “primary”. That is not my main point, but as we are in Committee, which is the place for geeky legal points, I may have just made one.
Another amendment introduces the word “material”. That is a really problematic word in law, as are words such as “significant”, because we always have the debate about what the opposite of “material” is. Is it immaterial—that is, de minimis? In that case, that is not really, as I understand it, the force of the amendment. “Material” here really means “of substance”, and it is, I suggest, not a good word to use if one is seeking to get that point across.
However, my main point is that this part of the Bill is drafted clearly and that whether we add “primary or sole” or “material”, that would add complexity and invite more litigation.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I was going to intervene on the noble Lord, but he finished his speech before I could. Maybe we will have an opportunity when the Minister responds to the debate, because the idea that the words “moral” and “political” are not vague stuns me. Who is to define “moral”? That is very difficult.
This is one of the rare occasions in the House when I can honestly agree with practically all the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I also agree with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I want to stress that with the amendments, especially those to Clause 1, it is necessary to probe what the words mean, and get a better understanding of them. Even if I do not personally feel committed to the amendments, it is important to use this stage to elicit from the Minister a better understanding of the intent of Clause 1.
I do not want to repeat what the noble Baroness said, but this is not about how we address BDS strategies. The impact of the clause is far wider and encompasses a whole host of things that the Government may not have really intended. Who knows? Clause 1 does not define “political” or “moral”. It is extremely wide-ranging and could cover any decision or consideration that suggests a negative view of an existing, previous or potential policy action or inaction, or other behaviour associated with a Government or any public authority in another country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, said, the reasonable observer of the decision-making process test sets an extremely low bar for considering whether a decision was influenced by political or moral disapproval. It does not distinguish between minor or significant influence, and it does not clearly define a reasonable observer. I hope we can use the amendments in this group to probe substantially on these issues.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the consideration of financial, reputational, legal, environmental, social, governance and other risks in procurement and investment decisions are often complex and overlapping, and some considerations may be confidential. How are we going to sort all those things out if the Bill becomes law?
The legislation does not require the reasonable person to be someone who is familiar with the subject matter and decision-making processes. Clause 1(4) and 1(6) do not define a public authority in a foreign territory, so it could include state-run companies in some countries. This could result in additional uncertainty where the conduct of a public authority differs from the official policy of a foreign state, and that is a threat to actions in support of persecuted people across the world.
The sweeping approach to Clause 1 will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on public bodies being able to make ethical procurement and investment decisions and take actions that support upholding international law, democracy and human rights. I know I have an amendment later on, so I will not go into too much detail now.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, the Bill is incoherent and it waters down the Procurement Act 2023. That Act sets key objectives covered by procurement, including supporting public benefit, in Clause 12(1)(b), and acting and being seen to act with integrity, in Clause 12(1)(d). The Act also gave a mandate to commissioning authorities to award contracts based on the “most advantageous tender” submitted. That change of words moves away from the previous priority of the “most economically advantageous tender” under which the previous procurement regime existed. What was the intent of that change in language? The intent was to enable contracting authorities to give more weight to award criteria such as decent work and wider social values. Again, we are coming to other amendments, particularly about the environment.
This wide definition, which is covered in Clause 1, is the fundamental problem with the Bill. The Explanatory Notes state:
“Clause 1 prohibits relevant public authorities from having regard to a territorial consideration in a way that indicates moral or political disapproval of a country or territory’s foreign state conduct, when making decisions … This clause is designed to catch both open participation in boycotts”,
which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about,
“or divestment campaigns, and more subtle ways of singling out countries or territories that could produce similar results”.
As I say, this sweeping approach will have a chilling effect and will impact on public authorities in upholding international law.
A point I want to focus on is that the UK Government have committed to implementing international standards, including the UN guiding principles on business and human rights—the UNGPs—as well as the commitment made in terms of the environment in the Paris agreement. Carrying out effective due diligence is central to public bodies, as state institutions, being able to fulfil their human rights obligations, implement UNGPs and make ethical procurement and investment decisions. However, because the terminology, such as “political and moral disapproval”, is undefined, this will create problems for public authorities when carrying out their due diligence. That is what will be needed in the due diligence process to avoid falling foul of this legislation, when clarity is so lacking.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and for their contributions to the debate. I look forward to scrutinising the Bill and these proposed changes in detail during the four Committee days that we have set aside—although this one has been a little truncated. I remain open to listening to noble Lords’ views from all sides, and I hope we can use these sessions to put forward the best possible version of this legislation.
Clarity on all sides is important, and I look forward to further meetings with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, as the Bill progresses. He knows I enjoy meetings with him on the Bills that we have done together. Probing amendments are also important, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, has just said. We were of course both involved with the Procurement Act and I look forward to discussing how the two pieces of legislation interact and how human rights considerations are respected—as they are.
I hope that, in responding to these six amendments, I can assure the House that Clause 1 as currently drafted is the most proportionate and clear way of fulfilling the manifesto commitment of banning public bodies from imposing their own boycott and divestment campaigns.
Clause 1 sets out three tests that must be met to trigger the ban. First, the ban is narrow. It applies only to procurement or investment decisions. Secondly, the public body must have considered a specific territory or country as part of making its decision. Thirdly, that consideration must reflect political or moral disapproval of the conduct of a foreign state.
I turn first, if I may, to Amendments 3, 4 and 5, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. I am grateful for his general support. However, together, his amendments would alter the scope of the clause. Amendments 3 and 5 would prohibit public authorities from being influenced in any way by foreign state conduct. This would widen the prohibition in Clause 1 to include considerations that relate specifically or mainly to a country or territory in a way that is influenced by approval of foreign state conduct. The current drafting prohibits only disapproval of foreign state conduct, and the inclusion of moral and political disapproval is necessary to ensure that the Bill does not capture legitimate territorial considerations that are not about boycotts and divestment campaigns and would take the Bill beyond the manifesto commitment. An example of this would include encouraging trade with important trading partners. These amendments would therefore prohibit a public authority from favouring goods or services from a particular country or territory, based on approval of that country’s conduct. It therefore captures a broader range of decisions that are not relevant to boycotts and divestment campaigns.
Amendment 4, on the other hand, would narrow the prohibition so that it applied only in the case of disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct within its own territory. It would not apply in the case of disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct outside its territory. I agree with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Noakes: this would effectively allow public authorities to boycott countries whose foreign policy they disapproved of. This could leave a significant loophole—a word I think she used—in the ban and undermine the manifesto commitment.
I will now address Clause 1(7) in response to Amendment 6 by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. This amendment would permit public authorities to engage in boycotts and divestment campaigns as long as they were only a result of pressure from a third party, such as a student union, rather than a result of the public authority’s own moral or political disapproval. Subsection (7) is a necessary element of the Bill, as public authorities such as universities and local authorities are frequently pressured to engage in boycotts or divestment campaigns. For example, student unions at Warwick University and Sussex University have passed motions calling for their universities to divest from Israeli companies. If a university conducted a boycott or divestment campaign because of such pressure, rather than because of its own view of a foreign state, we would want that campaign to be caught. Subsection (7) extends to any person seeking to persuade the public authority. However, for there to be a breach of the ban, an enforcement authority must be satisfied that there is enough evidence that a third party influenced the public authority.
I will address the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, on decision-making, if she would agree, on group 2 because we are going to be discussing the meaning of a decision-maker for the purposes of the Bill.
Finally, and most importantly, I turn to Amendments 1 and 2, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. Amendment 1 would narrow the scope of the prohibition in Clause 1 so that it prohibited public authorities from taking account of territorial considerations only where moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct is the “primary or sole” factor in the decision. My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley asked a question which made this point, while my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar was concerned that it would increase uncertainty and lead to legal disputes.
Similarly, Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, would narrow the prohibition to decisions “materially” influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct. Like my noble friend Lord Wolfson, I do not agree with weakening the effect of the Bill in this way. Public authorities buying goods or services, or making investments, should not be influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct to any degree, unless—and this is important—one of the exemptions, such as environmental or labour misconduct, applies.
I reassure the Committee that Clause 1 will not capture fleeting and inconsequential remarks made during the procurement or investment decision-making process. The Bill prohibits only considerations that a reasonable observer of the decision-making process would consider a contributing factor to a decision.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
It is precisely that point I want to better understand, because many decisions are going to be complex. While the Minister mentioned the exclusion of things, there could be a combination of issues which would influence the final decision. Somebody might be able to say, “Actually, that combination has become a moral and political thing”. That is what really concerns me. The Minister is very confident that certain things will not be captured, but I do not see that. I would like her to explain in a little more detail that final point she made.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We will try to do that. I am also happy to discuss this further, because it is obviously an important point in relation to the Bill and, as we agreed at the beginning, we need to try to find a way that does not create a lot of uncertainty.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, commented on the perceived lack of evidence for the Bill, but boycotts have been attempted by several public authorities in recent years. In 2014, Leicester City Council passed a motion boycotting goods from Israeli settlements, as far as the law allows. Several other local authorities have passed boycotting or condemnatory motions, including Swansea Council, Gwynedd Council—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt, but on that point can the Minister tell us what the FCDO’s advice and the United Nations decisions are in relation to the Occupied Territories?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am certainly very happy to come back to that on a later group of amendments.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
But it is material to what the Minister has just said.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will see if I can come back to it before we finish. I was trying to give the examples that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, had asked for. There was West Dunbartonshire Council and Stirling Council, and in 2021 Lancaster City Council passed a motion in support of the wider BDS movement.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I come back to the first point that the Minister made. It is really important that we are clear about this, because one concern we have mentioned—I am not going to make a Second Reading speech—is the impact that this Bill has on the United Kingdom’s foreign policy. If there is a discussion about goods from and investments in the Occupied Territories, she needs to explain why she has evidenced that and how it is supported by the FCDO’s own advice and the Government’s support for United Nations resolutions on that subject.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I can certainly provide more detail of the boycotts, if that is helpful.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
No, that is not what I am asking. The first example that the Minister gave was in relation to the Occupied Territories. I really think it is important that we understand why she has referenced that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I was giving a list and I will certainly come back on that question. We have a group relating to the Occupied Territories later on, when we can go into this in more detail. If the noble Lord can give me a bit of slack, I will see if I can get fuller information and come back to that at the end.
I was trying to answer the question on evidence. If I may, I should also like to cite, from September 2023, Islington Council passing a motion in opposition to this Bill, expressing its support for BDS campaigns—which everybody has said that they are very unhappy about—and resolving to:
“Continue to ensure that our own ethical procurement strategy doesn’t include procuring goods and services produced by oppressive regimes”.
I have not covered all the BDS activity in public bodies, but I hope that this demonstrates to the noble Lord that there is a considerable evidence base.
Separately, I note the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, about student unions and the provision of kosher foods in universities. We are going to discuss that point. The noble Lord has tabled some interesting amendments on it in group 3.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My point was not in relation to the amendment; it was in relation to the fact that a significant number of people in the Jewish community have said to me that they anticipate one of the key benefits of this Bill being that student unions will not be able to debate and pass BDS resolutions. My understanding of how the Bill is written and how it has been framed is that what the University of Essex student union has done, whereby it deemed its policy to be an educational tool rather than a procurement decision, explicitly would not be covered by the Bill. That is important, because the expectation is coming from multiple sources within the Jewish community that that is what would happen. Can the Minister clarify whether I am wrong on this, because my reading of the Bill suggests that I am right that—whether one calls it a good thing or a loophole—it would not be covered by the Bill?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Lord is right—student unions are not covered, and I think that I made that clear at Second Reading. It is private activity. Clearly, what matters is the influence on public bodies, which is what we are discussing today.
To come back on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, obviously the Government recognise the risks associated with economic and financial activities in those settlements. We do not support boycotts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Such boycotts are inherently divisive and could lead inadvertently to negative effects on Palestinians as well as undermining the aim of this Bill, which is to ensure that the UK speaks with one voice internationally. That does not change existing government guidance on doing business in those territories. The Government do not recognise the settlements as part of Israel, as the noble Lord knows, and we have already moved to ban those responsible for violence in the West Bank from the UK—there have been some recent sanctions.
I have tried to answer the probing amendments. I hope that this provides noble Lords with clarification and a rationale for the scope of Clause 1, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am slightly better informed. We have many difficulties with this Bill. I must say that it would be much easier if it were simply a Bill about boycott of Israel and mainly about sanctions. It would be narrower, and we would know what we were talking about. But it is a Bill that is supposed to apply to every single foreign state in the world except for Ireland, which raises very large questions.
I disapprove strongly of the Rwandan Government’s support for M23 in the Congo civil war, and I disapprove very strongly of Myanmar’s behaviour towards the Rohingya, et cetera. Clause 1 is entitled “Disapproval of foreign state conduct prohibited”, which is itself a very uneasy label and not the sort of thing that ought to appear in legislation. I believed that I lived in a liberal democracy in which government’s reach was limited and free speech, as Conservative Peers are always telling us, is entrenched, and one is allowed to dissent. This appears to be extending the reach of government.
I appreciate that this is a DLUHC Bill that is aimed primarily at local authorities, although it is extended to include universities—and whether it includes student unions we will investigate further. As it happens, I had the current president of the Cambridge Students’ Union here last Wednesday, and I showed him a copy of the Bill—and he was convinced that it would apply to student unions; it is quite clear that some people would like it to do so.
There is a great deal more that we need to find out about all this. The closing down of public debate that the Bill implies is something that worries all of us a great deal. I am happy to withdraw my amendment for a moment, but we shall return to all these questions extensively as we move from one imprecise clause to another.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
Member's explanatory statement
The inclusion of the word “materially” would raise the threshold that would need to be met before a decision was deemed to be in breach of this prohibition.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My amendment was of a probing nature. I am grateful to the Minister for giving more detail. As we go forward with the Bill, I shall be particularly interested to see how “materially”—the word that I tried to add—is looked at in terms of local authority pension funds. That worries me, because they make their investment decisions. There needs to be a material point, otherwise those investment decisions can be upset very easily by the Bill.
Lord Verdirame
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, along with two other amendments in my name, seeks to focus the prohibition in Section 1 on territorial considerations in connection with foreign state conduct, rather than political or moral approval of foreign state conduct, as this is a more proportionate way of achieving the policy objective.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
I too shall not move my amendment, but I reiterate the point that it would be quite helpful if the Government gave some thought to that language that makes so many of us across the political spectrum, given the level of support for Bill, uncomfortable. Do we really need political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct as a central concept in Clause 1? I would be grateful if further thought could be given to that question.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to seek clarity on when an individual is considered to be the decision maker for the purposes of this bill.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it might be helpful to explain that most, if not all, the amendments we have tabled reflect the fact that we find this quite a difficult Bill to amend in a way that would make it work because, as many noble Lords have already said, it is very wide-ranging and quite vague in many of its terms. Our amendments are mostly intended to elicit not a response from the Minister to the amendments as such, but an explanation of the Bill’s intention, so that we are clear, or as clear as we can be, about exactly how the Bill is intended to be interpreted. This group of amendments is more about who the Government wish to catch with the measures in the Bill, and how it will work. Through these amendments, we want to tease out how the Government will decide who will be subject to enforcement action.
Amendment 7 would remove lines 20 to 22 in Clause 1:
“and those references to the decision-maker include, in a case where the decision-maker is not an individual”—
I assume that that means a local authority, a university or some other public body—
“the individuals who in fact make the decision for the decision-maker”.
I am not sure whether the Government want, in Clause 1, to include members of a governing body or councillors serving on a particular committee—we will come on later to definitions of public bodies. Often, people serve in these capacities as volunteers or as inexpert lay members. Are the Government really trying to say that they want those individuals to be held to account in a way that, in other parts of the Bill, they seem to be suggesting the body itself is to be affected? We need to be clear in our own minds which it is.
We would like to understand in what circumstances individuals will be given notices and then fines. I know we will come on to this later, but we do not know the extent of these fines. Will the fines be applied differently to individuals, compared to a council or a university? Pragmatically, we would expect them to be, but how will they be treated differently if they are to be subject to enforcement action? How will the enforcement agency decide? Is there to be discretion as to whether it is holding an individual responsible as the decision-maker, or is the organisation the decision-maker? How will it assess that? Will it look at the individual behaviour of particularly influential senior managers, members of staff or elected representatives? Would the chancellor of a university, for example, be held to account, or the wider organisation; and how will that judgment be made? The Explanatory Notes do not help us with this question in relation to Clause 1. That is why we have also tabled Amendment 55, which asks the Secretary of State to publish guidance on the circumstances in which an individual is the decision-maker under the Bill, and the circumstances in which they are not.
I am not a lawyer, so perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, would like to help us out here. When does this corporate liability, if I can put it that way, become an individual liability? The LGA has helpfully given examples of this question arising. I do not know whether noble Lords have had a chance to look at the pre-legislative scrutiny that took place in the Commons. The LGA was very clear about lots of things in its oral evidence, including that some councillors who serve on pensions committees are not particularly expert in managing these funds, but they are very well supported and advised by their officers, and they take their duties very seriously. Even where, say, a newly elected councillor arrives with some grand intention or attempts to argue for some kind of divestment decision, actually, their fiduciary duties, it is pointed out to them, override such concerns, and that does tend to become the view of the committee.
The LGA, because of its experience of how these things work in practice, said in its evidence that any enforcement action should be directed towards the administering authority and not the individual councillors. Can the Minister explain how an enforcement authority will decide whether individual or corporate responsibility applies for a particular decision? The LGA talks about this in relation to judicial review as well, which we will come on to later. The LGA feels that the subject of the judicial review should not be the decision-making authority but rather the enforcement authority, so that it is its decision that is challenged. If it decides not to issue a notice, that can be challenged, but the risk does not reside with the individual councillors.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am an academic and, in the course of my career, I have been an associated member of three colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. One has a governing body in the mid-30s; the second has one of around 50; and the third has one of nearly 100—much too large, I quite agree. The chilling effect of this clause on those three colleges would be considerable, precisely because it is not entirely clear what it means by the individuals who make the decision for the decision-maker. That requires a great deal more clarification; at the very least, it ought to be in the Explanatory Notes. This is another attempt to ask the Government to come back with something which is a great deal clearer.
In my career, I have also been a historian and an analyst of foreign policy. It is an area in which we spend an awful lot of time defining, discussing and describing decision-making. We very often disagree sharply with each other because it is very difficult to define, for example, exactly who took the crucial decision that started the First World War. Baroness Henig, sadly no longer with us, wrote several books on the subject. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Belgravia, has written several books entirely disagreeing with what other historians have said about various crucial decisions.
That is, again, part of our problem: when a complicated decision is taken, who takes it? How many people are complicit? If you are a member of the council committee which takes the decision and you abstain on the vote—or vote against it—are you also part of the decision-making or not? There is, to say the least, a cloud of uncertainty around this phrase. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, understands it; I must say that I do not.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I would also like to probe a little more on the meaning of “decision-maker” in a higher education context, following on from the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.
Universities are often very decentralised in their structures, and power can be distributed quite far and wide. It is not always concentrated in the vice-chancellor’s office; nor is the governance of universities often as clear- cut as it might be. I would appreciate some clarity as the Bill proceeds on who exactly is going to be identified as the decision-maker in particular situations. Do we mean specifically decisions taken by the executive management team of an institution, principally the vice-chancellor? Do we mean, for example, student unions?
I noted that in my noble friend the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that student unions were—if I heard her correctly—out of scope, because they are private bodies. This confuses me a little, because I thought the whole purpose of the Bill, from a political point of view, was to address precisely this issue: student unions getting on their soapboxes and making statements about BDS, and all the rest of it. If they are out of scope of the Bill, I really wonder why universities as a whole are still in scope. It is not the vice-chancellors, academics or heads of department who are making these kinds of noises; it is the student unions. If I understood my noble friend the Minister correctly, they are not even covered. I really question why universities are still in scope at all, but that is a question we will come to later in Committee.
The final point on which I would like some clarity from my noble friend the Minister is whether a decision-maker will also be deemed to be an individual academic, who may manage a research budget. Will the use of that research budget by the individual academic be part of the decision-making process captured by the Bill? If so, how will that be squared with the legal duties on the OfS, among others, to promote academic freedom and freedom of speech in our higher education institutions?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it seems to me that there is a bit of confusion going on. Amendment 7, which takes out the words in Clause 1(7), relates only to who is carrying out the disapproval. It is just amplifying those people whose disapproval is taken into account, to see whether or not the clause is engaged. It is not trying to add different categories of decision-maker, because the reference to decision-maker is clear in Clause 2, which we will come on to in another group. It is that definition that then drives enforcement, et cetera.
I was interested in Amendment 55 of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman—although I think it is actually the wrong amendment asking for regulations—because it highlights that decision-makers might be individuals under the Bill, which they can be. As I understand it, the definition of “decision-maker” in Clause 2 encompasses some individuals being the decision-maker from whom all these consequences might flow. That was a complete surprise to me because the Bill is titled the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill—a manifesto commitment related to public bodies. I was completely amazed to find that individuals might be public authorities within the terms of Clause 2, and therefore decision-makers.
I was interested in the noble Baroness’s probing amendment, because I hoped that she would be using that to ask the Minister what kinds of individuals could be decision-makers under the definition that we are using—the Human Rights Act definition. The limited research I have done produced the example of a doctor. When a doctor is carrying out his NHS work, he could be a public authority for that purpose, but when carrying out his private work, he could not be. I did not find much more than that, and I am rather hoping that the Minister will be able to explain to us in rather more detail precisely which individuals are decision-makers within Clause 2.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I, too, will speak to this amendment and do so, like the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Johnson, in relation to universities and higher education. I had some experience of that: I was on two university councils—those of Birmingham and Kent—and I chaired the Birmingham council for five or six years in the early part of this century.
I have to say to the Minister that, as a result of a lot of extremely desirable reforms, the decision-making at universities was concentrated quite heavily on the council. The council did not micromanage every decision, but it was responsible for every decision taken at the university. That responsibility was clearly focused on a much-reduced size of council, down from the 30s or 40s to the 20s, and it meant that a quite a lot of responsibility came on to its members, who were a combination of academics and lay persons—with a majority, on the whole, of lay persons. The lay persons on the council were volunteers and were not paid a penny. Now, if the vagueness in this bit of the legislation is retained, I would not like to be out there trying to recruit new members to university councils, if they thought they were going to be liable for any of the sorts of problems that could arise under this legislation.
I suspect that this is just one of many pieces of this legislation that reinforce the case for simply taking higher education and universities completely out of it. I think that is what we will come to when we get to Report. This is just the first illustration that it will have a remarkably chilling effect on the conduct of councils and the way in which people are prepared to serve—for nothing and as volunteers—on university councils, giving up many hundreds of hours of their lives to making sure that the university is properly administered and decisions properly taken.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I preface my remarks by declaring an interest as chancellor of Cardiff University. I apologise that my duties at Cardiff University prevented me attending the whole of Second Reading—so I could not speak, although I attended a significant part of it.
Before I was chancellor of Cardiff University, I was a member of the council of Cardiff Metropolitan University, so I have a background in both executive and non-executive roles at universities. What I have to say very much follows neatly from the noble Lord. My experience is that university councils—and other bodies doing the same job but sometimes with different names—are very highly regulated already. They involve a great deal of training and responsibility and absolutely no financial reward—but there is great satisfaction for those who participate.
In both universities I have mentioned, our problem is always trying to get the suitable range of highly skilled, highly experienced people to participate. If you add another unnecessary layer of responsibility on to those people, you will deter very worthwhile recruits and you will make life more difficult again for our higher education sector. So can the Minister give us examples of universities—and individuals within universities—that have made these inappropriate decisions, so that we can see why universities are included? Otherwise, if there are no examples at the Minister’s fingertips, could the Government give further thought to whether they should be included at all?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to return, very briefly, to something the noble Lord, Lord Mann, raised earlier. I can understand in the broader sense why universities have been included, because very often it has been universities that have been at the cutting edge of popularising boycotts. They have taken a wide range of forms—and not just in terms of what is sold or invested in. As the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, pointed out, it could be denying people research, not letting Israeli academics come over to speak or whatever. There are all sorts of ways that this happens. So, I understand why the university sector is in scope. My problem is that it is not clear to me how a Bill like this can do anything other than attack academic freedom, which I am interested in defending. I think we have to deal with what is happening on university campuses in a different way.
Regardless of that, the reason it is frustrating—and why I am referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said—is that, if you have a conversation with anyone outside this Chamber, if they are like me, they are worried about BDS and anti-Semitic campaigns against Israeli academics. Something has just happened at King’s College London in fact, where an event has been called off, and there is a University of Leeds chaplain in hiding —all these things are going on. Ironically, if anything, this Bill is too narrow to deal with what is really happening. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, made was that the way wording happens, there are ways around it that this Bill will not deal with. He and I might differ about how we would deal with that—I think we probably would. None the less, given what a public authority is, it is understandable why universities are in here—but, as people have said, which bit of the university?
For the Minister to say “Oh, no, it wouldn’t count, student unions”, would be utterly ludicrous. From the Government’s point of view, even if I go with you, why would it not be student unions? That would be mad. They are part of what the public authority of the university is about, along with research councils and everyone else. I am not trying to encourage the Government to wipe up every part of a university to bring them in scope, but to keep saying that they are not in scope makes no sense from the point of view of the public justification for this Bill by Michael Gove when he has argued for it, and anyone else who supports it. So we do need some clarity here.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, this debate has referred consistently to universities, but I do not want the point to get lost that there is an equivalent problem with local government pension schemes, where a succession of bodies take part in the decisions that are reached. Every fund has advisers, in particular advisers on ESG. The trustees are responsible for the decision, but they are under a legal obligation to give due regard to their advisers’ views. Now, because of the encouragement by the Government, the individual funds are not actually investing the money; the money is passed on to a pooled fund that equally has its advisers and its decision-makers. Somewhere in that thread of control, someone is a decision-maker, but I defy the Minister to tell us precisely, in the terms of this Bill, who it is.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have just a few points and questions, following the discussion we have just had. The first point is to seek clarity on whether my understanding of the last three lines of Clause 1(7) is correct. I understand those three lines simply to be saying that, where the decision-maker is a collegiate body, the duty to have regard applies to the individuals within that collegiate body who are taking the decision. That is how I read those three lines, but I may be missing something.
The second point arises from the comment that the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Marylebone, made about universities. I suppose it is a point that comes up both under these amendments but also under the next amendments and in particular Amendment 8. Paragraph 20 of the Explanatory Notes, which speaks to Clause 1, states:
“The ban in Clause 1 is not intended to prohibit a higher education institution from deciding to terminate a collaboration with a foreign university on the grounds of academic freedom”.
I read that as implying that, other than on those grounds, the ban would apply to a decision to terminate a collaboration with a foreign academic institution. I would like some clarity on this, because I was a bit surprised to see that my reading of the definition of “procurement decision” would not necessarily have included a collaboration with a foreign academic institution as a procurement decision. It certainly is not an investment decision, but is a collaboration with a foreign academic institution in scope of the ban potentially? That is what I would like to understand. If so, it raises the question that the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, raised, of whether the individual grant holder who has, for example, a research collaboration with a foreign institution, is within scope of Clause 1. That is not clear to me.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have had advice from a professor of law at Cambridge University that it is not within scope where the research funding is not public. It is then a private act, not a public act.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, very many points have been made about how the decision-maker is established. From the point of view of local government, in local councils there are very many ways of taking decisions that can be individual or corporate. The tiers of responsibility and the trails that decisions make throughout a large organisation would need to be explored if enforcement action was to be taken.
In addition, councillors, committees or even pension committees, as we heard earlier, are advised by experts and independent advisers, so it is not clear where the line of accountability is and who is responsible, who is to be identified for enforcement action. The public authority, as has been identified earlier, is the body that is talked about in relation to Clause 4, but it is not in the Bill and does not relate to any other part of decision-making. I add my plea for further clarification as to how the decision-maker is to be identified and how enforcement is to be pursued in light of that.
As far as pension funds are concerned, as a former member I know that expert advisers do take account of political situations in their evaluation of risk. Again, that may be intimidating for councillors or advisers and inhibit the quality of advice that is given.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 7, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, and Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, seek clarity on whether an individual is considered a decision-maker for the purposes of this Bill. It was helpful to hear the introduction from the noble Baroness and her wish for general elucidation. As she implied, it is an important part of the Bill’s provisions. I will try to confine my points mainly to decision-makers, which are the purpose of this group.
A public authority will generally delegate responsibility for decision-making on procurement and investment decisions to individuals within the public authority. The individuals who make the decision on behalf of the public authority will do so in accordance with the public authority’s internal policies and structures. To address the noble Baroness’s question on enforcement, even when an individual is making decisions or speaking on behalf of a public authority, the ban applies only to the public authority itself. There is no personal liability for the individual. Individuals will therefore not personally be responsible for any fines that may be imposed on public authorities for a breach of the ban in Clauses 1 or 4.
On the noble Baroness’s question on pensions—this is something I know about because I have served as a pension trustee, admittedly in the private sector—this is something we can come back to in more detail when we discuss Clause 12, but I will also look at the Local Government Association material that she referenced, which I am sure will be helpful and interesting.
My noble friend Lady Noakes made the point that there are some limited cases where individuals are the public authority in their own right. She asked for examples, so I suppose that examples would be UK Government Ministers, Ministers from devolved Administrations and police and crime commissioners. They could also be individuals such as mayors if they exercise public functions in their own right. Any individual who is a public authority in their own right is already subject to far-reaching and fundamental duties under the Human Rights Act 1998. They could be subject to court action if they restrict others’ human rights, and the duties in the Human Rights Act are much more wide-ranging than the prohibitions in this Bill. It would not be appropriate for these individuals to be pursuing policies that are not in line with the official foreign policy, which is, of course, set by the UK Government. To be clear, local authority councillors and university leaders are not public authorities in their own right.
Amendment 55 would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance to clarify in what circumstances an individual is a decision-maker before the Bill commences. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to publish guidance on this matter, as every public authority is structured differently and has different policies on how its internal decision-making process operates. As it happens, as the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, said, structures vary a lot, and that is the case.
To give the House an example, in the case of local authorities, they will have a scheme of delegations in place, with, for example, a commissioning board, which will indicate who takes procurement decisions. While the decision is made by the individuals on the board, they have been empowered to take those decisions via the scheme of delegations, and it is therefore the local authority that is the legal decision-maker in the context of the ban. This is made clear in Clause 2(1) of the Bill. Even when an individual is making decisions or speaking on behalf of a public authority, the ban applies only to the public authority itself and there is no personal liability for the individual. Therefore, individuals will not personally be responsible for any fines that may be imposed on public authorities for a breach of the ban. The concerns on this issue—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
What the Minister is saying is genuinely quite helpful, but I am just trying to apply this to my experience of the real world. If a councillor, say, were to make a statement or cause something to happen at a conference or something like that, the council would be held responsible as a public authority for the actions of that individual. The trouble with that, in a way, is that that would then influence the advice, guidance and training that is given to elected individuals, and then you would get the chilling effect that we are all so concerned about. Just to make sure, have I actually understood that correctly? Is that what the Minister was explaining to us?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think that sounds right but, if I may, I will clarify if I got that wrong. To some extent, it is important in Committee that we actually understand what is happening. That is what, in the spirit of the noble Baroness’s question, I am trying to do. Even if a decision were delegated to individuals in a public authority, such as a commissioning board in a local authority, I think it is clear that the fine would be imposed on the public authority, not the individual.
I should briefly address why universities need to be in the scope of the legislation in response to my noble friend Lord Johnson, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. We will come back to this on later amendments. It is an area of particular interest to a lot of noble Lords, not least because of the huge contributions people in this House make to the university sector.
However, the fact is that universities are a frequent target of the BDS movement, and some student unions —to come back to that point—have passed motions pressurising their universities to divest from Israeli companies. The Bill will ensure that universities cannot implement such policies in response to pressure from their student unions, as that would be divisive and could potentially contribute to rising anti-Semitism on university campuses, which is a concern.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The Minister raised it—can she give us one example of where a university has ever succumbed to such pressure from its student union?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We will come back to this amendment; as the noble Baroness knows, this is an area of investigation for me, and I am trying to make sure that we have all the answers that we need and can provide the sorts of examples that she and I are used to exchanging in trying to move forward legislation in a constructive way.
On student unions, I will add a point that perhaps I should have made earlier. Student unions are usually charities and can undertake political activity only if it can be shown to support their charitable purposes, in line with Charity Commission guidance. Any questions as to whether political activity was appropriate would be considered in line with the Charity Commission’s normal processes. However, I confirm what I said earlier, that the Bill is narrow, applying to public bodies and, obviously, to investment and procurement. I hope that that addresses the concerns of noble Lords.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
The Minister used the word “pressurised”. Did she do so advisedly—“pressurised” as opposed to “called on” or “suggested”? Is “pressurised” defined in the Bill?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think I used the word “pressure”. Certainly, I was reading “pressure”, but perhaps I blurred the wording and said “pressurised”. I could equally have used “influenced” or some other word. I was trying to explain what we were getting at on the education side of things.
I have a couple of examples of student union pressure, which I mentioned earlier. Warwick student union held an all-student vote in 2020 to pressure the University of Warwick to fully divest from all unethical industries and release all investments. That included divesting from companies in support of a boycott of Israel, and divesting from international companies that are complicit in violations of Palestinian rights. There was also the example of Sussex University, which I mentioned a little earlier.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The thing is, though, as we are teasing out, is it not right that the Bill would not stop Warwick University student union from passing a motion in that regard? It would stop the university from acting on it, but no university has ever acted on these things. That is why we are all scratching our heads a little about what we are going to get from the Bill. It was a manifesto commitment—we understand that—but it is not our fault if the Government cannot turn their manifesto commitment into a usable piece of legislation.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
On the Warwick University point, for clarification, the other important thing that happened there was that Warwick University academics refused to sit on a panel discussing the issue of Israel, and so on. That was led by academics. It would not be affected by the Bill. The Minister can say, “Oh, that’s okay, it won’t be affected by this Bill” but that has had a much more damaging impact on the debate around Israel in Warwick University than anything that a few people at the student union did and that the university authorities did not act upon. What the university did not do was support those Jewish students and the organisation that organised that debate, and it let the academics carry on. The question of what the Bill will and will not do, and who will be held responsible, is what we are trying to clarify in this Committee.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I did not come prepared with examples about universities—my memory is not that good. However, there have been very many occasions where violence used by anti-Israel students has forced the university to cancel speakers or to charge Israeli and Jewish societies for their own security when an Israeli or a pro-Israeli speaker comes. There are manifold examples of this, and I have dealt with it over the years. If noble Lords do not know about this, they really should.
The comments that have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, take us to the heart of the Bill and why the drafting is so difficult. What the Bill really means to do is clamp down on anti-Semitism in local authorities and universities, but it cannot say so in direct terms; therefore, it goes much more broadly than it needs to, because it is academically dancing around the subject. If I could rip it up and start again, I would have a couple of clauses saying that anti-Israel activity—anti-Zionist activity, if you want to call it that, or anti-Semitic activity—is prohibited in universities and public authorities, because there are no examples of universities and public authorities acting against Australia, to give a fanciful example. Is anyone banning Australian wine because of what happened to the Aborigines? Is anyone banning New Zealand lamb because of the way the Māoris were treated? Is anyone, anywhere, ceasing to use Chinese products? I need hardly go on.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I will add to this element of the debate, if I may, because I think it is relevant. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, mentioned at Second Reading that he was on the council of Southampton University. I too am an alumnus of Southampton University.
In March 2015, the university procured the services of a speaker to host a debate questioning the right of Israel to exist. I do not know whether that would be caught by the Bill. I would hope that it is, but I suspect that it is not. I wrote to the vice-chancellor at the time—I had been a very modest donor to the university—and asked, going to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, whether there had been any conference at Southampton University questioning the right to exist of any other country. He wrote back and said there had not. Eventually, the conference was cancelled—it received reprobation from the Communities Secretary at the time, now my noble friend Lord Pickles —only because the university claimed it could not go ahead on health and safety grounds. But that was a very thin excuse, and for a university to host a conference dedicated to questioning the right of the State of Israel to exist, and to procure the services of people to run it, is, I hope noble Lords would agree, what we should be addressing.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister was asking whether I was reassured. I appreciate that that was largely a rhetorical question, but I have to say I am not yet totally reassured. But I would be if she were able to furnish us with examples of higher education institutions succumbing to pressure from student unions to undertake BDS-style actions in relation to their investment and procurement decisions. That is really important for us as we make progress with the Bill.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank all noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for their interventions. I observe that, obviously, the Bill will make this boycotting activity by student unions almost pointless. But I say to the speakers that this is a group about decision-makers, and we are ranging widely into the debate about the exact involvement of universities, although that has been helpful in informing the next stage of this Committee.
Returning to decision-makers, perhaps I could just say in conclusion that I trust that this addresses some of the concerns of noble Lords and the noble Baroness. My officials will provide further clarification in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes, as requested by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I hope, in the light of the explanations I have given, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, that was probably a bit more helpful than I had anticipated, in that it fleshed out some of our really quite fundamental concerns. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, made a very powerful case for why action is needed to prevent some of the antagonism and fear, and those activities that have happened on campuses and elsewhere that we all want to prevent. But this Bill does not do it: it deals only with boycott and divestment decisions. It probably brings into scope people and decision-makers that the Government did not have in mind.
The idea that people who want to campaign on these issues will suddenly stop doing so as a consequence of the legislation is fanciful because, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said in his Second Reading speech, they will just change the target from public authorities to others. It will not deal with some of the unpleasantness and the atmosphere on campus. That will not be assisted in any way, and the way the Bill is drafted might actually make things worse. It will not deal with campaigns to prevent certain events or not to have certain speakers. Those things are completely outside the scope of the Bill. We are focusing on universities to make this point, but similar things could be said about local government.
I am very happy to withdraw my amendment, but I think we are going to end up with this discussion on most of the groups, because the Bill is so unsatisfactory and does not actually fulfil the aims that the Government say they wish to achieve. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(9) A decision under subsection (2) may include a decision by a university or research institution based in the United Kingdom to enter into a commercial partnership with another university or research institution in a foreign state.”
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
I again reference my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests. I should specify, as others have, that I am an unpaid adviser to His Majesty’s Government on anti-Semitism, and that previously in the other House I was, for 14 years, the chair of the all-party group on combating anti-Semitism.
In that time and over recent years, I visited virtually every university in the country, looking at and discussing anti-Semitism. I have a very detailed report that was published last year with a lot of recommendations on what should be done in higher education in this country on this issue. In introducing my amendment, I can let the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, and others know that there were no examples from that time of when a student union was capable of influencing a university in terms of BDS campaigns. I think I described it at Second Reading as the most unsuccessful political campaign in my lifetime, and that was partly why I used that language.
My amendment gets to the nub of the issue—what the problem that led to the Conservative Party’s manifesto commitment at the last election for a BDS Bill is actually about. The fundamental issue and problem that has been raised consistently is attempts at academic boycotts. In the last six months, there has without question been a growth in the pressure in universities and on academics not to carry out co-operation or research work that links directly into Israeli universities. That is a fact. How it manifests is not so much complex as complex to legislate on, because the most common way is peer group pressure. How does a university department determine what its research priorities should be? How does it determine which of the myriad universities around the world it should co-operate with?
Sometimes it is explicit; the arguments and the language are explicit. It seems to me that here there is potential scope for legislation, hence this amendment. Sometimes it is not. It is unspoken; it simply happened. Clearly, for us as legislators, that is very intangible. However, the purpose of this amendment would be to give not just a message but a specific legislative tool that would prohibit the explicit refusal to an individual academic of any status, including postgraduates, for example, specifically to work with a university that somebody did not like for political or whatever reasons.
These cases are about Israeli universities. It is widespread across Israeli universities in terms of people saying, “That should not happen”, “We don’t do that here” or “You should not do that. Your research should not include that”. That puts immense pressure on individuals. Imagine that you are a postgraduate student and you are told by your supervisor, “No, I don’t think you should be researching into what is happening in Israel in relation to the specific subject of your postgraduate studies”. That is exactly the pressure that has happened. Or, “We as a university are not going to have a relationship”. The excuse given might be, “We don’t have the budget for this particular university” —Haifa university, let us say—“but we do have a budget for another university somewhere else in the world”. That is precisely how it manifests.
Where it could be demonstrated that that is done for racist reasons, when the academic has a specific interest, a particular desire, a particular motivation to work with an Israeli university or with an Israeli academic, that becomes the problem that we should be dealing with. That is the real problem of anti-Semitism having a pernicious impact in our universities and in our university life. Thankfully, it is not widespread in terms of how it happens, but it is there, it is more common, there are many examples of it over the years and there are increasing examples now.
So having something in the Bill that addresses that specific problem is far more relevant than the theoretics of investment decisions elsewhere, where the evidence base does not say that is the nub of the problem. If the Government wish to manage expectations in the Jewish community, that is rather fundamental. The people who have said, “Yes, we welcome this Bill”, expect it to be about student unions and student union debates. There is no ambiguity in what people have said and what they have called for. It does not serve the interests of Government or Parliament to build up a false expectation of what a piece of legislation would do— indeed, it is dangerous to do so, in my view. So I put it to the Government and the Committee that this amendment would be helpful in putting some meat into the issue for this Bill to progress.
My second amendment, Amendment 9, is equally important but for a different reason. My stance on BDS protests and campaigns is that, frankly, if anyone here chooses to buy this or that product, it is perfectly valid. If one decides not to buy Jaffa oranges because one does not like Israel or the Israeli Government, that is a choice one is free to make and should be free to make. If someone chooses particularly to buy Jaffa oranges, that is a perfectly valid case. If, like me, one is partial to both Palestinian dates and Jaffa oranges, one can say that that is a healthy choice to make on both counts, and perhaps even a little bit politically balanced—I am doing so because the food is rather good. If one chooses, as I do, not to buy Ben & Jerry’s, perhaps one might observe that that is doing me some good. Whether one calls that a political or moral decision, or an absurd decision, it does not matter; that is my free choice.
However, if one then stops a shop—let us say, in a student union or university, or in a local authority—stocking Jaffa oranges, that means that people who wish to buy them cannot do so. It is particularly invidious, when a religion, and there are several, has specific dietary rules and laws—in the case of Judaism, it is kosher food—specifically to isolate the ability of individuals to choose to follow religious norms and rules on diet and ban their right to do so. That is much more invidious, because it is impacting one’s way of life. Therefore, the principle is far greater. Having additional legislation that specifically makes that illegal has a much more powerful impact, because it is affecting a way of life. With the so-called BDS campaign, we are seeing increasingly Jewish kosher foods, which may be Israeli or not, being specifically targeted by racists, whether in supermarkets or Jewish-owned stores, inhibiting the rights of those who choose to be kosher-adherent to be so. That fundamental freedom is being restricted. That is why Amendment 9 has a validity to it.
There are great legal brains here who will work through whether the amendments I am proposing would work; they appear to me to do so. Certainly, in terms of the expectation out there of what this Bill is about, people are interested in precisely this kind of thing, because these are the big issues impacting on how people live their lives and on their freedoms; that is, their academic freedoms to do what they wish as academics—which, I put it to the Committee, is fundamental to what we are as a country—and their freedoms to be themselves in what they choose to eat, which is fundamental to the concept of individual and collective rights, and what we are in this country. I recommend these two amendments to the Government and the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading, and I draw attention to my entry in the register. I am not entirely sure that what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said is entirely within the scope of the Bill, but it should be, because it raises a very important point. Before I go on, I crave your Lordships’ indulgence for 30 seconds, because I want to say how indebted this country is to the noble Lord for his work in universities and higher education, and also in sport. He has made a considerable difference, and this House should be grateful to him,
What the noble Lord said illustrates that this is not just about who is in charge, or about the comfort of people attending universities and speaking in student union debates; it is about who is welcome and who is not. It is about how comfortable people feel when politics from another country spills over and affects the domestic life of this country. It is about how we underpin, and celebrate, a multicultural society, while ensuring that we can also celebrate our common Britishness.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has done a lot of work on getting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism adopted in universities. It is a non-legally binding definition, and is there as a marker for discussions. As with all such things, there is a bit of a fashion, and people go around and adopt things. The question that the noble Lord asked, and that I ask, is: “Congratulations on adopting it, but what have you done with it?”
The very minimum we would expect, in a university, say, is the creation of a safe space for Jewish students to be able to study. But this also means creating a safe space to do the sorts of things that would keep their parents up at night worrying about them—to be able to enjoy being at university, to enjoy life and to be able to go around the campus with signs of their Jewishness, without fear that they will be picked on. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is making is that we should not seek to do things that exclude people. If people have a particular view of the kind of food they can eat, that should be available. Student shops on campuses should not remove kosher food, because that excludes people.
I speak from practical experience of this. In the late 1980s and early 1990s I was the leader of Bradford Council, and, with the co-operation of the Labour Party, we introduced halal meat into school meals. That does not sound all that exciting—we see it all the time—but we were the first council in the country to do it. There was an enormous backlash from the population, and from the animal rights people, because of the nature of religious-compliant slaughter.
Why was that important? We had a large number of Muslims in Bradford, many of them on very low incomes, and it was one guaranteed way of ensuring that once a day, the children got a hot, nutritious meal that met their needs. We were also saying something really important to the population of Bradford, which was, as we say in Bradford, “You’re ratepayers—so you’re entitled to get back what you’re putting in. You’re entitled to receive respect”. When we try to get people to work together as a wider community, we should not seek to exclude them because they cannot come to receptions or parties or other social events because we do not provide things that they can enjoy. We should also ensure that if people want to pray, that should be available, because this is about bringing people together.
I am not sure whether the Bill covers that, but there is a debate coming in this country that may be the flip side of the definition of extremism, which is about how we bind people together—how we work together and make people feel British without them losing their identity. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has given considerable service to this House by raising this because it is an issue that over the coming years and decades we have to get right.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 8. I declare an interest: I have two children, both scientists, working in universities. My son runs a microbiology laboratory at Edinburgh University that has a number of international research partnerships, including with Israeli academics. I am unaware, from everything my children have told me, that anyone is boycotting contact with Israel in microbiology. There are some highly regarded Israeli scholars who take part in a whole range of things.
There are course problems in some research partnerships with Chinese academics, sometimes now with Russian academics and sometimes with academics from particular Middle Eastern countries. One has to leave it to those who are running laboratories, which are highly international—I think my son currently has people from four different countries in his—because these matters require delicate arrangements. When it comes to the social sciences, particularly if you are teaching international relations and have a lot of research students, as I used to, and you are sending them out to study Saudi, Egyptian or above all Chinese issues, you are in really delicate areas.
I emphasise that any of those are private acts of a university—commercial partnerships most of all. When that gets into the question of how far we want the Government to interfere in the autonomy of universities, we do not always get it right. There have been research students and young scholars who have been imprisoned in the Emirates or imprisoned and killed in prison, as in Egypt. On one occasion I had to approach one of the intelligence agencies about some of our students at the LSE, immediately after 9/11, because some people had lost confidence in the people with whom they were dealing. That has to be left to the judgment of universities. I do not think there is a problem there, and I am therefore unhappy about the idea that Amendment 8 should be included within the scope of this Bill.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, while I am sympathetic to the intentions of Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, I wonder if it is ultimately going to be necessary, given that the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 gives the Office for Students powers to take action whenever an institution is in breach of the public interest principles it is required to uphold.
One of those principles relates specifically to academic freedom and the issues to which the noble Lord was referring with respect to Israel. All academic staff at an English higher education provider have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing the jobs or privileges they may have at that provider. I think that essentially covers the points he was making in respect of academics being prevented from pursuing partnerships or research with universities in Israel or with Israeli academics. We have these provisions in law and the Office for Students has all the powers at its disposal to enforce them. So I am not sure that Amendment 8 is entirely necessary, although I understand why he tabled it.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself with the words of my noble friend Lord Pickles about the work done over many years by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for the Government in an unpaid capacity. That work is well regarded and very much appreciated in the Jewish community and, I am sure, well beyond it too.
Turning to Amendment 9, while I understand its focus and purpose, I am not sure that it is necessary in the Bill. In particular, although this is not my area of law, I wonder whether the thrust of the amendment would not actually be covered by existing provisions under the Equality Act. I do not know whether the Minister or her department has thought of that, but, if this were to go forward, that might be another way of dealing with this issue.
On a narrower point, the amendment is also widely drawn. It would seem to cover, for example, a decision to use one halal supplier or one kosher supplier rather than a different halal or kosher supplier. I think that cannot be within the intention of the amendment, although I think it would be caught by it.
I am conscious of the time, but I will end on a slightly different point. The focus of this amendment is that food is sometimes used to drive a wedge between communities. This might be a strange thing for me to say, but I want to pay tribute to Zarah Sultana MP, with whom I probably agree on absolutely nothing but who, with Charlotte Nichols MP, ran a long-standing campaign in Parliament to have kosher and halal food available here. They found a supplier called 1070, which has both kosher and halal certification to provide that food. As a result, I have had conversations over food with people who I might not otherwise have had those conversations with and I found those discussions extremely helpful. I use this, probably very wrongly, to suggest to the authorities that this kosher and halal food be continued, so that we can not only eat together but discuss and speak together as well.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, because the noble Lord, Lord Mann, has done incredibly important work in tackling anti-Semitism and ensuring that we remove it from all of our civil life. I pay tribute to him.
I will not delay the House too long, but the important thing with these two amendments is expectations. This is the problem with the Bill. While I want to avoid going back, we have made a plea—my noble friend Lady Chapman made it at Second Reading—that we want to co-operate with the Government to implement their manifesto commitment. I am afraid that this Bill goes well beyond that and brings into question other issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, is absolutely right to put these sorts of amendments down, because they address the concerns of the community. People often think when we are talking about this Bill that we are talking about consumer boycotts and consumer choice. No, we are not. It is about decisions over investment and procurement, but those decisions can involve the sorts of things that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is talking about—and we heard an example from the noble Lord just now.
How we manage expectations is really important. I suspect that, when we go into other groups, we will hear lots of concerns about issues that go well beyond the scope of the Bill. So I hope the Minister understands why the noble Lord, Lord Mann, has put these amendments in. They are to probe, but also to say that there is a problem, there is an issue and the Bill does not solve it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for drawing the House’s attention to two important issues with his Amendments 8 and 9. Like my noble friend Lord Pickles, who it is a real pleasure to welcome to our debate, my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, I am really grateful for all the work that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, has done.
My noble friend Lord Pickles and I worked together in my retail days, when he was a leading influence in local government and I worked to have kosher and halal food in many of the Tescos that were spreading across the country. So there were lots of conversations over food. A focus on community concerns is what much of the probing has been about this evening—but that is for another group.
I remain of the view that we need to apply this Bill to universities as we are doing, and I am committed to having a comprehensive debate and discussion on the impact of the Bill on universities at the appropriate moment later in Committee.
As we have heard, the two amendments in this group would add two stipulations to Clause 1. Amendment 8 intends to ensure that the prohibition applies to a decision made by a university to enter into a commercial partnership with another university or research university in a foreign state. The prohibition in the Bill already covers higher education providers in their public functions, including when their procurement and investment decisions form part of a research collaboration. Decisions relating to a commercial partnership are, however, likely to constitute a private function—for example, a decision relating to a research partnership to develop a new product funded by a pharmaceutical company. The ban applies only to public authorities’ public functions, as we have heard, and private decisions are rightly out of scope of the Bill. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, says, but it would be inappropriate to apply the ban to private functions, and it would take the Bill beyond the manifesto commitment.
We have been clear in the Explanatory Notes that Clause 1 is not intended to prevent a higher education provider deciding to terminate a collaboration with a foreign university on the grounds of academic freedom, if they deem it necessary in line with their statutory duties in Part A1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 or other legislation. The Bill is about ensuring that universities and higher education institutions do not have a corporate view on a particular matter of foreign policy when making their investment and procurement decisions. It is right that the Bill does not stray into decisions that could threaten academic freedom, as helpfully highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, who spoke at Second Reading. I am sympathetic to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is making, and the Government do not support academic boycotts, but this Bill rightly does not interfere with academic freedom or private activity.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, about the Jewish community’s support for this Bill. The Jewish community in the UK is widely supportive of the Bill as drafted. Russell Langer, head of policy at the Jewish Leadership Council, provided the following statement in support of the Bill’s restriction on universities’ economic activities:
“Higher education institutions continue to come under pressure to adopt BDS policies ... This legislation will be a valuable tool in assisting our higher education in rejecting this effort”.
The Bill will sit alongside other measures that the Government are taking to protect academic freedom. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 will ensure that freedom of speech is protected and promoted within higher education in England, and it will strengthen existing freedom of speech duties and directly address gaps in the existing law. Without action to counter attempts to discourage or even silence unpopular views, intellectual life on campus for staff and students may be unfairly narrowed or diminished, which is why there was a commitment in the 2019 manifesto to strengthen this.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
The Minister has just said that we need legislation to silence unpopular views. I have to say that, as a liberal, I find that one of the most illiberal things that we could consider doing. Did she mis-speak?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am not sure that I said exactly that. However, there obviously is a problem in campuses and elsewhere with BDS, and that is what this Bill is about. I shall move on to Amendment 9.
Baroness Deech (CB)
If I can help the Minister, what we need to silence is hate speech. The law is reasonably clear. It is not wholly clear—there is a blur between unpopular views and hate speech—but it has been settled for a long time that hate speech is not allowed. My test for this is when you hear something and it uses the word “Zionist” or “Jew”, if you remove that word and replace it with, let us say, “black” or “Asian”, it is then usually pretty clear that what you are dealing with is hate speech or racist speech.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. These are difficult issues.
I turn briefly to Amendment 9, which would ensure that the prohibition in Clause 1 applied to decisions relating to the procurement of food prepared in line with religious practices, such as kosher and halal foods. The ban established by the Bill applies to all procurement decisions, including the procurement of food where this is part of a public function. Therefore, if a public authority made a decision not to procure kosher food and that decision was influenced by moral or political disapproval of the conduct of the State of Israel, the Bill would already prohibit this. However, I reassure noble Lords that nothing in the Bill would stop a public authority providing food that accommodated the religious beliefs of its employees or its service users. For example, it would not stop a public authority specifying in a tender that it was procuring halal products. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.