House of Commons
Prayers
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before we come to questions to the Secretary of State for Defence, may I just say this to Minister Heappey: you will be missed and I am sorry you are stepping down. On a personal level, I thank you for your private briefings to ensure that the House was kept informed. You will be missed and I thank you for that service.
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I recognise the substantial public and parliamentary interest in this matter. Consequently, I recently visited the National Archives at Kew to view the RFA Sir Galahad files. As a result, we are looking to release a further two files, subject to the Ministry of Defence’s legal advisers confirming that individuals’ rights under the Data Protection Act 2018 would not be contravened. In relation to the five files of witness statements, I want maximum transparency, subject to the Public Records Act 1958 and ensuring that personal data is protected. I shall provide a further update shortly.
Jessica Morden
On Saturday I attended the first remembrance and reunion event for the survivors and families of those who were lost in the attack on the Sir Galahad. I know that the Minister knows this—and I thank him for his earlier response—but it is deeply important that the remaining documents from the board of inquiry are released, so that we can get to the truth of what happened on 8 June 1982. He has told us what he might release, but, for those who have lived with this for 42 years, can he tell us when we will have those decisions?
Dr Murrison
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the tenacity with which she has pursued this. I have enjoyed our meeting to discuss the matter and also the meetings with the Welsh Guards. It is important that this is handled quickly. We are moving at pace to ensure that we can do so—with, of course, the caveats that I have just described.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I knew people who served in the Welsh Guards at the time—I was myself in the Scots Guards—and a number who did not come back. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on her question. My right hon. Friend says that he is moving at pace, but the key point is that it is now decades since this happened. There is now no question but that some kind of cover-up took place. When he comes to look at those documents again, can he please ensure that, on the balance of judgment, we err in favour of opening up so that, for those who have died and those whose reputations have been trashed, we can stand up and say proudly that it was not them?
Dr Murrison
The board of inquiry is quite clear about the attribution of blame, and the Welsh Guards were absolutely exonerated, and that is the Government’s position. My position is always for transparency, and certainly that has been at the forefront of my mind when I have been looking at these documents.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, was at the event that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) attended at the weekend. I was there on behalf of my constituent Colin Silva. Many of those who did not come back were from the brave Welsh Guards. I have also visited Fitzroy and seen the location for myself. I was able to assure the people of the Falkland Islands of the united support from this House for their defence and security. May I press the Minister on the timing? Are we talking in terms of weeks, months or years, because time is moving on and we need these answers quickly.
Dr Murrison
I will not be drawn on precise times, but it will not be years.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
My constituent Oliver Richardson, now the mayor of Deal, was just 21 when he survived the sinking of the Galahad. Forty years on, he says that there is no reason for this supposed secrecy and that many people neither were offered, nor wanted, confidentiality in relation to saying what they had seen. Our armed forces serve us all, and we must honour that service by giving them and the families of those lost and injured on the Galahad the answers they need. I urge the Minister to release all of the Falklands Galahad papers at pace.
Dr Murrison
The Government will do everything we can in the interests of transparency, but I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that we, like everybody else, are bound by the Data Protection Act.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
The UK is committed to a free and open Indo-Pacific, and we are putting our regional approach on a long-term strategic footing. I returned this weekend from Australia, where we have been talking to our colleagues there, working hard on the Indo-Pacific programme.
Henry Smith
Stability in the Indo-Pacific has been largely aided by the military base presence on Diego Garcia. What assessment has the Defence Secretary made of the military base and the island of Diego Garcia remaining under full British sovereignty, so that we can help to counter the many threats of the modern world, whether that be China, Iran or others?
Grant Shapps
As I think my hon. Friend knows, I share the goal of ensuring that the base on Diego Garcia remains permanently available for our use, and for the United States. It is strategically positioned, it is absolutely vital and there is read-across to our military facilities elsewhere. It remains safe in our hands.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
When assessing our ability to influence the stability of that region, or any other, has the Secretary of State conducted any kind of impact assessment of the reduction of our investment in international aid from 0.7% of GDP, or the fact that we have the smallest standing Army in the United Kingdom for 200 years?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I look after the Defence budget, rather than the overseas development budget, but I think he will welcome the fact that, because of the Indo-Pacific tilt, we have ships with a permanent presence there—HMS Spey and HMS Tamar—and the littoral response group south, which operates in the Indo-Pacific. We have already sent the carrier strike group previously; it is going to the region again next year. That is in addition to the global combat air programme sixth-generation programme, and of course AUKUS, for which I was in Australia at the weekend. I think we can all agree that we are doing a lot more than ever before in the Indo-Pacific.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
As you did, Mr Speaker, I pay tribute to the Armed Forces Minister at his last Defence questions. Since the last election, we have had five Chancellors, four Foreign Secretaries, three Prime Ministers and two Defence Secretaries, but only one Armed Forces Minister. He has been a rare constant in the turmoil of Government, totally committed to defence. We thank him for that and wish him well.
On the Indo-Pacific, we welcome last week’s updated defence agreement with Australia, further progress on AUKUS, and today’s 10-year plan for Barrow to support AUKUS. This is our most important strategic alliance beyond NATO, so why has the Defence Secretary given the leadership of key parts of AUKUS to the most junior Minister in his Department?
Grant Shapps
As I explained, I have just been in Australia talking about AUKUS. I have previously been to Japan, I think at least twice but possibly three times, on AUKUS, and to Italy—sorry, not to Italy, obviously, on AUKUS; that was on GCAP, but with an Indo-Pacific tilt. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the Armed Forces Minister, but I am interested to hear his comments on the Indo-Pacific. Back in 2021, when the integrated review suggested a tilt to the Indo-Pacific, he called it a serious flaw in the programme, and urged us not to defocus from elsewhere in the world.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
With other Government Departments, the Ministry of Defence delivers a range of services to our brilliant veterans and their families. That includes the administration and payment of armed forces pensions and compensation, the provision of tailored advice and assistance through the veterans welfare service, defence transition services and the integrated personal commissioning for veterans.
Liz Twist
A new report from Northumbria University found that suicide among serving personnel and veterans could be reduced if there was better understanding within existing care provision of the specific challenges that they face. The report also found that military families felt unheard, misunderstood and not cared for during the most difficult periods of their lives, so what steps is the Minister taking, alongside our NHS, to deliver compassionate trauma-informed support for serving personnel and veterans?
Dr Murrison
I am glad that the hon. Lady has raised that issue. She will know that we have a defence suicide prevention strategy, which is reviewed regularly. She will also know that, overall, suicide in the armed forces is below what we might expect in the civilian population. There is a sub-group within that—young men—where it looks as if the rate is going up. We are looking very closely at that to better understand the reasons for it and how we can prevent it.
Kate Hollern
My constituent joined the Army in 1987 and served in the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment until 1994. During a wrongful operation, he severed all the nerves in his feet. He is now 52 years old and suffers from several conditions that leave him in excruciating pain every day. He was on disability living allowance and then moved to personal independence payments, but 18 months ago he was told that he was no longer eligible. Is that really the way to treat our veterans?
Dr Murrison
I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent. If she would like to write to me with the details, I will be more than happy to take up that case. As I said in my opening remarks, we work with other Departments, and it sounds as if this is not principally the responsibility of the MOD, but I would be more than happy to hear from her about her constituent.
Chris Clarkson
About a year ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) undertook an important and groundbreaking piece of work on behalf of female veterans and women in the armed forces. Following that, I had the honour of helping her to set up the all-party parliamentary group on women in defence, which has given a platform to female veterans and service personnel, as well as those who work in defence and the charitable sector, to talk to Members from across the House at every level. We are very much looking forward to the female veterans strategy. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government remain committed not just to equal treatment for women in the armed forces, but to an equally positive experience for everyone who chooses to serve?
Dr Murrison
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I pay tribute to him and to our hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) for all their hard work to improve the position of women in our armed forces. Women are absolutely central to the way in which defence will be going in the years ahead, as encapsulated in our target to have our armed forces be 30% female by 2030—a challenging and ambitious target. I should mention our improvements to unform policies, mentoring, flexible service, wrapround childcare, and of course our zero tolerance for unacceptable sexual behaviour, as examples of things we have done recently to improve the lived experience of women in our armed forces.
Mrs Hamilton
At the last census, just over 17,000 veterans were living in Birmingham, 35% of whom were over the age of 80. Despite pledges to end veteran homelessness, Government figures show that it rose last year by 14%, and up to 180 veteran households across the UK are made newly homeless each month. Can the Minister tell me what he is doing to ensure that veterans in Birmingham and across the UK, who made enormous sacrifices for our safety and security, do not end up homeless?
Dr Murrison
It is plainly not right that anybody should be without a home, be they a veteran or not. We are doing everything in our power to ensure that people are set up well for civilian life as they transition out of the armed forces. The overwhelming majority of people who leave our armed forces are in precisely that position. By using measures such as the defence transition service for those who might have particular problems when they return to civilian life—as all members of the armed forces ultimately do—we are ensuring that we minimise the number of people who have served in our armed forces and are left without a home.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Is the Minister aware of the excellent work of the Battle Back Centre in Lilleshall in my constituency, a successful collaboration between the Royal British Legion and Sport England? Would he, or perhaps the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, consider visiting the centre soon, given that it has treated more than 6,000 serving and ex-service personnel for all sorts of injuries? The staff there are fabulous and superb, and they deserve a visit.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the invitation, which I will most gladly take up. I pay tribute to Battle Back, which does a wonderful job, and to him for his work supporting it.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Veteran Roy Sagar, a familiar face to us all in Morley, recently passed away in his mid-90s. He did so much for veterans and the Royal British Legion locally, and was our parade marshal. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Roy and all our unsung hero veterans for all they do, and in sending thoughts and prayers to Roy’s family?
Dr Murrison
Yes, I very much do so. Our veterans are a wonderful part of our communities and deserve all the support we can give them. I also pay tribute to the Royal British Legion, which is always there for our veterans when they need it—I speak as president of my local branch. The legion is a powerful institution—I know you have had a lot to do with it, Mr Speaker—and an important part of what and who we are, and I pay tribute to it, as well as to my hon. Friend’s late constituent.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I appreciate the Minister’s earlier answer, but when Royal British Legion Industries says that 6,000 veterans are homeless or in danger of becoming so, is there a need for more urgent intervention, or is the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs right to hail getting 500 off the streets as a triumph?
Dr Murrison
I think that getting 500 off the streets is good—it is certainly a start—but one person without a home is one too many, whether they are a civilian or a veteran. The important thing is that we look at factors that might be peculiar to defence that predispose people to homelessness, because we have a particular duty to those people in accordance with the military covenant. In general, as the hon. Gentleman and I both know, people leaving the armed forces are much better placed for the balance of their lives in civilian life than their equivalents in civil society, but that is not the case for everyone. Some people fall through the cracks, and we must ensure that they are scooped up and looked after.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
Mr Speaker, thank you very much indeed for your words at the beginning of questions. I also thank the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). You were both very kind indeed to say what you said.
The UK armed forces are meeting all of their commitments, but there is no mistaking that they are very busy, as one would expect at such a turbulent geopolitical time. People across the Army, Navy, Air Force and strategic command are working incredibly hard, and we are very grateful to them and their families for their forbearance while they do so. The Government are investing £1.95 billion extra in our resilience and readiness, but more than investment is needed, which is why all three services are getting back into the business of being ready for warfighting. The 3rd (United Kingdom) Division recently exercised its combat service support echelons for the first time in decades; the Royal Navy is operating concurrent task groups as well as forward presence, a test of our naval logistics; and the Royal Air Force is refining its abilities to disperse the force through its agile combat employment mechanism.
Ian Blackford
Of course, we commend the efforts of all those in our armed services, but the Defence Committee’s “Ready for War?” report substantiates that our armed forces are constantly overstretched and are being deployed above their capacity. When are the Government going to respond appropriately to the scale of the geopolitical challenges by driving up recruitment and retention and making sure that we can face the challenges that we see ahead of us—that we can take them full-on, and are ready for whatever comes our way?
James Heappey
There is no escaping the fact that the world is incredibly complicated at the moment. In the Euro-Atlantic, we face the challenge of Russia; in the middle east, the challenge of Iran and its proxies; in the Indo-Pacific, the growing competition with China; and then across Africa and other parts of the world there remains the challenge of violent extremism. At a time of such crisis, one would expect the armed forces to be as busy as they are. That does not mean that we should take for granted the effort that they are putting in, but if we were not reaching for them as extensively as we are right now, we would have to question when on earth we would reach for them, given the demands on our nation.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I pay tribute to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for Armed Forces—I am very sad to hear that he is going. He talks of warfighting. As he knows, I am on the Defence Committee. I would challenge the idea that we are ready to fight a sustained war with the armed forces that we have, and bearing in mind all the threats that we face, that possibility has become very real. Bearing in mind that his collective responsibility is about to go, will he now stand at the Dispatch Box and say that we need to spend a lot more money on defence?
James Heappey
That will go soon, but not yet. Colleagues on both sides of the House will note that whenever I have been invited to respond to such a question, like all good Defence Ministers, I have never missed the opportunity to say yes, but the reality is that our armed forces remain fit. Yes, it is the job of this House and particularly my hon. Friend’s Committee to scrutinise our readiness, as the Committee has done—and I commend the report to colleagues who have not already read it—but reinvestment is needed to sustain our armed forces at warfighting level. That is no scandal; that is the consequence of a peace dividend that rightly allowed successive Governments to disinvest in the resilience that kept our cold war force credible. However, as the Secretary of State so rightly said in his speech the other week, we are now in a “pre-war era”, so it is the responsibility of this Government and those who follow to reinvest in the necessary warfighting capability.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Minister rightly points to the ability to sustain fighting. He knows that an exercise conducted with the Americans showed that the British Army would run out of munitions within 10 days. Battles in Ukraine showed very early on that this would be an artillery war. Why—I have asked this question of several Ministers, so I hope that he has the answer—did it take from March or April 2022 to July 2023 to place the orders for new munitions? We cannot afford this sort of delay in the Ministry of Defence.
James Heappey
The contract has now been placed, and it increases our supply of .155s significantly. I take issue with the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes: I am not aware of the exercise he referred to, but in exercises that I have seen, in which the UK has operated alongside the US, again and again the American senior commanders have held the UK force elements in the highest regard.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
As I used to do my right hon. Friend’s job, may I join the tributes to the outgoing, outstanding Armed Forces Minister?
The “Ready for War?” report just referenced identified problems with recruitment as one issue that impedes our ability to fight. The Defence Secretary himself has called our recruitment system “ludicrous”, and he told The Times earlier this month that
“the ‘Amazon’ generation, which is used to getting things instantly, were not prepared to wait a year to join the army.”
He is absolutely right, so when will the utterly ludicrous “Crapita” finally be sacked?
James Heappey
I am unable to answer my right hon. Friend’s specific question, but he will be heartened to hear that as a consequence of all that is going on in the world, and the geopolitical uncertainty that requires us to use our armed forces so extensively, in recent months we have enjoyed record expressions of interest in joining His Majesty’s armed forces. Obviously, we need to make sure that the time between expressing an interest and starting training is as short as possible; all colleagues on the Front Bench perceive the need for that.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
The most recent estimate shows that the Ministry of Defence supports about 209,000 jobs in industries across the UK. I am pleased to say that this figure will be boosted further by the confirmation last week that BAE Systems will partner with a firm in Australia to build its nuclear-powered submarines. That will support 7,000 additional British jobs across the programme’s lifetime.
Selaine Saxby
Would my hon. Friend agree that MOD procurement from small British companies in rural areas such as North Devon can significantly increase defence-related jobs there, and enhance the local economy, especially when those jobs are in high-wage research and development and manufacturing industries? Will he commit to ensuring that the additional high-skilled jobs and economic benefits resulting from contracts are considered in future procurement decisions?
James Cartlidge
That is an excellent point from my hon. Friend, who is a champion of defence small and medium-sized enterprises in her constituency. As to procurement rules supporting SMEs such as those in North Devon, our new integrated procurement model will ensure that UK industrial capability and exportability considerations are included in procurement evaluation criteria for items such as the new medium helicopter. However, to ensure that we absolutely maximise opportunities for British industry, on Friday, I announced that we will undertake a rapid review of how Cabinet Office social value rules impact on the development of sovereign capability.
Mark Pawsey
The Minister will be aware of the successful export order for high-value naval electric propulsion technology manufactured by GE in my Rugby constituency. That order is going to Singapore, and it was achieved with the assistance of the MOD and the Department for Business and Trade. Does that not show that support for this world-leading British technology enables new business in a fast-developing part of the world, while providing significant, new, high-value jobs for my constituents?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend asks an excellent question. I welcome the valuable contribution of GE in his constituency in supplying high-tech motors, including for Royal Navy ships, such as Type 26 frigates and Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. It is precisely because the Ministry of Defence recognises the importance of GE’s Rugby facility that we were pleased to reach an agreement with the company in 2019 to ensure that those motors continued to be manufactured there. Finally, he is right about export. It is such a key part of our new integrated procurement model, because it boosts industrial resilience and prosperity in constituencies such as his, while strengthening international alliances, such as, in this case, with the people of Singapore and the Singapore navy.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will know that Huddersfield is a centre for defence industries; we have David Brown Gears and Reliance Precision, for example. I talk to them regularly. They say to me that one of the things that they miss is trained personnel. The Army, Navy and Air Force used to be the biggest trainer of personnel in the country. The diminished level of training in the armed services is reflected in the sector, which cannot get enough highly trained people to employ.
James Cartlidge
I am aware of those companies, which do an excellent job supporting the supply chain, particularly for our primes and for key programmes, especially naval programmes. I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s description of training. As he will be aware, defence is the biggest employer of apprentices in the country. We are doing everything we can to support that. The key is to have a close relationship with industry, and to bring it into our requirements early on, so that it can plan and deliver the supply signal, particularly for skills, to match our demand signal.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I would like to build on the incisive question asked by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). More than 125,000 applicants to the British Army were rejected in the past five years. It has emerged that 70% of applicants were dropped or withdrew at the paperwork stage. More than 8,000 withdrew their applications, having waited for at least six months. What consequences will Capita face for this record, and when might the Army bring soldier and officer recruitment back in house?
James Cartlidge
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to direct questions about recruitment to the Minister for Defence People and Families. As to the company the hon. Gentleman talks about, my focus is on industry and supporting jobs, which the original question was about. I think we have a fantastic record, boosted by not only the exports I referred to earlier, but the ones that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) was talking about.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Defence procurement can strengthen UK sovereignty, security and economic growth. We on the Opposition Benches believe that defence investment should be directed first to UK businesses, so that we make, buy and sell more in Britain. With that in mind, what steps is the Minister taking in his rapid review to ensure that social value considerations properly take into account the huge advantages to the UK economy of awarding more contracts to British businesses, so that we create more defence jobs here in the UK? That does not seem to happen at present.
James Cartlidge
I think there is considerable consensus, because I agree with the right hon. Lady about the importance of sovereign defence capability, and not just because of the economic benefits, although those are crucial. As we enter this era, which has been described as pre-war, it is vital that we have a UK sovereign industrial base. As the Ukrainians have learned, there are certain skills and capabilities that we will need in country, should we get to a hotter military situation, and that is why that is such a priority for us.
Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
I refer the hon. Gentleman to much that I said in response to the readiness question earlier, but the key point on this issue of enablement is that it is the unglamorous stuff that needs to be invested in first. There is no point buying more tanks until we have more tank transporters. The Government are seized of that, and are doing exactly that. This is an opportunity to place on record, in addition to my gratitude to the armed forces, which I have mentioned, that tens of thousands of hard-working MOD civil servants in the MOD main building and around the wider enterprise are hard at work on this problem right now, and I am grateful to them for their efforts.
Keir Mather
Like other colleagues, I thank the Minister for his years of service. Since 2010, the size of our armed forces has decreased by over 43,000 personnel; the number of Royal Navy warships has decreased by a fifth; more than 200 aircraft have been removed from service in just the last five years; and recruitment targets are being missed year on year. Which of those legacies of 14 years of Conservative Government is the Minister most proud of? What actions could he undertake to do better?
James Heappey
The thing that I am most proud of, beyond the exceptional operational output of His Majesty’s armed forces every time they are called on, is that the Government have increased the defence budget to more than £50 billion a year for the first time. The hon. Gentleman, whose interest in defence is very welcome indeed, should be enormously concerned about the shadow Chancellor’s repeated refusal to commit to anything more than the 2% NATO floor for defence spending. If his concern for defence is to last, he should immediately be concerned about the fact that unless his party changes policy urgently, it will equal a £7 billion cut in defence spending on day one of a Labour Government.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The question of whether our armed forces are fit for purpose should centre on whether they can carry out the defence tasks set by the MOD, and I believe that they can. If I may carry on in the same vein as the previous response, does the Minister agree that Labour’s failure to commit to spending more than 2% of GDP on defence presents a much bigger risk to UK security, objectively, than any matter of debate among Members on this side of the House?
James Heappey
Absolutely. We should urgently achieve 2.5% of GDP; the fiscal situation is improving, and the Conservative party has made that commitment. As the Secretary of State rightly said in an interview the other day, both main parties should strongly consider a further increase in defence spending in the next Parliament.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
As the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), told the House last January, the Government have “hollowed out and underfunded” the UK military over the last 14 years. That is in large part due to their total failure on armed forces recruitment, and damning new figures show that over the last decade, 800,000 people who were willing to serve and defend their country simply gave up and withdrew their application. The current Defence Secretary says that the recruitment system is “ludicrous”, and the organisation running it got called the wrong name by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), but where is the plan to fix this? It is not working.
James Heappey
The right hon. Lady is conflating two separate issues. The former Secretary of State for Defence and I, and everybody else who has served on the Government Front Bench since we have returned to the prospect of state-on-state war, have referred to a hollowing out of the force. That is a consequence of decisions made not just by this Government, but by Governments since the fall of the Berlin wall, because the force that we maintained for the cold war and all its enablement was not necessary when we were fighting counter-insurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is what is meant by hollowing out. The sooner the right hon. Lady starts to deal with that issue, rather than conflating it with others to make political points, the sooner she will start to contribute to an important debate.
As far as recruitment goes, record interest has been shown in joining our nation’s armed forces, and there is no hiding from the fact that we need to rapidly accelerate the time between expressing an interest and being in training.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
The UK continually assesses potential threats to our overseas territories, including the sovereign base areas on the island of Cyprus. British Forces Cyprus provides a permanent military presence, and we are investing in the SBAs to combat current and future threats, in order to ensure local, regional and global security.
Chris Stephens
I thank the Minister for his response. The Secretary of State has said:
“We want to do everything possible to ensure the security of Cyprus”.
Does the Minister agree that it would be appropriate to keep the Cypriot Government informed of all UK military operations conducted from their island? Should not that be an official obligation, for the security of Cyprus?
James Heappey
The SBAs are sovereign bases, so of course we reserve the right to operate from them as needed, based on the UK national interest. The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to hear that the Secretary of State, his predecessors, other Ministers in the MOD and I have very good relations with the Cypriots, and we seek to tell them as much as we can about operations that we mount from SBAs there.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I would like to add to the warm words said about my right hon. Friend. He has been particularly supportive of the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces, and the armed forces parliamentary scheme, both of which I chair. Does he agree that the sovereign base areas in Cyprus have a particularly important role to play in our activities in the Red sea?
James Heappey
Cyprus is in an incredibly important strategic location, which means that it is of great use to our operations in the southern Red sea, as well as in the eastern Mediterranean, the western Balkans, central Asia and beyond. It is a vital mountain base for so much that the UK armed forces do. We are incredibly fortunate to have that facility.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
There is a desperate need for increased humanitarian support to Gaza. The UK, including the Ministry of Defence, is working collectively with allies, partners and international organisations to deliver desperately needed aid to the Gazan population.
David Simmonds
My constituents are rightly proud of the work that our armed forces are doing to facilitate the delivery of aid, to prevent a colossal humanitarian catastrophe. What further steps can be taken to ensure that British aid finds its way to civilians in need, rather than into the hands of Hamas fighters?
Grant Shapps
That is one of the greatest challenges in the current situation. We are working with the British Red Cross, UNICEF, the UN World Food Programme, the Egyptian Red Crescent and others to ensure that aid gets to the right places. That is extremely challenging, and has slowed down aid delivery.
Will Quince
The Israeli Government have said that they want to “flood” Gaza with aid. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we will work with our partners globally to get more aid into the hands of civilians in Gaza, and will assist the Israelis to deliver on that pledge as soon as possible?
Grant Shapps
I inform my hon. Friend that we have already delivered 74 tonnes of humanitarian aid via the RAF, and 87 tonnes through the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. In addition, we are pursuing land, air and maritime routes.
Judith Cummins
With half of Gaza already starving and the rest teetering on the edge of famine, and the UN Security Council voting for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, access to humanitarian aid is crucial. This month, the Foreign Secretary stated that the UK would support the building of a temporary pier in Gaza to allow hundreds of extra daily truckloads of aid into the strip. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps he is taking, along with the Foreign Secretary, to ensure that the pier is constructed as quickly as possible?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that I have sent teams both to Tampa to work with US Central Command and to the region to help with planning and constructing that pier. In addition, right at the beginning of the conflict, I ensured that we did hydrographic research, to aid in exactly this kind of situation, when the conditions were right to get a pier built. This is not a trivial endeavour, but we are working to deliver the pier as quickly as possible; there is the potential to get 2.5 million meals a day to Gaza.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The UK Government’s ability to deliver humanitarian aid depends on the UK’s relationship with its middle eastern partners. What impact does the Secretary of State think that recent events and UK Government foreign policy decisions have had on that crucial relationship with those middle eastern partners?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and I have been very proactive in speaking to and making multiple visits to the region. I have visited the majority of countries in the middle east and Gulf region to discuss exactly the points that she has raised. There is now a large-scale programme of using a pier to get food in, in addition to the many other efforts made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) pointed out, the issue is not just getting the aid there, but then distributing it; that is a great concern.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
When will the Government make a further public determination on Israel’s commitment to international humanitarian law, given the man-made famine unfolding in northern Gaza, which is compounded by Israeli moves to obstruct access to aid? If the UK finds, as the UN Secretary-General, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International did, that the Israeli Government and the Israel Defence Forces have violated international law, what steps will the UK Government take to prohibit further arms sales to Israel, pending a resolution of the situation? Given that the Security Council has just called for a ceasefire, what steps will the Government take through the defence sector to accelerate all available aid for civilians in Gaza?
Grant Shapps
It is a pity to ask all those questions without referencing the 100-plus hostages who are still being held by Hamas, who brutally slaughtered the population deliberately rather than as a by-product of war. The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions. I can tell him that on arms exports to Israel, an issue for which I am responsible, it is, to put it in proportion—I think, from the top of my head—just £48 million for the past year. The numbers are actually very small indeed. He will know that his latter question is one for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
The Department uses a range of measures to assess the effectiveness of defence acquisition. We have reduced the average time taken to deliver our projects and programmes, but we must go further to drive pace, so last month I announced our new integrated procurement model.
Nick Smith
The National Audit Office has previously highlighted MOD pilot training procurement failures, so is the RAF now meeting its pilot training quotas? Is the Minister satisfied with progress in that key area?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman asks a very important question. Of course, training is fundamental to bringing in the next generation to man our capability. I recently had the pleasure of visiting RAF Valley, where I discussed the issue with the RAF. It was able to confirm to me that, for the first time in a long time, there were more students taking up their places rather than in holds. That is a key metric in which we are seeing significant progress, but yes we want to go further.
Stephanie Peacock
Last March, the Government said that they would have their Ajax scheme ready between October 2028 and September 2029. Given that only 25% of armoured vehicles have been produced, are the Government on target to meet that deadline?
Mr Mahmood
Notwithstanding the waste of £5 billion in procurement since 2019, will the Minister join the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) in a campaign to make in Britain, ensuring our industry and economy move together to support not just our defence, but our economy? How will he achieve that given that Tata Steel—to which we have paid £500 million —is cutting down its blast furnace capacity? How will we be able to proceed with the AUKUS contract and other contracts without virgin steel?
James Cartlidge
On the important question of steel, we do not expect the closure of Port Talbot to have a significant impact on defence, but obviously we will continue to monitor that situation. I would just gently point out that in 2022-23, the last year for which we have figures available, 89% of spend by the MOD with industry was with British industry. It will be an awful lot harder to make that level of spend if Labour is unable to commit to matching our spending commitments. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned, perhaps he will join other colleagues on the Labour Benches in insisting that the shadow Secretary of State confirms whether he will match 2.3% of GDP now and our target of 2.5% as soon as the economy supports it.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
May I take this opportunity to also place on record my thanks to the Minister for Armed Forces, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) for all the work he has done? It was a joy to work with him when I was in the Department.
I thank the Minister for Defence Procurement for his procurement review. It is an excellent document, moving forward in a pragmatic way. As part of that review, will he reassess where potential gaps might occur between old platforms being retired and new platforms being delayed? Does he agree that housing procurement—accommodation for our armed forces—is as much an operational capability as a tank?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He made a similar point in the debate on readiness last week about the importance of accommodation. I think we can all agree that there is a tendency in defence to focus on the big shiny platforms. Accommodation is a key priority; we are very committed to improving accommodation. We know that in the winter before this one performance was not satisfactory. That is why we put in extra investment of £400 million and announced a winter plan. I am pleased to say that we have made huge progress, for example in ensuring that thousands of properties have work achieved on damp and mould.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I am delighted that the MOD has confirmed the procurement of additional Chinooks, given that RAF Odiham, in my constituency, is the home of the Chinook force. However, it is also home to the fleet’s frontline maintenance, second line engine repair, and in-depth upgrade and modification. Given that 85% of the Chinook fleet sustainment takes place in the UK today, can I have my hon. Friend’s assurance that RAF Odiham will remain the home of the Chinook, and that there will be a similar, if not higher, level of maintenance of the new variants here and across Britain?
James Cartlidge
I greatly enjoyed my visit to Odiham, where my hon. Friend and I discussed a wide variety of issues. He is right to draw attention to our commitment to the procurement of 14 extended-range Chinooks—they have a huge range, of 1,000 miles—but there is also the industrial benefit to the UK and, of course, to my hon. Friend’s constituency. I can confirm that not only has that procurement made us a £300 million saving, but it will contribute £150 million-worth of benefit to the UK’s prosperity.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend update the House on progress made with UK-Ukraine defence manufacturing co-operation, especially with regard to removing the hurdles? Is there anything more that the Government should be doing?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend has championed this matter consistently. I am pleased to say that we held the first UK trade mission in December, and that there will be further such missions. I can confirm most importantly that, following that mission, UK defence companies and the Ukrainian Government have signed the following agreements. Babcock has been being awarded a three-year contract by the Ukraine ministry of defence to support and maintain two mine countermeasure vessels; BAE Systems and AMS Integrated Solutions have signed an agreement that will enable them to offer specialised artillery systems support directly to the Ukrainian armed forces; and Thales has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Ukrainian drone company AeroDrone, which will bring together the best of Ukrainian and Northern Irish engineering to deliver new capability to Ukraine’s forces.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Procurement of the new medium-lift helicopter has been characteristically suboptimal under the present Government, but this particular Defence Procurement Minister has managed, with his inverse Midas touch, to ensure that costs have grown from about £1 billion to £1.3 billion, delivery forecasts have slipped six delayed years to 2031, and the number of assets to be received has fallen from 44 to 35. Given that the forecast will inevitably slip to the right, service personnel will be under-resourced and the budget will almost certainly grow, what possible confidence can anyone have in this Defence Procurement Minister?
James Cartlidge
I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman, whose party has been unable even to procure a ferry. [Hon. Members: “It says here!”] I know the subject, and I can confirm to him, because I am very proud of this, that at my insistence our competition for the new medium helicopter will involve a far greater emphasis both on supporting UK industry and on supporting exports. It is by supporting exports that we secure industrial resilience and support for prosperity across the United Kingdom. Of course it is a competition, but we have three very good entrants.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
Like others in the House, I pay tribute to the Minister for Armed Forces, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey)—soldier, MP, and Minister during almost the entire Parliament. His knowledge of this subject is matched only by his great passion for it, and we are all very grateful for his service.
Last week I was in Australia, signing an historic defence treaty to enhance our Indo-Pacific security, and meanwhile our trilateral AUKUS partnership with the United States is accelerating. As the House will know, ASC and BAE Systems have a multibillion-pound contract for the SSN-AUKUS. Earlier today the Prime Minister and I launched our very first nuclear defence Command Paper, which will set out the true benefit of this great enterprise, making it a wholly national effort.
Nigel Mills
I welcome the publication of the Command Paper, and in particular the important role played by Rolls-Royce in Derby, but does my right hon. Friend agree that for this to be a truly national enterprise, there must be a truly national supply chain and access to jobs for people throughout the country?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right about the extent of the supply chain. In addition to the very large investment in Rolls-Royce, to which the Australians contributed £2.4 billion last week, and all the work in Barrow that is described in the Command Paper, there are benefits for virtually every constituency in the country.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
We condemn the deadly terrorist attack in Moscow on Friday, and our thoughts are with all those affected, but the attack must not become a Kremlin cover for Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. In recent days, we have seen multiple Russian strikes on Ukrainian cities, yet the last UK air defence support was announced last year. When is the next one?
Grant Shapps
I join the right hon. Gentleman in sending our condolences following the horrific terror attack. He is absolutely right to say that we are aware of no connection whatsoever with Ukraine; indeed, ISIS has claimed responsibility. We must resist Putin’s efforts to try to link the two.
With regard to air defence, there have been much more recent attempts to aid our Ukrainian friends, including through the International Fund for Ukraine, which has laid 27 contracts. We have a £900 million fund, run by the UK on behalf of a large number of other countries.
John Healey
Of course, anything more recent was from the International Fund for Ukraine, not the UK, which is why we strongly welcomed the £2.5 billion of UK military support for 2024. However, for nearly three months since that announcement, Ministers have said that the first deliveries to Ukraine will not happen until Q1 of the new financial year. Wars do not follow financial years, so when will the UK move beyond this stop-start military aid and help Ukraine with the spring/summer offensive?
Grant Shapps
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have a constant flow of foreign materiel that we are buying and sending into Ukraine. I recently announced £325 million for British-Ukrainian drones, and we have increased the overall amount of money going to Ukraine from the previous two years’ £2.3 billion to £2.5 billion. I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman—this has been raised by a couple of my colleagues today—that he needs to explain how the Opposition would manage an increased budget for Ukraine, when their plan is to cut £7 billion from the overall defence budget.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and, as ever, pay tribute to him for the work he has done in this area. It is the case that when people move around the country, they are disadvantaged. We recognise that, which is why integrated care boards are now running a pilot scheme on how we can get around people losing their places on waiting lists when they travel around the country. Obviously, the issue involves other Government Departments too. Nevertheless, we have a responsibility, which we discharge in a number of ways. For example, HeadFIT is being adapted and adopted at the moment to ensure that our veterans and service families are able to access much of its content.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
We do not comment on operational matters of that sort.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
James Heappey
I am not entirely sure that I do agree. I will leave the Foreign Office to talk about the diplomatic angles that it is pursuing, but in my experience, Qatar has been an incredibly helpful partner across a whole load of things over the past few years. We enjoy the opportunity to strengthen that partnership, both through the sale of UK-built defence capabilities and through increasingly operating together in areas of mutual concern. It is a relationship on which the UK can build further, and has great potential.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady be pleased to know that I was on HMS Albion the other week and that she has not been mothballed. The other ship will be the first to sail—I do not know the timing, as that will depend on operational requirements—but they are both continuing in operation.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Like many colleagues across the House, I attended the all-party parliamentary group for UK-Israel and Friends of Israel event. We were joined by two released hostages and a delegation consisting of young siblings, sons, daughters, grandchildren and cousins of those being held hostage in Gaza. It is now five months since the hostages were taken, so will the Secretary of State ensure that those victims remain right at the front of his mind in all decisions that are taken on the middle east?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend can absolutely have that assurance. It is shocking to see what is happening in the region, but it is too often forgotten—including in this House today by some Opposition Members—that this all began with the taking of those hostages. We will never forget.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he knows very well, consecutive Governments have made it plain that we do not make changes to pensions retrospectively. As for pensions for the armed forces overall, Mr Speaker, you will know, as I do as a beneficiary, that they are equitable, fair and generous.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The 2016 better defence estate plans earmarked Fort Blockhouse in Gosport for disposal, yet eight years later after numerous delays, the site is still rotting at the taxpayer’s expense. It is doing nothing for the local economy, the local community or the MOD. Will the Minister please update me on when can we will finally see some progress on that site?
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
I enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency, where we looked at a range of infrastructure and accommodation. I appreciate that she wants to see progress, but I stress that while we are engaging as closely as possible with Gosport Council on this and want to make progress, it is a complex site with significant defence events assets still in place relating to the Defence Infrastructure Organisation and the Royal Navy. I am committed to looking at what more we can do and to engaging further with her.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Grant Shapps
We are working to try to bring supplies to all the citizens of Gaza. I did not run through the list of provisions, but it does include provisions for those in medical need, particularly women who may be pregnant. As I mentioned, we are working on plans with the Americans in particular, but also with the Jordanians, to provide vastly greater amounts of aid into Gaza.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The terrible terrorist attack in Moscow reminds us that jihadi extremism has not disappeared. Given its ideology, its reach and its strength, does the Secretary of State agree that ISIS-K is just as much of a threat to the west as it is to Russia?
James Heappey
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a perception that Daesh has gone away. The Daesh core is cooped up in prisons in northern Syria, but Daesh affiliates are growing alarmingly quickly in other parts of the world. The attack in Moscow is a reminder to us all that we must continue to focus on the counter-terror threat as well as on the state threat.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
James Heappey
It is disappointing to finish on a down note, but as the hon. Gentleman knows from a written answer that I gave him last week, it has taken longer than I wanted to establish an independent group of new casework assessors, and that 12 week period has therefore not yet begun. I was told by officials, when I reluctantly signed off the answer to him last week, that that process was nigh-on complete and that the 12-week period should therefore start imminently. He will not be surprised to learn that, pre-empting his question, I have encouraged them by suggesting that eight weeks would sound an awful lot better than 12, given the delay in getting started.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Defence questions on 8 January, I asked the Defence Procurement Minister a very straightforward question about HMS Argyll—the type of question to which I would expect him to have an answer at his fingertips. Instead he said, as quickly and as curtly as he could, that he would write to me with an answer. It is almost three months later, and I regret to inform you and the House that I have received no such information from the Defence Procurement Minister, and neither have I received an acknowledgment that he intends to write to me.
May I ask your advice, Mr Speaker? When right hon. and hon. Members have a slippery Minister on the hook and that Minister chooses to wriggle off it by promising to write, what recourse do we have when the Minister does not write?
Mr Speaker
First, I think we ought to choose our language when we want a response. I have a lot sympathy and, although the point of order does not relate to this Question Time, I will give you the benefit of the doubt because this is an important matter. As you are a senior Member of the SNP and have been its spokesperson, I expect you to get timely replies. I do not expect replies to take so long. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard, and I would expect a response to be sent rather quickly following this point of order.
Cyber-security and UK Democracy
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister (Oliver Dowden)
With permission, I will make a statement about malicious cyber-activity targeting the United Kingdom by actors that we assess are affiliated to the Chinese state. I want to update the House on our assessment of this activity and to reassure it on the steps that the Government have taken to shore up our resilience and hold those actors to account.
I know that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will recognise the seriousness of this issue, particularly in a year when so many democratic elections will be taking place around the world. Members will want to be reassured that the Government are taking steps to address the associated threat.
I can confirm today that Chinese state-affiliated actors were responsible for two malicious cyber-campaigns targeting both our democratic institutions and parliamentarians by, first, compromising the United Kingdom’s Electoral Commission between 2021 and 2022, as was announced last summer, and secondly, by attempting reconnaissance activity against UK parliamentary accounts in a separate campaign in 2021.
Later today, a number of our international partners, including the United States, will issue similar statements to expose this activity and to hold China to account for the ongoing patterns of hostile activity targeting our collective democracies. Mr Speaker, you and parliamentary security have already been briefed on this activity. We want now to be as open as possible with the House and with the British public, because part of our defence is in calling out this behaviour.
This is the latest in a clear pattern of hostile activity originating in China, including the targeting of democratic institutions and parliamentarians in the United Kingdom and beyond. We have seen this in China’s continued disregard for universal human rights and international commitments in Xinjiang, in China’s erasure of dissenting voices and stifling of the opposition under the new national security law in Hong Kong, and in the disturbing reports of Chinese intimidation and aggressive behaviour in the South China sea. That is why this Government have investigated and called out so-called Chinese overseas police service stations and instructed the Chinese embassy to close them.
However, China’s cumulative attempts to interfere with the UK’s democracy have not succeeded. Last summer, the Electoral Commission stated that it had been a victim of a complex cyber-attack between 2021 and 2022. That was the work of Chinese state-affiliated actors who gained access to the Electoral Commission’s email and file-sharing systems, which contain copies of the electoral register. As the Electoral Commission stated in 2023, when that attack was first made public, the compromise has “not affected” the security of elections. It will not impact how people register, vote or otherwise participate in democratic processes. I want to reassure people that the compromise of that information, although obviously concerning, typically does not create a risk to those affected. I want to further reassure the House that the commission has worked with security specialists to investigate the incident and remove the threat from its systems, and has since taken further steps to increase the resilience of its systems.
In addition, the National Cyber Security Centre assesses that it is almost certain that the Chinese state-affiliated cyber-actor known as APT31 attempted to conduct reconnaissance activity against UK parliamentary accounts during a separate campaign in 2021. Hon. Members may recall that APT31 was one of several cyber-actors attributed to the Chinese Ministry of State Security by the UK and its allies in July 2021. That email campaign by APT31 was blocked by Parliament’s cyber-security measures; in this case, it was entirely unsuccessful. However, any targeting of Members of this House by foreign state actors is completely unacceptable.
Taken together, the UK judges that those actions demonstrate a clear and persistent pattern of behaviour that signals hostile intent from China. That is why the UK has today sanctioned two individuals and one entity associated with the Chinese state-affiliated APT31 group for involvement in malicious cyber-activity targeting officials, Government entities and parliamentarians around the world. We are today acting to warn of the breadth of targeting emanating from Chinese state-affiliated actors such as APT31, to sanction those actors who attempt to threaten our democratic institutions, and to deter both China and all those who seek to do the same.
Last week, at the summit for democracy in Seoul, I said that we would call out malicious attempts to undermine our democracy wherever we find them. This is an important tool in our armoury and today we are doing just that. The UK does not accept that China’s relationship with the UK is set on a predetermined course, but that depends on the choices China makes. That is why the Foreign Office will be summoning the Chinese ambassador to account for China’s conduct in these incidents. The UK’s policy towards China is anchored in our core national interests. We will engage with the Chinese Government where it is consistent with those interests, but we will not hesitate to take swift and robust actions wherever the Chinese Government threaten the UK’s interests—we have done so today and previously. This Government will continue to hold China and other state actors accountable for their actions.
We will also take serious action to prevent this behaviour from affecting our security. The steps we have taken in recent years have made the UK a harder operating environment for foreign state actors seeking to target our values and our institutions. Through the National Security Act 2023, we now have, for the first time, a specific offence of foreign interference. That new offence will allow law enforcement to disrupt state-linked efforts to undermine our institutions, rights or political system.
Our National Security and Investment Act 2021 has overhauled our scrutiny of investment into the United Kingdom by giving the Government powers to block, unwind or put conditions on investments that could create national security risks. We have significantly reduced China’s involvement in the UK’s civil nuclear sector, taking ownership of the CGN stake in the Sizewell C nuclear power project and ensuring Chinese state-owned nuclear energy corporations will have no further role in the project.
We have put in place measures to prevent hostile infiltration of our universities, including protecting campuses from interference through the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. The Procurement Act 2023 includes national security devolvement provisions that allow us to act where we see malicious influence in our public procurement. I have taken steps to reduce the Government’s exposure to Chinese operators, banning Hikvision and TikTok from Government buildings and devices. Through the national cyber-security strategy, we are investing £2.6 billion to increase the cyber-resilience of our critical national infrastructure by 2025, making the most important parts of our digital environment a harder target for state and non-state actors.
The Government are continuing to build the tools, expertise and knowledge to respond to the systemic challenge that China poses to the United Kingdom’s security and its values. The integrated review refresh in 2023 took steps toward this, doubling funding for a Government-wide programme, including investment in Mandarin language training and deepening diplomatic expertise.
We must be clear that this is not a problem for the Government to solve alone. That is why we created the National Protective Security Authority within MI5 to help businesses and institutions play their part in protecting our security and prosperity. The NPSA will help organisations in the UK’s most sensitive fields, including critical national infrastructure operators and world-leading science and tech sectors, to protect themselves against state threats. I set up the economic security public-private forum to ensure businesses and business leaders in crucial sectors understand the threat to the UK and what they can do to defeat it.
In Parliament, the National Cyber Security Centre has launched an opt-in service for Members of both Houses. This allows the NCSC to alert high-risk individuals if they identify evidence of malicious activity on their personal devices or account, and swiftly advise them on steps to take to protect their information. Today, the NCSC has published new guidance for political organisations, including political parties and think-tanks, which will help these organisations take effective action to protect their systems and their data. The NCSC is also working with all political parties to increase the uptake of their active cyber-defence services in the lead up to a general election. A key component of increasing our resilience is supporting the NCSC and parliamentary authorities by taking up that cyber-security offer. I urge all Members of this House to do so. I will be writing to colleagues later today, setting out again the steps that they can take.
At the summit for democracy, I was struck by the powerful strength of our collective voices when we work together to defend our democratic freedoms. The summit provided the United Kingdom Government with a platform to build international agreements on a new global Government compact on countering deceptive use of AI by foreign states in elections. It is important and welcome that our partners across the Five Eyes, as well as those in Europe and the Indo-Pacific, are standing in solidarity with our efforts to call out malicious cyber-activity. I pay tribute to the dedicated public servants, whose painstaking work has continued to expose the reality of the threat we face.
Our political processes and institutions have not been harmed by these attacks. The Government will continue to call out and condemn this kind of activity in the strongest terms. We will continue to work with our allies to ensure that Chinese state-affiliated actors suffer the consequences of their behaviour. We will take preventive action to ensure these attempts do not succeed. The cyber-threat posed by China-affiliated actors is real and serious, but it is more than equalled by our determination and resolve to resist it. That is how we defend ourselves and our precious democracy, and I commend this statement to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. This was an important statement, which is why it has run on quite a lot longer than the normal 10 minutes. I am sure everybody will agree that if the two Front-Bench speakers need a little extra time, we will be flexible in exactly the same way. I call the shadow Secretary of State, Pat McFadden.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement, and for advance sight of it. It is a statement about which there has been significant briefing in the press over the past couple of days. On questions of national security, Labour will support the Government in efforts to counter attempts by China, or any other state, to interfere with or undermine the democratic process, or attempts to stop elected representatives going about their business, voicing their opinions, or casting their votes without fear or favour. With that in mind, I pay tribute to the efforts made every day by the intelligence and security services to protect the public, and to protect our democracy and way of life. The economic relationship between the United Kingdom and China can never mean compromising on national security or our democratic integrity.
The Deputy Prime Minister’s statement touches on a number of issues, and I have some questions about them. Will he say more about the Government’s assessment of Chinese motives? Does he believe, for example, that Beijing wants to disrupt our democratic process, or instead to gather data about our citizens for some other reason? On the specific issue of the Electoral Commission and the electoral register, why does he think that the Chinese Government hacked what is a publicly available database? Does he believe they were after the details of those who may not be on a public register for good reasons, for example because they might be employed in security-sensitive areas? Does he believe they were after details and the personal data of political donors, or was there some other motive?
The Deputy Prime Minister referred to the democratic electoral process, and with an election coming it is vital that people have confidence in their ability to register and to vote. Will he confirm that our electronic register to vote system is sufficiently well protected? He said that the attacks on parliamentary accounts were unsuccessful. Does he believe that China now wants to engage in the kind of hack and leak activity that we have in recent years associated with Russia, in order to compromise either individual politicians or the wider democratic process? On sanctions, only last week the Minister of State was reluctant to respond to the claim that the Foreign Office “indefinitely paused” targeted sanctions against Chinese officials late last year. Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain what has changed in the past week?
We are grateful for the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, and the report it issued on China last year, which covered much of the same ground that the Deputy Prime Minister covered in his statement. When discussing individual politicians, paragraph 98 of that report stated:
“Targets are not necessarily limited to serving politicians either. They can include former political figures, if they are sufficiently high profile. For example, it is possible that David Cameron’s role as Vice President of a £1bn China–UK investment fund…was in some part engineered by the Chinese state to lend credibility to Chinese investment,”.
What have the Government done to look into that allegation from the Intelligence and Security Committee? How can Ministers ensure that those leaving politics are not targeted in that way?
In that spirit, Mr Speaker, I have read reports that the Conservative Back-Bench 1922 committee is to be briefed on these matters later today. Given the importance of national and democratic security to all the parties in this House, is the Deputy Prime Minister intending to arrange a briefing for the Leader of the Opposition, the Intelligence and Security Committee and, indeed, the other political parties represented in the House?
Experts in this field have warned of China’s voracious appetite for data, and its potential uses as computing power improves—for example, as quantum computing develops. The UK’s record on data security is patchy, to put it mildly. What are the Government doing to protect complex and valuable datasets from being stolen now, possibly in order to be manipulated later by more powerful computers that are controlled by authoritarian adversaries?
Finally, Mr Speaker, on the broader issue, does the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister chose to make this statement today signal a fundamental reassessment of the overall threat? He referred to the United States and our allies. On 12 February, the US Administration warned Congress that the cyber-threat from China was changing. Previously, a threat that largely involved spying and influencing now looked like it was getting ready to disrupt critical American infrastructure—aviation, energy, healthcare and other sectors. Is it now the UK Government’s view that we should change our assessment of the threat in a similar way? If so, this is of the utmost importance, and we would need to know what corresponding improvements the Government would make to the preparedness of our critical infrastructure, because if the threat really has changed then so too should our response.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. I shall seek to address as many of them as I can.
When it comes to Chinese motivations, ultimately, it is a matter for the Chinese to be able justify their motivations, but the points that the right hon. Gentleman made were apposite. First, the Chinese look at successful democratic countries, such as the United Kingdom, Japan or the Republic of Korea where I was last week, and they want to seek to undermine them. It is no surprise therefore that they should seek to interfere in electoral processes, in the way that we have seen conduct from Russia that aligns with that. Indeed, the successful democratic elections around the world right now stand in contrast to the sham elections that we saw in Russia last weekend.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the public record of the Electoral Commission, I think that that is the essence of what has happened here. These attacks and these attempts were ultimately pretty unsuccessful. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman and Members of this House that there was no infiltration of the closed register of the Electoral Commission, so the concerns that he raised have not arisen. On the further strengthening of the electoral register, that is precisely the work that the National Cyber Security Centre does in co-ordination with GCHQ, working with Government agencies, including the Electoral Commission.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to raise the risk of hack and leak. It is certainly something that we saw in previous elections, and I remain concerned. I also remain very concerned about artificial intelligence, deep fakes in particular, being used to disrupt elections, hence the work that I undertook at the conference last week and the progress that we are making with the accord on artificial intelligence use by malign states.
In relation to targeted sanctions, it is not the case that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office paused targeted sanctions. On the conduct of the former Foreign Secretary—[Interruption.] I am not sacking the Foreign Secretary from the Dispatch Box. On the conduct of the current Foreign Secretary, who sits in the other place, all appointments to Government are subject to the usual propriety and ethic processes. Lord Cameron is addressing the 1922 Committee in his capacity as Foreign Secretary in the usual way, addressing a wide range of issues. It is not a specific briefing on this issue, but if leaders of the principal Opposition parties wish to have a further briefing on this issue I am of course very happy to facilitate that, in the way that they know I have done in relation to other national security issues.
We are highly alert to the risks of hostile states hoovering up currently quantum-encrypted information that could subsequently be decoded with advances in quantum computing. We do extensive work with the National Cyber Security Centre and the Ministerial Cyber Board on critical national infrastructure to ensure that we guard ourselves against exactly that risk. On our relationship with China more broadly, Members of this House should take this moment very seriously. It is a grave moment, against a backdrop of an escalating threat from China, and we will take proportionate action in response to that escalating threat.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Tomorrow, it will be three years since parliamentarians here were sanctioned; your defence of us, Mr Speaker, has been remarkable. Although I welcome the two sanctions from the Government, it is a little bit like an elephant giving birth to a mouse. The reality is that in those three years the Chinese have trashed the Sino-British agreement and been committing murder, slave labour and genocide in Xinjiang. We have had broken churches, and, in Hong Kong, false court cases against Jimmy Lai. My question is: why two? America has sanctioned more than 40 people in Hong Kong; we have sanctioned none, and only three lowly officials in Xinjiang. Surely the integrated review should be changed. China is not an epoch-defining challenge, strange as that may be, but it is surely a threat. Can the Government now correct that, so that we all know where we are with China?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend’s views are well known to me, I genuinely welcome the constructive, at most times, debate that I have with him, but nobody should be in any doubt about the gravity of this matter. These are not the actions of a friendly state, and they require our serious attention. As he has described, this is an escalating situation. The measures that we have announced today are the first step, but the Government will respond proportionately at all times to the facts in front of us. No one should be in any doubt about the Government’s determination to face down and deal with threats to our national security, from wherever they come.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement, and for advanced sight of it. In the statement, he said:
“I have taken steps to reduce the Government’s exposure to Chinese operators, banning Hikvision and TikTok from Government buildings and devices”,
but the reality is that the Hikvision ban extends only to sensitive sites, despite the fact that we have pushed him to ensure that it extends to all public buildings. Surely the majority of things that happen in government involve some sort of confidential information. Will he confirm whether he is extending the ban beyond sensitive sites to all Government sites, as we have been calling for for a number of years? The attacks on the Electoral Commission and parliamentarian accounts happened nearly three years ago. Will we be sitting here in 2027 hearing about an attack that is happening right now? The EU is currently delivering €240 million for cyber-security to improve its collective resilience. Will the Government deliver an equivalent fund for these islands? Finally, without more action, can he give us real assurances that this year’s general election will take place without international interference?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady is aware, we currently ban Hikvision, and indeed any other Chinese technology relating to CCTV. We continue to keep that under review. I do not rule out a further progression in the policy, but that is not the case right now.
On the time taken, it is essential that, before Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and make assertions attributing such activity to a hostile state, we are absolutely sure of the basis on which we do so. That requires extensive work by our intelligence agencies, it requires fine judgments to be made, and it requires work to be done with our allies around the world—there will be comments from the United States shortly after my statement. I would rather we did this in the proper way.
We have invested £2.6 billion on cyber-security during this spending review. I can never be totally confident in relation to cyber-security—no Government Minister anywhere in the world can be; it is an environment in which the risks are escalating all the time and are turbocharged by artificial intelligence—but I can assure the hon. Lady and other Members that we are constantly increasing our activity and vigilance in the face of it.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I am rather underwhelmed by this statement. In the three years since seven parliamentarians were sanctioned, we have been subject to intimidation, impersonation and hacking, as have the families of exiles from China with whom we have associated. Today, the Deputy Prime Minister has described hostile actors’ malign acts towards the integrity of our electoral system and parliamentary democracy—foreign interference—and sanctioned two individuals and one company employing 50 people with a turnover of £208,000. Does he think that that is proportionate, and can he confirm that the Government will put the whole of the Chinese Communist Government in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend may be aware that we are currently in the process of collective Government agreement in relation to the enhanced tier of the foreign interference registration scheme. Clearly, the conduct that I have described today will have a very strong bearing on the decision that we make in respect of it.
In relation to the sanctions, it is worth noting that this is the first time that the Government have imposed sanctions in respect of cyber-activity. I believe that they are proportionate and targeted, but they also sit in the context of actions that we have been taking with our international allies. They are a first step, and we remain totally open to taking further steps as the situation evolves. The path we are going on with this is clear.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
My first reaction is: “Is that it?” The spin was clearly not matched by this statement. The Deputy Prime Minister says that there is an issue around nuclear and higher education. That is because the Government encouraged China to invest in nuclear, and cut the budgets of our universities so they are reliant on Chinese students. The Deputy Prime Minister also ducked the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) about Lord Cameron. Will Lord Cameron publish all the money and interactions that he had with Chinese entities when he was out of government? The Deputy Prime Minister says that he is committed to the security services. Why, then, in the Budget on 6 March, was the security budget cut by £600 million next year? That is not a sign of a Government who are taking this issue seriously.
The Deputy Prime Minister
The Foreign Secretary has provided a full declaration of all his interests—
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will take lectures from Labour Members on action in relation to security threats with a pinch of salt. It was this Government who introduced the National Security and Investment Act 2021; it was this Government who passed the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023; it was this Government who passed the National Security Act 2023—none of which we saw from the Labour party during its years in office.
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
We have seen reports of espionage on UK campuses, aggression on UK soil, massive cyber-attacks and hostile corporate takeovers. It is abundantly clear that China is a hostile state and poses an unprecedented threat to our national security. As Home Secretary, I oversaw the enactment of the National Security Act, which built the foreign influence registration scheme designed specifically to deal with such threats so that our authorities have the right powers to tackle them. Is there not a compelling case for China to be listed on that register, and if not now, when?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend for the work that she did—she and I worked closely together on many of those things. There is a strong case, and my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the process that we go through to determine that. It has to be agreed through a collective Government agreement.
On the point about hostile states, though, I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend; it is not the case that any Five Eyes nation has designated China explicitly as a hostile state. The language I have used in relation to China reflects the complex situation of that state, but I want colleagues to be in no doubt about the direction that Government policy is taking, how gravely we take this issue, and the overall escalation of our stance on it.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I, too, am quite surprised at the difference between what was briefed and some of the information that the Deputy Prime Minister has given us today, and the sum of the action taken. He said that the Government had taken rapid and robust action when talking about things that happened three and four years ago, and the sanctioning of two individuals and a minor company does not seem to meet the definition of robust. How does he think that taking the tiny steps he has announced today will deter the Chinese from carrying on in the way they have been doing, as the Deputy Prime Minister has outlined and is very clear from the China report that the Intelligence and Security Committee was finally allowed to publish late?
The Deputy Prime Minister
First, in relation to briefings, I can categorically assure you, Mr Speaker, and Members of this House that there has been no briefing whatsoever from me or my Department in respect of this matter. As ever, I would say, “Don’t believe everything that you read in the newspapers.”
As for the overall direction of Government policy, it is clearly set. This is not just about offensive action, but the extensive defensive action we have taken to continuously increase the security of our Government systems. I make no apology for the time we have taken to properly call out China in this respect. I want to make sure that when I stand at the Dispatch Box, I am able to do so on a solid basis, painstakingly put together by our allies and our security agencies.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
The front page of The Telegraph today reports Whitehall sources saying that China, Russia and Iran are even fuelling disinformation about the Princess of Wales to destabilise the nation. Hostile states with leaders who fake their own elections and are hated by their own people are spreading wild conspiracy theories about the royal family, among many other things—our royal family who are hugely popular and much loved. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that British people will ignore that grotesque disinformation despite the pathetic attempts of those autocratic regimes?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for raising the issue, and extend my best wishes to members of the royal family at this very difficult time. The appalling speculation that we have seen over the past few weeks comes as a reminder to us all that it is important for us to ensure that we deal with valid and trusted information, and are appropriately sceptical about many online sources.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
As one of the parliamentarians targeted, can I thank the security officials for the work they did to repel this attack? I am glad it was not successful.
However, I have to say that the Deputy Prime Minister has turned up at a gunfight with a wooden spoon. The attack that he stood up and announced at the Dispatch Box happened three years ago, but he comes to the House and calls this “swift”. He comes to the House and says he has taken robust action but, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned, the entity he has sanctioned has fewer than 50 employees and has a turnover of £200,000 a year. He has not sanctioned a single Chinese state official. He has not even told the House whether the Chinese ambassador has been summoned, after what he has come to the Dispatch Box to tell us today. [Interruption.] Forgive me, he says he has been summoned—my apologies.
Can I press the Deputy Prime Minister on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? What possible good excuse could there be for not having China in that, and if we do not take more robust action and see a proper sea change in Government thinking, rather than this tinkering around the edges, will this not happen more and more and get worse and worse?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think everything about the hon. Gentleman’s question suggests that he did not actually listen to the statement I made. I said that there had been a démarche, and that is exactly what is happening. I have already set out the position in relation to the foreign influence registration system.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister knows that cyber-attacks on UK institutions come from a wide range of actors—states and criminals—as we saw in the recent big attack on the British Library, and it is important that our laws are up to date to protect against this. In 2022 the Government announced that they would update the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018 to
“protect essential and digital services against increasingly sophisticated and frequent cyber attacks both now and in the future.”
In 2022 that was to be done as soon as parliamentary time allowed. Why has it not been done, and when will it be done?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The work is pretty much complete, and as soon as parliamentary time allows we will be bringing forward those measures.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am sorry, but I find the Deputy Prime Minister today utterly unconvincing. The idea that “swift” means taking three years to publish something that has already been published by a Committee of this House is utterly preposterous. It means that if there were an attempt this year, we would hear about it long after the general election and possibly after another general election after that. The truth is that, if he actually thinks this is the sum total of all the Chinese state’s attempts to disrupt the British democratic system, he is wilfully blind and is therefore dangerous.
There are two things that the Government could do immediately to enhance confidence in this area: first, bring forward the motion to allow the Foreign Secretary to answer questions in this House from Members of the House of Commons; and secondly, publish the full unexpurgated Russia report.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am sorry that the hon. Member is not happy with the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is sitting to my right, and who I think does an excellent job of answering questions in this House. On the time that this has taken, there is a difference between acknowledging, as the Electoral Commission did, the fact that an attack has taken place, and the process of attribution, which takes a longer period of time for the reasons I have set out repeatedly from this Dispatch Box.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I am proud to have the British Library at Boston Spa in my constituency, and I will be meeting it in a week’s time to talk about the cyber-attack. That is just one aspect of what has happened recently, but we are talking about the protection of democracy as well, and the timeframes on which we are moving on some issues does concern me. One of the big concerns will be deepfake news profiles—with people alleged to have said things, and videos of people allegedly doing things—at the next election. I urge my right hon. Friend to work now to try to establish procedures so that everybody across this House will be able to call out efficiently the fake news that may be used to try to influence the election. As he has said, people should be careful what they believe, but what can people believe in unless there are robust systems to call out what is absolutely fake?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. We are working with tech companies on, for example, the watermarking of images to ensure that people have a sense of whether they are real. However, this cannot just be action from the UK Government; we have to work internationally, which is why at the global summit for democracy we launched the global Government compact on countering the deceptive use of AI by foreign states in elections. That is the United Kingdom leading across nations around the world to ensure that we can act in co-ordination to address this issue. Moreover, everyone in this rapidly evolving technological world needs to be mindful of the fact that information cannot be trusted in the way it used to be just a few years ago.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Deputy Prime Minister talked in his statement about
“the powerful strength of our collective voices”.
We can contrast the sanctions that have been announced this afternoon with those that followed the Novichok poisoning in 2018. On that occasion, 130 Russian diplomats were expelled from more than 25 countries, and the EU ambassador to Moscow was withdrawn. What steps are the Government taking to co-ordinate a robust response to this alleged attack on democracy by working with our democratic allies?
The Deputy Prime Minister
That is exactly what we are doing. I raised the issue with opposite numbers in Japan and Korea when I was there, and I have raised it with the United States, with whom we have been co-ordinating exceptionally closely. The US will be making a statement on its actions shortly, if not currently. We have proceeded in this way precisely to ensure that we act not alone but with like-minded states. Interestingly, that is in relation not just to the Five Eyes but to European partners and international partners, particularly in the Asia-Pacific. This issue requires that kind of co-ordinated action, at a time when our democratic institutions not just here, but around the world, are under increased threat. It is important that democratic nations work together in concert, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
May I join the Deputy Prime Minister in paying tribute to all those who do so much in the UK intelligence community? Will he join me in reassuring those on the shadow Front Bench that Lord Cameron in the other place oversees GCHQ and the Secret Intelligence Service, and he is probably in a good place to know what is going on? Reference has been made to the China report published in July 2023—I was one of the co-authors, with one or two others in this Chamber. Page 198 of that report referred to the UK security services facing “a formidable challenge”. I welcome the fact that the Government have played catch-up—that was another criticism—and have caught up to a certain extent. I particularly welcome the £2.6 billion over the past three years going to cyber-protection for our critical national infrastructure.
Mr Speaker
We were going to finish because, in fairness to the Deputy Prime Minister, he indicated that he wanted to finish early because of other things happening around the world. If he is happy to continue, then so I am.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am sure that I will regret saying that, Mr Speaker.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to our intelligence agencies. I see their work at first hand, day in, day out. We are one of a very small number of countries that have intelligence agencies of this standard. It enables us all to be more secure.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the tone of vigilance, which is in stark contrast to the nonchalance shown by the Johnson Government over earlier Russian interference in our elections and the Brexit referendum. Why should we believe the Government’s honest intentions when they still have not implemented all the recommendations of the Russia report?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the conduct of the Government and, for example, the further sanctions we imposed on Russia just a few months ago. We have not hesitated in taking robust action in relation to Russia, just as we will continue to do with any threats from China.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Bearing in mind all that my right hon. Friend has said, he may be concerned to hear what we have heard in the Defence Committee. English Ministry of Defence companies are having a nightmare in employing those with specialist AI skills from university, because they are all Chinese. Is he aware of that, and what will he do to counter this potential threat to our security?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Clearly, anyone employed by a relevant defence company or in the UK Government will be subject to advanced vetting, which would likely preclude a number of the individuals my hon. Friend described. The main thing that we have got to do is increase our skills in this country, which is why we are investing in science, technology, engineering and maths. We are very fortunate in having three or four of the top 10 universities in the world in the United Kingdom—wherever I go in the world, people look at that with envy—which is a base from which both our intelligence agencies and industry can draw.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
These cyber-attacks occurred in 2021 and 2022, so we really must ask how it has taken the Government so long to make this statement. We should reflect on the Deputy Prime Minister saying that these actors
“gained access to the Electoral Commission’s email and file-sharing systems, which contain copies of the electoral register.”
This is an election year, and it should put fear into the hearts of all of us that the Chinese have access to the UK’s electoral register, at a time like this when we are already worried about bad actors, about cyber-attacks taking place and about the use of AI.
The Deputy Prime Minister talked about taking robust action—good grief: two individuals are being sanctioned. Reference has been made to what happened over Novichok, when we swiftly took action to expel diplomats from this country and around the world. I hope that when the Chinese ambassador meets the Deputy Prime Minister, he will be told that diplomats will be expelled. Will the Deputy Prime Minister come back to the House tomorrow and tell us about the robust action that he should be taking?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
You are confusing shouting with robustness.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will answer the question slightly less aggressively than how it was put; I will make my point in my own way. First, as the Electoral Commission said in its statement, the data contained in electoral registers is limited, and much of it is already in the public domain. The Electoral Commission had already declared the fact of the attack. What is different today is that, contrary to some speculation at the time, we are announcing that it was in relation to Chinese-related actors. That is what has changed. On our overall approach, I have set out a direction. These are grave threats, which we take seriously. We are taking proportionate action now, and we will continue to take steps as required.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
A successful deterrent requires the capability and the will to retaliate. Have we got either?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Yes, we do, on both fronts. My right hon. Friend will be well aware of our National Cyber Force, but I do not comment on the conduct of that from the Dispatch Box.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
In January 2023, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton—prior to his appointment as Foreign Secretary, of course—went to Sri Lanka to drum up investment for Port City Colombo, which is a belt and road project launched by President Xi, which many believe will become a military base for the Chinese navy. Following Lord Cameron’s appointment as Foreign Secretary, many freedom of information requests have been submitted to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to try to shed some light on his visit to Sri Lanka, including who he met and what sort of conversations took place, but to date not a single one of those FOI requests has been complied with by the FCDO. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that that is a matter of the highest public interest and that sunlight is the best form of disinfectant, and therefore the FCDO should comply with those FOI requests as a matter of urgency?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office always deals with FOI requests in the proper way. I have to say that trying to link Chinese cyber-attacks to our current Foreign Secretary is pretty desperate stuff. It just does not wash.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is absolutely right that we call out these malicious actions, because otherwise they will become normalised. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that when it comes to our security, and indeed our economic interests, there is an important parity between the digital space and our physical terrain, and that that should be reflected in defence spending? Does he also agree that Beijing is watching today’s events and will no doubt retaliate? Should we brace ourselves for further individual sanctions against British personnel?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the need for investment. That is precisely why, in the last spending review period, we put £2.6 billion into our wider cyber-defences. I am confident that we will be able to deal with any retaliatory action by Beijing effectively.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
We should be worried about Chinese influence in various areas of Government. Graham Barrow, the Companies House expert, has been warning for quite some time about dubious company incorporations that have originated in China. He believes that they are being created using an algorithm, and there is evidence that companies are being incorporated using stolen UK credentials, from UK addresses, streets at a time. What conversations has the Deputy Prime Minister had with Companies House, and would he be willing to meet Graham Barrow to hear his conclusions?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I, or another Minister, will be happy to meet him. That is precisely why we set up the National Cyber Security Centre, which uses GCHQ expertise to inform our approach to cyber, and engages with businesses and individuals. That approach is renowned and admired around the world, because we can give high-quality advice through the National Cyber Security Centre. Week after week, I receive delegations from around the world who want to see what we have done with the National Cyber Security Centre.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The £2.6 billion in additional money to counter cyber threats is very welcome. This field is constantly evolving, and those who wish us harm are innovating further. I accept that my right hon. Friend will not comment on the exact detail, but will he at least assure the House that the £2.6 billion outguns what those who wish us harm spend on new threats?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The amount of spending compares extremely favourably with that spent in similar G7 countries around the world. I am confident that we have world-leading expertise, and we are constantly evolving our capabilities in this space.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement and his answers. I had occasion just five weeks ago to see Mr Speaker about an incident. The Deputy Prime Minister may be aware—if not, he will be shortly—that the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which I chair, had its website hacked, and the text that questioned human rights violations by China was removed. I reported it to Mr Speaker and made him aware of what took place. It is clear that nothing whatsoever is sacred to the Chinese. The work of the elected Members of this House is not treated with respect. Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to stop handling the Chinese oversteps—for want of a better description—with kid gloves, and instead handle them with authority, and help China to understand that it will not trample over democracy in this place, or elsewhere, without being held accountable in the very strictest terms?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We will certainly hold China to account in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. I will happily make sure that the parliamentary authorities and the National Cyber Security Centre are in touch with him about the attack that he described.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
We know that legacy IT systems are most likely to be cyber-attacked. Has the Deputy Prime Minister ordered an inventory of all Government IT equipment, to see where particular vulnerabilities lie?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Yes. My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. The first step is to properly understand where those vulnerabilities lie. We have undertaken extensive work to ensure that we know where risks lie, and we are putting in place measures to remediate those risks.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
This is too little, too late. It is reactive, not proactive. Two lowly officials get sanctioned when half the UK population’s data and electoral roll get cyber-attacked. I do not feel that the issue is being taken seriously enough. Let me remind the House how serious this is: in October last year, MI5 warned of the “epic scale” of Chinese espionage, and reported that more than 20,000 people in the UK had been covertly approached online by Chinese spies. Our Commons Intelligence and Security Committee said that China was “prolifically and aggressively” targeting the UK, and had managed successfully to penetrate every sector of the UK’s economy. My question is simple: how can any of us here, or outside in society, trust this UK Government, when they are far too late, and do very little of what needs to be done?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I simply do not accept that characterisation, given that it was this Government who set up the NCSC, this Government who set up the ministerial cyber board, and this Government who invested £2.6 billion in our cyber-defences. I have consistently warned, time and again, about the cyber-threats facing the United Kingdom, and we are taking steps to address them.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Every time the Deputy Prime Minister comes to the House, he lays out his plans eloquently, and is more assertive; he says, “We are doing this new thing, and that new thing, to react to the threat.” Do we not still need much greater coherence across all Government Departments in how we deal with the threat, whether the issue is students, the protection of Hong Kong citizens, intellectual property or cyber-attacks?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I pay tribute to the work that he has done in this space, and I have discussed the issue with him on many occasions. He is right that the UK Government, in common with the US Government and others around the world, have evolved enormously in their approach to China. The sort of China we had hoped for even a decade ago is not the China we have now, whether we are talking about Hong Kong, Xinjiang or elsewhere. We continue to increase our efforts on the matters that he describes. That is precisely why we set up the defending democracy taskforce, led by the Minister for Security.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Deputy Prime Minister is right to address these issues and, as he said, call them out, but just calling them out does not really cut the mustard. There is certainly no appearance of urgency. There is a worrying sense of “nothing to see here” in some of his responses. He referenced human rights. We know well the issues there, including the horrific forced labour and worse faced by the Uyghur population. The action he is outlining on all those fronts is very underwhelming, and actually a bit baffling. Does he think that the large number of Members across the House who are obviously very much underwhelmed by his statement are all wrong, or is it possible that his statement somehow misses the mark?
The Deputy Prime Minister
First of all, it is important to remember that ultimately—I want to reassure the House and the public—these attempts were unsuccessful. I am not being complacent; I am setting out the facts. As for the risk, at CYBERUK in Belfast last year, I warned that cyber-threats continue to come from the usual suspects—Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. In the Government security conference, I called out Russian state interference, and we created Secure by Design. We have not hesitated to take action, and we will continue to do so.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Democracy is not perfect, but the right to choose who makes the laws that govern us is really precious, and it is really scary to hear that a foreign power might be trying to intervene in that. Mr Deputy Speaker, as one of the few women who has spoken during this statement, I want to remind you again how concerned I am about the threats and harassment that women get when standing for Parliament, especially as we get closer to an election. As well as cyber-security, I am very concerned about physical security. Two and a half years ago, my Essex neighbour was murdered at his constituency surgery. Last Friday, at my constituency surgery, the security operatives recommended by this Parliament failed to show up for the second time this year. I am very grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for recently putting extra money into security for both parliamentarians and candidates, but will he look again at the workings of this House, and at how our security is governed, because that funding is not getting to those of us on the frontline?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes a concerning allegation, which I will take up for the Government, working with the House authorities. As she will be aware, we take the threat exceptionally seriously, which is why we agreed an unprecedented increase in protective security for Members of this House and other elected representatives. We should all take that threat very seriously, not least in the light of the two appalling murders of parliamentarians that I have seen in my time in this House.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
When it comes to matters of national security such as this, my inclination is to work on a cross-party basis, and for us to show a unified face, but does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand that the relative weakness of the response to this terrible series of attacks, combined with his evasiveness over questions about the financial interests of the Foreign Secretary, is bound to increase people’s concerns? It is understood that Lord Cameron still has close links with the Chinese state in respect of numerous business ventures, and it was reported last week that the Government had secretly softened their policy against Chinese businesses implicated in human rights abuses. Will the Deputy Prime Minister strengthen his response, and demonstrate by his actions and through transparency that this soft-pedalling is nothing suspicious?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman says that we should have a cross-party approach, and then immediately seeks, on political grounds, to denigrate the Foreign Secretary and turn this into a party political matter. I am afraid that he will have to choose one approach or the other.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
When we think ahead to the election, we should bear in mind the point raised today about artificial intelligence and the threat to democracy. We often talk about the concept of deepfake news—which used to be just fake news—but this is not just about deepfakes. It is also about the risk of rumour bombs to dissuade people from going to the polls on the day, and about voice clones; people are telephoned by someone pretending to be a daughter or other family member, who says, “Do not go and vote today.” There are many risks of which we may not even be aware, and the data that we are talking about today may be used in conjunction with data from Facebook and other sources to enable people to pretend that they are something they are not. Along with the work taking place in Government and with tech companies, could there be an education campaign, to let the public know that there are better ways to become aware of the risks that they may face during the election?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has made an important point. At a time of rapidly evolving technology, particularly artificial intelligence, there will always be limits to the ability of agencies, or companies, to call this stuff out. There needs to be greater awareness among the public of the risks, and of the need to treat images of this kind with much more scepticism, and I will take that up with my colleague the Education Secretary.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Professor Jim Saker, the president of the Institute of the Motor Industry, has warned about the threat that Chinese-manufactured electric vehicles could pose, in giving China access to big data and personal information. He has said that
“connected electric vehicles flooding the country could be the most effective Trojan Horse that the Chinese establishment has”
to impact the UK. What consideration has the Deputy Prime Minister given to the threat posed by those vehicles?
The Deputy Prime Minister
That too is an important point. Obviously, any new technology or cars put on the UK market will have to meet our safety standards, and that will include an assessment of the threats to which the hon. Lady has referred. Under the National Security and Investment Act 2021, I can decide to block or impose conditions on any investments or transactions, from whichever state, and whichever company, in any country. That is another tool in our weaponry that we did not have previously.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that the Electoral Commission failed a National Cyber Security Centre cyber essentials audit at about the time when these breaches occurred. Among the failings identified was the fact that staff laptops and smartphones were running outdated systems—including Windows 10 Enterprise, which, at the time, was no longer receiving security updates. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that these failings look awfully like extraordinary negligence on the part of the Electoral Commission, and how satisfied is he that the commission has done everything necessary to regularise its procedures?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight that issue. It is precisely because of those concerns that we have ensured that the Electoral Commission is working closely with the National Cyber Security Centre to achieve a significant step up in its capabilities and its cyber resilience. It was essential for that work to be undertaken, and it has been undertaken.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
In May this year, Rotherham will hold a local election, like other places throughout the country. At the last local election, in 2021, Labour kept control of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council by a margin of only 54 electors. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that when people cast their votes for the Conservatives in Rotherham, those votes to end 50 years of Labour rule are secure?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I trust and hope that we will achieve that outcome. I would like to assure Members that we have every confidence in the integrity of the elections. Through the defending democracy taskforce and the action taken by the Minister responsible for local government, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who has written to all local authorities in the past week, we are ensuring that the integrity of those important elections is preserved.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement today, and for responding to questions for over an hour.
Women’s State Pension Age
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
With permission, I would like to make a statement to provide an interim update on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s investigation into the way that changes to the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. I am grateful to the ombudsman for conducting this investigation.
I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue, and it is important to set out the wider context and our initial understanding of the report itself. The fact that it has taken over five years for the ombudsman to produce the final report reflects the complexity of this matter. The period that the investigation considers spans around 30 years, dating back to the decision that Parliament took in 1995 to equalise the state pension age for men and women gradually from 2010. Since then, changes have been made through a series of Acts of Parliament introduced by successive Governments, which resulted in the state pension age for women rising to 65 by November 2018, and then to 66 by October 2020.
The announcement in 1993 about equalising the state pension age addressed a long-standing inequality between men and women. The changes were about maintaining the right balance between the sustainability of the state pension, fairness between generations and ensuring a dignified retirement in later life. Women retiring today can still expect to receive the state pension for more than 21 years on average—over two years longer than for men. Had the Government not equalised the state pension age, women would have been retiring today at 60, and they could have spent, on average, over 40% of their adult lives in receipt of the state pension. That would have been unfair, because, by the 1990s, life expectancy had significantly increased compared with 1948, when the state pension age for women was set at 60.
Turning to the investigation itself, it is important to be clear about what the ombudsman has not said, particularly following some of the inaccurate and misleading commentary since the report was published. The ombudsman has looked not at the decision to equalise the state pension age, but at how that decision was communicated by the Department for Work and Pensions. The report hinges on the Department’s decisions over a narrow period between 2005 and 2007, and on the effect of those decisions on individual notifications. The ombudsman has not found that women have directly lost out financially as a result of DWP’s actions. The report states:
“We do not find that it”—
meaning DWP’s communication—resulted in the complainants
“suffering direct financial loss”.
The final report has not said that all women born in the 1950s will have been adversely impacted, as many women were aware that the state pension age had changed.
In his stage 1 report, the ombudsman found that
“between 1995 and 2004, DWP’s communication of changes to State Pension age reflected the standards we would expect it to meet.”
The report also confirms that accurate information about changes to the state pension age was publicly available in leaflets, through DWP’s pension education campaigns, through DWP’s agencies, and on its website. However, when considering the DWP’s actions between August 2005 and December 2007, the ombudsman came to the view that those actions resulted in 1950s-born women receiving individual notice later than they might, had different decisions been made.
It is important to remember that during the course of the ombudsman’s investigation, the state pension age changes were considered by the courts. In 2019 and 2020, the High Court and the Court of Appeal respectively found no fault with the actions of the DWP. The courts made it clear that under successive Governments dating back to 1995, the action taken was entirely lawful and did not discriminate on any grounds. During these proceedings, the Court of Appeal held that the High Court was entitled to conclude as a fact that there had been
“adequate and reasonable notification given by the publicity campaigns implemented by the Department over a number of years.”
The ombudsman has taken five years to produce his final report. As the chief executive of the ombudsman herself has set out, the DWP has fully co-operated with the ombudsman’s investigation throughout this time and provided thousands of pages of detailed evidence. We continue to take the work of the ombudsman very seriously, and it is only right that we now fully and properly consider the findings and details of what is a substantial document. The ombudsman has noted in his report the challenges and complexities of this issue. In laying the report before Parliament, the ombudsman has brought matters to the attention of the House, and we will provide a further update to the House once we have considered the report’s findings.
This Government have a strong track record of supporting all pensioners. In 2023-24, we will spend over £151 billion on support for pensioners. That is 5.5% of GDP, and includes around £124 billion for the state pension. We are committed to ensuring that the state pension remains the foundation of income in retirement now and for future generations. That is why we are honouring the triple lock by increasing the basic and new state pensions by 8.5% from next month. This sees the full rate of the new state pension rise by £900 a year and it follows last year’s rise of 10.1%.
We now have 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty after housing costs than there were in 2010. Our sustained commitment to the triple lock demonstrates our determination to continue to combat pensioner poverty in the future. That is why we have reformed the state pension as well as workplace pensions, improving the retirement outcomes for many women. Our commitment to pensioners is why we introduced automatic enrolment, which has seen millions more women saving into a workplace pension.
This Government are committed to supporting pensioners in a sustainable way, providing them with a dignified retirement while also being fair to them and to taxpayers. I have set out our strong track record of backing our pensioners. I have also set out our commitment to the full and proper consideration of the ombudsman’s report. I note that the ombudsman has laid his final report on this issue before Parliament, and of course I can assure the House that the Government will continue to engage fully and constructively with Parliament, as we have done with the ombudsman.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement, and thank the ombudsman and his staff for all their hard work. This is a serious report that requires serious consideration. The ombudsman has rightly said that it is for the Government to respond but that Parliament should also consider its findings. Labour Members will look carefully at the report too, and continue to listen respectfully to those involved, as we have done from the start.
The Secretary of State says that he will provide a further update to the House on this matter. When will he do so after the House returns from its Easter recess? This has been going on for years. He rightly says that issues around the changes to the state pension age have spanned multiple Parliaments, but those of us who have been around a little while will remember that the turning point that sparked the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign was the Pensions Act 2011, in which the then Chancellor, George Osborne decided to accelerate the state pension age increases with very little notice. His comment that this
“probably saved more money than anything else we’ve done”
understandably angered many women. At the time, Labour tabled amendments that would have ensured proper notice was given so that women could plan for their retirement, which would have gone some way towards dealing with this problem.
The ombudsman began investigating how changes to the state pension age were communicated in 2019. In the same year, the High Court ruled that the ombudsman could not recommend changes to the state pension age itself or the reimbursement of lost pensions, because that had been decided by Parliament.
The ombudsman’s final report, published last week, says that, in 2004, internal research from the Department for Work and Pensions found that around 40% of the women affected knew about the changes to the state pension age. Does that remain the Government’s assessment? What is their assessment of the total number of women who would receive compensation based on the ombudsman’s different options? How many of them are the poorest pensioners on pension credit? How many are already retired or have, sadly, passed away? Given the Department already knew there were problems with communicating changes to the state pension age, why did the Government press ahead with the changes in the 2011 Act in the way they did, and in the way that sparked the WASPI campaign?
The Government are currently committed to providing 10 years’ notice of future changes to the state pension age, but Labour’s 2005 pension commission called for 15 years’ notice. Have the Government considered the merits of a longer timeframe, and how they would improve communications in future? Labour is fully committed to guaranteeing that information about any future changes to the state pension age is provided in a timely and targeted way that is, wherever possible, tailored to individual needs. Will the Government now do the same?
Crucially, the Secretary of State omitted to say that the ombudsman took the rare decision to ask Parliament to intervene on this issue because the ombudsman strongly doubts that the Department will provide a remedy. In the light of these concerns, and in order to aid Parliament in its work, will the Secretary of State now commit to laying all the relevant information about this issue, including all impact assessments and related correspondence, in the House of Commons Library so that lessons can be learned and so that Members across the House can properly do their job? Our current and future pensioners deserve nothing less.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for her response, not least on the apparent points of agreement between us. We accept that there are strong feelings about these complex issues, and she is right to say that they must be given serious consideration and that we should listen respectfully to all those affected. She asks when the Government will return to the House with a further update, and I can assure her that there will be no undue delay.
The hon. Lady made a slightly political point about the 2011 Act, and I gently remind her that the ombudsman’s report focuses on the period between 2005 and 2007, when her party was in government.
The hon. Lady asked a series of questions about various assessments based on the findings in the report. Of course, that goes to the heart of my response, which is—and I think she agrees with this—that we should look closely at the report in order to make those assessments.
On the hon. Lady’s specific point about notice of changes to state pension age, it has always been the position that that should be adequate. Indeed, in the last review that I undertook of it, there was a delay in the decision to increase the state pension age to 68 into the next Parliament. Among other reasons, that was to allow for just that point to be addressed.
What is particularly important now is that we will fully engage with Parliament, as we did with the ombudsman. On the hon. Lady’s point about the ombudsman, its chief executive stated on Sky News on Thursday, the day the report was published:
“The Government, the DWP, completely co-operated with our report, with our investigation, and over the period of time we have been working they have provided us with the evidence that we asked for.”
That is our record in this particular matter, but may I once again assure the House that the Government will continue to engage fully and constructively with Parliament, as we have done with the ombudsman?
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments and his emphasis that this is a complex matter—of course it is. However, the WASPI women have been waiting five years for the outcome of the ombudsman’s report. In his report and subsequent to it, when he wrote to various Select Committee Chairs from across the House, he gently encouraged us to keep a weather eye on how quickly the Government come forward with a solution. I recognise that this is an interim update, but I gently press my right hon. Friend: the WASPI women have been waiting five years for the ombudsman and they will not want to wait for a Select Committee inquiry into this report in order to see action from the Government.
Mel Stride
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s question. Let me reassure her, as I have just reassured the House, that there will be no undue delay in our approach to this matter. We engaged fully with the ombudsman— that included more than 1,000 pages of evidence and a full commentary in respect of the previous interim report that it published. This report is more than 100 pages in length and it is very detailed, so it is only right that we do, in an appropriate manner, give it the due attention that it deserves.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The timid response from the Labour party is truly shocking. Regardless of what we have just heard, WASPI women have at long last been vindicated, after five long years, by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report. Some 3.8 million women were impacted, of whom 270,000 have died without ever receiving their rightful pension.
Despite what the Secretary of State says, the verdict of the ombudsman’s report on the Department for Work and Pensions is damning and unequivocal, and weasel words will not change that. Women born in the 1950s had their pension age raised with little or no notice, and there have been failings at every turn by successive UK Governments. The report states that these women are owed compensation; that the DWP has refused to comply and must be held accountable for doing so; and that there was a failure to adequately inform women of the state pension age change. Those failures have had a devastating impact on lives, retirements and the financial and emotional wellbeing of WASPI women. Many have been reduced to poverty after being robbed of tens of thousands of pounds of pension, and that suffering has been caused by and is the responsibility of this broken Westminster system and this cosy Westminster consensus.
Financial redress is vital for these women and is in the interests of justice. Clearly Labour is not interested in that, but what we need from the Government is a commitment to prompt compensation for these women—with no barriers erected to prevent access to it—that recognises their financial loss and distress. We cannot have a situation where WASPI women have their campaign for justice vindicated and yet continue to be ignored. Any attempt to do that will rightfully result in a backlash.
We in the SNP stand shoulder to shoulder with these women, who have been abandoned and betrayed by the UK Government and the future Labour Government. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what it will take to compensate these women? Do we need another TV drama to embarrass and shame the Government into doing the right thing? These women are not going away but the longer this injustice is left unresolved, the greater the number of WASPI women who will die without seeing their pension—shame on this place.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady refers to “doing the right thing”. Doing the right thing by the people the hon. Lady describes is to look very closely, carefully and diligently at the report. It has been five years in gestation. It is detailed, runs to 100 pages and draws upon a vast reservoir of evidence. It is only right and proper, given that the report was published on Thursday and today is Monday, for all of us to have time to properly consider its findings. [Interruption.]
The hon. Lady refers to the general situation of pensioners. All I can say is that I am pleased and reassured that pensions generally are a reserved matter. We have been able to increase the state pension, last year by 10.1% and this coming year by 8.5%. We have pressed hard on promoting pension credit for poorer pensioners. We had a cost of living payment. Because it is a reserved matter, this Government were able to provide £300 to pensioners last November, alongside their winter fuel payments. As a consequence of that—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The hon. Lady has asked a question. Please listen to the answer.
Mel Stride
I was merely pointing out the fact that we stand four-square behind pensioners across the United Kingdom to support them. That is why under this Government there are 200,000 fewer pensioners in poverty, after housing costs, than there were in 2010.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
WASPI women across my Stroud constituency have campaigned consistently and constructively. I have grown very fond of them as we have discussed the subject over the years. As the Secretary of State knows, at the heart of the issue are women saying that they were left unable to plan or that their plans for the future were scuppered, so the focus should be on laying out a timetable as soon as possible. The issue of compensation is key to many of these women, who will have read the report. It is right that the Secretary of State and his Department look through the report in detail, but will he lay out a timetable, tell these women what is and is not possible, and manage their expectations as soon as possible, because they have waited?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is a member of the Work and Pensions Committee and I welcome her question. I reassure her that there will be no undue delay. I thank her for recognising that we need to look at these matters with great care. That does not mean coming forward with some of the things that the Scottish National party may wish us to do on a Monday, given that the report landed with us only last Thursday.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree with the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, as I do, that those affected should not have to wait for the outcome of a Select Committee inquiry before learning the Government’s response? The equalisation of the state pension age was legislated for in 1995, giving 15 years’ notice to those affected. The 2011 changes, which accelerated the process, gave much less than 10 years’ notice to those affected. Is one of the lessons about what has gone wrong that we must ensure major changes of this kind provide at least 10 years’ notice, or preferably 15 years’ notice, before those changes take effect?
Mel Stride
The right hon. Gentleman raises the potential role of Select Committees in these matters. As the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, he would have the authority to implement such ideas, if he were minded to do so. However, it is important that I and my Department seriously consider the findings in the report before we come to our conclusions, and that we then come to the House to present those conclusions. That is the most important point.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Having seen the report, I think this issue has gone on long enough and we now need to choose a compensation scheme and get it finished. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will have made their mind up before the autumn fiscal event, so that we can see it set out by that date and know how much the costs will be?
Mel Stride
Whether there will be an autumn statement at all, and the date thereof, is not within my remit—indeed, I am not certain whether an autumn statement is pencilled in for any particular date, or otherwise. The most important thing is that we recognise—this message should go out loud and clear from the Dispatch Box today—that there should be no undue delay in coming to the appropriate conclusions on this matter.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The WASPI scandal has been a huge injustice for millions of women, including women in my constituency. The Secretary of State has said that he wants to continue to look in detail at the findings of the report, but surely he should be able to make an unambiguous commitment to compensation for these women. The ombudsman had to take the rare step of laying this before Parliament, due to the Department for Work and Pensions refusing to comply. Will the Secretary of State today set out a timeline for when he will come back to this House and say how he intends to ensure that these women are compensated fully?
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady is attempting to draw me into coming to premature conclusions on some of the findings in the report, which I am afraid I not going to do for the reasons I have already given. Once again on the issue of timing, there will be no undue delay.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is itself WASPI, having been conceived in the 1950s. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a failure by Government to comply with its recommendations would be almost completely unprecedented over the past 70 years, and would in effect drive a coach and horses through an integral part of our system of democratic checks and balances? With that in mind, will he confirm that his Department will work in full haste with Parliament to agree a mechanism for remedy? Will he outline the work he is carrying out to address further concerns that have been raised over systematic failure by the DWP over several decades to properly communicate future pension changes?
Mel Stride
At the heart of this matter is the imperative to ensure that we fully and carefully examine the findings contained in the report. I will not be drawn today on where we may end up in respect of those findings, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will engage fully and constructively with Parliament on these matters.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Women born in the 1950s entered into a contract with the state, but the coalition Government reneged on that, denying them their pensions. In their fight for justice, thousands have died. Since the ombudsman’s report, over 100 have passed away, and many continue to live in poverty. Shamefully, the Government are now delaying action on the ombudsman’s findings, and today have remained silent about proper compensation. Will the Secretary of State apologise for their long wait for justice?
Mel Stride
On the Pensions Act 2011, as the hon. Lady will know from the report, the window that has been particularly examined and on which these considerations turn is 2005 to 2007—a time when the Labour party was in office. But on a general and non-partisan point, my view is that we owe it to all women who were born in the 1950s to properly look at the report in detail, as I have described, and at the same time to engage with Parliament in an appropriate way.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is correct to refer to the complexity of this situation. One aspect of that complexity is that these women have suffered the loss of an opportunity to plan appropriately for their futures. That is the consequence of the maladministration that the ombudsman has identified, and it will, of course, be different for each individual. Can he say anything about the work that his Department will now do to think about the appropriate remedy in such diverse circumstances? Will he also say, in supporting what my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) put to him, that maladministration must have consequences and therefore it is important for the Government to recognise, on behalf of previous Governments, that that maladministration must lead to some form of remedy?
Mel Stride
My right hon. and learned Friend is right to refer, as I have done, to the complexities around this issue. He is understandably attempting to draw me into past comments on some of the findings in the report, which, for the reasons I have given, I will not be doing this afternoon. I reassure him that, whatever the conclusions or findings in the report, as I said in my statement, when these matters went to the Court of Appeal, the conclusion was that the High Court could treat as a matter of fact that
“there has been adequate and reasonable notification given by the…Department over a number of years.”
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Returning to maladministration, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s stage 1 report found clear maladministration in 2021 in the way that the DWP communicated those changes and that it did not pay attention to its own research showing that 1950s-born women did not know about the changes. Almost three years on, the DWP has not publicly accepted those findings. Will the Minister finally admit to the DWP’s failings that short-changed hundreds of thousands of 1950s WASPI women?
Mel Stride
Without being drawn into too much detail around the report, there is clearly an important distinction between those matters that have been found to be maladministration and those that have found to be maladministration and led to injustice. Setting that apart, as I have said previously, I do not think it is right for me today to start dissecting elements of the report and some of the conclusions that have been arrived at. We will go away and look very carefully at these matters and then engage with Parliament appropriately.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the clarity with which he has set out the history of this issue. He will understand that my constituents who were affected wish, quite reasonably, to have a similar degree of clarity on the next steps and the timescale, and it is my job to communicate to him today their strength of feeling on that. I understand that he will not be able to set out that timescale today, but can he reassure the House that he has in his mind a timescale for these next steps?
Mel Stride
As I have said, there should be no undue delay, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that clarity is what is required. That is why I am stressing the point that clarity comes with careful consideration.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all WASPI campaigners and stand in solidarity with them. I need also to declare that I am somebody who was born in the 1950s. The treatment of the 1950s-born women in relation to changes in women’s state pension has led to great hardship for many. One woman in my constituency struggled to feed herself and had to sell her home as a result. The impact has been devastating. It is estimated that some 270,000 WASPI women have died since the start of the campaign in 2015 and that another dies every 13 minutes. I note the Minister’s comments that there will be no undue delay. Will he return to this House immediately after recess with a firm commitment to fast and fair compensation?
Mel Stride
I think we owe it to all of those to whom the hon. Lady refers to act without undue delay—that is a commitment that I have made—and to look at these matters extremely carefully and make sure that we allow time to do that effectively.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I welcome today’s statement, and am very grateful for it. I know that the Secretary of State is under pressure this afternoon, but having received a lot of correspondence from my Bracknell constituents, as other Members have from theirs, let me ask a very objective question: does he have a personal message for those seeking a definitive outcome?
Mel Stride
I think my statement is the message. We recognise that these are complicated issues. We have collaborated fully with the inquiry, to the satisfaction of the chief executive officer of the ombudsman. We will study the report’s findings very carefully, and engage with Parliament constructively, as we have done with the ombudsman.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Royal Society for the Relief of Indigent Gentlewomen of Scotland sounds entirely otherworldly and quite funny, but that was not the case for the WASPI woman who came to my surgery in 2016. She retired expecting to get her state pension at 60, and had to apply to the society for relief. She had to sell her home because she could not afford her retirement, as she did not receive her pension. What remedies for compensation do the Government consider suitable for that constituent, and others of mine, and when will they receive them? The DWP has known about the issue for years and years.
Mel Stride
The example that the hon. Lady gives once again underlines in my mind the importance of proceeding with great diligence and looking at the findings of the report in great detail. As we all know, we received that report on Thursday; it is now Monday. Given its length, and the complexity of the issues under consideration, it is not unreasonable for us to take the time to look closely at its conclusions.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I add my voice to those calling for an urgent announcement of a redress scheme in response to the report. The Secretary of State rightly pointed out that the actions between 2005 and 2007 did not happen on his watch, or under any Conservative Government, but if he delays, he will stop being part of the solution and start to become part of the problem. When he introduces his redress scheme, he will need all the understanding and good will on both sides of the House that he can muster to deal with the undoubted complexities of distinguishing between the different kinds and levels of indirect loss in the report, so speed is vital.
Mel Stride
As my hon. Friend points out, the timing is important. I have made the commitment that we will proceed without undue delay.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Millions of women have suffered an injustice, including more than 200,000 in Wales and 4,000 in my constituency of Cynon Valley. While much of the ombudsman’s report is welcome, the compensation remedy is insufficient—indeed, it is insulting. In 2019, the Labour party pledged an average payment of £15,500. It is affordable, and the Government have saved in the region of £200 billion since the equalisation of the state pension age, yet they still have not pledged anything at all. Will the Minister please set a specific timeline so that we can have an urgent parliamentary process for MPs to set a compensation scheme that will give fair, appropriate and fast compensation to these women?
Mel Stride
On the timing, I have now given this reply from the Dispatch Box on several occasions: there will be no undue delay. On the specific matter that the hon. Lady raises relating to remedy, that is one of the findings within the report that, along with all the others, we will of course consider very carefully.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right to highlight the commitment to the triple lock, that the state pension will raise by some £900 this year, that there are fewer people in pensioner poverty than ever before, and that, predictably, the failures here happened under a previous Government. Nevertheless, does he accept that hardship in principle has been caused, both to WASPI women on the Isle of Wight and nationally, and that a solution, while it clearly needs to be affordable, is needed to right a wrong that has taken place?
Mel Stride
Reaching the clarity that my hon. Friend would like requires us to have a close and careful look at the report, as I have been setting out. We will do that as quickly as we can—we will not introduce any undue delays—and consult Parliament in an appropriate manner, as we did with the ombudsman.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is not that difficult. The WASPI women have been screwed over by the state and made to wait for years. I understand that the ombudsman process had to be undertaken because the Government made that happen, but they could have faced up to the reality much sooner. Can the Secretary of State guarantee the 6,500 WASPI women in my constituency and those across the UK that he will not kick the can down the road past the next election and pass the buck to the Labour party, which cannot make a promise about this matter either? It is not good enough to stand in solidarity but take no action.
Mel Stride
On the question of time, I have made the position extremely clear. On the question of the report having had to gestate for five years, there was a delay of around two years because of the judicial review that went on in the middle of that process, so to suggest that the Government have in any way been holding things up is not fair or accurate. Indeed, as I have said the ombudsman chief executive has highlighted the good level of co-operation that there has been with my Department.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for coming so swiftly to the House in the wake of the ombudsman’s important report, which, as other hon. Members have said, requires a response. I pay tribute to the 4,000 WASPI women in my constituency who have been affected by the change. Although I welcome the important pension reforms that outlined, of which we can be proud, it is worth remembering that 68% of women born in the 1950s have relied on the state pension, as opposed to 44% of their male counterparts, because of baked-in inequalities that they experienced in much younger years: they started work before equalities legislation; they were not able to join pension schemes back in the day; and they made very definite choices about their caring responsibilities. For all those reasons, I see real injustice in this case. When he talks us through how this will be dealt with in Parliament, I hope to hear that there will be a role for individual MPs who have worked closely with their WASPI women to make representations on their behalf.
Mel Stride
I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to engage closely with Parliament, as we have done to date and with the ombudsman. She quite reasonably raises gender pension gaps. This Government have brought in and encouraged automatic enrolment—we have consulted on further changes that we are considering —which has led to a narrowing of that gap as it relates to private pensions. There is always more to do, but we are definitely serious about making further progress.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The WASPI women in Slough and across our country have been campaigning courageously and consistently for their rights for years. It is the Government’s duty to set out exactly how they will help those women and deliver justice. Given that someone’s entitlement to the state pension depends on how many years they have paid national insurance contributions, what will happen, under the Chancellor’s plans to abolish NICs, to those who are yet to retire? Will they still receive the state pension to which they have been contributing, or will their entitlements change?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman is a very assiduous and sensible person, and will know that party politics are at play in this issue. The Chancellor has been extremely clear that it is an aspiration to further bring down the level of national insurance across time—across several years, maybe even going beyond the next Parliament. He is quite right to say that, because we are a party that fundamentally believes in low tax.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Given the demographics in North Norfolk, I probably have one of the most impacted constituencies in the country: over 5,000 WASPI women have been impacted there. We need to be sensible. We all recognise the financial climate that we are dealing with in this country, but the Secretary of State is a very decent man, and this weekend, the Prime Minister intimated that we have always tried to right injustices in this country. WASPI women will be watching this debate; can the Secretary of State at least throw them a lifeline from the Dispatch Box, and give some sort of commitment that we in this country will do everything we possibly can to support as many WASPI women who have been impacted as we can?
Mel Stride
The important point is that we must carefully consider the report in its entirety—not just one aspect of it, but all aspects. I have undertaken to the House to do that without undue delay.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The ombudsperson was established to decide when things were not necessarily illegal, but had been done in a way that involved malpractice and was wrong, and to decide when a person in the middle needed to come forward and say, “You need to sort this out.” That is exactly what the ombudsperson has now said: their judgment is clear that maladministration happened. There was a question as to whether what was done was illegal or not; in the event, it was not. Rather than hiding behind court judgments, will the Minister apologise on behalf of the Department for the maladministration? Also, will he at least commit to a remedy? I am not saying what that remedy has to be, but will he give reassurance that a remedy will be found? Those are two easy things that he should be able to do now.
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman suggests that we are hiding behind the court cases. I have explained the relevance of those cases and the conclusions to which both the High Court and the Court of Appeal came in 2019 and 2020. We are not hiding behind anything; in fact, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because I read out the quote earlier, on Thursday 21 March—last Thursday—the chief executive of the ombudsman said on Sky News:
“The Government, the DWP, completely co-operated with our report, with our investigation, and over the period of time we have been working they have provided us with the evidence that we asked for.”
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
WASPI women in my constituency have campaigned relentlessly for many years, and I pay tribute to all of them, particularly Rosie Dickson, who has done so much at various events around Glasgow, and who came down to London to put her case directly in Parliament. WASPI women are watching this debate, and when the Minister says that the Government will carefully consider things, they hear, “More delay.” What they hear is that they will not get the money to which they are entitled, and that too many more women will die before they see a penny from this Government. When will they receive their money?
Mel Stride
Given that the report was published as recently as last Thursday, it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that I should have come to this Dispatch Box with a fully formed set of proposals of the sort that the hon. Lady may wish for. I think that what her constituents and others want is a Government who look at the report very carefully, give great consideration to the complex issues involved and the report’s findings, and engage closely with Parliament, exactly as we did with the ombudsman.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to even acknowledge the injustice done to thousands of innocent postmasters. This, too, is an incredible injustice. Millions of women born in the 1950s have been betrayed. Some 3.5 million women have been affected; one dies every 13 minutes, and we have been in this Chamber for an hour. Some 28,000 people have signed the letter from the WASPI campaign to the Leader of the House asking for an urgent debate and series of votes on compensation options, including that proposed by the all-party parliamentary group on this issue. This injustice cannot carry on any longer.
The Secretary of State has sought to avoid answering the question of when a decision will be made. “In due course” is not good enough, and neither is “without undue delay”. When will it happen? When will we get a debate on the issue, and a vote on proper compensation packages?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that he should not ask me questions at the Dispatch Box about when debates may or may not occur; those matters are typically handled by the usual channels, including those in his party and mine. It is quite extraordinary that he should try to get me to set out a timetable for debates. Many of these things will be a matter for Parliament, rather than the Government. However, he is right to raise Horizon, and I am very proud of the fact that this Government have acted at speed on that, and brought forward legislation to make sure that people get the moneys and reparations that they deserve.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
At the beginning of the Secretary of State’s statement, he said something that is clearly wrong. He said that women clearly had not “lost out”. They have. Thousands in my constituency have lost out financially, through no fault of their own. They planned for their retirement on the basis of out-of-date information. They were then in effect penalised for taking on caring responsibilities—for providing the best kind of childcare for their grandchildren, and allowing their children to work and pay taxes. All that was disrupted by the collective failure of the state. As has been said, many have died before justice was delivered.
For years, those of us who sought justice for the WASPI women have met the same response, which was that we had to wait for the ombudsman’s report. We now have the report, so will the Secretary of State now comply, apologise to the women, and pay compensation to them, as recommended in the report?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman refers to my mention of there having been no direct loss; that was a conclusion drawn by the ombudsman in his report. As to how quickly we can proceed, I simply remind him that the report was published on Thursday, and it is Monday afternoon. These are complex matters, and it is right and proper that they be considered in detail very carefully, and that there be appropriate engagement with Parliament, exactly as there was with the ombudsman.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
In my constituency of Birmingham, Hall Green, I have 4,760 WASPI women, who have been campaigning tirelessly for pension justice. Given that the report has now been published, will the Secretary of State commit to a timeline that will make sure that they are adequately and swiftly compensated for the harms that they have suffered?
Mel Stride
As the hon. Gentleman will know, that is a question that in various forms has now been asked a dozen or more times. The answer will always be consistent: there is no desire to delay matters, and there will be no undue delays in our deliberations.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
There cannot be a Member of this House who has not met women affected by the issue or WASPI campaigners, and who has not been moved by their awful stories, and the pain that they have been through as a result of the maladministration by successive Governments. Anyone watching this lengthy, convoluted statement from the Secretary of State will be left confused about what will happen now. Could he tell us, in words of one syllable, when women who are victims of this maladministration can receive the compensation that they deserve?
Mel Stride
With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is just another version of the same question about timing, and I have given a very clear answer on that.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I have heard many Ministers say from the Dispatch Box that they are working at pace, or that there will be no undue delay in dealing with scandals. This is a real opportunity for Parliament. The ombudsman laid this report before Parliament for a very good reason: he did not think that the Department for Work and Pensions would accept the recommendations on maladministration. If a Back Bencher tabled an amendment to a Government Bill that sought to implement the ombudsman’s recommendations, the Government would support it, wouldn’t they?
Mel Stride
It would be a little bit of a stretch to comment on, let alone support, an unknown amendment to an unknown Bill.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The WASPI campaign has asked me to emphasise its annoyance about how often Government Ministers, when talking about these issues, attempt to muddy the waters by referring back to the unsuccessful litigation to reverse the increase to the state pension age, or to claim direct discrimination. That was not litigation by the official WASPI campaign, and I am sure that its members were annoyed to hear a senior Labour Front Bencher doing the same thing on the radio last night. Will the Minister take this chance to assure the WASPI campaigners from the Dispatch Box that going forward, Government Ministers will not attempt to muddy the waters by referring back to now irrelevant litigation, and will instead focus on how to implement the ombudsman’s recommendations?
Mel Stride
The hon. and learned Lady will know about legal matters. I do not think that I can accept that the litigation, particularly in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, is just not relevant, especially as it pertained to the matters under debate.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, this report has been five years in the offing. His Department has known that it was coming for an awful long time. It must also have known that it was possible that compensation would be recommended. I am sure that he runs his Department in a prudent fashion, and will have set aside contingency funding for that eventuality. Can he tell us how much?
Mel Stride
Once again, the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me into forming conclusions prematurely about a complex report that needs a great deal of study and consideration. That is what we will give it.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
These 1950s women have been shockingly let down by Westminster. They have fought on this issue for years and years. Instead of the Secretary of State properly acknowledging the failings that the ombudsman highlighted and doing “the right thing”, as the ombudsman’s chief executive officer says, it feels as though he has come here today with precisely nothing to say. It feels as though he is trying to gaslight the WASPI women. It is a disgrace, and shame on the Labour party for going along with this charade. This terrible, protracted injustice has devastated the lives of so many women. It is time to give them the justice that they deserve. Give them their compensation now, before many more of them die waiting.
Mel Stride
I can reassure the hon. Lady that we have taken this entire situation extremely seriously. The House will have heard the remarks by the ombudsman’s CEO about the quality of my Department’s engagement with the ombudsman. I have also said that we provided more than 1,000 pages of evidence to the investigation. I have reassured the House that we will carefully consider the findings of the report, will not unduly delay our response, and will engage appropriately with Parliament, exactly as we have done with the ombudsman.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I must first declare my interest as a 1950s woman. The Secretary of State absolutely knows that real hardship was caused for some women in this age group in 2011 when the former Chancellor, George Osborne—backed by Conservative and Lib Dem Members—fast-forwarded the changes. As the ombudsman said, maladministration in the communication of the state pension age resulted in claimants losing opportunities to prepare. Women affected will be very disappointed by the Secretary of State’s statement, especially as the first stage of the ombudsman’s report in 2021 highlighted DWP failings. Can he please be more precise than saying “no undue delay”? In which month can we expect a proper Government response?
Mel Stride
That is once again a question about the timing, and I have given a clear response on that. I have given an assurance to the House that there will be no undue delay in our approach to these matters. That is the answer to the hon. Lady’s question.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
May I say to the Secretary of State that he needs to read the room? Let us remember that the ombudsman has said there has been maladministration. There is consensus across the Chamber that compensation should be paid. This is about women who paid national insurance in anticipation of receiving a pension, who were hit with the bombshell that their pension was being deferred—in some cases, by up to six years—with only 15 months’ written notice. Can we imagine what would happen in this place if it was announced that private sector pensions were being put back by six years? Rightly, there would be outrage, and there should be outrage about what happened to the WASPI women.
This was an entitlement taken away from women, who had a reasonable expectation of retiring denied to them. The Government should have recognised the failings and should have compensated those 3.8 million women years ago. Now that we have the determination of maladministration, let us ensure that this is not another Horizon or contaminated blood story and that the Government come back at pace with firm proposals that the House can discuss after the Easter recess.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Can people focus on their questions, please? That would be really useful.
Mel Stride
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I am fully aware of the reports’ findings. As he will know, they raise many questions, which we need to look at carefully. We will not delay in so doing, but that is why I have come to assure the House that we will do exactly that and engage with Parliament in an appropriate way.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
This interim statement felt like a non-statement. It spoke about clarity but offered none at all to WASPI women or Members of the House. I repeat what many across the Chamber have said: on what day and in what month can we expect a full statement? WASPI women up and down the country expect that full statement.
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman raised the question to which by now I have probably responded two dozen times. The answer remains the same: we will look at these matters extremely carefully and diligently, which is what everybody who has an interest in them would expect us to do. The report was published as recently as Thursday, and it is now Monday. We will look at these issues very carefully indeed, and there will be no undue delay. We will ensure that we interact with Parliament in an appropriate fashion, as we did with the ombudsman.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State talks about time, but it is nearly a decade since the start of the WASPI campaign, which has included rallies, protests, court cases, thousands of meetings to lobby MPs, and 273,000 women dying. Those who remain can perhaps see some light at the end of the tunnel. I say “some light”, because the ombudsman should have gone further both on the impact that DWP malpractice has had and on the recommended compensation. However, it looks like that light is actually a train, with the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor in control. After all that those women—that includes my constituent, who was one of the test cases in the report and at times has treated the campaign like a full-time job—have gone through, is the Secretary of State really going to ask them to wait just a little longer and then break convention and ignore the ombudsman’s findings?
Mel Stride
Given that we have not yet responded to the findings of the ombudsman, for the reasons that I gave—this needs to be done in a diligent and careful manner—I am not sure that the hon. Member’s assertion holds water. The report was five years in the making. It covers highly complex matters, and many questions are raised as a consequence. We will look at those questions and those findings extremely carefully and come to the House without undue delay while engaging with the House in an appropriate way, which is what we did with the ombudsman.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The report’s central finding of fact is that women born in the 1950s could not make informed decisions about their finances and that their sense of “personal autonomy and financial control” was “diminished”, with tens of thousands plunged into poverty. The issue now is not whether those women faced injustice, because the report makes it clear that they did, that they are entitled to urgent compensation from the Government, and that Parliament must “identify a mechanism” for providing appropriate redress. Will the Secretary of State allay my concerns that he is not proposing to question the ombudsman’s findings and that, rather, after the Easter recess, he will return to set out appropriate mechanisms for redress that we can debate in the House?
Mel Stride
We are considering the findings, which need to be considered in their entirety in order to come to a view.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I pay tribute to the WASPI campaigners in Glasgow whom I met on International Women’s Day at the Mary Barbour statue, including the great Kathy McDonald, a fantastic constituent. Surely, the Secretary of State accepts that it is unacceptable in 2024 that women continue to experience inequality in lifetime savings. Women would need to work an additional 19 years to have the same pension savings as men. Inequalities in lifetime savings, a gender pension gap and maladministration of state pension age changes: this is a triple whammy for 1950s-born women. When will they get justice and equal treatment?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman concludes by asking the same question that has been asked many times. There will be no undue delay. We will look at the issues, including some of the points that he has raised, in the round, looking at the entirety of the report and all its points and conclusions. He will know that we have taken many steps to help to increase the pension amounts received by the women involved, including the auto-enrolment reforms that we have brought forward. In the private pension space, the reforms have shown a dramatic improvement in the level of pension provision for women up and down the country.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The report is absolutely clear that the DWP’s systemic failure is that it did not even draw upon and learn from its own research into the failure of communication with those women. In addition, it did not investigate properly and respond to the complaints. That is straightforward in the report. Perhaps as a warning, I say to the Secretary of State that the anger out there will be not that he has not come up with a scheme immediately, but that he has not even acknowledged the failings of his own Department. That is why the report recommends that Parliament deal with this matter. Members of this House share the same feelings as the ombudsman and the WASPI women: we have no confidence in the Department for Work and Pensions to resolve its basic failure of decades ago.
Mel Stride
The right hon. Gentleman refers to one part of the report’s findings, where the ombudsman found maladministration but did not find injustice. The point that I have made to others in the House is that we need to look at this report properly. It is a report of 100 pages, to which my Department provided 1,000 pages of evidence, and which we received on Thursday. The only thing I can do responsibly is come to the House and make it clear that we will act without undue delay and interact with Parliament in an appropriate manner, exactly as we did with the ombudsman.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Incredibly sadly, Margaret Meikle and Morag Syne are just two of a significant number of women in my constituency and elsewhere who have died while enduring years of prevarication and inaction by successive Governments in relation to the maladministration of their pensions. It is estimated that 40,000 women have died each year who may have been eligible for compensation. Nationally, 270,000 women have died without ever receiving an apology, justice or compensation. Will the Secretary of State commit to giving due consideration to compensating not only eligible women still living, but the relatives of those who have died while awaiting justice, when this comes back to the House?
Mel Stride
I listened to the hon. Gentleman extremely carefully, and I think we owe it to all those to whom he referred and those who may be in a similar situation to take this matter extremely seriously. We will look at it very carefully, and we will come to appropriate conclusions while ensuring that we interact with Parliament in an appropriate way, very much as we did in our interactions with the ombudsman.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I am not sure why the Secretary of State has come to this House to tell us and WASPI women nothing apart from that he is considering the report. He keeps talking about its complexities, but one simple finding at its heart is that this Government and this Parliament must remedy the grave injustices against the thousands of WASPI women in my constituency, and up and down this country. Hon. Members from across this House have asked the Secretary of State quite reasonably for a timescale, but he refuses to commit and uses the words “undue delay.” Will he at least accept that every time a Minister stands up and says “undue delay” or “due process” they really mean that they have no intention of addressing the problem, and are saving face and kicking the can down the road?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. The ombudsman’s report has made recommendations based on maladministration. The 1950s women were misled and not notified of their rights. That is a serious issue. Many people have contacted me; one told me that nearly 300,000 women have passed away already. Women continue to pass away each day without seeing a single penny. Let us not forget those who suffer physical and mental disabilities after a lifetime of work and childrearing. Many grandmothers have gone on to care for elderly parents or provide unpaid support so that their daughters and sons can return to work in support of the UK economy. Time is not on the side of the WASPI women. They need restitution, apologies and compensation. Does the Secretary of State agree with my constituent’s suggestion that the Government agree urgently to pay a reasonable lump sum, followed by an increase in their pension payments until the deficit is recouped, thereby making it easier to balance the public purse?
Mel Stride
I certainly accept that we need to proceed in a manner that does not delay matters, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has given. We owe it to the people to whom he referred to proceed without undue delay, by very carefully considering the report in its entirety, looking very closely at its findings. I am satisfied, as is the chief executive officer of the ombudsman, that the engagement between my Department and the ombudsman was full and complete. We will continue to proceed on that basis, working closely with Parliament in the same spirit that we worked with the ombudsman.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
To say the Secretary of State will have disappointed the 5,000 WASPI women in my constituency and the many tens of thousands across the north-east would be an understatement. Frankly, the Minister’s response is shameful. I take issue with what he said about the complexity of the report. He said that it has only been five days since the 100-page report was published. I am not a speed reader, but I reckon that is 20 pages a day. The issues raised are not bolts out of the blue; the WASPI women have been actively campaigning for more than 10 years, highlighting the issues and the potential remedies. The response we have had will not wash with the country. The Secretary of State says that there are 200,000 fewer pensioners in poverty, but 270,000 WASPI women have died waiting for justice. How many more will die before he finally comes along and implements those recommendations in full?
Mel Stride
The answer on timing is the same one that I have given consistently throughout this statement. I have been asked that probably three dozen times, and the answer remains the same. This is a complex report—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member will allow me to continue, that is not, as far as I am aware, a matter of dispute, even between the Government and the Opposition. We both accept that it is a complex report and that we need to look very carefully at the findings in order to come to conclusions. That is exactly what we will do.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Despite how the Minister might wish to spin it, the ombudsman’s report was absolutely damning, totally vindicating the WASPI women and their campaign. Too many people thought—indeed, fervently hoped—that they would give up and go away, but they picked the wrong fight with the wrong women. I congratulate Ann Greer and the Argyll & Isles WASPI women on never giving up the fight. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) has a private Member’s Bill that would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a compensation scheme for WASPI women. The vehicle is there, Minister. Will the Government now work with my hon. Friend and support his private Member’s Bill, so we can bring this matter to a conclusion as swiftly as possible?
Mel Stride
I am not familiar with all the details of the private Member’s Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Whether the Government decide to support a particular Bill is clearly a matter for the usual channels and Government business managers, not for me at the Dispatch Box at this time.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The WASPI website has a grim counter of affected women’s deaths and of money saved by the Treasury. The current figures are 273,000-plus women and well over £4 billion. They are rising by the minute. How far have the consequences of the Government’s 2022 disastrous mini-Budget affected their thinking on this matter? If the Secretary of State will not commit to full level 6 compensation, as the ombudsman recommends, what does he have to offer Linda Gregory, my constituency born in 1953? She “did the right thing,” as he said. She did her sums, got her forecasts and was repeatedly assured by the DWP and HMRC that she had contributions to retire at 60 in order to look after her ailing mum—before this surprise was sprung on her, which has so far cost her £40,000.
Mel Stride
With great respect to the hon. Lady, her question perfectly exemplifies why it is important to look at the detail of the report. She refers to the ombudsman recommending the full level 6 compensation, but it is actually level 4, the range between £1,000 and £2,950. I am afraid that that piece of information was simply inaccurate.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Sadly, we have had a reprise of known facts, not the resolution of a manifest wrong. Governments frequently have to address the faults and failings of their predecessors, of whatever political hue. That is called the responsibility of being in office and it is part of the privilege of governing. Equally, we have to remember that when there is an institutional failure that goes across political parties and Government institutions, we have independent bodies, such as an ombudsman, to address it. In those circumstances, will the Minister first of all accept that there has been a manifest wrong and injustice, and secondly, will he commit that he will not, under any circumstances, seek to undermine the decision of the ombudsman or the direction of travel he has embarked upon?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is a very specific purpose for an ombudsman, as indeed there is for this ombudsman. What I think is unreasonable is to take the step in logic from that to saying that one should just simply, within a matter of hours, stand up and accept everything the ombudsman has put forward. What we have quite rightly said, and what I am saying at the Dispatch Box today, is that we will consider these matters, the findings, the circumstances and so on in very great detail, in order to come to the appropriate decision.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
WASPI women in my constituency simply cannot wait. In fact, as we have heard across the House, there is not a single constituency where WASPI women can wait. There is a simple reason for that: 40,000 of them are dying every year. Over a quarter of a million have died over the 10-year campaign. Not once have they had an apology or received any justice —and they have certainly received no compensation. When the PHSO report was published, both the UK Government and the Labour party deliberately failed to answer and fully guarantee that full justice and full compensation would be delivered to the WASPI women. The simple question, which the Secretary of State has failed to answer so far, is this: can he give us a timeframe by which he will deliver an apology, justice and compensation, and can it be before the next general election?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber, I think, since the beginning of the statement—I am sure he has; he heard the statement, hence he is asking a question—and he will know that the question he asked has been asked now probably a couple of dozen times. The answer is the same. [Interruption.] He chunters from a sedentary position, but the answer is just the same, which is that the responsible thing to do is to look at this highly complex matter. The report was published on Thursday. It is now Monday, early evening. It is not unreasonable to expect the Government—and indeed Parliament, because of the way the report has been laid before Parliament—to look at the detail of the report. As a Department, we gave around 1,000 pages of evidence that informed the report. There are some very important findings within it and to do it justice, we need to look at it carefully.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Some 6,900 WASPI women in my constituency, some of whom have lost out by as much as £60,000 and many of them in dire need of compensation, will have found little encouragement in the Minister’s statement. Is it this Government’s policy to dither, delay and deny justice until the 1950s-born women have died off?
Mel Stride
I can give a very short answer to that: absolutely not.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The WASPI campaign has been conducted with great dignity. They have lobbied and informed all of us. Will the outgoing Government and the incoming Government show these women the respect they are due and commit to paying compensation? I am not even asking for a timetable—just a commitment to paying compensation. Before the Minister says, “I only got the report last Thursday,” I point out that if he had listened to the PHSO evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, he would have known that the writing was clearly on the wall and that compensation was going to be in the report.
Mel Stride
What I am not really clear about is why the hon. Gentleman is urging me and the Government to draw a premature conclusion on the basis of— [Interruption.] No, it would be premature. As he points out, the report arrived on Thursday. It is now Monday, very early evening. It is complicated, so it is absolutely right and proper that we look at it very carefully and in great detail. It is only right and proper that we do that for the people who are concerned with this matter. That is precisely what we will do. We will act without undue delay. We will make sure that we engage with this House in an appropriate fashion, as we did with the ombudsman himself.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The expression “Justice delayed is justice denied” has never seemed more appropriate, with so many thousands of WASPI women waiting for justice to be delivered and dying in the process. It is not just the five years waiting for the ombudsman’s report, but the years before that jumping through the hoops of the DWP complaints process and the independent case examiner. As well as delivering swift compensation, will the Secretary of State’s Government look at fixing the system that has delayed, for the best part of a decade, the delivery of justice for WASPI women?
Mel Stride
We will look closely at the report and we will, no doubt, draw many conclusions as a result of that process of careful examination of the findings and the points made within the report. My commitment to the House is that we will do that without undue delay and that we will also engage appropriately with Parliament as part of that approach.
Investigatory Powers (Amendment)Bill [Lords]
Monday 25th March 2024
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 View all Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 25 March 2024 - large print - (25 Mar 2024)
20:32 - The House divided: - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 265 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 265 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 39 / Noes: 257 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 257 / Noes: 38 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Requirement for the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on technology-enabled serious and organised crime and technology-enabled threats to national security—
“After section 234 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, insert—
“234A Requirement for the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on technology-enabled serious and organised crime and technology-enabled threats to national security
(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report on technology-assisted crime insofar as it relates to measures set out in this Act and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
(2) The report must be published within one year of the passing of the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024, and annually thereafter.””
This new clause would ensure the Secretary of State publishes an annual report on technology-enabled serious and organised crime and technology-enabled threats to national security insofar as it relates to measures set out in this Act and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
New clause 3—Prevention of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment—
“(1) The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is amended as follows.
(2) Before section 260 (and the cross-heading before that section), insert—
“Prevention of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 259A Prevention of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
No public authority may take any action, whether retention, examination, disclosure, handing over to any overseas authority or any other action authorised by this or any other enactment, in relation to material obtained in accordance with the provisions of this Act if the public authority knows or believes that action—
(a) would result in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or
(b) presents a real risk of resulting in torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.””
New clause 4—Members of Parliament: interception and examination of communications and equipment interference—
“(1) The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 26 (targeted interception warrants and targeted examination warrants: Members of Parliament etc.), after subsection (2), insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may not issue the warrant if it relates to communications sent by, or intended for, a member of the House of Commons.”
(3) In section 111 (targeted equipment interference warrants: Members of Parliament etc.), after subsection (7), insert—
“(7A) A warrant may not be issued under this section if it relates to—
(a) communications sent by, or intended for, a member of the House of Commons, or
(b) a member of the House of Commons’s private information.””
This new clause would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to authorise the interception of the communications of, or the obtaining of communications intended for, or private information belonging to, Members of Parliament.
New clause 5—Interception notification for Members of Parliament etc.—
“After section 26 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (Members of Parliament etc.) insert—
“26A Interception notification for Members of Parliament etc.
(1) Upon completion of conduct authorised by a warrant under section 26, or the cancellation of a warrant issued under that section, a Judicial Commissioner must notify the subject of the warrant, in writing, of—
(a) the conduct that has taken place, and
(b) the provisions under which the conduct has taken place.
(2) The notification under subsection (1) must be sent within thirty days of the completion of the conduct or cancellation of the warrant.
(3) A Judicial Commissioner may postpone the notification under subsection (1) beyond the time limit under subsection (2) if the Judicial Commissioner assesses that notification may defeat the purposes of an ongoing serious crime or national security investigation relating to the subject of the warrant.
(4) A Judicial Commissioner must consult the person who applied for the warrant in order to fulfil an assessment under subsection (3).””
This new clause would require members of a relevant legislature who are targets of interception to be notified after the fact, as long as it does not compromise any ongoing investigation.
Amendment 7, page 3, line 9, leave out clause 2.
Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 3, line 17, leave out “, or only a low,”.
Amendment 24, page 3, line 18, at end insert—
“(1A) This section does not apply to a bulk personal dataset unless it has been published in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018.”.
This probing amendment would mean that individual and category authorisations for bulk personal datasets would not apply to bulk personal datasets unless they had been published in accordance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) set out in the Data Protection Act 2018.
Amendment 9, page 3, line 34, at end insert—
“(4) By way of example, bulk datasets of images obtained by CCTV and bulk datasets of Facebook posts are not to be considered datasets where the individuals to whom the data relates could have no, or only a low, reasonable expectation of privacy.”.
This is a probing amendment regarding the scope of “low or no reasonable expectation of privacy”.
Amendment 10, page 5, line 7, leave out “any dataset that falls” and insert “all datasets that fall”.
This amendment would clarify that all the datasets covered by a category authorisation must be “low or no privacy” and not just some of them.
Amendment 11, page 11, line 2, at end insert—
“226DZA Notification and review of bulk personal datasets retained under category authorisations
(1) This section applies where a category authorisation has been approved by a Judicial Commissioner under section 226BB.
(2) The head of an intelligence service, or a person acting on their behalf, must notify the Judicial Commissioner within 28 days of a bulk personal dataset being retained or retained and examined under the category authorisation.
(3) The notification under subsection (2) must include a description of the dataset and the data it includes, the purpose for which it is being used and the number of individuals whose data is contained in the dataset.
(4) The Judicial Commissioner, on reviewing any notifications received under subsection (2), must cancel the category authorisation if the Commissioner considers that section 226A no longer applies to any dataset that falls within the category of datasets described in the authorisation.
(5) The Judicial Commissioner, on reviewing any notifications received under subsection (2), must cancel the relevant individual authorisation if the Commissioner considers that the condition in section 226B(4) is not met in relation to that bulk personal dataset.”
This amendment would provide for ex-post facto judicial oversight of the use of category authorisations, including the conditions for individual authorisations made under them.
Amendment 13, in clause 12, page 34, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—
“(e) where the communications data has been made publicly or commercially available by the telecommunications operator or postal operator”.
This amendment would align the new provisions with existing Communication Data Codes of Practice.
Amendment 12, page 34, leave out lines 5 and 6.
This amendment would remove one of the example cases where a relevant person has lawful authority to obtain communications data from a telecommunications operator or postal operator, being where the data has been “published”.
Government amendments 3 to 6.
Amendment 14, page 36, line 2, leave out clause 15.
Amendment 15, to clause 15, page 36, line 35, at end insert—
“(c) the Investigatory Powers Commissioner agrees with the judgment of the officer made in accordance with paragraph (b)”.
This amendment would ensure that all use of new powers in relation to Internet Connection Records was subject to oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
Amendment 16, page 38, line 11, leave out clause 18.
Amendment 17, page 44, line 39, leave out clause 21.
Amendment 18, in clause 21, page 45, line 3, at the beginning insert “Subject to subsection (1A),”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 19.
Amendment 19, page 45, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may not give a relevant operator a notice under this section unless the notice has been approved by a Judicial Commissioner.
(1B) In deciding whether to approve a notice under this section, a Judicial Commissioner must review the conclusions of the Secretary of State as to the matters referred to in subsections (5) and (6)”.
This amendment would introduce judicial oversight of new powers to issue communications providers with notices requiring them to notify the Secretary of State of relevant changes to the service.
Amendment 25, page 47, line 28, leave out clause 22.
This amendment is consequential on NC4.
Amendment 20, in clause 22, page 48, line 13, leave out
“has the necessary operational awareness to decide whether”
and insert
“is either required in their routine duties to issue warrants under section 19 or section 102 or has the necessary operational experience”.
This amendment would permit the Prime Minister to nominate a Secretary of State to act for the Prime Minister under this section if they are required in their routine duties to issue warrants under section 19 or section 102 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 or if they have the necessary operational experience.
Amendment 21, page 48, line 14, at end insert—
“(2DA) The Prime Minister must be notified of the individual’s decision as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so.”.
This amendment would require the Prime Minister to be notified of the decision of the designated Secretary of State as soon as is reasonably practicable.
Amendment 27, page 48, line 21, at end insert—
“(2G) The Prime Minister may not give approval under this section unless it has been authorised by a judge of the Supreme Court.”.
This amendment would require the authorisation of a judge of the Supreme Court before the Prime Minister could approve the interception of the communications of a Member of Parliament.
Amendment 26, page 48, line 22, leave out clause 23.
This amendment is consequential on NC4.
Amendment 22, in clause 23, page 49, line 13, leave out
“has the necessary operational awareness to decide whether”
and insert
“is required in their routine duties to issue warrants under section 19 or section 102 or has the necessary operational experience”.
This amendment would permit the Prime Minister to nominate a Secretary of State to act for the Prime Minister under this section if they are required in their routine duties to issue warrants under section 19 or section 102 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 or if they have the necessary operational experience.
Amendment 23, page 49, line 14, at end insert—
“(7DA) The Prime Minister must be notified of the individual’s decision as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so.”.
This amendment would require the Prime Minister to be notified of the decision of the designated Secretary of State as soon as is reasonably practicable.
Amendment 28, page 49, line 18, at end insert—
“(7F) The Prime Minister may not give approval under this section unless it has been authorised by a judge of the Supreme Court.”.
This amendment would require the authorisation of a judge of the Supreme Court before the Prime Minister could approve the obtaining of communications intended for, or private information belonging to, a Member of Parliament.
Dan Jarvis
It is a privilege to open debate on Report of this important Bill. At the outset, it is worth reiterating that Labour supports the Bill, which updates aspects of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. That is because it is imperative that legal frameworks are updated to ensure that our police and security services keep up with changes to communications technology. Doing so ensures that they are always one step ahead of criminals and malign forces who seek to harm us and undermine our national security.
I hope the Minister, and all Members who were present in Committee, agree with me that we had a constructive debate, testing the Bill’s proportionality and robustness. Some matters relating to third-party bulk personal datasets and the oversight process for the addition of new BPDs to existing category authorisations have been largely resolved to the satisfaction of Labour Members, but other important matters still need to be addressed. I will speak first about the new clauses and amendments that stand in my name, before dealing with some of those tabled by other Members.
New clause 1 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State publishes an annual report on the engagement between the Prime Minister and the Intelligence and Security Committee regarding the investigatory powers regime. A very similar amendment was tabled in Committee, but was withdrawn after a lengthy debate on the ISC oversight arrangements did not make any meaningful progress despite helpful contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). We tabled this new clause because the Government must recognise that the ISC has a vital role to play in the democratic oversight of some of the most powerful measures that the state has at its disposal to keep us safe, to intercept communications and to interfere with equipment.
The ISC is and should be the only Committee of Parliament that can appropriately hold a Prime Minister to account on investigatory powers. There must be accountability at the highest level, and the Prime Minister is no exception. However, many Members, not least members of the ISC, know that this important mechanism is not just broken but has stopped working altogether. Not since 2014 has a Prime Minister appeared before the Committee, but, when asked about successive Prime Ministers’ lack of appearance, the Minister said that such decisions were above his pay grade. That might well be true, at least for now, so if the Minister cannot commit himself to reinstating the convention of Prime Ministers’ appearing before the Committee, the new clause would, at the very minimum, ensure that this new convention of non-attendance is reviewed annually, and scrutinised by this House and the other place. I therefore give notice of our intention to push the new clause to a vote.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not above the Minister’s pay grade to be able to confirm that the conventions and arrangements that give the ISC a particular constitutional place in the way our system works ought to operate, even if they have not done so for the last 10 years? Does he, like me, look forward to being able to hear the Minister—rather than dismissing this important concern about the dereliction of a constitutional duty—give us an assurance that this will be the case in the future?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend has made an important point, and one with which I suspect the overwhelming majority of Members would agree.
Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I was the Minister who took through the House the Bill that created the ISC. At the time, the intention was that it would evolve to become a very powerful Committee, but it did not absolve the entire House from some responsibility. Two elements are involved here. One has just been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—the Prime Minister’s appearance before the Committee—and the other is minimal redaction of the reports that the Committee creates. One of the problems we have encountered in recent years is excessive redaction of those reports. Has the hon. Gentleman any views on that?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman has made two important points, both of which I agree with, about redaction and about the attendance of the Prime Minister. I do not think it unreasonable to expect that once a year the Prime Minister should seek to meet what is a very important cross-party Committee of this House. I should be happy to give way to the Minister should he wish to add his own views on this matter, but given the basis of my sense of where the House is and given previous debates, I think most Members will agree that it is not unreasonable to ask the Prime Minister to turn up once a year.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman’s point is made more potent by the fact that the matters the ISC considers are not typically—in fact, not at all—partisan. It operates on a non-partisan basis, although of course its members are drawn from both sides of the House, and the material that it studies is not seen through a party-political prism in any way; this Minister has engaged in sensible and meaningful discussion with members of the ISC in exactly that spirit during the passage of this legislation. Similarly, a meeting with the Prime Minister would be conducted in a way to which I think no Prime Minister could reasonably object .
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman speaks about these matters with a great deal of authority, not just as a member of the Committee but as a former Security Minister, and I think he has described the situation very well. I hope the Prime Minister is listening; I hope the Prime Minister accepts what I consider to be the reasonable and constructive invitation that has just been extended to him by the right hon. Gentleman; and I hope the Prime Minister does take the opportunity in the near future to sit down with the ISC and discuss what are, after all, very important matters.
New clause 2 would ensure that an annual report was published on measures in the Bill, and in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, to defeat and disrupt technology-enabled serious organised crime and technology-enabled threats to our national security. We tabled the new clause because we must ensure that the law is always one step ahead of those who seek to harm us. The police and the security services are not best able to protect us today with the laws to counter the threats of yesterday, which is why we support this Bill to update the 2016 Act, which is now eight years old, but there is an opportunity to go further. The annual report proposed in the new clause would help to ensure that any changes required to primary legislation relating to investigatory powers were identified and implemented as quickly as possible. That would strengthen our legislative framework on national security, and weaken the capability and resolve of criminals and our adversaries.
I think that this is a genuine opportunity for the Government to work better with, and to constructively challenge, telecommunications operators and the wider communications technology industry on the requirements to use investigatory powers—a process that would be separate from the new notices regime included in part 4. A statutory requirement to produce an annual report on investigatory powers to counter threats to our security and safety would strengthen national security, as well as strengthening the oversight and safeguarding of measures to keep us safe. Those are two principles that guide this Bill and the 2016 Act, and that is why we will seek to push the new clause to a vote later this evening.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I hope that this evening will end with a measure of agreement. On the subject of the tech companies, I understand from information I have received that Apple, techUK, the Information Technology Industry Council and the Computer & Communications Industry Association have expressed concerns. Is the shadow Minister aware of their concerns and what this means for their ability to administrate and do their work, and does he agree that what we have tonight is a consensus that protects not just them but ordinary members of society?
Dan Jarvis
I know that the hon. Member takes these matters incredibly seriously, and he has raised an important point. To be absolutely fair to the Minister and to his Department, I know that this is a matter that the Government have considered very carefully, and that there has been an extensive process of consultation with a range of tech companies—I have met a number of them myself—but I think it only fair to conclude that while of course there are important contributions to be made by tech companies to this debate, these are ultimately matters for the Government and the House to determine. Having said that, new clause 2 would provide a helpful and constructive mechanism for the Government, and we have tabled it in a genuine attempt to be helpful and to monitor very closely the significant challenges that our national security faces from serious and organised crime as a consequence of rapid developments in technology.
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he has addressed this issue, and he deserves a proper response. There is a valid concern that this is a process of engagement with tech companies, and there needs to be a partnership. I will be frank with him: I do not support new clause 2, for the very simple reason that the way in which this interaction takes place has evolved a lot, even in the two years that I have been in post. I suspect that during the four or five years that this House will supervise the Bill, under the next Government and in the five years beyond that, the interaction will evolve again.
What concerns me is that we could write into law a system of oversight and regulation that does not properly address the way in which tech companies are involved in this area. Therefore, the best answer is to have a more iterative process, which I have no doubt the fantastic civil servants with whom I have the privilege to work will adapt. Whoever takes over from me in 20 or 30 years’ time will no doubt want to iterate that as well.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the Minister for clarification on the response to new clause 2. He understands that we have tabled it because we genuinely think that it is a mechanism that—let us be honest about it—would not be particularly onerous for the Government, and would be helpful in focusing minds across Government. I completely agree with the point he made about his civil servants, who have been excellent throughout the passage of the Bill. We just happen to differ on this issue, because the Opposition think that the new clause would provide a useful forum for the Government to consider the challenges. He is absolutely right about the rapid evolution of technology, and we think it would be no bad thing to condense Government thinking into a report that would be issued on an annual basis.
Sir David Davis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. May I address the iterative issue that the Minister and he both raised? It is not just the development of technology that is important here; it is also about the development of other countries’ security systems. For example, the Germans are putting in place laws that require end-to-end encryption—the very thing that we were worried about—so we will have to manoeuvre over the course of the coming years to make sure that what we do fits not just with the technology companies, but with what our allies are doing.
Dan Jarvis
That is a very important point, and I completely agree. These are complex and difficult matters of public policy, and I completely understand that none of this is easy from the Minister’s perspective. However, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so, his point strengthens the case for new clause 2, because we think it would provide a useful mechanism for the Government to track the development of these important matters, but also provide a mechanism for Members of this House to hold the Government to account on them. I am very grateful for the points he has made.
Before turning to amendment 24 on BPDs, which stands in my name, I would be very grateful if the Minister could say whether any progress has been made on arrangements to notify the Investigatory Powers Commissioner when adding new BPDs to existing category authorisations. It might not be in the Bill, but we think that even a reference to it in the IPC’s annual inspection would be helpful progress on this matter. The Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and I have discussed that, and I would be grateful if the Minister could said something about it.
I acknowledge the amendments on BPDs that were tabled by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). Both of our parties have concerns about the definition of “low or no expectation of privacy” for BPDs, which we debated in a pretty constructive fashion on Second Reading and in Committee. However, Labour does not oppose the concept of “low or no expectation of privacy” for BPDs, which is why we will not support amendment 7, which was tabled by the SNP spokesman. Instead, amendment 24, which stands in my name, seeks further clarification on how “low or no expectation of privacy” will be applied to BPDs, with the aim that the parameters must be as clear as possible for the House to understand.
In Committee, the Minister used the Panama papers as an example of leaked and widely republished material being defined as a BPD with a low or no expectation of privacy. I understand why the Minister chose to use that example, but most other leaked documents containing personal information do not attract anywhere near the same level of media attention. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to provide another example of information from a leak without widescale press coverage that would be suitable for the designation of a bulk personal data set with a low or no expectation of privacy.
Tom Tugendhat
As always, the hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight the areas I touched on. The important thing about the Panama papers was that they changed. They would have enjoyed a high level of privacy, but with republication they became “low/no”. It would not be right to say that any leaked document enjoys “low/no”, but the law should reflect the reality of the data that is currently being held. When data goes from being secret to being effectively public, it would be absurd to hold the intelligence services to a different standard from that which would apply to any of us, who would be able to access it on a website.
Dan Jarvis
That is a very useful clarification, and I thank the Minister for it.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I accept what the Minister has just said, but where is the threshold for publicity? As he said, the Panama papers were widely distributed in the public domain, but somebody’s Facebook feed might be put into the public domain. If it gets into the national newspapers and on the internet, or it is shared by a certain number of people, do we then determine that it is in the public domain? We need to be very careful about this.
Dan Jarvis
My right hon. Friend is undoubtedly right: we do need to be very careful. In the end, the Government have to take a view about where they draw the line. These are very difficult decisions that have to be made. We had really useful and constructive debates in Committee about where the line should be drawn, but the issue will no doubt continue to be debated in the future.
Before I draw my remarks to a close, I will briefly speak to other amendments on the Order Paper, including those tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, other members of the ISC, and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis). We support amendment 23, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. It is very similar to the amendments we proposed in Committee regarding the Prime Minister’s delegation to a Secretary of State to issue a warrant to interfere with equipment relating to a Member. The amendment sets out that the Prime Minister must be informed of a decision taken by a designated Secretary of State on their behalf as soon as the circumstances that prevented the Prime Minister from approving a warrant in the first place have passed.
We believe that the Prime Minister’s overall involvement in those warrants must be retained, even if it is retrospective in designated cases, so it was a positive step that the Minister said he would look into including such a provision in the statutory guidance, in response to the very sensible points made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. However, we believe this does not go far enough, when this important notification arrangement should be on the face of the Bill.
This House should consider as many scenarios as possible when it comes to arrangements for prime ministerial power delegation on investigatory powers, even if scenarios of Cabinet members desperately trying to undermine the Prime Minister by any means possible perhaps belong more appropriately in “House of Cards” or “The Thick of It”. [Interruption.] I am sure that Conservative Members would have no idea about those kinds of activities; I am happy to take their word for that. But these are important matters, and we must seek to legislate carefully. The amendments tabled by the ISC are thoughtful and constructive, and I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will consider accepting them.
Sir David Davis
I start from the perspective that we are highly likely to regret some elements of this Bill within the next 10 years, and I will come back to that in a moment. I will also start by commending the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), for his approach. It has not always been like this. The real precursor of this Bill was the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, all stages of which was taken in one day because the Government of the day claimed it as an emergency, even though they had spent three months thinking about it and even though they took nine months to implement it afterwards, such was the emergency. As a result, I challenged it in the High Court, and it was struck down. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which this Bill amends, was in effect the replacement for that. It was not a terrific improvement, but it was an improvement. As I say, the Minister’s approach to this Bill has been much more democratic, much more open and much more valuable.
Sir John Hayes
I said that we are not going to be partisan in this debate, and the shadow Minister started in that vein, but my right hon. Friend has been highly contentious about the Bill that I took through the House. Bear in mind that it had pre-legislative scrutiny with a Committee of both Houses, it had at least three reports in advance of being considered by this House, and it was debated in this House at length, in the same spirit that I mentioned earlier, and many amendments were tabled, many of which were accepted by the Government. I have described the pretty full consideration and scrutiny that it received, which is why it is such an essential piece of legislation, as the Minister will confirm, and is used by the security services and the police every day.
Sir David Davis
I will not go over it again, but the High Court and the Court of Appeal came to a different view from that of my right hon. Friend, I am afraid, and that is why the legislation was struck down.
Some of the elements of this Bill are not very wise. The Opposition have agreed that the pre-notification of tech companies will act to drive business away from our shores. That is, as I said earlier, the opposite of what the German Government are doing, and we are going to have to modify our approach to deal with some of our allies along the way.
I also have serious concerns about the bulk collection of data, which the Scottish National party has tabled an amendment on. I think it was Stalin who once said that, at a certain point, quantity has a quality all of its own. That is certainly true of information technology and bulk data. It was interesting to listen to the earlier brief debate on so-called “no expectation” and “low expectation of privacy”, by the way. Those are completely different things. They sound similar but they are completely different, as will become clear, I suspect, when the SNP spokesperson speaks to that amendment. Even today, “low expectation of privacy” data can tell a Government with quite primitive software vast amounts about our lives and about what we are doing every minute of every day, but with artificial intelligence that is going to be multiplied many times and become much more powerful than before.
To give colleagues a feel for how this might work, let us look back to the covid period, which in some senses was almost Orwellian. The Government had three different disinformation units of various sorts that looked at everybody’s comments. If someone commented on flaws in the modelling of the virus, questioned where the virus came from or quite properly stated that the vaccine did not stop transmission—it stopped deaths, but it did not stop transmission—this would lead to all their low or zero expectation of privacy documentation and all their online stuff being monitored by the Government. A number of Members of this House were monitored on that basis—in my view, entirely wrongly. That was all within the law as it stood then, so it was not massively important, but it nevertheless demonstrates the mindset of Whitehall when dealing with these things.
Today, however, nine out of 10 of us—if not more—carry a smartphone. That makes it easy to access our shopping habits, our purchase history, our bank records, our automatic number plate recognition records, and on and on and on. Do we really want the agencies of Government to be able to peer into all that data? It belongs to people who are, remember, entirely innocent of any crime. Our entire approach to law and order in this country has been to focus on people against whom there is a reasonable expectation or a reasonable suspicion, not to monitor everybody. It seems to me that this intrusive surveillance is a dangerous route to take and, as I say, I think we might regret it within 10 years, because the power of artificial intelligence will make this bulk data much more informative than we are conscious of today. I worry about it. I did not put an amendment down on it because others have done so, but it is something that we must concern ourselves with in the longer run.
One of my two principal concerns today is how the Bill relates to the expansion of powers around the surveillance of Members of this House. Until 2015, it was widely understood that the Wilson doctrine protected MPs’ communications from interception. This protection was repeated in unequivocal terms by successive Prime Ministers—even Tony Blair, who is not someone with a great reputation for worrying about Members’ civil liberties. Despite clear and unambiguous statements that MPs and peers would not be placed under surveillance, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal held in 2015 that the doctrine had been unilaterally rescinded by the Government.
In an attempt to ease concerns, the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 created a regime—the one we have now—whereby a Secretary of State must first secure the approval of the Prime Minister and a judicial commissioner before authorising the interception of an MP’s communications. Frankly, I have served under nine Prime Ministers as a Member of Parliament, and I cannot say I am happy that all of them would have taken a very responsible approach to exercising this power. This is an almost judicial power that is given to a person whom it is our job to challenge and hold to account every day.
The Bill seeks to expand the list of people who can sign off on the surveillance of MPs way beyond that, from the Prime Minister to effectively five Secretaries of State. There was a long argument in the Lords and in Committee about introducing words such as “unable” or “unavailable.” I think they had in mind that Boris Johnson was sick and laid up for a month or so and perhaps could not act in that capacity. Even by that logic, we do not need five Secretaries of State to be able to deputise, unless we are imagining a mass-casualty event in the Cabinet. Frankly, this seems far more like a precursor to a general loosening of the policy than a serious and sensible protection of the ability to sign this off. I worry about that, and I do not like it at all.
I do not like the idea of the surveillance of MPs except under incredibly strict circumstances. I am not casually asking for MPs to be somehow above the law, not at all. This protection is vital to safeguarding what we do. We are here to hold the Government to account, not the other way round. The relationship between constituents and their elected representatives is sacrosanct. It is the bedrock upon which our representative democracy stands, and constituents expect that, as they should. But it is not just constituents who rely on the sanctity of their communications with Members.
It is truer and more obvious today than at almost any time in my 30-odd years in this House that, in doing our job, we deal with campaigners—think of the sub-postmasters—journalists, whistleblowers, victims of injustice who may be terrified of being identified and, of course, other Members of Parliament, and that is just a few. They all trust us to keep what they tell us absolutely rock solid, private and confidential.
This Bill will do nothing but further undermine people’s trust in bringing serious matters to our attention. The Horizon scandal, Mid Staffs, sweetheart tax deals with large companies, the mistreatment of prisoners by the British Army, involvement in rendition and torture, and dishonest briefings for immoral wars—every single one of them was brought to our attention by a whistleblower who, in many cases, faced criminal prosecution if they were discovered. Are people likely to continue blowing the whistle with a loosening of the Wilson doctrine? I do not think so.
If I had my way, I would amend the Investigatory Powers Act to prevent communications to and from Members of Parliament from being intercepted at all. At the very least, I would change this proposal to require that the Prime Minister secures the approval of a Supreme Court judge before signing off on any warrant permitting the interception of a Member’s communications. That would take the process completely outside the normal approach under which the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and all the machinery around it routinely says yes to requests, day in and day out. Calling for, allowing or permitting the interception of the communications of a Member of this House or the other place ought to be something clearly extraordinary in the life of a Prime Minister. A Supreme Court judge is far more likely also to have the authority required to face down poorly justified demands, which has not always happened in the past. The Executive should not wield the power to order the surveillance of Members of this House at their sole discretion. The very senior judiciary should provide a vital check on that power.
Mr Kevan Jones
First, let me put on record the apologies of the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee. Unfortunately, he is attending Lord Cormack’s funeral, and I thought it was important to put the reason why he is not here on the record.
First, let me refer to new clause 1, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), and say that it is disappointing that we have to have this debate. I am the longest serving member of the ISC, having been on it for nearly eight years. It is a serious Committee; its members take its work seriously and work collegiately. We work on the basis that we support the work of our security services, recognising the difficult job they sometimes have and the dangerous work they do, but that we are also there to provide scrutiny and oversight. If anyone cares to look at our reports over the years, they will see that they are not only thorough, but forensic in their approach. So it is disappointing that the current Government and the previous few have downplayed the Committee’s role.
On Second Reading, I referred to the scrutiny of our intelligence services being a bit like a three-legged stool, as we have the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, the tribunal and the ISC. Together, we should be an effective mechanism to reassure the public that there is oversight of our security services. This is important because the work they do cannot be discussed in open session, and that mechanism gives the confidence that in a parliamentary democracy, where we take freedom of speech and democracy seriously, we have that oversight. The problem with the Government is that, for whatever reason, they have set out their course to undermine our work—I put that on the record.
The new clause will say that the Prime Minister should attend our meetings. It should not be necessary to include such a provision—I believe you served on the ISC at one stage, Madam Deputy Speaker, and so you understand the work we do—but we have a situation where it seems this is seen as not important. The only one in recent times who offered a meeting was the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), but that was because she was looking for friends in the last dying days of her Administration, so I do not think it counts. Again, I do not understand the reason behind this. The walls on the way into our office have various photographs of the Committee—you are on one of them, Madam Deputy Speaker—with various Prime Ministers of the day. But this is not about that; it is about the Prime Minister of the day knowing exactly what we are doing and our being able to raise things directly in our secure setting, which we do. That is important, but there is also a wider point to be made about how we scrutinise our security services and give the public that opportunity.
The amendments I have tabled also stand in the names of five other members of the Committee, and we support this Bill. Will we be back in a few years’ time with another Bill? Yes, we will, because, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central, technology is changing very fast and we will have to react to it. When the original Bill was taken through by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), he recognised that it would not be set in tablets of stone and that this new Bill would be required. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) is right to say that AI will set some other tests that we have not perhaps thought about yet and those might have to be covered by future legislation. Are we reactive as a Parliament? We always are reactive, but this Bill is important because it will give our security services the abilities to react to the ever-changing world that we face.
I wish to refer to two pairs of amendments that relate to clauses 22 and 23, which go to the issue associated with the triple lock and the authorisations—
Sir David Davis
Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on, I wish to pick up on his point about the need for continually keeping up with the changing technology. One thing that was expected when the ISC was created was that it would become, if not quite a grandees Committee, a Committee of people who knew exactly what they were doing and took very seriously the issues before them, including the confidentiality of what they do. At least one of the Chairmen of the ISC has complained in the past about the level of redaction of ISC reports. That matters in the context of keeping up with the times because the only way the House of Commons has of understanding the ISC’s opinions is by reading its reports, and if Members are reading a lot of blank or black lines, they will not learn very much.
Mr Jones
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration, but, as Madam Deputy Speaker knows, there are good reasons for those redactions. The Committee does not just agree to everything being redacted; a thorough process takes place and we have some long arguments with the agencies. I would not want anyone to go away thinking that the members of the ISC are a pushover on redacting information. A lot of attention was given to why certain things were redacted from the Russia report. I am comfortable in the knowledge that the things redacted in that report could not have been put in the public domain. The main reason for this is not to save embarrassment for government or any of the individuals; it is about the ability to protect the tradecraft of our services. If we did put certain things in the public domain, our adversaries who want to do us harm would be able to work certain things out. I assure the House that we push back hard and some redactions that have been put forward over the years have been silly, as other ISC members in the Chamber tonight will recognise.
Let me get back to the issue about the triple lock, which is important. The issue is sensitive because it relates to intrusion into the communications of Members of this House and of devolved Administrations. We are talking about what is commonly known as the Wilson doctrine, but, it is like a lot of things in this age; it was announced in 1966, when it was about telecommunications and picking phones up, but we are in a different world now, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said. We now have smartphones, and God knows what is going to be invented in the next few years in terms of how we communicate. As with a lot of things, the convention was thought to be the way forward, but clearly in 2015 it was found that the devolved Administrations were not covered by it and neither were MEPs. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal found that it had no legal enforcement at all, so it was credit to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 that a formal process was put in place for it—that is important.
Currently, the 2016 Act has three layers of safeguards: the Secretary of State who asks for the warrant; a judicial commissioner who examines the communication that is the target of interception and the type of equipment involved, if it relates to a member of a relevant legislature; and, thirdly, the Prime Minister, who, as the final stop, has to agree this.
The Bill will allow the Prime Minister to designate “up to five” Secretaries of State who can approve the warrants in the event that he or she is unable to be available. As has been raised, the obvious example was when Boris Johnson was incapacitated through covid. When we think about the issue, this measure makes sense. The ISC recognised other unique situations when a Prime Minister may not be available, for example if they were abroad and secure communications were not possible. The ISC was keen that the circumstances needed to be exceptional, but we accept that there is a need for the requirement.
Tom Tugendhat
I very much hope the right hon. Gentleman has brought Lord West’s smelling salts with him, because I would like to clarify the concession that Lord West got in the Lords here in the Commons. I can happily commit to strengthening the language on notification requirements in the code of practice, when it is formally brought forward in due course, to require that the Prime Minister “will” be notified of any decisions under the alternative process, rather than “should” be.
Mr Jones
I welcome that, but can I hear it again and pin the Minister down a little more? I am sure it is a massive victory, but is he giving a solemn pledge to the House that the code of practice will remove the word “should” and insert the word “will”? Is that what he is agreeing to?
Mr Jones
Victory at last—there is such power in changing one word. The Minister has given a solemn undertaking on the Floor of the House that the code of practice will change the word “should” to “will”. A small victory for the ISC, but I am sure my colleagues will take it in the spirit in which it is offered. I say to the Minister gently that we could have agreed that the other day when we met, but no doubt the issue that we will be voting on tonight was concentrating his mind.
With that great victory under my belt and those of the members of the ISC, I turn to other amendments. New clause 3, in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, deals with
“cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”.
I understand why he has proposed the new clause. It is always worthwhile debating the issues, which run through the entire Bill. Am I assured that there are processes in place that protect our civil liberties? Yes, I am. However, there are occasions when things can go wrong or people ignore them. I think they have been strengthened greatly, but the right hon. Gentleman refers to an important point. I was on the Committee in 2017 when we did the inquiry into detention and rendition. That took a long time, but it was a good report given where it got to. It unearthed things that were not pleasant but had been done in our names as a democracy.
One conclusion the Committee came to was that in its view the UK tolerated actions and took others that were regarded as inexcusable. Well, they were inexcusable, because as the report outlined, we passed on information to allies who then used it. I think things have changed, and to give Members an example of how the ISC can improve things, we called for a review of the consolidated guidance surrounding the way that security operatives should operate regarding issues of rendition or torture. That led to the Fulford principles, which I think have moved on and tightened up the rules and guidance for members of our security services. That was a big movement forward.
I do not think the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden will push the new clause to a vote, but it reinforces the point that if we have a situation whereby, again, we get information that is passed to one of our allies, we must ensure that those principles are upheld. Am I confident that they are upheld now? I think I am, but how did we get to that pretty damning report in 2017? We got there because those principles and the guidance in place were not followed. We must be vigilant about that, and over the years the right hon. Gentleman has done not only this House but the country a service through his tenacity on these subjects.
Sir David Davis
I will not press new clause 3 to a vote, but I tabled it because in 2010-11 David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, made a promise that there would be a review and that the issue would be investigated properly, but that never happened. The implicit undertaking was that we would not do it again, and we did it again—over and over again. That is why at some point we needed to put our foot down. The problem is that whenever we put our foot down and make an absolute requirement, somebody says, for example “What about the Russians, with the terrorist attack in the last few days?” I am afraid there comes a point where we say, “We are not going to provide information if you torture people.” If we are clear about that, it helps the country and probably also helps the international battle with terrorism.
Mr Jones
I agree totally with the right hon. Gentleman, and I think that is where we are as a Government. Certainly those are the Fulford principles—that we do not share information. Again, some of the people who perhaps do not understand what our security services do, and those who want to malign their great work on our behalf sometimes say, “They are doing x, y and z.” Well as I know from seeing some examples, there are occasions where we deliberately do not pass on information to our allies because of the fear that the right hon. Gentleman set out. The detention and rendition report raised that issue, and the Fulford principles now give us strong guidance. Those principles have been put into being and sewn into the DNA of all new officers. As a result of a huge training programme, not just for existing officers but for new entrants into the service, officers now see that as an important part of their work. That is how it must be done, but it is always important to have this debate.
Sir David Davis
Again I do not intend to press the matter, but if the ISC discusses this issue in the future, I point the right hon. Gentleman to the German model. They look at something and do not always release information if it is operationally sensitive.
Mr Jones
I agree, but that then places an unnecessary burden on the system. The current process with the Secretary of State, the judicial commissioner and the Prime Minister is robust enough to ensure that people are not doing this to find out what someone ordered on Amazon Prime this weekend or to look at their Tesco account, so I think those assurances are fine.
New clause 4 would
“remove the ability of the Secretary of State to authorise the interception of the communications of, or the obtaining of communications intended for, or private information belonging to, Members of Parliament.”
Again, it is good to have this debate, but I would support such a measure for the reasons I have outlined.
The other change in the Bill concerns bulk data. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings covered the original investigatory powers in detail, but there are now big data sets held not only by public authorities but by others, and that has made it more important that our security services are able to access them. Whenever we do this, however, it means more intrusion, so let me deal with the issue of oversight in the Bill, and with the broader, more intrusive powers to obtain internet connection records for the discovery of targets.
Again, that is something that I and other ISC members totally support, but the authorisation process is internal. One stance that the ISC has taken throughout all this is that if we are to give more powers to our security services, there must be a balance. There will not be a situation whereby what people have seen can be identified, but this power will drag in a lot of people who, as the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, are completely innocent. As I said, there is a need for such a power, but we thought there should be more oversight from the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Therefore, the points I made about amendment 15 are important.
The Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office does a great job of ensuring public support for what we do, but, again, there is an issue around bulk datasets. Some of the examples that were given to ISC members—thanks must go to the Minister, who arranged a meeting for the Committee to be briefed on this—make sense when it comes to the issue of low or no reasonable expectation of privacy. It is burdensome, for example, to access the electoral register, but today the Government have said that somehow that is a secret document. Well, that is not the case under this Bill, in which case it is important that the security services should be able to use it, rather than having to go through the warrantry process. That goes to the point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central raised earlier on, about the definition of “low expectation”.
Another perfectly legitimate reason that the security services need these measures is related to testing new AI models of learning. They need access to these new big datasets, which are out there and which companies use, and the Bill will allow them to have it without going through the warrantry system. If intelligence is going to be on the front foot when it comes to AI, we will have to have these big datasets that will teach the systems how to do it.
The problem comes back my hon. Friend’s question of what is deemed a low or no reasonable expectation of privacy. That is something we have considered throughout this process. One thing the ISC has considered is adding to the existing categories. One suggestion we put forward was that, when the agencies do this, they should have to email the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to notify them that they have done it.
Mr Jones
I hope the Minister is not going to intervene again. My legs might get wobbly if I have to sit down again. I might even need some smelling salts. He has explained the internal system, which I am quite satisfied with, but as I said to him and his civil servants—I think other members of the ISC have also said this—it is not us that he has to convince, but the public.
Tom Tugendhat
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. I just want to assure him that I have taken on board his points. I went back to the agencies and assured myself of the challenge that he had raised and found what I think is a better answer than the one we looked at when we were chatting. I wrote to Sir Brian Leveson and I am delighted to say that he responded, confirming that he will pay specific oversight to this regime in the early years until he is content that it operates in the way that the ISC, the Government and the British public would expect. IPCO has taken on this responsibility, which, I think, answers the question more succinctly than it would be if it were included in the Bill.
Mr Jones
May I just get some clarity? That is a perfectly legitimate way of doing it, and it will mean not interfering with the existing system, which was the concern of both the services and the Minister. I understand that this not as simple as an email being sent. Will that mean that there will be a section looking at this issue in the first annual report? If that is the case, we could at least say to the public that it is actually being considered and the promise is being followed up.
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Member will understand that IPCO is operationally independent, so I will not instruct the office or speak for Sir Brian, who has been unbelievably rapid and helpful in his response today. I am sure that he will have heard the comments that the right hon. Member made and, no doubt, will want to draw attention to any areas where he has any doubts at all.
Sir John Hayes
I note the right hon. Gentleman’s proper consideration of the balance between privacy and security, which lies at the heart of the Bill, but I also recognise the Minister’s concern that we must not make the process too unwieldy and bureaucratic. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman might invite the Minister to commit to a regular report going to IPCO as authorisations are made. That might be monthly, but it would at least mean that there was some iterative process of a kind that might reassure the right hon. Gentleman, me and others about that balance.
Mr Jones
I understand where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from. Our original idea about having an email was explained when I met the Minister and his civil servants. I think that that would really cut across some of the processes that we have in place. The suggestion that has been made would be one way of doing it, but IPCO already has the powers to look at such things. The only problem with doing that is that we would then have to set up someone in the agencies to produce another report. I do not want to do anything that holds up their work, and I think that that might do it.
Possibly the Minister’s suggestion of how Sir Brian Leveson is going to do it will give the public some reassurance. Let us not forget that Sir Brian has the power to take action if things are not being done correctly. If we read his reports, we can see that he is not fearful of doing these things. A fair compromise has been put forward. I think we have one and a half victories so far—
Sir John Hayes
Is this an example of my being more hardline than the right hon. Gentleman? It seems like it to me, but perhaps not.
Mr Jones
I would not have thought that the right hon. Gentleman could be seen as hardline on anything, pussycat that he normally is. He portrays himself as hardline, but I know from working with him very closely on the ISC that he cares about this information. He has referred to the Investigatory Powers Act as his baby. It has grown up a little bit and is now being brought into the modern age. I should put on the record again his dedication and work as a Minister to bring in the original Act, which was groundbreaking for this country. It has stood the test of time. We know that we will be back here, so the measures will change. I have no problem with that. It is just that, as technology changes, things will change.
May I finish by thanking the members of our security services for the work that they do? I also thank them for the way that they have engaged with the ISC on the Bill. Hopefully, with the changes that have been brought forward, we can reach agreement on the Bill and our security services will have the ability to face up to the challenge that is coming forward: the ever growing use of larger datasets, and the more sophisticated way in which state actors and non-state actors have access to technology. That will enable the security services to do what we all want to do, which is to keep individual citizens and, just as importantly, our democracy safe.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is a fellow member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. As he mentioned, we work collegiately, and one of the many advantages of that collegiate approach is that I do not need to repeat everything that he has just said; I need only say that I agree with him. I realise that that is a radical approach in this place, but I will not say it all again. I will simply say that I agree with him; he is absolutely right. His point is that, when it comes to the consideration of warrants to authorise the interception of, or interference with, the communications of Members of Parliament, there is huge significance to such a decision. That is the reason the Prime Minister has had to be involved in it, and it is the reason we should not widen too far the pool of deputies who, for sensible and understandable reasons, as the right hon. Member explained, we now need to provide for.
That is why I hope that the next concession that the Minister will make will relate to the pool of deputies, and that in the language the ISC suggests that he adopts we ensure that it is a controlled group, based on either current responsibilities or previous experience. I am sure that we can discuss with him any changes to the wording that he thinks are necessary, but as the right hon. Member for North Durham explained, the current provisions allow for only one restriction: that the member of the Cabinet in question should receive a briefing on how to conduct their warrantry responsibilities. We do not think that that is restrictive enough, given the significance of this decision-making process. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has already said about notification of the Prime Minister in the process. That is a sensible change, which I welcome.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), and to take part in what has already been a very thoughtful debate. We also had a very constructive Committee stage, so the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) are designed first to pose some further questions to the Minister, particularly in relation to the offence of unlawfully obtaining communications data, which we discussed in Committee. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, we again seek to remedy some of the serious concerns that we continue to have about the Bill extending powers beyond what we regard as necessary and proportionate, and the absence of sufficient judicial oversight where such judicial oversight is really required.
First, and briefly, our amendment 13 builds on the discussion in Committee about the offence created by the 2016 Act that will be amended by clause 12. We argued in Committee that the so-called example of “lawful authority” for obtaining communications data in proposed new subsection (3A)(e) of the 2016 Act was an extension of the power rather than a restatement of it. The Minister countered that he was actually seeking only to put existing codes of practice into statute. There is obviously a line of argument that codes of practice do not always necessarily comply with the law, but having gone away to look at the codes of practice it seems that there is a difference between what is currently in the codes of practice and what is currently in the Bill. The wording of amendment 13 reflects the code; the wording of proposed new paragraph (e) seems potentially broader than that. The question for the Minister is why the wording is so different, and whether he can assure us that it is not meant to be interpreted any more broadly than the existing exception in the codes of practice.
The remaining amendments set out our more fundamental concerns with the Bill. In particular, there are three areas where we question the strength of the oversight regime: in relation to bulk personal datasets, internet connection records, and Government notices to companies under clause 21. We regard advanced judicial oversight as important and reassuring not just for members of the public but for those who are exercising the powers. Clause 2 on bulk personal datasets is the first example of where we believe that oversight is being unnecessarily watered down. We are told that the system of advanced judicial authorisation is causing delays and stifling operational flexibility, but to us the answer is to fix those logjams in the oversight system, not to water that system of oversight down. The case for a lighter-touch system of category authorisations has not been made to our satisfaction. That is why we tabled amendment 7, which would take out clause 2.
At the very minimum, why not strengthen the ex post facto oversight beyond annual reviews and reports? Amendment 11 highlights one way to do that, so that the judicial commissioners are reviewing whether what is being done under category authorisations is lawful, cancelling authorisations where that is not found to be the case, and ensuring therefore that we have a clear picture of how the new powers are being used. I noted with interest what the Minister said about the role of IPCO, which we absolutely regard as helpful. However, it would be insufficient, and certainly less robust than our proposal in amendment 11.
Sir Jeremy Wright
As the hon. Gentleman set out, amendment 11 would strengthen the hand of the judicial commissioner, and I have some sympathy with that. My concern is that his proposed new subsection (4) says:
“The Judicial Commissioner, on reviewing any notifications received under subsection (2), must cancel the category authorisation if the Commissioner considers that section 226A no longer applies to any dataset that falls within the category of datasets”.
I wonder why he thinks that the wrongful inclusion of one individual dataset in the category would invalidate the category as a whole, because that seems to me to be the effect of what that part of his amendment would do.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for that intervention. He possibly makes a fair point. If I recall correctly, the wording of that proposed new subsection was borrowed from another part of the Bill. I might be wrong about that; I need to go away and have a look. I suppose the argument would simply be that if a category authorisation is to any extent being abused, it is right that the category authorisation is cancelled, and if somebody wants to come back with something similar, they can do so. However, I am not without sympathy to his point. I take it in the spirit in which it was intended, and will reflect upon it.
Let me move on from the question of oversight in relation to bulk personal datasets to the issue of “no” or “low” expectations of privacy in relation to such datasets, and how that test will operate in practice. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have been repeatedly given some very easy examples of so-called “low/no” bulk personal datasets. For example, we have spoken about phone books, academic papers, public and official records, and other data that many people would have access to routinely. It was helpful that, in relation to what is now our amendment 9, the Minister said in Committee that Facebook posts and CCTV pictures would be considered sensitive and would not be caught by these provisions. It is very helpful to have that on the record.
None the less, it would to be useful to have greater precision in the Bill. Amendment 8 would take out reference to “low” expectations of privacy altogether, so that only “no” expectations would be covered by the new provisions. To us, “low” is such a difficult question to adjudicate—low expectations in particular. That is especially the case when we are dealing with datasets of potentially huge numbers of very different people with very different reasons for having very different expectations of privacy, particularly in how that would relate to different organisations. We cannot think of a single dataset example provided during the passage of the Bill that would not be adequately covered by “no reasonable expectation of privacy”. If that is the case, if that is really all the Bill will be used for, why not just accept the amendment? It would be useful to have an understanding of what “low” expectation of privacy is designed to cover.
Amendment 15 brings us to internet connection records. In 2016, the Government emphasised the very targeted nature of the ICR powers, but here we are being asked to incrementally expand those powers so that they are slightly less targeted. To us, that means that the independent assessment of proportionality and necessity is pivotal, so we think that it should be subject to advance judicial oversight. Even the explanatory notes accept that there are difficulties in formulating sufficiently targeted queries, noting that
“such queries are highly susceptible to imprecise construction”
and that “additional safeguards” are required.
For us, the required additional safeguard is judicial oversight. We were led to believe that the powers would be used only exceptionally, so it is hard to see how a judicial authorisation requirement would cause any significant problem. The Government argue that there may be times when warrants are needed on an emergency basis, but that could be dealt with by having emergency processes or very limited exceptions—it is not an argument against a general rule of advance judicial oversight.
I turn to the impact on technology companies of the Bill’s various provisions relating to notices—although the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam probably made more sensible and eloquent points than those I am about to make. The written evidence that the Bill Committee received shows that tech companies, academics and human rights and privacy campaigners are still a million miles away from the Government in their understanding of how the provisions will work and of the impact that they will have on products and services. Apple wrote to the Committee that these provisions
“would dramatically disrupt the global market for security technologies, putting users in the UK and around the world at greater risk.”
It is frustrating and disappointing that we did not have the opportunity to explore those differences in detail through witness testimony. The Minister did his best to reassure us, and he made some important arguments about extraterritoriality and conflicts of laws, but given the serious concerns that have been raised, it is worth again asking the Minister to explain why those witnesses are wrong and he is correct. In particular, the Government’s explanation that the new pre-notification requirement in clause 21 is
“not intended as an approval mechanism”
has not dampened concerns. Apple argued in evidence to the Committee that
“Once a company is compelled to provide notice of a new security technology to the SoS, the SoS can immediately seek a Technical Capability Notice to block the technology.”
Other provisions in the Bill around maintaining the status quo during notice review periods work in tandem with these provisions to deliver what Apple and others see as a de facto block on adoption of new technology—that is the risk that they are highlighting, and it is what the Minister must address in his speech. It is why we have tabled amendments to take out some of those provisions. It is also why we have tabled amendment 19: an alternative that would introduce advance judicial oversight and, hopefully, a degree of reassurance that the new notification notice regime under clause 21 will not deliver the unintended effects that many fear.
Finally, I put on the record our support for the amendments tabled by members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, whose work on the Bill has been as helpful as ever—I congratulate them on their one-and-a-half victories so far. As is often the case when it comes to Bills of this type, we also put on record our support for several of the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis), some of which are similar to amendments that we tabled in Committee, while others are similar to amendments that we supported during the passage of other Bills, including the National Security Act 2023. In particular, new clause 3, which is designed to place an absolute prohibition on the UK sharing intelligence with foreign Governments where there is a real risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, is long overdue and would close a serious gap in the law. For us, that is self-evidently the right thing to do.
Sir John Hayes
As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as other Members have made reference to, I was the Minister who took the original Bill, which this Bill amends, through the House—indeed, it became the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
The purpose of that legislation was both to draw together a number of the capabilities of the agencies necessary for them to keep us safe, and to put in place a series of mechanisms to ensure that there was proper scrutiny and accountability for those powers. We introduced the principle of a double lock, whereby both politicians and judicial commissioners were necessary to authorise some of those very powers. They matter because of the threats we face. Those threats are, as has been said by a number of contributors, metamorphosising. They were bound to do so, and we anticipated that when the original Act was considered in this place.
I accept the argument used by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), that that does not end here tonight. Those threats will continue to change, and it will be necessary to update the legislation to reflect those changes, for our security services and police need two things to do the job that we expect them to do on our behalf: capacity—namely, skills and resources—and capability, which includes legislative powers.
Tom Tugendhat
I will satisfy my right hon. Friend immediately and, I hope, save him time in his speech. Local authority trading standards teams are responsible for a range of legislation where enforcement requires investigation and may need to draw on communications data. The idea is that the powers in this Bill will be in keeping with those powers, not for them to be expansive, so my right hon. Friend is right: it is for serious crimes, as has already been set out.
Sir John Hayes
That is excellent—it helps, because the schedule associated with that part of the Bill does not make that explicit. I hope that the Minister, having given that binding assurance to the House, will reinforce it in the explanatory notes associated with the Act and in the code attached to it.
Sir John Hayes
I am seeing the Minister nodding. He might want to say a word or two more when he sums up.
Mr Kevan Jones
May I gently suggest that the right hon. Gentleman goes back to the Minister now, just to pin down exactly what he is agreeing to? We on the ISC have no problem with the idea of our security services having these powers, and I do not think the public would either. They would be less comfortable, as I and the right hon. Gentleman are, with other organisations having them.
Sir John Hayes
The Minister may want to intervene on me again to do exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.
Tom Tugendhat
On the grounds that it will save me time when I wrap up at the end of the debate, I will make it clear now. His Majesty’s Treasury is responsible for civil enforcement of financial sanctions regulations, and some information that is essential to carrying out its civil enforcement functions is now communications data, such as the timestamp on online banking transactions. His Majesty’s Treasury cannot currently use its information powers to compel that information to be provided by a telecoms operator, so to go back to the statement I made earlier, local authority trading standards teams are responsible for a range for legislation where enforcement requires investigation and may need to draw on communications data.
Sir John Hayes
That is very helpful and, I think, goes a fair way towards what I want to achieve. The Minister has therefore made clear that the power will not be permissive. If he uses those very words—forgive me for putting them into his mouth, Madam Deputy Speaker—that would also help. These are going to be rarely used, particular powers associated with regulatory or legal functions of local authorities, not permissively available to those local authorities at their whim. That is clear as crystal, is it not?
Tom Tugendhat
If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, I will use the words I am using. Those powers will be used as infrequently as we all hope they will be, but they will be used in keeping with the law as described. If the frequency increases, it will be because of the need to act; I am very cautious about saying that these crimes will disappear, and therefore the frequency will change. I am not willing to predict that criminality now.
Sir John Hayes
I entirely understand. I used the example myself of trading standards: in Lincolnshire, we have an issue with the sale of illegal cigarettes that has become not a trivial matter, but one of organised crime. It is not restricted to my county or locality: it is a national problem, and it is of course an example of where a local authority, working closely with the police, might well need to use those powers. By the way, those local authorities will be working with other agencies too: because money laundering is involved, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs might be involved, and so on and so forth. That is a good example of where those powers might be useful in catching very serious criminals indeed, but the word I wanted the Minister to use is that these powers are not permissive. He will understand what I mean by that, and I cannot see why that would present any problem at all, given the reasonable, sensible man he is.
Tom Tugendhat
I apologise to my right hon. Friend. These powers are not permissive in the sense that they are expansive: they are permissive only in the sense applied to them by this law, with the restriction of the powers that local authorities already have. They are not to be used in any way other than as set out very clearly in the Bill.
Sir John Hayes
I think that is helpful. The Minister will remember that when we debated the original Bill that became the Investigatory Powers Act, one or two newspapers used the term “the snoopers’ charter”, and images were used of local authorities using those powers to investigate people’s rubbish to make sure they were recycling properly, for example. I do not want to add unnecessary levity to our consideration tonight, because we are dealing with very serious matters indeed, but the Minister will understand how that kind of misunderstanding—indeed, misinformation—could do far more harm than good.
Tom Tugendhat
Again, just to clarify for my right hon. Friend, this Bill offers no greater expansion than his own Bill did in 2016. In the same way he ensured that Bill was no snoopers’ charter, I assure him that this one is not either.
Sir John Hayes
I was going to say that I have done this matter to death, but I can see that the right hon. Gentleman wants to intervene.
Mr Kevan Jones
I think the Minister is getting another “dancing on the head of a pin” award for his explanation. What I think the right hon. Gentleman is trying to get on the record—perhaps not for the benefit of people in this House who understand this Bill, but for the wider public—is that the way the Bill will be used is that it will include, for example, a local authority when an investigation is being driven by a security issue, such as in his example of organised crime in cigarette smuggling.
Sir John Hayes
Yes, exactly. The right hon. Gentleman has put it very clearly, and the sense of what the Minister has said has reassured me that it is not the Government’s intention to extend those powers beyond the very strict legal limits associated with the kind of organised crime that he and I have both cited. For me, that is considerable progress. The right hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about half a win; I think that is three quarters of a win, at least. For that reason, I feel that I can move on to my next request of the Minister.
We spoke earlier about IPCO, and its role and association with Government. As the Minister will know and as the right hon. Member for North Durham referred to, this legislation provides for a report to be made available to the ISC on an annual basis. There has been some concern that that report might be rather different from the one that is made available to Ministers and others, and my anxiety is that it should not be different. All that it should exclude is current operational matters; nothing else should be excluded from what my Committee considers, and clearly, it needs to be the same as what IPCO gets. We cannot have three or four different reports.
Sir John Hayes
That is a 100% win. It is not half a win or three quarters of a win; it is just a win. So we are making huge progress tonight, partly due to the diligence of the members of the ISC and other Members of this House, including the official Opposition, but largely due to the reasonableness of the Minister. He is a listening figure, and he is growing in stature and reputation as a result. I am delighted that the Minister has agreed to the fourth of my requirements.
Dame Angela Eagle
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and indeed all the fellow members of the ISC who have spoken on both sides of the House in our debate on seeking to improve this important piece of legislation. I must say that it is very rare, when one is called towards the end of a debate, for there to have been concessions on most of the areas at issue, leaving very little else to say. It makes me happy that I did not write my speech in advance, since I would have had to rip most of it up following the Security Minister’s very welcome concessions on a range of issues during our debate. They are on the record, and they are indeed extremely welcome.
However, there is one area of detail that I want to comment on, which is about the triple lock amendment—amendment 22—on the qualifications and experience of the Secretaries of State who, under the widening of the triple lock, could if the Prime Minister of the day is incapacitated for some reason, be drawn into making a warrant to intercept the communications of a Member of this Parliament, or indeed a Member of any of the devolved legislatures in the UK. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) was very explicit about why that particular protection should be in existence, and I completely agree with his analysis. One of the ways we defend our democracy is by allowing Members of Parliament to do their unique jobs without interference unless it is for an exceptional and a very good reason, and has been authorised at the highest level.
There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing while the Bill has been going through its parliamentary stages about precisely how this widening of the power to make such a warrant away from the Prime Minister, if he or she is indisposed or unable to be near secure communications, should actually be defined. We have got down to the stage where everybody agrees that to make the system robust there should be an expansion, and we have even come up with a number of Secretaries of State—five—who should be authorised in such exceptional circumstances to make that warrant.
We are now down to the last piece of disagreement between the ISC and the Minister, which is about what the qualifications of those Secretaries of State should be. In seeking to try to draw out precisely what the Government mean, we have asked as a Committee that the relevant Secretaries of State who may be down to do this duty ought already to be responsible for warrantry, or have had previous responsibility for it. Thus far, however, the Government and the Minister have been unwilling to be that deliberate in the arrangements they have made.
As the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) said in his contribution to the debate, the only qualification apart from being a Secretary of State that the Government appear to have admitted is that the person standing in for the Prime Minister ought to have had a 20-minute security briefing about warrantry.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree with me that this is so important, because the Secretary of State will be acting as the Prime Minister at that time? Once that decision has been taken—even though we now have the commitment from the Minister that the Prime Minister will be told, not should be told—they will not be able to overturn or review it in any way, so that person is acting as the Prime Minister at that stage.
Dame Angela Eagle
Yes, and it is clearly important that there is a reassurance that the Secretary of State who is picked to do that job in these exceptional circumstances will either have previous experience of being responsible for warrantry and issuing warrants, or have current experience. I do not see why the Security Minister cannot concede that that is where we should be. I do not understand why, over all of the parliamentary time spent on this Bill, the Government have not been able to give us that assurance, which just shores up the important nature of the commitment to widening the triple lock.
Clearly, the Minister’s very welcome decision to make the concession on amendment 23, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has just pointed out, strengthens the situation, because that means the Prime Minister will have to be notified of such a warrant. However, my right hon. Friend is also correct in pointing out that the warrant cannot be rescinded if it has already been granted. I therefore gently ask the Security Minister whether he will not take the opportunity, in responding to the debate, to give the ISC members and the public we all represent the reassurance that the Secretaries of State who may have this power delegated to them either will already be responsible for warranting, or will have previously had responsibility for warranting. I do not understand why he cannot just get up and give us that final assurance. If he does, I think we will have done extremely well on Report and in Committee. I am rather disappointed that the Minister is not leaping to his feet, since he has been leaping to his feet a lot while my colleagues have been making their speeches. I see no such flicker in him as I am making mine. I suspect and hope that that is because he is just thinking about how he will wind up the debate and give us that final assurance that we need.
Mr Kevan Jones
The measure is doable, because we are not asking for something in the Bill; it could be done in the guidance. The Minister has already agreed on changing the “should” to “will”, so this measure could be reflected in the guidance that goes alongside the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
I can see that the Minister is looking pensive, so I hope that means he is thinking of some way to reassure us on this final, important point with respect to the triple lock and the widening of those powers to other Ministers who are not the Prime Minister.
The whole debate around the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill demonstrates that when threats evolve, the requirement to meet them also has to evolve. We know that this area is rapidly developing, and we know also that we will probably be back in the not-too-distant future to see how these powers can be changed again to defend our democracy and meet some of the threats of serious organised crime and terrorism, which our security forces help us deal with day in, day out. We also know that if our citizens are to give us effective permission and consent to take some of these powers, any increase in powers has to be accompanied by an increase in proper oversight, to reassure them that democracy is being defended, not undermined. That includes oversight by the ISC, which is why I am a big supporter of new clause 1 as tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). It is important that that can be an ongoing reassurance.
I do not want to repeat a lot of the arguments made by colleagues, and it is important now to listen to what the Minister has to say. I thank him for the concessions he has made, and I hope he can make just a slight move towards us on the warrantry issue in the instance of the triple lock, so that we can be even more content than we are now.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendments 15, 20 and 22, and Government amendments 3 and 6. I highlight that the investments declared in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests include a data company.
The intelligence services carry out vital work in keeping us safe in a dangerous world, as we have heard from many colleagues this evening. The secrecy that surrounds what the agencies do inevitably means that the majority of people who work for them will never receive public praise or recognition, so I take this opportunity to thank them for their brave and dedicated efforts on our behalf. This Bill provides important updates to the law to enable them to operate effectively and to adapt to fast-moving technological change and innovation. This kind of update to legislation will be essential again and again in years to come to enable our intelligence services to keep ahead of those who would seek to do us harm. For example—this is at the heart of what we are doing today—it makes no sense to require, as the current law does, that the intelligence services undertake the full range of actions designed for holding sensitive, confidential and private information when dealing with datasets that are readily available to the public or to commercial users and over which there is little or no expectation of privacy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in wishing him a very happy birthday.
Jim Shannon
You are most kind, Madam Deputy Speaker. When you get to my age, you do not count the years, but you make the years count.
It is an absolute honour and pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). May I put on the record my thanks to her for her time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? We appreciate her commitment and efforts over those years. Her intelligence about and interest in Northern Ireland have not dissipated because she is no longer the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; indeed, they have added to the occasion.
It is a pleasure to speak on the Bill, which, as the Minister will know, I have done on numerous occasions. I am aware of the complexity of the issue and of the need to give privacy its rightful place in our national security. As others have done, I put on the record my thanks to all the security and intelligence services for all that they have done and still do. We owe them a great debt.
During the previous debate, I asked the Minister for his assurances regarding whether the right balance had been struck, yet I have still been contacted by constituents who continue to express their concerns. I will not detain the House for long—about five minutes—but will highlight again the concern that my constituents continue to express, to give them one last chance to receive assurances on the Floor of the House.
My constituents’ remaining concerns relate to something that we in this place have much cognisance of and that we treasure: the freedom within a democratic society to live our lives in peace as long as we are not adversely affecting the lives of others. That is a precious right, and one that none of us in the House wants to remove. I will refer to clauses 1 and 2 and highlight four companies that have expressed concerns to get the Minister’s response. My constituents have highlighted the following:
“In addition to the concerns of civil society, I would like to draw your attention to some of the comments submitted in evidence to the Bill’s Committee from the tech industry.
Apple: ‘In addition to impacting the safety of billions of users around the world who rely on security technologies developed by Apple and other companies, the Bill in its current form would undermine fundamental human rights. In fact, just this year, the European Court of Human Rights held that requiring a company to provide a means to decrypt all encrypted communications on its platform violated the right of privacy in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’
TechUK: ‘This could impede the ability of TechUK members to modify products and services over time to protect users from active security threats, to innovate, and enhance their services for their users.’
Information Technology Industry Council: ‘We strongly encourage greater scrutiny of these implications so that the Bill will not have a chilling effect on a company’s ability to conduct business or in current or future innovations, and that it will serve to further international efforts on shared goals around trust and security.’
Computer and Communications Industry Association: ‘Over time, this will push tech firms to refocus product development away from addressing the priorities of UK consumers, towards Government demands for access. The obstacles the new regime creates will be a drag on innovation and therefore undermine the quality of digital services on offer.’”
Sir John Hayes
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, not least because it is his birthday. Let me put it to him in this fashion. I think that the public have as much to fear from those corporate organisations as they do from any democratically elected Government. I am much more concerned about the way that they gather and sell data, and, dealing with the matter of expectation, the vast majority of people do not know that they are doing it. Rather than more a more permissive attitude towards those organisations, I want to see a less permissive one.
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I share those concerns, but I wish to put on the record my concern for my constituents in relation to how the changes are interpreted and how they will affect people.
I will give the last sentence of the quotation from the Computer & Communications Industry Association:
“They could risk deterring investment in improving service for UK consumers and contribute to a sense that the UK is not a safe market in which to invest.”
Those are the four tech companies, and the questions are on the record—I put them in Hansard—so that perhaps the Minister can give me an answer. Will he outline what mitigations are in place for the matters affecting those four companies in order to secure the tech industry’s place in the fabric of our lives in the United Kingdom?
I am pleased that the Minister has accepted amendment 23, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). The Democratic Unionist party was minded to support that amendment, but, because it has been accepted, we will not need to do so.
While I am aware of valid concerns, I am also aware of the need for this Bill, which the gallant Minister will know about better than most in the House. He served in Northern Ireland, so he understands the implications for us in Northern Ireland and the lives that we have led for some years. I was a part-time soldier in the Ulster Defence Regiment and in the Territorial Army for 14 and a half years. I have been a recipient of security intelligence and know how it can save lives. I am here today because of intelligence, which found out what the IRA’s intentions were. That is a fact. That has affected not just me; over the years, the intelligence services have saved the lives of other hon. and gallant Members. I have many friends who served and who are alive today because of the intelligence service or the Security Service. I had many other friends who unfortunately are not alive today; I remember them as well, so I do.
We must remember that the whole objective of the Bill is to keep us safe, to keep us secure and to ensure that our lives with our families can continue. I do hope that a balance has been struck, as the Minister outlined, because freedom is a prize worthy of getting it right. I know that the Minister wants to get it right, and I want it to be right. Madam Deputy Speaker, you want it to be right as well. Let us do it and get it right tonight.
Tom Tugendhat
Right hon. and hon. Members will be delighted to hear that, having answered colleagues as we went along, I have only a few short words to conclude. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I know how to keep them happy.
Amendments 3 to 6 to clause 14 concern the restoration of specified public authorities’ general information powers to secure the disclosure of communications data from a telecommunications operator by compulsion. I pay tribute and thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I hope that Members will have noticed that I have listened carefully to Members across the House, and I believe that this Bill has been pulled together carefully alongside the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is a slight shame I cannot thank the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) in person, who is sadly at a funeral today. He has played an important role in contributing to and leading the engagement of which I have had the advantage in preparing this Bill.
Let me quickly touch on one or two points. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) spoke about notices. It is important to note that the notices do not block innovation. They do not stop a technical patch or infringe on companies’ ability to update their systems. All they do is make sure that the existing level of access remains while that is being looked at. That is a reasonable element to ensure that the British people are kept safe by the British law enforcement authorities.
Sir Jeremy Wright
I understand what my right hon. Friend is saying, but the practical consequence of issuing such a notice is that the development of the product about which concern has been expressed has to stop. Therefore, the infringement on commercial liberty, in practice, is exactly what I have described, is it not?
Tom Tugendhat
If my right hon. and learned Friend will forgive me, I will be able discuss that in a more secure environment, but I can only say, “Not necessarily.” I will be able to describe why that is in a different environment, but I cannot do it here.
The reason for not accepting amendments 22 and 23 —I understand the points made by right hon. and hon. Friends and Members across the House—is that we are talking about a very limited number of people. One Secretary of State is already used to do the initial request. The second person on the triple lock is a judicial commissioner—a judge. The third therefore has to be one of the four Secretaries of State left. Therefore, it is important that we make sure that it is somebody in whom the Prime Minister has confidence. Given that we are about to have a new Government—I hope the new Conservative Government, but still a new one—it is entirely possible that there will be a new Cabinet and that the routine explanation will not be satisfactory. As routine duties do not have legal clarity, we will not use them.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Minister has used that argument before about new Secretaries of State, and it is complete nonsense, is it not? It would not happen on day one unless the Prime Minister suddenly got covid or was indisposed. By the time this came in, those three people would be there anyway. His argument is pretty weak.
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Member has made his point and I have made mine; I am afraid I will leave it there rather than continue. The ways in which we have been able to engage on the Bill has been incredibly supportive and helpful.
The removal of clause 15 from the Bill would prevent the intelligence agencies and the National Crime Agency from detecting some national security and serious crime threats, and those intent on committing child sexual exportation and abuse. Given the robust oversight of the regime in general, and the internet connection records in particular, we simply do not believe that this is in the best interests of the British public. Removal would benefit only those who threaten our safety and serve to make the work of the intelligence services and the NCA significantly harder as they seek to protect us and bring paedophiles to justice. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner already has the necessary powers to inspect and report on all parts of the CD regime. If the Investigatory Powers Commissioner wishes is to focus attention on condition D of the internet connection record, they have the power to do so. With those clarifications, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move, That the Bill be read the Third time.
I pay huge tribute to all the contributions from across this House, and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who whipped this through in exemplary fashion and will be delighted that since my appointment he has not had to take a Minister’s place on a Bill. He will also be grateful, along with me, to Lord Sharpe in the other place who has led on this Bill brilliantly, and taken us through with exemplary speed. I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who has been a great friend for many years. We have now completed a Bill together, which really does bring us that bit closer. I also say an enormous thanks to Phoebe, Fintan, Francesca, James, Emer, Lucy x 2, Megan, Sophie, and Tom Ball, whose exemplary work in the Bill Committee has been fantastic.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is gratifying that we will get this Bill on the statute book, because it will give our security services the necessary powers to keep us all safe. I add my thanks to the staff of the Committee on which I and other Members served, and like the Minister I thank the civil servants who I have engaged with throughout the passage of the Bill. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for his engagement on the Bill. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) would have liked to have been here today. He has played an integral part not just in speaking about the Bill, but in his work on the ISC. As I said earlier, unfortunately he is at the funeral of Lord Cormack; the House will understand his reason.
As I said, the Bill will improve our abilities. Perhaps the Minister would also like to put on record his thanks to the ISC, which he forgot to do. It might have been a painful process at times, but can I give him some advice, possibly for the future? He may well have been able to solve some of these issues earlier in our discussions, and avoided keeping his colleagues here on a Monday night—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities says from a sedentary position that that was impossible, but the Minister has agreed to our amendments.
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Some of us should take yes for an answer.
Mr Jones
Well some of us do, but if the amendments had been agreed to last week, we could have had a shorter debate today and the Minister’s colleagues would not have been kept here for so long.
Finally, the biggest thanks we need to give is to the men and women of our security services who, as the Minister said in his earlier contribution, do not get any recognition publicly. They do their work day in, day out, some in very dangerous circumstances, to keep us all safe.
Stuart C. McDonald
I, too, thank all colleagues who have taken part in the proceedings today, in Committee stage and before, especially members of the ISC whose expertise really does benefit our scrutiny processes. I also thank all the various organisations that have provided written evidence and briefings, both in support of, and in opposition to, the Bill. Finally, may I also thank the Committee staff and the Clerks of the House for helping us through what has in some ways been quite a technical Bill?
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 set out a detailed framework for use of investigatory powers. The existence of such a legislative framework was welcome, as were some aspects of the framework itself. We worked hard to try to improve that framework, but, ultimately, believed that it fell short of what was required and so we voted against that Bill on Third Reading. We are in much the same place today. We get the motivations for this Bill; they are understood and we are sympathetic with some of what the Bill seeks to achieve. However, we are not convinced that all the powers are shown to have been necessary and proportionate and that there are not other ways to get to where those seeking the new powers need to be.
At the same time, with more extensive powers and more extensive use of those powers, there should come greater oversight. In our view, the Bill heads us in the opposite direction, watering down or failing to put into place necessary advanced judicial oversight. Such oversight, we believe, is of benefit in providing reassurance not only to members of the public concerned with implications for their private lives, but to the very people who need to navigate these powers—members of our security and intelligence services and other public bodies. Instead, they are left to make difficult almost impossible judgments as to their lawful use, necessity and proportionality. Therefore, we do not take this step lightly, but for those reasons we will be voting against Third Reading tonight.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I rise to confirm that we on these Benches support the Third Reading of this Bill. It is the first duty of every Government to keep their people safe. It is right that we take the opportunity to pay tribute to the exceptional men and women who serve in our police and security services, often in the shadows and often without recognition, working tirelessly to keep our country safe. We owe them all a debt of gratitude. We also owe it to them, as Members of this House, to provide them with the powers they need to discharge their duties. The Bill does that, in part, because it has been the product of constructive cross-party efforts both in this House and in the other place.
I wish to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for his work on the Bill. I wish him well with future endeavours. I also thank the SNP and all those Members who have contributed to this process, particularly those members of the ISC, who have made an outstanding contribution to proceedings.
On behalf of the whole House, I express our thanks to the civil servants working in the Home Office who have done an exceptional job, as have the Clerks of this House, who have worked very hard on what is after all a technical Bill.
It is always welcome when collegiate, cross-party working takes place in this House. I am very grateful that, on this occasion, we have been able to work together on getting this important Bill right.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Acting Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
At this juncture of the evening, at the risk of making myself even more unpopular with colleagues, I intend to speak briefly to the motion. I was prepared to allow the Minister at least five minutes for an exposition of why we are in this situation and to happily take the remaining 85, but I might be more charitable for the sake of colleagues.
The motion as it appears on the Order Paper is seemingly innocuous, but behind it there is a short story to be told—one that very few are aware of. The saga, if I may call it that, of the appointment of a new Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for England began in the summer of last year. An appointments panel was assembled, of which I was a member. The second permanent secretary at the Department of Health and Social Care, an independent member and the former president of the International Ombudsman Institute were also members, and the panel was ably chaired by Philippa Helme, late of this parish—as many of us will remember, she was a senior Clerk. We went about our business diligently, sifting through an initial 52 applications for the role, longlisting and shortlisting. We then took on a day’s interviewing during which we interviewed four candidates. We judged three of them to be appointable, and put forward a recommended name to the Prime Minister.
I am sure we are all aware, but I shall repeat it to refresh our memory, that “The Cabinet Manual” makes it very clear in paragraph 5.40 that
“The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, known as the Parliamentary Ombudsman, is an officer of the House of Commons appointed by the Crown and is independent of the Government. In recognition of the Ombudsman’s relationship with Parliament, the House now leads on the recruitment to the role.”
Unfortunately, the name put forward—I am not going to say that person’s name, so as to protect their privacy at this juncture—has seemingly been declined by No. 10. Given that No. 10 was notified of the name in January and it is now March, some time has elapsed, during which it would surely have been possible to confer that seal of approval.
Clearly, things are now more topical, given last week’s report from the ombudsman on the women’s stage pension age. Maybe that has sharpened the focus, but in winding up the debate—if we can call it that—might my very able hon. Friend the Minister for the constitution, in whose hands the constitution of this country is always safe and sound, be able to elaborate on what has happened? Why is there the need to appoint a temporary ombudsman? I have absolutely no problem at all with Rebecca Hilsenrath, who is the chief executive of the organisation; I am sure she will do a splendid job. None the less, it is somewhat irregular that after a recruitment process lasting several months in which proper procedures have been followed, it seems that No. 10 is not prepared to recognise the recommended name from the recruitment panel. Could my hon. Friend explain?
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) for his introduction, and we look forward to more information coming forward.
We support the motion to appoint an acting Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The post of the PHSO combines the two statutory roles of parliamentary commissioner for administration and health service commissioner for England. As Members of this House, we all know the important role that the ombudsman plays in our system to provide an independent complaint handling service. The PHSO makes final decisions after complaints that Government Departments, a range of other public bodies in the UK or the NHS in England have not acted properly or fairly, or have provided a poor service. The findings from the PHSO’s casework are shared with Parliament to help its scrutiny of public service providers and, more widely, to help drive improvements in public services.
I put on record my thanks to Philippa Helme, the recruitment lead and chair of the recruitment panel, and her panel for their work in identifying and interviewing candidates. The whole House will want to wish the acting ombudsman, Rebecca Hilsenrath, who is also the chief executive officer of the PHSO, well while the search for her new boss is finalised.
I know that Members on both sides will want to send their thanks and best wishes to Rob Behrens, the outgoing ombudsman, for his sterling work leading the PHSO since 2017. I remember him at Coventry Polytechnic back in the day. Rob has an outstanding record of public service, investigating suspected failures in our public services and helping people seek redress. We only have to read his recent interview with The Guardian to appreciate his dedication to the families and victims of public maladministration, particularly in the NHS. In it, he raised concerns about a “cover-up culture” in the NHS that leads to avoidable deaths and families being denied the truth about their loved ones, arguing that whistleblowers are being victimised and that Ministers and NHS leaders are doing too little to change the organisation’s culture.
The ombudsman has also been in the news this last week, because he has published his final report into communication about changes in the state pension age for women born in the 1950s, which meant that some women born in the 1950s had very little notice of an increase in their state pension age, and therefore fewer years to prepare and plan. This is a serious report that requires serious consideration. The PHSO has rightly said that it is for the Government to respond, and we will continue to press them to do so.
These recent news stories highlight the high-profile work of the ombudsman, but we know that Members refer cases to the service day in and day out, trying to get redress for problems with our public services that have affected our constituents’ lives. The ombudsman is an important and vital tool for people across our country who are trying to get answers and recourse. I hope that we will soon debate a motion on the permanent replacement for Mr Behrens, and I look forward to the House panel completing its work.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
At the outset, I would like to pay tribute to the outgoing ombudsman, Rob Behrens CBE, who steps down at the end of this month after serving the statutory maximum term of seven years. I would like to thank him for the great work he has done to transform the PHSO. For example, he has improved complaint handling, established an independent expert advisory panel to inform decision making, and set up Europe’s first ombudsman academy to build capability. He has also introduced new ways of working, including mediation in casework. On this House’s behalf, I praise Rob for his achievements and wish him all the very best for the future.
The campaign to recruit a new ombudsman commenced at the beginning of October 2023. The House-appointed recruitment panel made a recommendation to the Prime Minister in January, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) said a few moments ago. This is an important and high-profile role, so it is very important that the process takes as long as is necessary to appoint the right person. Until then, and to ensure continuity for the PHSO, it is necessary to appoint an acting commissioner. Mr Behrens had reached the end of the statutory maximum term of seven years, so it is necessary for us to have an acting commissioner before a final appointment is made.
The Government very much support Rebecca Hilsenrath’s appointment to this role, as we believe she has the ability and experience to lead the PHSO until a new ombudsman is appointed. She joined the PHSO as director of external affairs, strategy and communications in 2021, and she was appointed its chief executive officer in July 2023.
Alex Burghart
That will be a matter for the Prime Minister. As my hon. Friend will have heard me say a few moments ago, it is very important that this process is followed thoroughly and diligently to make sure that the correct appointment is made.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I also want to put on the record my thanks to Mr Rob Behrens, not least for the way he supported one of my constituents. However, my concern is that the Minister and the Prime Minister have had plenty of time to review the appointment. By putting an interim person in place, there will be disruption when a new person comes into place. Does the Minister not also recognise that there is much work to be done in reducing the number of complaints and addressing the real needs of our constituents, who need redress for the serious issues they are raising?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that this is an extremely important role. That is why, in looking for a temporary head, we have chosen someone with an enormous amount of experience within the ombudsman itself. There will be no disruption; there will be great continuity. She points to the amount of time it is taking to sign off the role. While I appreciate that she would like to have it now, looking back, the appointment of Mr Behrens seven years ago took almost a year, so it is not unusual for appointments to take more than a couple of months. With that said, in accordance with section 3A of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, I commend Rebecca Hilsenrath to the House for the role of acting commissioner.
Question put and agreed to.
Deputy Speakers
Ordered,
That, further to the Orders of 30 January, 23 February and 26 October 2023, paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Order of 19 December 2022 relating to the appointment of Sir Roger Gale as Deputy Speaker and to the exercise of the functions of the Chairman of Ways and Means shall continue to have effect up to and including 23 July 2024.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
Westminister Hall: Sitting Times
Ordered,
(1) That, with effect from 15 April, the following amendment to Standing Orders be made:
In Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall), paragraph (1)(c), leave out “1.30 pm” and insert “12.30 pm”.
(2) That this amendment shall have effect for the remainder of this Parliament.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
Petitions
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I remind Members presenting petitions that they are restricted to reading out the material allegations contained in the petition, the prayer of the petition and a very short statement on the parties from whom it comes.
Taiwan Strait
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I begin by saying the obvious: it has been a busy day for me, my good friend the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) as we contend with China, the biggest threat and policy challenge that we face and obviously central to this Adjournment debate on Taiwan. Before I get fully into those remarks, I want to put on record my thanks to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China secretariat, in particular Luke de Pulford, which does so much work for me and parliamentarians across the House on all our issues relating to China. The support it has given me for this debate is no different.
It is entirely right to start the debate on Taiwan by congratulating its new President-elect, Lai Ching-te, on his stunning victory in the recent presidential elections. I also pay tribute to the outgoing President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen, whom I had the pleasure of meeting in late 2022 in Taipei. It has been said that the US President is the leader of the free world, but these days we could all agree that that burden is shared beyond the Oval Office by some others who are willing to stand up to authoritarianism and stand in defence of the democratic open society against the authoritarian closed alternative. Taiwan’s outgoing President, along with others such as Ukraine’s President Zelensky or Estonia’s Prime Minister Kallas, is such a leader. Those of us in the House who believe in open society and the international rules-based system owe a great debt to those such as President Tsai Ing-wen for her public service.
Since the recent presidential elections in January, the context of cross-strait relations has changed. Beijing has sought to establish a new normal through an increased campaign of intimidation and grey zone aggression against Taiwan. China has responded to the outcome of the election by snatching a diplomatic ally, Nauru. It has altered an air route in the Taiwan strait and it is growing increasingly aggressive in its controls of Taiwan’s Kinmen Islands. Reference to a “peaceful reunification” have been dropped entirely, and China’s defence spending now stands at 7.2% of GDP—more than double what it was a decade ago.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
On the hon. Gentleman’s birthday no less, I continue the tradition of giving way to him.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. I think it would be in order for me to say for the benefit of Hansard that I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and others in this Chamber for their courageous stand, undiminished as they are. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the treatment of Taiwan exemplifies the attitude shown by the Chinese to democracy and freedom? It is also shown in their disgraceful behaviour towards the personal privacy of the hon. Gentleman and others and in hacking websites. Does he agree that steps must be taken to show that western democracy will not stand idly by while democratic decisions are overturned and China rules not by agreement but by aggression?
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The hon. Gentleman pre-empts much of my speech. I agree with every word he said.
China continues its aggressive sabre-rattling in the Taiwan strait by sending warships and planes across the median line of the Taiwan strait and air defence identification zone. It continues its enormous campaign of cyber-aggression against Taiwan’s public and private institutions, including its critical infrastructure. Earlier this month a report by Taiwan’s Defence Ministry described Beijing as having launched “multi-front saturated grey-zone” tactics to harass Taiwan. The previous report in September 2023 noted that China had
“increased the scale, frequency and intensity of drills and exercises against Taiwan”
in order to strengthen its operational preparation for a future invasion.
China is also deploying civilian assets to press its claims, dispatching civil aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles and weather balloons to fly close to and over Taiwan. It is using marine survey vessels and hydrographic survey ships as a cover for its military. It is also deploying a maritime militia, the largest fleet ever put to sea, to advance geopolitical objectives. Those moves are exactly what I mean by trying to establish a new normal, unilaterally changing the status quo across the Taiwan strait and escalating tensions in a region where China’s expansionist behaviour has seen it employ nearly 80 grey zone tactics against neighbouring states. Our inability to deter that kind of aggression is what is emboldening Beijing and its strategic partners Russia and Iran, undermining our security and international security further.
At this point, it is important to consider what the people of Taiwan think. What does Taiwanese public opinion tell us? It is important to stress the value that people in Taiwan clearly place on having an open and democratic way of life. Some 67% of people identify primarily as Taiwanese. Only 3% identify as Chinese. Nearly half support formal independence. That rises to two-thirds if maintaining the status quo were not possible. Only one in 10 want unification with China, but that should not be misread as wanting unification under Communist party rule. That all stands in stark contrast to the view in mainland China, where more than half the population back a full-scale war to take control of Taiwan. It is also important to stress that China has never—never—ruled Taiwan, which is a democracy of 24 million people. When the Minister responds, will she state that the Government are committed to the principle of self-determination, which applies to the people of Taiwan?
Although the UK position continues to be defined by the one-China policy and the maintenance of the status quo, the one-China policy does not equate to, and has never equated to, an acceptance of Beijing’s one-China principle that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, despite what Beijing might say. It is merely a recognition that Beijing makes such a claim. By its actions, China has unilaterally and consciously changed the status quo, and is seeking to create the new normal I have outlined. It has consistently done so along its border, over the Senkaku islands and in the South China sea. My question to the Minister is: why do the Government keep repeating that it is the UK position to maintain the status quo, as the status quo itself is being unilaterally changed and eroded by China?
Part of the reason I wanted to bring the debate forward is the importance of Taiwan to the global economy, as well as our own economy. In a recent report earlier this year, Bloomberg Economics estimated that the first-year price tag of a war in the Taiwan strait would sit at around $10 trillion, equal to about 10% of global GDP, while a blockade would equate to about 5% of the global economy. One company, the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, makes two in three semiconductors and 90% of the world’s most advanced chips.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The TSMC makes a massive proportion of silicon chips. While the UK has niche strengths in semiconductor design and compound conductors, does the hon. Gentleman share the view that Britain will remain dependent on Taiwan for silicon chips for a long time to come?
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. And this is not just a uniquely British issue; this is an issue for the entire western and democratic world. Chips are just one area of a great number where that overreliance is a threat to our economic and security interests. The total market cap of TSMC’s 20 customers is worth around $7.4 trillion. To put that in context, that is over twice the size of the British economy.
Taiwan sits at the nexus of shipping lanes that connects the world to China, South Korea and Japan. Together, they account for 40% of global manufacturing output. Half the global container fleet passes through the straits each year, dwarfing the traffic that passes through the Suez canal. With all that in mind, and given that it is the stated objective of the CCP to unify Taiwan with the mainland—either by force or by some other form of coercion—may I ask the Minister what modelling the Government have done of the impact of a war, or a blockade of Taiwan, on the UK economy? May I also ask her what industries and sectors would be most at risk? Is there a strategy for de-risking, and what engagement has there been with industry on a potential shock in the Taiwan strait?
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
It is about five years since I opened an Adjournment debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I hope you will forgive me for forgetting the rules.
Let me return to my questions to the Minister about de-risking. May I ask what engagement is taking place with public institutions, not least the devolved Governments with responsibility for universities—just one part of our society that is hugely dependent on cash from China?
I suppose those questions can be boiled down to this: what is being done to build the economic resilience that is needed to prepare us for what would be an economic shock bigger than the financial crisis and the covid pandemic combined, or—I asked this question earlier, following the Government’s response to the news of Chinese espionage—are we again going to turn up to a gunfight with a wooden spoon?
Let me turn to the UK’s relations with Taiwan. The UK is Taiwan’s third biggest trading partner in Europe and the 21st largest overall, with bilateral trade totalling £8.6 billion in 2022. I should also say, to be fair to the Government, that the enhanced trade partnership arrangement that the UK signed with Taiwan last November promises further growth, and is a good model for other European countries to follow. In response, as was expected, Beijing has demanded that the UK stop using trade to improve relations with Taiwan. Promoting cultural exchanges and people-to-people contact is obviously a good thing and we want to see more of it, but yet again Beijing has sought to stop Taiwan doing the same. It is persecuting artists and cultural figures, which is, of course, creating a chilling effect within Taiwan’s creative industries.
I want to say something about Taiwan’s resilience to hostile disinformation, not least in the context of its experience of dealing with such disinformation from China during the recent elections. I suggest to the Government that we should work with Taiwan and learn from its experience. During the elections we saw disinformation attacks on a previously unknown scale, including the sponsorship of conspiracies with the aim of undermining trust in the electoral process and in public institutions. There is much that we can learn from the way in which Taiwan deals with that. Its experience of hostile disinformation attacks is extraordinary, and it would be negligent of us not to seek to learn from it.
On relations more broadly, there are opportunities for the building of new partnerships, new exchanges and new relationships, but may I ask the Government to consider reviewing the status of the Taipei Representative Office, as appropriate, given the importance to the UK of Taiwan both as a trading partner and as a country with which we share a common interest and common values?
Today’s age of geopolitical insecurity and competition is one that cannot be sat out. Gramsci described an “interregnum” in which “the old is dying” and the new is struggling to be born. Our old ways of thinking on China—on Taiwan—are indeed old, and we need new ideas fit for the modern age and the challenges that come with it. The China challenge that we must all confront is not, as some think, a faraway foreign policy issue, but the confluence of foreign and domestic policy that touches every aspect of our society: economics, technology, democracy, energy security, trade, and so much more. Taiwan is central to that challenge, and the competition between an open society and a closed society is represented as well as it is in Taiwan in only a few places. Just like our friends in Ukraine, our friends in Taiwan want to live in an open and free society, so we must continue to offer them our full support and our full solidarity—not in words, but in actions.
I ask the Minister genuinely to seek new ways to upgrade and modernise our relationship with Taiwan—new partnerships, new institutions, new collaborations, and new and positive opportunities. We should do that with confidence and a sense of purpose, but in the full knowledge that, in standing with Taiwan, we will be on the right side of history.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for securing the debate, and I thank him and other hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. I will do my best to respond to all the points that have been raised.
Taiwan is a thriving economy of over 23 million people, with whom the UK shares both values and deep ties, and Members of this House will be familiar with the unique nature of our relationship. Although we have no diplomatic relations, we have strong unofficial links built on many shared interests, including security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific, trade, innovation, climate action and global health. Our engagement on these important issues is supported by the British Office Taipei and the Taipei Representative Office in London.
The UK and Taiwan share a thriving £8 billion trade and investment relationship, which encompasses a wide range of goods and services, not least the UK’s export of over £340 million-worth of Scotch whisky to Taiwan last year alone—always a good statistic. Our enhanced trade partnership, which we announced last year, will further strengthen this trade relationship. Meanwhile, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted, Taiwan produces most of the high-performance semiconductors that drive our global digital economy. It therefore has a critical role in the technology supply chains that underpin global markets, and it invests heavily in research innovation.
Richard Foord
The European Union currently has a 9% market share in semiconductors globally, and has set an ambition for 20% by the year 2030. Will the Minister enlighten us on the UK’s ambition for semiconductor manufacture?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I do not have the figures to hand, but we want to see our flourishing science and technology co-operation continue to grow. That was set out in the Government’s national semiconductor strategy that we published last year, to which I would point the hon. Gentleman.
We hold regular expert-level talks with Taiwan on a range of important issues, especially energy and health. We are close partners on climate action, and are increasingly sharing our expertise on offshore wind and multi-use port development. Our enhanced trade partnership, which is a really important developing area, will further deepen our mutual co-operation on net zero technologies, which are vital to both energy security and our shared imperative to keep global temperatures from rising even more perilously.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South eloquently stated that the UK’s long-standing position is that we believe the Taiwan issue should be settled peacefully by people on both sides of the strait, without the threat or use of force or coercion. The UK and the wider world have a clear interest in enduring peace and stability in the strait and throughout the Indo-Pacific, because a conflict across the strait would have a tragic human cost, but it would also be a tragedy for livelihoods across the region and have a wider global impact. Taiwan and the Taiwan strait are vital links in the global economy, driving prosperity and innovation. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, a conflict could destroy world trade by up to 10% of the global economy, according to Bloomberg analysis. No country, whether high, middle or low income, could possibly shield itself from the economic repercussions of such a crisis, including China. That is why this Government are clear that we do not support any unilateral attempts to alter the status quo of the Taiwan strait.
I would like to assure Members that we are continually working to strengthen the UK’s contingency planning across a range of international challenges, including threats to global supply chains. I hope that Members will be aware of the recently launched critical imports and supply chain strategy, published by the Department for Business and Trade, which tackles some of these issues in greater depth than I will set out this evening.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Of course we would all agree with the Minister that none of us wants to see change to the status quo—certainly not a violent change to the status quo—in cross-strait relations, but there is a change, and China is creating this new normal as we speak. It has been doing so for some time now and the strategy of the Government and our western partners is clearly not deterring that, so what changes will we see from the Minister and from our western partners? On the issue of the Bloomberg analysis, is there also Government analysis and will she publish it?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We have a great deal of work ongoing, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, and in due course I am sure we will bring it to the House. Importantly, he has stated clearly—I know he speaks for all Members even though there are only a few of us here this evening—that the UK Government’s position is one that is held by all Members of the House and that it should be clearly heard in support of that Taiwan status quo.
The hon. Member mentioned that Taiwan held its presidential and legislative elections just a few weeks ago. As my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary said at the time, those elections are testament to Taiwan’s incredibly vibrant democracy, and I join him in offering warm congratulations to William Lai and his party on his successful election. However, this comes at a time when China’s actions are threatening to undermine peace and stability in the strait. China is refusing to renounce the use of force in pursuit of its objectives. It is deploying economic power to coerce countries with which it disagrees over Taiwan, as it did with Lithuania just recently, and it continually takes assertive actions near Taiwan, including military flights, which are escalating tensions. This is not the conduct of a responsible international actor, and it is not conducive to ensuring peace and stability across the strait.
That is why the UK continues to work with our international partners to underscore the importance of peace and stability in the Taiwan strait, as we did most recently in our statement by G7 leaders in December. The Foreign Secretary reiterated this in his statement following the election that I have just mentioned. That is why the UK continues to support Taiwan’s inclusion internationally, where that is clearly in the global public interest. This Government believe that the people of Taiwan have a valuable contribution to make on many issues of global concern, and that the international community should be able to benefit from Taiwanese expertise in a range of areas. We therefore continue to work hard with our partners to support Taiwan’s participation in international organisations, as a member where statehood is not a prerequisite and as an observer or guest where it is. For example, we continue to make the case for Taiwan’s participation at the World Health Assembly, as its inclusion benefits global health, including through its expert participation in technical meetings and information exchanges.
To conclude, the Government continue the UK’s long-standing approach to relations across the Taiwan strait. We continue to engage with Taiwan within the bounds of our unofficial relationship, which brings many benefits to both of us. We continue to work closely with our international partners to advocate for peace and stability and to discourage any activity that undermines the status quo. We continue to advocate for Taiwan’s meaningful international participation. Through these channels, the UK has an important role to play in supporting continued peace and stability in the strait, and we can only benefit from that continued engagement with Taiwan as a thriving democracy and an important economic partner.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Perkins
…The Minister talks powerfully about apprenticeships, but why does he think that young people are now half as likely to be on an SME apprenticeship than they were when the levy was introduced?
Robert Halfon
I hugely respect the hon. Gentleman. I know he is a bruiser, but I had been looking forward to his question. I thought he would celebrate the 13,000 apprentices in Chesterfield since May 2010, the 11,270 apprentices at levels 2 and 3, or the £19.5 million investment in Chesterfield College.
[Official Report, 11 March 2024, Vol. 747, c. 10.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon):
An error has been identified in the response given to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins).
The correct response is:
Robert Halfon
I hugely respect the hon. Gentleman. I know he is a bruiser, but I had been looking forward to his question. I thought he would celebrate the 13,000 apprentices in Chesterfield since May 2010, the 11,720 apprentices at levels 2 and 3, or the £19.5 million investment in Chesterfield College.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is not just that level 2 and 3 apprenticeship starts have plummeted by over 50% since the levy was introduced, but that 16 to 18-year-old apprenticeship starts are down by 41%. Research by the Sutton Trust and the London School of Economics further shows that, by 2020, the proportion of apprenticeship starts by those from poorer backgrounds had dropped significantly. Opportunities for all our young people to earn and learn expanded every year under Labour. Is it not now painfully clear that the biggest barrier to opportunity is this Tory Government?
Robert Halfon
As always, Labour Front Benchers are obsessed with quantity over quality. We have transformed the quality of apprenticeships. Seventy per cent of occupations are covered by over 680 apprenticeship standards.
[Official Report, 11 March 2024, Vol. 747, c. 11.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon):
An error has been identified in the response given to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra).
The correct response is:
Robert Halfon
As always, Labour Front Benchers are obsessed with quantity over quality. We have transformed the quality of apprenticeships. Nearly 70% of occupations are covered by apprenticeships, and there are over 680 apprenticeship standards.
Jane Hunt
Homefield College, based in Mountsorrel and Sileby in my constituency, is a community-based independent specialist college that offers education, training and independent living skills for people with learning disabilities and communication difficulties. What steps are being taken by the Department to promote and support such excellent FE colleges, and to help create opportunities for work experience, life skills and development for students, so that they may go on to live happy and fulfilling lives as an integral part of their local community?
Robert Halfon
I was pleased to visit Loughborough not so long ago with my hon. Friend. She is passionate about FE and skills. I know Homefield College well; it is a brilliant college and I am glad it was recently allocated £95,000 for capital spend. We have the £80 million supported internship scheme for those with special educational needs; an FE bursary scheme for special needs teachers; specialist National Careers Service advice for young people; and the SEND code of practice to prepare young people for adulthood.
[Official Report, 11 March 2024, Vol. 747, c. 15.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon):
An error has been identified in the response given to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt).
The correct response is:
Robert Halfon
I was pleased to visit Loughborough not so long ago with my hon. Friend. She is passionate about FE and skills. I know Homefield College well; it is a brilliant college and I am glad it was recently allocated £95,000 for capital spend. We have the £80 million supported internship scheme for those with special educational needs; an FE bursary scheme for special needs teachers; National Careers Service advice for young people; and the SEND code of practice to prepare young people for adulthood.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
At Cambridge University, a barbaric vandal wearing a £1,000 Mulberry backpack was so full of hate for Jews that she felt Lord Balfour’s letter of 1917 gave her the moral superiority to destroy a valuable and historic painting of him. This shines a light on the pernicious atmosphere faced by Jewish students at universities across the country, with calls for “Zionists off our campus” now shamefully normalised, and “Zionists” really meaning Jews. What steps does my right hon. Friend propose to take to convey to university heads that they have a legal and a moral obligation to stamp out antisemitism?
Robert Halfon
…We have announced a £7 million package to give to Jewish student groups, including the University Jewish Chaplaincy, to try to stop antisemitism on campus.
[Official Report, 11 March 2024, Vol. 747, c. 22.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon):
An error has been identified in the response given to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis).
The correct response is:
Robert Halfon
…We have announced a £7 million package to give to student groups, such as the University Jewish Chaplaincy, to try to stop antisemitism on campus.
Transport
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
Good morning, Mr Speaker. Passenger watchdog Transport Focus published a report last week, which found huge regional variation in bus passenger satisfaction across the country, with large numbers of passengers “being let down”. Under the Tories’ deregulation of the bus sector, passenger satisfaction with some of our operators is miles below the average of 80%, with some as low as a dismal 66%. In places such as West Yorkshire, Labour Mayors are not standing for it any longer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) said, Tracy Brabin has announced her intention to pursue franchising to reverse decades of Tory decline. But the vast majority of local authorities do not have those powers, so will the Minister adopt Labour’s plan to give every local transport authority the same powers to take back control of their bus services?
Guy Opperman
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I was at the launch of the said report and have read it. He will be aware that, for example, one reason for the complications is that the number of people working from home has increased by 40%. We have a plan to tackle that with the record investment that is being made to Mayors.
[Official Report, 21 March 2024, Vol. 747, c. 1032.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood).
The correct response is:
Guy Opperman
I have read the report. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, for example, one reason for the complications is that the number of people working from home has increased by 40%. We have a plan to tackle that with the record investment that is being made to Mayors.
Chi Onwurah
Walking and cycling prevent 1,500 serious long-term health conditions on Tyneside every year, according to the walking and cycling index, and they bring in £400 million in economic benefits, so it is no wonder that half of Tynesiders want to walk or wheel more, and that two fifths want to cycle more, but if they are to do that, the streets need to be made safer. What is the Minister doing, apart from undermining low traffic neighbourhoods, to make our streets safer for walking, wheeling and cycling?
Guy Opperman
With great respect to the hon. Lady, she knows full well that her council attempted to have an active travel scheme in Jesmond, and it so messed it up that it had to scrap the scheme. The LTN was scrapped, and there were 23,000 objections and a considerable waste of money. With due respect, active travel is doing a great job, and we support it, but councils have to take local communities with them.
[Official Report, 21 March 2024, Vol. 747, c. 1038.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah).
The correct response is:
Guy Opperman
With great respect to the hon. Lady, she knows full well that her council attempted to have an active travel scheme in Jesmond, and it so messed it up that it had to scrap the scheme. The LTN was scrapped, and there were 23,000 responses and a considerable waste of money. With due respect, active travel is doing a great job, and we support it, but councils have to take local communities with them.
Petition
Standing charges on energy bills
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Bulger Murder: Public Inquiry
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 206851 relating to a public inquiry into the James Bulger murder case.
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I thank the Petitions Committee for granting this opportunity to debate the petition, which refers to the concerns that people, particularly James Bulger’s family, have about what has taken place since James’s brutal murder on 12 February 1993 and their belief that there have been failures in the system.
The petition, signed by 213,624 people, over 8,000 of whom are from Knowsley, was in place in 2018, but has been subject to a lengthy delay because of a Parole Board hearing in relation to further offences committed by one of James’s killers, known at the time as Jon Venables, which was judged to render any debate on the subject sub judice. Now that the Parole Board has rejected Jon Venables’s application for parole, I am grateful that this debate can now take place.
I intend to begin by reiterating the sickening and tragic circumstances of James’s murder. I apologise in advance that those listening will find it harrowing to hear this account of what happened, but it is necessary to remind ourselves why this matter is so visceral, and consequently there are questions, the answers to which are long overdue.
Jon Venables, then aged 10, together with another child of a similar age, abducted two-year-old James, took him to a railway line and savagely murdered him. Denise Fergus, James’s mother, described in her book “I Let Him Go” what occurred on the shopping trip to the Strand shopping centre in Bootle on the day that James was abducted. She said:
“The shopping centre was packed full…James couldn’t believe his luck that for once he was in among the crowd. I held on to his hand but inevitably he would run a yard or so ahead of me, always where I could see him.”
The shopping trip concluded with one last stop, a butcher’s, which is where the abduction took place. In her own words, she describes in the book what then occurred:
“There has been so much written about what happened…and so many opinions given, but I want to make one thing clear: I absolutely did not leave my baby outside the butchers on his own—I would never have done that. He was with me and holding my hand as we went inside. The only time I let go of his hand was to pay for the chops I had bought, and he was standing right beside me. I picked out the meat I wanted and took my bag from my shoulder, got my purse out, opened it to count the…money and, when I looked down, James was gone.”
She goes on:
“There were rumours that circulated afterwards that I had been shoplifting with my mum. Firstly, I have never stolen anything in my life and, secondly, my mum wasn’t even with me on that day. If extra proof was needed, my whole shopping trip was captured and examined frame by frame once the police went through edited CCTV footage. It clearly shows that before 3.39pm I was shopping and after 3.39 my world came crashing down as I frantically tried to find my boy.”
Two days passed, with James’s family understandably in extreme distress as the police and family members searched for James, having found additional CCTV footage that showed he had been taken away by two older boys. On the Sunday following James’s abduction, Denise was called to attend a police station. After an agonising 40-minute wait, one of the police officers investigating the case, Geoff McDonald, told her, “We’ve found him, and it’s not good news.”
As the MP for the area, I was as appalled as everyone else locally, but the wave of public horror was nothing compared with the trauma experienced by James’s family. To lose a child at any time goes against the natural order and against the expectations of any parent, but to do so in such harrowing circumstances is indescribable.
Subsequently, the two boys who had abducted and killed James, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, were arrested, prosecuted and found guilty. During the ensuing years, many questions and frustrations about how matters have since been dealt with have been raised. I will refer to some of those questions later. In the meantime, I want to place on record a statement that Denise has helpfully provided me with:
“'Honourable Members, I ask you with a mother’s heart to consider the questions and the pleas I have laid before you. Try to understand that no mother can simply accept that errors were made or that crucial facts were brushed under the carpet in the case of my child’s murder. For 31 years, I have fought tirelessly—not because it will bring my precious James back, but because he, and every child like him, still deserves justice.
This isn’t just about the past; it’s about the future. It’s about ensuring that no other family has to endure a similar ordeal, that no other child’s life is undervalued by the justice system. We have the power to make changes, to right the wrongs, and to honour the memory of those we’ve lost by protecting the innocent.
Please, I beseech you, take these matters to heart. Consider the impact of these errors and omissions, not just on my family, but on the integrity of our justice system. James’s voice was silenced too soon, but through your actions, his legacy can be one of change and hope.”
As I mentioned earlier, I have some questions for the Minister, and look forward to his response. First, why was the evidence gathered by Merseyside police indicating that Thompson and Venables sexually assaulted James prior to killing him not presented at the trial at Preston Crown court, or to the Parole Board when Venables was released in 2001 and again in 2013? Who made those decisions?
Secondly, Venables’s 2010 conviction for possession of extreme child pornography proves his sexual interest in children. Was that sexual interest in children missed by all the experts, or was it known? Thirdly, was proper consideration given to the attempted abduction of another child earlier on the day that James was murdered—indicating premeditation—at the trial and, later, at the parole hearings? Fourthly, were Thompson and Venables pronounced rehabilitated in order to avoid them entering adult custody, without proper regard to the potential risk posed to children? What representations did Lord Chief Justice Woolf make to the Parole Board?
Before I conclude, I would like to cover a couple of points. First, although not directly related to the petition, a few comments in some of the media coverage of events at the time of James’s murder and since have been unacceptably intrusive in respect of family members. At the time, in breach of the guidance from the then Press Complaints Commission, the intrusion into private grief was callous and cruel. In principle, there is a remedy available by means of a formal complaint on those grounds. However, many people affected are understandably wary of using that, as a published apology in print is usually small, hidden and accompanied by a repetition of the original intrusion. Breaches should incur heavy penalties on media outlets.
Secondly, the question I referred to earlier exposed the fact that the initial response, whether judicial or on the part of Departments, often becomes increasingly opaque and confusing as new information comes to light. A good example of that problem can be found in the Government’s response to the petition, which unfortunately is both overly defensive and vague about how the transparency of Parole Board decision making could be increased and how its decisions could be challenged.
In February 2010 Jon Venables was recalled into custody, following which Sir David Omand was commissioned to conduct a review into the handling of the Jon Venables case between 2001 and 2010. Sir David concluded that the case management of Jon Venables’s case more than met the national standards laid down for the supervision of serious offenders in level 3 multi-agency public protection arrangements. He further concluded with reference to the further serious offence:
“Events classed as low probability do unfortunately… happen despite everyone’s best efforts—that is the difference between low risk and no risk.” I should say that I know Sir David personally and have great respect for his public service over the years. His conclusions, however, inevitably reflect the narrow terms of reference that he was set. As the helpful House of Commons Library debate pack points out, for example, the terms of reference
“did not extend to Venables’ time at the Red Bank secure unit”,
and the review
“did not, therefore, examine allegations reported in the press”
that Venables had had an inappropriate relationship
“with a female member of staff at the unit”.
The petition calls for a public inquiry to best address the issues that remain to be cleared up. On the basis of the Government’s response to the petition, regrettably, it seems unlikely that a public inquiry will be granted. If I am correct in that assumption, I would ask the Minister to consider what alternative might be appropriate. I do not expect that he will be in a position to do so today, but I urge him to give the matter serious consideration, because it is important that those questions and concerns are answered as fully and comprehensively as possible.
Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)
Before I call Members to speak, I remind them that there is a court injunction regarding the release of information related to James Bulger’s murderers, including information about their current identity and whereabouts, and I ask Members to be mindful of that.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
For the bulk of my time I am going to dedicate my voice, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) also did in part, to the voice of Denise Fergus, James’s mother. Like my right hon. Friend, I have a statement from her with me:
“Honourable Members of the House of Commons, my name is Denise Fergus, and I am present today as a mother whose heart has been shattered and whose life has been forever darkened by the loss of my dear son, James. For over 30 years, I have carried the unbearable weight of his absence, a void that can never be filled, a pain that never subsides.
When James was so cruelly taken from us, the justice system promised retribution and rehabilitation for his killers. Yet the sentences they received meant they would never face the reality of an adult prison, never undergo the rigorous rehabilitation that such a heinous crime demands. As time passed, I learned more about the circumstances of my son’s case, details that, had they been considered, could have significantly altered the course of justice.
I was in the depths of despair, unable to attend the trial, feeling as though I had been cast adrift in an endless night. The world around me was devoid of light, and even if I had been present in the courtroom, the words would have passed through me, leaving no mark, for I was consumed by grief.
The repeated reoffending of one of James’s killers, the last time being six years ago, reignited my fight for justice. I had always feared he posed a threat to society, and my worst fears were confirmed when he was convicted once more. It was then that I requested the full details of the post-mortem report, bracing myself for the truth I had long suspected—that my little boy had suffered injuries of a sexual nature. The confirmation left me numb, yet it also steeled my resolve to fight harder than ever to ensure that such a person would never walk free to endanger another child, another family.
There are so many unanswered questions that haunt me. Why were critical aspects of my son’s case overlooked? Why did it seem as though the most damning evidence was swept aside? Why? In the hope that I would never seek the truth? Why was the attempted abduction charge not given to the jury to consider? I am here to say that I will never stop fighting for James. He cannot stand up for himself, so it is my duty as his mother to be his voice, his champion.
I implore you, Members of the House, to hear my plea. We must scrutinise the errors that were made, the sentencing that fell short, the conduct at Red Bank House, and the reports that were omitted from the Ormand review—reports that Sir David Ormand knew of but did not disclose. I read these omissions with a heavy heart, knowing that they represent a failure in the pursuit of justice for my son.
No parent should endure what I have. The loss of a child is an unspeakable tragedy, but to know that justice has not been fully served deepens the wound. I ask you to stand with me, to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated, and to uphold the principle that every child’s life is precious and deserving of justice. Thank you for listening to a mother’s enduring love and her unyielding quest for truth.”
Those are Denise’s words. I have got to know Denise personally over the last weeks and months, and I seek to lend my voice to her campaign for getting to the truth and accessing justice. It is one thing for us all to read about Jon Venables being recalled to prison in the newspapers; it is a completely different thing to live every single day in fear, waiting for the next piece of news. That is what is written on Denise’s face when I sit opposite her.
In 2018, my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley tabled a parliamentary question about breaches by Thompson and Venables between 2001 and 2018. A copy of that question is provided in the very helpful debate pack that was collated by the House of Commons Library before this debate. The answer to that question revealed that 70 breaches of their life orders had been found in the 17 years between 2001 and 2018.
Denise tells me that the issues that should be considered include how the Omand review’s terms of reference did not include the time when Venables is alleged to have had sexual relations with somebody who was meant to be in charge of him, which my right hon. Friend highlighted, and the previous abduction. She also tells me that when breaches have occurred, she has not been told about them in the manner promised to her by all sorts of standards set out for victims. Actually, when Venables was last recalled, Denise was not informed until a week later, and that was only because it had been in the press. The standard of communication that should have been afforded to her and the rest of James’s family in this case has not been met.
I have dealt with many family members of people who suffered murder. When a person suffers such a heinous crime, each and every time that the state does not live up to an obligation that it promised the victim it would fulfil, the belief that the case was handled well in the first place is eroded a bit. Each and every time something has gone wrong in this case, over the last however many decades, it is a reminder that things were missed, that things were not covered in the court case, that things did not happen. We then wonder why families call for a public inquiry. It is because things got missed. We all know from the many cases that we have handled that things get missed, and when things get missed once, they get missed again in the future. In that future, since James’s death, things have been missed in this case.
The glare of all the media is on this case. I handle cases where nobody knows the name of the little boy or girl who was killed, and I suspect that Denise Fergus is getting a better service than most. The point of having a public inquiry and truth and justice-seeking reviews is not just to get retribution, or to satisfy and tick a box for a grieving family. It is to ensure that our systems are correct. My own child is sat in this room with us today. I want to know that when I am not with him, systems are in place to ensure that the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. For so many years, James’s mother has felt that she was the last to know, that she was not informed, and that she had to find out, years after the fact, about the sexual violence. It is no wonder then that we end up at a point where a public inquiry is requested. It is the very least that they deserve.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Henderson. I thank my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth), for bringing forward this debate today, as well as the thousands of constituents who signed the petition to have this debate heard.
The horrific abduction, torture and subsequent murder of James Bulger over 31 years ago shocked the nation, particularly my home city of Liverpool where it took place. It remains an act of unimaginable evil and something that continues to horrify the people of my city and beyond. I commend the bravery and persistence of James’s mum, Denise Fergus, and her husband, Stuart, in keeping their son’s legacy alive in their campaign for truth, justice and transparency.
I am not legally trained in criminal law, but as a human, a citizen and a mother myself, I cannot help but assert that it is in the interest of the public and their safety, particularly that of young children, that Jon Venables should remain behind bars. I welcome the decision of the Parole Board late last year to refuse Venables’s release, which said he could not be trusted outside of jail. While there is no doubt the same issue will rear its ugly head in a couple of years’ time, I hope that common sense will once again prevail. Let us not forget that Venables is indeed a danger to the public, having been found to have reoffended not once, but twice. I am a firm believer in rehabilitation, but I also acknowledge that not everyone can be rehabilitated, and I think that this is a case in point.
Kym Morris, the chair of the James Bulger Memorial Trust, summarises the demands of the campaign effectively when she says that
“Victim families should have full access to all of the transcripts, evidence, everything. If you went to a trial, you would have access to all of this, so what difference does a parole hearing have? That’s what we should do going forward.”
I know that the Ministry of Justice is in some ways alive to that call. Since 2022, allowing victims some access to observe an offender’s hearing has been trialled, with a view to rolling out the scheme more widely in the future. I urge the MOJ to continue moving at pace in overseeing the delivery of the “Parole Board Strategy and Business Plan 2023-2025”, which specifically sets out the Parole Board’s aims in relation to openness and transparency for the next two years and for the next five years. For the next two years, the following steps are outlined:
“Victims able to observe parole hearings with greater ease across the country… Panels are trained and have the necessary guidance to ensure victim observed hearings are effective… Support evidence-based research and analysis of both our current operating model and impact of reforms”.
Then, for the next five years—a period that is crucial for securing lasting change—these steps are set out:
“A more court like operating model”,
and
“Redacted release decisions published in all cases by the secretariat under delegated authority.”
However, that is not what happened last year, when the Parole Board denied a public hearing into Venables’s parole decision. That was hugely disappointing, given that many people believe that the necessary adjustments could have been made to comply with the original High Court injunction regarding Venables’s identity. Of course I respect the independence of the Parole Board, but I have no doubt that wholesale cultural and operational shift at the political level is needed to deliver the changes that are required to give confidence and reassurance to victims and their families.
The historical failings in the system with regard to Venables are clear, and retrospective transparency can and must be applied. The Omand review in 2010 did little to generate confidence in the original decision in 2001 regarding Venables’s release. The mitigating circumstances leading up to his release and any potential influence of others at Red Bank who allegedly engaged in gross misconduct must call into question the original decision. Why did experts consider Jon Venables to have been rehabilitated? I make no personal judgment on that decision, but I find it staggering to assert that, by denying a public inquiry, lessons cannot be learned.
I support a public inquiry. Those in power trot out the usual lines—“It’s too expensive, time-consuming and resource-intensive. There’s nothing to see here.” Even after events like Hillsborough, the penny does not seem to have dropped that victims might—just might—refrain from calling for such inquiries if the system and public sector agencies afforded victims transparency in the first place. If there is “nothing to see here,” let us have all the facts laid bare. The number of signatures on this petition demonstrates the clear strength of feeling on this matter, with more than 3,000 signatories from my Liverpool, Wavertree constituency alone.
Our city of Liverpool remembers James, with fondness for the beautiful little boy he was, and with sadness for the fact that he did not get to live a life that was full and happy or to fulfil his ambitions and potential. That potential was sadly taken away from him and his family in the most unimaginable and horrific of ways. To lose a child in such circumstances should never happen; for his family to still be fighting for justice 31 years later should never have happened and is unbelievably cruel. I hope that Ministers listen today. Once again I pay tribute to the bravery and persistence of Denise and Stuart Fergus and their wider family, as they fight for justice in memory of James.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall, and James’s family for initiating this petition, signed by 213,000 people, of whom 5,000 are in my constituency. The New Strand shopping centre in my constituency is where James was abducted from; he was subsequently abused and murdered. The case still resonates with my constituents, as it does across the country, but particularly in Merseyside. I pay tribute to James’s family for their bravery in coming here today and thank them for that.
I do not have a great deal to add to what has been said by my right hon. Friend and by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker). They are, as ever, eloquent in outlining clearly and unambiguously what should happen. They have set out the context and they have set the scene; I really hope that the Minister will listen.
I will not take up much time, as I do not want to dilute what has already been said. The Inquiries Act 2005 is in place and provides the capacity for inquiries to be set up, because in the past, we did not have enough inquiries into the challenges to justice that people have. Whatever that inquiry is, we are here to ensure that people get justice. In that regard, the Inquiries Act enables us as a society to consider and respond to events of major public concern. Some 213,000 people signing a petition, including, as I said, 5,000 people in my constituency, indicates the public concern about this case.
In 2017, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee expressed concern about the ability of Parliament—hon. Members—to influence, potentially, when a public inquiry is called, and to some extent our oversight of it. That is our job, and we are here today to ask, demand, insist—whatever term we use—that the Government set up a public inquiry.
It is for a public inquiry to consider all the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley and for Liverpool, Wavertree, so I will not prejudge. We have heard a list of issues that such an inquiry should look into, and I wholeheartedly agree. My job is to back up my colleagues and say that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has asked for this. The House of Lords has also asked for a more significant ability to intervene in relation to calling for public inquiries, as has the Institute for Government. Those bodies do not throw such recommendations and suggestions around for the fun of it, but because of our experience in this country, time after time, of a lack of justice for victims.
I therefore wholeheartedly support the call of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley for this public inquiry; I also absolutely and unequivocally support the right of the family to call for—to demand—this inquiry; and I support my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley and for Liverpool, Wavertree, who are absolutely fantastic in their pursuit of such issues. I thank them too.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) for leading the e-petition debate calling for a public inquiry into the conduct and management of those responsible for the death of young James Bulger, as well as, of course, the case management itself.
The abduction and murder of James shocked the nation to its very core. Many of us can still visualise the CCTV film of his abduction and the shattering events that took place 31 years ago, in 1993. I know that I speak for the Opposition and the whole House in saying that the crimes of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were absolutely horrifying. It is impossible, as a dad and grandad, to even come close to imagining the pain, suffering and trauma that Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger have had to go through and will continue to go through for the rest of their lives. Our thoughts and most sincere sympathies remain with them and their wider family. We have considerable respect for the dignity shown in their grief.
The way that Venables’s case was handled continues to be of interest and concern to the public at large. The e-petition was signed by 213,000 people and was in place in 2018, as referenced by my right hon. Friend, but has been subject to delay because of a Parole Board hearing, which rendered any debate on it sub judice. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the way he spoke with sympathy and empathy while demanding answers to a series of precise and sensitive questions. Denise was able to speak directly through him and through my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips).
As we have heard, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were 10 years old at the time of the murder. They were sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure, a life sentence for children who commit murder. The case was subject to early scrutiny about the length of the tariff; eventually, in October 2000, the Lord Chief Justice ruled that the tariff should expire immediately, noting that any decision on when Thompson and Venables should be released would be for the Parole Board.
Venables was held in a secure children’s unit, Red Bank community home, until his release under licence in 2001. As Denise said in her statement, he had not by then served time in an adult prison. He was then granted a new identity and a lifetime High Court injunction was issued to restrict the publication of information about the new identity. But Venables, as we have heard, was recalled to custody in February 2010 and convicted in July that year of the possession of indecent images of children. His crimes and convictions led to all manner of questions about how he had been managed and supervised. Both the probation service and the Parole Board operate on two basic principles: public safety and public trust. They exist to keep us safe, to protect us from dangerous criminals and to ensure that the public, especially victims, have faith in the justice system.
In response, the Justice Secretary commissioned Sir David Omand to review the Venables case from 2001 to 2010. The review’s terms of reference did not extend to Venables’s time at the Red Bank secure unit. It did not, therefore, examine allegations reported in the press—as we have already heard—that Venables had a relationship with a female member of staff at the unit. The Omand review concluded that the case was managed “appropriately” by the relevant authorities. He said,
“I have established that despite the continuing low underlying risk assessment significant resources were applied by the probation service and Home Office (and then by the Ministry of Justice after the machinery of government changes in 2007) to this case, allowing case management to much more than meet the national standards laid down for the supervision of serious offenders at the MAPPA 3 level.”
He further concluded that the professional assessments were appropriate, given the evidence available at the time. He said that Venables
“did go on to commit a further serious offence, but that does not in itself mean that the assessments made throughout the case of the low risk he posed to the public were wrong headed. I conclude that they were the correct professional assessment on the evidence then available. Events classed as low probability do unfortunately sometimes happen despite everyone’s best efforts—that is the difference between low risk and no risk.”
Venables was again released under licence in August 2013, but was recalled to custody a second time in November 2017 for the same offence. He received a 40-month period of imprisonment and remains in prison, having been refused parole at private hearings held in September 2020 and December 2023.
The e-petition mentions specific concerns around why Venables was judged to have been rehabilitated. While the probation and Parole Board documents are not in the public domain, it is clear that the public would question how the decision was made, especially in 2013 when Venables was again released from prison, only to be recalled. Where possible, the Government should be transparent about the decision-making process, especially the adequacy of the risk assessments carried out; how a judgment was reached about his rehabilitation; and, equally, how the judgment of rehabilitation was challenged and cross-examined.
Although we had the Omand review in 2010, which looked in detail at how Venables was managed and overseen on his first release, we have not had a similar review about his release in 2013 or subsequent recall to prison. That is why a number of questions remain outstanding, including about how the judgment was made in 2013 that it was safe to release him. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley highlighted the dozens of other breaches of Venables’s licence conditions. Were they not a sign that this guy should not have been released?
The probation service has a vital duty and role to play in public protection, especially for those being released from prison having committed the most serious offences, such as murder. Although I am not commenting on the specific nature of Venables’s recall in 2017, we on the Opposition side of the House have long been concerned about the gaps in our criminal justice system, which mean that dangerous offenders are being released, are not being properly monitored or assessed by the probation service, and are going on to commit further serious offences. That poses a huge risk to public safety and undermines faith and confidence in our justice system.
We know that our probation service has been through shake-up after shake-up over the last 14 years, including privatisation in 2014; the cutting of senior and experienced staff; and record-high workloads for the staff. In the Minister’s response, I hope that he can outline what action the Government are taking to ensure that our probation service and its staff are equipped, trained and supported to manage high-risk offenders better and how we can ensure that the public, especially victims and their families, can have faith in them.
As hon. Members know, the Parole Board rejected an application for Jon Venables to be released from prison last year. The Parole Board operates independently of the Government and cited a number of factors when it rejected his application to be released. I note that in reporting that decision, the Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), mentioned the Government’s continued commitment to reforming the Parole Board. The Parole Board needs to ensure that it protects the safety of the public and that the public, especially victims and their family members, have faith in its decisions. For that reason, we have long supported and called for a mechanism whereby the Secretary of State can query a Parole Board decision, with an independent court acting as a backstop. We believe that that is a fair and practical reform that will build trust in the Parole Board and equally allow for the continued separation between elected politicians and our judiciary.
I conclude by reiterating the complex and sensitive nature of what we are here to discuss, and I look forward to the Minister shining further light on the case following the questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley and by the family through my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley, for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd). As was said in Denise’s statement, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley put on record, this is about ensuring that no other family has to endure a similar ordeal. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Henderson. At the outset, may I join right hon. and hon. Members in acknowledging the dedication and determination of Mrs Denise Fergus, James’s mother, in campaigning on this petition and successfully securing a debate on this hugely important matter through the Petitions Committee? Sadly, in this Chamber and in the main Chamber we are, on occasion, called upon to debate deeply sombre, traumatic and saddening matters, but it is right that we do so and that we cast that light upon them. I am grateful for the tone adopted by all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken; it is appropriate that this debate has been conducted in that manner.
I pay tribute to Denise Fergus for her and her family’s tireless and dignified campaign to obtain justice for her son James, who was so cruelly taken from her in February 1993 when he was just two years old. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) about the circumstances, which to this day remain shocking and harrowing. No one can fail to be shaken by them still, even after the passage of time.
The murder of James was a crime that rightly shocked the nation and continues to do so. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), highlighted the harrowing images on CCTV. I recall seeing those images when I was still at school, many years ago. I recall the dreadful inhumanity—the evil—that we all realised had taken place. I remember not just the horrendous events themselves, but the shock that they were carried out by two 10-year-old boys.
I am grateful for the recognition in the course of this debate that many of the decisions made in the context of the case were made by independent bodies: the Crown Prosecution Service, the sentencing judge and the Parole Board. I will turn to that point in a moment. As has been said, Thompson and Venables were released in 2001 on the recommendation of the Parole Board, subject to a lifelong anonymity order granted by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, to which you quite rightly drew our attention, Mr Henderson.
Thompson has remained in the community on life licence without further offence. However, Venables has twice been recalled to custody and subsequently convicted of further offences involving the possession and sharing of illegal images of children: first in 2010, when he was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, and then, having been re-released on the direction of the Parole Board in 2013, again in 2018, when he was sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment. Since Venables became eligible to be considered for release on life licence, following recall, the Parole Board has found on three successive occasions, most recently in December last year, that it remains necessary on the grounds of public protection that he remain confined to custody.
Against that background, I think anyone could well understand the concerns surrounding the first release decision in 2001 and, specifically, understand and appreciate the call for a public inquiry. However, although I fully appreciate the significant concerns that have been expressed and the strength and sincerity of feelings on the issue, I am afraid that I am not today in a position to announce a public inquiry. I appreciate that that will be disappointing to those in the Public Gallery, as well as to Opposition Members. If the right hon. Member for Knowsley considers it helpful, I am open to meeting him and his hon. Friends to have a further conversation about the matters that we are debating.
As hon. Members have highlighted, the then Government commissioned the Omand review, which was published on 23 November 2010. The review did not question the decision that the Parole Board made in recommending Venables’s release in 2001, based on the evidence at that time. The review looked in considerable detail at the management of Venables and made detailed recommendations to address the shortcomings in supervision that had marked some of that period. The subsequent period of supervision, from 2013 to 2017, was consistently tight; in fact, it was the means by which the further offending came to light and a successful prosecution could subsequently be mounted.
I fully understand why the nature of that further offending gives rise to significant concerns as to whether the decisions to release Venables were defective. It may be helpful if I briefly provide a little more explanation about how the Parole Board determines whether prisoners serving life or other indeterminate sentences are released. For any offender sentenced to life imprisonment, a minimum period for that imprisonment is set for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. After the minimum term has been served, by law the prisoner may continue to be detained in custody only so long as their risk requires it—in other words, unless the prisoner’s risk can be effectively mitigated and managed in the community by means of the obligations and restrictions of a post-release licence.
Where it issues a release direction, the Parole Board is concluding that the probation service and partner agencies, taking account of the powers that arise from a post-release licence, have the means to mitigate remaining risks and so prevent the public from being exposed to undue risk. Obviously any such decision involves a judgment, and regrettably the Parole Board can never be completely certain that any prisoner it releases will not reoffend. When the Parole Board determined in 2001 that Thompson and Venables were safe to be released, it took account of risk assessments and reports provided by various professionals. By the time of their release, each had completed their minimum term.
When Venables was recalled to custody in 2010, the then Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, asked Sir David Omand, the former permanent secretary to the Home Office, to undertake a comprehensive review of the management of Venables and set the terms of reference for that review. A version of the review was published in November 2010; I say “version” because, as hon. Members will be aware, it was redacted to comply with the terms of the court anonymity order. The redacted version is available on gov.uk.
In his review Sir David noted that Venables had been detained at Red Bank secure unit, run by St Helens Borough Council. During his time at Red Bank, an allegation was made about an incident involving Venables. I am aware of the press reports speculating about the nature of that incident, but I have seen no contemporaneous official account of it. I appreciate that this will potentially be frustrating for those listening, but I therefore believe that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the basis of the press reports alone.
Jess Phillips
I do not think anybody here would expect that; we are not judge and jury in this building. However, as the Minister said, Jack Straw was the last person to ask for a review. If, as the Minister has outlined, he cannot commit to a full public inquiry, is there not a case for another review to look into not only Red Bank, but the period of further mistakes since 2010? All we have currently is a review covering 2001 to 2010. Surely there were errors made post that period that need some transparency.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. At the risk of potentially damaging her reputation, let me say that I have huge respect for her; I did a lot of work with her when I was the victims Minister and she held the role of shadow safeguarding Minister. I appreciate her point. Without prejudice to any decision made, I have made the offer to meet with the right hon. Member for Knowsley. I am happy to have a conversation; I hope the hon. Lady knows from our previous interactions that I do not like to raise expectations that I cannot meet, so I do not intend to do that, but I will have a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman.
The Home Office asked an experienced former prison governor, Arthur de Frisching, to look into the incident at Red Bank. It appears, some years after the event, that no formal reason was found to publish a report into the incident at the time. St Helens Borough Council observed in a public comment that all allegations had been thoroughly investigated, but no copy of that could be found in the archives of either the Home Office or the Ministry of Justice. While the terms of reference for the review began with the preparations for the release of Venables, Sir David stated that he had found nothing in the material that he considered to cast doubt on the fundamental judgments made by the Parole Board at the time that the statutory release test was deemed to be satisfied.
Venables was recalled when police officers, having arrived to escort him to a new address on account of concerns for his safety, caught him trying to remove the hard drive from his computer. That led to an investigation, which resulted in his first conviction for downloading and sharing illegal images of children. In Sir David’s report, he made a number of recommendations designed to strengthen the future management of Venables and indeed of Thompson. Those recommendations recognised that the primary responsibility for supervising Venables lay with the probation service, working closely with the police and other relevant agencies under the statutory MAPPA arrangements. In Venables’s case, that meant the key actions to manage his risks being discussed and agreed at formal meetings attended by senior representatives of the probation service and police services, as well as other highly qualified specialists such as psychiatrists.
When Venables was re-released in 2013 at the direction of the Parole Board, the board set the robust licence conditions that it considered necessary to enable the probation service and its MAPPA partners to manage him effectively, mitigate his risk and help to protect the public. There was now a clear difference between the way he had been managed in the period from 2001 to 2010, as covered by the Omand review, and the way he would be managed from 2013 onwards.
It is deeply regrettable that Venables was discovered in 2017 to have been once again downloading and sharing illegal images of children. However, unlike in 2010, his offences were quickly discovered as a direct result of the monitoring and supervision that had been put in place, and there were immediate consequences, with his return to custody. As I have set out, the Parole Board has now concluded three times that Venables remains too high-risk to be released on life licence. For his most recent review, my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary submitted an overarching Secretary of State view recommending that Venables remain in prison on account of substantial concerns over his risk of reoffending and the risk of harm to the public.
I will endeavour to respond to the specific questions from the right hon. Member for Knowsley with as much information as I can, because I believe that that is important. Before I do so, I note that the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd) have highlighted, in their different ways, the impact that such matters can have on victims’ trust in the system. As a former victims Minister working with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley and others, I saw that at first hand. That transparency, that trust and that engagement are central to building the confidence of those who are or have been victims of crimes in the system.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley talked about notifications—or the lack thereof—of breaches. My understanding is that the supervising agencies concluded, based on a number of those breaches, that the threshold for recall to custody was not met; a recall therefore did not take place. The notification comes where a recall takes place, so because the probation officers and others did not deem the threshold for recall to have been met, there would not have been a notification. However, I am happy to take that point away and reflect on it further. The hon. Lady and I were on a Bill Committee in which we looked at the victims code, notifications and victim liaison officers; I am very happy to have another reflection on that.
Edward Argar
I will answer two further points and then give way to the shadow Minister.
On transparency, we have made progress since the original Parole Board hearings and the original case. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree for highlighting the steps forward. Victims may now apply for a summary of a board decision; they can also apply for the hearing to be held in public. Discretion still rests with the chair of the Parole Board, who takes into account a range of factors, but there is now the opportunity for a public hearing to be requested and potentially granted in the interests of transparency.
On the shadow Minister’s point about the powers to challenge decisions and suchlike, in July 2019 the Parole Board rules were changed to allow the Secretary of State to apply for the reconsideration of a release decision. Victims of crime and the families of victims of crime can also now make representations to the Secretary of State as to why they should put forward an overarching Secretary of State view calling for the Parole Board to reconsider or not release.
Alex Cunningham
I thank the Minister for giving way and for answering the point I raised. I want to go back to the 70 referrals. I accept that they were referrals, rather than confirmed breaches. However, even if 10 or 15 of those referrals were considered to be breaches of his licence, although they may well have been minor, do they not have a roll-up effect, where he is constantly breaching or being referred for breaches, and therefore more serious consideration should have been taken?
Edward Argar
The context in which I addressed that was the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley about notifications and thresholds. Those previous breaches—where, cumulatively, there is a breach and another breach—may not bring about a recall, but a probation officer managing the case will look at all those cumulatively in judging whether, when a further breach occurs or anything along those lines, there is a pattern of behaviour. I am wary of speculating on the individual decision making of an individual probation officer, because I will not know what factors they will have taken into account in an individual case, but they do consider those matters.
There were five specific questions raised by the right hon. Member for Knowsley. I will try, in so far as I can, to give him some answers, or more information than perhaps is already out there. First, he asked about the evidence presented at the trial. The police and Crown Prosecution Service, which are independent of Government, will have put all relevant evidence to Preston Crown court that they believed was material to securing a conviction when Venables and Thompson were tried for James’s murder.
The specific question of whether particular pieces of evidence should have been presented to the court, and what was or was not is, I am afraid, a matter for the police and ultimately for the prosecution lawyers in building that case on how they determined what evidence to present to secure the conviction they wanted to secure. That would be a matter for the CPS. With the caveat that I recognise and put on the record the independence of the CPS’s decision making and how it conducts the case, I am of course happy to highlight the points made here today to the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, who, as hon. Members will be aware, have oversight of the CPS.
Edward Argar
I will give way to the hon. Lady and then the right hon. Gentleman.
Jess Phillips
I apologise if this was what my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley was going to say. We all know the CPS has to build the best case for getting a conviction, and some things will get left out and some things will not. But when the sexual element is left out in a court case, how can the public be certain that it is taken account of in a parole hearing? If the sexual crimes had definitely featured in the court case, the sexual crime element would have been part of the consideration in parole; that is the disconnect that we are concerned about.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. As I say, the decisions on what to include are ultimately down to the prosecuting counsel and prosecuting lawyers from the CPS, but I will touch on those aspects when addressing a further question posed by the right hon. Member for Knowsley in a moment.
Sir George Howarth
The point my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) was making is that, had that information been available at the time and during the trial, subsequent decisions that had to be made would have taken on a whole new light. She accepts and I accept—I think we all accept—that the judiciary is independent and that prosecutors should be able to decide what evidence they use, but in this particular case that omission could have led, and probably did lead, to decisions being made in later years that would otherwise have been different.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I will come on to address, to a degree, that specific point. Notwithstanding how the CPS and how the case itself was conducted and what evidence was used, when recommending the release in 2001, I am advised that the Parole Board would have been given all relevant information. However, I will undertake further inquiries to see whether it is possible to ascertain this far down the line and within what I can reveal publicly, what that might have constituted. In 2013, the Parole Board did of course have full details of Venables’s conviction for downloading and possessing illegal images of children, and it was therefore able to take that into consideration when considering the risk of sexual harm that he presented to children.
In the second question from the right hon. Member for Knowsley—he is always welcome to correct me if I miss one of his questions out—he asked whether Venables’s sexual interest in children was missed by all the experts, or whether it was known. Again, having discussed it with my officials, my understanding is that prior to his recall in connection to possessing illegal images of children in 2010, the supervising agencies were not aware of Venables’s sexual interest in children. However, they were aware of his broader risk to children, obviously arising in large part from the horrendous events of the murder of James, and that risk was then central to their ongoing management of him.
The third question posed by the right hon. Gentleman was whether proper consideration was given at the trial and at later parole hearings to the attempted abduction of another child earlier on the day that James was tragically murdered. Premeditation is relevant when it comes to any conviction for murder, as a necessity for securing the conviction. As hon. Members would expect, it falls to the CPS and the sentencing judge to consider that factor. I understand that the parole reviews in 2001 and 2013 proceeded on the basis that Venables had been lawfully convicted of murder and of the premeditation and planning involved in that. The Parole Board release decision in 2013 records the board’s awareness and consideration of attempted abductions earlier in the day.
As to the question of whether Thompson and Venables were pronounced to be rehabilitated in order to avoid them entering adult custody, I should clarify for hon. and right hon. Members that it is not the role of the Parole Board to pronounce an offender rehabilitated. Instead, it is constrained to applying the statutory release test when considering whether someone should be released—that is, whether it is necessary on the grounds of public protection for the offender to remain confined in custody, based on available evidence.
I appreciate that that may appear to be a legal splitting of hairs, but there is a slight and subtle difference in the statutory release test about whether there is a necessity on public protection grounds for someone to remain in custody or whether they are deemed to be rehabilitated and a reformed citizen. There is a legal differentiation there. Therefore, in recommending their release in 2001, the Parole Board determined, on the basis of its judgment, that the risks that Thompson and Venables presented were capable of being managed effectively in the community through the restrictions and prohibitions available through the life licence.
Finally, the right hon. Member for Knowsley asked whether representations were made by Lord Chief Justice Woolf to the Parole Board. I asked my officials to look into that and advise, and I can advise all hon. Members that I am not aware that any representations were made by the Lord Chief Justice to the Parole Board. At the time, Thompson and Venables were sentenced to life imprisonment. It fell to the Home Secretary of the day to set their tariff, or how long they would serve, taking account of a recommendation made by the Lord Chief Justice. Therefore, any recommendations from the Lord Chief Justice regarding the tariff would have been made to the Home Secretary. In respect of the parole question, having asked again and looked into it, I am not aware that any such representations were made—I caveat that by saying that I have answered to the extent of my knowledge.
I will end my contribution by again paying tribute to Mrs Fergus for not only her tireless campaigning for James, but her determination, as reflected in the statements read out by various right hon. and hon. Members, to make a difference in the future, to help people to learn the lessons and to support young people by setting up the James Bulger Memorial Trust, which provides holidays and respite for families of disadvantaged young people who have been the victims of crime, hatred or bullying, and those who have made a positive contribution to the welfare of others or society in general. The charity’s motto is “For James”, as Denise rightly wants him to be remembered positively as
“the beautiful little boy with the big sparkling smile”,
and not for how his short life ended.
I conclude this sombre debate by once again paying tribute to the dignity and the courage of Denise and her family, to the right hon. Member for Knowsley for securing this debate and approaching it in his typically measured, courteous and appropriate tone, and indeed to all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. This debate is a testimony to Denise’s resilience and determination, and above all to her abiding love for James. I hope I will be able to continue the conversations around this matter with the right hon. Gentleman and others.
Sir George Howarth
I will be brief, because a lot of ground has been covered in this debate. First, I thank Denise Fergus for initiating the petition, for the briefing she gave and for the inspiration that she has given many of us. Well done. Secondly, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for contributing to the debate in their own distinctive but important ways. They have helped to make it a much better debate than it would have been with just me and those on the Front Bench. I thank my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), for the way he listened to and responded to what people had to say, and for the sensitivity he showed in his speech.
Finally, I am grateful to the Minister for the constructive way in which he responded to the debate, and would be happy to take him up on his offer of a meeting to discuss the matter further. I am sure that family members will want to be present. I do hope, though, that that constructive spirit continues. My fear—and this is not a criticism of the Minister—is that there have been so many false dawns in the past that this could become another one. I hope that we can agree on a process that will resolve all those issues. It will not bring James back, but, as his mother said in her statement, it could at least help to prevent anything similar from happening to another child in the future.
I look forward to meeting with the Minister, who I hope will reflect further on my suggestion regarding the public inquiry—by the way, I think there should be a public inquiry, but, if that gets ruled out, there needs to be some alternative way to consider these issues. I am sure the Minister will give thoughtful consideration to that matter so that we can have a meaningful discussion about to proceed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 206851 relating to a public inquiry into the James Bulger murder case.
Written Statements
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Telegraph Media Group: Anticipated Acquisition
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
On 19 March, I confirmed to Parliament that, on the basis of assessments by the Competition and Markets Authority and by Ofcom, I am minded to refer the anticipated acquisition of Telegraph Media Group Ltd by RB Investco Ltd to a phase 2 investigation on the grounds of the need for accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion in newspapers.
I set a deadline of 9 am on Monday 25 March 2024 to allow the parties the opportunity to make representations to me before I reach a final decision.
Further to a request from one of the parties, I have confirmed an extension to that deadline, which will now be 9 am on Tuesday 2 April 2024.
[HCWS374]
UK Ocean Leadership
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Climate, Environment and Energy (Lord Benyon) has today made the following statement:
“This statement provides an update on UK leadership and engagement on current international ocean issues.
The 2021 integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy and its 2023 refresh set out the UK’s vision that by 2030 the ocean will be effectively governed, clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse, linking resilient and prosperous coastal communities around the world, and supporting sustainable economic growth for the UK, the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies. Fundamental to this is an absolute commitment to upholding the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in all its dimensions, as an essential enabler of global prosperity, security and a healthy planet.
The UK played a significant and proactive role in negotiating the landmark agreement under UNCLOS on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, known as the BBNJ Agreement. The UK was one of the first to sign the agreement on 20 September 2023 and is keen to see it enter into force as quickly as possible. 60 States or regional economic integration organisations must become party to the agreement before it enters into force. To date the agreement has gained 88 signatures and two ratifications.
The agreement was laid before Parliament for scrutiny on 16 October 2023. Before the UK can ratify international agreements, legislation needs to be in place to ensure that new obligations can be complied with.
Work is continuing at pace to prepare UK legislation and the aim is to be able to implement and ratify in time for the UN ocean conference in June 2025, an ambitious target date shared by other likeminded countries. The UK intends to play an active part in the first conference of the parties that will meet within the first year after the agreement enters into force, and in the preparatory commission to be established by the United Nations to prepare for that conference. The planned timeline for UK legislation to enable ratification will ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of states working to effectively protect the ocean.
The provisions in the agreement on marine genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits require a clear legislative framework, including substantive provisions in primary legislation. They create new obligations for UK business—in particular the pharmaceutical, nutraceutical, agricultural-technology, cosmetic and chemical sectors—and science and research, and thorough engagement with key stakeholders is underway to help to ensure that implementation is effective and avoids any unintended consequences.
The UK will continue to be proactive at the international level, in supporting other, particularly developing countries, with their implementation and ratification plans. A project has recently been agreed with the Commonwealth secretariat to support smaller member countries with their implementation work. The UK is also launching work to develop a shortlist of potential Area
Based management tools that could be proposed once the agreement is in force.
More broadly, the UK is also fully engaged in negotiations to discuss the development of deep sea mining exploitation regulations, currently taking place at the International Seabed Authority (ISA) in Kingston, Jamaica from 18-29 March. On 30 October 2023, the UK announced that it supports a moratorium on the granting of exploitation licences for deep sea mining projects by the ISA and has been driving the need for strong enforceable environmental regulations, standards and guidelines to be developed by the ISA and put in place before any mining commences.
As a founding member of the high ambition coalition to end plastic pollution, the UK is committed to achieving an ambitious treaty by the end of 2024, with the aim of ending plastic pollution by 2040, including by restraining and reducing plastic production and consumption to sustainable levels, promoting a circular economy for plastic and to manage plastic waste in an environmentally sound and safe manner.
The UK overseas territories are home to around 90% of the UK’s biodiversity and host a huge range of unique and endangered species, some of which are found nowhere else on earth. The UK-funded Blue Belt Programme—the largest of its kind in the world—protects 4.4 million square kilometres of ocean around the overseas territories, underpinning the UK’s commitment to protecting 30% of the ocean by 2030. This flagship programme has been central to the UK Government ambition of leading action to tackle the serious global problems of overfishing, species extinction and climate change.
The UK continues to chair the global ocean alliance of 77 countries and is ocean champion on the International Steering Committee of the High Ambition Coalition for Nature & People. Through these positions we are supporting implementation of the global biodiversity framework in the ocean, in particular the target to effectively conserve and manage at least 30% of the ocean by 2030. The UK is already delivering on this target within its own waters. 38% of UK waters are included in a comprehensive network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and within the UK overseas territories, over 60% of waters are protected and sustainably managed within the blue belt.
The UK will continue to play a leading role in the many organisations and initiatives that work to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of the ocean and in continuing to protect and promote the blue belt.”
[HCWS382]
Community Ownership Fund
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
I am delighted to announce the outcome of round 3 window 3 of the £150 million community ownership fund, which will see over £33.5 million awarded to 83 projects across the United Kingdom. This additional funding takes our funding total to around £103.1 million for 333 projects.
This investment will ensure that important parts of our social fabric, such as pubs, sports clubs, theatres, and post office buildings, can continue to play a central role in towns and villages across the UK.
The community ownership fund is helping to reduce geographical disparities across the United Kingdom. To this end, the funding provided in round 3 window 3 will see over £3.8 million awarded to projects in Scotland, over £3.1 million to Wales and over £2.8 million to Northern Ireland. This, so far, brings the total funding awarded across Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland to over £32.1 million collectively, with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland having exceeded their minimum allocation across the duration of the fund.
The funding provided in round 3 window 3 will also see over £23.6 million awarded to projects in England. This brings the total funding awarded across English regions to over £70.9 million collectively.
The community ownership fund is already supporting 250 projects across the UK such as Keighley & Worth Valley Railway’s historic railway bridge, in Bradford, England; the Vale of Aeron pub, a favourite haunt of the poet Dylan Thomas in Ceredigion, Wales; the King’s Theatre in Edinburgh, one of Scotland’s most historic and significant theatres; and Glens digital hub in Causeway Coast and Glens, Northern Ireland, which has been transformed into a vibrant community digital hub. These projects are making a genuine difference to their communities.
With the additional investment awarded in this bidding window, I am delighted to be supporting many more small but mighty local assets across the United Kingdom, levelling up the places we love and cherish.
Round 4 will be the final round of the Community Ownership Fund. Recognising that there is limited funding available yet to be allocated to meet the high demand we have experienced, we will seek to hold two final bidding windows to allocate this funding. Round 4 window 1 will open today—25 March 2024—and close on 10 April 2024. Voluntary and community organisations, and parish, town and community councils can apply for up to £2 million in capital funding, to rescue treasured local institutions.
[HCWS379]
Nuclear Defence
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
I am today laying before the House the Defence Nuclear Enterprise Command Paper, “Delivering the UK’s Nuclear Deterrent: A National Endeavour”.
The Command Paper establishes the UK’s nuclear programme as a critical “national endeavour” that is vital for our long-term security and prosperity. It details for the first time the full breadth of activity required to sustain and modernise the infrastructure and activities that deliver the UK’s continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent—a cornerstone of national and global security for more than 55 years.
The Command Paper underlines the importance of our partnerships with the communities, businesses and international allies that underpin the deterrent and protect our way of life. It articulates how, in response to the evolving security environment, we will deliver the capabilities and programmes necessary to maintain and sustain our independent nuclear deterrent. It does not represent a change in long-standing nuclear doctrine or our ongoing commitment to our disarmament and non-proliferation treaty obligations.
To deliver the required skilled workforce needed to meet our requirement, the civil and defence nuclear sectors will invest at least £763 million in skills, jobs and education, and will see 40,000 additional jobs created by 2030. The Government and industry have come together to launch a nuclear skills plan to create more than 5,000 new apprentices, and double the number of graduates over the next 4 years. This plan will also create more than 400 specialist PhDs over the same period. This collaborative approach will be enshrined in a nuclear skills charter between Government and industry.
In parallel, we are announcing a plan for Barrow, a new partnership between national and local government, BAE Systems and the local community that will oversee investment and development in Barrow-in-Furness, the home of submarine building in the UK for the past 100 years. This aims to ensure that it is the kind of attractive place to live and work that will sustain the skilled workforce required in the decades to come. The initial commitment will be for a Barrow transformation fund, a 10-year endowment-style funding settlement of £20 million a year over the next decade, providing the multi-year certainty and stability needed to support and regenerate the town. This fund will be administered through DLUHC, working with the new Barrow delivery board and other Government Departments to deliver it. DLUHC will make a further announcement on the appointment of the Barrow delivery board chair in due course.
[HCWS377]
Managing Covid-19: Updated Guidance
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
On 21 February 2022, the Government published the “Covid-19 Response: Living with Covid-19” guidance, which set out a plan to live with covid-19, while protecting people at higher risk of serious illness. In March 2023, the Government announced further changes towards managing covid-19 like other respiratory illnesses. New changes from 1 April 2024 are the next stage in delivering this approach.
The latest changes are an important milestone in our journey to living with covid-19. After several years of dedicated resources and focus, covid-19 is now recognised as an established and ongoing health issue in the UK, and the approach to managing it will now be even further aligned with other established respiratory pathogens. Protecting people at higher risk remains the Government’s priority.
Vaccines for those at higher risk of serious outcomes from covid-19 remain central to the Government’s approach. Last autumn’s covid-19 vaccination campaign saw over 70% of all people aged over 65 years living in England receive a covid-19 booster. In care homes, over 80% of residents received a booster, providing vital protection over the winter months. Today, due to a combination of immunity acquired from natural infection or vaccination, covid-19 is now a relatively mild disease for the vast majority of people.
This spring, a covid-19 vaccine will again be offered to those most at risk of serious illness, in line with advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. The NHS will also offer more people access to covid-19 treatments, expanding the eligible cohort from the existing 3.9 million people to an additional 1.4 million people at the highest risk of severe illness.
The continued effectiveness of vaccines and treatments to protect people at high risk means that we can transition to an approach where covid-19 is managed in line with other respiratory illnesses, such as flu. From 1 April 2024, changes will be made to covid-19 testing to align with other respiratory infectious diseases.
Testing from 1 April 2024
While the virus causing covid-19 continues to evolve, new variants have not required a return to large-scale public testing. Given the high levels of vaccination among groups at higher risk, wider access to treatments and the reduced impact of outbreaks, the Government are now able to remove some of the highly targeted testing that remains in place from the height of the pandemic.
From 1 April 2024, routine provision of free covid-19 lateral flow device (LFD) tests for the management of outbreaks in higher risk settings will come to an end in England. However, free testing to determine the cause of an acute respiratory infection outbreak, where deemed appropriate by a local UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) health protection team, in higher risk settings will remain to test for a wide range of respiratory viruses.
Routine asymptomatic covid-19 LFD testing on discharge from hospital into care or hospice settings will also end to align with the approach for other respiratory illnesses, though NHS trusts will have local discretion to re-introduce this or other forms of testing as clinically appropriate following risk assessment, involving local authority public health teams, UKHSA health protection teams and care providers as necessary in decision making.
Acute health providers should have trusted processes in place with local care home and hospice providers to facilitate safe discharges, as set out in the hospital discharge and community support guidance. Together with the care home or hospice, hospitals should assess the risk in the period before planned discharge, seeking advice on proposed changes to testing arrangements from local authority public health teams or UKHSA health protection teams if needed.
Care providers and hospices will also continue to have the ability to discuss and raise any concerns about discharge arrangements through existing local mechanisms. Where a care provider or hospice is providing services commissioned by a local authority or the NHS and has concerns about a planned discharge that cannot be resolved with the acute hospital provider, this includes the ability to contact the relevant commissioner.
Limited testing, including symptomatic testing of staff working on in-patient wards focused on treating profoundly immuno-compromised individuals, will continue in line with locally derived protocols to protect those most at risk. Symptomatic testing of patient-facing hospice staff who work closely with people who are at high risk from severe outcomes if suffering from covid-19 will also continue as outlined in guidance, in line with similar NHS settings.
The cohort of people eligible for covid-19 treatments can continue to access free covid-19 LFDs from their local pharmacy. These people, who are at highest risk of becoming seriously ill, are encouraged to test in order to gain timely access to treatments. A full list of those who are eligible, and information on how to access tests, is available on the NHS website.
Guidance on a range of infection prevention and control measures in adult social care has now been combined with acute respiratory infection guidance and has been updated to reflect these changes. This guidance, as well as guidance for hospices and other non-clinical settings, has been updated to reflect the latest evidence and expert consensus. It is technical guidance to support settings in operationalising the changes to the services they are directly responsible for from 1 April 2024.
Guidance published on 1 April 2022 for individuals in the community with symptoms of covid-19 or respiratory illness continues to set out the actions we can all take to help reduce the risk of catching covid-19 and passing it on to others.
The future approach to pandemic preparedness
The covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the public health and economic risks posed by pandemics. The Government are continuing to work closely with partners to reduce the impact of a future pandemic. Together, UKHSA and the Department of Health and Social Care are developing plans to prevent and/or respond efficiently and effectively in the event of a pandemic.
These plans will build on learning from covid-19, and the findings of the covid-19 inquiry, once published. The exact nature of a future pandemic may vary, and so preparedness is considering all modes of transmission and tackling “Disease X” in readiness for unknown future threats.
The Government have already taken steps to prepare and develop capacity to respond, including through the Moderna-UK strategic partnership and the Vaccines Development and Evaluation Centre. Through UKHSA, we retain strong surveillance systems, world-leading genomic sequencing capabilities, and stronger baseline data and analysis functions that will help detect and characterise pandemic threats.
[HCWS376]
Angiolini Inquiry: Recommendations
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
On 29 February 2024, a report on part 1 of the independent Angiolini inquiry was published. The inquiry was established following the horrific murder of Sarah Everard in March 2021 by then serving Metropolitan Police Service officer Wayne Couzens.
On the same day, I gave a statement to the House to acknowledge the inquiry’s findings.
Part 1 examined the previous career and conduct of Couzens and found a number of red flags and missed opportunities. Based on these findings, the Chair made a total of 16 recommendations, summarily to improve the policing response to sexual offences, such as indecent exposure, to strengthen police recruitment and vetting practices, and to address toxic police cultures.
Today I can confirm acceptance of all three of the recommendations made to the Government, which the Home Office will now work to deliver at pace. These recommendations are that the Home Office, in collaboration with partners, should conduct a fundamental review of the way masturbatory indecent exposure is treated within the criminal justice system; commission research to establish if there is an evidence-based link between masturbatory indecent exposure and subsequent offending; and launch a campaign to raise awareness that indecent exposure and sending unsolicited photographs of genitals amounts to criminality and boost victims’ confidence to report such crimes.
Further recommendations on police vetting, recruitment and culture were made directly to police forces, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and College of Policing, who have also today accepted all recommendations made to policing. I will work closely with policing to ensure that they drive this work forward promptly.
Tackling violence against women and girls is one of my top priorities. I am confident that our strong partnership and shared commitment with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and College of Policing will lead to concerted, swift action.
I will provide a further update to Parliament on progress made in implementing the recommendations before summer recess.
I am grateful to Lady Elish and her team for their crucial and continued work, which will ensure that policing continues to make improvements necessary to rebuild the confidence of everyone they serve. I await the inquiry’s further findings from part 2, which is examining broader national issues such as vetting, recruitment and culture, as well as the safety of women in public spaces.
[HCWS378]
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 requires the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of their TPIM powers under the Act during that period. TPIM notices in force—as of 29 February 2024 2 Number of new TPIM notices served—during this period 1 TPIM notices in respect of British citizens—as of 29 February 2024 1 TPIM notices extended—during the reporting period 0 TPIM notices revoked—during the reporting period 0 TPIM notices expired—during reporting period 0 TPIM notices revived—during the reporting period 0 Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices—during the reporting period 1 Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused—during the reporting period 1 The number of subjects relocated under TPIM legislation—during this the reporting period 2
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The TPIM Review Group keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. TRG meetings were convened on 8 and 13 February 2024.
[HCWS375]
Network North Plans: Northern Powerhouse Rail
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
On 4 October 2023 the Government announced Network North—a new, £36 billion plan to improve our country’s transport. In addition to this, we confirmed £12 billion of investment to enable Northern Powerhouse Rail to proceed in line with previous plans to better connect Liverpool and Manchester. As promised in the Network North announcement, the Rail Minister and I have engaged extensively with local leaders to ensure that this plan was right for them and to understand whether they wished to suggest alternative ways to achieve the objectives with that funding.
We have heard from these stakeholders in favour of continuing to serve Warrington Bank Quay and Manchester airport and using broadly the current route towards Manchester as part of our Northern Powerhouse Rail plans. There is also interest from local leaders in exploring further options for station design at Manchester Piccadilly and for routings into Liverpool including station options. Government remain open to considering these issues, subject, as usual, to affordability within the funding envelope, standard business case approvals, and demonstrating value for taxpayers’ money. I look forward to continuing discussions on these points.
Recognising the consensus reached, I am today confirming that this will represent the basis for the next stage of development. As with any major scheme, delivery will be subject to securing consents and the approval of future business cases. Further, while the consensus reached will form the primary option that we work from, Government will continue to assess alternatives which meet the objectives of NPR, in line with standard requirements for business case approvals. Any scheme must be affordable and demonstrate value for money for the taxpayer, while seeking to support the rail capacity needs of central Manchester and deliver faster journey times and better connectivity across the Pennines.
On this basis, I will be continuing to promote the High Speed Rail (Crewe-Manchester) Bill as the fastest possible means of consenting the first part of that route into Manchester. Subject to the will of the House, the Government will seek to adapt the Bill to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail only, removing scope south of the parish of Millington and Rostherne, which was included only for HS2. The adaptation of the Bill from HS2 to NPR and removal of HS2 scope from the Bill would prompt a further environmental assessment to be produced which would include revised construction impacts with a view to reducing impacts where possible.
In line with these plans, HS2 phase 2b safeguarding will be amended by summer 2024, to allow for any safeguarding needed for Northern Powerhouse Rail.
[HCWS380]
Pensions Dashboard
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)
The success of automatic enrolment has led to record numbers of people saving for retirement. Pensions dashboards will allow individuals to view information about their pensions, including their state pension, for free, in one place online. This will help individuals’ awareness and understanding of their pension information and estimated income in retirement, building a greater sense of individual control and ownership.
Since the reset was initiated last year, the pensions dashboards programme has made significant progress on building and testing the system that will enable pensions dashboards to work. Subject to satisfactory testing, the programme plans to begin the process of connecting the organisations building a direct connection, including the Department for Work and Pensions state pension, from August 2024. Connection testing will then continue to ensure readiness to support wider industry connection from early 2025.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will today publish guidance setting out a staged timetable for connection. This will help smooth the process of connecting the approximately 3,000 pension schemes and providers in scope by the connection deadline of 31 October 2026. The timetable prioritises connection of the largest pension schemes and providers, so that crucial user testing can quickly take place at scale, with the first cohort expected to have completed connection by the end of April 2025. While the timetable is not mandatory, it is a legal requirement that trustees or managers of occupational pension schemes and providers of personal and stakeholder pensions have regard to this guidance.
The Government are absolutely committed to delivering pensions dashboards safely and securely to the public at the earliest opportunity. The publication of the connection timetable marks a significant milestone towards launching pensions dashboards, and takes us closer to introducing a service that has the potential to transform how individuals plan for retirement.
[HCWS381]
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, the Committee will adjourn as the Division Bells are rung and we will resume after 10 minutes.
Data Protection and Digital Information Bill
Monday 25th March 2024
(8 months, 3 weeks 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-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (25 Mar 2024)
Lord Clement-Jones
“(za) After point (a) insert—“(aa) the data subject has given consent for his or her personal data to enter the public domain via a public body;(ab) processing is carried out by a public body pursuant to a legal or statutory obligation or right, and the public body is entitled to make such data available to the public;””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add to the list of GDPR Article 6(1) on the lawfulness of processing.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 11 and to Amendments 14, 16, 17, 18, Clause 5 stand part and Clause 7 stand part. I will attempt to be as brief as I can, but Clause 5 involves rather a large number of issues.
Processing personal data is currently lawful only if it is performed for at least one lawful purpose, one of which is that the processing is for legitimate interests pursued by the controller or a third party, except where those interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights of the data subject. As such, if a data controller relies on their legitimate interest as a legal basis for processing data, they must conduct a balancing test of their interest and those of the data subject.
Clause 5 amends the UK GDPR’s legitimate interest provisions by introducing the concept of recognised legitimate interest, which allows data to be processed without a legitimate interest balancing test. This provides businesses and other organisations with a broader scope of justification for data processing. Clause 5 would amend Article 6 of the UK GDPR to equip the Secretary of State with a power to determine these new recognised legitimate interests. Under the proposed amendment, the Secretary of State must have regard to,
“among other things … the interests and fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects”.
The usual legitimate interest test is much stronger: rather than merely a topic to have regard to, a legitimate interest basis cannot lawfully apply if the data subject’s interests override those of the data controller.
Annexe 1, as inserted by the Bill, now provides a list of exemptions but is overly broad and vague. It includes national security, public security and defence, and emergencies and crime as legitimate interests for data processing without an assessment. Conservative MP, Marcus Fysh, said on Third Reading:
“Before companies share data or use data, they should have to think about what the balance is between a legitimate interest and the data rights, privacy rights and all the other rights that people may have in relation to their data. We do not want to give them a loophole or a way out of having to think about that.” —[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/23; col. 896.]
I entirely agree with that.
The amendment in Clause 5 also provides examples of processing that may be considered legitimate interests under the existing legitimate interest purpose, under Article 6(1)(f), rather than under the new recognised legitimate interest purpose. These include direct marketing, intra-group transmission of personal data for internal administrative purposes, and processing necessary to ensure the security of a network.
The Bill also provides a much more litigious data environment. Currently, an organisation’s assessment of its lawful purposes for processing data can be challenged through correspondence or an ICO complaint, whereas, under the proposed system, an individual may be forced to legally challenge a statutory instrument in order to contest the basis on which their data is processed.
As I will explain later, our preference is that the clause not stand part, but I accept that there are some areas that need clarification and Amendment 11 is designed to do this. The UK GDPR sets out conditions in which processing of data is lawful. The Bill inserts in Article 6(1) a provision specifying that processing shall be lawful for the purposes of a recognised legitimate interest, as I referred to earlier, an example of which may be for the purposes of direct marketing.
Many companies obtain data from the open electoral register. The register is maintained by local authorities, which have the right to sell this data to businesses. Amendment 11 would insert new Article (6)(1)(aa) and (ab), which provide that data processing shall be lawful where individuals have consented for their data
“to enter the public domain via a public body”,
or where processing is carried out by public bodies pursuant to their duties and rights, which may include making such data available to the public. Individuals are free to opt out of the open electoral register if they so wish and it would be disproportionate—in fact, irritating—to consumers to notify those who have consented to their data being processed that their data is being processed.
On Amendment 14, as mentioned, the Bill would give the Secretary of State the power to determine recognised legitimate interests through secondary legislation, which is subject to minimal levels of parliamentary scrutiny. Although the affirmative procedure is required, this does not entail much scrutiny or much of a debate. The last time MPs did not approve a statutory instrument under the affirmative procedure was in 1978. In practice, interests could be added to this list at any time and for any reason, facilitating the flow and use of personal data for limitless potential purposes. Businesses could be obligated to share the public’s personal data with government or law enforcement agencies beyond what they are currently required to do, all based on the Secretary of State’s inclination at the time.
We are concerned that this Henry VIII power is unjustified and undermines the very purpose of data protection legislation, which is to protect the privacy of individuals in a democratic data environment, as it vests undue power over personal data rights in the Executive. This amendment is designed to prevent the Secretary of State from having the ability to pre-authorise data processing outside the usual legally defined route. It is important to avoid a two-tier data protection framework in which the Secretary of State can decide that certain processing is effectively above the law.
On Amendment 17, some of the most common settings where data protection law is broken relate to the sharing of HIV status of an individual living with HIV in their personal life in relation to employment, healthcare services and the police. The sharing of an individual’s HIV status can lead to further discrimination being experienced by people living with HIV and can increase their risk of harassment or even violence. The National AIDS Trust is concerned that the Bill as drafted does not go far enough to prevent individuals’ HIV status from being shared with others without their consent. They and we believe that the Bill must clarify what an “administrative purpose” is for organisations processing employees’ personal data. Amendment 17 would add wording to clarify that, in paragraph 9(b) of Article 6,
“intra-group transmission of personal data”
in the workplace, within an organisation or in a group of organisations should be permitted only for individuals who need to access an employee’s personal data as part of their work.
As far as Amendment 18 is concerned, as it stands Clause 5 gives an advantage to large undertakings with numerous companies that can transmit data intra-group purely because they are affiliated to one central body. However, this contradicts both the ICO’s and the CMA’s repeated position that first party versus third party is not a meaningful distinction to cover privacy risk. Instead, it is the distinction of what data is processed, rather than the corporate ownership of the systems doing the processing. The amendment reflects the organisational measures that undertakings should have as safeguards. The groups of undertakings transmitting data should have organisational measures via contract to be able to take advantage of this transmission of data.
Then we come to the question of Clause 5 standing part of the Bill. This clause is unnecessary and creates risks. It is unnecessary because the legitimate interest balancing test is, in fact, flexible and practical; it already allows processing for emergencies, safeguarding and so on. It is risky because creating lists of specified legitimate interests inevitably narrows this concept and may make controllers less certain about whether a legitimate interest that is not a recognised legitimate interest can be characterised as such. In the age of AI, where change is exponential, we need principles and outcome-based legislation that are flexible and can be supplemented with guidance from an independent regulator, rather than setting up a system that requires the Government to legislate more and faster in order to catch up.
There is also a risk that the drafting of this provision does not dispense with the need to conduct a legitimate interest balancing test because all the recognised legitimate interests contain a test, of necessity. Established case law interprets the concept of necessity under data protection law as requiring a human rights balancing test to be carried out. This rather points to the smoke-and-mirrors effect of this drafting, which does nothing to improve legal certainty for organisations or protections for individuals.
I now come to Clause 7 standing part. This clause creates a presumption that processing will always be in the public interest or substantial public interest if done in reliance on a condition listed in proposed new Schedule A1 to the Data Protection Act 2018. The schedule will list international treaties that have been ratified by the UK. At present, the Bill lists only the UK-US data-sharing agreement as constituting relevant international law. Clause 7 seeks to remove the requirement for a controller to consider whether the legal basis on which they rely is in the public interest or substantial public interest, has appropriate safeguards and respects data subjects’ fundamental rights and freedoms. But the conditions in proposed new Schedule A1 in respect of the UK-US agreement also state that the processing must be necessary, as assessed by the controller, to respond to a request made under the agreement.
It is likely that a court would interpret “necessity” in the light of the ECHR. The court may therefore consider that the inclusion of a necessity test means that a controller would have to consider whether the UK-US agreement, or any other treaty added to the schedule, is proportionate to a legitimate aim pursued. Not only is it unreasonable to expect a controller to do such an assessment; it is also highly unusual. International treaties are drafted on a state-to-state basis and not in a way that necessarily corresponds clearly with domestic law. Further, domestic courts would normally consider the rights under the domestic law implementing a treaty, rather than having to interpret an international instrument without reference to a domestic implementing scheme. Being required to do so may make it more difficult for courts to enforce data subjects’ rights.
The Government have not really explained why it is necessary to amend the law in this way rather than simply implementing the UK-US agreement domestically. That would be the normal approach; it would remove the need to add this new legal basis and enable controllers to use the existing framework to identify a legal basis to process data in domestic law. Instead, this amendment makes it more difficult to understand how the law operates, which could in turn deter data sharing in important situations. Perhaps the Minister could explain why Clause 7 is there.
I beg to move.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 13 and 15. Before I do, let me say that I strongly support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about HIV and the related vulnerability, and his assertion—almost—that Clause 5 is a solution in search of a problem. “Legitimate interest” is a flexible concept and I am somewhat bewildered as to why the Government are seeking to create change where none is needed. In this context, it follows that, were the noble Lord successful in his argument that Clause 5 should not stand part, Amendments 13 and 15 would be unnecessary.
On the first day in Committee, we debated a smaller group of amendments that sought to establish the principle that nothing in the Bill should lessen the privacy protections of children. In his response, the Minister said:
“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”.—[Official Report, 20/3/24; col. GC 75.]
I am glad the Minister is open to listening and that the Government’s intention is to protect children, but, as discussed previously, widening the definition of “research” in Clause 3 and watering down purpose limitation protections in Clause 6 negatively impacts children’s data rights. Again, in Clause 5, lowering the protections for all data subjects has consequences for children.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in Amendments 13 and 15, to which I have added my name. Rather than repeat her arguments—as we are now all trying not to do—I want to build on them and point to the debate we had on the first group in Committee, when my noble friend the Minister insisted that the Government had no desire to water down the protections for children in the Bill. In Clause 5, in proposed new paragraph (7) of Article 6, the Government have felt it necessary to be explicit, in that paragraph only, that children might need extra protection. This, on its own, makes me worried that the whole Bill is reducing the protection children have, because the Government felt it necessary to insert new paragraph (7)(b). Interestingly, it refers to,
“where relevant, the need to provide children”
with additional support. But where is that not relevant?
Amendment 13 simply looks to strengthen this—to accept the premise on which the Bill is currently drafted that we need to be explicit where children deserve the right to a higher level of protection, and to get the wording right. Will my noble friend the Minister reconsider? There are two choices here: to state right at the beginning of the Bill that there is a principle that there will be no reduction in children’s right to a higher level of protection, or to do as the Bill currently does and make sure that we get the wording right at every stage as we work through.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken to this group. As ever, I am grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for the care it has taken in scrutinising the Bill. In its 10th report it made a number of recommendations addressing the Henry VIII powers in the Bill, which are reflected in a number of amendments that we have tabled.
In this group, we have Amendment 12 to Clause 5, which addresses the committee’s concerns about the new powers for the Secretary of State to amend new Annexe 1 of Article 6. This sets out the grounds for treating data processing as a recognised legitimate interest. This issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in his introduction. The Government argue that they are starting with a limited number of grounds and that the list might need to be changed swiftly, hence the need for the Secretary of State’s power to make changes by affirmative regulations.
However, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee argues:
“The grounds for lawful processing of personal data go to the heart of the data protection legislation, and therefore in our view should not be capable of being changed by subordinate legislation”.
It also argues that the Government have not provided strong reasons for needing this power. It recommends that the delegated power in Clause 5(4) should be removed from the Bill, which is what our Amendment 12 seeks to do.
These concerns were echoed by the Constitution Committee, which went one stage further by arguing:
“Data protection is a matter of great importance in maintaining a relationship of trust between the state and the individual”.
It is important to maintain these fundamental individual rights. On that basis, the Constitution Committee asks us to consider whether the breadth of the Secretary of State’s powers in Clauses 5 and 6 is such that those powers should be subject to primary rather than secondary legislation.
I make this point about the seriousness of these issues as they underline the points made by other noble Lords in their amendments in this group. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked whether any regulations made by the Secretary of State should be the subject of the super-affirmative procedure. We will be interested to hear the Minister’s response, given the concerns raised by the Constitution Committee.
Will the Minister also explain why it was necessary to remove the balancing test, which would require organisations to show why their interest in processing data outweighs the rights of data subjects? Again, this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It would also be helpful if the Minister could clarify whether the new powers for the Secretary of State to amend the recognised legitimate interest could have consequences for data adequacy and whether this has been checked and tested with the EU.
Finally, we also welcome a number of other amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in particular those to ensure that direct marketing should be considered a legitimate interest only if there is proper consent. This was one of the themes of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who made, as ever, a very powerful case for ensuring that children specifically should not be subject to direct market as routine and that there should be clear consent.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding, have once again, quite rightly, brought us back to the Bill needing to state explicitly that children’s rights are not being watered down by it, otherwise we will come back to this again and again in all the clauses. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said that this will be decided on the Floor of the House, or the Minister could give in now and come back with some government amendments. I heartily recommend to the Minister that he considers doing that because it might save us some time. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that and on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendations about removing the Secretary of State’s right to amend the legitimate interest test.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 and to whether Clauses 5 and 7 should stand part of the Bill. In doing so, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Kidron, for their amendments. The amendments in the group, as we have heard, relate to Clauses 5 and 7, which make some important changes to Article 6 of the UK GDPR on the lawfulness of processing.
The first amendment in the group, Amendment 11, would create a new lawful ground, under Article 6(1) of UK GDPR, to enable the use of personal data published by public bodies with a person’s consent and to enable processing by public bodies for the benefit of the wider public. The Government do not believe it would be necessary to create additional lawful grounds for processing in these circumstances. The collection and publication of information on public databases, such as the list of company directors published by Companies House, should already be permitted by existing lawful grounds under either Article 6(1)(c), in the case of a legal requirement to publish information, or Article 6(1)(e) in the case of a power.
Personal data published by public bodies can already be processed by other non-public body controllers where their legitimate interests outweigh the rights and interests of data subjects. However, they must comply with their requirements in relation to that personal data, including requirements to process personal data fairly and transparently. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for setting out where he thinks the gaps are, but I hope he will accept my reassurances that it should already be possible under the existing legislation and will agree to withdraw the amendment.
On Clause 5, the main objectives introduce a new lawful ground under Article 6(1) of the UK GDPR, known as “recognised legitimate interests”. It also introduces a new annexe to the UK GDPR, in Schedule 1 to the Bill, that sets out an exhaustive list of processing activities that may be undertaken by data controllers under this new lawful ground. If an activity appears on the list, processing may take place without a person’s consent and without balancing the controller’s interests against the rights and interests of the individual: the so-called legitimate interests balancing test.
The activities in the annexe are all of a public interest nature, for example, processing of data where necessary to prevent crime, safeguarding national security, protecting children, responding to emergencies or promoting democratic engagement. They also include situations where a public body requests a non-public body to share personal data with it to help deliver a public task sanctioned by law.
The clause was introduced as a result of stakeholders’ concerns raised in response to the public consultation Data: A New Direction in 2021. Some informed us that they were worried about the legal consequences of getting the balancing test in Article 6(1)(f) wrong. Others said that undertaking the balancing test can lead to delays in some important processing activities taking place.
As noble Lords will be aware, many data controllers have important roles in supporting activities that have a public interest nature. It is vital that data is shared without delay where necessary in areas such as safeguarding, prevention of crime and responding to emergencies. Of course, controllers who share data while relying on this new lawful ground would still have to comply with wider requirements of data protection legislation where relevant, such as data protection principles which ensure that the data is used fairly, lawfully and transparently, and is collected and used for specific purposes.
In addition to creating a new lawful ground of recognised legitimate interests, Clause 5 also clarifies the types of processing activities that may be permitted under the existing legitimate interests lawful ground under Article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR. Even if a processing activity does not appear on the new list of recognised legitimate interests, data controllers may still have grounds for processing people’s data without consent if their interests in processing the data are not outweighed by the rights and freedoms that people have in relation to privacy. Clause 5(9) and (10) makes it clear this might be the case in relation to many common commercial activities, such as intragroup transfers.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, may I just revisit that with the Minister? I fear that he is going to move on to another subject. The Delegated Powers Committee said that it thought that the Government had not provided strong enough reasons for needing this power. The public interest list being proposed, which the Minister outlined, is quite broad, so it is hard to imagine the Government wanting something not already listed. I therefore return to what the committee said. Normally, noble Lords like to listen to recommendations from such committees. There is no strong reason for needing that extra power, so, to push back a little on the Minister, why, specifically, is it felt necessary? If it were a public safety interest, or one of the other examples he gave, it seems to me that that would come under the existing list of public interests.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Indeed. Needless to say, we take the recommendations of the DPRRC very seriously, as they deserve. However, because this is an exhaustive list, and because the technologies and practices around data are likely to evolve very rapidly in ways we are unable currently to predict, it is important to retain as a safety measure the ability to update that list. That is the position the Government are coming from. We will obviously continue to consider the DPRRC’s recommendations, but that has to come with a certain amount of adaptiveness as we go. Any addition to the list would of course be subject to parliamentary debate, via the affirmative resolution procedure, as well as the safeguards listed in the provision itself.
Clause 50 ensures that the ICO and any other interested persons should be consulted before making regulations.
Amendments 15, 16, 17 and 18 would amend the part of Clause 5 that is concerned with the types of activities that might be carried out under the current legitimate interest lawful ground, under Article 6(1)(f). Amendment 15 would prevent direct marketing organisations relying on the legitimate interest lawful ground under Article 6(1)(f) if the personal data being processed related to children. However, the age and vulnerability in general of data subjects is already an important factor for direct marketing organisations when considering whether the processing is justified. The ICO already provides specific guidance for controllers carrying out this balancing test in relation to children’s data. The fact that a data subject is a child, and the age of the child in question, will still be relevant factors to take into account in this process. For these reasons, the Government consider this amendment unnecessary.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, am I to take it from that that none of the changes currently in the Bill will expose children on a routine basis to direct marketing?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
As is the case today and will be going forward, direct marketing organisations will be required to perform the balancing test; and as in the ICO guidance today and, no doubt, going forward—
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I am sorry if I am a little confused—I may well be—but the balancing test that is no longer going to be there allows a certain level of processing, which was the subject of the first amendment. The suggestion now is that children will be protected by a balancing test. I would love to know where that balancing test exists.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
The balancing test remains there for legitimate interests, under Article 6(1)(f).
Amendment 16 seeks to prevent organisations that undertake third-party marketing relying on the legitimate interest lawful ground under Article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR. As I have set out, organisations can rely on that ground for processing personal data without consent when they are satisfied that they have a legitimate interest to do so and that their commercial interests are not outweighed by the rights and interests of data subjects.
Clause 5(4) inserts in Article 6 new paragraph (9), which provides some illustrative examples of activities that may constitute legitimate interests, including direct marketing activities, but it does not mean that they will necessarily be able to process personal data for that purpose. Organisations will need to assess on a case-by-case basis where the balance of interest lies. If the impact on the individual’s privacy is too great, they will not be able to rely on the legitimate interest lawful ground. I should emphasise that this is not a new concept created by this Bill. Indeed, the provisions inserted by Clause 5(4) are drawn directly from the recitals to the UK GDPR, as incorporated from the EU GDPR.
I recognise that direct marketing can be a sensitive—indeed, disagreeable—issue for some, but direct marketing information can be very important for businesses as well as individuals and can be dealt with in a way that respects people’s privacy. The provisions in this Bill do not change the fact that direct marketing activities must be compliant with the data protection and privacy legislation and continue to respect the data subject’s absolute right to opt out of receiving direct marketing communications.
Amendment 17 would make sure that the processing of employee data for “internal administrative purposes” is subject to heightened safeguards, particularly when it relates to health. I understand that this amendment relates to representations made by the National AIDS Trust concerning the level of protection afforded to employees’ health data. We agree that the protection of people’s HIV status is vital and that it is right that it is subject to extra protection, as is the case for all health data and special category data. We have committed to further engagement and to working with the National AIDS Trust to explore solutions in order to prevent data breaches of people’s HIV status, which we feel is best achieved through non-legislative means given the continued high data protection standards afforded by our existing legislation. As such, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will agree not to press this amendment.
Amendment 18 seeks to allow businesses more confidently to rely on the existing legitimate interest lawful ground for the transmission of personal data within a group of businesses affiliated by contract for internal administrative purposes. In Clause 5, the list of activities in proposed new paragraphs (9) and (10) are intended to be illustrative of the types of activities that may be legitimate interests for the purposes of Article 6(1)(f). They are focused on processing activities that are currently listed in the recitals to the EU GDPR but are simply examples. Many other processing activities may be legitimate interests for the purposes of Article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR. It is possible that the transmission of personal data for internal administrative purposes within a group affiliated by contract may constitute a legitimate interest, as may many other commercial activities. It would be for the controller to determine this on a case-by-case basis after carrying out a balancing test to assess the impact on the individual.
Finally, I turn to the clause stand part debate that seeks to remove Clause 7 from the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for this amendment because it allows me to explain why this clause is important to the success of the UK-US data access agreement. As noble Lords will know, that agreement helps the law enforcement agencies in both countries tackle crime. Under the UK GDPR, data controllers can process personal data without consent on public interest grounds if the basis for the processing is set out in domestic law. Clause 7 makes it clear that the processing of personal data can also be carried out on public interest grounds if the basis for the processing is set out in a relevant international treaty such as the UK-US data access agreement.
The agreement permits telecommunications operators in the UK to disclose data about serious crimes with law enforcement agencies in the US, and vice versa. The DAA has been operational since October 2022 and disclosures made by UK organisations under it are already lawful under the UK GDPR. Recent ICO guidance confirms this, but the Government want to remove any doubt in the minds of UK data controllers that disclosures under the DAA are permitted by the UK GDPR. Clause 7 makes it absolutely clear to telecoms operators in the UK that disclosures under the DAA can be made in reliance on the UK GDPR’s public tasks processing grounds; the clause therefore contributes to the continued, effective functioning of the agreement and to keeping the public in both the UK and the US safe.
For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My first reaction is “Phew”, my Lords. We are all having to keep to time limits now. The Minister did an admirable job within his limit.
I wholeheartedly support what the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding, said about Amendments 13 and 15 and what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said about her Amendment 12. I do not believe that we have yet got to the bottom of children’s data protection; there is still quite some way to go. It would be really helpful if the Minister could bring together the elements of children’s data about which he is trying to reassure us and write to us saying exactly what needs to be done, particularly in terms of direct marketing directed towards children. That is a real concern.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on an amendment in the name of Baroness Jones of Whitchurch to leave out Clause 114. These Schedule 1 provisions would become redundant if Clause 114 is removed from the Bill.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 19 is consequential on my more substantive Clauses 114 and 115 stand part notices, which are also in this group. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his support.
These amendments all relate to the 150 or so pages of late amendments tabled in the Commons on Report and therefore not given adequate scrutiny before now. No real explanation has been given for why the Government felt it necessary to table the amendments in this way, and this group of amendments comes under the heading of so-called “democratic engagement”. Clause 113 extends a soft opt-in for direct mail marketing for furthering charitable or political objectives, while Clause 114 goes further and allows the Secretary of State to change the direct marketing rules through secondary legislation for the purpose of democratic engagement. This would allow the Government, in the run-up to an election, to switch off the direct mailing rules that apply to political parties.
Like many others, we are highly suspicious of the Government’s motives in introducing these amendments in the run-up to this election. Although we do not have a problem with a softer opt-in for direct mailing for charities, the application of Clause 114 to political parties gives politicians carte blanche to mine voters’ data given in good faith for completely different purposes. It would allow voters to be bombarded with calls, texts and personalised social media without their explicit consent.
When you consider these proposals in the context of other recent moves by the Government to make it harder for some people to vote and to vastly increase the amount of money that can be spent on campaigning in the run-up to an election, you have to wonder what the Government are up to, because these measures have certainly not been requested by Labour. In fact, these measures were not supported by the majority of respondents to the Government’s initial consultation, who wanted the existing rules upheld.
The Advertising Association has told us that it is concerned that switching off the rules could result in an increase in poor practice, such as political lobbying under the guise of research. This is apparently a practice known as “plugging”. It referred us to a report from the previous Information Commissioner on how political parties manage data protection, which provided key recommendations for how political parties could improve. These included providing clearer information about how data will be used and being more transparent about how voters are profiled and targeted via social media platforms. This is the direction our democratic engagement should be going in, with stronger and more honest rules that treat the electorate with respect, not watering down the rules that already exist.
When these proposals were challenged in the Commons on Report, the Minister, John Whittingdale, said:
“We have no immediate plans to use the regulation powers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/23; col. 912.]
If that is the case, why do the Government not take the proposals off the table, go back to the drawing board by conducting a proper consultation and test whether there is any appetite for these changes? They should also involve the Information Commissioner at an early stage, as he has already gone on record to say that this is
“an area in which there are significant potential risks to people if any future policy is not implemented very carefully”.
Finally, if there are to be any changes, they should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and approval.
We believe that Clauses 114 and 115 are taking us in fundamentally the wrong direction, against the interests of the electorate. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but I give notice now that, unless the Government adopt a very different strategy on this issue, we will return to this on Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, with pleasure, as I agree with everything that she just said. I apologise for having failed to notice this in time to attach my name; I certainly would have done, if I had had the chance.
As the noble Baroness said, we are in an area of great concern for the level of democracy that we already have in our country. Downgrading it further is the last thing that we should be looking at doing. Last week, I was in the Chamber looking at the statutory instrument that saw a massive increase in the spending limits for the London mayoral and assembly elections and other mayoral elections—six weeks before they are held. This is a chance to spend an enormous amount of money; in reality, it is the chance for one party that has the money from donations from interesting and dubious sources, such as the £10 million, to bombard voters in clearly deeply dubious and concerning ways.
We see a great deal of concern about issues such as deepfakes, what might happen in the next general election, malicious actors and foreign actors potentially interfering in our elections. We have to make sure, however, that the main actors conduct elections fairly on the ground. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just set out, this potentially drives a cart and horses through that. As she said, these clauses did not get proper scrutiny in the Commons—as much as that ever happens. As I understand it, there is the potential for us to remove them entirely later, but I should like to ask the Minister some direct questions, to understand what the Government’s intentions are and how they understand the meaning of the clauses.
Perhaps no one would have any problems with these clauses if they were for campaigns to encourage people to register to vote, given that we do not have automatic voter registration, as so many other countries do. Would that be covered by these clauses? If someone were conducting a “get out the vote” campaign in a non-partisan way, simply saying, “Please go out and vote. The election is on this day. You will need to bring along your voter ID”, would it be covered by these clauses? What about an NGO campaigning to stop a proposed new nuclear power station, or a group campaigning for stronger regulations on pesticides or for the Government to take stronger action against ultra-processed food? How do those kinds of politics fit with Clauses 114 and 115? As they are currently written, I am not sure that it is clear what is covered.
There is cause for deep concern, because no justification has been made for these two clauses. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, this weekend, as I was preparing for the amendments to which I have put my name, I made the huge mistake of looking at the other amendments being discussed. As a result, I had a look at this group. I probably should declare an interest as the wife of a Conservative MP; therefore, our household is directly affected by this amendment and these clause stand part notices. I wholeheartedly agree with everything said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
I have two additional points to make, because I am horrified by these clauses. First, did I miss something, in that we are now defining an adult as being 14-plus? At what point did that happen? I thought that you had the right to vote at 18, so I do not understand why electoral direct marketing should be free to bombard our 14 year-olds. That was my first additional point.
Secondly, I come back to what I said on the first day of Committee: this is all about trust. I really worry that Clauses 114 and 115 risk undermining two important areas where trust really matters. The first is our electoral system and the second is the data that we give our elected representatives, when we go to them not as party representatives but as our representatives elected to help us.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Harding and Lady Bennett, after the excellent introduction to the amendments in this group by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, used the word “trust”, and this is another example of a potential hidden agenda in the Bill. Again, it is destructive of any public trust in the way their data is curated. This is a particularly egregious example, without, fundamentally, any explanation. Sir John Whittingdale said that a future Government
“may want to encourage democratic engagement in the run up to an election by temporarily ‘switching off’ some of the direct marketing rules”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/2023; col. 885.]
Nothing to see here—all very innocuous; but, as we know, in the past the ICO has been concerned about even the current rules on the use of data by political parties. It seems to me that, without being too Pollyannaish about this, we should be setting an example in the way we use the public’s data for campaigning. The ICO, understandably, is quoted as saying during the public consultation on the Bill that this is
“an area in which there are significant potential risks to people if any future policy is not implemented very carefully”.
That seems an understatement, but that is how regulators talk. It is entirely right to be concerned about these provisions.
Of course, they are hugely problematic, but they are particularly problematic given that it is envisaged that young people aged 14 and older should be able to be targeted by political parties when they cannot even vote, as we have heard. This would appear to contravene one of the basic principles of data protection law: that you should not process more personal data than you need for your purposes. If an individual cannot vote, it is hard to see how targeting them with material relating to an election is a proportionate interference with their privacy rights, particularly when they are a child. The question is, should we be soliciting support from 14 to 17 year-olds during elections when they do not have votes? Why do the rules need changing so that people can be targeted online without having consented? One of the consequences of these changes would be to allow a Government to switch off—the words used by Sir John Whittingdale—direct marketing rules in the run-up to an election, allowing candidates and parties to rely on “soft” opt-in to process data and make other changes without scrutiny.
Exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, respondents to the original consultation on the Bill wanted political communications to be covered by existing rules on direct marketing. Responses were very mixed on the soft opt-in, and there were worries that people might be encouraged to part with more of their personal data. More broadly, why are the Government changing the rules on democratic engagement if they say they will not use these powers? What assessment have they made of the impact of the use of the powers? Why are the powers not being overseen by the Electoral Commission? If anybody is going to have the power to introduce the ability to market directly to voters, it should be the Electoral Commission.
All this smacks of taking advantage of financial asymmetry. We talked about competition asymmetry with big tech when we debated the digital markets Bill; similarly, this seems a rather sneaky way of taking advantage of the financial resources one party might have versus others. It would allow it to do things other parties cannot, because it has granted itself permission to do that. The provisions should not be in the hands of any Secretary of State or governing party; if anything, they should be in entirely independent hands; but, even then, they are undesirable.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for tabling her amendments. Amendment 19 would remove processing which is necessary for the purposes of democratic engagement from the list of recognised legitimate interests. It is essential in a healthy democracy that registered political parties, elected representatives and permitted participants in referendums can engage freely with the electorate without being impeded unnecessarily by data protection legislation.
The provisions in the Bill will mean that these individuals and organisations do not have to carry out legitimate interest assessments or look for a separate legal basis. They will, however, still need to comply with other requirements of data protection legislation, such as the data protection principles and the requirement for processing to be necessary.
On the question posed by the noble Baroness about the term “democratic engagement”, it is intended to cover a wide range of political activities inside and outside election periods. These include but are not limited to democratic representation; communicating with electors and interested parties; surveying and opinion gathering; campaigning activities; activities to increase voter turnout; supporting the work of elected representatives, prospective candidates and official candidates; and fundraising to support any of these activities. This is reflected in the drafting, which incorporates these concepts in the definition of democratic engagement and democratic engagement activities.
The ICO already has guidance on the use of personal data by political parties for campaigning purposes, which the Government anticipate it will update to reflect the changes in the Bill. We will of course work with the ICO to make sure it is familiar with our plans for commencement and that it does not benefit any party over another.
On the point made about the appropriate age for the provisions, in some parts of the UK the voting age is 16 for some elections, and children can join the electoral register as attainers at 14. The age of 14 reflects the variations in voting age across the nation; in some parts of the UK, such as Scotland, a person can register to vote at 14 as an attainer. An attainer is someone who is registered to vote in advance of their being able to do so, to allow them to be on the electoral roll as soon as they turn the required age. Children aged 14 and over are often politically engaged and are approaching voting age. The Government consider it important that political parties and elected representatives can engage freely with this age group—
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I am interested in what the Minister says about the age of attainers. Surely it would be possible to remove attainers from those who could be subject to direct marketing. Given how young attainers could be, it would protect them from the unwarranted attentions of campaigning parties and so on. I do not see that as a great difficulty.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Indeed. It is certainly worth looking at, but I remind noble Lords that such communications have to be necessary, and the test of their being necessary for someone of that age is obviously more stringent.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
But what is the test of necessity at that age?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
The processor has to determine whether it is necessary to the desired democratic engagement outcome to communicate with someone at that age. But I take the point: for the vast majority of democratic engagement communications, 14 would be far too young to make that a worthwhile or necessary activity.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
As I recall, the ages are on the electoral register.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am not aware one way or the other, but I will happily look into that to see what further safeguards we can add so that we are not bombarding people who are too young with this material.
Lord Kamall (Con)
May I make a suggestion to my noble friend the Minister? It might be worth asking the legal people to get the right wording, but if there are different ages at which people can vote in different parts of the United Kingdom, surely it would be easier just to relate it to the age at which they are able to vote in those elections. That would address a lot of the concerns that many noble Lords are expressing here today.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this whole area of democratic engagement is one that the Minister will need to explain in some detail. This is an Alice in Wonderland schedule: “These words mean what I want them to mean”. If, for instance, you are engaging with the children of a voter—at 14, they are children—is that democratic engagement? You could drive a coach and horses through Schedule 1. The Minister used the word “necessary”, but he must give us rather more than that. It was not very reassuring.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
The Minister mentioned a presumption that the ICO will update its guidance. Is there a timeframe for that? Will the guidance be updated before this comes into effect? How does the age of 14 relate to the AADC, which sets the age of adulthood at 18?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the Minister replies, we may as well do the full round. I agree with him, in that I very much believe in votes at 16 and possibly younger. I have been on many a climate demonstration with young people of 14 and under, so they can be involved, but the issue here is bigger than age. The main issue is not age but whether anybody should be subjected to a potential barrage of material in which they have not in any way expressed an interest. I am keen to make sure that this debate is not diverted to the age question and that we do not lose the bigger issue. I wanted to say that I sort of agree with the Minister on one element.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness, but with one rider. We will keep coming back to the need for children to have a higher level of data protection than adults, and this is but one of many examples we will debate. However, I agree with her underlying point. The reason why I support removing both these clauses is the hubris of believing that you will engage the electorate by bombarding them with things they did not ask to receive.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
A fair number of points were made there. I will look at ages under 16 and see what further steps, in addition to being necessary and proportionate, we can think about to provide some reassurance. Guidance would need to be in effect before any of this is acted on by any of the political parties. I and my fellow Ministers will continue to work with the ICO—
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I am sorry to press the Minister, but does the Bill state that guidance will be in place before this comes into effect?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am not sure whether it is written in the Bill. I will check, but the Bill would not function without the existence of the guidance.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I am sorry to drag this out but, on the guidance, can we be assured that the Minister will involve the Electoral Commission? It has a great deal of experience here; in fact, it has opined in the past on votes for younger cohorts of the population. It seems highly relevant to seek out its experience and the benefits of that.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I would of course be very happy to continue to engage with the Electoral Commission.
We will continue to work with the ICO to make sure that it is familiar with the plans for commencement and that its plans for guidance fit into that. In parts of the UK where the voting age is 18 and the age of attainment is 16, it would be more difficult for candidates and parties to show that it was necessary or proportionate to process the personal data of 14 and 15 year-olds in reliance on the new lawful ground. In this context, creating an arbitrary distinction between children at or approaching voting age and adults may not be appropriate; in particular, many teenagers approaching voting age may be more politically engaged than some adults. These measures will give parties and candidates a clear lawful ground for engaging them in the process. Accepting this amendment would remove the benefits of greater ease of identification of a lawful ground for processing by elected representatives, candidates and registered political parties, which is designed to improve engagement with the electorate. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will withdraw her amendment.
I now come to the clause stand part notice that would remove Clause 114, which gives the Secretary of State a power to make exceptions to the direct marketing rules for communications sent for the purposes of democratic engagement. As Clause 115 defines terms for the purposes of Clause 114, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is also seeking for that clause to be removed. Under the current law, many of the rules applying to electronic communications sent for commercial marketing apply to messages sent by registered political parties, elected representatives and others for the purposes of democratic engagement. It is conceivable that, after considering the risks and benefits, a future Government might want to treat communications sent for the purposes of democratic engagement differently from commercial marketing. For example, in areas where voter turnout is particularly low or there is a need to increase engagement with the electoral process, a future Government might decide that the direct marketing rules should be modified. This clause stand part notice would remove that option.
We have incorporated several safeguards that must be met prior to regulations being laid under this clause. They include the Secretary of State having specific regard to the effect the exceptions could have on an individual’s privacy; a requirement to consult the Information Commissioner and other interested parties, as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and the regulations being subject to parliamentary approval via the affirmative procedure.
For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw or not press her amendments.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased that I have sparked such a lively debate. When I tabled these amendments, it was only me and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, so I thought, “This could be a bit sad, really”, but it has not been. Actually, it has been an excellent debate and we have identified some really good issues.
As a number of noble Lords said, the expression “democratic engagement” is weasel words: what is not to like about democratic engagement? We all like it. Only when you drill down into the proposals do you realise the traps that could befall us. As noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, rightly said, we have to see this in the context of some of the other moves the Government are pursuing in trying to skew the electoral rules in their favour. I am not convinced that this is as saintly as the Government are trying to pretend.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, is absolutely right: this is about trust. It is about us setting an example. Of all the things we can do on data protection that we have control over, we could at least show the electorate how things could be done, so that they realise that we, as politicians, understand how precious their data is and that we do not want to misuse it.
I hope we have all knocked on doors, and I must say that I have never had a problem engaging with the electorate, and actually they have never had a problem engaging with us. This is not filling a gap that anybody has identified. We are all out there and finding ways of communicating that, by and large, I would say the electorate finds perfectly acceptable. People talk to us, and they get the briefings through the door. That is what they expect an election campaign to be about. They do not expect, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, to go to see their MP about one thing and then suddenly find that they are being sent information about something completely different or that assumptions are being made about them which were never the intention when they gave the information in the first place. I just feel that there is something slightly seedy about all this. I am sorry that the Minister did not pick up a little more on our concerns about all this.
There are some practical things that I think it was helpful for us to have talked about, such as the Electoral Commission. I do not think that it has been involved up to now. I would like to know in more detail what its views are on all this. It is also important that we come back to the Information Commissioner and check in more detail what his view is on all this. It would be nice to have guidance, but I do not think that that will be enough to satisfy us in terms of how we proceed with these amendments.
The Minister ultimately has not explained why this has been introduced at this late stage. He is talking about this as though conceivably, in the future, a Government might want to adopt these rules. If that is the case, I respectfully say that we should come back at that time with a proper set of proposals that go right through the democratic process that we have here in Parliament, scrutinise it properly and make a decision then, rather than being bounced into something at a very late stage.
I have to say that I am deeply unhappy at what the Minister has said. I will obviously look at Hansard, but I may well want to return to this.
Viscount Camrose
“(c) the nature of the processing, including whether it is processing described in Article 9(1) (processing of special categories of personal data) or Article 10(1) (processing of personal data relating to criminal convictions etc);”Member's explanatory statement
This technical amendment changes new Article 8A(2)(c) of the UK GDPR so that it refers to processing rather than personal data, reflecting the terms of Articles 9(1) and 10(1).
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to a series of minor and technical, yet necessary, government amendments which, overall, improve the functionality of the Bill. I hope the Committee will be content if I address them together. Amendments 20, 42, 61 and 63 are minor technical amendments to references to special category data in Clauses 6 and 14. All are intended to clarify that references to special category data mean references to the scope of Article 9(1) of the UK GDPR. They are simply designed to improve the clarity of the drafting.
I turn now to the series of amendments that clarify how time periods within the data protection legal framework are calculated. For the record, these are Amendments 136, 139, 141, 149, 151, 152, 176, 198, 206 to 208, 212 to 214, 216, 217, 253 and 285. Noble Lords will be aware that the data protection legislation sets a number of time periods or deadlines for certain things to happen, such as responding to subject access requests; in other words, at what day, minute or hour the clock starts and stops ticking in relation to a particular procedure. The Data Protection Act 2018 expressly applies the EU-derived rules on how these time periods should be calculated, except in a few incidences where it is more appropriate for the UK domestic approach to apply, for example time periods related to parliamentary procedures. I shall refer to these EU-derived rules as the time periods regulation.
In response to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, we are making it clear that the time periods regulation continues to apply to the UK GDPR and other regulations that form part of the UK’s data protection and privacy framework, for example, the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. By making such express provision, our aim is to ensure consistency and continuity and to provide certainty for organisations, individuals and the regulator. We have also made some minor changes to existing clauses in the Bill to ensure that application of the time periods regulation achieves the correct effect.
Secondly, Amendment 197 clarifies that the requirement to consult before making regulations that introduce smart data schemes may be satisfied by a consultation before the Bill comes into force. The regulations must also be subject to affirmative parliamentary scrutiny to allow Members of both Houses to scrutinise legislation. This will facilitate the rapid implementation of smart data schemes, so that consumers and businesses can start benefiting as soon as possible. The Government are committed to working closely with business and wider stakeholders in the development of smart data.
Furthermore, Clause 96(3) protects data holders from the levy that may be imposed to meet the expenses of persons and bodies performing functions under smart data regulations. This levy cannot be imposed on data holders that do not appear capable of being directly affected by the exercise of those functions.
Amendment 196 extends that protection to authorised persons and third-party recipients on whom the levy may also be imposed. Customers will not have to pay to access their data, only for the innovative services offered by third parties. We expect that smart data schemes will deliver significant time and cost savings for customers.
The Government are committed to balancing the incentives for businesses to innovate and provide smart data services with ensuring that all customers are empowered through their data use and do not face undue financial barriers or digital exclusion. Any regulations providing for payment of the levy or fees will be subject to consultation and to the affirmative resolution procedure in Parliament.
Amendments 283 and 285 to Schedule 15 confer a general incidental power on the information commission. It will have the implied power to do things incidental to or consequential upon the exercise of its functions, for example, to hold land and enter into agreements. This amendment makes those implicit powers explicit for the avoidance of doubt and in line with standard practice. It does not give the commission substantive new powers. I beg to move.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I know that these amendments were said to be technical amendments, so I thought I would just accept them, but when I saw the wording of Amendment 283 some alarm bells started ringing. It says:
“The Commission may do anything it thinks appropriate for the purposes of, or in connection with, its functions”.
I know that the Minister said that this is stating what the commission is already able to do, but I am concerned whenever I see those words anywhere. They give a blank cheque to any authority or organisation.
Many noble Lords will know that I have previously spoken about the principal-agent theory in politics, in which certain powers are delegated to an agency or regulator, but what accountability does it have? I worry when I see that it “may do anything … appropriate” to fulfil its tasks. I would like some assurance from the Minister that there is a limit to what the information commission can do and some accountability. At a time when many of us are asking who regulates the regulators and when we are looking at some of the arm’s-length bodies—need I mention the Post Office?—there is some real concern about accountability.
I understand the reason for wanting to clarify or formalise what the Minister believes the information commission is doing already, but I worry about this form of words. I would like some reassurance that it is not wide-ranging and that there is some limit and accountability to future Governments. I have seen this sentiment across the House; people are asking who regulates the regulators and to whom are they accountable.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. Amid a blizzard of technical and minor amendments from the Minister, he forensically spotted one to raise in that way. He is absolutely right. The Industry and Regulators Committee has certainly been examining the accountability and scrutiny devoted to regulators, so we need to be careful in the language that we use. I think we have to take a lot on trust from the Minister, particularly in Grand Committee.
I apparently failed to declare an interest at Second Reading. I forgot to state that I am a consultant to DLA Piper and the Whips have reminded me today that I failed to do so on the first day in Committee, so I apologise to the Committee for that. I am not quite sure why my consultancy with DLA Piper is relevant to the data protection Bill, but there it is. I declare it.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I should also declare an interest. I apologise that I did not do so earlier. I worked with a think tank and wrote a series of papers on who regulates the regulators. I still have a relationship with that think tank.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I have been through this large group and, apart from my natural suspicion that there might be something dastardly hidden away in it, I am broadly content, but I have a few questions.
On Amendment 20, can the Minister conform that the new words “further processing” have the same meaning as the reuse of personal data? Can he confirm that Article 5(1)(b) will prohibit this further processing when it is not in line with the original purpose for which the data was collected? How will the data subject know that is the case?
On Amendment 196, to my untutored eye it looks like the regulation-making power is being extended away from the data holder to include authorised persons and third-party recipients. My questions are simple enough: was this an oversight on the part of the original drafters of that clause? Is the amendment an extension of those captured by the effect of the clause? Is it designed to achieve consistency across the Bill? Finally, can I assume that an authorised person or third party would usually be someone acting on behalf of an agent of the data holder?
I presume that Amendments 198, 212 and 213 are needed because of a glitch in the drafting—similarly with Amendment 206. I can see that Amendments 208, 216 and 217 clarify when time periods begin, but why are the Government seeking to disapply time periods in Amendment 253 when surely some consistency is required?
Finally—I am sure the Minister will be happy about this—I am all in favour of flexibility, but Amendment 283 states that the Information Commissioner has the power to do things to facilitate the exercise of his functions. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, picked up on this. We need to understand what those limits are. On the face of it, one might say that the amendment is sensible, but it seems rather general and broad in its application. As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, rightly said, we need to see what the limits of accountability are. This is one of those occasions.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Bassam, for their engagement with this group. On the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, these are powers that the ICO would already have in common law. As I am given to understand is now best practice, they are put on a statutory footing in the Bill as part of best practice with all Bills. The purpose is to align with best practice. It does not confer substantial new powers but clarifies the powers that the regulator has. I can also confirm that the ICO was and remains accountable to Parliament.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am sorry to intervene as I know that noble Lords want to move on to other groups, but the Minister said that the ICO remains accountable to Parliament. Will he clarify how it is accountable to Parliament for the record?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
The Information Commissioner is directly accountable to Parliament in that he makes regular appearances in front of Select Committees that scrutinise the regulator’s work, including progress against objectives.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made multiple important and interesting points. I hope he will forgive me if I undertake to write to him about those; there is quite a range of topics to cover. If there are any on which he requires answers right away, he is welcome to intervene.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I want to be helpful to the Minister. I appreciate that these questions are probably irritating but I carefully read through the amendments and aligned them with the Explanatory Notes. I just wanted some clarification to make sure that we are clear on exactly what the Government are trying to do. “Minor and technical” covers a multitude of sins; I know that from my own time as a Minister.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Indeed. I will make absolutely sure that we provide a full answer. By the way, I sincerely thank the noble Lord for taking the time to go through what is perhaps not the most rewarding of reads but is useful none the less.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
On the question of the ICO being responsible to Parliament, in the then Online Safety Bill and the digital markets Bill we consistently asked for regulators to be directly responsible to Parliament. If that is something the Government believe they are, we would like to see an expression of it.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I would be happy to provide such an expression. I will be astonished if that is not the subject of a later group of amendments. I have not yet prepared for that group, I am afraid, but yes, that is the intention.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the resources available to the controller could not be taken into account when determining whether a request by a data subject is vexatious or excessive.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 24, I will speak also to Amendment 26. I welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Together, these amendments go to the heart of questioning why the Government have found it necessary to change the grounds for the refusal of a subject access request from “manifestly unfounded” to “vexatious or excessive”. At the moment, Article 15 of the UK GDPR gives data subjects a right of access to find out what personal information an organisation hold on them, how it is using it and whether it is sharing it. This right of access is key to transparency and often underpins people’s ability to exercise other data rights and human rights; for example, it impacts on an individual’s right to privacy in Article 8 of the ECHR and their right to non-discrimination in Article 40 of the same.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has raised specific concerns about these proposals, arguing that subject access requests
“are a vital mechanism for data subjects to exercise their fundamental rights to privacy and freedom from discrimination”.
It argues that these rights will be even more vital as AI systems are rolled out, using personal information
“in ways that may be less than transparent to data subjects”.
So we must be suspicious as to why these changes are being made and whether they are likely to reduce the legitimate opportunities for data subjects to access their personal information.
This comes back to the mantra of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, regarding a number of the clauses we have dealt with and, I am sure, ones we have yet to deal with: why are these changes necessary? That is the question we pose as well. Is it simply to give greater clarity, as the Minister in the Commons claimed; or is it to lighten the burden on business—the so-called Brexit dividend—which would result in fewer applications being processed by data controllers? Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether data subject rights will be weakened by these changes.
In the Commons, the Minister, John Whittingdale, also argued that some data search requests are dispro-portionate when the information is of low importance or low relevance to the data subject. However, who has the right to make that decision? How is a data controller in a position to judge how important the information is to an individual? Can the Minister clarify whether the data controller would have the right to ask the data subject their reasons for requesting the information? This is not permitted under the current regime.
A number of stakeholders have argued that the new wording is too subjective and is open to abuse by data controllers who find responding to such requests, by their very nature, vexatious or excessive. For a busy data operator, any extra work could be seen as excessive. Although the Information Commissioner has said that he is clear how these words should be applied, he has also said that they are open to numerous interpretations. Therefore, there is a rather urgent need for the Information Commissioner to provide clear statutory guidance on the application of the terms, so that only truly disruptive requests can be rejected. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether this is the intention.
In the meantime, our Amendment 24 aims to remove the easy get-out clause for refusing a request by making it clear that the resources available to the controller should not, by itself, be a reason for rejecting an application for information. There is an inevitable cost involved in processing requests, and we need to ensure that it does not become the standard excuse for denying data subjects their rights. Our Amendment 26 would require the data controller to produce evidence of why a request is considered vexatious or excessive if it is being denied. It should not be possible to assert this as a reason without providing the data subject with a clear and justifiable explanation. Amendment 25, from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has a similar intent.
We remain concerned about the changes and the impact they will have on established data and human rights. As a number of stakeholders have argued, access to personal data and its uses underpins so many other rights that can be enforced by law. We should not give these rights away easily or without proper justification. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, but without further clarification in the Bill, I doubt whether our concerns will be assuaged. I beg to move.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I will say a little bit about my intention to delete this clause altogether. Clause 9 significantly changes the data and privacy landscape, and for the worse. The Constitution Committee’s report on the Bill, published on 25 January, noted:
“Clause 9 amends Article 12 of the UK GDPR to broaden the basis for refusal”—
not for enhancing, but for refusal—
“of a data access request by providing more leeway to ‘data controllers’”.
In the world we live in, there is a huge imbalance of power between corporations, governments, public bodies and individuals. People must have a right to know what information is held about them, and how and when it is used. It is vital in order to check abuses and hold powerful elites to account.
The request for information can, at the moment, be wholly or partly denied, depending on the circumstances. It can be refused if it is considered to be manifestly unfounded or manifestly excessive. These phrases, “manifestly unfounded” and “manifestly excessive”, are fairly well understood. There is already a lot of case law on that. Clause 9, however, lowers the threshold for refusing information from “manifestly unfounded or excessive” to “vexatious or excessive”.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. He raised even more questions about Clause 9 than I ever dreamed of. He has illustrated the real issues behind the clause and why it is so important to debate its standing part, because, in our view, it should certainly be removed from the Bill. It would seriously limit people’s ability to access information about how their personal data is collected and used. We are back to the dilution of data subject rights, within which the rights of data subject access are, of course, vital. This includes limiting access to information about automated decision-making processes to which people are subject.
A data subject is someone who can be identified directly or indirectly by personal data, such as a name, an ID number, location data, or information relating to their physical, economic, cultural or social identity. Under existing law, data subjects have a right to request confirmation of whether their personal data is being processed by a controller, to access that personal data and to obtain information about how it is being processed. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, pointed out that there is ample precedent for how the controller can refuse a request from a data subject only if it is manifestly unfounded or excessive. The meaning of that phrase is well established.
There are three main ways in which Clause 9 limits people’s ability to access information about how their personal data is being collected and used. First, it would lower the threshold for refusing a request from “manifestly unfounded or excessive” to “vexatious or excessive”. This is an inappropriately low threshold, given the nature of a data subject access request—namely, a request by an individual for their own data.
Secondly, Clause 9 would insert a new mandatory list of considerations for deciding whether the request is vexatious or excessive. This includes vague considerations, such as
“the relationship between the person making the request (the ‘sender’) and the person receiving it (the ‘recipient’)”.
The very fact that the recipient holds data relating to the sender means that there is already some form of relationship between them.
Thirdly, the weakening of an individual’s right to obtain information about how their data is being collected, used or shared is particularly troubling given the simultaneous effect of the provisions in Clause 10, which means that data subjects are less likely to be informed about how their data is being used for additional purposes other than those for which it was originally collected, in cases where the additional purposes are for scientific or historical research, archiving in the public interest or statistical purposes. Together, the two clauses mean that an individual is less likely to be proactively told how their data is being used, while it is harder to access information about their data when requested.
In the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons, the Minister, Sir John Whittingdale, claimed that:
“The new parameters are not intended to be reasons for refusal”,
but rather to give
“greater clarity than there has previously been”.—[Official Report, Commons, Data Protection and Digital Information Bill Committee, 16/5/23; cols. 113-14.]
But it was pointed out by Dr Jeni Tennison of Connected by Data in her oral evidence to the committee that the impact assessment for the Bill indicates that a significant proportion of the savings predicted would come from lighter burdens on organisations dealing with subject access requests as a result of this clause. This suggests that, while the Government claim that this clause is a clarification, it is intended to weaken obligations on controllers and, correspondingly, the rights of data subjects. Is that where the Secretary of State’s £10 billion of benefit from this Bill comes from? On these grounds alone, Clause 9 should be removed from the Bill.
We also oppose the question that Clause 12 stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 provides that, in responding to subject access requests, controllers are required only to undertake a
“reasonable and proportionate search for the personal data and other information”.
This clause also appears designed to weaken the right of subject access and will lead to confusion for organisations about what constitutes a reasonable and proportionate search in a particular circumstance. The right of subject access is central to individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms, because it is a gateway to exercising other rights, either within the data subject rights regime or in relation to other legal rights, such as the rights to equality and non-discrimination. Again, the lowering of rights compared with the EU creates obvious risks, and this is a continuing theme of data adequacy.
Clause 12 does not provide a definition for reasonable and proportionate searches, but when introducing the amendment, Sir John Whittingdale suggested that a search for information may become unreasonable or disproportionate
“when the information is of low importance or of low relevance to the data subject”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/23; col. 873.]
Those considerations diverge from those provided in the Information Commissioner’s guidance on the rights of access, which states that when determining whether searches may be unreasonable or disproportionate, the data controller must consider the circumstances of the request, any difficulties involved in finding the information and the fundamental nature of the right of access.
We also continue to be concerned about the impact assessment for the Bill and the Government’s claims that the new provisions in relation to subject access requests are for clarification only. Again, Clause 12 appears to have the same impact as Clause 9 in the kinds of savings that the Government seem to imagine will emerge from the lowering of subject access rights. This is a clear dilution of subject access rights, and this clause should also be removed from the Bill.
We always allow for belt and braces and if our urging does not lead to the Minister agreeing to remove Clauses 9 and 12, at the very least we should have the new provisions set out either in Amendment 26, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, or in Amendment 25, which proposes that a data controller who refuses a subject access request must give reasons for their refusal and tell the subject about their right to seek a remedy. That is absolutely the bare minimum, but I would far prefer to see the deletion of Clauses 9 and 12 from the Bill.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
As ever, I thank noble Lords for raising and speaking to these amendments. I start with the stand part notices on Clauses 9 and 36, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Clauses 9 and 36 clarify the new threshold to refuse or charge a reasonable fee for a request that is “vexatious or excessive”. Clause 36 also clarifies that the Information Commissioner may charge a fee for dealing with, or refuse to deal with, a vexatious or excessive request made by any persons and not just data subjects, providing necessary certainty.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
From looking at the wording of the Members’ explanatory statements for wishing to leave out Clauses 9 and 36, I do not think that the Minister has addressed this, but does he accept that the Bill now provides a more lax approach? Is this a reduction of the standard expected? To me, “vexatious or excessive” sounds very different from “manifestly unfounded or excessive”. Does he accept that basic premise? That is really the core of the debate; if it is not, we have to look again at the issue of resources, which seems to be the argument to make this change.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
If that is the case and this is a dilution, is this where the Government think they will get the savings identified in the impact assessment? It was alleged in the Public Bill Committee that this is where a lot of the savings would come from—we all have rather different views. My first information was that every SME might save about £80 a year then, suddenly, the Secretary of State started talking about £10 billion of benefit from the Bill. Clarification of that would be extremely helpful. There seems to be a dichotomy between the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, saying that this is a way to reduce the burdens on business and the Minister saying that it is all about confident refusal and confidence. He has used that word twice, which is worrying.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
I apologise for intervening, but the Minister referred to resources. By that, he means the resources for the controller but, as I said earlier, there is no consideration of what the social cost may be. If this Bill had already become law, how would the victims of the Post Office scandal have been able to secure any information? Under this Bill, the threshold for providing information will be much lower than it is under the current legislation. Can the Minister say something about how the controllers will take social cost into account or how the Government have taken that into account?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
First, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, it is not to be argumentative—I am sure that there is much discussion to be had—but the intention is absolutely not to lower the standard for a well-intended request.
Sadly, a number of requests that are not well intended are made, with purposes of cynicism and an aim to disrupt. I can give a few examples. For instance, some requests are deliberately made with minimal time between them. Some are made to circumvent the process of legal disclosure in a trial. Some are made for other reasons designed to disrupt an organisation. The intent of using “vexatious” is not in any way to reduce well-founded, or even partially well-founded, attempts to secure information; it is to reduce less desirable, more cynical attempts to work in this way.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
But the two terms have a different legal meaning, surely.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
The actual application of the terms will be set out in guidance by the ICO but the intention is to filter out the more disruptive and cynical ones. Designing these words is never an easy thing but there has been considerable consultation on this in order to achieve that intention.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords—sorry; it may be that the Minister was just about to answer my question. I will let him do so.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I will have to go back to the impact assessment but I would be astonished if that was a significant part of the savings promised. By the way, the £10.6 billion—or whatever it is—in savings was given a green rating by the body that assesses these things; its name eludes me. It is a robust calculation. I will check and write to the noble Lord, but I do not believe that a significant part of that calculation leans on the difference between “vexatious” and “manifestly unfounded”.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
It would be very useful to have the Minister respond on that but, of course, as far as the impact assessment is concerned, a lot of this depends on the Government’s own estimates of what this Bill will produce—some of which are somewhat optimistic.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, can we join in with the request to see that information in a letter? We would like to see where these savings will be made and how much will, as noble Lords have said, be affected by the clauses that we are debating today.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has given me an idea: if an impact assessment has been made, clause by clause, it would be extremely interesting to know just where the Government believe the golden goose is.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am not quite sure what is being requested because the impact assessment has been not only made but published.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I see—so noble Lords would like an analysis of the different components of the impact assessment. It has been green-rated by the independent Regulatory Policy Committee. I have just been informed by the Box that the savings from these reforms to the wording of SARs are valued at less than 1% of the benefit of more than £10 billion that this Bill will bring.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
That begs the question of where on earth the rest is coming from.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Which I will be delighted to answer. With this interesting exchange, I have lost in my mind the specific questions that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, asked but I am coming on to some of his other ones; if I do not give satisfactory answers, no doubt he will intervene and ask again.
I appreciate the further comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, about the Freedom of Information Act. I hope he will be relieved to know that this Bill does nothing to amend that Act. On his accounting questions, he will be aware that most SARs are made by private individuals to private companies. The Government are therefore not involved in that process and do not collect the kind of information that he described.
Following the DPDI Bill, the Government will work with the ICO to update guidance on subject access requests. Guidance plays an important role in clarifying what a controller should consider when relying on the new “vexatious or excessive” provision. The Government are also exploring whether a code of practice on subject access requests can best address the needs of controllers and data subjects.
On whether Clause 12 should stand part of the Bill, Clause 12 is only putting on a statutory footing what has already been established—
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My apologies. The Minister just said that the Government do not collect the data. Therefore, what is the basis for changing the threshold? No data, no reasonable case.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
The Government do not collect details of private interactions between those raising SARs and the companies they raise them with. The business case is based on extensive consultation—
Lord Sikka (Lab)
I hope that the Government have some data about government departments and the public bodies over which they have influence. Can he provide us with a glimpse of how many requests are received, how many are rejected at the outset, how many go to the commissioners, what the cost is and how the cost is computed? At the moment, it sounds like the Government want to lower the threshold without any justification.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
As I say, I do not accept that the threshold is being lowered. On the other hand, I will undertake to find out what information can be reasonably provided. Again, as I said, the independent regulatory committee gave the business case set out a green rating; that is a high standard and gives credibility to the business case calculations, which I will share.
The reforms keep reasonable requests free of charge and instead seek to ensure that controllers can refuse or charge a reasonable fee for requests that are “vexatious or excessive”, which can consume a significant amount of time and resources. However, the scope of the current provision is unclear and, as I said, there are a variety of circumstances where controllers would benefit from being able confidently to refuse or charge the fee.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
The Minister used the phrase “reasonable fee”. Can he provide some clues on that, especially for the people who may request information? We have around 17.8 million individuals living on less than £12,570. So, from what perspective is the fee reasonable and how is it determined?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
“Reasonable” would be set out in the guidance to be created by the ICO but it would need to reflect the costs and affordability. The right of access remains of paramount importance in the data protection framework.
Lastly, as I said before on EU data adequacy, the Government maintain an ongoing dialogue with the EU and believe that our reforms are compatible with maintaining our data adequacy decisions.
For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept these amendments. I hope that noble Lords will therefore agree to withdraw or not press them.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sikka for rightly sharing the Constitution Committee’s concerns that, on the face of it, it looks like this is broadening the basis for refusal of data requests. He made an important point about the costs needing to be balanced against the social costs of refusing requests and the social impact that there may be, particularly if it is to do with employment or access to public services.
At the heart of this is that we need to ensure that data controllers are not making subjective judgments about whether a request is reasonable. The Minister says that the Information Commissioner will produce guidance. This is important, as that guidance will be absolutely crucial to making a judgment about whether we think this new regime will be credible. The Minister introduced a new phrase: that the intention is to support “well-intended” requests. Well, then we need to start defining “well intended”. I think we will chase these phrases round and round before we get some proper clarification; it would have helped if it had been in the Bill.
We have also gone round and round a bit on whether the changes in the wording weaken the rights of data subjects and whether they save money. The Minister talked about the 1% saving. I am fascinated by that because it does not seem very much; if it is not very much, why are we doing it? We come back to all of this again. I do not quite know what we are hoping to achieve here.
I will need to look at what the Minister said but we need a lot more clarification on this to be reassured that data subjects will not be refused more and more access to the information they want. I was disappointed to hear the Minister say that the controller can consider resources because that seems to me to be the ultimate get-out clause: if a controller can say that they cannot afford to do the data search, does not that mean that individual rights can be ignored just on that basis? That seems too easy; if somebody does not want to do the piece of work, that is an obvious get-out clause, so I remain concerned about the Minister’s response to that amendment as well.
We have explored a lot of this in a lot of different ways and we have had a good debate. I will look again at Hansard but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that only one condition under paragraph 5 must be present for paragraphs 1 to 4 to not apply.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 27 in my name, I will also express my support for Amendments 28 to 34. I thank my noble friend Lord Black, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for supporting and signing a number of these amendments.
This is quite a specific issue compared to the matters of high policy that we have been debating this afternoon. There is a specific threat to the continuing ability of companies to use the open electoral register for marketing purposes without undue burdens. Some 37% of registered voters choose not to opt out of their data being used for direct marketing via the open electoral register, so quite a significant proportion of the population openly agrees that that data can be used for direct marketing. It is an essential resource for accurate postal addresses and for organisations such as CACI—I suspect that a number of us speaking have been briefed by it; I thank it for its briefing—and it has been used for more than 40 years without detriment to consumers and with citizens’ full knowledge. The very fact that 63% of people on the electoral register have opted out tells you that this is a conscious choice that people have knowingly made.
Why is it in doubt? A recent First-tier Tribunal ruling in a legal case stated, by implication, that every company using open electoral register data must, by 20 May 2024, notify individuals at their postal addresses whenever their data on the electoral register is used and states that cost cannot be considered “dispro-portionate effort”. That means that organisations that are using the electoral roll would need to contact 24.2 million individuals between now and the middle of May, making it completely practically and financially unviable to use the electoral register at scale.
This group of amendments to Clause 11 aims to address this issue. I fully acknowledge that we have tried to hit the target with a number of shots in this group, and I encourage the Minister, first, to acknowledge that he recognises that this is a real problem that the Bill should be able to address and, secondly, if the wording in individual amendments is not effective or has some unintended consequences that we have missed, I encourage him to respond appropriately.
To be clear, the amendments provide legal certainty about the use of the open electoral register without compromising on any aspect of the data privacy of UK citizens or risking data adequacy. The amendments specify that companies are exempt from the requirement to provide individuals with information in cases where their personal data has not been obtained from them directly if that data was obtained from the open electoral register. They provide further clarification of what constitutes “disproportionate effort” under new paragraph (e) in Article 14(5) of the GDPR. These additional criteria include the effort and cost of compliance, the damage and distress caused to the data subjects and the reasonable expectation of the data subjects, which the percentage of people not opting out shows.
Why is this a problem that we need to fix? First, if we do not fix this, we might create in the physical world the very problem that parts of the Bill are trying to address in the digital world: the bombarding of people with lots of information that they do not want to receive, lots of letters telling us that a company is using the electoral roll that we gave it permission to use in the first place. It will also inadvertently give more power to social media companies for targeting because it will make physical direct marketing much harder to target, so SMEs will be forced into a pretty oligopolistic market for social media targeting. Finally, it will mean that we lose jobs and reduce productivity at a time when we are trying to do the opposite.
This is quite a simple issue and there is cross-party support. It is not an issue of great philosophical import, but for the companies in this space, it is very real, and for the people working in this industry, it is about their jobs. Inch by inch, we need to look at things that improve productivity rather than actively destroy it, even when people have agreed to it. With that, I note the hour and I beg to move.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 27 to 34, tabled variously by my noble friend Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to which I have added my name. As this is the first time I have spoken in Committee, I declare my interests as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and president of the Institute of Promotional Marketing and note my other declarations in the register.
The direct marketing industry is right at the heart of the data-driven economy, which is crucial not just to the future of the media and communications industries but to the whole basis of the creative economy, which will power economic growth into the future. The industry has quite rightly welcomed the Bill, which provides a long-term framework for economic growth as well as protecting customers.
However, there is one area of great significance, as my noble friend Lady Harding has just eloquently set out, on which this Bill needs to provide clarity and certainty going forward, namely, the use of the open electoral register. That register is an essential resource for a huge number of businesses and brands, as well as many public services, as they try to build new audiences. As we have heard, it is now in doubt because of a recent legal ruling that could, as my noble friend said, lead to people being bombarded with letters telling them that their data on the OER has been used. That is wholly disproportionate and is not in the interests of the marketing and communications industry or customers.
These sensible amendments would simply confirm the status quo that has worked well for so long. They address the issue by providing legal certainty around the use of the OER. I believe they do so in a proportionate manner that does not in any way compromise any aspect of the data privacy of UK citizens. I urge the Minister carefully to consider these amendments. As my noble friend said, there are considerable consequences of not acting for the creative economy, jobs in direct marketing, consumers, the environment and small businesses.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Black, for doing all the heavy lifting on these amendments. I of course support them having put forward my own amendments. It is just the luck of the draw that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, put forward her amendment along with all the others. I have very little to say in this case, and just echo what the noble Lord, Lord Black, said about the fact that the open electoral register has played an important part in the direct marketing, data-driven economy, as it is described. It is particularly interesting that he mentioned the creative industries as well.
The First-tier Tribunal precedent could impact on other public sources of data, including the register of companies, the register of judgments, orders and fines, the land register and the food standards agency register. It could have quite far-reaching implications unless we manage to resolve the issue. There is a very tight timescale. The First-tier Tribunal’s ruling means that companies must notify those on the electoral register by 20 May or be at risk of breaching the law. This is really the best route for trying to resolve the issue. Secondly, the First-tier Tribunal’s ruling states that costs cannot be considered as disproportionate effort. That is why these amendments explicitly refer to that. This is no trivial matter. It is a serious area that needs curing by this Bill, which is a good opportunity to do so.
I shall speak briefly to Clause 11 as a whole standing part. That may seem a bit paradoxical, but it is designed to address issues arising in Article 13, not Article 14. Article 13 of the UK GDPR requires controllers, where they intend to process data that was collected directly from data subjects—as opposed to Article 14 obligations, which apply to personal data not obtained from the data subject—for a new purpose, to inform data subjects of various matters to the extent necessary,
“to ensure fair and transparent processing”.
Clause 11(1) removes this obligation for certain purposes where it would require disproportionate effort. The obligation is already qualified to what is necessary to make processing fair and transparent, the fundamental requirements of the GDPR. If, in these circumstances, processing cannot be made fair and transparent without disproportionate effort, then it should not take place. Clause 11(1) would sidestep the requirement and allow unfair, untransparent processing to go ahead for personal data that the data controllers had themselves collected. Perhaps I should have tabled a rather more targeted amendment, but I hope that noble Lords get the point of the difference between this in terms of Article 13 and Article 14.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Harding and the others in this group. She has comprehensively explained their importance; they may not be philosophical, as she says, but they have practical importance. One of the most compelling reasons for us to act is as she so precisely described: if we do not, we create a situation in the real world that the Bill seeks to address in the digital world.
Although this is about direct marketing, allied to it are pressures on advertising revenues and the greater control that is being taken by the larger platforms in this area all the time. The effect that has on revenues means that this is an important issue that deserves a proper response from the Government. I hope that my noble friend the Minister acts in the way that we want by, if not accepting one of these amendments, coming forward with something from the Government.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I can also be relatively brief. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their amendments, to many of which I have added my name.
At the heart of this debate is what constitutes a disproportionate or impossibility exemption for providing data to individuals when the data is not collected directly from data subjects. Amendments 29 to 33 provide further clarity on how exemptions on the grounds of disproportionate effort should be interpreted —for example, by taking into account whether there would be a limited impact on individuals, whether they would be caused any distress, what the exemptions were in the first place and whether the information had been made publicly available by a public body. All these provide some helpful context, which I hope the Minister will take on board.
I have also added my name to Amendments 27 and 28 from the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. They address the particular concerns about those using the open electoral register for direct marketing purposes. As the noble Baroness explained, the need for this amendment arises from the legal ruling that companies using the OER must first notify individuals at their postal addresses whenever their data is being used. As has been said, given that individuals already have an opt-out when they register on the electoral roll, it would seem unnecessary and impractical for companies using the register to follow up with individuals each time they want to access their data. These amendments seek to close that loophole and return the arrangements back to the previous incarnation, which seemed to work well.
All the amendments provide useful forms of words but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, if the wording is not quite right, we hope that the Minister will help us to craft something that is right and that solves the problem. I hope that he agrees that there is a useful job of work to be done on this and that he provides some guidance on how to go about it.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady Harding for moving this important amendment. I also thank the cosignatories—the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. As per my noble friend’s request, I acknowledge the importance of this measure and the difficulty of judging it quite right. It is a difficult balance and I will do my best to provide some reassurance, but I welcomed hearing the wise words of all those who spoke.
I turn first to the clarifying Amendments 27 and 32. I reassure my noble friend Lady Harding that, in my view, neither is necessary. Clause 11 amends the drafting of the list of cases when the exemption under Article 14(5) applies but the list closes with “or”, which makes it clear that you need to meet only one of the criteria listed in paragraph (5) to be exempt from the transparency requirements.
I turn now to Amendments 28 to 34, which collectively aim to expand the grounds of disproportionate effort to exempt controllers from providing certain information to individuals. The Government support the use of public data sources, such as the OER, which may be helpful for innovation and may have economic benefits. Sometimes, providing this information is simply not possible or is disproportionate. Existing exemptions apply when the data subject already has the information or in cases where personal data has been obtained from someone other than the data subject and it would be impossible to provide the information or disproportionate effort would be required to do so.
We must strike the right balance between supporting the use of these datasets and ensuring transparency for data subjects. We also want to be careful about protecting the integrity of the electoral register, open or closed, to ensure that it is used within the data subject’s reasonable expectations. The exemptions that apply when the data subject already has the information or when there would be a disproportionate effort in providing the information must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, particularly if personal data from public registers is to be combined with other sources of personal data to build a profile for direct marketing.
These amendments may infringe on transparency—a key principle in the data protection framework. The right to receive information about what is happening to your data is important for exercising other rights, such as the right to object. This could be seen as going beyond what individuals might expect to happen to their data.
The Government are not currently convinced that these amendments would be sufficient to prevent negative consequences to data subject rights and confidence in the open electoral register and other public registers, given the combination of data from various sources to build a profile—that was the subject of the tribunal case being referenced. Furthermore, the Government’s view is that there is no need to amend Article 14(6) explicitly to include the “reasonable expectation of the data subjects” as the drafting already includes reference to “appropriate safeguards”. This, in conjunction with the fairness principle, means that data controllers are already required to take this into account when applying the disproportionate effort exemption.
The above notwithstanding, the Government understand that the ICO may explore this question as part of its work on guidance in the future. That seems a better way of addressing this issue in the first instance, ensuring the right balance between the use of the open electoral register and the rights of data subjects. We will continue to work closely with the relevant stakeholders involved and monitor the situation.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
I wonder whether I heard my noble friend correctly. He said “may”, “could” and “not currently convinced” several times, but, for the companies concerned, there is a very real, near and present deadline. How is my noble friend the Minister suggesting that deadline should be considered?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
On the first point, I used the words carefully because the Government cannot instruct the ICO specifically on how to act in any of these cases. The question about the May deadline is important. With the best will in the world, none of the provisions in the Bill are likely to be in effect by the time of that deadline in any case. That being the case, I would feel slightly uneasy about advising the ICO on how to act.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am not quite getting from the Minister whether he has an understanding of and sympathy with the case that is being made or whether he is standing on ceremony on its legalities. Is he saying, “No, we think that would be going too far”, or that there is a good case and that guidance or some action by the ICO would be more appropriate? I do not get the feeling that somebody has made a decision about the policy on this. It may be that conversations with the Minister between Committee and Report would be useful, and it may be early days yet until he hears the arguments made in Committee; I do not know, but it would be useful to get an indication from him.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Yes. I repeat that I very much recognise the seriousness of the case. There is a balance to be drawn here. In my view, the best way to identify the most appropriate balancing point is to continue to work closely with the ICO, because I strongly suspect that, at least at this stage, it may be very difficult to draw a legislative dividing line that balances the conflicting needs. That said, I am happy to continue to engage with noble Lords on this really important issue between Committee and Report, and I commit to doing so.
On the question of whether Clause 11 should stand part of the Bill, Clause 11 extends the existing disproportionate effort exemption to cases where the controller collected the personal data directly from the data subject and intends to carry out further processing for research purposes, subject to the research safeguards outlined in Clause 26. This exemption is important to ensure that life-saving research can continue unimpeded.
Research holds a privileged position in the data protection framework because, by its nature, it is viewed as generally being in the public interest. The framework has various exemptions in place to facilitate and encourage research in the UK. During the consultation, we were informed of various longitudinal studies, such as those into degenerative neurological conditions, where it is impossible or nearly impossible to recontact data subjects. To ensure that this vital research can continue unimpeded, Clause 11 provides a limited exemption that applies only to researchers who are complying with the safeguards set out in Clause 26.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised concerns that Clause 11 would allow unfair processing. I assure him that this is not the case, as any processing that uses the disproportionate effort exemption in Article 13 must comply with the overarching data protection principles, including lawfulness, fairness and transparency, so that even if data controllers rely on this exemption they should consider other ways to make the processing they undertake as fair and transparent as possible.
Finally, returning to EU data adequacy, the Government recognise its importance and, as I said earlier, are confident that the proposals in Clause 11 are complemented by robust safeguards, which reinforces our view that they are compatible with EU adequacy. For the reasons that I have set out, I am unable to accept these amendments, and I hope that noble Lords will not press them.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I am not quite sure that I understand where my noble friend the Minister is on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, summed it up well in his recent intervention. I will try to take at face value my noble friend’s assurances that he is happy to continue to engage with us on these issues, but I worry that he sees this as two sides of an issue—I hear from him that there may be some issues and there could be some problems—whereas we on all sides of the Committee have set out a clear black and white problem. I do not think they are the same thing.
I appreciate that the wording might create some unintended consequences, but I have not really understood what my noble friend’s real concerns are, so we will need to come back to this on Report. If anything, this debate has made it even clearer to me that it is worth pushing for clarity on this. I look forward to ongoing discussions with a cross-section of noble Lords, my noble friend and the ICO to see if we can find a way through to resolve the very real issues that we have identified today. With that, and with thanks to all who have spoken in this debate, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness Jones of Whitchurch to the proposed new Article 22A of the UK GDPR, would make clear that protection is offered for profiling operations leading to decisions.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this is the first group of amendments covering issues relating to automated decision-making, one of the most interesting areas of data use but also one of the most contested and, for the public at large, one of the most controversial and difficult to navigate. The development of AI and data systems that easily enable automatable decisions could offer huge efficiencies for consumers of public services. Equally, the use of such systems can, if used and regulated in the wrong way, have a devastating impact on people’s lives. If we have learned one thing from the Horizon scandal it is simply that, in the wrong hands and with the wrong system in place, the misuse of data can destroy lives and livelihoods.
Our country has a massive social security system, which includes everything from pension payments to disability income support and, of course, the universal credit system, which covers people entitled to in-work and out-of-work benefits. Over 22 million people receive DWP benefits of one sort or another. If automated decisions make errors in this field the potential to damage lives is enormous, as I am sure the Minister will appreciate.
I turn to the four amendments in the group in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones. Amendments 36 and 37 seek to amend new Article 22A of the UK GDPR and make it clear that protection is provided for profiling operations that lead to decisions. This is important, not least because the clause further reduces the scope for the human review of automated decision-making. Profiling is used as part of this process, and these amendments seek to protect individual data subjects from its effect. We take the view that it is essential that human interaction is involved in making subject access decisions.
Amendment 40 also makes it clear that, in the context of the new Article 22A, for human involvement to be considered meaningful, the review of the decision must be completed by a competent person. One of the positive changes made by the Bill is the introduction of the concept of “meaningful human involvement” in a decision. Meaningful human review is a key component for achieving an appropriate level of oversight over automated decision-making, for protecting individuals from unfair treatment and for offering an avenue for redress. The aim of the amendment is to bring more clarity around what “meaningful human involvement” should consist of. It would require that a review needs to be performed by a person with the necessary competence, training and understanding of the data, and, of course, the authority to alter the decision.
Our Amendment 109 is not so much about building protections as introducing something new and adding to the strength of what is already there. Users have never been able to get personalised explanations of automated decisions but, given the impact that these can have, we feel that systems should be in place for people to understand why a computer has simply said yes or no.
As it stands, the Bill deletes Section 14 of the Data Protection Act 2018 in its entirety. Our amendment would undo that and then add personalisation in. The amendment would retain Section 14 of that Act, which is where most automated decision-making safeguards are currently detailed in law. It would introduce an entitlement for data subjects to receive a personalised explanation of an automated decision made about them. This is based on public attitudes research conducted by the Ada Lovelace Institute, which shows a clear demand for greater transparency over these sorts of decisions.
The amendment also draws on independent legal analysis commissioned by the Ada Lovelace Institute, which found that the generic nature of explanations provided under current law are insufficient for individuals to understand how they have been affected by automated decision-making. This was considered to be a major barrier to meaningful protection from and redress for harms caused by AI. As many noble Lords have made clear in these debates, we have put building trust at the heart of how we get the most from AI and, more particularly, ADM systems.
I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. In essence, they are about—as the noble Lord will, I am sure, explain better than I possibly could—the level of engagement of individuals in decisions about data subject automated decision-making processes. The common thread through the amendments is that they raise the bar in terms of the safeguards for data subjects’ rights and freedoms. We have joined the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on Amendment 47, and might equally have added our names to the other amendments in the group as we broadly support those too.
Amendment 38A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would place an additional requirement under new Article 22A to ensure human engagement in the automated decision-making processes.
I am sure the Committee will want more than warm words from the Minister when he comes to wind up the debate. For all of us, ADM is the here and now; it shapes how we use and consume public services and defines what and who we are. Reducing our protections from its downsides is not to be done lightly and we cannot easily see how that can be justified. I want to hear from the Minister how the Government came to conclude that this was acceptable, not least because, as we will hear in later debates on the Bill, the Government are seeking powers that provide for invasive bulk access to potentially every citizen’s bank accounts. I beg to move the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who has already set out very clearly what the group is about. I will chiefly confine myself to speaking to my Amendment 38A, which seeks to put in the Bill a clear idea of what having a human in the loop actually means. We need to have a human in the loop to ensure that a human interpreted, assessed and, perhaps most crucially, was able to intervene in the decision and any information on which it is based.
Noble Lords will be aware of many situations that have already arisen in which artificial intelligence is used—I would say that what we are currently describing is artificial intelligence but, in real terms, it is not truly that at all. What we have is a very large use of big data and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, big data can be a very useful and powerful tool to be used for many positive purposes. However, we know that the quality of decision-making often depends on the quality of the data going in. A human is able to see whether something looks astray or wrong; there is a kind of intelligence that humans apply to this, which machines simply do not have the capacity for.
I pay credit to Justice, the law reform and human rights organisation which produced an excellent briefing on the issues around Clause 14. It asserts that, as it is currently written, it inadequately protects individuals from automated harm.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to the Horizon case in the UK; that is the obvious example but, while we may think of some of the most vulnerable people in the UK, the Robodebt case in Australia is another case where crunching big data, and then crunching down on individuals, had truly awful outcomes. We know that there is a real risk of unfairness and discrimination in the use of these kinds of tools. I note that the UK has signed the Bletchley declaration, which says that
“AI should be designed, developed, deployed, and used, in a manner that is … human-centric, trustworthy and responsible”.
I focus particularly on “human-centric”: human beings can sympathise with and understand other human beings in a way that big data simply does not.
I draw a parallel with something covered by a special Select Committee of your Lordships’ House, last year: lethal autonomous weapon systems, or so-called killer robots. This is an obvious example of where there is a very strong argument for having a human in the loop, as the terminology goes. From the last I understood and heard about this, I am afraid that the UK Government are not fully committed to a human in the loop in the case of killer robots, but I hope that we get to that point.
When we talk about how humans’ data is used and managed, we are also talking about situations that are—almost equally—life and death: whether people get a benefit, whether they are fairly treated and whether they do not suddenly disappear off the system. Only this morning, I was reading a case study of a woman aged over 80, highlighting how she had been through multiple government departments, but could not get her national insurance number. Without a national insurance number, she could not get the pension to which she was entitled. If there is no human in the loop to cut through those kinds of situations, there is a real risk that people will find themselves just going around and around machines—a circumstance with which we are personally all too familiar, I am sure. My amendment is an attempt to put a real explanation in the Bill for having that human in the loop.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, the number of amendments proposed to Clause 14 reflects the Committee’s very real concern about the impact of automated decision-making on the privacy, safety and prospects of UK data subjects. I have specific amendments in groups 7 and 8, so I will speak to the impact of Clause 14 on children later. I will again be making arguments about the vulnerability of these systems in relation to the Government’s proposals on the DWP.
Without repeating the arguments made, I associate myself with most the proposals and the intention behind them—the need to safeguard the prospects of a fair outcome when algorithms hold sway over a person’s future. It seems entirely logical that, if the definition of solely automated decision-making requires “no meaningful human involvement”, we should be clear, as Amendment 40 proposes, about what is considered “meaningful”, so that the system cannot be gamed by providing human involvement that provides an ineffective safeguard and is therefore not meaningful.
I have sympathy with many of these amendments—Amendments 38A, 39, 47, 62, 64 and 109—and ultimately believe, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that it is a matter of trust. I refer briefly to the parliamentary briefing from the BMA, which boldly says that:
“Clause 14 risks eroding trust in AI”.
That would be a very sad outcome.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, we have heard some powerful concerns on this group already. This clause is in one of the most significant parts of the Bill for the future. The Government’s AI policy is of long standing. They started it many years ago, then had a National AI Strategy in 2021, followed by a road map, a White Paper and a consultation response to the White Paper. Yet this part of the Bill, which is overtly about artificial intelligence and automated decision-making, does not seem to be woven into their thinking at all.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
As ever, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their detailed consideration of Clause 14, and all other noble Lord who spoke so well. I carefully note the references to the DWP’s measure on fraud and error. For now, I reassure noble Lords that a human will always be involved in all decision-making relating to that measure, but I note that this Committee will have a further debate specifically on that measure later.
The Government recognise the importance of solely automated decision-making to the UK’s future success and productivity. These reforms ensure that it can be responsibly implemented, while any such decisions with legal or similarly significant effects have the appropriate safeguards in place, including the rights to request a review and to request one from a human. These reforms clarify and simplify the rules related to solely automated decision-making without watering down any of the protections for data subjects or the fundamental data protection principles. In doing so, they will provide confidence to organisations looking to use these technologies in a responsible way while driving economic growth and innovation.
The Government also recognise that AI presents huge opportunities for the public sector. It is important that AI is used responsibly and transparently in the public sector; we are already taking steps to build trust and transparency. Following a successful pilot, we are making the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard—the ATRS—a requirement for all government departments, with plans to expand this across the broader public sector over time. This will ensure that there is a standardised way for government departments proactively to publish information about how and why they are using algorithms in their decision-making. In addition, the Central Digital and Data Office—the CDDO—has already published guidance on the procurement and use of generative AI for the UK Government and, later this year, DSIT will launch the AI management essentials scheme, setting a minimum good practice standard for companies selling AI products and services.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, could I just interrupt the Minister? It may be that he can get an answer from the Box to my question. One intriguing aspect is that, as the Minister said, the pledge is to bring the algorithmic recording standard into each government department and there will be an obligation to use that standard. However, what compliance mechanism will there be to ensure that that is happening? Does the accountable Permanent Secretary have a duty to make sure that that is embedded in the department? Who has the responsibility for that?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
That is a fair question. I must confess that I do not know the answer. There will be mechanisms in place, department by department, I imagine, but one would also need to report on it across government. Either it will magically appear in my answer or I will write to the Committee.
The CDDO has already published guidance on the procurement and use of generative AI for the Government. We will consult on introducing this as a mandatory requirement for public sector procurement, using purchasing power to drive responsible innovation in the broader economy.
I turn to the amendments in relation to meaningful involvement. I will first take together Amendments 36 and 37, which aim to clarify that the safeguards mentioned under Clause 14 are applicable to profiling operations. New Article 22A(2) already clearly sets out that, in cases where profiling activity has formed part of the decision-making process, controllers have to consider the extent to which a decision about an individual has been taken by means of profiling when establishing whether human involvement has been meaningful. Clause 14 makes clear that a solely automated significant decision is one without meaningful human involvement and that, in these cases, controllers are required to provide the safeguards in new Article 22C. As such, we do not believe that these amendments are necessary; I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, not to press them.
Turning to Amendment 38, the Government are confident that the existing reference to “data subject” already captures the intent of this amendment. The existing definition of “personal data” makes it clear that a data subject is a person who can be identified, directly or indirectly. As such, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary; I ask the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, whether he would be willing not to press it.
Amendments 38A and 40 seek to clarify that, for human involvement to be considered meaningful, the review must be carried out by a competent person. We feel that these amendments are unnecessary as meaningful human involvement may vary depending on the use case and context. The reformed clause already introduces a power for the Secretary of State to provide legal clarity on what is or is not to be taken as meaningful human involvement. This power is subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament and allows the provision to be future-proofed in the wake of technological advances. As such, I ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Bennett, not to press their amendments.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am not sure I agree with that characterisation. The ATRS is a relatively new development. It needs time to bed in and needs to be bedded in on an agile basis in order to ensure not only quality but speed of implementation. That said, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The Minister has taken us through what Clause 14 does and rebutted the need for anything other than “solely”. He has gone through the sensitive data and the special category data aspects, and so on, but is he reiterating his view that this clause is purely for clarification; or is he saying that it allows greater use of automated decision-making, in particular in public services, so that greater efficiencies can be found and therefore it is freeing up the public sector at the expense of the rights of the individual? Where does he sit in all this?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
As I said, the intent of the Government is: yes to more automated data processing to take advantage of emerging technologies, but also yes to maintaining appropriate safeguards. The safeguards in the present system consist—if I may characterise it in a slightly blunt way—of providing quite a lot of uncertainty, so that people do not take the decision to positively embrace the technology in a safe way. By bringing in this clarity, we will see an increase not only in the safety of their applications but in their use, driving up productivity in both the public and private sectors.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I said at the outset that I thought this was the beginning of a particular debate, and I was right, looking at the amendments coming along. The theme of the debate was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, when she talked about these amendments, in essence, being about keeping humans in the loop and the need for them to be able to review decisions. Support for that came from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who made some important points. The point the BMA made about risking eroding trust cut to what we have been talking about all afternoon: trust in these processes.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talked about this effectively being the watering down of Article 22A, and the need for some core ethical principles in AI use and for the Government to ensure a right to human review. Clause 14 reverses the presumption of that human reviewing process, other than where solely automated decision-making exists, where it will be more widely allowed, as the Minister argued.
However, I am not satisfied by the responses, and I do not think other Members of your Lordships’ Committee will be either. We need more safeguards. We have moved from one clear position to another, which can be described as watering down or shifting the goalposts; I do not mind which, but that is how it seems to me. Of course, we accept that there are huge opportunities for AI in the delivery of public services, particularly in healthcare and the operation of the welfare system, but we need to ensure that citizens in this country have a higher level of protection than the Bill currently affords them.
At one point I thought the Minister said that a solely automated decision was a rubber-stamped decision. To me, that gave the game away. I will have to read carefully what he said in Hansard¸ but that is how it sounded, and it really gets our alarm bells ringing. I am happy to withdraw my amendment, but we will come back to this subject from time to time and throughout our debates on the rest of the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
“A1. The data subject may not be subject to any decision based on data processing which contravenes a requirement of the Equality Act 2010.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment to new Article 22B of the UK GDPR, aims to make clear that data processing which contravenes any part of the Equality Act 2010 is prohibited.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this group, in which we have Amendments 41, 44, 45, 49, 50, 98A and 104A and have cosigned Amendments 46 and 48, aims to further the protections that we discussed in the previous group. We are delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others joined us in signing various of these amendments.
The first amendment, Amendment 41, is a straight prohibition of any data processing that would contravene the Equality Act 2010. All legislation should conform to the terms of the Equality Act, so I expect the Minister to confirm that he is happy to accept that amendment. If he is not, I think the Committee will want to understand better why that is the case.
Amendment 44 to new Article 22B of the UK GDPR is, as it says, designed,
“to prevent data subjects from becoming trapped in unfair agreements and being unable to exercise their data rights”,
because of the contract terms. One might envisage some sensitive areas where the exercise of these rights might come into play, but there is nothing that I could see, particularly in the Explanatory Notes, which seeks to argue that point. We have no knowledge of when this might occur, and I see no reason why the legislation should be changed to that effect. Special category data can be used for automated decision-making only if certain conditions are met. It involves high-risk processing and, in our view, requires explicit consent.
The amendments remove performance of a contract as one of the requirements that allows the processing of special category data for reaching significant decisions based on automated processing. It is difficult to envisage a situation where it would be acceptable to permit special category data to be processed in high-risk decisions on a purely automated basis, simply pursuant to a contract where there is no explicit consent.
Furthermore, relying on performance of a contract for processing special category data removes the possibility for data subjects to exercise their data rights, for example, the right to object and the ability to withdraw consent, and could trap individuals in unfair agreements. There is an implicit power imbalance between data subjects and data controllers when entering a contract, and people are often not given meaningful choices or options to negotiate the terms. It is usually a take-it-or-leave-it approach. Thus, removing the criteria for performance of a contract reduces the risks associated with ADM and creates a tighter framework for protection. This also aligns with the current wording of Article 9 of the UK GDPR.
Amendment 45 changes the second condition to include only decisions that are required or authorised by law, with appropriate safeguards, and that are necessary for reasons of substantial public interest. The safeguards are retained from Section 14 of the DPA 2018, with amendments to strengthen transparency provisions.
Amendment 49 seeks to ensure that the protections conferred by Article 22C of the UK GDPR would apply to decisions “solely or partly” based on ADM rather than just “solely”. This would help to maximise the protections that data subjects currently enjoy.
Amendment 50 is another strengthening measure, which would make sure that safeguards in the new Article 22C are alongside rather than instead of those contained in Articles 12 to 15.
Our Amendment 104A would insert a new Section into the 2018 Act, requiring data controllers who undertake high-risk processing in relation to work-related decisions or activities to carry out an additional algorithmic impact assessment and make reasonable mitigations in response to the outcome of that assessment.
I ought to have said earlier that Amendment 98A is a minor part of the consequential text.
An improved workplace-specific algorithmic impact assessment is the best way to remedy clear deficiencies in Clause 20 as drafted, and it signals Labour’s international leadership and alignment with international regulatory and AI ethics initiatives. These are moving towards the pre-emptive evaluation of significant social and workplace impacts by responsible actors, combined with a procedure for ongoing monitoring, which is not always possible. It also moves towards our commitment to algorithmic assurance and will help to ensure that UK businesses are not caught up in what is sometimes described as the “Brussels effect”.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, the amendments in this group highlight that Clause 14 lacks the necessary checks and balances to uphold equality legislation, individual rights and freedoms, data protection rights, access to services, fairness in the exercise of public functions and workers’ rights. I add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in his attempt to make Clause 14 not stand part, which he will speak to in the next group.
I note, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has, that all the current frameworks have fundamental rights at their heart, whether it is the White House blueprint, the UN Secretary-General’s advisory body on AI, with which I am currently involved, or the EU’s AI Act. I am concerned that the UK does not want to work within this consensus.
With that in mind, I particularly note the importance of Amendment 41. As the noble Lord said, we are all supposed to adhere to the Equality Act 2010. I support Amendments 48 and 49, which are virtually inter-changeable in wanting to ensure that the standard of decisions being “solely” based on automated decision-making cannot be gamed by adding a trivial human element to avoid that designation.
Again, I suggest that the Government cannot have it both ways—with nothing diminished but everything liberated and changed—so I find myself in agreement with Amendment 52A and Amendment 59A, which is in the next group, from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who is not in his place. These seek clarity from the Information Commissioner.
I turn to my Amendment 46. My sole concern is to minimise the impact of Clause 14 on children’s safety, privacy and life chances. The amendment provides that a significant decision about a data subject must not be based solely on automated processing if
“the data subject is a child or may be a child unless the provider is satisfied that the decision is in, and compatible with, the best interests of a child”,
taking into account the full gamut of their rights and development stage. Children have enhanced rights under the UNCRC, to which the UK is a signatory. Due to their evolving capacities as they make the journey from infancy to adulthood, they need special protections. If their rights are diminished in the digital world, their rights are diminished full stop. Algorithms determine almost every aspect of a child’s digital experience, from the videos they watch to their social network and from the sums they are asked to do in their maths homework to the team they are assigned when gaming. We have seen young boys wrongly profiled as criminal and girls wrongly associated with gangs.
In a later group, I will speak to a proposal for a code of practice on children and AI, which would codify standards and expectations for the use of AI in all aspects of children’s lives, but for now, I hope the Minister will see that, without these amendments to automated decision-making, children’s data protection will be clearly weakened. I hope he will agree to act to make true his earlier assertion that nothing in the Bill will undermine child protection. The Minister is the Minister for AI. He knows the impact this will have. I understand that, right now, he will probably stick to the brief, but I ask him to go away, consider this from the perspective of children and parents, and ask, “Is it okay for children’s life chances to be automated in this fashion?”
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 48. By some quirk of fate, I failed to sign up to the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, so cogently introduced. I would have signed up if I had realised that I had not, so to speak.
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. She has a track record of being extremely persuasive, so I hope the Minister pays heed in what happens between Committee and Report. I very much hope that there will be some room for manoeuvre and that there is not just permanent push-back, with the Minister saying that everything is about clarifying and us saying that everything is about dilution. There comes a point when we have to find some accommodation on some of these areas.
Amendments 48 and 49 are very similar—I was going to say, “Great minds think alike”, but I am not sure that my brain feels like much of a great mind at the moment. “Partly” or “predominantly” rather than “solely”, if you look at it the other way round, is really the crux of what I think many of us are concerned about. It is easy to avoid the terms of Article 22 just by slipping in some sort of token human involvement. Defining “meaningful” is so difficult in these circumstances. I am concerned that we are opening the door to something that could be avoided. Even then, the terms of the new clause—we will have a clause stand part debate on Wednesday, obviously—put all the onus on the data subject, whereas that was not the case previously under Article 22. The Minister has not really explained why that change has been made.
I conclude by saying that I very much support Amendment 41. This whole suite of amendments is well drafted. The point about the Equality Act is extremely well made. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, also has a very good amendment here. It seems to me that involving the ICO right in the middle of this will be absolutely crucial—and we are back to public trust again. If nothing else, I would like explicitly to include that under Clause 14 in relation to Article 22 by the time this Bill goes through.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank noble Lords and the noble Baroness for their further detailed consideration of Clause 14.
Let me take first the amendments that deal with restrictions on and safeguards for ADM and degree of ADM. Amendment 41 aims to make clear that solely automated decisions that contravene any part of the Equality Act 2010 are prohibited. We feel that this amendment is unnecessary for two reasons. First, this is already the case under the Equality Act, which is reinforced by the lawfulness principle under the present data protection framework, meaning that controllers are already required to adhere to the Equality Act 2010. Secondly, explicitly stating in the legislation that contravening one type of legislation is prohibited—in this case, the Equality Act 2010—and not referring to other legislation that is also prohibited will lead to an inconsistent approach. As such, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary; I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to withdraw it.
Amendment 44 seeks to limit the conditions for special category data processing for this type of automated decision-making. Again, we feel that this is not needed given that a set of conditions already provides enhanced levels of protection for the processing of special category data, as set out in Article 9 of the UK GDPR. In order to lawfully process special category data, you must identify both a lawful basis under Article 6 of the UK GDPR and a separate condition for processing under Article 9. Furthermore, where an organisation seeks to process special category data under solely automated decision-making on the basis that it is necessary for contract, in addition to the Articles 6 and 9 lawful bases, they would also have to demonstrate that the processing was necessary for substantial public interest.
Similarly, Amendment 45 seeks to apply safeguards when processing special category data; however, these are not needed as the safeguards in new Article 22C already apply to all forms of processing, including the processing of special category data, by providing sufficient safeguards for data subjects’ rights, freedoms and legitimate interests. As such, we do not believe that these amendments are necessary; I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, not to press them.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
Can the Minister give me an indication of the level at which that kicks in? For example, say there is a child in a classroom and a decision has been made about their ability in a particular subject. Is it automatic that the parent and the child get some sort of read-out on that? I would be curious to know where the Government feel that possibility starts.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
In that example, where a child was subject to a solely ADM decision, the school would be required to inform the child of the decision and the reasons behind it. The child and their parent would have the right to seek a human review of the decision.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
We may come on to this when we get to edtech but a lot of those decisions are happening automatically right now, without any kind of review. I am curious as to why it is on the school whereas the person actually doing the processing may well be a technology company.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
It may be either the controller or the processor but for any legal or similarly significant decision right now—today—there is a requirement before the Bill comes into effect. That requirement is retained by the Bill.
In line with ICO guidance, children need particular protection when organisations collect and process their personal data because they may be less aware of the risks involved. If organisations process children’s personal data they should think about the need to protect them from the outset and should design their systems and processes with this in mind. This is the case for organisations processing children’s data during solely automated decision-making, just as it is for all processing of children’s data.
Building on this, the Government’s view is that automated decision-making has an important role to play in protecting children online, for example with online content moderation. The current provisions in the Bill will help online service providers understand how they can use these technologies and strike the right balance between enabling the best use of automated decision-making technology while continuing to protect the rights of data subjects, including children. As such, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary; I ask the noble Baroness if she would be willing not to press it.
Amendments 48 and 49 seek to extend the Article 22 provisions to “predominantly” and “partly” automated decision-making. These types of processing already involve meaningful human involvement. In such instances, other data protection requirements, including transparency and fairness, continue to apply and offer relevant protections. As such, we do not believe that these amendments are necessary; I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, if they would be willing not to press them.
Amendment 50 seeks to ensure that the Article 22C safeguards will apply alongside, rather than instead of, the transparency obligations in the UK GDPR. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that the general transparency obligations in Articles 12 to 15 will continue to apply and thus will operate alongside the safeguards in the reformed Article 22. As such, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary; I ask the noble Baroness if she would be willing not to press it.
The changes proposed by Amendment 52A are unnecessary as Clause 50 already provides for an overarching requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the ICO and other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate before making regulations under the UK GDPR, including for the measures within Article 22. Also, any changes to the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure so must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. As with other provisions of the Bill, the ICO will seek to provide organisations with timely guidance and support to assist them in interpreting and applying the legislation. As such, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary and, if he were here, I would ask my noble friend Lord Holmes if he would be willing not to press it.
Amendments 98A and 104A are related to workplace rights. Existing data protection legislation and our proposed reforms provide sufficient safeguards for automated decision making where personal data is being processed, including in workplaces. The UK’s human rights law, and existing employment and equality laws, also ensure that employees are informed and consulted about any workplace developments, which means that surveillance of employees is regulated. As such, we do not believe that these amendments are necessary and I ask the noble Baroness not to move them.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I hear what the Minister said about the workplace algorithmic assessment. However, if the Government believe it is right to have something like an algorithmic recording standard in the public sector, why is it not appropriate to have something equivalent in the private sector?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I would not say it is not right, but if we want to make the ATRS a standard, we should make it a standard in the public sector first and then allow it to be adopted as a means for all private organisations using ADM and AI to meet the transparency principles that they are required to adopt.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
So would the Minister not be averse to it? It is merely so that the public sector is ahead of the game, allowing it to show the way and then there may be a little bit of regulation for the private sector.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am not philosophically averse to such regulation. As to implementing it in the immediate future, however, I have my doubts about that possibility.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting and challenging session. I hope that we have given the Minister and his team plenty to think about—I am sure we have. A lot of questions remain unanswered, and although the Committee Room is not full this afternoon, I am sure that colleagues reading the debate will be studying the responses that we have received very carefully.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her persuasive support. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his support for our amendments. It is a shame the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, was not here this afternoon, but I am sure we will hear persuasively from him on his amendment later in Committee.
The Minister is to be congratulated for his consistency. I think I heard the phrase “not needed” or “not necessary” pretty constantly this afternoon, but particularly with this group of amendments. He probably topped the lot with his response on the Equality Act on Amendment 41.
I want to go away with my colleagues to study the responses to the amendments very carefully. That being said, however, I am happy to withdraw Amendment 41 at this stage.
Viscount Camrose
Member's explanatory statement
This technical amendment adjusts the wording of new Article 22B(1) of the UK GDPR to reflect the terms of Article 9(1).
House of Lords
Asylum Claims
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dubs
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many asylum claims are currently waiting to be determined.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, at the end of December 2023, there were 95,252 cases in the asylum system, 28% fewer than at the end of December 2022. Claims lodged on or after 28 June 2022 and before 7 March 2023, when the Illegal Migration Bill was introduced, are being prioritised now that the legacy backlog has been cleared. We continue to review and improve processes to accelerate decision-making while maintaining the integrity of the system.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, when do the Government expect to process the claims of the 55,000 or more people who arrived since March 2023, especially the 22,000 or so who arrived between March 2023 and July 2023, who are not covered by the possibility of being sent to Rwanda?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, those who arrive illegally and fall into scope of the Act will be banned from obtaining any form of lawful immigration status in the UK. So, since 7 March 2023, anyone who has arrived illegally may be unable to obtain settlement or citizenship or re-enter the UK using a lawful migration route. As we bring more of the powers of the Act into force, those who have arrived illegally will also be unable to obtain any form of temporary permission to stay in the UK, other than in very limited circumstances.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, in considering measures for sustainably managing waiting times for asylum claims, does my noble friend agree that a balanced approach, which effectively deters economic migrants while prioritising the timely processing of genuine asylum seekers, is essential for maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the asylum system?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. On the subject of productivity and the processing of claims, the decision output has increased significantly over the past 24 months. In fact, it has more than tripled as we have worked to deliver commitments to process the legacy backlog. For example, in November 2023, the average per decision-maker was about 7.89 initial decisions. The year before, that number was more like 2.6—so efficiency is very much improving.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, how many of those already denied asylum are still in the country?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I cannot answer that question in its entirety, but I can say that the number of complex legacy cases that remain has declined from about 4,500 to 3,900. Some of those are still in the country, but I do not know precisely how many.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the Oxford criminology department’s report, The Criminalisation of People Arriving to the UK on “Small Boats”, has said:
“There is no evidence that these prosecutions will have the ‘deterrent’ effect … Rather than minimising harm to people crossing the Channel, this report has highlighted the significant human impact of the current prosecution strategy”.
Will the Government review this report in light of what is happening at the moment?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Well, I will certainly commit to read it, but I wonder how on earth it can arrive at a conclusion that they will have no deterrent effect. The Bill has not been operationalised or indeed passed yet.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will know about the concern expressed last week from all quarters of your Lordships’ House about the position of Afghans who had supported our servicemen or translators while they did honourable duty in Afghanistan. The Ministry of Defence said it was going to review their cases. Can the Minister give us any idea how long it is going to take for those to be resolved?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I have to say to the noble Lord that his question is best directed to the MoD, but he will know that it is also an ongoing discussion we are still having in the context of the Bill.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister update the House on returns agreements with safe countries? In particular, I am thinking of Egypt, as well as other safe Middle Eastern countries.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Again, I am afraid that is rather outside this department’s remit, but I will endeavour to find out the current status and come back to the noble Lord.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Can my noble friend the Minister explain why British courts and tribunals grant asylum to 75% of those who make applications here on first application, whereas French courts grant asylum to only 25% of those making asylum applications on first application? Given that they are both applying the same international laws and agreements, are the French being unduly harsh or the British unduly lenient?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I suspect it is not a particularly binary answer. Obviously, some of the cases we are looking at will involve people from Afghanistan, as the noble Lord will be aware, and we probably had rather more involvement in that particular situation than the French did. I would imagine it depends very much on the circumstances before the courts, but I cannot really answer the question.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister claims some credit for starting to deal with the backlog. What have the Government been doing for 13 years to make that backlog?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The Minister does not claim any credit at all for removing the backlog, but I applaud the department for having done so. The situation, as the noble Lord will be aware, has changed very dramatically in the world over the last 13 years.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the sacked chief inspector has expressed concern that clearing the legacy backlog at all costs has led to perverse outcomes. This includes a soaring in the number of claims deemed to have been withdrawn but counted as outcomes without proper quality assurance, which he declared was not acceptable. Will the Government now publish data showing the reasons for this big increase in the number of claims deemed to be withdrawn, as called for by the British Red Cross?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I remind the House that the previous inspector was let go because he broke the terms of his contract, so I would argue that he has been somewhat discredited. Withdrawals can happen for a number of reasons, for example where somebody has already left the UK before their claim was concluded or where they fail to comply with the asylum process. There is a large number of reasons why withdrawals are made.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, India was recently designated a safe country, along with Georgia, Albania and other countries. How many claims have been processed for India and what was the reason for designating India as a safe country?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
We debated that at some length last week and I will not go over the reasons again. I am afraid that I do not have those statistics.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, how many of these asylum seekers are children and what happens to them if their claims fail?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, there were 3,412 asylum applications from unaccompanied children in the year ending December 2023. That was 41% fewer than in 2022. They make up about 5% of total asylum applications. Of those, 2,446 were aged 16 or 17. Noble Lords will be aware that there are commitments in the Bill going through the House, and in the treaty, that unaccompanied asylum seekers will not be removed to Rwanda.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, the National Audit Office published a report on 20 March expressing the view that government plans to relocate asylum seekers from hotels to larger sites are actually proving more expensive than the hotel accommodation. Is this affecting the Government’s long-term strategy for offering safe accommodation?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s long-term strategy is a current subject of discussion via various other Bills. We will be closing all our hotels; we will have closed more than 100 by the end of March. Clearly, having hotels occupied by migrants is not optimal, and of course that goes to inform long-term strategic thinking.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
What progress is being made on police co-operation across Europe to target people traffickers, not just at the point of the channel but across the entire continent?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, there has been a considerable amount of progress. In March 2023, we signed a deal with France which, as noble Lords will be aware, has more than doubled the number of French personnel deployed across northern France. Most recently, we signed a working agreement with Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency. This long-term framework will provide the UK with access to new levers and intelligence to make our and the EU’s borders safer and more secure—as well as emphasising a shared commitment to close co-operation to tackle these organised crime gangs.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that possession of identity cards would make the handling of this situation a great deal easier?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord has asked that question before—and last time I got myself into a bit of hot water by sort of agreeing with him, so I will not do so again.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, a Member on the Benches opposite recently said that Rwanda was safe as long as one did not oppose the Government. Is that the way that this Government are going—so we are all safe as long as we do not oppose them?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I point the noble Baroness to Scotland, where of course the Green Party is propping up the SNP Government. Are we safe there?
Cabinet Manual
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government when the revised version of the Cabinet Manual will be published.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, in 2022 the Government committed to updating the Cabinet Manual and continue to consider the approach and timescales. We will provide a full update to the Constitution Committee, which recommended that an update should be made, in due course.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, that is a disappointing reply, because the Government are not living up to their word. The Leader of the House described the Cabinet Manual as
“a document of fundamental importance … that sets out the rules, conventions and practices that affect the operation of government”.—[Official Report, 16/12/22; cols. 935-36.]
Since the last manual was published, major changes have taken place: the referendum in 2016 and our departure from the EU; developments in devolution; and the Prorogation of 2019 that was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court. Does an updated draft exist? Has the Prime Minister seen and approved it? When will it be made available to not just the Constitution Committee in this House but PACAC in another place? Above all, will the Minister make a solemn promise to the House that the revised edition of the Cabinet Manual will be published before the launch of the coming general election?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, previous debates in this House on the Cabinet Manual, and indeed on other issues, have demonstrated the importance of the manual, as the noble Viscount suggests, both for those working in government and those outside seeking to get a better understanding. As I said in good faith the last time he asked me this Question, the Government are considering options on timing and content in the light of these debates, but ultimately, this is a matter for the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister of the day.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will know that key elements of the recent Budget appeared in the press long before the Chancellor addressed the other place. Was this because our journalists are fantastic mind-readers, or should we revisit paragraph 5.15 of the Cabinet Manual, which says:
“When Parliament is in session the most important announcements of government policy should, in the first instance, be made in Parliament”?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My noble friend makes an interesting point.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
There have been different comments made about the Cabinet Manual, and I note the point that he made. We do try, in the main, to make announcements in the House. Indeed, we will be making an announcement on security later today.
Lord O’Donnell (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for this important Question. I wrote a lot of this, and one of the things I say in the preface is that it needs updating periodically, for things such as Brexit, war powers—I could name a huge number. I urge Ministers, when they think about the new version, to take account of the excellent recommendations of the Constitution Committee of this House. If it does not appear before the next election, I urge whoever is Prime Minister to make it a high priority, because this is crucial. The Minister might want to talk to her colleague the Foreign Secretary, who in the preface actually says how important the Cabinet Manual is.
The Cabinet Manual also says a lot about conventions. We in this House need to think quite carefully about conventions, because sometimes they are discarded rather too freely. We will need to think carefully about Salisbury/Addison and others which affect this House a lot.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
There are a lot of good quotations, both from my noble friend the Foreign Secretary and from the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, himself. The existing Cabinet Manual, although it needs changes, actually contains a lot of good and enduring material. We need to make sure that the new version is right: it needs to be accurate, up to date and authoritative, and work continues.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in due course there will be an election. There are probably only four months more of parliamentary sitting before we reach the general election. In saying that these things will be done in due course, are the Government kicking the can down the road until the election reaches us, or do they actually want to ensure that the Cabinet Office contributes to the principle of good government for whichever Government come in after the coming election?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As far as the manual is concerned, the Government, as I have said, are considering options on timing and content in the light of the debates that have been had. As far as good government is concerned, we try every day to ensure that we are delivering the right things for the people of Britain and that hard work is rewarded.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the Government made a specific promise about making sure that this was done by the end of the Parliament. With that in mind, and given the widespread view that this is an important piece of work that must be completed, will there be some chapters perhaps ready for view by our Constitution Committee very soon? We are all aware that the clock is now ticking.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I hear what the noble Baroness says. Indeed, we have made it clear that draft material will be made available to both the Constitution Committee and PACAC in the other place before the second version of the Cabinet Manual is finalised.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Our Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, in the same report in which we recommended the revision of the Cabinet Manual, also welcomed the promise by the Cabinet Secretary to rein in improper expenditure by the Scottish Government. That has still not been done. Will the Minister tell the Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, that if he does not do it soon, I will find every opportunity to raise the issue again and again?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will make two points. First, I told the noble Lord that we were looking at this issue and that we might issue guidance on the subject, because the Cabinet Manual is about bringing conventions and rules together, rather than creating them. Secondly, much of the Cabinet Manual is on matters specific to the UK Government and reserved matters. However, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary—to mention him again—has written to the First Minister of Scotland about the importance of a reserved area for foreign affairs and how that should be conducted.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, who pioneered the publication of the Cabinet Manual—it could never have happened in my day. The Minister will recall that the publication was extremely valuable in the lead-up to the 2010 election and in setting the rules if there was a hung Parliament. Are we to take it that the delay this time means that the Prime Minister does not anticipate a hung Parliament?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It is difficult to draw any conclusions of that kind. However, I share the noble Lord’s tribute to the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, in putting this together. There are many well-thumbed copies around the Civil Service.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister care to revisit the answer she gave to her noble friend Lord Young of Cookham? Can she point the House to a single example in the recent past of a major piece of policy or a significant announcement that has not been extensively briefed out to the press before it was given to Parliament?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
There is a tradition that some material in upcoming policy announcements is sometimes briefed out to engage the great British public, but the substantive announcements are nearly always made to this House while Parliament is sitting.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has been good enough to tell us three times that the reason for this prolonged delay in publication is that the Government are “considering options”. Apart from the option to publish or not, can she outline what those serious options are that are causing the delay?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The content of the Cabinet Manual is, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, would agree, a matter for the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister of the day. The work being done is to look at everything that has been said, including in debates here and by the committees, and to decide on the content of the various chapters. As has already been said, there have been quite a number of changes—we have left the EU, we have got rid of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and we have even introduced maternity pay for female Ministers, which was a great step forward—and there are various different things that need to be done. A view needs to be taken on what we put in the Cabinet Manual and how we keep it simple and engaging. Indeed, a suggestion was made in the debate led by my noble friend the Leader of the House to do more online in this digital age.
Sodium Valproate and Pelvic Mesh
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cumberlege
To ask His Majesty’s Government what are the timescales for, and what progress has been made on, a response to the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report on options for redress for those harmed by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh, published on 7 February.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
The Government commissioned the Patient Safety Commissioner to produce a report on redress for those affected by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. We are grateful to the commissioner and her team for completing this report and our sympathies remain with those affected by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. The Government are now carefully considering the PSC’s recommendations and will respond substantively, hopefully in the coming months.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reassuring reply. However, as it has been five months since the Government received the advice from the Patient Safety Commissioner in October 2023, how much more time do patients and families need to wait for the redress that they so desperately need?
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her tireless work in this area. It is something which, in the Chancellor’s very own words—because it was the Chancellor who, as Health Secretary, first commissioned the report—remains a top priority to both him and the Government. That remains the case. I spoke to Minister Caulfield about it just this morning, and it is a complicated area, but it is something that we are very keen to redress in the next few months.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am really grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for raising this issue. On previous occasions, I have raised my ongoing concerns about the use of sodium valproate, especially for patients with mental health issues incarcerated in hospital. Do the Government collect information on how many people have been prescribed this terrible medication in some cases, and whether it is being disproportionally applied, particularly to young men from minority communities in the mental health institutions?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. I will provide the precise figures, but the incidence has gone down by 34% in terms of the amount that has been prescribed. At the same time—and this is particularly fitting, as tomorrow is National Epilepsy Awareness Day—for some people, this is the only treatment for epilepsy that will work for them. It is therefore important to make sure that protocols are in place for prospective mothers and prospective fathers to make sure that, in those cases, they are not being prescribed sodium valproate, because in other cases it is often the only medicine that works.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, given that, sadly, errors and problems repeatedly occur in the NHS, how are the Government working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that a redress scheme is designed to be fit for the future as well as fit for the recognition of harm that has occurred? What will they do to ensure that trust in the NHS is maintained by an approach that encapsulates prospective monitoring and listening to patients and relatives for early detection of adverse events and avoids cumulative errors?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. I was actually speaking to Minister Caulfield about this just this morning, because she is in regular touch with the affected patient groups. They were talking precisely about some of the things around the Scotland NHS scheme in place in terms of redress. It is fair to say that there are some concerns in patient groups on some aspects of this, but underlying what the noble Baroness says is making sure that, whatever we do, we are trying to do it consistently across the UK because there should be one consistent approach. Likewise, we are learning lessons from these things as well.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, an ex-constituent of mine, after years of excruciating pain, the onset of returning cancer and no care plan, finally borrowed $47,000 to have the failed mesh implant removed in America. She now has her life back but is in deep debt. However, we learn that the Government will consider redress only in 2025. Can the Minister hazard a guess as to how many more mesh-induced deaths will have occurred by the time a single penny is paid out in compensation at this rate?
Lord Markham (Con)
The 2025 date is the timetable that the Patient Safety Commissioner recommended in terms of financial redress. The point that the noble Baroness makes, quite rightly, is about the non-financial aspect: if you are suffering pain from it all, you want to be treated as quickly as possible. That is why we have set up these nine specialist centres to allow exactly that sort of redress to occur.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, can I remind the noble Lord that, of course, it was not a matter of months since this first recommendation came? The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, recommended a redress scheme some years ago. Why was it rejected in the first place, and why are we waiting many more months, as the Minister said, when, as the Patient Safety Commissioner has said, the intention is
“an initial, fixed sum in recognition of the avoidable harm they have suffered as a result of system-wide healthcare and regulatory failures”?
Why are the Government being so slow to respond?
Lord Markham (Con)
That is precisely what I put to Minister Caulfield this morning. She commissioned the review because her feeling was that the period from when my noble friend’s initial report came in until when Maria Caulfield was in post was too long. So it was absolutely she who commissioned it last year, and it is absolutely she who very much said that she is determined that there should be a substantive reply from us in the next few months.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, at the launch of the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report the victims of the Primodos scandal expressed great distress as they felt that they had been airbrushed out. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, recommended that they should receive redress, and they were treated the same way in the report as the sodium valproate and vaginal mesh victims. Can the Minister tell me what will be done to provide redress and ensure that there is appropriate treatment for the victims of Primodos?
Lord Markham (Con)
Again, these are difficult areas. My understanding is that we are working from the conclusions of the expert working group in 2017, and its review of all the evidence was that it could not find a causal link between Primodos and the impact it had during pregnancy. This was again reviewed by the MHRA when more information was brought up in the last year. So I am afraid that, as we stand today, the evidence is not there that suggests that causal link.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report is all the more valuable because it is drawn from patients’ experiences, including physical, psychological and emotional impacts and their daily struggle with accessing health and other key services such as social security benefits and special educational needs support for the valproate-harmed children they are raising. What is being done to support mothers and families as they cope with the indecision and delay over the Government’s response to the commissioner and await the vital support they need?
Lord Markham (Con)
We have completed four of the initial recommendations in the report of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, and another three are in process. The most important of those, to answer the noble Baroness’s question, is the setting up of these nine specialist centres which can provide the support needed, not just in terms of redress surgically or treatment-wise but in terms of the support that people need to help them cope with the issues.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, as important as this report and these findings are, this is part of a wider problem. Some 4,000 babies die due to pregnancy-specific conditions in the UK every year, but 73% of drugs given to pregnant women have no safety information. That is clearly unacceptable. The Minister knows that I have raised this issue with him before; please can he give an update on progress towards putting this right?
Lord Markham (Con)
My noble friend is correct on this. Probably the best way to do that is to come back in detail in writing, because it is vitally important.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the Minister said that Minister Caulfield had commissioned this report, but he misses out at least three years of work earlier. There was the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and there was a long debate during the passage of the Health and Care Act when Nadine Dorries said she would look at commissioning something and then refused to do so. This is not recent history. Will the Minister please give this House a date on which the Government will come back to Parliament with a response?
Lord Markham (Con)
The point I was making was that Minister Caulfield absolutely agreed with the point the noble Baroness makes that the delay had been too long, and so it was she who came forward and said that she wanted to commission the Patient Safety Commissioner to report exactly in this area. So that was her being proactive on all this. In the same way, she says that she is determined to get a response back in the next few months. I cannot give a specific date yet, because it is a complicated area which involves industry, many government departments and the devolved authorities. However, as the Chancellor said, this remains a top priority area for both the Chancellor personally and the Government.
Train Operating Company Contracts
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they are taking steps to change train operating company contracts to achieve planned improvements to rail services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, in 2021, the Government began introducing national rail contracts, which have now replaced all the emergency contracts signed during the pandemic. These are flexible contracts, allowing services to be adjusted as passenger demand recovers. They include incentives on punctuality, reliability, service quality and customer satisfaction. Last autumn, we introduced a new incentive to drive recovery in demand and revenue. We are actively developing further improvements for inclusion in future contracts.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I want to shine a light on Great Western Railway, at whose hands the Minister and I suffer on a regular basis. As well as cancellations and lateness, we have shortened trains, with 10 carriages frequently being reduced to five, and yet Great Western Railway’s notifications of disruption do not always cover this. Why are we not always told in advance about shortened trains? Is it because, as some people have assured me, the department has changed the contract with Great Western, specifically requiring it to run shorter trains for a certain proportion of its journeys? Does the Minister accept that it is important to have transparency on this? People need to know when they will be faced with a five-carriage train. He referred to recovering passenger numbers, and we frequently have intense overcrowding on Great Western trains.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I have to declare that I am a regular traveller on Great Western Railway services and appreciate much of what the noble Baroness says. Cancellations, especially those made close to the time of travel, can be very inconvenient, preventing passengers travelling with confidence. When trains are regularly cancelled, this can disrupt people’s lives. That is why the department holds operators to account for cancellations. The scrutiny and penalties depend on the reasons for these cancellations, as well as on how close they are to the planned time of travel and therefore how much they inconvenience passengers. However, I am not aware of any arrangement that the department has with GWR in relation to cancellations.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, last year, my wife and I spent a delightful three weeks in Japan visiting the ancient cities and gardens, travelling extensively by bullet, regional and local trains. We laughed increasingly loudly as every train, without exception, arrived on time, exactly to the minute. By contrast, almost every wait at a UK train station—including my journey here today—is punctuated by computer-generated announcements of delay and cancellation. In the last 12 months, 33% of UK trains have failed to arrive on time. One in 30 trains has been cancelled. Why can we not run a railway as well as the Japanese?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I take the noble Lord’s point. The Secretary of State visited Japan recently and looked closely at its operating systems. Let us hope that we see an improvement to the extent that we can operate our service equally well.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it is almost six years now since the chaotic introduction of changed rail timetables demonstrated that the present system of train operating contracts is completely broken. Since then, we have had the Williams Rail Review, the Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail, and a lecture by the Secretary of State last year backing fully the case for reform. But all there is to show for this is a rather sketchy framework rail reform Bill, which the Government have put out for legislative scrutiny, despite the fact that the legislative programme is so light that the House of Commons is rising at 4 pm. What explains this dither and delay? I suggest to the Minister that the Government introduce this rail reform Bill into this House, where it could have lots of detailed scrutiny from informed people and be improved.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, the rail reform Bill is being scrutinised by the Transport Committee. That was an agreement by the usual channels. From May 2021, national rail contracts were introduced to bridge the gap between Covid-19 emergency agreements and future competed contracts. The last two national rail contracts began in October 2023. Under the national rail contracts, the Government cover the operators’ reasonable costs, receive revenues and bear the financial risks. The national rail contracts are flexible by design, allowing service levels to be adjusted as passengers return to the railways.
Lord Swire (Con)
If my noble friend the Minister is genuinely looking at improving customer experience on the railways, can I return again to the issue of the provision of wifi, which is variable on some railways and non-existent on others? Surely in 2024 the basic provision of wifi, which is technologically achievable, to encourage people to work—after all, we are trying to increase productivity—should be something we accept as the norm and not something we continually have to argue for? Increasingly, you can get wifi on aeroplanes in the middle of nowhere; surely you should be able to get it on the GWR from Exeter to London.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right, and I quite agree with him. It is very annoying; I suffer from it myself when I travel on GWR. I really do not understand, technically, why we should not be able to do it. It is something I will perhaps take a personal look at when I go back to the department.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, how are the Government addressing that, fearing the non-renewal of their contracts, companies seek to find ways and means of reducing investments as they near the end of their contracts?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, train operators are required to work to an annual business plan agreed with the department, allowing more agility for both parties to respond to change as it arises throughout the contract term. Train operators are incentivised to deliver for passengers by earning a fee based on their performance.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, in the light of the draft rail reform Bill, will His Majesty’s Government commit to primary legislation to deliver level boarding and accessible step-free station deadlines? By the Government’s own figures, it will take 100 years for stations to be step-free at the current rate of Access for All funding.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I accept what the noble Baroness says. We have discussed this outside the Chamber, and it is something that the Government are working hard to improve.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, we will hear from the Liberal Democrats and then the Conservative Benches.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
From this side, we might rename the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, Baroness Mystic Meg. We are talking about contracts and railways, and, out of the hat, two days ago, Avanti has now decided to pay overtime premiums of £600 a day for drivers. Clearly, this is a last desperate act of the Government and Avanti trains to keep the contract. Last week, Transport for the North—chaired by a Conservative Peer—unanimously agreed with Burnham and Rotheram, the mayors from the north, that that contract should be taken away. This is clearly unacceptable. We talk about the NHS, care workers, firefighters and the police, and, as a last desperate act, Avanti is offering £600 a shift for driving a train at weekends—it is absolutely scandalous.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I can only repeat what I have said before in the House to noble Lords. The decision to award a contract to First Trenitalia was contingent on the operator continuing to win back the confidence of passengers. The Minister with responsibility for rail and officials regularly meet with FirstGroup and Avanti senior management to understand the challenges and to hold them to account for issues within their control. However, I hear what the noble Lord says.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Monday 25th March 2024
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 View all Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 31-VIII Eighth marshalled list for Committee - (21 Mar 2024)
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I speak having taken some advice from the Clerks—I am grateful to them. The first two items in this group are notices of my intention to oppose Clauses 53 and 54. We debated the amendments in both clauses in our previous Committee sitting on 12 March and the Minister, whom I have spoken to this afternoon before coming to Committee, gave certain undertakings following that debate about discussing further the issues raised with his fellow Minister, who sits by his side, and with the Ministry of Justice. In all the circumstances, I will not press the stand part notices in my name on either Clause 53 or Clause 54. That is why I have got to my feet at this stage.
Baroness Lawlor
“Parole Board proceedings: enabling public scrutiny(1) The Secretary of State has a statutory duty to improve the openness and transparency of the work of the Parole Board and to facilitate a greater public understanding of its statutory framework, procedures and proceedings.(2) The Secretary of State must exercise their powers under section 239(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, to require that Parole Board hearings should normally be open to the public unless there are exceptional circumstances for not doing so, as outlined in subsection (5).(3) The Secretary of State has the power to formally direct the Chair of the Parole Board to make arrangements for all Parole Board hearings to be heard in public, as set out in Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022 (SI 2022/717).(4) The Chair of the Parole Board may exercise their right to decline this request and direction from the Secretary of State and must outline their reasons for so doing in writing to the Secretary of State, within 28 days of a written direction being lodged with the Parole Board.(5) Such reasons in respect of subsection (4) must be evidence-based and include—(a) where the Chair of the Parole Board believes that such a request and direction would, on the balance of probability and based on evidential information, indicate that the integrity of evidence presented to the Parole Board may be compromised and prevent a true and accurate assessment of the prisoner’s risk being provided by witnesses;(b) that the presence of strong and valid objections from participants, including victims, their families or legal representatives, could jeopardise the cooperation of witnesses, should the hearing be in public; or(c) that to hold a meeting in public might create an unacceptable risk of mental or physical harm to any of the participants.(6) The Secretary of State must formally consider any representations from the Chair of the Parole Board in a timely manner and if they choose to disregard the advice of the Chair of the Parole Board, they must outline their reasons within 28 days of receipt of such advice, taking into account all available evidence, including that provided by law enforcement, victims, their families or legal and other representatives.(7) The Secretary of State must, in exercising their powers, balance the need for openness, transparency and maintaining public faith in the efficacy of the criminal justice system with a commitment to the operational independence of the Parole Board and its members’ deliberations, and with an obligation to reduce recidivism and support rehabilitation and the prisoner’s ability to resettle in the community upon release from a custodial sentence.(8) This section applies only to offences as relevant to public protection decisions and outlined in Schedule 18B Parts 1 and 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.(9) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, and annually thereafter, publish an assessment of the efficacy of the policy of open Parole Board hearings and its impact upon openness, accountability, transparency and public support and whether it meets the interests of the justice test.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to consolidate the statutory instrument laid before Parliament on 30 June 2022 (SI 2022/717) to improve openness, accountability and transparency and public trust in the Parole Board by giving the Secretary of State powers to direct the Board to work to a presumption that such meetings should be routinely open to the public, with exceptions; whilst also safeguarding the Board’s independence and the requirement to ensure rehabilitation and resettlement of those prisoners likely to be released from a custodial sentence.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support and move this amendment for my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, who is absent attending the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s 148th assembly in Geneva. He had hoped to move his amendment on 12 March, but Committee proceedings were concluded before he was able to do so.
Amendment 171A seeks to establish the presumption that Parole Board hearings would be open to the public—with exceptions, of course. It seeks, more generally, to improve public faith and trust in the criminal justice system. This is both a probing and permissive amendment, and a natural progression to and consolidation of the reforms undertaken by Ministers over the last six years arising from the public disquiet over the proposed release of serial rapist John Worboys in 2018. That resulted in a review of the parole system and a public consultation published in 2022, and a finding in the High Court in March 2018 that the Parole Board’s Rule 25—a blanket ban on transparency and details of the board’s deliberations—was unlawful.
The Government have moved to address the very serious failings identified by the Worboys case, by allowing summaries of Parole Board decisions to be provided to victims and other interested parties, and to provide for a reconsideration mechanism, introduced in 2019, which allows a prisoner and/or the Secretary of State for Justice to seek reconsideration of a number of decisions taken by the board within 21 days. Victims may now also seek a judicial review on the grounds that decisions are procedurally unfair or irrational.
Significantly, the Parole Board’s 2019 Rule 15 was amended by secondary legislation in 2022 to enable public hearings to be facilitated on request to the chair of the Parole Board, in the “interests of justice”. This test is already used by the Mental Health Tribunal. This amendment is cautious, circumspect, and with caveats in its proposed new subsections (5) and (7). It presumes no absolute right to open the Parole Board hearings to the most serious cases, but presents a balance between the interests of the victim, prisoners and the wider criminal justice system, and imposes a statutory duty on Ministers to take note of the importance of rehabilitation, reducing recidivism, fairness and due process.
Finally, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will articulate the Government’s current thinking on, and rationale for, limited reform envisaged in this matter. I urge that they allow for public hearings to become the default position, and I look forward to his reply.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lord Marks, I will speak to his amendment in this group, which is Amendment 171B about the hearing timeframes for the Parole Board to have some flexibility in this matter. I apologise; I would have said, in relation to the two stand part notices, that there were a number of questions that I asked of the noble Earl. I know it has been only a short period of time—I am sure they are on their way—but I just wanted to remind him. I am sure that his smile tells me that there are going to be satisfactory replies shortly.
I come back to Amendment 171B. The current rules are that the release of prisoners serving a life sentence is determined by the Parole Board on or after they have served their minimum tariff. The first parole review to consider a prisoner for release will usually begin six months prior to their tariff expiry and, if a prisoner is not released at their on-tariff review, they will have a further post-tariff review at least every two years. The Parole Board process is lengthy and can take upwards of six months for the whole process to be dealt with. Their victims are asked whether they wish to submit a personal statement; although the Parole Board does not have direct contact with victims, the victim liaison officer will contact them about submitting a personal statement. We know that there has recently been an opportunity for victims to appear and observe some Parole Board hearings as part of the latest pilot.
For victims and family members, going through the Parole Board process can be a highly traumatic experience, forcing them to relive the original offence and the impact it has on them. While victims and families welcome having a voice in the process through being able to submit an impact statement, many feel trapped and unable to move on when their offender is repeatedly coming up for parole, even when it is clear that the circumstances have not changed.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment so admirably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord German, to which I have put my name. I do not wish to add anything—as he has made all the points that I would have made—other than to emphasise that it would give the Parole Board discretion to decide when to have a review. It would minimise the revictimization of the victims and would also be cost-effective.
I am aware that Article 5.4 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that reviews must be at reasonable intervals. I think a limit of two years was set, but, in domestic cases, the courts have declined to be prescriptive about what a reasonable interval is. It is important to recognise that these are fact-specific cases and therefore it is important to reinforce the discretion given to the Parole Board. I support this amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a short and interesting debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, introduced the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. On this side of the House, we will listen to the Minister’s response very carefully. I agreed with the sentiments that she expressed to the extent that the Parole Board should be cautious and fair, and that there needs to be a balance between victims, the process and the prisoners.
The point where I depart from her—which is really the substance of her amendment—is that it should be by default that parole hearings are conducted in public. I am not sure that I would go as far as that but, nevertheless, I agreed with a lot the points that she made. As I said, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
I move on to Amendment 171B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord German. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, summed up the points succinctly: that giving the Parole Board discretion is desirable. Each case is different and, if the Parole Board has more discretion, it can reduce the potential impact on victims—I understood that point. It can also reduce the number of repeated applications, which have a cost to the public purse, where there may be no real change in circumstances. If one were to give the Parole Board more discretion, it might reduce that impact on victims. Again, this is an interesting amendment, and I look forward to listening to the Minister’s response.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in their respective absences, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and my noble friend Lord Jackson for their amendments, which have been so ably spoken to by my noble friend Lady Lawlor and the noble Lord, Lord German.
I will turn first to Amendment 174A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson. This would create a presumption for parole hearings to be conducted in public and a power for the Secretary of State, in effect, to direct a public hearing, contrary to any opposing view from the chair of the Parole Board.
The provision for public parole hearings was introduced by the Government in 2022 in amendments to the Parole Board Rules statutory instrument. This allows any hearing to be conducted in public if the chair of the Parole Board decides that it is in the interests of justice to do so. Prior to this, the rules required that all hearings be held in private.
Hearings are private by default, but applications for public hearings can be made by anyone directly to the Parole Board. The criteria used by the chair to decide applications have been published by the Parole Board on its website. The individual decisions are also published. Since the provisions were introduced in 2022, three public hearings have been held and a further five have been agreed by the Parole Board, which will be heard in the coming months.
The provisions are operating as intended, because the rule changes were made with the understanding that most hearings would continue to be held in private and only a small number of public hearings would be held. This amendment would, in effect, reverse that position, so that all hearings were public by default and a private hearing would take place only with the agreement of the Secretary of State in response to any representations made by the chair of the board.
The amendment also proposes that the Secretary of State should be the person to decide whether a hearing takes place in public. I am afraid I must push back on that idea. Noble Lords will be aware that the board is a quasi-judicial body which makes court-like judicial decisions. As part of its consideration of case, the board will decide whether an oral hearing is necessary or whether a case can be completed on the papers alone. If, having decided that a hearing is necessary, the board is then responsible for the arrangements, conduct and management of that hearing.
It would be out of step with the rest of the process if we gave the Secretary of State a power, in effect, to force the board to hold a public hearing against its wishes. As the body responsible for the hearing, the Government believe that it is right that the board has the final decision on whether the hearing should be public or private.
I hope the Committee will accept that not all cases will be suitable to be heard in public; for example, because of particularly sensitive evidence or the concerns of the victims. It is vital that the risk assessment is not compromised, and witnesses are able to provide full and frank evidence to the board.
The current provisions in the Parole Board Rules mean that the board and the Secretary of State have to consider these issues only in response to an application. The amendment would require them to consider the merits and contact the victims in every single hearing—more than 8,000 cases a year. It would be an enormous administrative burden with very little obvious benefit to the parole system or to the individuals affected by it.
In conclusion, I recognise the disappointment and frustration that may be caused when a public hearing application is rejected, especially where the victim is the applicant. Public hearings are a comparatively new element of the parole system. The Government are committed to improving further the openness and transparency of parole. However, we submit that a complete reversal of the current approach is not merited at this time. On this basis, I hope that Amendment 171A can be withdrawn.
I turn to Amendment 171B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord German. This seeks to allow the Parole Board to direct the period of time which should elapse before a subsequent application to be considered for release can be made. As things stand, under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, the Secretary of State has ultimate responsibility for referring a prisoner’s case to the Parole Board within two years of the previous review.
This amendment would transfer this responsibility to the board and allow them to set the interval between reviews of anywhere between 12 months and five years. The current system already provides for flexibility in the time set for the prisoner’s next parole review. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service—HMPPS—considers a range of factors in deciding when to refer the prisoner to the Parole Board on behalf of the Secretary of State. Reasons must be given for the length of the interval between reviews. These include the Parole Board’s reasons for declining to direct the prisoner’s release at the conclusion of the last review and the interventions required to allow them to progress.
Giving responsibility for setting the period between parole reviews to the Parole Board could potentially result in hearings being set too soon, before interventions have been able to take effect, increasing the number of adjournments and causing further distress for victims. This is not to say that the board does not play an important role. Its insights provide valuable information for HMPPS staff, but HMPPS is best placed to make these decisions.
There is then the question of what the period between hearings ought to be. This amendment aims to increase the maximum interval from two to five years. I fully understand why this is being proposed, but it might be helpful if I outline why it would not be lawful; the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, has already referred to this. Where indeterminate sentence prisoners have served their tariff—that is the minimum term set by the judge at sentencing—they are then eligible for a parole hearing. Unless the Parole Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined, they will remain in prison. If they are not released, my advice is that subsequent reviews must be conducted speedily and at reasonable intervals to satisfy the requirement of Article 5(4) of the convention. I note and take on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, in this connection.
I appreciate the motivations at play here. Parole reviews can be difficult for victims. I sympathise with the desire for a longer interval between reviews. I stress to the Committee that the Government always consider victims where the parole system is concerned. I hope we have demonstrated this principle in other measures we have taken. We understand the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord German, that, in essence, greater transparency of the parole system is inextricably linked to the involvement of victims.
Since October 2022, victims have been able to observe Parole Board hearings, as part of a testing phase currently running in the south-west. The testing has now progressed to include the Greater Manchester probation region. During the hearings, victims are supported by a Probation Service victim representative, who discusses the parole process with them. Their VLO will ensure that, if appropriate, they are signposted to relevant support following the hearing.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very thoughtful reply. I should like to reflect, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Jackson, on the very important points that he makes about the sensitivity and the costs, as well as the practicality and the question of time, along with the fact that the Government are working towards greater openness of the Parole Board proceedings. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Jackson, I shall withdraw the amendment, and give further reflection to what my noble friend says.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I put my name to this clause stand part notice, which was originally in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. He, alas, cannot be here this afternoon as he is on parliamentary business abroad, and he has asked me to open this short debate. I do not think that the Committee will be that surprised to hear me say that what I am about to say owes much to the noble Lord.
Clauses 55 and 56 prohibit a prisoner serving a whole-life tariff from entering into a marriage or civil partnership with another person, without the written permission of the Secretary of State, to be granted only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances. At Second Reading, on 18 December, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, referred to
“a recent case in which surviving families of the victim of a most serious murder were openly mocked by the convicted offender, who trumpeted his right to marry, causing distress to many”.—[Official Report, 18/12/23; col. 2056.]
It is my view, and I suspect the view of many on the Committee, that it is deeply unsatisfactory to legislate on the basis of one such incident, however upsetting it was for the victim’s family, as it undoubtedly must have been. That point was made at Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. Is this one incident, serious though it was, the only basis for seeking to legislate in this context?
Beyond that, there is a question of principle. However repellent their crimes, whole-life prisoners are allowed to eat, exercise, read books, watch television and send and receive letters, so why are they to be denied the basic right to marry a consenting adult? I say “basic right” because Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:
“Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry”.
What the state cannot do, consistent with human rights, is impose restrictions so extreme that they impair the very essence of the right to marry. That is the test stated in the consistent case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which considered how this applies to prisoners, in particular in the case of Frasik v Poland in 2010. The court stated in its judgment that an effective bar on any exercise of a prisoner’s right to marry is a breach of Article 12. The court added:
“Imprisonment deprives a person of his liberty and … of some civil rights and privileges”.
The authorities are, of course, permitted to impose restrictions on civil rights to protect the security of the prison regime, but:
“This does not, however, mean that persons in detention cannot, or can only very exceptionally, exercise their right to marry”.
The court added that the state cannot prevent a prisoner enjoying the right to marry because of the authorities’ views as to what
“might be acceptable to or what might offend public opinion”.
That is the basis, it seems, of Clauses 55 and 56. It is very doubtful whether these clauses are wise in any event. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby made the important point at Second Reading that if we are to lock people up for very lengthy periods, perhaps the whole of their lives, we must surely give them some positive purpose in life: some hope, some encouragement to maintain relationships with the outside world, not just for their own self-respect or mental health but because it will help those who have to manage the prison regime and prevent the inevitable frustrations of long-term prisoners erupting in violence against prison officers or other prisoners.
Clauses 55 and 56 have, in my view, no sensible justification. They are objectionable in principle and they will impede good management of the prison system. They seem to have more to do with populism than with any sensible policy. I submit that if these clauses become law, this is an example of bad legislation that an experienced Parliament such as this should not pass. I invite the Minister, when he replies to this debate, to say that the Government will think again about this issue and, I hope, come to the conclusion that it is not worthy of this important Bill.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to both stand part notices. The first question I asked myself way back before Second Reading, and I still need to ask myself, is why on earth the Government put these two clauses in the Bill. They do not seem to do anything to make the prison regime any better or to make the work that goes on in supporting people in prison any easier. In fact, they appear to be cruel in a variety of ways.
The Secretary of State being able to approve a marriage or civil partnership only based on exceptional circumstances, even if you felt there was a rationale or a reason, is surely the wrong way around. Surely, the Secretary of State should be able to deny them only if there are exceptional circumstances. This measure will apply regardless of the way in which anybody in future seeks a partnership or marriage.
It worries me, as I am sure it does many others in this Committee, how much placing people in prison for their lives will add to—or detract from—what happens inside the prison. It is going beyond punishment. Whatever anybody feels about what happens in a prison establishment, providing some hope for the future of their lives, understanding how their lives work and making sure they feel a sense of purpose in remaining alive is part of the job of the state, which must retain that ability.
These clauses, once again, chip away at those fundamental human rights, disapplying human rights to a specific cohort of people. The universality of human rights in this circumstance is doubly important because, of course, the state is totally responsible for whatever rights and purposes prisoners have. It has to manage them. It is precisely in custodial institutions such as prisons that human rights protections are most vital, because the individuals are under the control of the state.
It would appear, as in the Illegal Migration Act and the safety of Rwanda Bill, that we are beginning to see a testing period for making controversial changes to our human rights framework. It seems to me and those on these Benches that this particular measure is offensive to that spirit of how the state should manage the lives of people in this circumstance. If there were to be a case for saying that somebody cannot get married or have a civil partnership, that is surely by exception rather than by practice.
It appears to me that these clauses do not really fit into this Bill, because of that sense of things being done in the wrong direction. More than anything else, I seek to understand from the Government why they have put this in place. If it is because of a single case, as we have just heard, to write law on the basis of a single case is surely not the correct way to go about it.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I wondered why this was in the Bill; it is because this is a victims Bill. My honourable friend Jess Phillips MP is familiar with victims of the crimes of Bellfield, so I looked at what she had to say about this issue. She is a great champion for victims of crime. What she said was quite interesting. She was reflecting on what had been said by Sarah Champion MP, who had put a point reflecting what my noble friend Lord Bach has just said.
Jess Phillips said:
“I truly appreciate my hon. Friend’s fundamental point: everybody hopes for rehabilitation. With this, the only case we have to debate is that of Levi Bellfield, as mentioned. Having worked with some of his direct victims and the families of those victims, while I do not disagree that we sometimes chase headlines and make bad legislation in doing so, with his case I am not sure, from previous behaviour, that I would categorise it as rehabilitation. I would categorise it as behaviour to get headlines. The desire in Levi Bellfield’s case, as has been put to me by many of his victims, is that these schemes keep him constantly in the media, and that is incredibly painful for them. There is a bit from both sides of the argument in this debate: trying to stop the headlines and allowing rehabilitation”.—[Official Report, Commons, Victims and Prisoners Bill Committee, 11/7/23; col. 480.]
My noble friend Lord Bach raises some very important questions about the legality of this proposal. It is important that the Government explain why only one case has led to this being in the Bill.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments in this short debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for setting out his intention to oppose that Clauses 55 and 56 stand part of the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his comments in support of that.
It is important that the Committee examines the rationale behind these clauses. Clauses 55 and 56 will prohibit prisoners in England and Wales who are subject to a whole-life order from marrying or forming a civil partnership while in prison or another place of detention. The Secretary of State may grant an exemption in truly exceptional circumstances. A whole-life order is the most severe punishment in the criminal law of England and Wales. It is reserved for exceptionally serious offences, such as serial or child murders which involve a substantial degree of premeditation or sexual or sadistic conduct. Unlike other life sentences, offenders subject to a whole-life order can expect never to be released. Their tariff will never expire and they will not be considered for parole at any point.
As the law stands, a prison governor cannot reject a prisoner’s application to marry or form a civil partnership unless the ceremony creates a security risk for the prison. This includes whole-life prisoners. Those subject to whole-life orders can expect never to be released. As they are not working towards life on the outside and the prospect of being able to enjoy married life, any rehabilitative effect of a potential marriage is likely to be significantly reduced. Being married or in a civil partnership does not have any practical impact on an individual’s ability to maintain a relationship with a prisoner. Prisoners are not entitled to conjugal visits and rights to access fertility treatment do not require the prisoner to be married to or in a civil partnership with their partner. Neither do spouses, civil partners or their children have any additional right to visits, telephone calls or video calls. Whole-life prisoners can therefore benefit from supportive relationships while in custody in the same way as other prisoners. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord German, this is not cruel—they can maintain relationships.
While the right is protected under Article 12 of the ECHR, the convention allows states to impose restrictions in a proportionate way for a legitimate purpose. In line with the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights in Draper v the United Kingdom, we consider that a restriction on whole-life prisoners’ right to marry can be justified on the basis of public interest. The public set great store by our response to the most heinous crimes. The current position undermines confidence in our criminal justice system and its ability to deliver justice and protect the public. These clauses allow the Secretary of State to make exemptions on a case-by-case basis in exceptional circumstances. Any discretion available to a Secretary of State would itself be exercised compatibly with ECHR obligations.
We have taken a proportionate approach in applying these measures to only a small cohort of offenders who are already singled out in our domestic framework due to the exceptionally serious nature of their offences. As of December 2023, there were only 67 whole-life prisoners in England and Wales, representing less than 0.1% of the total prison population—less than one in 1,000.
To answer the question from all noble Lords, this is not about a single case. While it was a particular case that brought this issue to the Government’s attention, this is not about any individual; it is a broader point of principle. The justice system must be able to deal appropriately with the worst offenders, to drive up public confidence in the justice system. We consider that these measures are justified on the basis of that public interest. This is not just due to the distress that such an event may cause to the families of victims, whose lives these prisoners have cut short in heinous ways, but, more fundamentally, because of the real risk of damage to public confidence in the criminal justice system if it cannot deal appropriately with the most serious offenders. The Government are resolved that this is an appropriate measure. I therefore propose that Clauses 55 and 56 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Bach (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response, and the noble Lord, Lord German, for his support in this matter.
I have two points for the Minister, if I may. Is it really considered proportionate as an answer to Article 12 to say that these measures would be allowed only in exceptional circumstances? That seems not very proportionate at all. Secondly, I personally do not see the relevance, when we are talking about a matter of principle such as this, of what percentage of prisoners are in this category. It does not matter what percentage are. If it is right, it is right, and if it is wrong, it is wrong. In my view, it is a matter of some principle that this should not be imposed upon people who have done absolutely terrible things and are paying the price for it. This is a step too far and, as I say, not worthy of Parliament. Having said that, I am not going to take this matter any further today.
“Data collection in relation to children of prisonersThe Secretary of State must collect and publish annual data identifying—(a) how many prisoners are the primary carers of a child,(b) how many children have a primary carer who is a prisoner, and(c) the ages of those children.”
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, tabled this amendment, to which I am very pleased to add my name in support and to move it today in this final stage of Committee on the Bill. In his absence, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord for his commitment to the families of prisoners. This is also an issue which I know my right reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury cares deeply about, as well.
This amendment was selected for Report stage in the other place but not discussed. Introduced by Harriet Harman, it is an important progress chaser to the Government’s response to the 2019 report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which she then chaired. This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to collect and publish annual data, identifying how many prisoners are primary carers of a child or children, how many children have a primary carer in prison, and the ages of those children. Its inclusion would be highly appropriate for this Bill, which focuses on both victims and prisoners.
When a parent is committed to custody, their child should not also receive a sentence; they should not be punished or overlooked as a result of their parent’s crime. When a primary carer, or indeed any parent, is removed from the home, children and other family members are deprived of a provider of care and income. Often a shadow world of shame and stigma begins, which can haunt them throughout life and put them at risk of getting caught up in the criminal justice system themselves. If we are to prevent offending and anti-social behaviour then we need to be serious about looking upstream to support those at risk. This includes children with a parent in prison.
Charities working with prisoners’ families, such as Children Heard and Seen and the Prison Advice and Care Trust, have repeatedly highlighted the gap in our understanding of the scale of parental imprisonment. I commend to noble Lords two short films released by both those charities that show the heartbreaking realities of this issue and the impact on a child when their parent is sent to prison. It also shows the remarkable work done by both charities alongside families.
The 2019 Joint Committee report highlighted the
“complete lack of reliable quantitative data on the number of mothers in prison”
and
“the number of children whose mothers are in prison”.
It argued that
“without improved data collection, collation and publication”
it is both
“impossible to fully understand the scale and nature of this issue and to properly address it”.
It continued:
“Mandatory data collection and publication must be urgently prioritised by the Ministry of Justice”.
A few months before that was published, Crest Advisory’s report on the children of prisoners found that
“during a parent’s journey through the criminal justice system there are numerous points which children of prisoners could be identified—on arrest, at sentencing, on entry to prison, and under probation supervision. But at the moment, at no point does the system ask: ‘If this is a parent in custody, where is their child?’”
The point of doing this would be to ensure the welfare of the children and to establish whether help is needed for the family or friends now caring for them. As that report said:
“Instead it is left up to the offender or the parent left behind to seek help—something which we know is problematic because of stigma and fear about children being taken into care”.
That is echoed again and again by the charity Children Heard and Seen, which does such fantastic work with children with a parent in prison, including a ground-breaking initiative across the Thames Valley region.
Rightly, the Government broadened their response to the Joint Committee to all primary carers, not just mothers. Many men are also in this position—albeit with a very different proportion of the male prison population compared with the female estate. Again, we are hampered by the lack of reliable data. However, the Farmer review on women in the criminal justice system, the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and many others highlight that relatively more women than men report being parents and, likely, primary carers.
The Government’s position in 2019 was that their aim was to establish more accurate metrics to measure the number of prisoners with primary carer responsibilities. However, they also acknowledged that gathering information about dependent children is a sensitive matter and committed to exploring the most accurate way to collect and then collate and publish that data,
“provided an accurate method can be found to estimate it, and provided it can be done in a way that protects the rights of vulnerable individuals”.
Given the significant body of evidence showing that the children of prisoners are at risk of markedly worse outcomes in areas such as mental health, underachievement at school and becoming offenders themselves, we should, at the very least, know how many children there are and their age and stage of childhood. The amendment is limited to quantitative data collection, given the inherent problems of collecting identifiers in such a delicate and sensitive area and given that a key aim at this stage is to progress-chase the Government on behalf of these particularly neglected children. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for her introduction and Harriet Harman for her amendment in another place; even though it did not progress, it was very important. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, cannot be in his place today, because his report, which pre-dates the Select Committee report in the Commons—it was published in 2017 and was called The Importance of Strengthening Prisoners’ Family Ties to Prevent Reoffending and Reduce Intergenerational Crime—sparked a lot of this work.
That report emphasised throughout that data was needed on prisoners, their families and their children, particularly the age of the children, because that then enables the right sorts of services to be available inside a prison to support those family links that are so important. The noble Lord is so right that data is critical for ensuring that we—that is, the court system, prison, probation and other services, including Parliament and civil society—understand the impact on both prisoners and their children.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, because I could not possibly better her introduction to this amendment. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and I were very pleased to put our names to it. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that you cannot create robust policy if you do not have the data. She has helpfully illustrated to the House that it can be done and that, therefore, it should be done.
When I first saw these amendments—I have said this several times in the course of this Bill—I could not quite believe that it was not already happening, but it is not happening. I ask the Minister to seriously consider that this needs to be done for those children.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I do not pretend to be an expert on prisons, as some noble Lords are who have put forward this amendment. However, I also wanted to speak briefly to it, and for the very same reason, which is that I just could not believe that we did not collect the numbers on children who have a parent or a primary carer in custody. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, put down a Written Question and that the Government said that they do use a figure, which is 200,000. But that is from a survey from 2009—a pretty long time ago—and that is very different from the 312,000 figure that Crest Advisory has claimed.
We should say that the Government recognise that this is a problem. In that same Written Answer, the Government said they had made changes to the basic custody screening tool. In other words, this means that, when people go into prison, they are asked how many children they have back home. We know that they will not always say, not least because they will be worried about children being taken into care, and again, the Government recognise this. So in that Written Answer they talked about using a linked data programme called BOLD. They said the results should be published this spring and that that should be able to give us a better estimate. So can my noble friend the Minister explain, not necessarily today but perhaps in writing, how this programme works in practice and whether it will provide a permanent solution to the problem, as this amendment would do? If it will not, I ask the Government to consider making this change. Otherwise, as others have said, we will be letting down a group of very vulnerable children.
Finally, the Government’s own statutory guidance, Keeping Children Safe in Education, says that children and young people will be impacted by having a parent or relative in prison. I am a little confused as to how, on the one hand, in guidance we can state that we know this is a problem and that children will be affected, but on the other we can say that we do not know how many children are affected because we do not gather the numbers. How can we provide the support if we do not know how many children there are or where they are?
Lord Roborough (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Farmer for tabling this amendment and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for moving it. It would require the Secretary of State to collect data centrally about prisoners who are primary carers of children and the numbers of dependent children who have a primary carer in prison, and to publish the data annually, including the ages of the children. My noble friend, who is not in his place today, knows that the Government fully support the intention behind this amendment. The Government echo the right reverend Prelate in paying tribute to his work and ongoing contribution towards this issue.
Understanding the personal circumstances of those in custody, including responsibilities for dependent children, is essential if we are to provide effective support for those prisoners to help them maintain contact with those children. Strengthening family ties is an integral aspect of the work of HM Prison and Probation Service. We recognise the importance of maintaining a prisoner’s relationship with family, friends and their wider community, particularly where the best interest of the child is served through maintaining a strong relationship with their parent. Prisons across England and Wales offer a range of services to maintain family relationships, including social visits, family days, secure video calling and Storybook Mums and Dads, an award-winning, charity-led initiative that enables parents in prison to record bedtime stories for their children.
In answer to the right reverend Prelate’s comments on supporting children impacted by parental imprisonment, ministerial responsibility for supporting children who might be vulnerable due to parental incarceration sits with the Department for Education in England and the Welsh Government, and the Ministry of Justice is actively committed to joined-up working across government to better understand the nature of this issue. The Female Offender Strategy, published in 2018, encouraged a partnership-focused approach to addressing the needs of both imprisoned mothers and children affected by maternal imprisonment. We published the female offender strategy delivery plan in January 2023, with a progress report, the Farmer Review for Women, in 2019. Outstanding commitments from the Farmer review are being taken forward under the delivery plan.
Understanding how many children are impacted by parental imprisonment is just as important, because having a parent in prison is a recognised adverse childhood experience that can impact a child’s mental health and lead some to feel they are being judged for the actions of their parents. From the perspective of the criminal justice system and echoing the number that has been mentioned a couple of times in this debate, evidence has shown that over 60% of boys who had a father in prison went on to offend themselves. Therefore, identifying and supporting those individuals at an early stage has the potential to divert them away from the criminal justice system, preventing future victims of crime.
While we are fully supportive of the amendment’s intention, we do not believe that legislation as proposed here is necessary. Our prison strategy White Paper. published in 2021, outlined our intention to address this issue through engagement with other government departments, and to commission updated research to improve our collective understanding of the overall number of children affected by parental imprisonment.
As my noble friend mentioned, we are delivering this commitment through our Better Outcomes through Linked Data project, known as BOLD. It is an almost £20 million cross-government shared outcomes fund that will link data to enable better evidence and more joined-up cross-government services. Through BOLD, we will be publishing a report that will estimate the number of children with parents in prison. We expect findings from the project to be published by spring 2024. This should provide some of the critical data that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, called for. We are working to collect and improve data. We have previously made changes to the internal management—
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Why are the Government aiming to have an estimate? We need to know the actual number of these children.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention and appreciate that this debate has focused very much on the wish of many noble Lords to have very accurate data. I am very aware that BOLD will be an estimate. We expect it to be a reasonably accurate estimate, which will be very good information for forming policy. The extent to which more detailed data could be required in future we will keep under review. If it is helpful, I can offer a further meeting on that outside this Committee.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
The issue that I raised about young carers was in the legislation—not just in the Children and Families Act 2014 but the Care Act 2014 —because Edward Timpson, the Education Minister at the time, felt that it was so important that there was some mechanism to join up all the different departments. Why are the Government now saying that it is no longer necessary for this to be in legislation and absolutely clear?
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I am afraid I do not have a detailed answer and propose to write to her, if that is acceptable.
The basic custody screening tool ensures that we identify prisoners with primary care responsibilities on entry into prison. That means that we can access this information centrally. While we recognise that the self-declared nature of the information collected through the basic custody screening tool means that it is—as many noble Lords have mentioned—fraught with concerns of prisoners about how much information they are willing to give and so brings with it certain levels of inaccuracy. Our intention is that this data will be reflected in the BOLD publication. I hope that, in the circumstances, the right reverend Prelate will agree that this amendment is not necessary and will withdraw it.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
I thank the Minister and all other noble Lords who have spoken. I am interested in his answer, because in one way he is saying, “Yes, we need this and recognise this”, but in another is saying “But we do not actually need this amendment”. I look forward to hearing more on that. As has been pointed out, the basic custody screening tool is very basic, and many parents do not want to declare on entry to prison that they have children. I will be watching with interest the BOLD programme and what comes out of that.
It is really important that the progress the Government are making in this area is now put on public record. It is nearly five years since the Joint Committee published its report. Also, I stress that it has been important to touch on family relationships and prisoners having those family relationships, but I do not want to lose sight of the fact that this is about the child. Not all children want to have contact with the parent who is in prison. So we need to be looking through the eyes of the child here.
As has been said, when children are given support, through charities such as Children Heard and Seen, we know that the results are remarkable. If, as the noble Lord says, education and other people are going to have this data, we need the data in the first place. That is where we need to start.
Many remain very concerned about these children who are invisible and that we are not able to support them, but I will not delay the Committee any longer now. I will take the comments back to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer; we will discuss it together and look at how to proceed on Report. Given all that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Financial Penalty) Regulations 2024
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 February be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
My Lords, before I begin, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests as set out in the register of interests, including as a person with significant control and shareholder of Cashmaster (Holdings) Ltd, Badenoch Investments, Badenoch & Co, Badenoch Partners, Badenoch Advisors, and the Badenoch Trust, as well as a shareholder of several other companies.
These regulations were laid before the House on 19 February under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which I will refer to hereafter as the 2023 Act. This Act is a prime example of the Government’s continued investment in tackling economic crime. The 2023 Act’s reforms will enable us to bear down on the kleptocrats, criminals and terrorists who abuse our open economy, strengthening the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business thrives and dirty money is unwelcome.
A substantial secondary legislation programme is now needed to make these reforms a reality. The instrument before us today, as well as some 50 other statutory instruments, will facilitate the necessary changes, including new processes and procedures at Companies House. I am glad to say that the first set of regulations in the programme was already approved by both Houses. These regulations provided the registrar with enhanced powers to rectify instances where address details for companies and company officers have been fraudulently filed on the register of companies. Since 4 March, Companies House has started to make use of these new powers, meaning that it has started to cleanse its register and quickly remove people’s names and addresses where they were used without their consent.
I turn now to the details of this instrument, which applies across the whole of the United Kingdom. At the moment, obligations under the Companies Act 2006 are enforced primarily through the criminal justice system. There is currently only one civil penalty regime operating under the Companies Act 2006, namely the accounts late filing penalty regime. Under this regime, a company automatically incurs a penalty for not filing its accounts on time—this regime will not be affected by these regulations.
The 2023 Act sets out that the registrar may impose a financial penalty as an alternative to prosecution, where she is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person has engaged in conduct which amounts to a relevant offence under the Companies Act 2006. In turn, this instrument sets out how financial penalties will be imposed and enforced.
There are a few points here that I consider worth highlighting. First, the penalties will be based on the severity of the offence, and the maximum fine under the criminal law, up to a maximum total of £10,000. The registrar can also impose more than one penalty in certain cases. This provides flexibility to ensure appropriate and effective targeting of offenders.
Secondly, these regulations provide the registrar with the power to revoke or vary the financial penalties she has issued. For example, she could do this in cases where new information comes to light which aggravates or mitigates an offence.
Thirdly, the 2023 Act allows that, where a civil penalty is imposed on a person, it can contribute to that person being disqualified from acting as a UK director.
The registrar will now have the discretion to choose between issuing a financial penalty or passing a case on to law enforcement to consider criminal sanction. Therefore, this new financial penalty regime will be another tool in the registrar’s arsenal to promote compliance and maintain the integrity of the companies register. It ensures that we are striking the right balance between deterring non-compliance and not unduly burdening a small business.
The regulations before us today also make minor and technical changes to the Register of Overseas Entities (Penalties and Northern Ireland Dispositions) Regulations 2023 to ensure consistency between the two financial penalty regimes.
I will now provide an update on the ROE financial penalties regime. As of 19 March, 30,698 overseas entities had registered with Companies House. A further 857 overseas entities had notified Companies House that they had disposed of their interests in land before the register opened. Companies House has taken action against those that have failed to comply with the requirements. As of 19 March, over 400 penalty notices have been issued, with penalties totalling over £20 million. This includes cases where Companies House has received representations and appeals which are ongoing. In the next phase of the compliance process, Companies House will start imposing charges against land held by overseas entities where penalties remain unpaid.
I am of course happy to provide noble Lords with an update on progress when we debate the next set of regulations related to the register of overseas entities—these will be laid before Parliament in the coming months.
In conclusion, let me stress that these regulations are an important part of the effective implementation of the 2023 Act, and I hope noble Lords will support them. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think, the mantle having passed through several Ministers, that this is an economic crime debut for the noble Lord, Lord Offord, so I welcome him to our world. He is ideally suited to bearing down on economic crime.
We welcome this statutory instrument; it is part of the process of having debated the economic crime Bill. Many of us had high hopes for what the economic crime Bill would and could achieve, but at the centre of what we ended up with was the performance of Companies House and its strength to uphold what we need. This is another important step.
I have a couple of questions on the first part of the statutory instrument: first, the potential for multiple penalties. If we were to use the real-life Knighton example of literally hundreds of companies being registered to an unwitting property owner, in theory could Companies House levy a £10,000 penalty for each and every one of those companies registered? It would, clearly, have discretion over whether do that. My second point is on the right to appeal. If Companies House is levying those penalties on the wrongful registration of a company, what is the right of appeal? Is it judicial review—a long period of review and appeal—or is it a relatively swift action?
The Minister mentioned the opportunity to update us when the next tranche of statutory instruments comes through; this would be good. We had a very useful briefing from the Companies House representatives while we were debating the Bill, and it was clear that there was a tremendous amount of resolve there but also an awful lot to do. A full update on where Companies House is on capability and capacity—for example, on recruitment and on starting to implement these measures; I saw reports that it has taken actions that it was not able to before the passing of the Act—would be very helpful. But with those provisos, we look forward to the next 50 statutory instruments.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I draw the attention of your Lordships’ House to my registered interests as director and shareholder of McNicol Consulting Limited, which is registered at Companies House.
I have read the Commons debate on this SI, and I have gone through the Act and the Explanatory Memorandum—the memorandum was very helpful, so I thank the Bill team. We will support this SI on these Benches. I have a few questions for the Minister. Will Companies House require more resources if these cases are to be dealt with internally rather than passed on to the criminal justice system? If more are resources needed, will the Government be fulfilling those needs?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I reiterate that the Government are firmly committed to the fight against economic crime and, thus, have worked to implement the 2023 Act as quickly and effectively as possible. As we have said, alongside the registrar’s new powers, which take effect from 4 March, the new financial penalty regime instigated by the regulations before us today will help to promote compliance and maintain the integrity of the UK’s companies register. This will indeed constitute a further step in that journey to transform Companies House from a relatively passive institution to a more active player tackling economic crime.
I turn to some of the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord McNicol. In relation that made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on multiple penalties, where an address is misused—for example, in relation to more than one company—more than one financial penalty can be imposed, of up to £10,000. Appeals—there is an appeals process; of course, there must be an appeals process—will be heard in a county court or in the sheriff court in Scotland.
Regarding an update on implementation and resources, next month a report will be provided to Parliament. The House can be reassured that Companies House will have the resources it needs. For example, the incorporation fee has been increased from £12 to £50. Recruitment is well under way to ensure that Companies House has the right capabilities to deliver on these reforms—that point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. To ensure that the teams are in place, recruitment is under way, including new Companies House investigation teams. We are looking at additional staff in the hundreds. By the summer, Companies House will have onboarded over 240 new roles in its intelligence and enforcement teams. This is a new culture for what has previously been a very passive institution. There will be further guidance on this as we work with Companies House to build this capability out.
In relation to the point that the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, made about the discretion of the registrar to impose a financial penalty or to pass the case to law enforcement officers to pursue prosecution, the registrar will soon publish guidance on that enforcement approach. It will provide more detail and clarity on how it will make use of new powers. Obviously, proportionality will come into play. Where there is perhaps more petty behaviour, then fines will be appropriate; where there is more systematic criminal behaviour, clearly that will result in the exercise of criminal sanctions.
The amounts of penalties will be considered on a case by case basis but are capped by the maximum fines able to be imposed under criminal law. Financial penalties are obviously one enforcement measure available to the registrar, alongside criminal prosecution and disqualification. Companies House will work with other agencies where there is evidence of serious and organised crime, as there may be active investigations that the registrar would not want to disrupt.
In terms of where the penalty money goes, it will be paid into the Consolidated Fund held by the Treasury, as required by the 2023 Act.
Having dealt with most of the points, I think there is consensus around the new regime, the devil being in the detail of how it is implemented. This has been a good debate, illustrating the need for a robust financial penalty regime. I hope noble Lords will agree that the regulations provide for just that.
Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-Engagement
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel
That the draft Code laid before the House on 19 February be approved.
Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
My Lords, this code of practice, which I will refer to as “the code” for the remainder of this debate, will give legal force to accepted standards about how employers should act when seeking to change employees’ terms and conditions.
The purpose of the code is to ensure that dismissal and re-engagement is only ever used as an option of last resort. The code also seeks to ensure that, where an employer wants to make changes to an employee’s terms and conditions, the employer engages in meaningful consultation with a view to reaching agreement with employees or their representatives in good faith. Employment tribunals will have the power to apply an uplift of up to 25% to an employee’s compensation if an employer unreasonably fails to comply with the code where it applies.
Between January and April 2023, the Government consulted on a draft code, enabling trade unions, employers and other interested parties to contribute their views. In accordance with the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the Secretary of State also consulted ACAS on a draft statutory code before publishing it. Careful consideration was given to those views and, as a result, changes were made to the draft code. An updated draft code was laid in Parliament on 19 February.
The Government have been clear that threats of dismissal and re-engagement should not be used as a negotiation tactic by employers. When the Covid-19 pandemic led to cases of dismissal and re-engagement, the Government asked ACAS to conduct an evidence-gathering exercise to help us better understand the issue. That report was published in June 2021. The Government then went further and asked ACAS to produce new guidance to ensure that employers were clear on their responsibilities when making changes to employment contracts. That guidance was published in November 2021. ACAS has also published guidance for employees. The Government are now going even further to address the use of dismissal and re-engagement by bringing forward the code, aiming to ensure that this practice is only ever used as a last resort and that employees are properly consulted and fairly treated.
In all these discussions, we must balance protections for employees with business flexibility. There have been calls to ban the practice of dismissal and re-engagement and suggestions to legislate to restrict its use in a manner that amounts to an effective ban. This Government believe that we must preserve companies’ flexibility to manage their workforce in times of crisis. It is, therefore, right that we have mechanisms to enable us to save as many jobs as possible. The code is a proportionate response to dealing with controversial “fire and rehire” practices, balancing protections for employees with business flexibility. I know that the vast majority of employers want to do the right thing by their employees. For most employers, decisions to change terms and conditions are not taken lightly, nor is the choice to let members of their workforce go.
The UK is a great place to start and grow a business and has a strong labour market. Its success is underpinned by balancing labour market flexibility and worker protections. It is vital that we continue to strike the right balance, while clamping down on poor practice. If this code is approved by Parliament, it will be issued and brought into effect by the Secretary of State in accordance with the procedure set out in Section 204 of the 1992 Act. The Government intend for the code to be in effect by the summer.
I am aware that a regret amendment has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. I will respond to it later in the debate. I hope that your Lordships will support the code. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Woodley
At end to insert “but this House regrets that the draft Code contains no effective measures to restrain unjustified use of fire and rehire; and fails to include any measures (1) contained in the Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill [HL], or (2) recommended by the International Labour Organization Committee on Freedom of Association’s Definitive Report 404 published in October 2023 on the matter of dismissals of 786 staff by P&O Ferries Limited”.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I do not intend to repeat the arguments made earlier this month at the Second Reading of my Private Member’s Bill. However, I must again put on record my sincere belief that, irrespective of the comments the Minister has just made, the Government’s proposed code of practice is utterly toothless. It will do nothing to end the fire and rehire abuses taking place in this country.
Quite simply, I regret that the code does not impose any new legal duties on exploitative employers. I regret that it does not ensure that fire and rehire is used only as a last resort to prevent a business going bust—that is not the case out there in the field. I also regret that it does not make it any easier for workers or their unions to seek justice at an employment tribunal. My Bill would do all this.
The code imposes a paltry 25% uplift in any compensation which abused workers can claim, and that is only if they can win an unfair dismissal claim. That was hard to do at the best of times, even before the increase in fees.
It is clear that this code of practice is a fig leaf to cover the Government’s inaction and lack of any real desire to address the shameful practice of fire and rehire. It simply is not good enough. The working people of our country deserve much better.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, for being kind enough to write to me following our Second Reading debate. If I may, I will address some of the points he made in his letter to me.
As the Minister correctly pointed out, my Bill provides that, when an employee has been dismissed because they have refused to agree to a variation in contractual terms, the employer would not be able to rely on some other substantial reason as the reason for dismissal. Some other substantial reason, or SOSR as it is known by employment rights experts, is the gaping loophole I referred to at Second Reading, which allows bad bosses to ride roughshod over workers’ rights. Closing this loophole is a key purpose of my Bill, but I do not agree with the Minister in his logic when he writes:
“Almost all the cases of dismissal and re-engagement rely on this ground”—
that is, SOSR—
“as a potentially fair reason, therefore this would in effect ban the use of dismissal and re-engagement”.
If it is true that almost all fire and rehire cases rely on SOSR to avoid the judgment of unfair dismissal, this is proof that employment rights have been badly abused in the way that I and other noble Lords have long since warned against.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I am confident that the Minister will have read the Second Reading debate of my noble friend Lord Woodley’s Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill. I too do not intend to repeat the speech I made then, but I make no apology for repeating the most important points, because they were designed to expose whether the code will be the deterrent that the Government think it will be. I am personally extremely sceptical about that, for two very clear reasons, which I will repeat by way of explanation.
First, while this debate is ostensibly concerned with this somewhat anaemic code of practice, it engages much larger questions of access to justice, the balance of power between employers and workers, and, fundamentally, whether the code does what it purports to do and will shield workers from manifest injustice. Given that the introduction of this code was announced in response to P&O Ferries instituting mass redundancies in March 2022, I think it is legitimate to look back at what the Government said then. The then BEIS Minister, Paul Scully, explained the Government’s new commitment to introduce a statutory code of conduct. He did so in highly emotive and, one might say, colourful language. He described the practice of firing and rehiring as “deceitful” and “disgraceful”, labelled the actions of P&O “appalling” and “unscrupulous”, and vowed that the Government would “stand up for workers” against the flagrant disregard shown by companies that use sudden mass dismissal as a negotiating tactic.
Having raised these expectations, it is no wonder that there is manifest disappointment with the glacial emergence, over two years, of a code of practice that will impinge upon employers only at the point a case reaches tribunal. Testing whether or not that will be a deterrent is what I want to draw the Minister’s attention to. I did this in my contribution to the Second Reading debate, drawing attention to the issues of delay and the coming imposition of fees for tribunals. The Minister who responded to that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston, was unable to pick up on those points in his winding up of the debate and offered to write—and, true to his word, he did write. I thank him for attempting to ease my anxieties but I confess that his letter was not wholly successful. Indeed, it was the opposite: it raised the temperature of my anxieties.
The letter began by admitting that there remains a backlog of 32,000 cases in the tribunal system, asserting that reducing outstanding caseload is the key to bringing down wait times, before revealing that:
“Employment Tribunal timeliness data has not been published for some time due to the Employment Tribunal changing their case management system in 2021”.
That was three years ago. We have an assertion that bringing down wait times is essential, followed by a confession that, owing to a change in the case management system three years ago, we are today unable to gauge whether or not wait times are falling.
The viability of this code of practice is entirely contingent on a tribunal system that is effective and can prove timely redress. The fact that we currently, by the Government’s own admission, have no access to the data that would tell us whether it delivers timely redress is absurd, if the Government are to rely upon that as being the ultimate deterrent against this behaviour by the people they described with those very colourful adjectives.
The letter also engaged the question of the Government’s consultation on reintroducing fees at this time, of all times, for those who wish to bring a case before an employment tribunal. I thank the Minister for outlining, in his letter, the details of the help with fees remission scheme, but I remind your Lordships’ House that I raised the case of R (UNISON) v the Lord Chancellor in my speech on Second Reading. It is not mentioned at all in the letter, and I can understand why, because the judgment in this case was unambiguous. It concluded that levying fees was unlawful. It cited the Leggatt report, which specifically identified the absence of fees as one of the three key elements that made tribunals successful, and concluded that fees, however modest, have the effect of preventing access to justice. That was the principal point that I raised in that aspect of my speech, and it was just ignored in the letter I got back from the Government.
I understand the fees coming under consideration are appreciably lower than they were previously, but they will certainly not encourage victims of fire and rehire to have recourse to the tribunal system and may well act as a further discouragement. This is yet another case of the Government telling us that they understand the existence of an injustice, assuring us that their heart is in the right place and they are seeking to right a wrong, but then again balking at doing the needful. We are all familiar with the cases of Tesco, Jacobs Douwe Egberts and Carnival and the other cases that seem to be appearing by the day, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, referred to, and the way in which employers and others weaponise the power advantage they have and exploit their workers. Rather than institute a non-legally binding code of practice that tells employers what they already know, I believe a more fitting course of action would be to enshrine good practice into law and offer clear redress to workers when they are victims of injustice.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I share the regrets expressed by my noble friends. I intend to address the second element in the regret amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Woodley, and that relates to the International Labour Organization, which your Lordships will recall is a tripartite body, consisting of Governments, employers and workers. The United Kingdom was a founding member in 1919; it was the first signatory of the fundamental convention on freedom of association—convention 87—in 1949; it is a member of the governing body; and it is represented on the Committee on Freedom of Association.
The relevance of that is that, on 8 November last year, the governing body approved the 404th report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, which reported on the P&O Ferries saga of St Patrick’s Day 2022. Your Lordships will recall that 786 seafarers were dismissed on that date and only 100 were subsequently reinstated. The other jobs were given to agency staff. The Committee on Freedom of Association, as approved by the governing body, made three substantive recommendations, none of which, so far as I can see, is reflected in the code of practice.
The first recommendation related to collective bargaining. The committee said that it
“urges the Government, with the social partners, to ensure mutual respect for the commitment undertaken in collective agreements, which is an important element of the right to bargain collectively and should be upheld in order to establish labour relations on stable and firm ground”.
In many of the instances of fire and rehire mentioned by my noble friend Lord Woodley, there have been established collective agreements and established collective bargaining. That was the case with P&O Ferries, where collective agreements stretching back nearly 100 years were flouted.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I regret that I did not have the pleasure of being present when the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, received its Second Reading a month or so ago. I clearly understand that the nature of that debate reflects very clearly on what we are debating today.
The Minister was not in your Lordships’ House when we debated the P&O issue. Had he been, he would have experienced outrage and hand-wringing, not just from these Benches but from the Benches behind him and indeed from the Dispatch Box itself. That outrage was felt across the whole of your Lordships’ House. As we have heard, this code was supposed to help embrace that issue and try to make sure that such outrages are not repeated. As we have heard in three well-made speeches from the Opposition Benches, we do not believe that this code comes close to doing that.
The code takes a very optimistic view of human nature: it infers that there are two willing parties with reasonable actions and beliefs. That is not the case that a code of conduct needs to deal with. When reasonable people negotiate with reasonable people, we do not need this code. This code is, essentially, how normal, reasonable people would act, and, as the Minister said, most companies are reasonable companies, and most employees operate with reason. That is why this code, in a sense, merely codifies what normal, civilised behaviour should be.
That is not what a code is for. A code is to deal with the people trying to operate outside normal, reasonable behaviour. On several occasions, the Minister used the word “ensure”. This does not ensure anything, and noble Lords do not have to take my word for it. Paragraph 12 says:
“A failure to follow the code does not, in itself, make a person or organisation liable to proceedings”.
In other words, any teeth it might have had in the first place have been removed by paragraph 12. I share the belief it really had no teeth.
Many other provisions in the code—for example, paragraphs 21 and 22—use the term “reasonable”. How would we test “reasonable” in this circumstance? In Section C, around information, I would be interested to know: what is reasonable? We then move to paragraph 27, which is about commercial sensitivity and confidentiality. In every case of fire and rehire, there will be commercial sensitivity. Therefore, it makes sure that no information ever gets put forward. I am old enough to remember when the United Kingdom was part of the European Union, and we were part of the European Works Council system. That excuse is not allowable within the European Works Council. There is a system within that whereby the works councils are brought into the confidence of the management about their intentions in such circumstances. This does not allow such reasonable behaviour to occur.
Given the genuine and heartfelt comments made opposite during the P&O issue, I am disappointed that this is the result. It is toothless, as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, said on several occasions; it does not ensure that something such as P&O could never happen again. As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, put it, the 25% uplift is not worth a hill of beans when you look at the financial gain it has made by the actions it has taken.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the code of practice and express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have spoken.
Last week saw the two-year anniversary of the P&O Ferries dismissals, the highest-profile abuse of fire and rehire in recent years—but, sadly, not the only one. The Minister might say that the P&O case is not fire and rehire, but many will not agree with that sentiment. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Today the replaced workers are paid less than half the national wage, as my noble friend Lord Woodley referred to, in conditions that one described as like being in jail. Workers’ pay and conditions horrendously diminished. Meanwhile, the company and its parent, DP World, was awarded £230 million in UK government contracts between March 2022 and July 2023.
This injustice has driven me to extraordinary lengths: it has made me agree with the Member for Welwyn Hatfield, the right honourable Grant Shapps. When he was Secretary of State for Transport, he described the company as
“pirates of the high sea”.
I am even minded to agree with the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, who said that fire and rehire was
“unacceptable as a negotiating tactic”.
The code does nothing to prevent any employer treating workers in a shabby way in the months and years to come.
Noble Lords who have run businesses, as I have, know what it is like to face difficult financial decisions. We understand that, in extreme cases, sometimes the only way to continue operating is to consult with employees on renegotiating contracts. If the company goes bust, nobody wins; everybody loses their job. Only in that situation can fire and rehire possibly be justified. Yet in court, employers do not have to prove that the fire and rehire policy would mean the difference between the life and death of the business. That widely criticised omission acts as a cloak of unaccountability, permitting employers to present unscrupulous decisions as unavoidable. All the well-intentioned recommendations in the code—that the employer “take into account” employee objections; that they engage in “all reasonable steps”; and that they do not raise the spectre of job losses too early in the process—are, in effect, neutered by this loophole.
Furthermore, several noble Lords have referred to the potential sanctions—a 25% uplift in fines at the end of a long David and Goliath legal battle—that could be factored in as a cost of doing business, as the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Hendy, stated. We could see companies rewarding executives who are prepared to brush off a few bad PR headlines while making workers’ lives worse. That is appalling in principle and in practice.
The P&O Ferries example should serve as a warning; even the then Prime Minister Johnson thought so. The code does not prevent a race to the bottom; it could lead to a hollowing out of secure jobs. Roads paved with good intentions—whether labelled promises, pledges or non-binding codes of practice—lead only in one direction. It is the workers, threatened with either losing their jobs or accepting worse conditions, who end up feeling the heat. The code currently makes no reference to a necessary qualifying period of employment before it becomes applicable to an employee. Can the Minister tell the House whether the code is applicable from day one for all employees?
In light of the range of concerns raised from only 50 responses to the consultation, I hope that the Minister and the Government will address the shortcomings of the proposal. To that end, my noble friend Lord Woodley’s amendment sets out clearly why the Government should reconsider.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I hope to clarify some key points that were mentioned. I will first turn to the regret amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. I know that the noble Lord is a champion of protecting and enhancing worker’ rights, but the Government do not believe that his suggested amendment to the code would be appropriate.
The amendment suggests adding measures from his Private Member’s Bill on dismissal and re-engagement and from a report from the International Labour Organization. The measures contained in the noble Lord’s Bill would, in effect, ban dismissal and re-engagement. That is because the Bill would remove the ground of “some other substantial reason” for an employer to justify a dismissal in a dismissal and re-engagement scenario. Almost all cases of dismissal and re-engagement rely on this ground as potentially a fair reason. Therefore, this would, in effect, ban the use of dismissal and re-engagement.
As I said earlier, it would not be appropriate to impose an outright ban on dismissal and re-engagement. There are some situations in which dismissal and re-engagement have a valid role. Companies that are, for example, going through difficult economic times or a change in their business model may need the flexibility to use this option to save as many jobs as possible.
In regard to the International Labour Organization’s Committee on Freedom of Association’s definitive report 404, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, I would like to clarify that the UK is committed to all ILO conventions that we have ratified, including Convention 87 on the freedom of association and protection of the right to organise, and Convention 98 on the right to organise and collective bargaining. We are carefully considering the Committee on Freedom of Association’s recommendations and will provide information to the ILO in due course.
Turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, about P&O Ferries, echoed by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Leong, as we said at the time, the treatment of staff by P&O Ferries was disgraceful and was called out as such from this Dispatch Box. It fell short of the high standards we expect in this country, and which most businesses uphold. The company deliberately chose to ignore statutory consultation requirements. P&O Ferries broke the law by dismissing its workers with no warning, having made prior arrangements to bring in agency staff to replace them. What P&O Ferries did was “fire”, and not “fire and rehire”. The company dismissed staff with no notice or consultation. I understand that it was not seeking to renegotiate its employees’ terms and conditions, so the code would not have applied.
The noble Lord said that some of those employees were fired and rehired. I thank him for bringing that to my attention. I am not familiar with the detail of their personal circumstances, but speaking generally, if an employer seeks to renegotiate terms and expects that it may dismiss an employee and rehire them or another employee to effect the changes, then it would be bound by the code. The Government have taken action in response to what P&O Ferries did. This includes legislating through the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 and the ongoing Insolvency Service civil investigation.
A number of noble Lords raised the deterrent effect of the code and, as I said, the code of practice is a proportionate response, balancing protections for employees with business flexibility. An employment tribunal could increase an employee’s compensation by up to 25% where an employer unreasonably fails to comply with the code. The Government will bring forward legislation so that the 25% compensation uplift also applies to the protective award, where employers have not complied with the collective consultation obligations and have unreasonably failed to comply with the code. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, asked for an update on this legislative change that will increase the deterrent effect of the code. Subject to parliamentary time, the Government intend to bring this forward this summer.
The noble Lord, Lord Leong, asked when the code would apply to an employee. The code will apply from the first day of an employee’s employment, though it will be subject to qualifying periods in individual claims.
Having heard the debate, I think there is perhaps just a philosophical difference on how we proceed in these matters. This Government believe that our workforce and labour laws are in an advanced and sophisticated state. We have record employment in this country: 33 million out of a population of 66 million working. We have just increased the national minimum wage at twice the rate of inflation over the last 25 years, and only 5% of our workforce is on the national minimum wage. Now that they have reached that level, they can be considered to have been taken out of low pay if that is defined as two-thirds of median hourly wages. They are now at that level, and therefore, within our labour force, our laws are working flexibly.
In my role as Minister for Exports, I travel the length and breadth of the country, and I meet companies of all shapes and sizes. The one observation I will make to this House is that post Covid, there has been a reassessment of the value of labour in this country. The labour force is now one of the most valuable parts of any company’s make-up and capability. There are labour shortages, and good labour is scarce. I would argue, perhaps, that there has never been a better time to be an employee, because of the ability to receive higher wages for good skills that are at a premium, and companies want to have those employees within their businesses. In this situation, and thinking as an employer, I can imagine that it would be only in exceptional circumstances, where we were trying to keep our employees together and keep our company on the road, that we would have such a discussion. It would be absolutely as a last resort.
To take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about there being no teeth and waiting times in the tribunal system, I acknowledge that there are perhaps backlogs in that system, but this is a process that no employer wishes to get caught up in, considering the amount of time and cost it would take when we want to have our employees happy and working and producing effectively for the benefit of all the stakeholders within the company. Just as a matter of philosophy, we would say that this is an exceptional situation. The TUC says that it estimates that only 3% of employers have ever gone down the road of fire and hire. As we said in the code quite clearly, it is not toIn conclusion, I would argue that the Government are taking robust and appropriate action in this area. A statutory code of practice is a proportionate response to dealing with controversial fire-and-rehire practices. The code will address this practice, aiming to ensure it is only ever used as a last resort, and that employees are properly consulted and treated fairly. It clarifies and gives legal force to accepted standards about how employers should behave when seeking to change employees’ terms and conditions. Subject to parliamentary approval, the code will be in force later this summer. The House should be left in no doubt that the Government will always continue to stand behind workers and stamp out unscrupulous practices when they occur.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
Does the Minister have a response to my question about the coincidence of the Government consulting on imposing fees on those who seek to apply to an employment tribunal in the face of the case of UNISON v Lord Chancellor, where fees were held to be unlawful because they impeded access to justice? This issue was not addressed in the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston, sent to me. It was in my speech at Second Reading. Do the Government have a position on that? Is it just a coincidence that this is happening at the same time as employment tribunals are being given the ability to impose an extra 25% of financial penalties on employers who fire and rehire as part of the code of practice?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, one can read Hansard as well as one can, but not being in the Chamber to hear his eloquent argument of the case makes me slightly deficient in this response. I am disappointed that my noble friend was unable to write more comprehensively on the matter. Perhaps I can follow up with a second letter in that regard.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a lively, interesting and, indeed, productive debate. I just want to say one thing to the Minister. In a previous life, I was the leader of Britain’s largest trade union, and I spent more time fighting for companies and for company survivals, and indeed to make sure that they had the right investment to protect jobs and increase jobs in our country, than I ever did fighting against them. That is why I take a little offence that the Minister suggested that my amendment indicates that fire and rehire is banned in all cases. That is the worst case of selective deafness that I have heard from two Ministers, to be quite honest. I point out to the Minister that it does not say that. It makes it absolutely clear that if we are in a situation where the very foundation of the company depends on these actions being taken, not only should they be carried out but we would support that.
However, with regard to where we are, I do not see anything reasonable in the code of conduct, as indeed we have all said here. The Minister also mentioned that—ironically—a TUC investigation into these things found that only 3% of employers were using fire and rehire as a tactic. I said this in the previous debate: 3% across all employers in this country means 38,800 employers. This is not chicken feed; it is big business. It is a pandemic that is right across our country and it will only get worse if we do not legislate to stop it. Again, it has been very interesting that, not only during my previous debate but today on this amendment, not a single speaker has spoken in favour of the code of conduct, never mind anything else, and that includes on the Tory side of this House.
I therefore regret that the Minister’s response is not really doing anything to remove those concerns that we have all registered here about this code of practice. It is toothless, and it does not give the protection and decent compensation that workers who are being exploited deserve. However, as I am sure your Lordships now realise, I do not intend to divide the House on this matter, so I beg leave to withdraw.
Combined Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny Committees, Access to Information and Audit Committees) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Swinburne
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 February be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Swinburne) (Con)
The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 19 February, will, if approved by Parliament, complete the legislative framework for overview and scrutiny committees, and audit committees, of combined county authorities. They make provision about the membership and proceedings of these committees and in relation to allowances for committee members. The regulations also provide for allowances for members of a combined authority’s overview and scrutiny and audit committees.
The wider context of these regulations is that these committees are essential components of the architecture of accountability in combined authorities and combined county authorities. As more powers and resources are devolved to these important bodies and their mayors, the responsibility to ensure sound governance and effective decision-making in the interests of local people becomes ever more important.
Through these regulations we are ensuring that the new combined county authorities have strong and effective overview and scrutiny committees, and we are pursuing a number of further initiatives to develop this architecture of accountability. In particular, we have published the English Devolution Accountability Framework and a scrutiny protocol, and we intend shortly to issue revised statutory guidance on overview and scrutiny.
It may be helpful to say a little more about these initiatives. The English Devolution Accountability Framework sets out how institutions with devolved powers, such as combined county authorities,
“will be scrutinised and held to account … by the residents and voters of their area”,
by local leaders and businesses and, as appropriate, by central government. As part of this framework, the scrutiny protocol in particular sets out how a combined county authority’s or a combined authority’s overview and scrutiny and audit committees hold the institution—and, where there is one, the mayor or directly elected leader—to account.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting this and I see some logic in some of the provisions within the regulations. However, paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum raised my eyebrows. It asks:
“What is the approach to monitoring and reviewing this legislation?”
It then states that:
“The Government has no plans actively to monitor this legislation; the majority of provisions are already in operation without problems for combined authorities”.
Tell that to people who have sat on the Tees Valley Combined Authority’s overview and scrutiny committee. They would tell you that things were not working properly. It got to such a point that the dysfunctionality of that combined authority and the poor or lack of oversight of what was happening led to the Tees Valley Review, which was produced by an independent panel and made some quite interesting observations on what was happening there. The report said that:
“The former monitoring officer advised TVCA oversight and Scrutiny Committee they had no remit to scrutinise”
South Tees Development Corporation decisions. That was quite interesting because Tees Valley Combined Authority had given over £200 million-worth of loans to the South Tees Development Corporation and therefore there was a direct link to why overview and scrutiny needed to take place.
In the report, previous members of the Tees Valley Combined Authority’s overview and scrutiny committee
“expressed frustration at the lack of information provided which they felt undermined their ability to scrutinise the activity of STDC and TWL”—
Teesworks Limited—which is now a privately owned company, 90%-owned by the private sector. Two businessmen with a 90% stake are making super profits on the back of £500 million-worth of public sector investment and again, the overview and scrutiny committee has not been able to scrutinise most of that money.
Recommendations 6 and 7 of the Tees Valley Review report relate directly to overview and scrutiny and show why it was not working, what the deficiencies are and how things need to be improved. The Minister pointed out that new guidance is coming forward, but if the Government are not going to monitor actively the legislation, how will they know whether another Tees Valley Combined Authority issue could happen or is happening? What mechanisms do the Government have in place to ensure that this kind of dysfunctionality can never happen at a combined authority again? It is an important question that the Minister needs to answer, especially since this new legislation will not be monitored. If arrangements are not in place centrally to determine whether there is this kind of dysfunctionality, what arrangements will be put in place to ensure that this could not happen again in any of the existing combined authorities or the new combined county authorities?
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will wait for the Minister to reply to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Scriven. In her introduction, she talked about the review that is taking place but not the timescale. It would help the House to know when the Government expect the response, which we all expect, to be produced.
I understand that this instrument maintains parity between combined authorities and combined county authorities and that it is necessary. However, I was concerned to read in paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Notes that
“several of the combined authorities with whom the draft legislation was discussed asked if provision could be included enabling committees to meet virtually or to reduce the quoracy requirement for the transaction of committee business from its current level of two thirds of committee members”.
I am very pleased that the Government concluded
“that face-to-face attendance of meetings”
of overview and scrutiny, and of audit, is important. It is and, having worked on the levelling-up Bill and moved amendments in relation to overview and scrutiny, and audit, I think that the Government’s position is correct.
It is very easy for those who are running overview and scrutiny, and audit, to want to reduce the workload and so suggest “Can we meet virtually?”—that means that, rather than all the conversations that take place before or after a meeting, people are only discussing these matters online—and, “Can committees have a lower turnout/attendance rate?” When we moved these matters in previous legislation, the figure of two-thirds mattered because overview and scrutiny, and audit, must be taken very seriously. I hope that the Government understand this.
We will see when we get the report that the Government are due to present to your Lordships’ House, but, as my noble friend Lord Scriven said, my eyes lit upon the words at paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Notes saying that:
“The Government has no plans actively to monitor this legislation”.
I think that this means relating only to whether people take up the option of allowances—it may mean that; however, it may mean something else. I hope that the Government do not mean the wider definition of “legislation”, because all the evidence suggests that the Government need to keep a very close eye on overview and scrutiny and audit, and how it is being carried out.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, who have asked some very important questions.
The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 provides for the establishment of combined county authorities, which typically cover more rural areas; the existing combined authorities typically cover cities. The purpose of these regulation is to ensure that the same membership and proceedings provisions apply to the overview and scrutiny committees and audit committees of combined county authorities as apply to the same committees in combined authorities.
The regulations aim to create uniformity across both types of local authority in terms of committees that scrutinise the spending of public money and enable their members to be paid. We on these Benches would like to raise some specific issues. The measures mirror powers given to local authorities and the current combined authorities. We must be careful that we do not create legislation that allows combined authorities to create overview and scrutiny functions and audit functions if they do not have the specialist teams that are needed to support them properly.
This is a point my honourable friend Jim McMahon MP raised in the other place; he had no satisfactory response. We all know that when local government excels in scrutiny, it is because it has a well-resourced team that enables it to do proper, deep-dive reviews and investigations, to call in expert witnesses and to really go through things. I do not see that provision of finance in these regulations, so I would welcome a response on that.
Will overview and scrutiny committees have the power to conduct a “best value” review? Will remuneration for members of the committees reflect the type of members the committees want to attract? For instance, getting a specialised accountancy perspective may cost more than getting a residential view; will remuneration for each be the same or different? Have overview and scrutiny committees been reviewed yet? How effective have they been so far at ensuring that there are checks and balances in place on local authority spending? Who will pay for the provisions of these regulations? Will the cost come out of already-stretched local authority budgets?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank Members for their contributions. There were some questions that I may need to come back to in more detail. With regard to the questions that in particular the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked about the situation in Teesdale—
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
Teesside—apologies; a lot of briefings have gone on in the three weeks since I joined this department.
As noble Lords will know, the mayor has accepted all the recommendations that the independent panel made in its review. They are in many cases substantial and therefore will take time to implement. But they are sensible recommendations and are in line with the frameworks that we have put in place and are putting in place with regard to the scrutiny protocol. From that point of view, the mayor in that region now needs time to put this into place, and the overview and scrutiny committee needs to step up to make the changes required.
Lord Scriven (LD)
There are two points to that. My question is not really about what is happening in Teesside; it is about what mechanism the Government now have in place to ensure that the things that led to the Teesside review do not happen again. In the explanatory framework, the Government state that they are not going to “actively” monitor the legislation. Secondly, the protocol is welcome but it is non-statutory, so bodies do not have to apply it to their own overview and scrutiny committee. That is the case, is it not?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
We expect that all combined authorities and combined county authorities, where there is a significant amount of power being devolved, will adopt the best practice that we can possibly put before them. The English Devolution Accountability Framework pulls together all the existing policies and best practice, and indeed we will go further with the scrutiny protocol, plain English guidance and new published outcomes and metrics for areas to be measured by. There will be a new framework, and they will be held to account.
The intention is that this accountability framework will empower local residents and provide them with confidence that devolution is leading to improvements in their area overall. Ultimately, the mayors are accountable to the public, but we believe that the mechanisms need to be there for them to be accountable on a more frequent basis. The Government retain the ability to intervene in exceptional circumstances, but scrutiny and accountability should be led locally. Those are the principles we are applying to this—not just for one authority but for all these authorities, as we devolve the power.
I do not have an exact timetable for the scrutiny protocol; I will write to noble Lords as to when that will become operational. A lot of the work has already been done. Certainly, the scrutiny protocol will apply to all the activities and arrangements of the overview and scrutiny committees in all English institutions with devolved power, including combined authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral, and combined county authorities—again, mayoral and non-mayoral—and with regard to all devolved powers in county councils and unitary authorities that have agreed to devolution deals. It is very comprehensive; they will all be covered by it.
With regard to the payments of allowances and the differences that may be deemed necessary in order to get good-quality people, any payment may be made only in accordance with a recommendation from an independent remuneration panel at that authority. Therefore, we would expect that panel to take the lead on this. The other side of the coin, of course, is that if an existing combined authority does not wish to make any payments, it is not required to do so, but if in the future it should change its mind, it will not need to seek further fresh legislation in order to do so.
In conclusion, these regulations are essential to ensure a robust local accountability framework for the exercise of devolved power by combined county authorities and their mayors.
Strategy and Policy Statement for Energy Policy in Great Britain
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Strategy and Policy Statement laid before the House on 21 February be approved.
Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the past few years have brought unprecedented challenges and uncertainty to Great Britain’s energy system. But we have remained resilient and last year laid the foundations for an energy system fit for the future with the landmark Energy Act 2023, which I know many noble Lords were involved in. It was the largest piece of energy legislation in the UK in a generation, and a world first in legally mandating net zero.
The changes in that Act, including the powers to establish the National Energy System Operator, NESO, and new duties for Ofgem, mean that now is the right time to reaffirm the Government’s strategic priorities and policy outcomes in this strategy and policy statement. The Draft Strategy and Policy Statement for Energy Policy in Great Britain is developed according to Part 5 of the Energy Act 2013. It sets out in clear terms the Government’s strategic priorities and other main considerations of their energy policy, the policy outcomes to be achieved, and the roles and responsibilities of persons involved in implementing that policy.
The Secretary of State, Ofgem—the independent regulator for gas and electricity markets in Great Britain —and the NESO, a new independent public corporation responsible for planning Britain’s electricity and gas networks and operating the energy system, will be required to have regard to the strategic priorities set out in this SPS. The Secretary of State and Ofgem must also have regard to the policy outcomes contained within the SPS, and they must both carry out their respective regulatory functions in a manner that they consider best calculated to further the delivery of the policy outcomes.
The NESO is expected to be established this year. The SPS serves an additional purpose of setting out and clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the NESO, alongside Ofgem and the Government. The SPS is intended to provide guidance to the energy sector on the actions and decisions needed to deliver the Government’s policy goals, and places emphasis on where the Government expect a shift in the energy industry’s strategic direction.
As the independent energy regulator for Great Britain, Ofgem cannot be directed by the Government on how it should make decisions. Similarly, the NESO is being set up to be operationally independent and free from day-to-day government control. However, the SPS will provide guiding principles for Ofgem and the NESO, when it is established.
The strategic priorities and policy outcomes within the SPS do not include the creation of any new policies or duties. The SPS reaffirms the Government’s existing priorities and commitments, such as affordability, protecting consumers, security of supply, net zero, investment ahead of need, and encouraging Ofgem to make full use of its enforcement powers to support these ambitions. This statement will therefore support strategic alignment between government, Ofgem, NESO and the industry, through making clear what government wants to achieve in the energy sector.
As mentioned, the legal framework of the Energy Act 2013 means that Ofgem, NESO and the Secretary of State all have a duty to have regard to the strategic priorities within the SPS. Ofgem and NESO must also give notice to the Secretary of State if, at any time, they conclude that a policy outcome contained in the SPS is not realistically achievable. Ofgem must also publish a strategy showing how it will further the delivery of the policy outcomes, and its annual report must assess its contribution to delivery of the policy outcomes. The SPS therefore acts as a tool to promote alignment between government, Ofgem and NESO, as all parties will have to have legal regard to the statement in some sense.
As per the Energy Act 2013, the SPS has completed two consultations. The first consultation was undertaken with Ofgem and the Welsh and Scottish Governments. Government worked with all parties to make sure that their views were correctly captured before moving on to a second, public consultation held last summer. In the public consultation, government received views from Ofgem, the Scottish Government, ESO and many stakeholders across industry, including businesses, investors, trade bodies, suppliers, generators and infrastructure operators.
Feedback throughout both consultations was generally positive, and stakeholders were keen to see an SPS implemented to give guidance to the sector and clarity on the roles of Ofgem, NESO and government in delivering the Government’s priorities for the energy sector. Since the consultations have concluded, officials have worked through that feedback and, where appropriate, have used this to inform the current iteration of the SPS which is now laid before your Lordships. The Government are confident that this SPS reflects the right strategic priorities and policy outcomes for energy policy for the whole of Great Britain.
I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for the time it has taken to review the SPS, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Hollick and Lord Lennie, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others, for their interest in the development of the SPS.
In conclusion, the SPS reaffirms the Government’s commitments and priorities for the energy sector and, in doing so, acts as a tool to support alignment between government, Ofgem, NESO and industry. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward the draft strategy and policy statement, which I support.
As president of National Energy Action, and focusing on the SPS’s aims of affordability and protecting consumers to which my noble friend referred, I want to put a question to him. Although I accept, as the department explains in paragraph 46—this was also referred to by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—that although Ofgem is independent of government, the regulator is required to
“have regard to the strategic priorities set out in this statement when carrying out its regulatory functions”,
does my noble friend share my concern, particularly for those living in fuel poverty, that although a consumer has control over the unit cost of electricity they are purchasing, they have less control over the standing charge? My understanding of the changes being brought in on 1 April, is that, although we are reducing the unit cost to the consumer, the standing charge is going up incrementally. I imagine, in a very short order—possibly two to three years’ time—that instead of standing charges going up to 50p or 70p, they will cost up to £1 per day. I believe that for many living in fuel poverty that is unaffordable.
So, while I accept that Ofgem should operate independently of the Government, I recall that in 2014, as part of the price review that the water companies’ regulator Ofwat carried out, the Government issued a request to Ofwat to have regard to the affordability of customers’ bills. My question to my noble friend is: is that something the Government might be minded to do under this SPS, in order to have regard to affordability and protecting consumers?
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the speech from my noble friend and congratulate him on his dedication to this challenging industry. When one looks at the background to the document we have today, it is just over 10 years ago that the concept of a strategy and policy statement was introduced by the Act in 2013—and here we are now. We now have it, and the vehicle is to be this organisation, the NESO—I do not know exactly how to pronounce it.
It would be helpful for colleagues in the House if we had some indication of what the costs will be when NESO is actually established, as the sphere of influence it has to cover is massive—its responsibilities go right across electricity, gas and hydrogen—and it is no bad thing in life to know, before you start something, what the cost is likely to be. That at least provides you with criteria.
It is fortunate, or unfortunate, depending on one’s viewpoint—I had the privilege of serving on the Public Accounts Committee in the other place for some 12 years, as well as on the Select Committee on energy—that the National Audit Office published a report titled Decarbonising Home Heating on 18 March, precisely a week ago. Thankfully, I managed to pick it up. The summary of its investigations are, in effect, the first solid piece of evidence we have had in any depth on the particular area of home heating. We are talking about 28 million homes, which is a huge market, and the emissions that come from burning natural gas to heat homes. Reducing emissions from heating homes is a key component of the Government’s overall target of achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and they have printed that here.
The report says, in paragraph 3 of its summary, that
“growing the supply chain for heat pumps to a minimum market capacity of 600,000 heat pump installations per year by 2028”
is the Government’s target. In the last 12 months, they have achieved 55,000, which seems like slow progress, quite frankly. Furthermore, it says that the Government are
“developing the evidence base to inform strategic decisions in 2026 on the future role of hydrogen in home heating”.
It seems to me that we should have done a fair bit of that work already, but apparently we have not.
Paragraph 4 says:
“The government also committed £6.6 billion from 2021-22 to 2024-25 for schemes to improve energy efficiency … This includes the Boiler Upgrade Scheme”,
which, equally, does not appear to be doing too well.
The report goes through a series of other points, with which I will not tire colleagues here, but it is well worth reading. I will, however, highlight points on some of the key findings. First, the NAO has established that some aspects of the
“plans to test the feasibility of hydrogen for home heating are behind schedule or have been cancelled, meaning it will have less evidence to make decisions in 2026 on the role of hydrogen”.
We know that British Gas has a trial going, and there is a small government trial, but I find that rather worrying. Secondly in relation to hydrogen,
“Ongoing uncertainty over the role of hydrogen could slow the progress of decarbonising home heating”.
The report goes on to say that the Government are thinking of using local government to play a role in establishing what to do about decarbonising home heating. As someone who had the privilege of being a leader of a local authority for some years, I do not think this is something, with a subject that is so important, that will be hugely welcomed by local government, which has more than enough on its plate.
As someone who comes from the world of advertising and marketing, I found it worrying to read, in paragraph 14 of the report, that the department has developed a campaign to promote heat pumps, but it does not seem to be getting through:
“public awareness is low: around 30% of respondents to a government survey in summer 2023 had never heard, or hardly knew anything, about the need to change the way homes are heated”.
This is all very worrying; we do not seem to be making the progress that we ought to be making.
There are a series of eight recommendations in the report; I will not go through them all, but I will pick out a couple. On page 12 of the summary—and remember this is the NAO, which is not prone to stating anything positive unless it feels quite strongly about it— recommendation c states that the department should:
“Consider whether it is possible to provide more certainty on the role of hydrogen in home heating before 2026 to help industry plan and invest”.
There are then some suggestions as to how that could be done.
Additionally, I have one other further area, and that is small nuclear reactors, which were not covered in the NAO report. It is worrying that we have known for at least three years that Rolls-Royce is geared up to do small nuclear reactors, and we have given it good money to work on them, but we are still not at a point where anybody is being appointed. There is a list of six potential people involved; some of them are not even ready now to do a proper pitch, and the rumour is that the pitch will be put back further because some of them are not ready. This slippage, all the way through, symbolises this market, and it is extremely worrying. It is possibly one of the most key areas of our industry and our lives when we talk about home heating.
I do not envy my noble friend on the Front Bench the job, and I thank him for his work so far. There is an awful long way to go, and even though His Majesty’s Government are not the vehicle for doing the communication, we must make sure there is better communication with the general public and that we should go forward together to meet the main policy objective in a way that is based on good science and good experience.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this is the first use of the power to designate a strategy and policy statement—SPS—for energy policy in Great Britain, which was introduced in the Energy Act 2013. The changes in that Act included the powers to establish a National Energy System Operator a new independent public corporation responsible for planning Britain’s electricity and gas networks and operating the electricity system. NESO will be required to have regard to the strategic priorities set out in the SPS and new duties for Ofgem, which are all contained in this statement. Can the Minister confirm that NESO will be set up this summer?
All that this statement does is to bring together existing policy and restate that policy in one coherent paper; the statement
“does not introduce new roles or duties for bodies in the sector, it is comprised of only existing government policy, commitments and targets”.
We broadly welcome the statement, but my first question is: why has it taken 11 years, since the Energy Act 2013, to get where we are today? It is 11 years late; we should have been revising the second edition by now. While key elements are welcome, there is much that remains unclear or subject to regular change going forward. I do not think this statement should last five years without review. Will the Government commit to more regular reviews, even an annual review, as we continue our process of transition?
The relationship between the National Energy System Operator and Ofgem is still undefined in this strategy, so when will this be defined? Will the Minister agree to give a further review as soon as NESO is set in place, so that its powers, functions and relationships can be fully scrutinised? The strategy document says that NESO has a duty to notify the Secretary of State if, at any time,
“it thinks that a policy outcome in the SPS is not...achievable”,
as has been stated by other speakers. What are the interim arrangements for the period until NESO is up and running if it decides that there are policies that are not achievable?
I worry also that Ofgem is not accountable to Parliament at the appropriate level of scrutiny for the new powers that are given to it under this policy. There seem to be some tensions for Ofgem between net-zero targets and promoting economic growth as set out in its core functions.
While I welcome the continued commitment to reach net zero, and I am thankful for all the work the Government have done, the Government need to do more at pace. There are key areas where progress is lagging, such as: the development of long-term energy storage; meeting targets, particularly for power generation to be decarbonised by 2030; and the ability to deliver the nuclear plan for a 24 gigawatt deployment by 2050, when many projects are running behind or are late. There are questions about whether we are still on track for offshore wind, following the collapse of the offshore wind auction this year. There are internal disagreements over the clean heat mechanism, and a year of delays means that the target for implementing heat pumps is in question, as we have heard. Emission targets for 2030 look unlikely to be met, the sixth carbon budget is behind schedule and the planned energy efficiency upgrade of ensuring that all properties achieve a rating of band C by 2030 does not have clear mechanisms to take it forward.
The Government are missing their own 2030 fuel poverty targets by 90%; we need a fair and just transition to net zero, yet fuel poverty is completely missing from this statement. I could not find the words in the document and neither does it make any mention of the Government’s own fuel poverty strategy. There is also no mention of the social energy tariff, and the rollout of smart meters is behind. We need more renewables, and we to do more to improve home insulation at scale and at pace. These matters need to be at the heart of our future energy polices, and it feels like they have been forgotten in these documents.
The mention of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement is very welcome, as we are spending £1 billion extra a year on our energy bills. When do the Government think the strategic spatial energy plan will be ready? The policy states that the Government expect an investment of around £100 billion in the energy sector by 2030. Does the Minister agree that recent changes in government policy direction, particularly in relation to electric vehicles as well as on other matters, have caused market uncertainty and damaged investor confidence? What actions are the Government taking to ensure the long-term clarity and stability of our environmental policy?
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed thus far to the debate for making my job somewhat easier than it would otherwise have been and for raising important questions. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised the affordability of standing charges from the NEA. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, raised a lot of concerns about lack of progress in a number of areas, which, no doubt, the Minister will address. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, had a range of concerns, particularly about a lack of potential progress on the auctioning of offshore wind contracts for difference, which is about to take place—I think next week.
For my own part, there are three points I want to raise this evening. First, this is the first statement since the Government’s Energy Act 2013 facilitated such statements. Secondly, while we agree with much of the statement, there are some clear differences between the Conservatives and Labour: in particular, on setting 2030 as the date by when Great Britain will be a clean power generator. Thirdly, there is a lack of detail and therefore a need for revision at the earliest opportunity.
I will take these points in order. The Energy Act 2013 assumed that a strategy and policy statement would be essential to align government policy with the actions of government agencies and bodies such as Ofgem and ensure they were marching in lockstep. There has not been a statement since 2013. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, given the five-year gaps between statements, we should now be reviewing our second statement.
However, this policy statement is important in seeking to align government and Ofgem, with Ofgem having recently been designated with a net-zero mandate under the Government’s energy policy of 2023. The Government cannot direct Ofgem, so Ofgem cannot operate unless there is such a policy statement. While this policy statement has been delayed—let us say, since 2013—it is certainly now welcome.
These policy statements are supposed to last five years. We should have had a strategy and policy statement immediately after the 2013 Act, and we should now be revising the second one. It is also clear that the strategy and policy statement will not last more than a year or so from now, because there will be a general election. The outcome of that election is not yet known but, should Labour win, it will certainly be reviewed. Can the Government say why no policy statement has been submitted before now?
While much of the statement is welcome, there are some clear differences between the Government and Labour. The original 2030 date by when we were to have clean power is no longer accepted by the Government. They have recently put back from 2030 until 2035 the date for ending the sales of internal combustion engines, in effect, meaning there will be at least a five-year delay. Their former net zero tsar, Chris Skidmore, and their widely respected former chair of COP, Alok Sharma, have both been highly critical of the Government’s policy. This will surely do nothing to reassure either of them.
There are also areas as yet undefined and unclear, such as the relationship between ISOP—now to be called the national energy system operator—and Ofgem. NESO is a commitment in the Energy Act 2023 but, as we have heard, is yet to be established. When it is, there will be much work to be done to define its relationship with Ofgem as well as questions to be addressed about the regional energy system planners. Once NESO is set up, will there be a statement about these matters, including its relationship to Ofgem and, therefore, to government?
There are other areas that require updating. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, these include a plan for developing long-duration energy storage, as well as the 2030 fuel poverty target, which National Energy Action says will be missed by 90%, and the rollout of smart meters, which is well behind the time set originally by the Government. These and other areas in the statement are either unexplained or undefined. Will any update on these matters be forthcoming?
Finally, a strategic policy statement must take account of the real state of the policy landscape or risk irrelevance; but a statement is better than none at all, which is why we welcome this statement despite its shortcomings
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. First, I am confident that the strategic priorities and policy outcomes in the SPS clearly establish what the Government are trying to achieve in the sector. I think it got fairly widespread support and it established why this is important, demonstrating how these smaller policy outcomes contribute to the broader strategic priorities so that stakeholders can be reassured of how their role fits into the bigger picture.
I hope that the SPS gives industry a sufficiently high-level understanding of the roles, responsibilities and remit of government and the regulators in helping to deliver these objectives. Particularly in the case of NESO, we have provided enough information on the body’s remit to give confidence on the role that it will play when it is established, while also recognising that its responsibilities will evolve over time. As well as reaffirming our ambitions, this SPS will give encouragement to Ofgem to utilise the full range of its existing powers to ensure that those ambitions are realised and that stability and confidence are restored across the sector.
I move on to the points that were raised in the debate, starting with my noble friend Lady McIntosh. The SPS makes clear the importance of tackling fuel poverty, as was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. Ofgem has conducted a call for evidence on the standing charges issue. I know it is a very topical issue; there is a lot of concern. Ofgem received over 40,000 responses to that consultation. It is reviewing those responses. The Government are liaising closely with Ofgem to understand the options going forward. It is an independent regulator, and it would not be right to interfere in the decisions that it will make, but we do understand the concern that has been raised.
The NESO will be funded and regulated by Ofgem through licences and the price control process, as is the case with the electricity and gas system operators today. That is a well-known model, understood widely across the sector. The approach will provide accountability, scrutiny and, of course, value for money, while ensuring that the NESO is able to deliver fully on its objectives.
As part of agreeing future price controls, Ofgem will ensure that NESO is fully resourced to fulfil its objectives and the obligations set out in its licence, including the funding of its statutory duties such as those towards innovation and keeping developments in the energy sector under review. As with other regulated bodies in the sector, the NESO will have the operational freedom it needs to manage and organise itself to effectively deliver its roles and objectives.
I move on to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Naseby. He quoted extensively from the National Audit Office report on home heating. That is of course different from what we are debating today, but he raised some very good points, particularly on the rollout of heat pumps et cetera, on which I agree. My noble friend will be aware that we took a decision not to proceed with the hydrogen village trial last year. That was due chiefly to the lack of available hydrogen, but it also took into account the real concerns that were raised by many members of the public in that area. It is undoubtedly the case that electrification will provide the vast majority of the decarbonisation options in home heating; hydrogen will play a very limited role, if any, in the decarbonisation of heating.
In response to the questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, our aim continues to be for the NESO to be operational in 2024, depending on a number of factors including agreeing timelines with various key parties.
On the review of the SPS, I confirm that the Secretary of State can review the strategy and policy statement at any time—for example, following a general election or a significant change in energy policy.
On the questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the rules and responsibilities of NESO, I confirm that we have set out the roles and responsibilities of government, Ofgem and NESO at a high level in the SPS. The Government set the policy direction, while Ofgem is the independent regulator and makes decisions on business and investment plans. NESO will be the whole system planner, the operator of the electricity system, and the expert adviser to the Government and Ofgem as key decision-makers.
We are currently developing a framework agreement, which will set out the relationship between the Government as the shareholder and NESO. We plan to publish this shortly after designation. The specific roles and obligations of NESO will be set out in its licences, on which Ofgem undertook an initial consultation last year. We are due to undertake a statutory consultation this spring. However, as mentioned previously, we expect that NESO’s role and remit will continue to evolve over time as energy policy develops.
On NESO not being able to raise concerns over the achievability of SPS outcomes until it is established, I reassure the noble Lord that Ofgem will also have a responsibility to raise concerns over achievability. We are already in frequent dialogue with the current electricity system operator, on which NESO will be based, where the Government’s ambitions for energy are regularly discussed.
Finally, I move on to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, on why now is the right time for the SPS. The Energy Act 2023 introduced new measures and established the independent system operator and planner in the first place as NESO. We thought that now was a good time—to reply to the point about major policy changes—to develop strategic guidance to explain exactly how we believe that Ofgem, government and NESO would work together to meet the Government’s energy priorities going forward.
I hope I have been able to deal with all the points raised by noble Lords.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Can my noble friend answer the question about small nuclear reactors? There has been consistent delay after delay. Are we going to get a decision in this calendar year?
Lord Callanan (Con)
That is not the subject of this particular policy statement, but my understanding is that Great British Nuclear is currently reviewing the various designs, having instituted a competition to try to pick the best design going forward. I do not know the precise timescale for responding to that, but I will certainly find out and write to the noble Lord.
Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Douglas-Miller
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 1 March be approved.
Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. This evening’s protests around Parliament by farmers, seeking a fair price for their product, I think speaks to the need for these regulations.
These regulations are the first of those that were promised, with pigs and eggs to follow, and are part of this Government’s continued backing of our farmers, as the Prime Minister made clear at the NFU conference only last month. These regulations make use of powers in the Agriculture Act 2020, introduced by the Government to help level the playing field between dairy farmers and the larger processers that they supply. The then Agriculture Bill was debated intently in this House and the expertise of many noble Lords helped to shape these powers, for which I extend my thanks. I hope noble Lords share my delight that this work is coming to fruition.
The dairy sector plays an extremely important role in UK agriculture. Its success is underpinned by countless relationships between producers and processors that work extremely well. However, we have been made aware that, for some time, there are examples where relationships are not as constructive as they should be, and the vulnerable position farmers are in can often be exploited. The public consultation carried out in 2020 sought to uncover the issues and inform the types of interventions required to address them. The responses highlighted the main issues that dairy farmers experience, and we have constructed these regulations in direct response to those issues.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, I applaud His Majesty’s Government for these new contract regulations. They are both comprehensive and long overdue in addressing matters of serious injustice in the dairy farming sector. Unfair milk contracts have been an area of concern for the dairy sector for many years, going back to the voluntary code of practice for dairy contracts, introduced in 2012. In their current form, most milk contracts do not create mutually balanced business relationships between buyers and sellers. Rights and obligations are often heavily biased in favour of buyers.
At times of pressure, purchasers have been able to change contract terms and pricing mechanisms, in some instances even introducing retrospective penalties and price cuts without negotiation. The Covid-19 crisis saw many of these scenarios play out. Farmers were hit with price cuts at no notice, a lack of transparency on pricing, and delayed payments, resulting in significant pressures on producers during this challenging period.
These regulations will see freely negotiated and fairly balanced contracts, tailored to the needs of both buyers and farmers. They mark a significant step forward. It will be important for industry and government to help support the development of farmer representation structures, such as producer organisations within the dairy sector, to make the most of the regulations and improve trust and collaboration across the supply chain.
This legislation contains extensive powers for the Secretary of State to oversee and enforce the code. I welcome the recruitment of the agricultural supply chain adjudicator, who will, among other things, enforce the regulations on behalf of the Secretary of State. Can the Minister clarify whether it is intended that the person appointed to this role will learn from the operation of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which has been in operation since 2013?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward these regulations. They plug a gap which has long been open, as most farmers do not supply supermarkets directly and so are not covered by the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
When I chaired the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place, I took a small delegation to Denmark to learn about the effectiveness of its milk and other co-operatives. Does my noble friend see this as an opportunity to encourage more co-operatives and producer organisations than we have seen in the past?
I grew up in the hills of the north of England, where I could see how fiercely independent hill farmers and others were. There is often a certain resistance to working together. I hope that the regulations my noble friend has presented this evening will lend themselves to producing such co-operation in future.
The NFU has long argued for fairer, more transparent supply chains. I hope that its pleas will be rewarded in the regulations before us. Can my noble friend assure the House that the Government will lend their support to the development of representational structures, such as the producer organisations and co-operatives to which he alluded? This will ensure that the dairy sector can work collaboratively and effectively with improved trust and greater collaboration across the supply chain.
I warmly welcome these regulations.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I too warmly welcome these regulations. It is interesting and rather ironic that the farmers are protesting in Parliament Square while we are addressing this topic. When I saw the tractors outside, I felt rather envious. I wished I had brought my own tractor from Northumberland, although it might have taken most of the weekend.
This has been an issue for a very long time. I have been involved in trying to encourage better relationships within the dairy and other sectors for at least 25, if not 30, years. This is an important development. I welcomed it when the then Agriculture Bill came into the House. It was a big step forward for the Government to bring this in as part of that Bill.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, did the Government seriously consider whether to extend the existing GSCOP and Groceries Code Adjudicator to include the elements contained in that Bill? There have been at least two reviews of the scope of GSCOP during the years. Many of us have been keen that that scope should be extended down the supply chain to provide greater protection and support for primary producers.
Secondly, if the answer to that is, “Yes, we have considered it but have decided to go it alone and establish our own adjudicator within the dairy sector”, are the Government likely to extend that scope to other sectors? Many of the issues dogging the dairy sector dog other sectors too. Relationships within supply chains are nothing like as good as they should be and, in many cases, degenerate into confrontational relationships. In my view, it is important to look at other sectors. When the adjudicator is appointed, it should be made clear that—if it is government policy—the remit is likely to be extended to include other sectors.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation to the House today. This is an incredibly important measure to help resolve deep-seated problems at the producer end of the milk supply chain.
I declare my interests and experiences from being involved in a supply chain, as I have owned a dairy farm and received payments for over 40 years. I supplied milk in the beginning to Milk Marque and subsequently to several other processors, as well as chairing a producer group and the milk co-op Dairy Farmers of Britain. I was also a shadow Agriculture Minister in the Lords during the passage of what became the Agriculture Act, opposite the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner. I thank him for committing Section 29 into the Act.
The milk industry is extremely competitive. It has evolved with the rise and consolidation of supermarkets. Their dominance in the grocery trade has migrated milk away from doorstep deliveries. The consolidation of the top, supermarket end of the supply chain has driven consolidation in the processing sector. I liken it to the challenge of playing musical chairs, whereby the number of processors is successively reduced by the expanding supermarkets, which channel the supply chain towards expanding processors. An example of this business is the Co-op, which, at that time, expanded by acquisition. It reduced its milk suppliers from two to one, whereby the Co-op’s amalgamation costs of £6 million were, in effect, paid for by the dairy supply chain competing to be the one supplier of milk, without much regard to fair dealing.
By contrast, the service sector can be equally unstable and volatile, supplying milk to outlets such as Starbucks and others. In the other place, the debate mentioned the possibility of waste. I agree with the Minister in the other place, Mark Spencer, that there is virtually no waste in the milk chain. The recent example of so-called waste, when Covid shut down such outlets, resulted from those dairy suppliers being suddenly told that there would be no collection of their milk for the foreseeable future, and they faced the problem of safe dispersal immediately, with full tanks and cows needing to be milked again. I pay tribute to Dairy UK and Defra, led at that time by the Secretary of State George Eustice, for rectifying the situation.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI and for his time and that of his officials in providing a briefing for this long-awaited statutory instrument. Other noble Lords have made positive comments on supporting dairy farmers, and the detail of this statutory instrument. I am grateful to the NFU for its briefing.
Since the voluntary code of practice for dairy contracts was introduced in 2012, nearly 12 years ago, purchasers have been able to change contract terms and pricing mechanisms, even, in some instances, introducing retro-spective penalties and price cuts without negotiation. The Covid-19 crisis saw this happen many times: farmers were hit with price cuts at no notice, and there was a lack of transparency over pricing and delayed payments, resulting in significant pressures on producers. Farmers got a very poor deal.
This SI will introduce mandatory minimum terms for dairy contracts which must be adhered to. As the noble Lord has said, these contracts will cover price, cooling-off periods, notice periods, variations, exclusivity and farmer representation. All these should make a huge difference to how farmers are treated and ensure that they get a fair price for their milk, which is essential for the survival of the dairy-farming industry. It will also bring a level of transparency into milk contracts not previously present.
I fully support this SI and have a point to raise. The Government conducted a call for evidence at the end of 2016 on the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator and whether it should cover all primary producers. This concluded that it would be better for primary producers in the dairy industry not to be covered by the GCA. That was eight years ago. Similarly, the consultation on the issue took place between June and September 2020, nearly four years ago. It would seem that the Government, although concerned about an unfair pricing system for farmers, were not in a hurry to do anything about it.
There are large parts of the instrument around termination of contracts, including where the business purchaser becomes insolvent and where there are disputes and enforcement. I welcome these sections, as they give farmers access to redress when things go wrong.
I understand that the debate on this SI in the other place was very short indeed, and I have no wish to prolong the debate here this evening. This legislation, while long in the making, is a positive step forward in addressing the imbalances that we have seen for too long in the dairy supply chain. I also hope that it will lead to support for farmers going forward, as they look to create the right structures to make the best use of the issues in this legislation.
Finally, I place on record my thanks, and I am sure the thanks of many others—the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to this—to Michael Oakes, who has been the chair of the NFU Dairy Board for eight years. Without his tenacious work over the past decade on this issue, I doubt that we would be debating it this evening. It seems that, without an advocate continually pushing, progress can be painfully slow. Let us hope that progress now speeds up considerably, and that this SI becomes law and is enacted without further delay.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for his introduction and saying how impressed I was to watch him pouring a glass of water at the same time: he is clearly channelling his feminine side by doing two things at once.
These draft regulations, as we have heard, propose to introduce minimum standards for the contracts that businesses use when purchasing milk from dairy farmers. We fully support the aim to improve fairness and transparency in the UK dairy sector, which, according to Defra, is characterised by small, fragmented dairy producers. We have heard a lot about the unfair commercial terms on which farmers have had to go into contracts, so we very much support this SI. Like other noble Lords, I thank the NFU for its work on this issue. The NFU has made it clear that it strongly supports the regulations, as unfair milk contracts have unfortunately been an area of concern for many years. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford talked about the voluntary code of practice for dairy contracts, which came in in 2012. This has clearly not been working, so we very much welcome the regulations in front of us today.
While I have said we very much support the regulations, I have a number of questions for the Minister. The proposed requirements include that all contracts should be made in writing and contain clear pricing terms, through either a fixed or variable price, setting out how the price to be paid is generated and establishing a means for producers to challenge variable price calculations. We are very pleased that unilateral changes to contract terms will be prohibited and that the Secretary of State is going to be able to impose fines. The Minister said in his introduction that this is only the first and that further legislation will cover other agricultural sectors. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned how long the regulations have taken. It has dragged on. Can the Minister say why it has taken so long? It is four years since the Agriculture Act was passed. Although he mentioned pigs in his introduction, does he have any idea when we are likely to see the SIs for the other areas we are expecting—pigs, eggs and fresh produce?
The agricultural supply chain adjudicator and the Groceries Code Adjudicator have been mentioned. Transform Trade sent an interesting briefing expressing its concerns around departmental fragmentation and the sectoral siloed approach that it feels the Government are taking by addressing the problems in only four sectors, and only at the farming stage. Its concerns include the fact that risks and costs will continue to be passed on to all supply chains; and that while the adjudicator may be able to address farmers’ experience of unfair trading practices, where the cause of that unfair trading practice originated with the food retailers, the retailers will continue to get away with passing unfair trading practices. I would be interested to have reassurances from the Minister on this concern.
Of course, not all farmers work in the four sectors that are covered. How does Defra intend to keep an eye on what is happening in the other sectors that are not protected? Will the adjudicator appointed to enforce the milk codes be able to share information relevant to the GCA’s ability to assess whether the 14 largest UK food retailers they cover have breached the Groceries Supply Code of Practice purchasing code? We need to be sure that this is working effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry, asked about the scope of the GCA. This is a really important question. When I was in the other place, we did a lot of work on the GCA when it was established, and it really needs to be seen to be working effectively, including within this new regime.
My noble friend Lord Grantchester talked about food waste. He mentioned that there is little waste within the dairy sector, but the design of regulations under these powers is potentially a missed opportunity to implement the Government’s stated policy of using them to reduce farm-level food waste, as was said during the passage of the Agriculture Act. As we are expecting further SIs to come forward in a similar way, I would be interested to hear why the Government’s consultation on using the powers did not make explicit reference to, or explicitly invite evidence on, how the powers could be used to reduce food waste. Food waste prevention may well be on the Government’s radar, but it is not clear from the consultations that were carried out, so my final comment is that further elaboration and confirmation around that would be very welcome.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for all the views shared on this SI. I believe we all recognise that the market needs to operate fairly, and that where there are vulnerable parties in the supply chain, the Government are justified in introducing protections. A great number of the questions this evening were focused around the adjudicator, its role, what precisely it is going to be doing and when it is going to be appointed, and I will come back to that in a little more detail and just answer one or two of the other questions first.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering asked a few questions around co-operatives and producer organisations. As I said in my opening remarks, with these regulations we have looked to protect what was already working and to prevent only what was going wrong. Our consultation revealed clearly that many relationships in the dairy supply chain are exemplary and working well for all parties. This includes those where farmers have effective representation, be that through the producer organisation model or with the structures of a co-operative. As a result, some parts of these regulations do not apply for producers represented in this way. We hope this encourages purchasers to consider relationships with representative organisations, as evidence suggests that this can be beneficial to all parties.
I move on to the issues around the adjudicator, which were very eloquently expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. The noble Lords, Lord Curry and Lord Grantchester, also touched on many of the issues, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, talked extensively about them, so let me talk a bit about the role that the new adjudicator—the enforcement agency, if you like—will have. Our new adjudicator will focus on the first stage of the supply chain, on a sector-by-sector basis. We are confident that this targeted approach, looking in-depth at specific areas of the supply chain, will be very effective. We are currently recruiting our new agricultural supply chain adjudicator. The final decision will be taken by Ministers following the due Civil Service process. I have taken on board a lot of the comments made about the skills necessary for this individual and how we would like to replicate the process that was so successful with the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Curry, who asked why an extension to the Groceries Code Adjudicator was not used instead. The idea of expanding the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator was explored in the formal call for evidence in 2016. This concluded that an extension of the GCA’s role further along the supply chain would not be appropriate. The reasons for this include that it would extend the GCA’s remit significantly. These regulations are focused on the contracts that dairy farmers hold directly, which are almost exclusively with processing companies. The Groceries Code Adjudicator instead regulates the relationships between the largest grocery retailers and their direct suppliers, another point covered by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester.
There were further questions about why we are not going to use the regulations on all sectors. We will use the powers of Section 29 to protect farmers wherever necessary. However, the different needs and working practices of each industry mean that a targeted approach is needed to draft the most effective regulations. Our work on drafting this statutory instrument and the upcoming pork regulations has justified this approach, with the needs of each industry being very distinct. As well as developing regulations to apply to the UK pork sector, we have recently concluded consultations on the UK laying egg and fresh produce sectors. The Prime Minister has also announced a new review into the broiler chicken sector. There were a number of questions about what is going to be coming forward and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also asked when we would see these SIs. When I have been asked that recently, I have replied, “Before the Summer Recess”, and I am hopeful that we might do even better than that in this case.
I am also picking up on the very important point from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, about the need for careful handling here, to ensure that the rollout into other sectors does not get derailed by heavy-handed or inappropriate activity. I am hearing that loud and clear.
I also picked up a number of questions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Hayman, on why we have been waiting so long for these regulations. We can all acknowledge—I certainly do—that these regulations have taken longer than expected. However, it has been extremely important that we consulted and engaged extensively to ensure that we are able to take everybody with us on this journey. Again, for the reasons expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, it is important we get this first step right. As noble Lords know, I am relatively new to this. Now that I am seeing it, I will push it forwards as fast as I possibly can.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also asked why these regulations do nothing about food waste. The fair-dealing powers can be used to address practices that result in on-farm food waste. In sectors where this can be an issue, such as the fresh produce sector, we can intervene and introduce new rules to reduce the amount of food going to waste. However, these regulations apply to the dairy industry, and it is only in extremely rare cases that milk is wasted—a point raised earlier. Our consultation did not reveal that a specific intervention was required to address this in this SI.
In summary, I hope noble Lords will agree that this SI is both necessary and proportionate.
Christians: Persecution
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support persecuted Christians around the world.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all those who have put down their names to speak tonight on this important but unfortunately largely ignored issue of the global persecution of Christians. I also thank the Minister for being here to respond.
My thanks also go to all those who have contacted those listed to speak tonight for the various briefings which have been put together. The truth is that we probably have enough material on this issue to speak for a very long time this evening—the matter is an expansive one—but we are constrained by the time limits set and should endeavour to respect those. In an effort to comply, I will cite specific examples of Christian persecution to point out the trends I wish to cover rather than try and deal with every country on the watch-list; that would be impossible.
Whether through serendipity or divine intervention, I can think of no better time than Holy Week to bring this issue to the attention of the House. The Bible tells us that this was the time when Jesus suffered greatly, both physically and mentally, knowing the death he would face on Good Friday. It therefore seems appropriate to focus on the great suffering that continues for Christians across the world today.
In January, along with many other MPs and Peers, I attended the launch of the 2024 Open Doors World Watch List here in Parliament. The Minister was there as well. Every year, this organisation compiles a report which sets out the 50 countries where it is most dangerous to be a Christian. This year, the research found that more than 365 million Christians suffer high levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith—around one in seven Christians worldwide.
For those of us living in the United Kingdom, it can often feel as if our faith is not respected and indeed is often belittled, even though we have an established Church here in England and Wales. As Christians in the UK, we may feel marginalised, but to hear that our brothers and sisters in Christ are persecuted for their faith in the manner that was outlined was frankly shocking. Yet very little of this persecution is spoken about, never mind acted on, and that needs to change.
Back at Christmas in 2018, the then Bishop of Truro, now the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, was asked by the then Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt MP, to carry out a review into the global persecution of Christians; to map the extent and the nature of the persecution; to assess the quality of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office response; and finally to recommend changes in policy and practice to deal with the issue.
The comprehensive final report, which was published in June 2019, noted that the problem was indeed a global phenomenon. It said that the western response to the problem, however, was no doubt
“tinged by a certain post-Christian bewilderment, if not embarrassment, about matters of faith, and a consequent failure to grasp how for the vast majority of the world’s inhabitants faith is not only a primary marker of identity, but also a primary motivation for action (both for good or ill)”.
Religious persecution occurs to a third of the world’s population in some form, with Christians being the most persecuted group, even though freedom of religion and belief is a fundamental human right. To make things worse, global persecution of Christians is underreported and therefore is not highlighted and responded to in an adequate way. The geographical spread of anti-Christian persecution, and its increasing severity, was noted by the Truro report. Indeed, in some regions, the level and nature of the persecution arguably came close to meeting the UN’s international definition of genocide.
The main impact of the persecution, apart from the individual suffering, is the internal displacement and exodus from various parts of the world. As we come to celebrate Easter in the Christian calendar and all the events that took place in Jerusalem in that Holy Week, we should pay more attention and do something about the fact that Christianity now faces being wiped out in parts of the Middle East, where its roots go back the furthest. In the birthplace of Christ, Christian numbers are at 1.5% of the population. Understandably we have heard much about the plight of our Jewish friends in the region, and indeed the plight of all those living in the region, but rarely do we hear about the tiny Christian minority who are struggling to be heard, let alone helped. In Iraq, the population of Christians has plummeted from 1.5 million to now just over 100,000.
Christianity, which has provided much-needed plurality in the region, is disappearing, and apart from the tragedy which that is for those Christian communities, it has a destabilising impact on the Middle East. I wonder if the Minister, who has great expertise and experience in this area, could comment on that aspect in particular when he makes his remarks.
The Truro report said that Government need to give
“priority and specific targeted support”
to Christian communities—this was
“not only necessary but increasingly urgent”.
Given that recommendation, perhaps the Minister could update us on any specific action that has been taken of the back of that report, given that it is nearly five years since its publication.
This issue of stability and security was a theme explored by the Open Doors launch this year. The title of this year’s report was The Cost of Collapse and the Cost of Control, and it indicated that under the cover of state fragility and failure, violence against Christians has intensified in many parts of the world while, elsewhere, autocratic countries increase their control.
By way of example of state fragility, as sub-Saharan Africa becomes more unstable, religiously motivated violence is intensifying. In 18 of the 26 sub-Saharan countries, 4,606 Christians were killed because of their faith during the 2024 reporting period. The growing violence is causing a displacement crisis as more and more Christians are forced to flee their homes. It is of great concern to me that this displacement of Christians is also happening in India. More than 62,000 Indian Christians were forced to flee their homes during the 2024 reporting period—a huge jump from 380 in 2022 and 834 in 2023. I am sure that His Majesty’s Government are very concerned about this and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s observations on this region, about which we both care deeply.
A subsection, if I may describe it as such, of the persecution of Christians is the treatment of Christian women. Put simply, they are more likely to be the victims of discrimination and persecution than their male counterparts. That could be through people trafficking, gender-based violence, kidnapping, forced marriage—the list continues. This double marginalisation of being a woman and a Christian is underreported as women are often invisible in such societies and poorly represented. For example, there is evidence from Pakistan of Christian girls being groomed, trafficked into sham marriages and forced to convert to become Muslims.
I welcome the fact that the international development White Paper commits the UK to development policies that are inclusive of people marginalised for their religion and belief. As I said earlier, freedom of religion and belief is a key human right but it is sadly ignored in many parts of the world, especially in areas of conflict. We have a proud history of promoting religious freedom in the United Kingdom, so we should be doing more to promote it across the world. Freedom of religion is almost a passport to securing other human rights, such as freedom from fear, the right to family life and the right to privacy. If freedom of religion is not protected, other rights will be overlooked and ignored as well. We talk a lot in this House about creating foreign policies to aid stabilisation, conflict resolution and, importantly, reconciliation. Surely, such aspects of our foreign policy must recognise the needs of religious minorities in formulating conflict and stabilisation policies.
I urge the Minister to implement the recommendations of the Truro report that remain outstanding. In particular, I look forward to the Government establishing the role of the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief in statute to add to and underline the excellent work carried out by Fiona Bruce MP. There is also a real and urgent need to include mandatory religious literacy in the training of all FCDO staff. This is particularly important given that, I am sad to say, we cannot take for granted that our civil servants have a working understanding of Christianity any more. In doing so, we need to recognise that there is, according to the Truro report, a reluctance from some diplomats to raise the issue of Christian persecution for fear of upsetting local Administrations. There does not appear to be that reluctance when it comes to other issues that may cause offence locally. Can the Minister comment on how diplomats and staff in the Foreign Office in general can be better equipped to deal with these complex but urgent issues?
I once again thank all noble Lords who will contribute. I hope that the UK can, as recommended in the Truro report, take on the role of a global leader in articulating freedom of religious belief.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee. I will offer a few reflections of my own.
When I was growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, I felt that we had reached a point where religious persecution had come to an end. On the whole, there was no persecution of Christian belief, certainly in the West, so I and a lot of others were rather surprised that, when John Paul II was elected Pope in 1978, he quite quickly expressed the worldview that he saw the Church as still being subject to persecution. It took some time to think that through. If you grew up in Poland, I suppose you would see things rather differently from how I saw things growing up somewhat later than John Paul II. If you saw the persecution of the Church by Nazis and later under communism, you would have a very different view. Famously, he created an astonishingly prodigious number of saints during his time as Pope, many of them martyrs of the 20th century. I think that spoke very strongly to him. One needs to see this in a broader sense.
While the noble Baroness spoke largely of persecution in the third world—if one is still correct in referring to it as the third world—I will speak about the persecution of Christianity in the West. The persecution that John Paul II was familiar with growing up abated considerably as a result of the fall of the Iron Curtain, but that does not mean it has gone away. In fact, it is present in Europe in a new and virulent form and has spread west. We now see a very large number of attacks on churches in western Europe, prodigiously in France but also in Germany and Spain. We have even seen priests murdered in their churches in France and Spain in the last few years. In Europe, 852 hate crimes were identified in 2022 by the Vienna-based Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians, with attacks on places of worship, symbols and institutions. That represented a 44% increase. Arson attacks against churches in Europe were up by 75% in 2022.
It is salutary to turn briefly to Canada, where in the last few years 100 churches, I believe all of them Catholic, have been torched and burned to the ground. That arose from a story that the Catholic Church had been involved in the past in some form of creating mass graves of native children. That led to a considerable level of hostility, which expressed itself in these church burnings. On closer examination, the evidence to support those claims seems to have been greatly exaggerated at the very least. This was in Canada—a western, liberal country.
According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, there have been 341 incidents across 43 US states since May 2021. These are just against Catholic churches; there are also incidents of attacks against African American churches and Protestant churches. You can find at least a dozen such attacks on Catholic churches on Wikipedia. The way we think about these things is quite curious; when, in looking for this evidence, I typed into Google “Church attacks USA”, I got back something that said, “Did you mean ‘Church attacks us’?”—it assumed that the Church was attacking us, rather than churches being attacked in the USA. That shows a certain form of bias.
It is important to think about where these attacks are coming from. In France and possibly other parts of Europe, they appear to be associated with Muslims, often illegal immigrants or people in a state of uncertainty who are not settled in that local society. In Canada, they appear to be associated with stories about mass graves of native children. In the United States—I may be touching on a sensitive point here—they appear to be correlated with arguments about abortion and seem to be coming from what might be called a certain strand of liberalism attacking the churches.
That is one of the things that concerns me very greatly, because it is something relatively new and is a matter of considerable concern. We have been free of that, but what starts in America ends up here. Indeed, as an aside, apart from Brexit, I can hardly think of a single original idea that we have produced in Britain that we have not imported from the United States in the last 30 years. I hope it will not happen here, but we need to be wary, because these culture war issues have clearly generated attacks in the United States, and that could come in this direction.
Finally, we badge our international efforts on this subject under the term “freedom of religion or belief”. That is what we advocate and that is what we fight for, to a degree, at least—and my noble friend the Minister is, I am sure, going to answer the question posed by the noble Baroness, as to the extent to which the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office does that. However, that is what we do when we do it: we badge it as freedom of religion or belief. That is a legal and philosophical principle. It is, in its own terms, wholly admirable, but it is also universal and it does not reflect or recognise the particular cultural heritage of this country, which is indeed a Christian heritage, as evidenced by the presence of Bishops on the Benches over here.
It is possibly the wrong question, but I ask only this: is it too much that we might see ourselves not only as international advocates of that universal principle but as particular defenders of Christianity in the rest of the world?
Lord Carey of Clifton (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for tabling this important Question. I thank her for the excellent review that she has already given of what is going on around the world.
It is manifestly clear that some Christian groups are unfairly treated, abused, murdered and discriminated against in many parts of the world. I am patron of Barnabas Aid, which works in many contexts around the world, bringing aid and support to minority Christian groups and refugees. The estimate of Barnabas Aid of, for example, Christian violence in Nigeria since 2009 is that some 45,000 Christians have been murdered. This is to say nothing of the violence and everyday marginalisation of Christian communities in many other parts of the world. In what has been dubbed the ultimate year of elections, with some 64 national elections taking place in 2024, Christians viscerally fear the outcome in some countries, in stark contrast to the much less existential nature of our general election in the United Kingdom this year.
I do not think we can properly pursue this question without considering another question alongside it, which the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, touched upon: namely, does the United Kingdom value its foundational faith any longer? We seem to go out of our way to avoid the use of the word Christian and to speak of “British” values, as if they are a group of virtues standing alone. We may remember that, in 2007, the European Union decided not to mention the Christian roots of Europe at its 50th anniversary. Pope Benedict XVI retorted that this was a form of apostasy against itself. He went on to show that, in culture, landscape, history, law and values, the roots of Europe, and of course of the United Kingdom, are undeniably Christian. We should not be ashamed of declaring so.
My argument takes me directly back to the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster: what are we doing to help those Christian people abroad whose commitment to our values leads them to be persecuted? Reference has already been made to the Bishop of Truro’s independent review of 2019, undertaken at the invitation of the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Jeremy Hunt. The review showed the horrifying scale and extent of the suffering of minority Christian groups in places as diverse as Iraq, Indonesia, Myanmar, Pakistan and elsewhere.
Of course, it is important to recognise that we do not limit our concern to Christians only. We should care for everybody. However, the clear evidence is that the name of Christianity is a label of discrimination and suffering. Noble Lords may remember that the Truro report was welcomed by the Times. In the editorial leader column, it was greeted in the following way:
“The West must be ready to support the Christian faith. That, rather than embarrassment, has to be the starting point of our necessary conversations with … followers of other faiths”.
In conclusion, I offer one thought and ask the Minister—a man we deeply respect—a question. The thought is that valuing the faith that the United Kingdom has received, and which has shaped us in so many ways, does not limit our generosity and welcome to other faiths. To repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has said, I would be grateful if the Minister could inform us of how many of the 22 recommendations in that review have been implemented, and what is holding up the remaining ones.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I too add my congratulations and appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, on securing this important debate and her comprehensive and moving survey and speech. It is a pleasure to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, and I pay tribute to his considerable expertise in this area over many years. I am grateful to my colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, formerly the Bishop of Truro, for a briefing in advance of this debate. He is not able to be present, but I know he will follow deliberations closely.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, set out so eloquently, the beginning of Holy Week is a fitting time to remember the persecution of Christians across the world and the costs of faith. This persecution has been evident since the very beginning of the Church. Even so, it is extremely sobering and moving to reflect that, according to Open Doors, 365 million Christians face some sort of persecution worldwide—about one in seven of the global Christian population. I also note with other noble Lords the disproportionate consequences and costs for women and girls.
We pay tribute today to the courage and perseverance of persecuted Christians, and, in turn, appreciate the freedom of belief which is a feature of our own democracy. As the historian Tom Holland argued recently in his powerful book, Dominion, many of the core values of our society can be traced directly to our Christian heritage and need to be sustained by that Christian heritage now.
However, this debate has a broader significance, because freedom of religion or belief, and violations against anyone, can be important indicators of the state of human rights in any context globally. As the former UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, said:
“Freedom of religion or belief rightly has been termed a ‘gateway’ to other freedoms, including freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association”.
An approach that guarantees freedom of religion or belief for all, as advocated by the Truro review, is the best way of addressing Christian persecution for two important reasons. First, singling out Christians inevitably others them, increasing their vulnerability. It is also antithetical to the Christian faith itself to favour Christians over other faiths. Christianity puts no limit on its definitions of who is our neighbour, so it is wrong to argue theologically for special treatment of persecuted Christians. Secondly, it is also impossible to support persecuted Christians without supporting the freedom of religion or belief of all persons. Freedom of religion or belief is intertwined with other human rights and a matter of legally binding international human rights obligations.
We need to note and acknowledge in this debate that we have seen a regrettable increase in Islamophobia and anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom since the terrible 7 October attacks and the devastating conflict in Gaza. The work of faith leaders building bridges, strong relationships and understanding locally has been a vital part of the local response to events in Israel and Gaza in my own city and county and across the country. Religious freedom and tolerance need to be nurtured and guarded nationally and locally. It is as important to do that in our own country as it is across the world; the two go together,
The Library briefing provides some estimates on the numbers of Christians persecuted globally. Estimating persecution is problematic and contentious for obvious reasons. A comment made by the former UN special rapporteur Asma Jahangir on all FoRB statistics is very helpful:
“When I am asked which community is persecuted most, I always reply ‘human beings’”.
Our responsibility is always to stand up for the world’s most vulnerable people, wherever they may be found. Freedom of religion or belief is a foundation of human rights.
The Truro review argued that freedom of religion or belief should be “central” in FCDO policy. However, religious literacy in policy and diplomacy remains a significant challenge, even though only religiously literate responses will be effective in addressing some of the world’s most serious instances of persecution in countries such as Nigeria, India, Iran, Russia and China. What steps is the FCDO taking to build religious literacy across its work?
Fiona Bruce is sponsoring a Private Member’s Bill in the other place, the International Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill, which would establish an office of the special envoy and require the Prime Minister by law to appoint someone to the role. I very much hope that this House will play its part in supporting the Private Member’s Bill to establish the special envoy post in law when my right reverend friend the Bishop of Winchester brings it to the House in due course.
Finally, I invite both the Minister and the Opposition to tell this House what future strategies they intend to have in place to continue or enhance the role of the Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief and the support for persecuted Christians globally.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, all over the world, Article 18, the universal right to freedom of religion or belief, is a violated right, which is why we must thank the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, for initiating this short debate.
Some 80% of the world has a religious faith, and people of all faiths are persecuted, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us. The noble Baroness reminded us that this is a great week for Christianity, with Easter; but it is a great week for all monotheistic religions, with Jews having just celebrated Purim and Muslims celebrating Ramadan. But what singles out Christians is that 350 million of them—one in seven in 144 countries —are persecuted in every country where Article 18 is breached, and 13 Christians are killed each and every day because of their faith. The Times said of our indifference that we had become “Spectators at the Carnage”. Jonathan Sacks once said:
“The persecution of Christians … is one of the crimes against humanity of our time and I am appalled at the lack of protest it has evoked”.
We talk about persecution as if it ended with Nero and the lions in the Colosseum, but it is one of the most shocking untold stories of our time.
Although the Minister and Fiona Bruce MP, the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief—a role that I, too, hope we will legislate to make permanent—have striven to implement the Truro review recommendations, the tide of visceral hatred continues to rise. That is foolish, given the economic link between countries that respect Article 18 and prosperity, stability and harmony, and given the link between persecution and displacement, now at a record 114 million people.
I will discuss China and then highlight two Commonwealth countries. There has been a frenzy today about China’s cyberattacks in 2021, one of which was against me, along with sanctions imposed three years ago. Today the Deputy Prime Minister told the House of Commons that the response was “swift and robust”—I dread to think what leisurely or weak would have looked like. There are still no sanctions against state officials, and nothing to match the 47 imposed on Hong Kong by the US. It is wholly incommensurate with the 1 million Uighur Muslims subjected to genocide, the brutal oppression of Tibetan Buddhists, the crimes against Falun Gong and the persecution of Christians. The latter includes the imprisonment of Protestant pastors, the demolition of churches, the jailing of the Christian journalist, Zhang Zhan, who went to Wuhan to ask awkward questions about the origins of Covid, and the trials in Hong Kong of Cardinal Zen and now of Jimmy Lai, a deeply committed Christian. Can the Minister say whether the Foreign Secretary will raise those issues with the Chinese ambassador when he summons him tomorrow?
I turn to Pakistan. Tomorrow, as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Pakistani Minorities, I will chair an inquiry into discrimination and persecution. I recently met representatives of the over 1 million workers employed like slave labour in brick kilns in Pakistan, who are overwhelmingly Christian. Often illiterate, they rarely earn enough to subsist, much less to clear the loans that they are forced to take out, becoming bonded labour. Debts have been passed down to children from one generation to another, and workers are abused at the whim of their owners, with Hindu and Christian women and girls particularly vulnerable.
Tomorrow, we will hear first-hand accounts from victims. Only last week, two Christian sanitary workers—Asif Masih, 25, and Shan Masih, 28—lost their lives while undertaking the hazardous task of cleaning a choked sewage line, due to the absence of proper protective gear. It was not the first tragedy of its kind. On 14 February, the Minister told me that our aid to Pakistan for this year is £41.5 million, rising to £133 million next year. How much of that will be used to promote the rights of religious minorities? When did we last speak to the Pakistan Government about FoRB? When did we last engage with the Commonwealth Secretary-General about ForB?
That takes me to Nigeria. Some 82% of all Christians killed for their faith last year were in Nigeria: 4,998 Christians were slaughtered, with 200 murdered during Christmas services in 2023. Open Doors reports:
“Christians in Nigeria continue to be terrorised with devastating impunity by Islamic militants”,
with
“abductions for ransom, sexual violence and death … leaving a trail of grief and trauma”.
Last November, on Red Wednesday—when the FCDO was lit in red to commemorate the persecuted—thanks to Aid to the Church in Need, I met Dominic and Margaret Attah, survivors of the Boko Haram Pentecost attack on St Francis Xavier Church in Owo, when 40 were murdered. Margaret’s legs were blown off. Their bishop, Jude Arogundade, at a meeting here that I chaired, lacerated a Head of State for attributing the attack to climate change, a foolish simplicity repeated by some of our own officials, who seem illiterate when it comes to extremism and construct false narratives.
Margaret wanted to know why no one had been brought to justice. I asked the Minister, and he told me in reply:
“We continue to call for those who committed this attack to be brought to justice and held to account”.
Needless to say, they have not been; nor have the abductors of Leah Sharibu, who was abducted on 19 February 2018 by ISIS West Africa from the Government Girls Science and Technical College in Dapchi, Yobe State. Leah was told to convert and was raped, impregnated and enslaved. She is still held captive. I promised Rebecca, her mother, that I would lose no opportunity to raise her case. Following a recent meeting with the Africa Minister, have our officials followed that up? What are the Nigerians doing to get her released? Where is the ICC inquiry into potential crimes against humanity in relation to the Christian minority in Nigeria? Those preliminary inquiries concluded three years ago.
How much will Nigeria receive in ODA next year? What percentage will be used to promote FoRB, and when did we last raise that with the Commonwealth? More believers are killed for their faith in Nigeria each year than everywhere else in the world combined. In the face of these deadly violations of a universal right, our indifference and our silence are simply not acceptable.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I start with an admission to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. I have not taken much interest in persecuted Christians until now, because I have always assumed that Christianity had distinct advantages over other religions. There are stronger examples of the persecution of Muslims and Jews. I know this is a shamefully Eurocentric view, but I believe it reflects a widely held, if inaccurate, assumption of public opinion. I am therefore grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us the chance to research the real situation as a background to this debate. My noble friend and others have taken us through the shocking statistics.
The FCDO commissioned its review five years ago, soon after the Minister was appointed special envoy on religious freedom. I believe that he has had a rocky ride through all those recommendations—he has already been asked to talk about that. The then Foreign Secretary cited the startling statistic that 80% of all those persecuted in the world were Christians. This figure probably came from Open Doors, which estimates 365 million as the total number, as we have heard. This is a highly respected NGO, and I am not intending to dispute the figures.
At that time, evidence was coming from countries such as Myanmar, Malaysia, Sudan and Iraq. We know that the situation in some of those countries has got worse. Some of us had a short debate recently about Myanmar, led by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, focusing mainly on the appalling treatment of health workers by the army since the 2021 coup. What I had not realised was that churches, especially those in the ethnic-minority states, were also deliberately victimised by the present regime. These are indigenous churches; some Christians are of Indian descent and others may be Europeans. Looking back at my notes from the 1970s, when I visited Myanmar for Christian Aid, it is quite clear that missionaries had already left under General Ne Win’s Government, and that the majority of Baptist churches had largely become freestanding communities. Some churches receive humanitarian aid, but they are not dependent on foreign aid.
It seems that the army has long targeted and attacked churches, especially in Chin state, where an estimated 85% are Christian. Civilians are targets, and a whole town was burnt by shelling last September. The UK-based Centre for Information Resilience identified and analysed 10 similar instances where churches were damaged—mostly by airstrike—between March and August 2023. To quote the Associated Press:
“Human rights agencies and United Nations investigators have found evidence that security forces indiscriminately and disproportionately targeted civilians with bombs, mass executions of people detained during operations and large-scale burning of civilian houses”.
Kachin, Karen and Karenni states are also among the worst affected. Surely this can be called religious ethnic cleansing. It is hardly surprising that armed resistance groups have sprung up in many areas in self-defence. There are also reports of intrusive surveillance.
I was in contact with a Burmese church leader last week, who said:
“The regime not only attacks local defence forces ruthlessly but innocent civilians using heavy weapons … The regime has also burned down hundreds of villages, injured and killed thousands of civilians”.
Christian communities are among the victims. A large number of Christian communities have fled to neighbouring countries such as Thailand and India. He went on to say:
“My wife and our four children fled to India two weeks ago across the Indian-Myanmar border. I can hear gun shooting and bombing while I write this letter. Two Christian villages which are very close to us are burning now and my hometown is flooded with displaced groups from these villages. We really need humanitarian assistance.”
My questions for the Minister are the following. We know that the FCDO is already doing a lot to support health workers, which is admirable, but can it do any more to bring humanitarian aid and to publicise the situation of Christian communities? In neighbouring India, as we have also heard from the noble Baroness, there are important Christian minorities which suffer discrimination, often from gangs of local Hindu vigilantes. I know that there is a regular EU human rights dialogue with India in which we once took a lead. Now that we have entered a trade agreement with India, albeit that it is stalled at the moment, can the Minister confirm that the persecution of Christians and other minorities remains part of the UK dialogue with India?
Foreign funding has also been strictly limited under the Modi Government—more restrictions came in in September 2020—and West Bengal has long suspected foreign intervention and banned many of the international agencies and charities, especially Christian ones, at different times. Does the Minister agree that xenophobia is a continuing factor to be watched in the BJP Government, in spite of India’s history of toleration?
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow other noble Lords who have already contributed very passionately to this debate. In particular, I express my appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for sponsoring this important and timely debate—occurring as it does, as has been mentioned already, just before we celebrate the most important event in the Christian calendar—and for her very comprehensive and compelling introduction.
Let me first state, as a Christian, that persecution of any person holding a particular religious or faith belief is unacceptable. I, too, applaud Fiona Bruce MP and others for their valuable work in supporting freedom of religion or belief. It is a huge and critically important work and needs to continue. Sadly, as we know, there are too many historical examples of abuse and persecution of individuals and of whole communities, and ethnic cleansing of thousands of people, because they belong to a particular religious or faith group. We also have to confess that it has happened on occasions throughout history under the cloak of Christianity, to our shame. I contest that any Christian who tries to faithfully follow the teaching of Jesus would not participate in any form of religious persecution; in fact, the reverse should be evident. The teaching of the Good Samaritan story by Jesus is that loving your neighbour, who might be from a different ethnic or religious group—which was the case in Luke, chapter 10—is an essential element of the Christian message.
This evening’s debate is particularly relevant because the data suggests that more Christians are being persecuted today than at any time in our history, and the number is increasing daily. How appalling is that fact? As has been mentioned a number of times in this debate, data from Open Doors World Watch List 2024 has stated that 365 million people worldwide—one in seven—are facing higher levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith: one in five in Africa; one in seven in Asia.
Even more dreadful is the data from Open Doors which estimates that 5,621 Christians were killed for faith-related reasons in 2023, compared to 4,761 in 2021, the majority of these in Nigeria, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. It has been estimated that, between 2000 and 2020, over a 20-year period, 62,000 Nigerian Christians have been killed by the terrorist group Boko Haram or by Fulani herdsmen, et cetera. These are horrific statistics and mostly occur where Boko Haram has declared Sharia law. Kidnapping is common, as we heard again recently, and thousands of churches have been attacked and burned to the ground.
According to the World Watch List, India, as has been mentioned already, is also becoming very alarming indeed, with the number of Christians being killed increasing dramatically over the past 12 months up to 160 recorded cases. Churches have been attacked, together with Christian institutions and businesses, and 62,000 Christians have been forced to leave their homes in India this past year—a huge number. Eleven out of India’s 28 states have now introduced anti-conversion legislation, and 35 pastors have been imprisoned, all this on the watch of Prime Minister Modi. It is an alarming trend. There have been some very high-profile cases. In Manipur last year, ethnic violence resulted in 400 churches being burned to the ground and 50,000 Christian believers displaced. How does this sit with freedom of religion and belief? It is unacceptable.
The global statistics are alarming. The freedom of Christians to worship and express their faith is being more and more constrained, and many are at risk of persecution and death. I am fully aware that the Government must be as concerned as we all are about these dreadful trends, and that solutions are extremely difficult, if not impossible in some cases. It is particularly concerning, when the world’s attention is diverted to Gaza and Ukraine or whatever the most recent high-profile tragedy happens to be, that many of these cases of Christian persecution go almost unnoticed.
More needs to be done. The UN and other global institutions need to exert much more pressure on countries where abuse and persecution is now endemic. I believe our Government should take a lead, and I hope the Minister agrees that we need to make renewed efforts to harness global support to call out and influence the perpetrators of violence and persecution.
If we are to take a global lead in these matters, as we should, we need to set an example here in our country of tolerance and respect for all who wish to worship and practise their faith, whatever that faith may be. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to other western countries including Canada and the US where there are increasing concerns. However, there are many Christians here in Britain today who are nervous and fearful of expressing biblical teaching for fear of recrimination, of losing their jobs, of being alienated and ostracised—or cancelled, to use today’s ridiculous jargon. We need to stand firm to defend our Christian freedoms, our ability to promote the Christian gospel. We cannot claim to be a global exemplar if freedom of speech is under threat here. The very thing that we are concerned about globally is at risk in Britain. We must not tolerate intolerance of our freedom to practise Christian faith and values here at home.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for initiating this debate on such an important subject and introducing it so powerfully. I will focus on a detailed account of such persecution in two countries which I have visited many times and where I have had the painful privilege of meeting those directly suffering persecution. I will focus first on Nigeria. I am very pleased that it has already been highlighted in this debate because the situation there needs as much attention as possible.
There are almost 103 million Christians in Nigeria, which is almost half the country’s total population of 222 million. In the Muslim-majority north of the country, the proportion of Christians is much lower. This is traditionally where most of the persecution of Christians has happened. It continues to this day and continues to spread south. Such persecution is largely inflicted by Nigerian Islamist Muslims. I emphasise that the majority of Muslims in Nigeria are peaceable Islamic civilians. I make a distinction between “Islamic” and “Islamist”. Islam refers to those widespread and largely peaceful Muslim beliefs. Islamism refers to radical ideology, including movements such as Islamic State West Africa Province which are often associated with violence and persecution.
Those affected by this ideology in Nigeria include Christians living in the northern states that are under the influence of Islamic law. They face discrimination and great pressure as second-class citizens. Also, those who have converted to Christianity from Muslim backgrounds often experience rejection from their own families, violent intimidation and fierce pressure to renounce their new faith. Christians living in vulnerable locations, particularly in the north and central regions of the country, tend to be terrorised with devastating impunity by Islamist militants and armed so-called bandits.
More believers are killed for their faith each year in Nigeria than anywhere else in the world. Men and boys are often specifically targeted, to undermine the growth of Christian families in the future. Women and girls face abduction and sexual violence, with intense pressure, exacerbated by the knowledge that sometimes their communities reject them when they come home, believing that they may have become complicit with the Islamist ideology. The attacks often involve destruction of properties and abduction of civilians for ransom, sexual violence and killings. I have visited many places where civilians have been subjected to these terrorist attacks. I have spoken to families who have witnessed the abduction or killing of their loved ones. I have walked through the burnt remains of villages and seen the remnants of burnt churches, homes and shops. I have talked to shocked and grieving survivors. I will quote just a few of their testimonies verbatim; I have changed their names. Beatrice, aged 25 of Plateau State, said:
“I returned in the morning but everything was burned. I went to my home and saw my mother and siblings butchered and burned”.
Sarah, aged just 14, displaced to Abuja, said:
“We evacuated before the attack. Fulani militia burnt the orphanage and destroyed the crops”.
Janet, mother to four children, from Plateau State, said:
“I found my husband had been killed. I cannot go back to my village. It has been burnt. We are barely managing”.
I could give many more quotations. Christian believers are often stripped of their livelihoods and driven from their homes to survive as displaced people, leaving a trail of grief and trauma.
My small charity, the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust, works with local in-country partners in places where civilians are subject to persecution—places which are largely unreached by many other aid organisations for political and security reasons. In Nigeria, it is our privilege to work with the Anglican Archbishop of Jos, Benjamin Kwashi. We always ask our partners to identify their priorities for aid. Their priority in the Middle Belt region is a desperate need for educational resources for the thousands of young people driven from their homes by the current military offensives. Without education, they will not have a future.
HART has delivered education supplies for over 6,000 young people. It is a great privilege. I am always profoundly moved by the sheer delight on the faces of young people as educational resources arrive. However, the military offensives and associated dangers persist and the people of Nigeria still suffer from sustained persecution. I will give one or two more examples. The famous kidnapping of the Chibok girls in 2014 did excite some attention but mostly that does not happen. Earlier this month, nearly 200 people were kidnapped in the Kajuru local council territory in central Nigeria, in addition to over 300 people kidnapped this year by suspected Islamist Fulani militia groups freely operating in the region. More than 300 Christian farmers have been killed in the region since January.
The suffering is exacerbated by the major problem of virtually no aid from the Nigerian Government being provided for those suffering persecution. Our local partner, Reverend Canon Hassan John, told us that, for over 10 years, displaced villagers have been forced to rely on aid from local churches or NGOs. He said:
“I can say categorically that there has been very little or no aid, not even from the state or Federal Government of Nigeria … I am not aware of any assistance from the British Government in the central region … In Southern Kaduna state, at least seven communities have [recently] been attacked. Villagers are forced to move onto the next village. None of these villages have received security or humanitarian assistance. Families in neighbouring villages do what they can to absorb and care for their relatives”.
The UK Government have sent much-needed assistance to north-eastern states in Nigeria, where Boko Haram continues to attack and devastate rural areas, but little or nothing has been sent to those suffering persecution in Middle Belt locations, who continue to lose their homes and property and are forced to pay ransom to free their relatives kidnapped by the Islamist Fulani militia groups. They appeal to His Majesty’s Government to urge the Nigerian Government to meet the needs of their civilians, especially in the Middle Belt, who are suffering from killings, abductions and destruction of homes, churches, and clinics, with over 2.5 million forced to flee and live in dire conditions as displaced people.
I turn briefly to my second example: Armenia, the first nation to become Christian. Armenia suffered genocide in the last century and is now suffering sustained Islamist Azerbaijani attacks. I have been there many times; we have seen the people having to flee. The little land of Nagorno-Karabakh, historically ancient Armenia, has now been cleansed of all Armenians—a real case of ethnic cleansing. Armenia is not a big nation to have to take the many people displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh.
I will finish with a quote from one of the bishops:
“It is not only the perpetrators of crime and evil who commit sin, but also those who stand by – seeing and knowing – and who do not condemn it or try to avert it”.
Blessed are the peacemakers, who not only speak words of peace, but make peace, for they shall be called the children of God. I finish with those words, offering them as an inspiring tribute to the theme of this debate, with the focus on people suffering persecution in our world today, while we talk this evening.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I also commend the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for bringing this debate, with particularly good timing, as she noted, given the religious holiday that is coming up. For billions of people on the planet, this will be a time to celebrate their faith, family and community, but, regrettably, as has been pointed out during this sober debate, with many dreadful statistics of the scale of the issue, too many Christians will not be able to do so in security and will be fearful of persecution.
I commend the Minister for his work on freedom of religion or belief. As he points out regularly in the Chamber, that freedom is also for those without religion or who do not practise belief. He regularly responds with sincerity and passion about the need for people to practise their own private faith, free from state persecution. I commend the FCDO for the work it has done over recent years—not only the global conferences and the convening power of UK diplomats, but also the training of our own staff to be able to identify those areas where there is likely to be persecution and the growth of extremism, because this is also an issue of security and prevention of conflict. At home, also, in recent months, we have had to debate the wholly unacceptable rise of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia; they have no place in modern Britain. They have never had a place in Britain.
My party’s constitution starts with the words:
“we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity”.
As with others in the Chamber during this debate, when we have seen persecution in China, with Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Falun Gong at risk of persecution, or in Algeria with Christian groups and the Ahmadiyya Muslim community reporting difficulties, or in the Gulf, in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, we reject the persecution and call them out. More recently, questions in this Chamber have related to concerns that exist within India and Afghanistan, where concerns about Christians, Sikhs and Hazaras have been raised.
Regrettably, the list is too long, because we have also discussed today, at length, the situations in Nigeria and in Eritrea; concerns about the growth of terrorist groups such as Boko Haram—which even has in the words of its title the forbidding of education, which is deeply chilling—and Islamic State in west Africa, which has had at its very heart the persecution of minorities; and the concerns about the impact on the Pentecostal Church and Shia Islam.
I recognise that many sovereign states have established religions. As was pointed out, the UK is no different—the world watched our Head of State being crowned in a religious ceremony, not a civil one. England, not a nation in the UK where I live, has an established Church, which has legislators among its members—we were graced with a contribution today.
There is long-standing anxiety about political Islam, and many communities over centuries have been worried about political Christianity too. We in this country need to have a degree of self-awareness that established Churches have all too often been used by repressive or reactionary political leaders to deny rights rather than to give them. The Minister and his colleagues have done excellent work in the sensitive area of working with countries—some friendly—that still retain apostasy laws, for example, and have denied rights to women and children in the name of religion, often incredibly inaccurately so, as the Minister pointed out.
When I campaigned against the death penalty in Uganda, I was told by the Anglican community there that it would support my work on the condition that I did not campaign for LGBT rights. The Anglican community in the Commonwealth is not a homogenous one. It is worth noting that too many of the examples that we have heard in this debate, and too many of the watch countries highlighted by NGOs and the FCDO, are Commonwealth nations. In too many, progressive reforms can be all too problematic.
In recent weeks and months, we have seen religious political leaders using the faith of their own followers as a political tool, such as the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Carnegie Endowment said:
“When Russia invaded Ukraine, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) did not hesitate to throw its support behind the Kremlin’s war against a neighboring Orthodox nation. Far from wavering, that support has only grown more strident as the war progressed”.
The Anglican leader in Rwanda speaks out in favour of the UK immigration agreement, and Anglican leaders in this House speak against it. There is, of course, an element of healthy debate, which needs to be encouraged, but, perhaps now more than for many years, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry, indicated, political leaders are using belief in God as a defence and a motive for repressive actions. It is striking that most who do this are the least godly of all. It gives licence to groups to persecute minorities and for there to be impunity for it.
Of course, it is not new—it is centuries, if not millennia, old—and in some areas we struggle to reconcile the contemporary consequences of such past actions. The racist undertones of British imperial expansion reflected the “three Cs” of colonialism: civilisation, Christianity and commerce. Coming to terms with this is hard; England’s established Church recently rejected its oversight body’s finding that contributing less than 1% over 10 years of its endowment funds which were originally based on the proceeds of exploiting enslaved people was too little over too long a timeframe.
None of this historical reflection, or indeed how contemporary political leaders are abusing faith for political and corrupt ends, can defend or excuse the persecution of Christian people seeking to practise their own faith. I support their ability to do that unflinchingly.
Given the Private Member’s Bill to establish a statutory envoy, can the Minister assure the House that there will be enough time in both Houses to see this on to the statute book? Are the Government seeking amendments to widen its scope and capacity?
I close by reflecting on one point. The noble Baroness indicated that the persecution of Christians is far too underreported, and no doubt she is absolutely right, but given the context of the Middle East and what is happening in Gaza and Israel, this is a personal comment from my friend, Layla Moran, whose mother is a Christian Arab from Jerusalem and who has family members seeking shelter in the Holy Family Church in Gaza. She said:
“I am on the side of basic humanity … I am on the side of the Israeli community, the Palestinian community and the Jewish, Muslim and Christian communities”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/10/23; col. 913.]
Protecting people’s ability to practise their faith should be an element of basic humanity.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for securing this debate and introducing it so comprehensibly, and to all noble Lords who have spoken.
We on these Benches are absolutely committed to the importance of promoting and protecting freedom of religion or belief for all. Since that was questioned as a framework for this debate, it is worth returning to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which could not be clearer that:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”,
including the freedom to change their religion and the right to manifest it. Despite that clarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, violations of these rights happen daily. I was very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for his candour in saying that he was simply not aware of the scale of persecution of Christians; that feels like something that other noble Lords have mentioned and probably goes further than just him. Listening to the description of the watch-list showing that 365 million Christians worldwide are not simply being given a hard time but face
“high levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith”
should give us all pause for thought.
We are in the season where many of the world’s major faiths have a focus, and it feels particularly poignant that we are having this debate in Holy Week, when most western churches mark the events leading up to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I should declare as an interest that I am an ordained minister in the established Church of England. When I go freely to church on Easter morning to celebrate the resurrection, it will be an occasion of great joy, so it is deeply painful that one in seven Christians globally will be unable to go to church to mark the resurrection or will do so at great personal risk. That should be a cause for concern to all people of good will, whatever their faith.
The sheer global scale of the persecution of Christians was underscored in the latest annual report on international religious freedom from the Pew Research Center in the US. It assessed 198 countries and found that Christians were harassed by Governments or private actors in 160 of them in 2021. This reflects that sheer global scale; it was noted in the Truro report that, as perhaps the single biggest genuinely global religion, Christianity becomes something of a bellwether for oppression more generally. There are two reasons for this debate to be important. One is to inform those who, like the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, do not know about the scale of the persecution of Christians, but the other is that if Christians are being persecuted, so are other people. I was very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for making it clear that Christians standing up and talking about the persecution of Christians are not doing so because they are Christians; they are doing so because they are being persecuted. It is hard to justify that theologically in anybody’s book.
Particular countries of concern have been mentioned: North Korea is still ranked as the most dangerous place in the world to be a Christian; China and Pakistan were both mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton; the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, mentioned India; Laos has jumped 10 places to 21st in the watch-list; Cuba and Mexico have been flagged up by Christian Solidarity Worldwide; and Nigeria, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others, is a source of considerable concern when the best part of 5,000 Christians have been murdered there for their faith. There are also issues, as the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said, elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa; there have been deaths in the DRC, Burkina Faso, Cameroon and the CAR, and many Christians have been displaced in that region. Can the Minister tell us how the Government view this region and what they are doing to speak into the situation there?
A number of noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Curry, referred to the Truro report. Where the Government have credible evidence of severe violations of freedom of religion or belief, the Truro process requires the Foreign Secretary to consider whether to impose sanctions on the perpetrators. We have had sanctions imposed on individuals and entities in Myanmar and North Korea. Can the Minister update the House on whether any sanctions have been imposed recently on additional countries?
On the positive side, on a visit to Washington a few weeks ago, I had a meeting with Ambassador Rashad Hussain, the United States Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom and was very impressed to hear of the work that he and his team are doing. Given the Minister’s extensive interest and work in this area, could he update the House on what transatlantic partnership working is being done in this important area?
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, raised the question of trade deals. One way to hold different nations to account over their human rights and FoRB violations is to include human rights clauses in trade agreements that the UK is negotiating. Can the Minister update the House on whether, and if so how, the FCDO’s important work on human rights and FoRB is being reflected in our trade negotiations?
I welcome the Government’s initiatives to put this issue centre stage globally. We can all in this House agree on the important role that freedom of religious belief can play in tackling extremism and promoting democracy. Although today’s debate has focused on the important issue of persecution of Christians, sadly, as many noble Lords have noted, Christians are not alone in experiencing persecution. The Pew research found that Christians and Muslims face harassment in a larger number of countries than any other group, but that is a measure of scale rather than specifically depth of persecution. Other religious minorities are facing persecution at a frightening rate across the world; and I agree that we should not conclude without acknowledging the position of the non-religious, since the right not to practise a religion, or to abandon or change one’s religion, is just as fundamental and absolutely central to Article 18. We should be championing freedom of religion or belief for all around the world.
In closing, I pay tribute to all those noble Lords, many of whom have spoken this evening, who have spent years dedicatedly highlighting instances of persecution on grounds of religion and belief around the world. I also thank the many organisations in the field, including Open Doors and Christian Solidarity Worldwide, as well as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and all those whose staff and volunteers take risks so that we may get to hear about things that we would otherwise not hear about.
History has shown us that violations of freedom of religion or belief do not happen in isolation. Countries that fail to respect religious freedom or the right to no belief invariably fail to respect other basic human rights also. The UK must continue to call out human rights violations and abuses wherever they are to be found if we are to play our part in ensuring a free world where all can flourish. It is a reminder to us of the paramount importance of tackling persecution around the world but also of tackling hate incidents in our own place. This includes tackling anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and, above all, working together to be the kind of country where people of all faiths and none can live well together, respect one another and build a world in which, as I said, all of us can flourish. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I join the chorus of thanks to my noble friend Lady Foster for initiating this debate, and I thank all noble Lords for their very insightful contributions.
Many noble Lords talked about the significance of Holy Week, and about other faiths as well. As a Muslim myself, I have already mentioned to my dear colleague on the Front Bench how, no sooner had I opened my fast for Ramadan—no sooner had I taken a date and a swig of water—than I was summoned to the Chamber. The insightful and detailed nature of what we have heard today is reflective of the depth of interest on an issue that I myself regard as a key priority, not just as a Minister but at a very personal level. Before I go into details, I will say that I was intrigued when my noble friend Lord Moylan described—I think I am paraphrasing him correctly—that there are few innovations in the UK that do not come across the pond from the US. As someone who had just opened his fast, the words “chicken tikka masala” immediately came to mind.
On the important issue of freedom of religion or belief, I share in what many noble Lords have said. Whether you are a practising Christian, Muslim or from any faith in our incredible country, the real test of your own faith is not just defending your own but standing up for the rights and beliefs of those of other faiths or, indeed, no faith. It is an incumbent and fundamental human right.
Across the world, the abuse and violation of the right to freedom of religion or belief is deeply concerning. Indeed, as my noble friend Lady Foster said, it is shocking. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, talked about things not being known. Sometimes it is the unsaid that needs to be said, and Christian persecution is reflective of exactly what needs to be said.
As someone who is an Ahmadi Muslim, I was called in by the then Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who asked me about the persecution of communities: “Tariq, what do you think about having a report looking at Christian persecution?” Quick as a flash, I said, “Of course, Jeremy; it needs to be done”. Wherever we see Christians persecuted around the world, other communities are equally persecuted.
On the question of scale and diversity, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, mentioned North Korea, and I agree with her. There are other areas, such as the Roman Catholic Church in Nicaragua, for example. Sadly, these are just a few examples of places where Christians are persecuted.
On the recent Open Doors World Watch List report, which the noble Baroness and many noble Lords mentioned, I was pleased to attend the launch event, as was acknowledged. There, we again heard the startling and shocking statistic of one in seven Christians being persecuted worldwide. Last year alone, 5,000 Christians were murdered—these are just the accounted for numbers. This is the reason we must continue to challenge violations and abuses wherever they occur. I assure all noble Lords that we are very much seized of this as a Government, and I will illustrate some of the detail in the short time I have. On the questions I do not answer, I will write to noble Lords in more detail.
My noble friend Lord Moylan said that the central message is to never take your eye off the ball. Persecution can happen any time, anywhere, and we need to remain vigilant, whether it is in the east, west or anywhere across the globe. The UK Government are firm in our position that no one should be persecuted, abused or intimidated because of their faith, religion or belief. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, rightly talked about Christians protecting all. I say to the noble Lord that that is reflective of all faiths and their protection of other faiths. Protecting and promoting this fundamental human right has been a long-standing commitment of the Government—indeed, of successive Governments in which I have had an opportunity to serve.
We demonstrated the depth of our commitment two years ago, when, together with the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, I hosted an international ministerial conference. At that conference, we brought together over 800 faith and belief leaders and human rights actors, and 100 government delegations, to agree on a plan to promote and protect FoRB. Since the conference, we have taken several actions to build on the momentum. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his kind remarks, both about the work of the Government and my personal commitment. I agree that we must continue to act in a very focused manner on this.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford talked about essential human rights and reflecting on our own country and the rising tide of attacks on different faiths, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. As was rightly coined, we should be intolerant of religious intolerance.
We are strengthening international coalitions within FoRB. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about our work with the United States. I have a small personal anecdote. The then ambassador for freedom of religion Sam Brownback, who is well-known to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked me to have a meeting with him and one other individual in the US mission. That is where the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance was born. He asked me whether the UK would support it and I said that of course we would. Freedom of religion or belief remains a priority in our multilateral work.
We underlined our commitment on the national pledge to mark December’s anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We regularly raise situations of concern at the UN Human Rights Council. Just a few weeks ago, we raised the plight of the Baha’i community in Yemen and Iran, the Ahmadi Muslims and Christians in Pakistan, and the Roman Catholic Church in Nicaragua, during an interactive dialogue with the UN special rapporteur. We hold states accountable for their obligations though the UN’s universal periodic review. In January, we were an active participant, when we focused on Nigeria.
There are other positive actions we are taking in different parts of the world. The Middle East was mentioned. While there are challenges in a number of countries, including Iraq and Iran, there is a positive element of the work that we do. Last June, we led a resolution at the UN Security Council, with the UAE, on tolerance and international peace and security, which was unanimously adopted for the first time. It directly addressed the persecution of religious minorities in conflict settings. After the global conference, we pledged to build coalitions to boost global efforts.
I commend my dear friend Fiona Bruce MP for her work and dedication in serving two consecutive terms as chair of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance. Indeed, the FoRB role predated the Truro review. I had the honour to lead on it, as the first FoRB envoy, under the then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and then Prime Minister Theresa May. The Government are fully supportive of Fiona Bruce’s Private Member’s Bill. She has had that assurance from me several times privately, as well as publicly. I am delighted that my dear friend is watching carefully from the Gallery. Earlier this month, I was pleased to meet with both my honourable friend and the new chair of the alliance, Ambassador Robert Řehák of the Czech Republic. This network has now extended to 42 counties and has published numerous statements on persecuted religious minorities, including one last year on Christians, covering countries such as Nigeria and Myanmar. I know that these are a focus and interest of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.
When she was the chair of the international alliance, the special envoy established a scheme to raise awareness each month of different prisoners of conscience. Last year, we saw the release of Hanna Abdimalik, a Christian in Somaliland, and Shamil Khakimov, a Jehovah’s Witness in Tajikistan. Again, I pay tribute to the work of Fiona Bruce MP and that of the wider alliance in this respect.
On bilateral action, we do not shy away from challenging those not meeting their obligations. We have heard already from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, in introducing the debate, about the challenges faced across the Middle East. I am reminded that I have raised in my interactions with Israeli interlocutors the importance of Jerusalem to the three Abrahamic faiths. During the current crisis, I have been in regular touch, including with imams and the Archbishop of Jerusalem. I pay tribute to his work.
The UK Government strongly condemn the violence faced by religious minorities in Pakistan. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and to the honourable gentleman Jim Shannon, for raising the persecution of the Christian community in Jaranwala, in Punjab. During the most violent attack of recent years, mobs burned churches and attacked Christians’ homes. The Foreign Secretary raised the persecution of Christian communities directly with then Prime Minister Kakar. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked when we last raised the issue of religious persecution with Pakistan. I did so only last week, with the visit of its new Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar. I also regularly raise concerns about the attacks on marginalised religious communities with the high commissioners of different countries, including Pakistan’s.
The UK regularly raises the issue of insecurity and its impact with the Nigerian Government. We heard from the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on various issues relating to minorities. I assure the noble Lord that we remain much seized of the case of Leah Sharibu.
India and China were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, knows that our focus is on the Uighur Muslims. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, raised issues concerning India. On a recent visit there, I had a direct discussion with the Indian Home Minister, particularly about Manipur.
I am conscious that I have only about a minute and a half left. I assure all noble Lords that the reports from the Bishop of Truro have been embedded; 22 recommendations were made some years ago, after an independent review of our work. Implementing the recommendations has been largely positive; it was assessed that most recommendations were at an advanced stage of delivery or in the process of being delivered. In the interests of time, I shall write a letter on the detail of where we have progressed on the 22 recommendations and lay it in the Library.
I assure noble Lords that every recommendation, including on training and on the permanence of the FoRB envoy’s role, is embedded in our work. The FoRB envoy has hosted a series of round tables, including focus on areas such as Nigeria, Pakistan, Iran and Myanmar. Just last week, she brought together many committed FoRB advocates for a reception at the FCDO.
I assure noble Lords that we remain committed to the key priorities of raising the issues of Christian persecution. We marked Red Wednesday by lighting up the department’s UK-based buildings. I commend the hosting in Parliament by the FoRB envoy of Margaret Attah, survivor of a terrorist attack on St Francis Xavier church in Owo, Nigeria.
To conclude, this has been a short but important debate, focused directly on the issue of Christian persecution. As I said, it is an issue of which the Government are seized. Freedom of religion or belief must remain on the international agenda, and we continue to work with our international partners to forge a united approach to protecting and promoting not only freedom of religion but all human rights.
I end with the words of Jesus, who said, at John 13:34:
“I give you a new commandment: love one another. Just as I have loved you, you must also love one another”.