House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we begin today’s proceedings, I would like to thank right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House for their kind messages following the death of my father. I gained so much from him: a love of cricket, of rugby league and of animals, but most of all, an abiding sense of the importance of public service. He was a giant of the Labour and trade union movement and a great parliamentarian. I know he will be greatly missed by his former colleagues in this House and in other places, but most of all by family and friends. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I now turn to the election of the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I wish to inform the House that I have received a letter from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) informing me of his resignation as Chair of that Committee. I therefore declare the Chair vacant.
Nominations for the election of a successor are now open, and will close at 12 noon on Tuesday 7 May. Nomination forms are available from the Vote Office, the Table Office and the Public Bill Office. Only Members of the Conservative party may be candidates in this election. If there is more than one candidate, the ballot will take place on Wednesday 8 May. A briefing note with more information about the election will be made available from the Vote Office.
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
I put on record my condolences for your loss, Mr Speaker.
The Government have implemented a number of measures to reduce net migration. Those include restricting overseas students from bringing family dependants to the UK while they study, stopping overseas care workers from bringing family dependants, increasing the salary threshold for skilled worker visas—ultimately to £38,700—and increasing the minimum income requirements for family visas. We recognise that levels of migration have been too high and, upon my appointment, I immediately took action to bring those figures down.
Miriam Cates
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, but one of the main drivers of immigration over the past 20 years or so has been labour shortages caused by falling birth rates. According to projections by Philip Pilkington and Paul Morland, if birth rates do not increase, immigration will have to rise to over a third of the population over the next 50 years if we are going to maintain a sufficient working-age population. Immigration on this scale has no democratic consent and obviously my right hon. Friend has promised repeatedly to reduce net migration, so what discussions has he had with colleagues in the Treasury about this issue? Does he agree that the Government must have a strategy to address falling birth rates, to ensure that we do not always have to rely on ever-increasing rates of immigration?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Birth rates are driven by myriad social and economic factors, which I have to concede are beyond my control, but I have spoken with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about related issues and recognise that GDP per capita is an important metric, as is overall GDP. We are ensuring that we invest in a British workforce: my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is passionate about apprenticeships and lifelong learning. We want to be a high-skilled, high-income economy, rather than a low-skilled, mass-migration economy. That remains the Government’s priority, and we are taking action through our immigration policy to reflect that desire.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Trhas Teklehaimanot Tesfay is one of the elite female cyclists chosen to lead RideLondon next month. She is also an asylum seeker, living in a hotel in my constituency where the food is so bad it makes her sick and unable to compete. Last month, an investigation by Sustain found food for asylum seekers that was undercooked, past its sell-by date and infested with insects, which in some cases left them malnourished and hospitalised. Could the Secretary of State investigate this scandal and the responsibility of the contractor Clearsprings, so that asylum seekers such as Trhas are not subject to such dangerous and degrading conditions?
James Cleverly
Mr Speaker, I can assure you, the hon. Gentleman and the House that our contractors are expected to maintain standards and, where they fall below those standards, they will be held to account. I will absolutely take note of the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I welcome the measures my right hon. Friend has taken to tackle the levels of legal migration, but could he inform me what assessment he has made of the expected impact of the new immigration salary list and what impact that will have on the net migration figure?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is at the frontline of our fight against illegal migration, but legal migration is important. We have recognised that, for a number of reasons, the figures have been too high in the most recent couple of years and I have listed measures we have taken. The combined impact of that is that, by our estimations, under the new regime that I have put in place, 300,000 people who would previously have been eligible will no longer be eligible. That is the order of magnitude of change that we will eventually see once these proposals are fully implemented.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The refusal to allow care workers from overseas to bring a spouse with them comes at the same time as, in Cumbria, we are finding it impossible to fill at least a fifth of all the social care jobs. Would the Home Secretary explain to constituents of mine who are unable to find people to care for them and their loved ones why it seems sensible to make the lives of people from overseas so miserable in coming over here to care for our loved ones that they do not come at all?
James Cleverly
I recognise that, in rural communities, recruitment and retention of staff is difficult and in the hon. Member’s constituency—a wonderful, beautiful, but very rural constituency—there are particular pressures. I can assure him that the global supply of potential care workers is very significant. Actually, the issues about where in the country those people work are more about the internal dynamic within the UK economy than the quantum of people around the world who would seek to work in the UK. There are plenty of people who would wish to work here, recognising that they are not allowed to bring their dependants with them, but the issue of where in the country those people work is actually a broader issue.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The cruel Conservative hikes to the visa minimum income threshold have caused deep distress—deep, deep distress—to many. Does the Home Secretary understand the pain that these changes have caused, and what message does he believe it sends out to those who would do us the honour of making their home in these islands that he puts such a high price on love and family life?
James Cleverly
It is absolutely right that any nation in the world puts conditionality on the people it accepts within its own borders. This country has a long-standing tradition—in fact, I am a product of this, as are the Prime Minister, the Business and Trade Secretary and many others in the Government—of being open and welcoming. However, when we see the orders of magnitude of legal migration that we have seen over the last couple of years, it is incumbent on us to take action. We have made it clear what action we will take, and we have given notice of the changes so that people can make their plans accordingly. When there are special cases, there is a special cases exemption, so that we can both control immigration and do our moral duty to protect those people who seek our protection, and be an attractive place for people to come and work.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)
Since 2020, we have supported 413 projects through our safer streets fund and the safety of women at night fund, investing over £150 million, including £3.9 million that has been designated to Merseyside. The objective of the fund is to improve public protection—particularly that of women, particularly at night—and independent evaluation shows that it is more than achieving its objective.
Kim Johnson
I do not think the Minister answered the question about the impact of the reduction. Merseyside has now received a combined reduction of £180,000 to our safer streets fund in round 5. Our police and crime commissioner, Emily Spurrell, has called this “ill-considered and short-sighted” because projects have already begun and delivery is under way, but the funding has been restricted yet again. So will the Minister agree today to reinstate the lost funding, so that Merseyside police and others can continue their great work, keeping our streets safe?
Laura Farris
May I just gently tell the hon. Lady that, in the last round of funding, round 4, Merseyside received £1.3 million through the safer streets fund— that was quadruple what it had received in round 3—and over half a million of that was designated specifically to CCTV and street lighting in Liverpool city centre? Round 5 should be seen in the context of record funding to the Merseyside police, who received an unprecedented uplift of £27.6 million—a 6.5% uplift. I am confident that Merseyside will still be able to deliver its schemes, including the safe home cards providing safe transport to help women get home from nightspots, in this round.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
In Essex, the police, fire and crime commissioner Roger Hirst has used the safer streets money to pay for CCTV and safety measures in the Bunny Walks, to pay for safety improvements around Chelmsford Prison to keep residents safe, and more recently for CCTV cameras in Central Park and the Avenues and extra safety measures around the cathedral. Despite all this the local Lib Dems want to take credit for all of Roger’s work, so will the Home Secretary pop down to Chelmsford to come and see me and Roger and make sure we say thank you to Roger for all he has done with this Government money to keep people safe?
Laura Farris
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. She is correct. Roger Hirst has an exceptional track record as a police and crime commissioner. He has done outstanding work driving down antisocial behaviour and domestic burglary and the examples she gives are exactly what the safer streets fund is for: bespoke, local, dedicated services that will improve public protection. I know that Essex police have higher numbers than at any point in their 185-year history, and I will certainly urge the Home Secretary to pay them a visit at the next available opportunity.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and on behalf of the whole shadow Home Affairs team may I place on record our sincere condolences on the loss of your father?
Following the horrific killing of Kulsuma Akter in Bradford, who was tragically stabbed to death in broad daylight while pushing her three-year-old son in a pram, West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester police have referred themselves for investigation because of prior contact with Kulsuma and her husband, who has since been arrested for her murder. Cases of multiple contact with the police before violent escalation are all too common. Labour will mandate domestic abuse and wider violence against women and girls training for every police officer in the country and we will introduce Raneem’s law to overhaul the policing response when reports are first made. So I ask the Minister, how many more women will have to die before the Government can do the same?
Laura Farris
The hon. Lady is right to mention the case of Kulsuma Akter. What happened to her was appalling. I obviously cannot comment on any specifics in relation to the case, but the hon. Lady will know that the bail conditions that the perpetrator had been released under contained restrictions that were breached themselves. So it was not a case of the court refusing to apply conditions; he breached them. In relation to her wider point, of course every single one of these cases is a tragedy. She will know, because we have worked on a cross-party basis in the past, how much time and attention we dedicate to this at the Home Office, but I simply say this. We now have domestic abuse training that has been rolled out to over 80% of forces and the Home Secretary and I are working very closely with the nine outstanding ones. They are on a timetable for delivery—I want to reassure the hon. Lady of that—and we now, this month, have trained rape specialists in every single police force in England and Wales.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
I thank my hon. Friend enormously for raising this question. Let me be clear that the hostile activity we have seen from Chinese authorities and state-affiliated groups poses a serious threat to the security and wellbeing of the British people and to our partners and allies across the world. The Deputy Prime Minister came to this Chamber last month to speak about the pattern of malign activity, including the targeting of our parliamentarians and two malicious cyber-campaigns by Chinese state-affiliated actors. We must never be afraid to stand up for ourselves and to call out this kind of activity that has targeted both my hon. Friend and me.
Tim Loughton
Mr Speaker, may I add my personal condolences to you on the loss of your father?
I say to my right hon. Friend that we had the scandal of the hacking of MPs’ email accounts back in March and we subsequently learnt that the FBI informed our Government—as well as foreign Governments who had legislators who were affected—about these incidents two years ago. Why has it taken two years for us to be told about a serious security breach? Will he now, with his colleagues in Cabinet, make sure that China is absolutely treated and labelled as a threat, not just an “epoque-defining systemic challenge”, and everything is done urgently to put China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend, who has given this House and our country exceptional service over many years, and who will sadly be standing down at the next election, has again made some strong points. On the first, he knows the language that I use and he has heard the words I have said. The reality is that we face threats from around the world, and many of them sadly are emerging out of Beijing today. We know it, we have seen it, and many of us in this House feel it. It is not something we are shying away from. The reality, however, is that there are many different ways of answering it. He has raised an important aspect on FIRS, which of course is being looked at, but he will have heard the words of the Deputy Prime Minister in this Chamber only a few weeks ago and how clearly he made himself heard.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am sorry, but I am not convinced by the Government’s attitude on this. When the Deputy Prime Minister came to see us a few weeks ago, he did not say anything new; he announced things about events that happened two years ago. The Security Minister himself knows of attempts by the Chinese Government to undermine the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee of this House. Why are we only ever told about things that happened years ago? If we are to take these issues seriously, we surely have to have an up-to-date and present account of the activities of the Chinese state.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Member will well know that, when there is a reason to act quickly and draw something to the attention of the House, we do, as was the case with Christine Lee, which he will remember involved the payment of money to a certain Member of this House. The reason we took that action was because we needed to expose it fast.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner said last year that our policing and security services were technologically vulnerable because of their use of Chinese-made equipment, including CCTV, drones and body cameras. Can the Minister say whether the digital asbestos of Chinese-made technology is still used in our policing and security infrastructure—yes or no?
Tom Tugendhat
My friend the hon. Member will know well that the work of Fraser Sampson before he retired or ended his mandate last year has been fantastically important to many of us in making sure “digital asbestos” —I approve of the term—is got out of our institutions. This is something that is ongoing. It has got out of the most secure sites already, but there are other areas where there is work to do, because an awful lot of sites bought technology that would now be problematic. It is not just static sites; there is potential that some electric vehicles could be easily turned into mobile intelligence-gathering platforms by hostile states, so it is about looking not simply at the past, but at the future.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)
In 2023, we delivered a strong removal performance, with overall returns back to pre-covid levels. In total, 26,000 were returned, an increase of 74%, at an average of 500 removed every week last year.
Henry Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Can he update the House on how his Department is prioritising the return of foreign national offenders to their home countries to keep the streets and communities of the United Kingdom safe?
Michael Tomlinson
May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the work that goes on in his constituency? As he knows, I visited Gatwick recently and saw for myself the good work of the Border Force team there. He will be pleased to know that removals of foreign national offenders were up last year by 27%. We are committed to the removal of foreign criminals and those with no right to be in the United Kingdom.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
On that point, I sadly see many asylum seekers in Newport who are stuck in limbo due to this Government’s incompetence. However, can I draw the Minister’s attention to the case of a man in Newport who lied about his name and country of origin and is a convicted sex offender who has breached the terms of his licence? The courts want him returned home. He wants to return home and will even pay for his flight, but for some unfathomable reason, the Home Office seem incapable of authorising or allowing that. It has been three years—why?
Michael Tomlinson
The removals increased last year. It is interesting to note that Opposition Members, including the leader of the Labour party, have campaigned to ensure they are preventing the deportation of foreign criminals. Those on the Government Benches are determined to see foreign criminals removed, and there was an increase in removals of 74% last year.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Under successive Conservative Governments since 2010, returns of failed asylum seekers have collapsed by 44%, and returns of foreign national offenders have fallen by almost 30% over the same period. For all the Government’s tough talk, only 2% of those arriving on small boats since 2018 have been returned anywhere, yet Ministers are still resisting Labour’s plan for a new returns and enforcement unit to ensure the swift removal of those with no right to be here. Meanwhile, over the weekend, more people crossed the channel in small boats than will be covered in the entire first year of the Government’s failing Rwanda scheme. Will the Minister stop the headline-chasing gimmicks and instead commit to setting out his plan for the 99% of people currently stuck in the asylum system who will never be sent to Rwanda?
Michael Tomlinson
The fact of the matter is that nearly 18,000 foreign national offenders were returned between January 2019 and December 2023. The fact of the matter is that Opposition Members, including the leader of the Labour party, have campaigned to prevent the deportation of foreign criminals, while Government Members welcome an increase of 74%, with an average of 500 people being removed every single week.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I am happy to remind the House that last year we reached record numbers of police officers—in excess of 149,000, which was over 3,000 more than at the previous peak under the last Labour Government. In terms of local policing, we achieved 67,785 as of March last year.
Andrew Western
Under this Government, 10,000 neighbourhood police officers have disappeared since 2015 and have yet to be replaced on the frontline. Given the Government’s proclivity for lifting Labour’s policies, may I gently encourage the Minister to adopt Labour’s plan to recruit 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, allowing for a named, contactable officer in every ward in the country?
Chris Philp
The hon. Member is using figures that went up to 2019. Of course, the reason he is using figures that are five years out of date is that the numbers have gone up since then. If we take neighbourhood policing as a whole, we see an increase of 6,000, from 61,083 in 2015—the year he mentioned—to 67,785. I am surprised that he is not joining me in welcoming that.
Virginia Crosbie
Antisocial behaviour has been a big problem in Holyhead. Almost £700,000 of UK Government safer streets funding has been used for CCTV, improved lighting, self-defence training for local women and girls, delivering crime prevention packs and outreach work. Will the Minister join me in thanking Chief Inspector Robert Rands, PC Lisa Thomas and many others who work so hard to improve the lives of people who live and work in Holyhead?
Chris Philp
I certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking those officers as well as countless thousands of others around the country who do such good work. On ASB, in addition to the safer streets money that she mentioned, from the beginning of this month we have an extra £66 million of funding for antisocial behaviour hotspot patrolling. Every single one of England and Wales’s police forces will get that, and that will make an enormous difference in combating the scourge of ASB.
Paul Howell
Does the Minister agree that getting extra officers out in our communities should be top of the list for any police and crime commissioner? Unfortunately, in Durham, we see that the Labour PCC is more interested in increasing her back-office staff and overseeing a decline in standards, with the latest police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy report showing two areas requiring improvement for the first time ever in Durham. Does he agree that the sooner we get an ex-beat cop in place, such as the Conservative candidate, Rob Potts, the sooner Durham will return to being an outstanding police force?
Chris Philp
I completely agree. Spending money on things such as flowerbeds and diversity staff instead of frontline police officers is the wrong priority. Former frontline officers such as Rob Potts, running for PCC in Durham, will do a good job of getting priorities straight.
Debbie Abrahams
Kulsuma Akter from Oldham was murdered by her estranged husband on a busy Bradford street in the middle of the day, in front of their baby son. Research has repeatedly shown that regular foot patrols—especially in crime hotspots—lead to reduced offending and increased public confidence, particularly if combined with community-based prevention. Greater Manchester police and West Yorkshire police want to learn lessons from this tragic murder. What lessons has the Home Secretary learned about reducing neighbourhood policing and the prevalence of such appalling crimes?
Chris Philp
That is a tragic case, and we will study any findings by the Independent Office for Police Conduct very carefully. The hon. Lady mentioned hotspot patrolling; I mentioned in a previous answer that the Government are providing £66 million this financial year on top of the regular police funding settlement to fund hotspot patrolling, which may help in such situations. To repeat a previous point, local policing numbers have gone up by about 6,500 since 2015. Selectively quoting figures that are five years old does nothing to help public debate.
James Morris
Halesowen police station is under threat of closure thanks to decisions taken by the Labour west midlands police and crime commissioner. Tom Byrne, the Conservative candidate for PCC, says that he will stop that closure programme. Does the Minister agree with me and Tom Byrne that keeping Halesowen police station open is critical for community confidence and for the effectiveness of neighbourhood policing?
Chris Philp
I agree very strongly. The Labour PCC’s police station closure plans in the west midlands are shocking. This year, West Midlands police is getting an extra £50 million—a 6.8% increase and well above the rate of inflation. Tom Byrne would do an excellent job of making sure that that maintains frontline services, which is exactly how that money should be spent.
Mary Glindon
Northumbria police force has lost 11,000 officers and £148 million from its budget since 2010. Even after the uplift it will remain 427 officers short compared with 2010 levels. Will the Minister support the call from Northumbria’s PCC Kim McGuinness for further investigation into police resources as, clearly, not all areas of the country have benefited equally from the uplift programme?
Chris Philp
I am pleased to tell the House that for this financial year, which started just a couple of weeks ago, Northumbria force’s funding has gone up by £28 million —a 7.6% increase and more than double the rate of inflation. The resources are there, but using those resources wisely is a matter for police and crime commissioners. Conservative police and crime commissioners tend to spend those resources most wisely.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
Violence and abuse towards shop workers is not and will never be acceptable. Last October the police published a retail crime action plan, which the Government have embraced and enhanced. Last week we launched the fighting retail crime action plan, which includes a commitment to create a new offence of assaulting a retail worker, as the sector has been calling for.
Ruth Cadbury
Last week I met a shopkeeper in Hounslow who has been repeatedly targeted by shoplifters. The family who own the shop cannot afford security guards or to lose a large amount of stock, unlike the big chains. It is welcome that the Government have finally backed Labour’s 10-year campaign, along with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and other campaigners, to introduce a stand-alone offence of assault against a shop worker, but will the Minister go further and scrap the unfair £200 minimum, which leaves offenders getting away with impunity?
James Cleverly
Shoplifting is still a criminal offence, irrespective of the financial value of what is taken. We have made a clear commitment to ensuring that shopkeepers are protected and that the retail environment is safe. That is why we have put in place funding to put more police officers on the street and why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) just mentioned, neighbourhood policing numbers are up. We have committed the police to pursuing all reasonable lines of inquiry, and I am proud that we have put in place a specific criminal offence of assault against a retail worker.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
For our high streets to thrive, people need to perceive them as safe places to be, but there is real concern that the Mayor of London is failing to get the Met to take retail crime seriously enough. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a new Mayor for London, Susan Hall, to ensure we have more effective policing on our high streets?
James Cleverly
Quite frankly, the Mayor of London has been a massive disappointment when it comes to the policing of London. The Met is the only police force in the country to see its police numbers reduce. It has failed to meet its recruitment targets. Quite frankly, Londoners deserve better.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on retail crime, I welcome the announcements, as I am sure will shop workers everywhere. When will the announcements be operationalised, and what is the monitoring process, so that we can all judge whether they are not just words but action?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are putting the changes through as amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. The sooner it makes its passage through the House, the quicker we can put these specific changes in place, but we are not waiting for that. We have had conversations with police forces to ensure there is visible policing on our high streets and that they respond to every reasonable line of inquiry, sending a signal to retailers and potential criminals that we take this issue incredibly seriously, and that the police will respond to this important type of crime.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
I realise the Home Secretary may be sick of hearing from me about assaults on retail workers, but I welcome the huge and comprehensive package announced last week to support them. Will my right hon. Friend implement the measures as quickly as possible to benefit retail workers across Stockton South and the rest of the country?
James Cleverly
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned vigorously on this issue and met me on a number of occasions to go through the specifics of the proposals, working closely with the Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), to ensure that both the policing response and the criminal response send a very clear deterrent to those who may be tempted to assault retail workers. It is not acceptable and we will take action.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
In January, the Government voted down our latest attempt to introduce a stand-alone offence tackling violence against retail workers, continuing a pattern of years of failing to address this issue while such violence reached epidemic proportions. Last week—surprise, surprise—they U-turned and an offence is now to follow. When will the Government follow that up by stealing the other ideas they keep denying: a restoration of neighbourhood policing, which was down between 2015 and 2023—not the response officers they have been talking about, but proper neighbourhood policing; and getting rid of the £200 limit?
James Cleverly
Members should recognise that just because a clause might have a similar sounding name, it does not mean it is the same. The simple truth of the matter is that the Opposition clause was deficient in many ways. The clause that we will put forward in the Criminal Justice Bill will address the issue. On local policing, the hon. Lady should recognise that there has been a 6,000 uplift.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
Last year, we launched the antisocial behaviour action plan, backed by £160 million-worth of funding and over 100,000 hours of police and other uniformed patrols undertaken to target antisocial behaviour hotspots, extended to every single police force in England and Wales. We banned nitrous oxide, increased fines for fly-tipping, littering and graffiti, and are strengthening powers to tackle antisocial behaviour through the Criminal Justice Bill that is making its way through the House.
Justin Madders
One of the aspects of antisocial behaviour that really annoys my constituents is persistent cannabis smoking by people in their own homes, particularly, but not exclusively, in blocks of flats. When I raise the matter with the police, they tell me that they are not going to go into people’s homes and deal with it. I do not think that that is good enough; does the Home Secretary?
James Cleverly
The police should take action when there is credible reporting of criminal behaviour. I have had this conversation with police leaders from areas around the country, and it is a conversation that we will continue to have with the police. People need not only to be safe but to feel safe, in their communities and in their homes.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
My condolences to you, Mr Speaker.
Protesters who recently created an obnoxious stunt outside the home of the Leader of the Opposition belong in jail, as do the trust fund vandals who caused tens of thousands of pounds’ worth of damage outside the Ministry of Defence last week. The truth is that frontline politicians of any political hue, and our military personnel, are prepared to put themselves forward to serve and protect this country, which is, of course, a concept that the vandals would know nothing about. When it comes to this type of antisocial behaviour, will my right hon. Friend consider increasing visibility at high-profile locations such as those that I have mentioned?
James Cleverly
My right hon. and learned Friend has raised a couple of points. First, it is completely unacceptable to try to intimidate parliamentarians whatever their political hue, and I will stand shoulder to shoulder with them regardless of their political party in defending their right to do and say what they believe to be in the best interests of their countries and their communities without fear of intimidation. That is an absolute red line, and it will be enforced. Secondly, these petulant acts of vandalism in the name of protest are unacceptable. When criminal damage occurs, it will be pursued, and in the Criminal Justice Bill we are taking specific actions to remove the veneer of a defence that criminal behaviour is somehow justified because people are not getting their way at the ballot box.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Too many residents in Nottingham South tell me that antisocial behaviour is making their lives a misery. They never see a bobby walking the streets, and under the lawbreaking Tory police and crime commissioner, Nottinghamshire police has been placed in special measures, with His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services saying that the force is letting victims down. My constituents tell me that they will be voting for Labour’s Gary Godden on 2 May, in order to rebuild neighbourhood policing and adopt a zero-tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour. They are right, are they not?
James Cleverly
They would be very wrong if they voted Labour expecting that that would increase a policing presence. Across the country we have seen over and over again that the best-performing police areas are typically controlled by Conservative police and crime commissioners. I know the situation in Nottinghamshire very well, and I have spoken directly to its police and crime commissioner, who has a clear plan of action to ensure that she continues to put police officers on the frontline. Labour-run police forces in the area have been sadly lacking in that regard.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Following an increase in antisocial behaviour in Tunstall, I was proud to work with more than 500 local residents to gain support for new CCTV, new alley gates and better street lighting through the safer streets fund. However, when I met the Labour leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, she told me that there would be no money for Tunstall—and, to make matters worse, she has dumped some undesirables in the Sneyd Arms hotel in the town centre, which has led to further criminal activity that is blighting high street stores throughout our community. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that, thank God, Ben Adams, Staffordshire’s police, fire and crime commissioner, was listening and ensured that we received that safer streets funding so that those in our communities would feel safer, and that people should vote for Ben on 2 May?
James Cleverly
I could hardly have put it better myself. I recently visited the wonderful town of Stoke and saw the passion of its people. This is a classic example of local leadership in the hands of the Labour party failing people, and local leadership in the hands of Conservatives defending them.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
We are all concerned about the plight of those living in Gaza. Currently, we are not considering establishing a separate route for Palestinians. In any humanitarian situation, the UK must consider its resettlement approach in the round, rather than on a crisis-by-crisis basis.
Patrick Grady
It is not surprising that the upper tribunal found the decision to require biometric data for people from Gaza to be “irrational and unreasonable”, because most of us find that to apply to most decisions made by the Home Office. Is it not also irrational and unreasonable for the United Kingdom to offer humanitarian visas to people caught up in the conflicts in Ukraine, Syria and Afghanistan, but not to offer such visas to people fleeing the conflict in Gaza?
Tom Pursglove
I will not give a running commentary on ongoing litigation, but I can say that we are supporting British nationals with dependants in Gaza to get those individuals out of Gaza safely, working in collaboration with Foreign Office colleagues. There are also marked differences at play here. Of course, the right of return is fundamental as part of efforts towards a two-state solution, and other factors are at play in responding to the Ukrainian situation. The dynamic is very different, which directly affects the relationship we have with the Ukrainian Government, particularly in respect of the ability to carry out checks on individuals.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Gaza Families Reunited’s petition for a Palestinian family visa scheme has garnered 100,000 signatures, and I hope it will soon be debated in Parliament. Gazans are stuck in a cruel and irrational Catch-22 situation: they cannot cross the border to Egypt because they do not have visas, as they cannot get their biometrics registered, but they cannot get their biometrics registered because they cannot get to a visa application centre in Egypt. The Government have the power to waive the requirement for biometrics to be registered, and it is in the Minister’s hands to do so. Why won’t he?
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Lady will appreciate that the security of the system is imperative. We must act in accordance with the requirements, which we put front and centre. I will not comment on ongoing litigation, but I can say that we will continue to work with Foreign Office colleagues in the way that we have described. Elements of the peace process are at play in relation to these issues, but we will keep our response to this crisis under review as matters develop.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
The Home Office has been clear that the use of hotels is a temporary and short-term measure to ensure that we meet our statutory obligation to accommodate destitute asylum seekers. We have made significant progress in closing over 100 asylum hotels as of the end of March. Our actions mean that there are over 20,000 fewer asylum seekers in hotels today compared with six months ago.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Does the Minister’s ambition extend to closing all the hotels?
Tom Pursglove
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Government’s ambition is to close the hotels. We closed 100 by the end of March, and we are working towards closing 150 by May. Fundamentally, the objective is to alter the way in which people are accommodated and to introduce more cost-effective and appropriate approaches, but also to reduce the flow of people coming into this country illegally, which is the very best way of alleviating the pressures.
Sir David Evennett
I welcome all the efforts that my hon. Friend is making to deal with and speed up the asylum process. However, will he outline what measures he considers when deciding which hotels to close in each tranche?
Tom Pursglove
My right hon. Friend will recognise that value for money is a critical consideration that informs hotel closure decisions, as are operational deliverability and the notice periods on contracts. It is also about recognising the needs in particular locations and the challenges that these sites present. We have a plan, we are closing hotels, and we will continue to deliver on precisely what we promised.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
For almost two years, the Sandpiper Hotel in Chesterfield has been used as a hotel for asylum seekers. The North Derbyshire Refugee Support Group has told me that not a single person who has stayed there has been asked to go back to their country. In fact, the vast majority of them have had their applications approved, which undermines the Government’s suggestion that all these asylum seekers are not entitled to be here. Actually, the Government approve the vast majority of applications, so their approach is a waste of money. Why do the Government continue to fail in this way? For the Minister to celebrate the extraordinary usage of hotels just because it is diminishing slightly is hopeless. When will we get the Sandpiper back in public use?
Tom Pursglove
I thought it was interesting that a Labour insider said to The Times last week:
“We need a viable answer to what we’d do differently other than just ‘smash the gangs’”
and that
“we can’t currently say how we are going to tackle the demand side of the issue.”
They are absolutely right. I suspect we will be waiting a very long time for the answer. That goes right to the heart of the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. He says that we ought to be closing the hotels, but it is only this Government that have a credible plan to do just that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Mr Speaker, may I pass on the condolences of myself and my party on the death of your father? We know you loved your father, and we know that your father loved you.
When it comes to reducing the number of asylum seekers, I want to suggest one option to the Minister that we could certainly do in Strangford. For those people who are in hotels, there are companies in my constituency that wish to employ them and to give them accommodation at the same time. If we want to help the asylum seekers in the hotels in my constituency, and in the consistency adjoining mine, then let them get the jobs and let them get the accommodation.
Tom Pursglove
While I am always very willing to engage with the hon. Gentleman, he will appreciate that the difficulty that we have in respect of that approach is the pull factor that it would present—it would potentially encourage people to make dangerous journeys via small boats to get to the UK. We do not want to do anything that plays into the business model of the evil criminal gangs responsible for that miserable trade. What we want to do is put them out of business. On the wider accommodation point, I am very happy to engage with the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
In 2016, Middlesbrough had the highest ratio of asylum seekers per head of population of anywhere in England. I welcome the closure of hotels, but I worry about reports in today’s Daily Mail that the Home Office is buying up large amounts of property in some of the poorer areas of England, which risks taking us back to the situation we saw in 2016. Will the Minister reassure me that that is not the case, because my constituents are clear that that places an unacceptable strain on the community, and indeed an unhappy strain on community cohesion?
Tom Pursglove
My right hon. Friend is a strong supporter of the work the Government are doing to get a better grip on the flow of people coming across to our country, who inevitably need accommodating while they are here. We have a mixture of accommodation to meet those needs, and getting the numbers down is critical to be able to reduce that dependence. I am able to say, however, that we are not actively pursuing procurement in the three local authorities cited in the article that my right hon. Friend references—and that includes Middlesbrough.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
My sincere condolences, Mr Speaker.
The Government promised some considerable time ago that a hotel used in my constituency would no longer be used to house those seeking asylum. That is not the case; it has almost become de facto permanent. Could the Minister speak to me—not necessarily on the Floor of the House, but separately—and give me an assurance that there will be a managed closure of that facility?
Tom Pursglove
What I cannot do on the Floor of the House is make commitments about specific hotels, but I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this. What he could do to help me with this particular challenge is to get behind the work that the Government are doing to reduce the flow of people coming to the UK, which fundamentally and crucially would help us to be able to close hotels such as the one in his constituency.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
We have increased the volume of asylum cases processed. We successfully met a ministerial commitment to close over 50 asylum-seeker hotels by January 2024, and we had closed over 100 by the end of March.
Last year, I brought forward measures to make legal migration fairer and to radically reduce the numbers; 300,000 people who came to the UK last year would not now be eligible to do so. Anyone who wants to bring a family from abroad must be able comfortably to support them financially.
In the Budget, the Government put forward £75 million to roll out violence reduction units and hotspot policing across England and Wales, and £230 million for technology that will save the police time and money and make sure that police officers are on the frontline doing the job that they were recruited to do.
Sir John Whittingdale
May I add my condolences, Mr Speaker?
My right hon. Friend will be aware that police numbers in Essex are at record levels and that overall crime is down. However, there has been a rise in vehicle thefts. Will he therefore welcome the efforts of our excellent police, fire and crime commissioner, Roger Hirst, in establishing a stolen vehicle intelligence unit that has so far recovered £14 million-worth of vehicles? Will he look at what further support can be given to Roger Hirst to tackle this crime?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the fantastic work of Roger Hirst and the stolen vehicle intelligence unit. A number of large-scale seizures have been made against attempted vehicle exports. The Government have reduced vehicle-related crime by 39% since 2010, and we seek to go further through the Criminal Justice Bill. We want to see more innovative approaches like the one taken by Roger Hirst, which is why I am very proud to campaign alongside him. He has done fantastic work to protect the people of Essex.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I remember the kindness that your father showed me and our long discussions on rugby league. I add my condolences.
The Hillsborough tragedy was 35 years ago to the hour. We remember the 97 who were lost and support the families’ campaign for a Hillsborough law.
We strongly condemn Iran’s attack on Israel this weekend, and we must do everything we can to prevent further escalation in the middle east, but there are also domestic security issues in relation to Iran. The Iran International journalist Pouria Zeraati was attacked on the streets of London a few weeks ago following repeated Iran-related security threats on British soil, including threats to kidnap and kill. Does the Home Secretary believe it is now time to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in the UK?
James Cleverly
The right hon. Lady will know that we keep our response to Iran under constant review, and of course we have done so in the light of the attack in Wimbledon. We do not speculate about future designations or sanctions, but she will know that the IRGC is sanctioned in its entirety and a number of its members are sanctioned as individuals. As she knows, we will keep this under constant review.
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary will know that we have raised this many times. I understand the complexity of the issue. The proscribing legislation was drawn up more than 20 years ago to address terrorist threats such as al-Qaeda, rather than state-sponsored threats that have both domestic and international security objectives. Our bottom line must be keeping this country safe, which is why Labour has proposed new security legislation to allow the Government to put appropriately targeted proscription-style restrictions on the operations of state-linked organisations such as the IRGC. The Government previously resisted this, but will he look at it again in the light of recent events and work with us on any legislation that is needed to keep this country safe?
James Cleverly
We have the National Security Act 2023 and a range of tools at our disposal. Defence against state threats is one of the Department’s priorities, and my right hon. Friend the Security Minister leads on its practical implementation. I can reassure the shadow Home Secretary and the House that we constantly review the range of options at our disposal and deploy those that are most appropriate. Protecting the UK and the people living and working here against state threats will always be a priority of this Government.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
My hon. Friend raises an excellent idea that has my enthusiastic support. I will do exactly as he asks straightaway.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. We responded within the eight-week deadline to that ICIBI report and accepted the recommendations made to us in it. We are working through them, but work was already in train, particularly in collaboration with the Care Quality Commission, on better accreditation practices for care providers when we are matching people to those visas.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)
I thank my hon. Friend for her work in this area. The issues that she raises are of direct importance to intelligence gathering and child protection. My officials have been working closely with Border Force to ensure that its powers keep pace with the digital age. When the next legislative opportunity arises, if not before, we will carefully consider giving Border Force powers to compel individuals to submit to searches of their devices, if they are suspected of holding child sexual abuse material.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
James Cleverly
I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that, under my leadership, the Home Office and policing across the UK will maintain its focus on preventing violence against women and girls. We have a roll-out of police guidance and training when it comes to women and girls. I will listen carefully to the proposals he has put forward, because we want to make sure that women and girls feel safe in this country.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
Given that interest is about to switch in this House to a different matter, I will be brief. I promise to write to my hon. Friend on this, but she should know that this Government have already doubled spending on finding alternatives to animal testing. We will continue to make sure that the inspection regime is as strict as possible, to make sure that when animals need to be used, the conditions are as humane as possible.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
James Cleverly
All our overseas expenditure, whether it is through official development assistance or through contractual relationships, such as the ones with Rwanda, is always robustly policed to ensure that it is spent exclusively on the issues that it is designed to address. We have a strong, good working relationship with the Government of Rwanda, who are absolutely committed to being the exporter of solutions to global problems, rather than the exporter of problems.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The people of Romford are angry that they are not getting the police cover from the Mayor of London that we pay for. We are seeing a crime wave across Romford, including in Gidea Park, and we have seen a stabbing in the town centre. We have had enough. Will the Minister please ensure reform, so that Essex towns such as Romford get the service that Roger Hirst gives to the people of the historic county?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the contrast between the excellent work done by Roger Hirst in Essex and the appalling job being done by Sadiq Khan in London. Sadiq Khan is the only one of the 43 police and crime commissioners to have missed his recruitment target and, tragically, police officer numbers are falling in London, in contrast to the rest of the country. Londoners will have a chance to cast their vote on 2 May, and I hope that they kick him out.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
James Cleverly
I am more than happy to look at the details of the case. The hon. Gentleman has to understand that the circumstances on the ground changed dramatically after Hamas’ brutal mass murder rampage on 7 October, and our security posture in the region has had to be enhanced. I am not making any implications about his constituent’s family, but he and the House will understand that we must be careful in everything we do when it comes to accepting people who are leaving Gaza in these circumstances.
Iran-Israel Update
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
Mr Speaker, before I start, I would like to express my deepest sympathy, and I am sure that of the whole House, on the death of your father. He was a true giant of not just this House, but the other place, too.
I also want to express my solidarity with our Australian friends after the horrific and senseless attacks in Sydney in recent days. Our thoughts are with all those affected.
On Saturday evening, Iran sought to plunge the middle east into a new crisis. It launched a barrage of missiles and attack drones over Iraq and Jordan, and towards Israel. The scale of the attack, and the fact that it was targeted directly at Israel, are without precedent. It was a reckless and dangerous escalation. If it had succeeded, the fallout for regional security and the toll on Israeli citizens would have been catastrophic, but it did not succeed.
In support of Israel’s own defensive action, the United Kingdom joined a US-led international effort, along with France and partners in the region, that intercepted almost all of the missiles, saving lives in Israel and its neighbours. We sent additional RAF Typhoons to the region as part of our existing operations against Daesh in Iraq and Syria, and I can confirm that our forces destroyed a number of Iranian drones. We also provided important intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support for our partners. Our pilots put themselves in harm’s way to protect the innocent and preserve peace and stability. I spoke to the RAF earlier today; they are the best of the best, and I know that the whole House will join me in expressing our gratitude.
With this attack, Iran has once again shown its true colours. It is intent on sowing chaos in its own backyard—on further destabilising the middle east. Our aim is to support stability and security because that is right for the region, and because although the middle east is thousands of miles away, it has a direct effect on our security and prosperity at home, so we are working urgently with our allies to de-escalate the situation and prevent further bloodshed. We want to see calmer heads prevail, and we are directing all our diplomatic efforts to that end.
Yesterday I spoke to my fellow G7 leaders. We are united in our condemnation of this attack. We discussed further potential diplomatic measures, which we will be working together to co-ordinate in the coming days. I will also shortly speak to Prime Minister Netanyahu to express our solidarity with Israel in the face of this attack, and to discuss how we can prevent further escalation. All sides must show restraint.
Our actions reflect our wider strategy in the middle east, which I have set out in the House previously. I believe there are three vital steps to put the region on to a better path. First, we must uphold regional security against hostile actors, including in the Red sea, and we must ensure Israel’s security. That is non-negotiable and a fundamental condition for peace in the region. In the face of the threats that we saw this weekend, Israel has our full support.
Secondly, we must invest more deeply in the two-state solution. That is what we have been doing over the past six months, including working closely with the Palestinian Authority, so that when the time comes, they can provide more effective governance for Gaza and the west bank. It is significant that other regional partners actually helped to prevent a much worse attack over the weekend. It reminds us how important the attempts to normalise relations between Israel and its neighbours really are, and they hold out precious hope for the region.
Thirdly, the conflict in Gaza must end. Hamas, who are backed by Iran, started this war. They wanted not just to kill and murder, but to destabilise the whole region. This weekend, they rejected the latest hostage deal, which offered a road to a ceasefire. It is Israel’s right, and indeed its duty, to defeat the threat from Hamas terrorists and defend its security. I want to be clear: nothing that has happened over the past 48 hours affects our position on Gaza. The appalling toll on civilians continues to grow—the hunger, the desperation and the loss of life on an awful scale. The whole country wants to see an end to the bloodshed, and to see more humanitarian support going in. The recent increase in aid flows is positive, but it is still not enough. We need to see new crossings open for longer to get in vital supplies.
I want to take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to pay tribute to the three British aid workers who were killed in Gaza: John Chapman, James Kirby and James Henderson. They were heroes. The children of Gaza whom they were risking their lives to feed need a humanitarian pause immediately, leading to a long-term sustainable ceasefire. That is the fastest way to get hostages out and aid in, and to stop the fighting. Israelis and Palestinians alike deserve to live in peace, dignity and security, and so do people across the entire region.
In conclusion, Saturday’s attack was the act not of a people, but of a despotic regime, and it is emblematic of the dangers that we face today. The links between such regimes are growing. Tel Aviv was not the only target of Iranian drones on Saturday; Putin was also launching them at Kyiv and Kharkiv. And who was the sole voice speaking up for Iran yesterday, seeking to justify its actions? Russia.
The threats to stability are growing, not just in the middle east but everywhere, and we are meeting those threats, time after time, with British forces at the forefront. It is why our pilots were in action this weekend. It is why they have been policing the skies above Iraq and Syria for a decade. It is why our sailors are defending freedom of navigation in the Red sea against the reckless attacks of the Iran-backed Houthi militia. It is why our soldiers are on the ground in Kosovo, Estonia, Poland and elsewhere, and it is why we have led the way in backing Ukraine, and we will continue to back it for as long as it takes. When adversaries such as Russia or Iran threaten peace and prosperity, we will always stand in their way, ready to defend our values and our interests, shoulder to shoulder with our friends and our allies. I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of his statement, and for the regular briefings on the developing situation in the middle east. I also thank him for his warm tribute to your father, Mr Speaker. Doug Hoyle was a great servant of our party, respected by all who knew him. I also join the Prime Minister in offering our solidarity with the victims of the horrific attack in Sydney, and in recognising the heroism of the three British aid workers killed in Gaza while working for World Central Kitchen.
Turning to the events of this weekend, we support the defensive action taken by the UK, alongside our international allies, against the Iranian attacks on Israel, and we welcome the Prime Minister’s call for restraint. Once again, we all salute the professionalism and bravery of our armed forces. We also support the RAF planes being sent to the region to bolster Operation Shader. Their efforts are vital for a safer world.
There can be no doubt that the attack perpetrated by Iranian forces this weekend has left the world a more dangerous place. It targeted innocent civilians, with a clear intent to destabilise the region. It must be wholly condemned by all, but let us also be clear that a full-scale conflict in the middle east is in no one’s interest. It is a path that can only lead to more bloodshed, more instability and the unleashing of forces that are beyond the ability of anyone to control.
The combined defensive action this weekend was a success and, because of that, lives were saved. As a result, escalation is not inevitable. In repelling the attack, Israel showed strength and courage. It must now show the same strength and courage to de-escalate. That has to be the primary objective, and that is the responsibility of all sides and every partner. We must be resolute and united in our support for the collective security of Israel, Jordan and other partners in the region.
But tensions remain very high. We must proceed calmly, carefully and with restraint, because if diplomacy takes centre stage—and it must—we also need to be clear that diplomatic premises should not be targeted and attacked. That is a point of principle, but as the condemnation from our G7 allies rightly notes, Iran’s response this weekend was unprecedented—a further step towards the destabilisation of the region and the risk of escalation. Nobody in this House should be, or is, under any illusion: this is a regime that sponsors terror across the middle east and beyond, that murders and represses its own people and supports Putin’s war efforts in Ukraine. So can the Prime Minister update the House on any new steps he is taking with our international partners to pursue sanctions against the regime, and can he clarify what steps he is taking to limit the power of the revolutionary guard to glorify terrorism here in the UK?
While there is no justification for Iran’s actions, we cannot be naive to the fact that one of the drivers of tension in the region is the ongoing war in Gaza. Six months on from the horrific Hamas terror attack, hostages remain separated from their families, thousands of innocent Palestinians have been killed, and now more than a million people face the imminent threat of famine—so I urge the Government again to use every ounce of diplomatic leverage that we have to make sure that aid to Gaza is unimpeded and drastically scaled up. Alongside that, we reiterate our call for an immediate ceasefire, for Hamas to release hostages and for a return to a diplomatic process that can rekindle the hope of a two-state solution.
It is right that we condemn Iran’s action, it is right that we work with others to defend the security of our allies, and it is right that we seek the end of conflict in Gaza. But this is a moment for restraint, because escalation will only lead to further destruction; and, for the sake of all those still caught in the horror and violence, that must be avoided.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his support of the Government’s actions. With regard to what might happen going forward, ultimately, Israel has a right to self-defence, as any state does. The G7 leaders spoke yesterday and unequivocally condemned Iran’s attack, and expressed full solidarity and support for Israel and its people. But as the Foreign Secretary said this morning, this is a time to be
“smart as well as tough”.
Israel has incredibly successfully repelled the Iranian attack, and Iran is even more isolated on the world stage. As others have said, we urge Israel to take the win at this point. We want to avoid further escalation and bloodshed—the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that that would be deeply destabilising for the region and would risk more lives—and all our diplomatic efforts at this point will be geared towards that goal, in partnership with our allies.
As I have said previously, the behaviour of the Iranian regime, including the actions of IRGC, poses a significant threat to the safety and security of the UK and our allies. Yesterday at the G7, we agreed to work together on further measures to counter the Iranian regime and its proxies. It was agreed that we should co-ordinate those actions, and that work is now under way. Obviously, at the appropriate time, I or Ministers will update the House. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, we have already sanctioned over 400 Iranian individuals, including the IRGC in its entirety. We put in place at the end of last year a new sanctions regime that gives us more extensive powers to designate sanctions, and of course, the National Security Act 2023 created new offences for espionage and foreign interference, and means that our security services have the powers that they need to deter, disrupt and detect threats of a more modern nature from states such as Iran.
Lastly, with regard to diplomacy for Israel and the region, we are absolutely committed to a two-state solution. We have been working very hard and using all our efforts to bring that about, particularly over the past few months, by building up the capability of the Palestinian Authority, as I have said, so that they have the necessary technical and administrative capability when the moment comes for them to provide effective governance in the west bank and Gaza. It is absolutely my view, and that of the Government, that Israelis and Palestinians should have the opportunity to live side by side in peace, with security, dignity and opportunity, and I am proud of the role that the United Kingdom is playing.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
My condolences, Mr Speaker, on the loss of your father.
This remains a dangerous moment, yet over the weekend we saw a demonstration of unity and purpose. We saw the depth of will for normalisation and for a secure future for all peoples of the middle east. Restraint is vital if we want to build on the momentum to get hostages home to their families and to get improvements to continuing aid, but to better protect our people, will my right hon. Friend commit to launching with our allies a new consensus on Iran and a new effort—with combined diplomatic, military and wider expert areas—to limit the extent of the atrocities of Iran? We need to end the compartmentalisation of threats when we deal with Iran; we must deal with it as one, whether on its nuclear ambitious, the arming of the militia, femicide or transnational repression. Only with a new consensus will we see that progress, so will he please commit to leading that internationally?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend that commitment. That was exactly the subject of our discussions among the G7 leaders yesterday. She mentions nuclear. Iran’s nuclear programme has never been more advanced than it is today; it threatens international peace and security. There is absolutely no justification, at a civilian level, for the enrichment that we are seeing and which the International Atomic Energy Agency has reported in Iran. I want to reassure her that we are considering next steps on the nuclear file with our international partners, and we are committed to using all diplomatic tools available to ensure that Iran never develops a nuclear weapon, including using the snapback mechanism if necessary.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
I echo the Prime Minister in passing on our thoughts not only to you, Mr Speaker, but to the families of the aid workers who have been killed in Gaza.
I condemn the acts of violence by the Iranian regime. They are no more than a cynical attempt to exploit the suffering, pain and turmoil being experienced by people in Palestine right now. While we rightly condemn the violent acts of Iran, so too must we condemn the violent acts of Israel. From listening to the interviews that he has been giving, the Foreign Secretary is correct in his attempt to uphold the principle of proportionality, but if firing 100 missiles in retaliation for an isolated attack on an embassy is—correctly—considered disproportionate, so too must be Israel’s 192-day bombardment of Gaza.
We know that the agenda in Tehran is to bring about as much instability as possible. We all have a responsibility to ensure that that does not happen. There is not going to be a military solution to the conflict in the middle east. There must be a political and diplomatic solution, so what is required now is the same as what was required six months ago: we need de-escalation, and for the causes of conflict in the region to be reviewed. The biggest continuing cause of conflict is the siege of Gaza; hence the need for a ceasefire. Can the Prime Minister outline what he is doing to ensure that the ceasefire mandated by the UN Security Council becomes a reality?
The Prime Minister
First, it is important not to try to draw any equivalence between Israel’s absolute right—indeed, duty—to provide security for its citizens in the face of an appalling terrorist atrocity and what happened over the weekend. Those things are not remotely the same. More broadly, though, as I have said repeatedly from this Dispatch Box, we urge Israel to abide by international humanitarian law. We have been very clear that too many civilians have been killed, and we are deeply concerned about the impact on the civilian population in Gaza; our diplomatic efforts are geared towards alleviating that suffering. I will continue to raise those points with Prime Minister Netanyahu when I speak to him, but, as I have said, drawing an equivalence between those two things is absolutely not the right thing to do.
Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
Notwithstanding the sheer scale of the Iranian attack, multi-layered air defence proved effective. Are we ensuring that we are passing any learnings we have picked up on to Ukraine for the use of its own defence, and, in a more hostile and dangerous world, with the ever-increasing proliferation of missile and drone technology, are we reviewing our own air defence assets and capabilities to support our allies—and, indeed, closer to home—if ever required?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent question. He is right about the importance of air defence, which is why it has repeatedly been one of the key capabilities that we have sought to provide to Ukraine—that is something we have led on for some time. Ditto, some of the new contracts that we have placed to replenish UK stockpiles, most recently this year, also cover air defence missiles. More broadly, my right hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure our industrial production here in the UK is geared to produce the capabilities we need, whether for our own use or for Ukraine’s. I am pleased to say that the Defence Secretary is working with the industry to ensure that supply chain is there to meet those needs.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Mr Speaker, I send you and your family our deepest condolences on the loss of your father, and associate myself and my colleagues with the comments of others about the appalling murders in Sydney and the death of the aid workers in Gaza.
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. The Liberal Democrats join him in condemning Iran’s attack on Israel: this is an alarming escalation in a conflict that has already seen far too many deaths and far too much suffering. We support the action taken by the RAF to intercept Iranian drones as we stand up for Israel’s security.
We also worry about what Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Government will do next. The Prime Minister has rightly said that we must prevent further escalation, so does he agree that the best way to achieve that is to press all sides to agree to an immediate bilateral ceasefire in Gaza to get the hostages home, get the aid in, and put us on the path to a lasting peace for a two-state solution?
The Prime Minister
We have repeatedly called for an immediate humanitarian pause so that we can get the hostages out and more aid in, and use that as the foundation to build a more lasting and sustainable ceasefire, but it is worth pointing out—this has not been mentioned by colleagues so far—that Hamas, yet again, have rejected another offer to release hostages. It is important that we do not lose sight of that. We must have the hostages released as part of any of those conversations, and over the weekend it was Hamas who yet again rejected the latest round of those talks.
Sir Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the leadership he has shown on this issue, and I echo his call for the need to avoid a spiral escalation. However, we have seen a military attack by Iran on a nation that its regime believes should not exist at all. Iran has directly or indirectly engineered a war in Gaza, with the aim of thwarting better relations between Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, and Israel. We now have death and destruction in Gaza in a conflict that no one can win, and where the only beneficiaries are Iran, its proxies and its allies. We have seen an Iranian journalist attacked on British soil, and we have seen an international vessel being pirated by the IRGC in international waters—another vile example of hostage taking. So I ask my right hon. Friend again: why is Iran Air still operating out of Heathrow, and why are Iranian banks still operating in the City of London? When will the snapback mechanism be invoked, and what can be done to stop the export of Iranian oil to Russia and other countries, which is now keeping the regime afloat?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his leadership on this issue over a consistent period of time, and he is right to highlight the threats that Iran poses to us. I want to reassure him that, on all of the areas that he mentioned, active work has been undertaken by the Government. As I mentioned in my statement, we discussed yesterday on the G7 call the need for and benefit of co-ordinating further measures, perhaps including some of the things that he talked about, among allies in order to have maximum impact both on the regime and the ultimate designations of any future sanctions. I am pleased that our new sanctions regime, which we implemented at the end of last year, gives us extensive new powers. I am keen to make sure we use them to good effect, but where we can co-ordinate those with allies, I know he would agree with me that that would be preferable, and I can reassure him that that work is happening at pace.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, could I too pass on my condolences for the loss of your dad, Doug? I was one of those who on many occasions benefited from his wise advice.
As the Prime Minister has said, there is no moral equivalence between the two sides in this—what is happening in Gaza and what happened in the attacks by Iran on Israel—but Israel has made mistakes in the past and should be held to account for them. Would the Prime Minister agree with me that, as things move on, the importance of neighbouring states—particularly, for example, Jordan—is going to be vital in resolving not just the current difficulties, but a long-term future that brings about a two-state solution?
The Prime Minister
In a word, yes. I pay tribute to the King of Jordan for the leadership role that he has played over the past several months. We are fortunate to enjoy a strong working relationship with the Jordanians, which was on display yet again over this weekend, and I commend him and his country for what they have done.
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
Mr Speaker, please accept my condolences on the loss of your father.
Two weeks ago, I was in Israel at the northern border with Lebanon. Of course, we have all seen what happened this weekend, but since 7 October Iran-backed Hezbollah has fired over 4,000 rockets into northern Israel, displacing over 150,000 Israeli civilians. I met some of those families. They are under siege and they have been uprooted, but they are brave and defiant in the face of terrorism and antisemitism. We have known for years that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism, funding and promoting terrorist plots, radicalisation and hostage taking both in the middle east and at home. We have proscribed Hamas and we have proscribed Hezbollah. Prime Minister, why do we not put the UK’s national security first by now proscribing the IRGC?
The Prime Minister
As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, we do not comment on any potential proscription decisions, but of course we recognise the threat from Iran and have taken measures to counter it at home and around the world. I obviously refer her to my previous answer, but I am confident that the police, security services and courts all have the tools they need to sanction, prosecute and mitigate the threats from Iran. We strengthened our sanctions regime recently, including sanctioning the IRGC in its entirety.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Despite the calls for a ceasefire here in our Parliament and from across the international community, the war in Gaza has raged, costing 33,000 lives as well as the 1,200 killed by the Hamas attacks and a humanitarian catastrophe that is now turning into a famine. For months many have raised concern around the spectre of regional escalation; precisely what conversations is the Prime Minister having with leading figures in the Israeli Government, as well as through various parties to influence the Iranian regime to de-escalate as quickly as possible given the seriousness of the crisis?
The Prime Minister
Both the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have spoken to their counterparts over the weekend, and the Foreign Secretary has spoken to the Iranian Foreign Minister specifically to urge de-escalation and condemn what happened over the weekend. I will be speaking to Prime Minister Netanyahu shortly, and I can reassure the hon. Lady and all Members of the House that we will continue, together with our allies, to urge calm heads to prevail and de-escalation. That is the right course forward, and across all levels of Government that is the message we are taking to everyone.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
There is another country that is under almost constant daily bombardment by Iranian-made drones: Ukraine. Some three years ago I pleaded with the Israelis to help Ukraine against Russia, and they refused even though Russia was spending half a billion dollars in the Iranian drone programme. I know the Prime Minister will be speaking to the Prime Minister of Israel later today; now that RAF pilots have quite rightly gone to the defence of Israel, could he perhaps ask that Israel now decides it is time to help Ukraine in its hour of need, and we can see off both Russia and Iranian aggression?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for the role he has played in ensuring the security of the UK and our allies over previous years. My statement alluded to the fact that the Ukrainians were suffering from Iranian drones over the same weekend that this happened. Not only will I, as always, be taking up his points with all our allies in urging them to do more to support Ukraine, but I know he will have welcomed the recent announcement a few weeks ago of more support from the UK to Ukraine, specifically in the areas of uncrewed platforms on autonomous warfare to make sure the Ukrainians have the ability both to protect themselves and to conduct their operations. The majority of the 10,000 new platforms we are delivering to the Ukrainians have been developed in the UK, which my right hon. Friend was keen to ensure we saw the benefits of here at home. I am glad that has been realised, both supporting Ukraine and its security and bolstering the British defence industry here at home.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
There is rightly consensus across the House to call for restraint from the Israeli Government, but we have called for restraint before: we called for restraint with regard to the attack on Gaza, yet the indiscriminate bombing took place; we called for restraint on the settlements in the west bank, yet the settlements have expanded; we called for restraint so that food could be got to the children of Gaza, yet malnutrition is killing some of them. So what action will the Government take if Israel does not show restraint, because we are in danger of the middle east being set alight by the decisions taken by the right-wing factions within the Netanyahu Cabinet?
The Prime Minister
I am sorry, but I missed the part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question where he condemned Iran and Hamas for what they have done. We will always encourage de-escalation in the region, and I am proud of the role the UK is playing to bring that about.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister was right to authorise the defence of Israel and the avoidance of violence and death, but violence has also erupted in the west bank over the last few days, as he will know. What concrete steps can we take to protect those civilians?
The Prime Minister
I have personally repeatedly raised with Prime Minister Netanyahu the issue of settler violence in the west bank, as have my colleagues including the deputy Foreign Secretary. We have joined with allies in sanctioning the activity of particular individuals where it has been brought to our attention and we will continue to ensure that the Israeli Government do everything they can to reduce tension in the west bank. It is not conducive to long-term peace in the region, and that is why we have taken action where we can, as well as being explicit with the Israeli Government about our concerns.
George Galloway (Rochdale) (WPB)
Mr Speaker, I knew your father well for a very long time. He was a fine man, and I am sincerely sorry for your loss.
There was not one single word in the Prime Minister’s statement of condemnation of the Israeli destruction of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, which is the proximate reason for the event everyone is here in concert condemning. He was not even asked to do so by the Opposition Front Bench. Kay Burley is the only person so far to demand that of a Government Minister. We have no treaty with Israel—at least not one that Parliament has been shown. The Iranians are not likely to listen to the Prime Minister when Britain occupied Iran, looted its wealth and overthrew its one democratic socialist Government in my lifetime.
The Prime Minister
Whatever may have happened a few weeks ago, it is absolutely no justification for launching more than 300 drones and missiles from one sovereign state towards Israel—it is as simple as that. In the hon. Gentleman’s question, not once did he condemn that action or, indeed, the actions of Hamas in the region. There is no equivalence between these things whatever, and to suggest otherwise is simply wrong.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his strong support for the state of Israel. Last year, as Israel and Saudi Arabia were about to strike a transformational agreement, Iran-backed Hamas carried out its massacre on 7 October with the aim of torpedoing the chance of peace between Israel and the Arab nations. Last Saturday’s drone attack by Iran being thwarted by Israel and her allies, including Jordan, demonstrates that our countries can work alongside Israel after this new period of contention. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this represents a new opportunity for Israel and the Arab nations to rebuild relations in the aftermath of 7 October and bring the hostages home?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is significant that other regional partners helped to prevent a much worse attack over the weekend. It reminds us how important the attempts are to normalise relations between Israel and its neighbours. It holds out precious hope for the region. It is exactly that hope that Iran and its proxies are trying to snuff out, and we should work hard to combat that.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
My condolences to you and your family, Mr Speaker.
Prime Minister, I condemn Iran and Hamas—let me start there—but we must not lose focus on the situation in Gaza, where there is a humanitarian crisis and famine. It is just destruction that people are seeing in front of their eyes. If we want to ensure that the hostages come home—like the hostage who has been adopted in Brent, Noa Argamani—we must argue for a ceasefire, not a pause. Will the Prime Minister clearly state that we should be calling for an immediate ceasefire on all sides?
The Prime Minister
It is wrong to suggest in any way that we have lost sight of what is happening in Gaza. Indeed, the G7 statement yesterday specifically referenced our desire to co-operate to end the crisis in Gaza, to work towards an immediate humanitarian pause where hostages can be released, to get aid in, to build the conditions for a sustainable ceasefire and, crucially, to deliver more humanitarian assistance into the region. It is welcome that we have seen an increase in that flow over the past few days and weeks, but far more aid has to get in, and that is pressure that we will continue to put on all partners concerned.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
My condolences, Mr Speaker.
Can I commend my right hon. Friend’s statement? It is clear, as has been said already, that all roads lead back to Tehran when it comes to the terrible violence and wars that take place in the middle east. Every country—not just Israel, but other Arab countries—fear what Tehran is doing in their countries as well, which is something we forget. We know that Iran is committing murder at home and has executed thousands of protesters while this war on Hamas has taken place.
With all of that known, when my right hon. Friend sits down with our international colleagues and looks for other restrictions to place on Iran, will he please consider proscribing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and doing so in a way that makes sure it can no longer foment extremism here in the United Kingdom as well?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. As I said in my statement, we are urgently working with our allies to see what steps we can take together in a co-ordinated fashion to deter and condemn what Iran is doing. With regard to destabilising activity here in the UK, he will know that the Charity Commission recently opened an investigation into a particular organisation. We will continue to use all the powers at our disposal to ensure that people are not fomenting hate and undermining British values here at home from abroad.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
I have notified the office of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, that I would reference her in my question. It was recently revealed that she told a private fundraising event:
“The Foreign Office has received official legal advice that Israel has broken international humanitarian law, but the Government has not announced it.”
I have a simple question for the Prime Minister. If he cannot answer it—if he dodges and deflects—our constituents will know that he is hiding the truth. Was the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee telling the truth—yes or no?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to address that clearly. We have one of the most robust arms export licensing control regimes in the entire world. We have previously assessed that Israel is committed and capable of complying with international humanitarian law. But, as the hon. Member would expect, we regularly review our assessment. As the Foreign Secretary confirmed last week, the UK position on export licences is unchanged and, following the latest assessment, is in line with our legal advice. We will keep that position under review and act in accordance with advice. I also point out to the hon. Member that most like-minded countries have not suspended their existing arms export licences to Israel.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
I, too, welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership in this area. In addition to the thanks given to the RAF, which undertook exemplary action this weekend, will he also thank those US service personnel based here in the United Kingdom, including many in my West Suffolk constituency, who were prepared to act as a moment’s notice to defend Israel against this attack, which has been roundly condemned?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute not just to our colleagues in America but to our partners across the region, who participated in a joint international effort. That was all in support of Israel’s own actions; its armed forces also deserve enormous praise for the success with which they repelled this awful attack.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Mr Speaker, may I pass my condolences to you and your family for the sad loss of your father, Doug?
We live in deeply unsettling times, and the Prime Minister, along with our allies, is right to call for a de-escalation. When he has his discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu this afternoon, will he convey to him that now is the time to step back? There must be no further escalation in the middle east. Now is the time to recognise that both Israelis and Palestinians must live in peace, and for that we need the two-state solution. In 2014, when we had an outbreak of violence in Gaza, the then Prime Minister David Cameron unequivocally called for a ceasefire. We must today put an end to the conflict and the killing in that region for the benefit of both these countries.
Finally if I may say so, I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments on the situation in Ukraine, but we are all aware of the reports of a build-up of Russian activity. I say to the Prime Minister that we must do more today with our allies to protect our friends, and give them the tools they need to defend themselves and to ensure that Russia is defeated.
The Prime Minister
I am happy to say to the right hon. Gentleman that we remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine. We will not allow Putin to achieve his aim of eradicating freedom and democracy in that country. We have announced significant support—it was the first trip I made at the beginning of this year—and have encouraged allies to do the same. We are committed to supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes, for Ukraine not only to win the war but to emerge as a strong sovereign and free country.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
My thoughts and condolences are with your family, Mr Speaker.
The United Kingdom stands for an international rules-based system, respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other nations. That is one of our key objectives with regard to Ukraine. I condemn in the fullest Iran’s attack on Israel, and I have previously condemned Iran’s malign behaviour in the region. The question on people’s minds is this: what information or intelligence does the Prime Minister have about what went on in Iran’s consulate in Damascus that led to the attack? The international community and people around the world want to see the United Kingdom applying international law consistently across the board.
The Prime Minister
Whatever happened in that situation has not been confirmed. Regardless, there can never be any justification for a sovereign country launching over 300 drones and missiles towards Israel. It was right that we took action with allies to repel that attack.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I send my condolences to you, Mr Speaker, on the loss of your father, who will have been very proud of you.
This is a very dangerous moment. The UN Secretary-General rightly told the Security Council last night:
“Now is the time to defuse and de-escalate”.
Ordinary people in both Israel and Iran, and across the whole region and the wider world, will pay the price if this escalates. The Secretary-General also rightly reiterated the call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, as the Security Council voted for, given the huge loss of life there. This is the first opportunity that we have had to question the Prime Minister since the recent killing of British nationals in Gaza. Is he planning to appoint an independent adviser to scrutinise the Israeli inquiry into those deaths of British nationals, similar to what Australia has done?
The Prime Minister
I spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu after that incident to express our very strong concerns about what happened. We are carefully reviewing the initial findings of Israel’s investigations into the killing of the aid workers, and welcome the suspension of two officers as a first step. The findings must be published and followed up with an independent review to ensure the utmost transparency and accountability.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on his world-leading strength defending Israel and wider peace in the middle east. Saudi Arabia—this country’s friend—has now said in an official statement that Iran “engineered a war in Gaza” in order to destroy the progress that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was making in normalising relations with Israel. That very important statement from the Saudis yesterday also said that Iran is a country that sponsors terrorism and it should have been stopped a long time ago. Is my right hon. Friend as hopeful as I am that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Israel—both allies of this country—will normalise their relations as soon as possible, as it looked like they were on track to do before the pogrom of 7 October?
The Prime Minister
I had a very constructive meeting in Saudi Arabia with MBS at the end of last year. I know how important it is to normalise relations between Israel and its neighbours. It is clear from this weekend and the comments that my right hon. and learned Friend just made that there is momentum and a desire to see that happen. I believe that holds out precious hope for the region.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I pass on my party’s condolences to you, Mr Speaker, on the loss of your dad.
The UK should neither dictate to Israel nor demand restrictions on how it retaliates against the Iranian regime, which has shown that it is prepared to take action to back up its threats to wipe out Israel. The political and military support that we have given is very important. Can the Prime Minister tell us what direct action we can take here in the United Kingdom to disrupt Iran’s economic interests in our own country?
The Prime Minister
We have already sanctioned more than 400 Iranian individuals and, as I have said, we are discussing with our allies what more we can do.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the Royal Air Force personnel who were on operations over the weekend. I also join him on the importance of de-escalating, calling for maximum restraint and, on Gaza, working towards that sustainable ceasefire. A flood of aid is going into Gaza to help the humanitarian efforts there. We all want to see an end to the bloodshed. I echo what the Chair of the Defence Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), said—what we saw over the weekend shows the importance of investing in air defence systems to defend civilians from hostile regimes.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whether it is with Ukraine, where we have provided AMRAAM and Starstreak missiles, or here at home, where we placed new contracts at the beginning of this year to improve our air defence capability, it is a key capability that we need to invest in, and ideally we need to produce more of it here at home.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Twelve-year-old Zain Arouq miraculously survived Israel’s bombing that killed most of his family in Gaza three months ago, but he was killed this weekend by an aid airdrop when he was searching for scraps of food because the parachute did not open. Zain and thousands of others would still be alive had allies like the UK and the US pushed Israel to adhere to the UN resolution on a ceasefire in Gaza, which would allow aid to reach starving children safely. Will the Prime Minister set out exactly what repercussions Israel will face for failing to abide by the UN Security Council motion?
The Prime Minister
I have been very clear that too many civilians have already lost their lives in Gaza. The UN Security Council resolution also called for the unconditional release of the hostages, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, Hamas rejected at the weekend. It is important that we focus on that, at the same time as getting more aid in.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
There is one thing right now that would do more than anything to help end the conflict in Gaza: the release of all the Israeli hostages being held by Hamas. Does my right hon. Friend agree that no matter how well intentioned and no matter how much we all want the conflict to end as soon as possible, simply calling for an unconditional immediate ceasefire reduces the incentive on Hamas to do the hostage deal? So long as they feel that they are winning diplomatically, it reduces pressure on them to do the right thing.
The Prime Minister
I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I have made the same argument from the Dispatch Box previously. It is absolutely crucial that, as part of the immediate humanitarian pause that we are calling for, not only can we get considerably more aid into Gaza to alleviate the suffering that people are experiencing, but we must be able to release the hostages. That is what we are focused on doing.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
While globally the attention is rightly focused on Israel and Iran, and we are all in agreement that the next step has to be de-escalation, the situation in Gaza is worsening every day. More than 33,000 lives have been lost and more than 1 million will now be facing imminent famine. The UK almost stands alone in not restoring funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Will the Prime Minister tell us when he will set out a clear path for funding to resume?
The Prime Minister
Together with our allies, we are reviewing the interim findings and are discussing appropriate next steps. Many partner countries have suspended funding to UNRWA after what happened, which was shocking. In the meantime, we are considerably increasing our own aid into the region and welcome the commitments from Israel recently to increase the flow, opening new checkpoints at the port of Ashdod, the Jordan land corridor and Kerem Shalom, but we now want to see those commitments followed through. We all want to see more aid getting in and that will be a focus of our conversations with Israel.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Mr Speaker, on behalf of myself and your neighbours in Bolton North East, I am very sorry for the loss of your father.
Some 90% of Iranian oil exports go to China. China is increasing in importance in the region. It already trades four times more than the United States with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, along with Iran. What discussions does the Prime Minister plan on having with his counterpart, Xi Jinping, and with Foreign Minister Wang Yi on resolving an escalation in the conflict in Iran?
The Prime Minister
The Foreign Secretary recently spoke to his counterpart on exactly that topic. More broadly, we are discussing with our G7 partners and allies what further measures we can take to deal with the threat, economically, that Iran poses.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Much has been said by the Prime Minister and other Conservative Members about the normalisation process between Saudi Arabia and Israel. On 9 January, the Saudi ambassador to the United Kingdom told Radio 4 that that normalisation process was subject to a two-state solution and a fully recognised Palestine.
Having put that on the record, I remind the Prime Minister that support for any nation is not like the unconditional support that he has for his football team. When Iran acts like a rogue state in Syria, we rightly call it out and, when Israel taunts Iran by bombing its consulate building, knowing full well that Iran will respond and risking further escalation, we must call it out as well. What is the Prime Minister doing in his efforts to ensure that the two-state solution and the recognition of Palestine are being actively pursued?
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Lady to my statement, in which I was clear about my commitment to a two-state solution and our diplomatic efforts to help to bring that about.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has made it clear that it is right and lawful to defend yourself and right and lawful for your allies to help to defend you, but does he agree that it is also important to point out that self-defence can be both effective and restrained, and furthermore that self-defence can be more effective in the long run when it is restrained, because it helps to retain the broadest coalition of those who support your position and because it enables you to retain the moral authority to act robustly against others when you need to do so?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend has put it well. Ultimately, Israel does have a right to self-defence, as any state does. However, it has successfully repelled the Iranian attack and Iran is even more isolated on the world stage, which is why, as the Foreign Secretary said, we would urge it to take the win and avoid further escalation at this moment.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is right to say that we and our allies need to be very clear-sighted about the activities of Iran and Russia. However, when we consider that British businesses such as Avon are still doing business in Russia, claiming that that is because it is vital and urgent; when we consider that a massive shadow fleet of tankers is evading Russian oil sanctions; when we consider that many countries such as Kazakhstan are importing so that they can then export those goods to Russia, again to avoid sanctions; and when we consider that not a penny from the sale of Abramovich’s Chelsea has yet gone to Ukraine and we have still not seized any of the multibillion pounds of Russian state assets sitting in British banks, should we not also consider whether we could go further?
The Prime Minister
We and our G7 partners have repeatedly underscored the fact that Russia’s obligations under international law are clear and it must pay for the damage that it has caused to Ukraine. I believe that we should be bold and pursue all routes through which immobilised Russian sovereign assets can be used to support Ukraine, in line, of course, with international law, and I have discussed that repeatedly with my G7 partners. We have tasked Finance Ministers to that end, they are reporting back ahead of the G7 summit in June, and I hope that we can make further progress.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
May I add my voice to those of Members on both sides of the House who have called for the proscription of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation? Its tentacles are wherever trouble is to be found across the middle east, and this is the latest demonstration of its malign influence.
Given that the threat of war is growing in a way that I think bears a grave risk to us here at home, does my right hon. Friend accept that we need to set out a timetable to fulfil our commitment to raise the proportion of GDP that we spend on defence to 2.5% as quickly as possible, but we also need specificity on how we will do so?
The Prime Minister
I am pleased to say that, just a couple of years ago, in anticipation of the rise in the threat environment, we increased defence spending by the largest amount since the end of the cold war, and we subsequently increased it by more than £11 billion specifically to deal with inflation, strengthen our nuclear enterprise and rebuild our stockpiles. However, I can reassure the House and my right hon. Friend that we will always continue to invest in our armed forces to keep this country safe.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I hold no candle for the Iranian regime. In fact, I recently co-authored a report on its disgraceful oppression of women and girls, which we concluded amounted to gender apartheid. However, just as Iran must be held to the standards of international law, so must Israel. The Prime Minister has paid tribute to the three brave British aid workers who were killed by the Israel Defence Forces. Will he condemn Israel for their wrongful killing, and will he also condemn it for the ongoing slaughter of innocent life in Gaza?
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. and learned Lady to my previous answers to both those questions.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Iranian drones have not only been fired towards Israel and Ukraine; there are also biweekly shipments of Iranian drones arriving in Port Sudan for use in the war in Sudan, which, as of today, has now raged for a full year. I am glad that the Prime Minister has made a statement today and will act for us on financial sanctions and other measures, but given that Iranian weapons are now being used in wars in the middle east, Europe and Africa, does he agree that partners not only in the west but in the global south should be deeply worried about how far the tentacles of terror from Tehran are now reaching?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my right hon. Friend, which is why yesterday I discussed with G7 leaders the co-ordinated effort among allies to take further measures to stem the flow of Iran’s malign influence across the world. Hopefully, we can co-ordinate that action to tackle the precise thing that she has just mentioned.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I deplore the attack by the IDF on the consulate in Syria, and I totally deplore the massive attack by Iran, which launched 301 drones and missiles towards Israel. Iran knew full well that this attack would detract from the great work that we need to do in Gaza to support people who are starving and young children who are suffering from malnutrition. Will the Prime Minister commit to oppose escalation in the region by any of the countries involved? As he said in his statement, we need to concentrate on supporting young people and those who are dying in Gaza.
The Prime Minister
As I said very clearly, we have urged de-escalation and calm heads to prevail, and we continue to do everything we can to get more aid into Gaza.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On air defence, I wholly commend our RAF pilots and their superb Typhoon aircraft, but we have only 137 Typhoons. Because of budget pressures, the MOD plans to retire 30 of them next year and sell them off, which would now be akin to selling Spitfires before the battle of Britain. When the Prime Minister has a moment, will he go back to his office, place that ridiculous decision under immediate review and, at the very least, put those Typhoons in a war reserve, in case one day we need them for ourselves?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He will know that individual equipment and capability decisions will be made by a service chief, in conjunction with Ministers. I am happy to look at the point he raised, but we are increasing our purchases of F-35 aircraft and collaborating with Japan and Italy on building the next generation of fighter aircraft—something in which we are leading the world. It will be fantastic for British jobs here at home.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I hope that, as the Prime Minister said, we can find a diplomatic solution, but we should plan for the worst. I note that the Prime Minister said in his statement:
“The threats to stability are growing—not just in the middle east, but everywhere.”
I may add that our armed forces are running very hot at the moment. Why did the Prime Minister not come here today to announce a significant uplift in defence spending to match the real and potential threats that we are now facing as a country? Is that not going to add to the insecurity for our country?
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer about the existing increase in our defence budget—not just over the last few years, but especially this year—in recognition of the increasing threats. I point out to him that we have remained the second largest defence spender in NATO over the past 10 years, behind only the US.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I welcome the action taken by the Prime Minister and the armed services over the weekend. I regret to say that some of my constituents feel that UK support for Israel has weakened in recent weeks. In the light of the horrific aggression from Iran, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to confirm that there is no backsliding and that the UK stands shoulder to shoulder with Israel as it exercises its right to defend itself from a genocidal attack?
The Prime Minister
As I made crystal clear in my statement, we must ensure Israel’s security. It is a non-negotiable and fundamental condition for peace in the region. In the face of threats like we saw this weekend, Israel will always have our full support.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Like the whole House, I condemn the attack on Israel by the tyrannical Iranian regime, just as I deeply condemn the atrocities of Hamas, but I am also incredibly concerned that our Prime Minister has now pitched the UK into a perilous war—and in support of an Israeli Government presided over by Netanyahu, a man who chose to bomb an Iranian embassy because he is dependent on his hard-right provocateurs. That was itself a dangerous escalation by Israel and a further breach of international law, so if the Prime Minister’s priority is indeed international law and de-escalation, why is he not calling now for an urgent bilateral ceasefire to get the hostages home and to get the region on the path to peace?
The Prime Minister
We have called for an immediate humanitarian pause to get the hostages out and aid in, and we will continue to do so. I am completely comfortable that what we did over the weekend was the right thing, acting together with allies to make sure that we could act in defence of Israel in the face of an unprecedented attack on its territory and people.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his holistic view of the situation in Israel, Gaza and, of course, Iran. May I say how glad I am that he has categorically said that we will carry on supplying the arms that Israel needs to defend itself, which have been proven to be so vital just this weekend? Does he agree that, in order to try to achieve a sustainable ceasefire, the middle east has to confront the threat that Iran makes? Its direct influence in Yemen is having an impact on shipping through the Red sea. It is having an impact on the war in Sudan. It is having an impact in the war in Gaza, and there is the effect on Israel and surrounding countries such as Lebanon. So I ask my right hon. Friend to do everything that he can to make sure that the whole of the region recognises that Iran plays a large part in all the suffering that we are seeing in the area.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right to point out Iran’s support for the Houthi militia, who have carried out a series of dangerous and destabilising attacks against shipping in the Red sea. That is why the UK, together with our allies, stood up to take action against that and are currently engaged in the multinational Operation Prosperity Guardian to further deter Houthi and Iranian aggression.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I welcome the support of the Prime Minister and the Government for the resolution on Gaza adopted recently by the United Nations Security Council. Israel is currently in breach of that resolution. How does that affect the Prime Minister’s view of the current actions of Israel in the middle east?
The Prime Minister
That resolution also calls for the release of the hostages, which Hamas rejected just this weekend.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Further to the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps not only is the principal sponsor of terrorism in the middle east, but is active on the streets of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Iranian journalist, Pouria Zeraati, who was almost fatally stabbed last month, was under threat from the IRGC. It is actually the case that IRGC officials can be seen dining out in restaurants in west London quite regularly. While I fully understand that my right hon. Friend will not flag up any such action in advance, can he confirm that he will take into account what I believe to be the overwhelming feeling in this House, which is that the IRGC should be proscribed as a terrorist organisation?
The Prime Minister
I refer my right hon. Friend to my previous answers, and also remind him that the National Security Act 2023 creates new offences that give us the powers to arrest and detain people suspected of involvement in state threats on our soil.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I share the hope for calm and de-escalation. The UN Secretary-General has said that, without it, the middle east faces
“a real danger of a devastating full-scale conflict”.
Can the Prime Minister tell us what the parameters are of UK military involvement in the region, and confirm that it will remain defensive?
The Prime Minister
I am not going to speculate on hypotheticals. As I said, we have sent additional jets and air refuelling tankers to bolster our existing operation in the region. We will obviously keep next steps under review.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Iran has smuggled arms into the middle east, including the west bank. It has equipped, funded and trained Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis, as well as threatened British-Iranians on British soil—and that does not even include what Iran has done to its own people, not least gassing Iranian schoolgirls. I thank the Prime Minister for the strong action over the weekend. Does he agree that we must now consider proscribing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight Iran’s influence, including its missile shipments on the surrounding seas, and I am pleased that the United Kingdom is playing its part in doing something about that. HMS Diamond is bolstering our maritime presence in the region as we speak, and the UK has previously interdicted the supply of Iranian missiles being smuggled to the Houthis and others, both last year and the year before. We will continue to be vigilant in the area.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I hope the Prime Minister has heard the very strong and broad consensus in this House on the need for stability and de-escalation. When he speaks to Prime Minister Netanyahu, will he make it clear to him that if Israel were now to proceed with its much-anticipated attack on Rafah, it would be not only a humanitarian catastrophe for the 1.5 million Palestinians who are sheltering there and make the release of the hostages more difficult, but make that stability and de-escalation more difficult to achieve and, as a consequence, would not have the support of this Government?
The Prime Minister
We have repeatedly raised humanitarian concerns with the Israeli Government. Just the other week, the Foreign Secretary set out our views on the situation in Rafah.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
It has been two weeks since the Iran International journalist was attacked on the streets of our capital. The journalists and families of those working for BBC Persian live under constant threat. The organisation responsible for those acts is the IRGC, working for the Iranian regime, so will my right hon. Friend therefore look to see what further measures can be taken, including outlawing the IRGC?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to reassure my right hon. Friend that, as we speak, we are in active dialogue with our international partners, following yesterday’s G7 call, to co-ordinate further diplomatic measures to contain the threat from Iran.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The core issue now must be de-escalation, an immediate ceasefire on all sides to end the devastating situation in Gaza, and a political solution for the long term. UNRWA is arguably the single biggest multilateral tool to support a political solution, and it is unmatched in its administrative ability to deliver aid. The UK stands behind other countries in not renewing funding to UNRWA. Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), will the Prime Minister set out a clear path for funding to resume?
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Lady to my previous answer. I do not think it is right to say that we are behind other countries. We are in active dialogue with other countries on the approach to UNRWA. We recognise the operational and logistical role it plays on the ground while recognising the very shocking concerns that we all had about what happened previously. It is right that we take the time to get our future approach to UNRWA right.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s focus on calling for restraint and de-escalation, which I imagine will be on his agenda when he speaks to the Israeli Prime Minister this afternoon. I also welcome his highlighting of the greater threats to this country. Recognising all he has said today about the future defence budget, could he undertake an immediate review of the resources and resilience of the British armed forces in the immediate term?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to tell my right hon. Friend that we keep these things under constant review to make sure that we have the capabilities we need to protect our country and to stand up for our values and interests around the world.
The conflict in Ukraine has shown how technology is changing warfare, which is why we our increased focus on autonomous vehicles and building our UK industrial supply chain is so welcome. We need to focus on these things, and I am delighted that the Defence Secretary has prioritised those areas.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Is there not a danger that a further military attack on Iran would serve to entrench the despotic regime in Tehran and strengthen its ability to oppress its own people—Iranian women, the Kurdish community, the Baha’is and many others?
The Prime Minister
Iran’s treatment of its own citizens is appalling, and we have repeatedly condemned it and called Iran out for that.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Last week, I met students at Woodbrook Vale School and De Lisle College in Loughborough. Their question on this topic is even more important now than it was when they put it to me: what more can the UK do to help bring peace to the region?
The Prime Minister
I point my hon. Friend to the statement. First and foremost, we have to be resolute in protecting regional security and standing up for Israel when situations such as this happen. Secondly, we have to be committed to a two-state solution, and we are doing everything we can to bring that about—the regional co-operation over the weekend demonstrated that there is much to be hopeful for. Thirdly, we must see an immediate humanitarian pause in Gaza, so that we can get the hostages out and aid in. That is the British approach. It is the right approach and we will work very hard to bring it about.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, has warned that Europe is in a “pre-war era” because of the situation in Russia. Our Prime Minister rightly said that these were not mutually exclusive conflicts but interlinked. Therefore, it is important that we co-ordinate, just as we have seen co-ordination at the United Nations. He will be aware of the real concern that the UN’s sanctions regime on both Iran and Russia is being undermined. The UN has combined to support and call for a ceasefire. What more is the Prime Minister doing to make sure that the UN works for sanctions on both Russia and Iran? Does he recognise that waiting until June for the G7 to act may be too long when every day counts in stopping further military action?
The Prime Minister
What I was talking about on the G7 was with regard to Russian assets, but obviously the G7 has an outsize economic role to play and so it is important that there is G7 co-ordination first and foremost. Last year, we funded the economic deterrence regime which we have specifically to target sanctions evasion. The hon. Lady is right to say that that is a growing issue, and I can reassure her that, together with our allies, we are tackling it.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Notwithstanding the drones and missiles launched by Iran, which were rightly taken out by UK planes and our allies, the Iranians prefer to operate in the shadows, through proxies and through an increasingly sophisticated cyber operation. Does the Prime Minister agree that our priority should be working with international allies to go after Iran’s promotion of illicit finances and weapons smuggling, as well as working with our international partners to combat Iran’s cyber operations?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that and I can reassure him that we are working closely with international partners, not least on cyber, but also on weapons smuggling. As I said, I am pleased that the Royal Navy is playing a significant role in combating that, with interdictions of illegal arms shipments both last year and the year before, and by contributing as we speak to Operation Prosperity Guardian.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I would just point out to the Prime Minister that a nation state’s capacity to observe international humanitarian law is quite different from its actually doing so. At this terrifying moment for the world, we are all mightily relieved that Iran, which must be condemned for what it did, failed to inflict serious loss of life on people in the region. The de-escalation call is correct, as is the commitment not to engage in offensive action. He was explicit in his statement that all people are entitled to security and peace, but sadly for the people of Gaza the calls for restraint have not worked. What additional options is he considering? Surely an immediate ceasefire and the funding of UNRWA is the best way to secure security for the region and the release of all the hostages.
The Prime Minister
It is important that the hostages are released, and that is what we continue to call for. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it was Hamas, yet again this weekend, who rejected the latest round of negotiations to get those hostages back to safety.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am anxious to get everybody in, so I plead for brevity in the questions.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I place on the record my condolences to the Speaker and his family.
I commend the Prime Minister for his statement and the leadership he has shown. Given this despicable attack on the civilian population of Israel by Iran, does he agree with me that the world cannot risk a nuclear-armed Iran? Will he commit to supporting whatever it takes, including not taking military action off the table, to ensure that that nightmare never happens?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, there is no credible civilian justification for the enrichment levels we have seen and that the International Atomic Energy Agency has reported in Iran. We are committed to using all diplomatic tools to ensure that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, including using the snapback mechanism if necessary.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I oppose all acts of violence. I welcome the Prime Minister’s call for de-escalation and restraint, but I cannot be the only person who wonders where those calls for de-escalation and restraint were six months ago. Given those calls, does the Prime Minister share my concern that the political fortunes of Prime Minister Netanyahu, in whose hands such a choice rests, are so heavily invested in the continuation of the conflict?
The Prime Minister
We have continued to call on the Israeli Government to do everything they can to protect civilian life, as they exercise their right and duty to ensure security for citizens. I will continue to raise those points with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Over the weekend Iran effectively declared war on our friend and ally, Israel. When the Prime Minister talks to Prime Minister Netanyahu, he will have to be very careful about how he persuades him to exercise self-restraint. There has to be a menu of options for what the British Government and the British people will do in assisting Israel and resisting Iran. The fundamentals that are required are the proscription of the IRGC, the removal of the embassy here and the return of all those officials to Iran, the return of our officials to the United Kingdom, and the harshest possible sanctions against the regime in Iran.
The Prime Minister
We have already sanctioned over 400 different Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC in its entirety. We continue to discuss with international partners how best we can co-ordinate future actions.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Everyone in this House is united in wanting to see the fighting in Gaza come to an end as soon as possible, with a sustainable ceasefire in place. As the Prime Minister rightly states, it was once again Hamas who rejected a US-brokered deal that would see the fighting stop, the release of hostages and allow far more aid into Gaza. What pressure is the Government applying to our allies in the region who provide support to Hamas, to urge them to do all they can to make Hamas accept a deal?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and agree with her. We are doing everything we can talking to allies in the region to put pressure on Hamas to accept a deal and get the hostages released. That is the best and most important way we can move towards the sustainable ceasefire that we all want to see.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and the clear leadership he is providing on this important matter. As a beacon of liberal democracy in the region, Israel’s security is our security. It is clear that serious loss of life was avoided at the weekend only because of the effectiveness of Israeli defence mechanisms, supported by the UK and others. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that those calling for an arms embargo against Israel are not only misguided, but risk weakening Israel’s ability to defend itself and encouraging those who wish Israel harm?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, we stand by Israel’s right to defend itself. It is important that it continues to abide by international humanitarian law—that will always be important to us. We continue to keep all arms exports under review. We have one of the strictest regimes anywhere in the world.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The events of the weekend mark a dangerous new chapter in a long history of conflict in the middle east. Does the Prime Minister accept that proportionality is key and must include the conduct of all parties, including the 192 days of uninterrupted and constant bombardment of Gaza in response to what was, of course, a horrific attack by Hamas? That has killed over 33,000 civilians in Gaza, a place where children look to the sky not knowing if aid or bombs are going to fall on them. I ask the Prime Minister: is that proportionate?
The Prime Minister
We continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself and ensure security for its citizens. It must do that in accordance with international humanitarian law; we will continue to make that point to the Israelis.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I join others in thanking the Prime Minister for his leadership in ensuring that the United Kingdom Government stand shoulder to shoulder with our ally, Israel, in the face of yet another attack. Does he agree that, in order to live in safety and security, the first and most pressing mission for Israel continues to be the necessity of defeating Hamas? The harsh reality is that that will require an operation in Rafah, in which every step is taken to protect civilian life. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the path to peace in the middle east?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the threat that Hamas pose to the security and safety of the people of Israel. The Foreign Secretary set out in detail our view on the right approach to Rafah from this point forward just a couple of weeks ago.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Prime Minister rightly calls for restraint and de-escalation in the middle east, but is there not more chance that his words will carry weight if a ceasefire is advocated for all sides, including the warring parties in Gaza?
The Prime Minister
We have called for an immediate humanitarian pause in Gaza, so that hostages can be released and aid can go in, and for that to form the basis of a more lasting and sustainable ceasefire.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his strong international leadership in this area, and for his calls for restraint. He will agree that Iran is the dangerous and destabilising player in this region, whether by itself directly or through its proxies. It is also a despotic, medieval regime. There were 853 executions last year—an eight-year high—including 22 women. As the Prime Minister works urgently with the G7, please will he confirm that no reasonable option should be off the table, including the proscription of the IRGC?
The Prime Minister
Iran’s human rights record remains completely unacceptable. We have sanctioned almost 100 entities and individuals specifically for human rights violations. For example, we have condemned Iran’s surging use of the death penalty, and at the 78th UN General Assembly, we co-sponsored the Iran human rights resolution calling for Iran to issue a moratorium on executions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I say once again that I am anxious to get everyone in, but I can only do that if the questions are brief.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Thirty-three thousand people have died in Gaza. More bombs have been dropped there than were dropped in the whole of the Iraq war. This weekend’s horrific events show the danger of a war escalating across the whole region. Does the Prime Minister recognise that the kernel of the whole issue across the region is the continued Israeli occupation of Palestine? What does he say about bringing an end to that occupation, and calling for a permanent ceasefire?
The Prime Minister
Of course we want to see, and remain committed to, a two-state solution, and we are working hard to bring that about, but the biggest cause of regional instability is the pernicious influence of Iran, and nobody else.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that even those who want to link the conflict between Israel and Hamas with the conduct of this attack have to recognise that, since its inception decades ago, the Islamic Republic of Iran has sought the destruction not only of our way of life, but of Israel and its people, and we should never hesitate to play our part in preventing that?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I agree with him wholeheartedly.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I echo the calls for restraint and de-escalation. I was interested in what the Prime Minister said about the diplomatic efforts over the past six months, with the Palestinian Authority looking towards a two-state solution. Given that the issues are settlements, water and access between Gaza and the west bank and Jerusalem, what window of opportunity does he think there is with the Netanyahu Government to get all parties round the table?
The Prime Minister
That is something that we continually push for. In the meantime, we also focus on building up the technical and administrative capability of the Palestinian Authority, so that they are in a position to provide effective and strong governance for the west bank and Gaza when the moment that that is possible arrives, and we are working very hard to bring that about.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Yesterday, the United Nations Secretary-General said:
“The Middle East is on the brink. The people of the region are confronting a real danger of a devastating full-scale conflict. Now is the time to defuse and de-escalate”.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary-General, and if so, what is the Government’s strategy to achieve this, as the Prime Minister works with our international allies?
The Prime Minister
Of course we want to avoid further escalation and bloodshed, which would be deeply destabilising for the region and risk more lives. That is a message that all Government Ministers will be taking to their counterparts across the region.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Iran sought to justify its unjustifiable attack on Israel on the basis that it was retaliating for Israel’s attack on its consulate. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister said that in his telephone conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu later today, he will urge de-escalation. In that telephone conversation, will he set out the measures that the UK will take if, in fact, Israel seeks to retaliate further?
The Prime Minister
I am not going to comment on hypotheticals, but of course we will calm heads to prevail everywhere across the region.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the Security Council last night, the UN Secretary-General warned of “devastating full-scale conflict” and called for de-escalation and maximum restraint. Today, the Foreign Secretary said in response that there could have been “thousands of casualties” and pressure for an escalation of this conflict. Does the Prime Minister agree with that, and does he also agree that the very real tens of thousands of deaths and casualties that Israel’s military attacks and imposed famine conditions have caused in Gaza are drivers of regional instability?
The Prime Minister
We want to avoid further escalation and bloodshed, which would be deeply destabilising for the region and would risk more lives. That is why we are calling on all regional partners to focus on being calm and de-escalating the situation.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My constituent Sama has been trying to get her mother, father and brother out of Gaza since this conflict began. They have been displaced multiple times, and they are now in a tent in Rafah. They cannot apply to come to the UK for safety, as there is no scheme. This is in the UK Government’s hands, and they could waive the need for biometrics, if they so decided. Will the Prime Minister do that and let Sama’s family come to safety?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, I am not aware of the specifics of the hon. Lady’s case, but I am sure that if she writes to the Home Office, it will be happy to look into it for her.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Four former UK Supreme Court judges and more than 600 lawyers, including over 60 KCs, have warned the Prime Minister that the UK risks breaking international law relating to a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza if it does not stop its weapons exports to Israel. The Prime Minister is ignoring their warnings and hiding his Government’s legal advice on this matter. Why, Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
No, that is not right. We have a very robust and rigorous export licensing regime. The Foreign Secretary confirmed last week that the UK’s position on export licences is unchanged following the latest assessment, and is in line with the legal advice. We keep that position under review, and always act in accordance with that advice.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The middle east has entered a very dangerous new phase that can be resolved only by diplomatic and political solutions. Can I push the Prime Minister on what he said earlier about the sanctions that he is considering taking, with international allies, against Iran, including the proscribing of the IRGC? Will he also confirm that the UK will not take part in any offensive action of Israel’s?
The Prime Minister
We acted in a defensive capacity, and we are discussing with G7 allies further diplomatic measures that can be taken in a co-ordinated fashion.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I fully condemn Iran’s attack on Israel, and the nature of the Iranian regime. The Prime Minister says that he wants to see stability in the region, but surely there must be honesty and transparency about the fact that Israel itself is a threat to stability, and has already systematically broken international humanitarian law. The Government have no reluctance to rightly challenge Russia over Ukraine in that regard; why the reluctance in relation to Israel—and indeed the reluctance to publish the associated legal advice?
The Prime Minister
As I said, I do not think there is any equivalence between what Vladimir Putin is doing in Ukraine and what Israel is doing to ensure the security of its citizens in the face of an appalling terrorist attack.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
It has been over 15 months since it was reported that proscription of the IRGC was imminent. Since then, Iran has continued to fund and supply Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Following this continued funding for terror and destabilisation, what more does Iran have to do before the IRGC is proscribed?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, the police, security services and courts all have the tools that they need to sanction, prosecute and mitigate the threats from Iran. We strengthened our Iran sanctions regime recently, and the IRGC is sanctioned in its entirety.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said in his statement that it was important that aid gets into Gaza, and he said a few moments ago that the Government were right to take their time in deciding on the restoration of funding to UNRWA. The organisational infrastructure of UNRWA is unparalleled and cannot be replicated. A further delay on the part of the UK Government will cost further lives, in a context in which famine is taking hold. I urge the Prime Minister to think again and to today set out a path for the restoration of funding to UNRWA.
The Prime Minister
I know that the whole House will have rightly been appalled by the allegations that UNRWA staff were involved in 7 October. We want UNRWA to give detailed undertakings about changes in personnel policy and procedures to ensure that nothing like that can ever happen again. We are actively working with allies to try to bring the situation to a rapid conclusion. We are expecting final reports from the UN and others on what happened by the end of April, and we intend to clarify the UK’s position on funding once we have reviewed those final reports.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Israel has indicated that it intends to respond to Iran’s attack, against the advice of the international community, including the UN and the United States. Such a retaliation could tip the region into a catastrophic all-out war, so in terms of leverage to persuade Prime Minister Netanyahu against further retaliation, will the right hon. Gentleman say that, should Israel choose to escalate, there will be no further UK military support for its endeavours in this conflict?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman meant also to condemn Iran for what happened over the weekend. We will continue to urge de-escalation and for calm heads to prevail on all sides.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Iran is of course no ally of the UK, and its huge unprecedented assault on Israel must be called out, but the UK Government must now work hard to prevent further escalation of the crisis in an already volatile region. It is a matter of principle that diplomatic premises are not targeted, so will the Prime Minister confirm what conversations he has had with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu about the attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria, or whether he plans to discuss that with him?
The Prime Minister
As I said, we will continue to urge de-escalation and for calm heads to prevail on all sides. As the Foreign Secretary said this morning, we urge Israel in particular to recognise that it has successfully repelled the Iranian attacks, and that Iran is ever more isolated on the world stage.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Jacqui, the mother of murdered aid worker James Kirby, is my constituent. I am sure that she will agree with the Prime Minister’s description of her son as a hero. There is a real danger—I am already seeing this, as events move on—that his death will end up being chalked up as collateral damage in this conflict. Will the Prime Minister show that he understands the family’s need to see justice done, and will he keep up the pressure on Israel about the review? The family want to know why James was killed, and that someone will be held responsible.
The Prime Minister
My condolences to Jacqui and the families of all those who were tragically killed as they delivered aid. As I said, they were heroes and they absolutely deserve our admiration. Our thoughts will be with all their families. I refer the hon. Lady to my previous answer about what we have asked of the Israelis. What is crystal clear is that there needs to be a considerable improvement in the deconfliction mechanisms between Israel and aid agencies. I have already made that point to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and we expect to see that followed through.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) in unequivocally condemning the action of the Iranian regime on Saturday, and in supporting the actions of our RAF. Like many others, my Edinburgh West constituents are concerned that attention will now be taken away from the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza. Can the Prime Minister assure us that when he speaks to the Prime Minister of Israel later today, he will impress upon him not only the need for restraint to restabilise the region, but the unique opportunity he has now to take steps towards peace by promoting a ceasefire and allowing aid into Gaza?
The Prime Minister
Our position remains unchanged: we continue to want to see an immediate humanitarian pause so that hostages are released and aid goes in, and we want Israel to immediately deliver on its commitments to significantly increase the amount of aid getting into Gaza through the various measures it has set out.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The question from the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox) exposed that there is much more we could be doing to undermine the murderous Iranian regime. Simultaneously, the way that Israel continues to ignore the United Nations resolution is deeply troubling. Is the Prime Minister worried that his approach at the moment risks failing, both on Iran and on Israel?
The Prime Minister
No; as we have demonstrated this weekend, the UK is leading with allies, defending our values and our interests, and standing together with our friends to bring about regional security. That is good for people in the region, and it is good for people here at home, too.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Iran’s reckless actions only add more fuel to an already raging fire, so will the Prime Minister proscribe the IRGC, and what assessment has he made of whether bombing a consulate violates international law? What are we doing to uphold that principle in a war that has gone on for six months and cost so many lives?
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Lady to any of my previous answers on both those topics.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), the Prime Minister said that he would take the time to set the right future approach to UNRWA. As the famine continues, I wonder how much time the Prime Minister needs before he makes up his mind to restore funding and get aid to the people who need it.
The Prime Minister
What the hon. Lady failed to mention was the shocking allegations of people involved in UNRWA also being involved in the massacre on 7 October. It is right that those allegations are properly investigated and new procedures are put in place to ensure that that could never happen again. The final reports, which have been commissioned, are due at the end of April. We are already in dialogue with our partners; once we review those reports, we will set out our future approach, but that is not to say that we are not already doing an enormous amount to bring more aid into the region. We have tripled our commitment, and right now are delivering aid by land, sea and air. We are taking a leading role, and everyone in this House should be incredibly proud of what the UK is bringing to the table.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
The action of the Royal Air Force in shooting down Iranian drones and cruise missiles heading to, and over, Israel over the weekend raises a very serious question. Since the UK is clearly capable of acting to prevent air strikes in the region, and both the International Court of Justice and the UN special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories have implicated Israel in a genocide in Gaza, why are the Government not interested in fulfilling their obligations under international law by protecting Palestinian women and children from Israeli airstrikes? Why are the Government not acting to prevent the killing of Palestinians?
The Prime Minister
I disagree with the hon. Lady. While, of course, we respect the role and the independence of the ICJ, our view is that Israel’s actions in Gaza can simply not be described as a genocide, and that case is not helpful at all in achieving our goal of a sustainable and lasting ceasefire.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The threat of imminent famine hangs over the people of Gaza; aid urgently needs to get into the country and to be safely distributed. With the deaths of those three UK charity workers, working for World Central Kitchen, will the Prime Minister confirm whether he has received a written apology from the Prime Minister of Israel?
The Prime Minister
I spoke explicitly to the Prime Minister of Israel, who did that when I spoke to him the very next day. We have made absolutely crystal clear our concerns about what has happened, and as I have previously pointed out, we are now looking through the preliminary findings. We are pleased to see the early suspension of two officers involved; now what we need is reform of Israel’s deconfliction mechanism to ensure the future safety of aid workers.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In speaking to the Prime Minister of Israel this evening and calling for restraint, will the Prime Minister put that into action? Should the Prime Minister of Israel say that he will further assault Gaza or impede aid, will the Prime Minister action that restraint and call for an immediate ceasefire?
The Prime Minister
We have already called for an immediate humanitarian pause so that more aid can get in and hostages can be released. As I say, we have tripled our aid commitment, and are bringing aid in by air, land and sea, together with our allies.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Over 33,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, including 14,000 children. Some 76,000 civilians have been injured or maimed and 700 healthcare and aid workers have been killed. There is an ongoing famine, and the UK Government under the Prime Minister’s watch are now trying to find ways around the Israeli blockade that is preventing aid from getting in; is that not in itself an admission that the ongoing Israeli actions are disproportionate, and should we not be calling them out as such?
The Prime Minister
We have been consistently clear that we are concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We have called on the Israelis to open up more aid corridors and have them open more often; they set out a series of steps just recently, and now we want to see them deliver on those.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The middle east is in a crisis, and I and thousands of my Riverside constituents have been calling for a ceasefire to end the destruction in Gaza and prevent a widening conflict in the middle east. The Prime Minister has talked about diplomatic action towards a two-state solution. Can he say what action he is taking against the far-right Ministers in the Israeli Government who are opposed to a two-state solution?
The Prime Minister
We have been very clear that our view is that we should have a two-state solution, and we are making sure we do everything we can to contribute to that aim.
Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)
On the wider humanitarian crisis in Gaza, there is now a famine across the area. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), I think the Prime Minister said that he has received the interim report on UNRWA and that in due course he will receive the final report. Will he publish the interim report, and if not, why not? With Canada, France, Finland, Australia, Sweden and the EU having now restored funding, why does the UK stand alone?
The Prime Minister
When it comes to UNRWA, it is the UN that is publishing the expected final reports towards the end of April. After receiving them, we will clarify and set out the UK’s position on future funding.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I thank the Prime Minister very much for his decisive action in support of Israel, and I thank our world-class Royal Air Force for preventing further loss of life. Just last week, I had an opportunity to be in Israel to visit the kibbutz where the people—innocent Jews—were murdered. I went to the site of the Nova music festival, where over 1,000 Israelis were murdered, and I spoke to some of those families.
On Hamas and their sponsorship by the IRGC, does the Prime Minister agree that Hamas and the IRGC can be likened to cancer, and that to save life throughout the middle east and to retain stability the cancer of Hamas and the IRGC needs to be removed urgently by all means necessary?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the destabilising impact of Iran across the region, including action through proxies such as Hamas, the Houthis and others, and we will do everything we can to counter that threat.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Our constituents will always want us to think about the second-order consequences of British military action. When the Government deployed the RAF to defend civilians in Libya, a full parliamentary debate was held afterwards and a vote was granted to Members of this House. That was in line with the convention that has been observed for most of the last 20 years. Will the Government grant Members a full debate and a vote on British military action, even after the action has happened?
The Prime Minister
No, I do not believe that is necessary. I am obviously here answering questions. It is my job to take action where I believe it is necessary, and it is the job of Parliament to hold me accountable for that. But it was right that we moved quickly to respond to an immediate and dangerous threat. Publicising any action in advance would undermine the effectiveness of the operation. We acted in line with precedent, and we have also made very clear and public statements that we will not hesitate to protect our allies.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I suspect there will be a slight change of personnel before the next statement.
Cass Review
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Victoria Atkins)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Cass review of gender identity services for children and young people. May I say how pleased I am that we are joined by parents of children who have been affected by some of the issues raised in this review? I hope all of us will bear the sensitivities of this debate in mind as we discuss it this afternoon.
This review strikes hard and sure at an area of public policy where fashionable cultural values have overtaken evidence, safety and biological reality. This must now stop. As recently as 2009, the NHS’s sole gender identity development service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust received fewer than 60 referrals for children and young people, and just 15 for adolescent girls. Since then, demand has surged. By 2016, over 1,700 children and young people a year were referred—a 34-fold increase. More than half were teenage girls. In 2022, more than 5,000 children and young people were referred to gender identity clinics, and almost three quarters were female.
This exponential increase in demand is not a coincidence; it has been driven by a number of factors which I will come to later, but at its heart it was driven by a myth. This myth was that for children and young people grappling with adolescence who were questioning their identity, their sexuality or their path in life, the answer to their questions was inevitably to change gender to solve their feelings of unease, discomfort or distress.
That near-uniform prescription was imposed on children and young people with complex needs without full and thoughtful consideration of their wider needs, including, as is set out in the report, conditions such as neurodiversity, experiences such as childhood trauma or mental health conditions, or indeed discovering who it is that they may one day fall in love with. Indeed, the response from some of the people who should have protected them—some of the clinicians in charge of their care at the Tavistock clinic—was almost always to put them on an irreversible path: blocking puberty, then prescribing cross-sex hormones, and on to surgery as an adult. In other words, such professionals were not asking the right questions of themselves or of their patients.
That is why in 2020, with the support of my predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) and for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid), NHS England commissioned Dr Hilary Cass to examine the state of services for children questioning their gender. I would like to start by thanking Dr Cass and her team for undertaking a considered, comprehensive and courageous review into an extremely contentious area of healthcare. Since NHS England commissioned the review in 2020, they have meticulously unpicked what went wrong, what the evidence really shows and how to design a fundamentally different service that better serves the needs of children.
I must also thank those who raised the alarm and contributed to the review over the last four years: the clinicians who spoke up against their peers to blow the whistle about what was happening at the Tavistock clinic, even though it risked their careers; the journalists, academics and activists who listened to their stories and investigated further, even when they were derided as bigots and transphobes; the parents who were just trying their best to support their children, but were so badly let down by a service that vilified them for questioning whether the interventions offered were right for their children; and, of course, the young people themselves who have shared their experiences, including those who have gone through the pain of de-transitioning only to find out that the so-called “reversible” treatments they were offered are not in fact reversible.
The Cass review makes for sober reading. It is extremely thorough, so I will not attempt to cover all its recommendations today, but I genuinely encourage all Members to read the report in full. It should concern every single Member of this House that part of our public space—the NHS—was overtaken by a culture of secrecy and ideology that was allowed to trump evidence and safety. We say enough is enough; our young people deserve better, and we must do whatever it takes to protect them.
Since the publication of Dr Cass’s interim report in 2022, a series of important changes have been made, and I put on record my thanks to NHS England’s chief executive, Amanda Pritchard, and all those at NHS England who have worked hard with Dr Cass to implement them. On 31 March, the Tavistock clinic finally closed, having stopped seeing new patients a year earlier. Two new regional hubs have been opened, in partnership with the country’s most prestigious children’s hospitals, to ensure that children are supported by specialist, multidisciplinary teams. Indeed, another hub will follow in Bristol later this year.
In the past few weeks, NHS England made the landmark decision to end the routine prescription to children of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria. On the day of publication of Dr Cass’s final report, it announced that it is stopping children under 18 from being seen by adult gender services with immediate effect, and an urgent review on clinical policy for cross-sex hormones will now follow without delay. I also welcome NHS England’s plans to bring forward its full review of adult services, including Dr Cass’s recommendation for a follow-through service for young people up to the age of 25.
I also share Dr Cass’s concerns that clinicians who subscribe to gender ideology will try to use private providers to get around the rules. Let me give a very clear warning: prescribing is a highly regulated activity, and the Care Quality Commission has not licensed any gender clinic to prescribe hormone blockers or cross-sex hormones to people under the age of 16. Any clinic that does may be committing extremely serious regulatory offences for which its licence can be revoked and its clinicians can be struck off. My officials have been in contact with the CQC following the final report to ask that it looks again at the age thresholds in its licensing conditions.
The CQC has also reassured us that it will incorporate Dr Cass’s recommendations into their safe care and treatment standards for all care providers. That means that all new providers will be asked if their practices respect the Cass review, and all existing providers have to meet the same rigorous standards when they are reviewed by the CQC. My officials met the General Medical Council over the weekend, and will do so again in the coming days, to understand how it will ensure that every clinician on its register follows its code of practice and implements the wider findings of the Cass review.
It is morally and medically reprehensible that some online providers not registered in the UK have stated their intention to continue to issue prescriptions to children in this country. I am looking closely at what can be done to curtail any loopholes in prescribing practices, including legislative options. Nothing is off the table, and I will update the House in due course as we progress that work at pace.
Dr Cass also found that there was a lack of robust data on what happened to the 9,000 children who were treated by gender identity services between 2009 and 2020. Many went on to continue their treatment at adult clinics, and the University of York had been due to research the long-term consequences of treatment they received as children, so that we can properly support them through their journey into adulthood. It was expected to provide important insights into the clinic’s work, including how many patients de-transitioned and how many were also diagnosed with a mental health condition or an autism spectrum disorder.
This Government took the unprecedented step of changing the law to make it possible for adult gender clinics to share medical data with the university. All bar one of the adult gender clinics refused to co-operate with this vital research. To quote Dr Cass, that is “unacceptable”, but I would go even further: I think it is deplorable and a dereliction of their professional duty. I am pleased to update the House that following the publication of Dr Cass’s report, I have been informed that all seven clinical leads for the adult gender services now intend to fully participate in this important work.
Dr Cass also concludes that a cultural shift alone “does not adequately explain” the huge growth in young women being referred to gender services. She paints an alarming picture of digitally engaged young women who are frequently exposed to pornography involving violent, coercive, degrading and pain-inducing acts. Is it any wonder than more and more of them are looking for ways to opt out of becoming women? That is deeply troubling and, as Dr Cass makes clear, we have a duty to support those young women with considered, evidence-based care.
Our children deserve healthcare that is compassionate, caring and careful. Their safety and wellbeing must come above any other concern, and anyone who threatens it must be held to account. I will work with NHS England to root out the ideology that has caused so much unnecessary harm, to support those who have already received life-altering treatment, to give the next generation access to holistic care, and to protect our children’s futures. Anything less would be neglecting our duty to the next generation. That will not happen under this Government, and it will not happen under my watch.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and, even more importantly, Dr Hilary Cass and her team for the thoughtful and thorough way in which they have undertaken their work. Dr Cass has navigated the complexities and sensitivities of the subject with academic rigour, providing an evidence-led framework for children to receive the best possible healthcare. I also pay tribute to journalists such as Hannah Barnes and the whistleblowers who together helped to shine a light on what was going on at the Tavistock clinic.
At the heart of the complexity around this issue are two things that are true simultaneously. There are trans adults in this country who have followed a medical pathway and who say that, for all the pain and difficulty that involved, it was not just life-affirming; it was lifesaving. There are also people in this country who followed a medical pathway but who say it was a disaster that ruined their lives irreversibly, and they ask how anyone could have let that happen. For the sake of all those children, young people and now adults—but particularly those being referred into gender identity services today—we have a duty to get this right.
What has emerged in the Cass review is a scandal. It is a scandal that children and young people are waiting far too long—often years—for care while their wellbeing deteriorates and their childhood slips away. It is scandalous that medical interventions have been made on the basis of shaky evidence. It is scandalous that, despite all that, some NHS providers refused to co-operate with Dr Cass’s review. Perhaps the worst scandal of all is that the toxicity of this discussion means that people have felt silenced, and it required investigative journalism to prompt the review to take place. This particularly vulnerable group of children and young people are at the wrong end of all the statistics for mental ill health, suicide and self-harm. There is no doubt that they have been very badly let down, so we owe it to them to approach this discussion with the same care and sensitivity with which Dr Cass undertook her review.
Parts of the report will sound familiar to anyone acquainted with the NHS today. Children and young people face unacceptably long waiting lists and are unable to get the mental health support and assessments they require, and services face significant staff shortages, with a lack of workforce planning driving all of that. As with so many parts of the NHS today, the report paints a picture of a service unable to cope with demand. Dr Cass is clear that care must be personal and holistic. Will the Secretary of State set out how she plans to cut waiting times for assessments for mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions?
Waiting lists are so bad in some cases that children are passing into adulthood before they have had their first appointment with gender identity services, leaving them facing a cliff edge. Cass recommends follow-through services up to the age of 25 to ensure continuity of care. Will the Secretary of State indicate how long she thinks it will take to establish those services?
Labour welcomed the decision by NHS England last month to stop the routine prescription of puberty blockers to under-18s. The loophole that exists for private providers risks sparking a black market. The Secretary of State has said that she expects private clinics to follow the report’s recommendations to follow the evidence. I underline our support for her expectations on compliance. Can she give an indication of whether she thinks that further regulation may be needed to ensure adequate enforcement of the recommendations?
The refusal of adult gender services to share data on the long-term experience of patients is inexcusable—as the Secretary of State said, it is deplorable. The data does not belong to them; it belongs to the NHS and, crucially, to patients. I welcome their coming forward now, but how was this allowed to happen, and what accountability does she think would be appropriate?
This report must provide a watershed moment for the NHS’s gender identity services. Children’s healthcare should always be led by evidence and be in the best interests of children’s welfare. Dr Cass’s report has provided the basis on which to go forward. The report must also provide a watershed moment for the way in which our society and our politics discuss this issue. There are children, young people and adults—including trans children, young people and adults—in this country who are desperately worried and frightened by the toxicity of this debate. There are healthcare professionals who are scared to do their job and make their views known. Dr Cass said that
“toxic, ideological and polarised public debate has made the work of the Review significantly harder”
and it will hamper the research that is essential to finding a way forward.
Even in a general election year, there is surely one issue on which we can down tools and work together: the pursuit of the healthcare of vulnerable people. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid). We had many scraps across the Dispatch Box, but for his role in commissioning this review he deserves our thanks and respect. I hope to work constructively with the Health Secretary to put children’s health and wellbeing above the political fray.
Victoria Atkins
I welcome all those who have changed their minds about this critical issue. In order to move forward and get on with the vital work that Dr Cass recommends, we need more people to face up to the truth, no matter how uncomfortable that makes them feel. I hope the hon. Gentleman has the humility to understand that the ideology that he and his colleagues espoused was part of the problem. He talked about the culture and the toxicity of the debate. Does he understand the hurt that he caused to people when he told them to “just get over it”? Does he know that when he and his friends on the left spent the last decade crying, “Culture wars,” when legitimate concerns were raised created an atmosphere of intimidation, with the impact on the workforce that he rightly described? People were scared or worried to go into it.
Does the hon. Gentleman now have the good grace to apologise to those who have been maligned in public life—including his own female colleagues—and for the chilling effect that this has had on clinicians, journalists and campaigners who were trying to raise the alarm? I say that because I want to believe the hon. Gentleman when he says that he has turned a corner on this issue. We have to start with a new page, for the sake not just of the children and young people we are looking after but of their families, many of whom will be watching this, living with the consequences of the ideology and secrecy, wondering how on earth the hon. Gentleman talks about general elections when, every single minute and day, their children have to live with treatment that can never be reversed.
Dame Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
The report is very welcome, but it has been a long time coming. One issue I would like to put to my right hon. Friend is the whole failure of governance that it shows. In particular, NHS England’s specialist commissioning requires challenge. As she explained, what was initially commissioned as a treatment course for a small minority of people has been allowed to expand unchecked and without any consideration of the ethics of what was being done to children. What will she do to ensure that does not happen again? Secondly, the Tavistock clearly enjoyed the popularity brought by being at the front end of what was seen as a set of cutting-edge treatments. Frankly, the governors allowed that to get in the way of what they should have been doing: ensuring patient safety. What does she propose to do about that as well?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend, who in her parliamentary career has done so much to shine a light on this sort of behaviour. She has espoused worries, both publicly and privately, about the children and young people at the heart of this matter. Looking to the future, the Tavistock clinic has shut. As I said, it stopped admitting patients a year ago. The new services that are already in place—the two new hubs, with plans to expand further across the country—are about ensuring a multidisciplinary approach to young people, so that, with exactly the experiences Dr Cass sets outs so starkly in her report, children are treated as human beings and patients, not as siloed conditions. One of the main problems that emerged with the Tavistock behaviour and the way it took place is that gender questioning was siloed in a way that no other health or mental health condition was. We want to move back to a place where clinicians are no longer scared of looking after children and young people with these issues, and that they see it as part of their general practice and general work. That is how we are best going to address the very complex needs of many of these children and young people.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am grateful for advance sight of the statement.
Nobody’s identity should be up for debate, and nor should it be used as a political football. Dr Cass said in her report:
“Polarisation and stifling of debate do nothing to help the young people caught in the middle of a stormy social discourse, and in the long run will also hamper the research that is essential to finding the best way of supporting them to thrive.”
That polarisation is the last thing needed by young people in accessing care, their families and the NHS staff working hard to care for them. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must all remain respectful at all times when discussing these important issues, and that decisions on this and any other type of treatment should rightly be made by clinicians, not politicians?
Dr Cass explicitly makes the point that her report is not about questioning trans identities or rolling back access to healthcare for young trans people. Indeed, supporting and improving the gender identity healthcare system for all, including children and young people, is what we should be focused on. So can the Secretary of State confirm today whether any additional funding will be made available to ensure that young trans people can access the quality healthcare they need and deserve?
Finally, on conversion practices, the Government Equalities Office said last month in an answer to a written question:
“The Government expects to deliver a draft Bill that takes account of the independent Cass review”.
Can the Secretary of State provide an update on what conversations she has had with Cabinet colleagues on how the Cass review will influence the UK Government’s legislative proposals on banning conversion practices, and when can we expect them to be published?
Victoria Atkins
I encourage both the Scottish National party in Scotland and Labour in Wales—health is devolved in those countries, of course—to respond as quickly as possible to the findings of the review. The hon. Lady asks whether it is Barnett-ised. For these purposes, our work to ensure that the clinics meet the needs of our population in England is not additional money. We are re-prioritising within NHS budgets to ensure that the services are spread across the country. I encourage the Scottish nationalists to prioritise the needs of their children and young people in the same way.
I would also gently make the point that, when it comes to the atmosphere of this debate, I do not believe it has been helped by the SNP’s highly controversial Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. I note, for example, the behaviour and engagement on Twitter of very high-profile people in Scotland, and the impact that it has had when people have dared to name activists in this arena. I would also ask the Scottish Labour party to explain why it helped the SNP to pass that Act, because to me this seems to be all about the atmosphere.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Dr Cass’s observations about violent and degrading pornography are chilling, and we know of the impact that is having not just on young girls but on all our young people. Her recommendations also include significant and specific references to expanded services and follow-through services for 17 to 25-year-olds. What concerns has my right hon. Friend about the capacity for that, and about the possible impact on other areas of healthcare?
We know that the transition from children’s services to adult services can be problematic in the case of a wide range of services, not least for those suffering from body dysmorphia or eating disorders. Might there be any crossover, with young people having access to some sort of interim service before the age of 25, and will more funds be committed so that we do not continue to see what all of us will face in our constituencies: the horror of young people being unable to access child and adolescent mental health services before they turn 18 and become reliant on adult mental health care?
Victoria Atkins
My right hon. Friend is right to identify the cohort of young people between the ages of 17 and 25 as being of particular concern. Now that we have a clear pathway in relation to the treatment of children and young people under the age of 17, I have asked NHSE to focus primarily on that next cohort. Speaking to parents gives one a very real sense of their concerns about what they describe as the cliff edge between children and young people’s services and adult services for this very vulnerable group of young people. I do not want that to continue, and over the coming months we will see NHSE develop work to help that cohort.
My right hon. Friend has an understanding not just of how transformational the report and its evidence are, but of the challenges that this means for our health service in England and how we choose to respond. As for funding, NHSE has committed more than £17 million to the two new hubs in the current financial year, and I hope and expect that our devolved Administrations will commit similar sums to looking after children and young people in their areas.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has spoken of the need for multi-site centres, and has pointed out that two hubs have already been established. Will she tell us a little more about her plans to expand this to make it multi-site, and when that is likely to happen?
Victoria Atkins
As I have said, we hope to expand it to Bristol later in the year, and there will be a further three or four sites across England. However—this is a really important part of the report—this is not just about specialist services but about giving clinicians the necessary confidence to look after children and young people who may well be presenting at their clinics or surgeries with this condition as one of a number of conditions. We want to give them back that confidence, and the comfort of knowing that they need not just go down the narrow pathway of specialist services. Of course that will be appropriate for many, but we want to treat the whole child rather than treating just this particular condition, as has happened in the past.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I must first declare my interest as a practising NHS consultant paediatrician whose practice sometimes involves caring for children with the condition we have been describing.
The Cass Review makes for sobering reading. This is an example of ideology being allowed to trump evidence and safeguarding. Let me give the Secretary of State a specific example. Individuals have thwarted the attempts of those working on the report to conduct research that would give them a better understanding of the outcomes for some children. I am pleased to hear that those people are now co-operating, but we should note the contents of a letter from John Stewart, the national director of specialised commissioning, which is appended to the report. He says that although NHS England wrote to the chief executives and medical directors of all NHS trusts, the research data was not released. One of the duties of doctors that are specified by the General Medical Council is to
“Engage with colleagues to maintain and improve the safety and quality of…care.”
May I ask the Secretary of State who exactly blocked that data, what investigations will be carried out to find out which individuals were responsible, and how they will individually be held accountable for their actions? How was it possible for them to do this in the first place, and what is she doing to ensure that data cannot be blocked in the same way in the future?
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing her clinical expertise and experience to the Chamber and to this important debate. As for her precise questions about who did what and when, I hope she will understand that I have been working at pace on this report over the last few days; I have asked these questions myself, and I will update the House when I am in a position to do so.
Let me return the House’s attention to the expectation, not just moral but professional—in the light of the report and the evidence that it has produced—that clinicians and other medical professionals will act in accordance with these recommendations. That will mean that when regulators examine the conduct of medical professionals, they do so against this backdrop and in the context of these expectations. If there are people who are operating under the misguided apprehension that their ideology trumps the evidence, I fully expect the regulators to crack down on that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am anxious to ensure that everyone gets in, because this is an important statement, but we also need to ensure that the questions are brief so that the Secretary of State can give brief responses. We have a big debate ahead of us on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, followed by another debate on the hospice movement, and I am sure that many Members will want to participate in those as well. Perhaps they will bear that in mind when framing their questions.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Let me first thank the Secretary of State for her thoughtful and considered statement on the Cass review, and especially for mentioning the journalists, such as my friend Hannah Barnes, who blew the whistle on the Tavistock clinic. As she has said, those who have raised this issue over the last few years, desperately concerned about the safeguarding of vulnerable children and young people—too young to make life-changing decisions—are owed a heartfelt apology for being no-platformed, ghosted, sidelined and disciplined at the behest of a few extreme groups of activists, some within political parties. Does she agree that these academics, politicians, writers, psychologists and actors, along with any other people who have questioned the signing up of their workplaces to Stonewall law, have now been vindicated by Dr Cass’s expert review, and that they should be apologised to?
Victoria Atkins
I come to the Dispatch Box with huge admiration for the hon. Lady for the commitment that she and other Labour Back Benchers have shown, in a culture and an atmosphere in which their views were demeaned and they were sneered at and castigated. Indeed, I hear rumours that efforts were made to remove certain Members from the party itself. This is the moment for apologies and for humility, but also for us to start a clean page and ensure that, when perfectly reasonable questions are asked about the medical treatment of our children, those questions are allowed to be asked in an atmosphere of respect and understanding, so that these vulnerable children and young people are looked after in a caring and careful way.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Cass review and its findings, and the extraordinarily strong statement made by my right hon. Friend. I have no doubt that what happened at GIDS—the Gender Identity Development Service—will go down as one of the worst safeguarding and medical scandals of our generation. I pay tribute to the brave parents, including those in the Bayswater support group, who have been raising concerns for years about the ethics and the safety of putting vulnerable children on irreversible and unevidenced medical pathways with the aim of achieving something that can never be achieved, which is to change their sex. Those who spoke up for the interests of children and, frankly, for the interests of common sense were labelled bigots, transphobes and even fascists. Even after concerns were raised and Dr Cass had been commissioned, the Tavistock was allowed to continue to practise, which was a shocking suspension of the precautionary principle. This scandal happened because too many adults put their own desire for social approval above the safety of vulnerable children. How can we make sure that that does not happen again?
Victoria Atkins
As my hon. Friend was asking that question, there were people on the Opposition Benches tutting her. That shows that while some understand the need to keep the debate about the clinical needs of these children and compassion, there are still people on the Opposition Benches who do not get it. For example, in 2020 the deputy leader of the Labour party signed a charter describing bodies such as Woman’s Place UK, which, dare I say, campaigns for single-sex rape refuges—to which the House knows I have an enormous commitment—as “trans-exclusionist hate groups”. That sort of language needs to be apologised for, so that we can all move on. We expect clinicians and medical professionals to do the right thing by the Cass report, and by our children and young people. There needs to be some leadership from all of us in public life to ensure that we set the right example to those people.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
At its heart, the Cass report sadly highlights the low standard of care for our young people who were caught up in a toxic debate. There were long waiting lists, and the debate seeped into the staffing of the medical profession. Does the Secretary of State agree that we have to look at the wellbeing of our children holistically? How will she overcome the recruitment and staffing problems that have been created by this toxic debate?
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Lady, who has an exemplary record of campaigning on this issue. This comes down to the very careful review by Dr Cass. We have to get away from the idea that if a child presents with gender distress, that is the only part of their health that we should care about and look into. We have to look across the board to ensure that we look after every single part of them and do not assume that medical pathways are the only and inevitable pathways for them. One of the concerns raised in the report is that the terrible mental health issues that many children and young people were suffering from were not being looked after. People were just put on drugs and expected to get on with it. That is wrong, and we are determined to change it.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
What was the Secretary of State’s reaction to the news that almost all gender clinics refused to co-operate with the Cass review? Does she agree that this is too important an issue for a circle-the-wagons attitude? What can she do to ensure that Government guidance is followed to the letter, and in spirit, when we tackle a gender ideology that seems to be running rampant through our public institutions?
Victoria Atkins
This is not about my emotions, but I can tell my hon. Friend that I was disgusted and angry. What is more, this is about being able to have conversations in our public space. For example, if our public institutions—whether it is the NHS, schools or whatever—are asked to respond to a thoughtful and careful review such as the Cass report, they must do so, because this information does not belong to them; it belongs to their patients, to future patients—because we want to shape services to help them—and to us as a nation. I welcome such institutions’ about-turn in deciding that they will provide the data. I am pleased that has happened, but my goodness me, I wish they had done it earlier.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
All trans children and young people deserve access to high-quality and timely healthcare and support. Around 100 studies have not been included in the Cass report, and we need to know why. The Secretary of State is obviously not concerned about the way that the Cass report has been used to perpetuate a broader hostile environment towards trans people in the UK—a hostile environment created in part by the Government’s delay in reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Misrepresenting the report, and the high-and-mighty attitude from the Secretary of State, helps no one. Will she commit to the extra funding needed to help young people have a holistic approach to their healthcare pathway?
Victoria Atkins
I am not clear whether the hon. Lady supports the report or is castigating it; I have no idea whether she supports it or not. We are trying to use the evidence in this very thorough and thoughtful review, in the words of her Front-Bench spokesman, to help clinicians treat our young people and children in a compassionate, caring way. I have noticed, and have had it reported to me by others who have been watching, that certain campaigners are trying to build up a head of steam to say that the report is somehow flawed. It is not. This is superb evidence, and the NHS has assured us that it will act on it.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Cass review highlights the deterioration of mental health in young people. It particularly highlights the impact of social media, which puts awful pressures on young people. The mental health crisis obviously affects both boys and girls, but as the Secretary of State highlighted earlier, it particularly affects girls and young women. Will she continue to turbocharge child and adolescent mental health services’ crisis teams, and give them the resources that they desperately need to support our young people?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We want to not just help with crisis support, but prevent our young people from getting into a position of crisis in the first place, so we are rolling out mental health support teams, ahead of our schedule, across schools. That is a really important piece of work that will help 44% of the student population, but we want to go even further. In the 12-month period ending in March 2021, we increased the number of children and young people aged under 18 who received NHS-funded mental health services to some 758,000. Of course, we want that support to be there in the community, but importantly we also want to help clinicians to understand that this is just one of several sets of conditions that they should have confidence to work on, in order to look after the child holistically.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Given the vile campaigns directed towards anyone who disagrees with the transgender lobby, we should congratulate Dr Cass and her team on having the courage to write their report, and the Secretary of State on her robust defence of it. In the light of the report, and given that it seems that the transgender lobby has infiltrated the NHS in England, what steps is she taking to purge that lobby from the NHS? What discussions has she had with Ministers in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to ensure that the same policies and practices are not carried out in the public and private sectors there?
Victoria Atkins
The reason why I am able to be so robust on this issue is that I believe in it; on that, I may be different from others. The challenge that the right hon. Gentleman rightly puts forward is that we have to ensure that NHS England acts as an organisation, but also at the individual and local levels, to implement the reforms that the report recommends. I want to be fair to clinicians, medical professionals, managers and others who very much support the review. I want to support them in taking up the recommendations. What individual clinicians may or may not have done in the past will be a matter for both NHS England and the regulators going forward. The moral and professional expectation is that in future, clinicians, medical professionals and all of us will respect the evidence and the recommendations of this important report.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
I would like to put on the record my thanks to Dr Hilary Cass for her thoughtful and comprehensive review. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those of us across this House who, for the past few years, have been calling for a pause on the ban on conversion therapy while we wait for Cass, because of concerns not with the L, G or B, but the T element of the ban on LGBT conversion therapy, have been completely vindicated in that call?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend sincerely for her help in raising these difficult questions and for doing so, as she has just demonstrated, in a thoughtful and careful manner. I know that she shares my concern that the children and young people at the heart of this should be our focus. We need to build the system around them, rather than them being slotted into the system, as has happened in the past.
On conversion therapy—again, I am being very mindful of the sensitivities of this—we are committed to supporting all victims of conversion practices, but we want to avoid any unintended consequences and ensure that the draft Bill takes account of the independent Cass review. That is why my Cabinet counterpart, the Minister for Women and Equalities, is leading the work in this area. We are very much considering this complex issue as part of our approach to this sensitive and important matter.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The starting point of all modern medicine must be robust and reliable—in fact, rigorous—evidence. Back in 2017, I tabled a written question at the request of a trans constituent who was concerned that many adults and young people were putting themselves through a process that was not the right one for them. That was in 2017, and we still do not have much better data, but the data is the most important thing; it informs everything.
There has been a chilling effect in this Chamber, and on social media, on people who have spoken out, and who have asked questions like that—questions that we ask for reasons to do with everyday healthcare, which we have denied, and the Government have denied, to the children in our care. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) has been fantastic; he has shown great maturity and reflection in his comments in the Chamber and in the media, and so has the Secretary of State, but as someone who has been at the other end of this, I say: please, Secretary of State, let us get the tone of this debate right, and move forward. The Cass report is a great thing, and we have to work with it to deliver the best outcomes for the children in our care.
Victoria Atkins
Again, I approach the Dispatch Box with humility because I know about the journey that the hon. Lady has been on, and about the debates and questions that she has brought forward, not just on behalf of the constituent that she mentions, but on the wider issue of the treatment of women in healthcare and in other parts of public life. I very much want us to view the future as a clean sheet, so that we can build services around children, rather than expecting them to slot into services for the convenience of arguments that were put forward in the past.
However, we have to acknowledge that this has been such a long and toxic debate that there will be people who want answers. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) has walked back some of his comments, but it is important that we acknowledge the toxicity, so that we can move on and achieve exactly what the hon. Lady and I, and others around the Chamber, seek. [Interruption.] Interestingly, Opposition Members are chuntering from sedentary positions. I think that we can make a real change, but a little less sniping from the sidelines and a little more constructive work is needed.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I have called out this ideology locally, and here in Westminster with colleagues, at every opportunity available to me. At last, it appears that the world is waking up to this issue. Sadly, we know of at least 9,000 children who have been affected by this scandal and possibly damaged for life, so first I ask the Secretary of State whether she will establish a public inquiry into this issue.
Secondly, alongside reforms to the NHS, we must re-establish safeguarding in schools. Will the Secretary of State liaise with her Education colleagues to fix our statutory safeguarding guidance keeping children safe in education? It currently downplays the risk factor around a child identifying as trans; that must be addressed.
Finally, I believe that there are many bad actors who have peddled this nonsense, clearly knowing what they were doing while destroying our young people’s lives. If there is any justice, those individuals should feel the full weight of the law. I hope that they are quaking in their boots. They ought to be.
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful question. I am going to deal, if I may, with his point about a public inquiry, because I know that there are some who are asking whether that would be appropriate. Will my hon. Friend take it from me that, at the moment—bearing in mind that the report landed less than a week ago—I am determined to drive forward the actions that are needed on the ground to help children and young people? We have had a four-year review into this—Dr Cass has gathered a great deal of evidence and it is a very thorough review—and so, for the moment, I want to concentrate on implementing the recommendations and on ensuring that the services are brought up to the standards that my hon. Friend rightly understands.
On my hon. Friend’s second point, of course I will liaise with my colleagues in the Department for Education. This is about helping all public sector professionals to ensure that they are acting on the evidence, as set out in the Cass review, for the sake of our children and young people.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I warmly welcome this statement; that is not something that the Secretary of State will often hear from me. As she said, the Cass report has vindicated the concerns of many whistleblowers, including feminists and LGB activists, who warned of the consequences for children of unevidenced medical interventions and the ideological capture of the NHS. For doing so, we—because I was part of this—were defamed and hounded by organisations that many of us had formerly supported, like Stonewall, Mermaids, PinkNews, which I had to sue for defamation, and the misnamed Equality Network in Scotland. To their shame, Members of this House and Members of the other place joined in with that bullying and group-think.
While I hear what the Secretary of State has to say about a public inquiry, and about her immediate focus being on implementing the recommendations, it seems to me that we do need a public inquiry into how this institutional capture happened in our public bodies—as we all know, it is not just the NHS—because we need to make sure that never again do ideologues of any sort, or science deniers, take hold of our public institutions. When the Secretary of State is done with implementing the recommendations, or as she is doing that, will she support the movement for a public inquiry into these matters?
Victoria Atkins
I am conscious that I have just answered that, but may I put on the record my thanks and respect for everything that the hon. and learned Lady has done in this field? She has at times had to walk a very, very lonely path, and I find it extraordinary that parliamentarians—who are elected to represent the best interests of our constituents, and indeed of our countries—would find themselves under that sort of pressure for simply stating biological fact. I hope that the hon. and learned Lady will be working with me to ensure that the recommendations in the Cass review are applied not just in England but in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I very much welcome this report and the strong statement by the Secretary of State in response to it. If there is one thing that should be above party politics, above political ideology, and above cultural trends or virtue signalling, it is the welfare of our young people, and this report lays bare that, sadly, that is exactly what has not been happening. This ideology has not only captured part of our NHS; it is found in many of our public sector institutions. I ask the Secretary of State, who has clearly taken a strong leadership position on the matter today, whether she will ensure that the findings of this report are implemented across Government—in education, local government, social services, and in our police force—to ensure that this can never happen again?
Victoria Atkins
This report sets out the evidence, which was not there before. It has taken four long years of very hard work to gather that evidence, and I hope and expect that the health sector will implement these recommendations. I also hope we can have a conversation about our wider public space, and I was very pleased to read the article by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities over the weekend. We have to de-politicise the public space and ensure that this evidence is applied across the board for the health of all our constituents and our country.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome any research, and this report moves the debate forward. My reading is that Cass says there is a toxic debate on all sides, and that there are particularly nasty and vicious people on all sides. I have had posters put outside my house with rude words on them, etc, and it has happened on all sides. That is what Cass says—that it is unhelpful.
Cass says there seems to be little evidence that large numbers of people feel either regret or success, that there is poor evidence of effectiveness, and that there needs to be more evidence on the usefulness of social transition. I read it as saying that there needs to be an awful lot more evidence, but Cass is clear that young people should not be denied access to healthcare if they are trans; in fact, they should have more healthcare and more pathways. Will the Minister agree to fund that research? We should not get evidence from just adult services. We need proper longitudinal studies that mean we have an evidence base. Will the Government support a Cass-compliant amendment to my Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill that I believe can square this circle?
Victoria Atkins
I am sorry, but I think there is a certain amount of disbelief in the Chamber. I cannot be the only one who remembers the debate on the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in January 2023 when the hon. Gentleman not only tried to shout down female Opposition colleagues but felt so exercised that he crossed the Floor of the House to sit next to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates). I remember how Conservative Members were genuinely surprised that a Member of Parliament would think it appropriate to behave in that way when debating a subject that we are entitled to, and should feel free to, debate. I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman suffered the abuse that he describes, but setting a good example starts at home. I hope he will never again behave as he did in the Chamber that day, because that is how we sort out the toxicity of this debate.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The Scottish Government’s response to the Cass review has been one of deafening silence. In fact, SNP Ministers have buried their heads in the sand and said nothing proactively about the review or its conclusions and recommendations. Indeed, the Scottish Conservatives’ request to have a statement in the Scottish Parliament on the Cass review has so far been refused by the SNP-Green Government, so I welcome the opportunity to speak about it here in the UK Parliament.
In her statement, the Secretary of State mentioned NHS England’s recent decision to end the routine prescription of puberty blockers to children. However, they are still available in Scotland. What discussions have there been on this issue, if any, between Scottish Government Ministers and the UK Government, or indeed between officials in NHS Scotland and NHS England?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend for his careful and considered question. I very much hope that the Scottish National party Government will look at the evidence very carefully and find the recommendations to their liking. It is to NHS England’s credit that it has acted so promptly, and I would hope and expect that the devolved nations, let by the Scottish National party and the Welsh Labour party, will follow with similar speed.
As I have had to say, because it is in line with the atmosphere in which clinicians are having to operate, the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, brought forward by the Scottish National party Government and supported by Scottish Labour, cannot help the considered debate that we wish to have about this very complex subject, and I encourage them to look at that as part of their overall approach.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I welcome the Cass review and its recommendations. Mistakes have been made that must never happen again, but the polarised public debate that she mentions reflects badly on this House. Does the Minister agree that making jokes about trans people and trans children is cruel, cheapens the debate and moves the focus away from ensuring that all our young people get the help they need when they need it?
Victoria Atkins
True leadership is not just about being careful with the words we use. I will not recite the many words that other Labour Members have used about trans issues. They say, for example, that it is factually inaccurate to say that only women have a cervix—[Interruption.] I am not naming them, but that seems an extraordinary things for a Labour Member to say. [Interruption.] They do not like to hear their words repeated back to them, but I will resist that temptation and instead focus on the application of policy.
Trans prisoners, including those who are fully intact and have been convicted of serious sexual offences, are demanding to be held in prisons that match their chosen gender. This Government, including me and many of my predecessors as Prisons Minister, set clear rules to ensure that situations such as the Karen White case are not repeated, so it was very troubling that Opposition Members did not appear to have the same concerns when it came to the placing of a trans double rapist, Isla Bryson, in Scotland. [Interruption.] I am being told that it is not true but, if Opposition Members want to factcheck, apparently it was the deputy leader of the Labour party who said that it does not matter.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Although I would like to believe that many of these problems will be resolved by guidance and by changing the administrative rules, and things of that kind, I fear that the real problem is much deeper. It is about the manner in which, over the last generation, we have introduced legislation that has facilitated these arrangements. I am glad that the Government have passed the Online Safety Act 2023 to deal with the platforms on which a lot of this stuff has been spuriously put out by people with absolutely no moral compass.
I thank the Secretary of State for what she has said this afternoon, and for the robust and extremely effective manner in which she has said it, but please do not believe that this will be resolved just by changes to administrative rules. This is about a moral compass and telling the truth. The legislation, whether it is the Equality Act 2010, human rights law or whatever else it might be, will need to be changed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I want to get everyone in, but we really cannot have mini-speeches. We need questions that the Secretary of State can answer briefly.
Victoria Atkins
The brevity of my answer demonstrates my respect for the observations and experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I completely agree with him, and I will enjoy working with him on this.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I thank the Secretary of State for her very important statement. I welcome every word of it, just as I welcome the final report of the Cass review. I thank Dr Hilary Cass for her outstanding work in lifting the lid on this dangerous ideology and its impact on predominantly young LGB people, and other gender non-conforming young people.
The Secretary of State made an important point about the insinuation of gender ideology and its impact on the health service. As other Members have said, we know that gender ideology has insinuated itself into many of our public bodies and into debate in this place. Pieces of legislation are being proposed in this place that would enforce the very conditions in the Cass report, where gender non-conforming young people are denied proper psychological and psychosocial support to come to a reasonable discussion and end point. What support will the Secretary of State provide to have that conversation and to weed out this ideology elsewhere?
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advocacy on this issue. I very much hope that all Members will be able to use the evidence produced in this review and report in future debates about legislation so that we can all make informed and correct decisions.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Let’s be honest, Secretary of State, this excellent review exposes institutionalised grooming and abuse by so-called “professional” medical people. What is she going to do to make sure that people pushing this from day one are, as a minimum, now going to be on the sex offenders list and taken off being able to practise as medical people?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend and near neighbour for that. She is right, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), to emphasise that this is about not just the debate within the NHS, but what happens online. I know that parents of children affected by this are very aware of the online “grooming”, as they describe it, of children on social media. I do not want to trespass for the time being on the regulators—we have already had some constructive conversations with them—but the will of the House is clear that we expect the report to be followed and clinicians to act on the basis of that evidence.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Let me start by saying that I welcome the Cass review’s findings, which make it clear that clinical services must be led by good-quality, robust evidence and highlight the lack and the poor quality of data. We all know the important role that data plays in delivering for patients. So does the Secretary of State agree that the review of adult gender services should take into account the number of patients with mental health challenges, such as depression, anxiety, autism, self-harm, eating disorders and many others? What additional resources will be put in place for mental health provision?
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Lady for her thoughtful question, because she rightly lists some of the mental health conditions that both Dr Cass and professionals in this area have realised can be part of the complex needs of children and young people who are asking questions of their identity and about their path in life. On funding, the financial value of the contract last year with the Tavistock was £9.3 million, but for this financial year NHS England has committed some £17.1 million for the two new hubs for gender services. Of course, they will keep this under review as we build up the services across the country in the ways envisaged in the report.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Let me add my thanks to Dr Hilary Cass for her review. Having listened to this Secretary of State today, I am confident that young people in this situation are in safe hands as she implements the recommendations. However, I wish to ask her about accountability, because what we have seen in the NHS with previous scandals, be it the contaminated blood scandal or Mid Staffordshire, is that accountability is a little slippery. Accountability is not just about lessons being learnt; it is about people being held to account for what they have done. So will my right hon. Friend be looking at ways in which there is room for people to be struck off if found to be wrong, for managers to be sacked and, in certain circumstances, for legal action to be taken?
Victoria Atkins
I completely understand my hon. Friend’s desire for accountability. I just remind us all that some clinicians have acted in a morally exemplary way, trying to blow the whistle on practices they observe. He and I, and, I hope, others, want to ensure that clinicians who have not acted in accordance with their professional duties are held to account. As I say, ongoing conversations are taking place with the independent regulators, but I suspect that they have very much understood the way in which the House is viewing this and the seriousness with which we view clinicians who have not abided by their professional duties in this regard.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Many of the Cass review recommendations are to be welcomed, but there has been some dangerous misinterpretation of some of the recommendations in public discourse and, crucially, in NHS England’s response to the recommendations for transitional services for 17 to 25-year-olds. So will the Minister join me in challenging the NHS specialised commissioning team on its immediate limiting of access to support for 17-year-olds, including with the cancellation of appointments for some who have waited years, and in calling on it to immediately reinstate access while it reviews next steps?
Victoria Atkins
I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I have misunderstood her question, but I think she is referring to the decision that NHS England will prevent under-18s from accessing adult gender services. A consultation has just closed and we are looking at the results of that, but I am very sensitive to the needs of young people within that 17-to-25 cohort for whom the “cliff edge”, as it has been described to me, of moving from children’s services to adult services may not be in their best interests. I promise that that is very much the focus of my work on this in the weeks ahead.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
My experience of speaking to my constituents on this subject has been characterised by fear—it is often the fear of mothers about their daughters, the fear of what is happening to their children and the fear of speaking out because of the group-think and the toxicity of the debate. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Dr Cass’s extensive, evidence-based report should mark an absolute turning point, in ensuring that we spearhead our approach to this debate by putting children first and being non-ideological in all areas—across Government, in all Departments, not just the NHS, in education and in our public bodies?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend sincerely for that. Again, she articulates the concerns of many families where a teenager or young person may be suffering complex needs and are asking questions of themselves and their place in society. We must treat not just the child or young person, but the family with care and respect, trying to support them to get to the right place for the child.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Some constituents who have contacted me see in the Cass report a vindication of their long-held views on sex and gender following years of abuse, sometimes violent. Others who have contacted me fear that the Cass review represents an attack on their very existence as trans people and fear the abuse to come. Will the Secretary of State set out that she opposes utterly the toxification and politicisation of questions of sex and gender? Will she also set out that she will collect the additional evidence that the Cass review calls for, without which there cannot be an evidence-based approach? Will she also set out that she will put in place the resources our young people need in terms of healthcare to ensure that they receive the healthcare appropriate to them?
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to make it clear again that this report is about gathering the evidence to help support our children and young people to the best care they can have. For a very small number that may well be a medical pathway, but for the overwhelming majority we know from Dr Cass’s report that there may be other ways in which they can be best supported and looked after. I do not want anyone to walk away from this debate thinking that this is somehow a report about those adults who have made that decision of their own free will and are living their lives as freely as we all want them to—it is not. It is about the healthcare and emotional care and support that we give to young people and their families, and the professional confidence we give to clinicians to ensure that we get to the right place for each and every individual child.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s powerful statement and the Cass report. However, we have to acknowledge that the report would not have been commissioned without this Government, with the support of some other parties. So many Opposition Members just stayed silent and thought the report was pretty much a waste of time, and to see the lack of any appreciation of that today is shocking and shameful.
On the timetable to enact the wider findings of the Cass report, I am grateful for what the Secretary of State said about meeting the GMC over the weekend, but there is work to be done. Secondly and really concerningly, what steps are—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am sure the hon. Lady does not mean “secondly”, because she is not making a speech. She has one question to ask, and I would be grateful if she could ask it.
Anna Firth
What are we going to do to provide emotional and psychological support for those who have already undergone this treatment with irrevocable consequences?
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend’s observations about Members from other parts of the Chamber and their response to this are well made, frankly. [Interruption.] Gosh, I am being told they are not true. Crikey, Opposition Members may have just opened up a Pandora’s box. On my hon. Friend’s point about supporting people who have gone through the process and are trying to detransition, she is absolutely right that they need particular care. I am actively looking into what NHS England needs to provide to look after the very complex needs that such people have.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State seen today’s very sad interview with Judge Victoria McCloud, Britain’s only senior transgender judge, who has been driven from her job because of anti-trans hate, particularly the trend among some politicians and opinion formers to describe being transgender as “an ideology”? The Secretary of State has used the term “ideology”, as have a number of her colleagues, during this statement. For the benefit of the House and trans people, will she clarify that she does not believe that being transgender is “an ideology”?
Victoria Atkins
I genuinely thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to re-emphasise that. When I have talked about ideology, it is the ideology influencing or making assumptions about the provision of services for any child or young person who is questioning their place, sexuality, identity or future path in life. The ideology is the one that influenced the services that Dr Cass has set out so very well. Of course, if an adult chooses to live their life as a transgender adult then they must do so freely, and, I would hope, with compassion and understanding from all of us. By the way, I have been talking about this for many years; when I was Minister for Women, I talked about this subject. We must deal with this issue in a caring and careful way, and that is what Dr Cass emphasises in her report.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I welcome this statement. The Cass report highlights the area of prescribing untested and irreversible drugs as puberty blockers to young people, but in Wales the pathway for young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria includes referral to gender services in England. The Cass report also warns against teachers being forced into making premature and effectively clinical decisions about affirmation, such as social transitioning, and yet that is implicit throughout the Welsh Government’s LGBTQ+ action plan and their compulsory relationships and sexuality education curriculum. Does the Secretary of State agree that these findings have relevance for the safeguarding of children in England and Wales? Does she agree that parents, teachers and health workers across England and Wales can expect politicians to take heed of these findings?
Victoria Atkins
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. He is always very good at exposing the differences in treatment that patients in Wales receive compared with those in England. Given that the leader of the Labour party has said that Wales is the “blueprint” for how it plans to run the NHS in England, I hope and expect that the Labour party will be true to its word and the Labour-run NHS in Wales will be announcing its immediate adoption of these recommendations, as well as the transformation to services that we in England are already undertaking.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of us recognise the value of the Cass report, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) set out, in its call for evidence and a thoughtful approach, and its recognition that the collapse of child and adolescent mental health services has contributed to the difficulties in children accessing services. However, I stand here today with terrified constituents who are part of the backlog. I dare say that thousands of those children have been watching this debate with their families and are frightened to hear the heat, not light. The Secretary of State has a brief in front of her, so can I ask her a practical question for my constituents who do not understand what this will mean for waiting times and delays? She said that she was not putting any new money into the service but funds were being reprioritised. In practical terms, what will that mean for those young people who are trying to navigate what is happening to them, who need our support and care, not the derision of any political movement?
Victoria Atkins
I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave earlier about funding. In relation to the waiting list, we have already removed the Tavistock as the single provider of these services. We have now set up two sets of services in highly respected—world-respected—children’s hospitals, and we will add more. Again, the issue goes back to giving GPs and other practitioners the confidence to look after these children as they would if they were presenting solely with, for example, ADHD symptoms or concerns about mental health. This is about saying that this issue is one part of the patient they must treat, not isolating and siloing it in the way that has happened historically.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Providing hormone blockers to children is wrong; encouraging and giving cross-sex hormones to children is wrong; and encouraging breast binding for children is wrong. In the future, I believe we will look back on this scandal—and it is a scandal—with incredulity about how we did this to our children, especially our girls. We should all be embarrassed that this is the situation we are in. It is not just carrying on in our hospitals and the medical profession; this sort of ideology is going on in our schools. Does the Secretary of State share my concerns and those of my constituents, who have raised the issue with me in private because they cannot raise it publicly, that a school in Rother Valley is fundraising for Mermaids, a charity that is accused of encouraging young people to transition simply because they do not confirm to gender stereotypes, even though they are too young to understand the consequences? Does the Secretary of State share my belief that Mermaids and other such charities have no place in our schools, and no place to help to hinder our children?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend, and I will set out the practical and important steps NHS England has already taken, which I hope other parts of the United Kingdom will follow. NHS England has banned the prescription of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria to children under the age of 18. On the advice of Dr Cass, cross-sex hormones can be prescribed only with extreme caution for those aged 16 and older. No cross-sex hormones may be prescribed to those under 16 for gender dysphoria. There are medical caveats to that for other medical conditions, and we need to be very careful about unintended consequences, which is why this is such a complicated piece of work. We want to ensure that these drugs are prescribed to the right people, if they should be prescribed at all.
On my hon. Friend’s point about campaigning organisations, part of our collective frustration is that our public spaces have become politicised. I would say there is no space for that sort of campaign activity in any of our public institutions. I appreciate that a range of views must be represented. Young people must be helped to discover their path in life, their sexuality and all of the things that are such a wonderful part of growing up, but we have to do so in a way that is fair and rigorous, and does not give way against the evidence into the realms of ideology, which sadly we have seen in some instances.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I welcome the Cass review. Its recommendations merit proper and full consideration. Dr Cass has called for young trans people, their families and clinicians to be treated with respect and compassion. Sadly, we have not seen that today in some of the comments and heckles that have been made during the statement. Will the Secretary of State commit to challenging the harmful culture of transphobia in the UK, which is growing, and that was challenged in 2022 when the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe placed the UK alongside Russia, Hungary and Turkey?
Victoria Atkins
If the hon. Gentleman wants to work constructively with me on ensuring that we deal with this report and the evidence in a caring and careful way, for the benefit not just of children and young people but of the wider trans community, I would welcome his support in so doing.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Although I welcome the call from Dr Cass for all young people, including young trans people, to be
“treated with compassion and respect”,
I share concerns about important elements of the review, particularly given the context in which it was published. Last year, transphobic hate crimes hit a record high. A United Nations report noted deep concern about the increase in
“harassment, threats, and violence against LGBT people”
in the UK, and blamed the toxic debate about sexual orientation and gender identity. Will the Minister join me in condemning the rise in transphobia, in acknowledging that trans rights are human rights, and in recognising that we will only deliver high-quality healthcare that everyone deserves when we respect the rights and dignity of all?
Victoria Atkins
Not only have I tried to espouse those principles in every ministerial role that I have held, but it is the guiding light of this Government to try to ensure that we get the right healthcare and support to patients as quickly as possible. We also want to ensure that we are treating not just the condition, but the patient as a whole. As some of the complexity of the debates that we had this afternoon shows, young people are at the very heart of this. I think this is the final question, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will end with the young people that we are concerned about. [Interruption.] I am so sorry; I have one more question from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The children and young people who are the focus of this report have to be, and will be, the focus of our work going forward. We want to get the right services to the right children at the right time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I do not want to say that the Secretary of State could ever be wrong, but on her last judgment I have to say that the show is never over until the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has spoken.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
You are most kind, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that I have now caught the Secretary of State’s eye.
May I thank the Secretary of State for her fortitude and determination, and Dr Cass for all her endeavours? Both ladies—honourable ladies, I believe—have been incredibly impressive and capable. We should be taking on board Dr Cass’s report in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I will make it my business to ensure that the Minister in Northern Ireland takes this in, so I shall be sending him a copy of the report. What help and support is available for all those patients who have been in the Tavistock since its inception? Importantly, what steps can be taken by the Government to stop this malpractice and to stop the movement of the vulnerable—some have called this tantamount to abuse—into privately funded abuse? How quickly can that protection be put in place?
Victoria Atkins
Let me offer the hon. Gentleman my sincere apologies; I am out of practice and should have known that his would be the last question.
I genuinely look forward to working with my Northern Irish counterparts on this, as we have already worked together on other matters. The hon. Gentleman makes a point about private practices. That is one area that I am working on at pace. What we do not want is to have any idea forming that somehow people can get round the strict rules that the NHS is setting the system to get these drugs to young people and children. I promise to come back and update the House when I have more news on that, but the hon. Gentleman is right to identify that issue. It shows the complexity of the matter and the real need for a very clear, detailed and principled approach to help reform our NHS so that we make it faster, simpler and fairer.
Point of Order
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on a matter relating to a constituent who, while on a short break in Spain, was savagely beaten by a new partner—now an ex-partner—resulting in significant bruising all over her body, several teeth knocked out and a broken jaw. Indeed, it is possible that she is only here thanks to the intervention of five Newcastle men who incapacitated the perpetrator. My constituent has received excellent consular service, which is more than can be said of the service of the Spanish police, who I am told have closed the case without taking statements from any of the six witnesses to the attack, allowing the thug to plead not guilty. It is now a case of “He said, she said,” which, as we all know, makes it very difficult to secure a conviction. That means he may well be back in Scotland, free to harass and terrorise my constituent. This situation is unacceptable, so how best should I proceed as an MP to raise urgent casework of this sort with overseas Governments?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am afraid that there is not much that I can say, as this is not a matter for the Chair, but may I express my own sadness at what has happened? What a dreadful thing for his constituent to have to suffer. I can understand his concern on her behalf about how the matter is being dealt with. I can only advise him to write to the relevant Foreign Office Minister, who will undoubtedly take up the case. He says that the consular authorities provided a good service, which is good news. That is really the only route that I can suggest that he goes down, but he might also wish to consult the Table Office. Certainly, he has brought the matter to the attention of the House, and the whole House will be sorry to hear what has happened.
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Monday 15th April 2024
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 View all Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 15 April 2024 - (15 Apr 2024)
20:37 - The House divided: - Ayes: 315 / Noes: 250 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 317 / Noes: 246 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:04 - The House divided: - Ayes: 319 / Noes: 249 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 319 / Noes: 249 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 320 / Noes: 246 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 253 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I can confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.
Clause 1
Introduction
The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)
I beg to move.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 3B and 3C.
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 6B.
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 7B.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 9 but proposes additional Amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of that amendment.
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 10B.
Michael Tomlinson
Here we are, back again debating the same issues and amendments that we have already rejected. We are not quite at the point yet of completing each other’s sentences, but we are almost there. The issue before the House is whether the clearly expressed views of this House throughout the entire passage of the Bill should prevail. We simply cannot accept amendments that provide for loopholes that will perpetuate the current cycle of delays and late legal challenges to removal. We have a moral duty to stop the boats. We must bring an end to the dangerous, unnecessary, and illegal methods that are being deployed. We must protect our borders and, most importantly, save lives at sea. Our partnership with Rwanda is a key part of our strategy.
The message is absolutely clear: if a person comes to the United Kingdom illegally, they will not be able to stay. They will be detained and swiftly returned to their home country or to a safe third country—Rwanda.
Michael Tomlinson
No, I will not give way.
On Lords amendment 1, the use of a section 19(1)(b) statement does not mean that the Bill is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. There is nothing improper or unprecedented with such a statement. It does not mean that the Bill is unlawful or that the Government will necessarily lose any legal challenge. These statements have been made in the past, including in 2003 under the last Labour Government. We have a long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our international obligations, and we remain committed to that position. Our focus is on passing this legislation, which will deter people from entering the country dangerously and illegally.
Turning to the revised amendments on the implementation of the treaty and the role of the monitoring committee, clause 9 clearly sets out that the Bill provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force, and the treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. Amendment 3B confuses the process for implementing the treaty with what is required for the Bill provisions to come into force. Amendment 3B confuses the process for implementing the treaty with what is required for the Bill provisions to come into force.
As I have said, the treaty enhances the role of the monitoring committee, and the monitoring committee will ensure that obligations under the treaty are adhered to in practice. It was always intended for the monitoring committee to be independent. Maintaining the committee’s independence is an integral aspect of the design of the policy, and Lords amendment 3C risks disturbing that independence and impartiality. The Government will ratify the treaty only once we agree with Rwanda that the necessary implementation has taken place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty. That being the case, there is simply no need for the amendment.
Michael Tomlinson
I will not. Turning to Lords amendment 7B, we know that assessing age is inherently difficult, but it is important that the Government take decisive action to deter adults from knowingly claiming to be children. There are obvious safeguarding risks relating to adults being placed in the care system. It is crucial that we take steps to safeguard children, and avoid lengthy legal challenges that prevent the removal of those who have been assessed to be adults. The amendment would result in those who are to be removed to Rwanda under the Illegal Migration Act 2023 being treated differently from those who are being removed to another country under the same Act. There is simply no justification for that differential treatment.
Michael Tomlinson
I will not; I will make some progress. Lords amendment 9 undermines provisions in existing legislation and is completely unnecessary. It is vital that the Government take steps to reduce or remove incentives for individuals to enter the country illegally. These illegal practices pose an exceptional threat to public order, risk lives and place unprecedented pressure on public services.
As I have set out, under article 13 of the treaty, the Government of Rwanda will have regard to information provided relating to any special needs that an individual may have as a result of them being a victim of modern slavery. Rwanda will take all necessary steps to ensure that these needs are accommodated. To that end, the Government have tabled amendment (a) in lieu, which requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about the operation of the legislation as it relates to modern slavery and human trafficking provisions. With that in mind, I invite the House to reject Lords amendment 9 and agree with the amendment in lieu.
On Lords amendment 10B, as I have set out, the Government recognise our commitment and responsibility to combat veterans, whether our own or those who showed courage by serving alongside us. We will not let them down. Once again, I reassure Parliament that once the UK special forces and Afghan relocations and assistance policy review has concluded, the Government will revisit how the Illegal Migration Act, and provision for removal under existing legislation, will apply to those who are eligible to stay as a result of the review, ensuring that these people receive the attention that they deserve. This is a commitment that both Lord Sharpe and I have made on behalf of His Majesty’s Government.
This, the elected House, has voted to give the Bill a Second and Third Reading, and voted down each of the Lords amendments. I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to stand with the Government in upholding the will of the House of Commons, and to support the Government motions.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is just over two years to the day since the Rwanda scheme was first announced from the Government Dispatch Box, so it would be remiss of us not to take stock of progress to date. Well, hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money have been sent to the Rwandan Government; civil servants, courts, parliamentarians and journalists have spent countless hours, days and weeks discussing and writing about the scheme; and not one, not two, but three Home Secretaries have flown down to Kigali. But apart from that, there is not a great deal to report. The boats have kept coming, the backlog has kept growing, and the people smugglers are still laughing all the way to the bank. We have had two years of headline-chasing gimmicks; two years of pursuing a policy that is fundamentally unworkable, unaffordable and unlawful; two years of flogging this dead horse.
I am an inveterate optimist, so I truly believe that one day Government Members will come to understand that hard graft and common sense are always more effective than the sugar rush of a tabloid front page, and they will come to accept that they should have adopted Labour’s comprehensive plan to restore order to our border by redirecting the vast amounts of money set aside for the Rwandan Government into a new cross-border police unit, and a new security partnership with Europol to smash the criminal gangs upstream.
Analysis conducted by the National Audit Office has revealed that if the Government manage to send 300 asylum seekers to Rwanda, which is just 0.5% of the 60,000 people earmarked for the scheme, it will cost the British taxpayer a truly staggering £2m per person. It is crystal clear that the scheme is doomed to fail on its own terms because people who are prepared to risk life and limb crossing continents will not be deterred by a 0.5% chance of being sent to Rwanda.
The mind-boggling costs of the scheme are quite difficult to grasp, so I have done a bit of homework—a bit of research into what else we could get for £2 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), who is not in his place, got the ball rolling during our last debate on the Bill by pointing out that £2 million will get someone five trips to outer space on the Virgin Galactic spacecraft—Madam Deputy Speaker, you look impressed, and suitably so. I have calculated that someone could live for three decades on one of the world’s most expensive cruise liners. They could charter, for a year, the Lady M yacht, which is, of course, the yacht that belongs to the “noble” Baroness Mone—it is her vessel of choice, as some Government Members may be aware—or they could even fly the Prime Minister’s favoured helicopter to Australia and back.
Speaking of the Prime Minister, I noticed that during the Easter recess, he found time to offer his services as a financial adviser to small businesses via Zoom. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have concerns about a guy who is happy to pump billions of pounds into a failing fiasco like this Rwanda scheme offering his services as a financial adviser to unsuspecting members of the public. Let us hope that the Financial Conduct Authority will intervene as a matter of urgency.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is proving most entertaining, but as this is consideration of Lords amendments, will he get on to dealing with the amendments? I want him to be in order!
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. If the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) was not in order, I would not have allowed him to speak. He has been drawing some very interesting facts to the attention of the House. I, for one, am likely to explore some of them—but not the yacht.
Stephen Kinnock
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always enjoy taking interventions from a fellow Welshman, but I feel that the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) was well and truly put in his place by your riposte.
Barry Gardiner
Will my hon. Friend take an intervention from a non-fellow Scotsman?
Barry Gardiner
I am sure that my hon. Friend has, like me, marvelled at the Government’s ability to legislate for Rwanda to be a safe country—Lords amendment 2 addressed that. Will he join me in urging the Government to use their amazing power to legislate to ensure that carbon dioxide emissions no longer cause global warming, and sugar, fat and alcohol no longer damage human health?
Stephen Kinnock
I am sure that those on the Government Benches would be delighted to oblige. Perhaps we could also legislate to say that the sky is green and the grass is blue, or that the Welsh rugby team actually won the last Six Nations—I would love to pass a law to secure that objective.
Let us be clear: not one of the amendments before us prevents flights to Rwanda taking off. On the contrary, they simply seek to put in the Bill what Ministers have previously promised—namely, they would ensure that the Bill was lawful, that the Government would protect the most vulnerable, and that we would stand by those brave Afghans who supported military efforts.
Let me address each amendment directly. I will focus first on Lords amendment 10B, in the name of the noble Lord Browne. We have spoken a lot about the unworkability and unaffordability of this policy, but we should also talk about the unethical and frankly un-British nature of deporting halfway across the world to Rwanda those Afghans who have supported Britain’s defence and diplomatic efforts. That is not Operation Warm Welcome; it is operation cold shoulder. We should have seen it coming, given that for an entire year the Prime Minister halted flights from neighbouring Pakistan for Afghans who had been granted resettlement rights in the UK under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, and restarted them only when the Pakistani Government threatened to send those Afghans back across the border to meet their fate at the hands of the Taliban. We owe a debt of honour to the Afghans who were loyal to Britain and put their life on the line, and of course, our moral duty is most strongly felt by British armed forces personnel who worked alongside them.
In fact, this weekend, 13 senior military figures signed a letter to The Sunday Telegraph warning that
“‘any brave men and women who have fought alongside our armed forces or served the UK Government overseas’ must be exempt from removal to Rwanda.”
The signatories included former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, a former Secretary-General of NATO and a former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe. They warn that if this exemption is not granted, it will do
“grave damage to our ability to recruit local allies in future military operations”,
and explain that they have
“seen first-hand the enormous courage and dedication shown by those who have fought alongside our Armed Forces and served British interests abroad, often at huge personal risk, and we take personally Britain’s obligation to honour the debt we owe to that cohort.”
Those are powerful words indeed. I urge Government Members to join us in supporting Lords amendment 10B, which seeks to prevent that travesty.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
As the shadow Minister and I know, the key issue is not that ARAP people are coming via small boats, but the unbunging of the resettlement scheme. How many spaces does he envisage we will need to ensure are available for resettlement under that scheme?
Stephen Kinnock
A number of people who served the British defence, development and diplomatic effort have been identified for resettlement, so they should be resettled in the United Kingdom. Let us get that bit of the scheme unblocked before we get into speculation about the quantum. The key point is that they have already been accepted into the resettlement programmes, but are being left high and dry in Pakistan.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend was accused of levity earlier. This House has so many things to discuss. There are good, sensible and workable policies to deal with in relation to migration, as he and I know, but this one—the Rwanda scheme—reminds me of the Monty Python dead parrot sketch, which he is probably too young to remember. The scheme is a dead parrot; the sooner the Government wake up to the fact that it is dead, the better.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is right that so many practical, pragmatic and sensible measures could be taken to deal with the crisis in the channel—the Tory small boats chaos—but instead of focusing on those sensible and pragmatic measures, we are dealing with this white elephant of a programme that will never get anywhere and is costing millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and absorbing huge amounts of our time. I absolutely agree with him on that.
Lords amendment 9, in the name of the noble Baroness Butler-Sloss, is also based on a moral imperative, as it would prevent the removal of potential victims of modern slavery to Rwanda until the individual’s process under the national referral mechanism is complete. It should go without saying that modern slavery victims should not be sent to Rwanda, and we are disappointed that the Government’s amendment (a) in lieu is a profoundly unserious attempt to reassure the House—not least because we have been here before and know that such promised reports are rarely worth the paper they are written on.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Bill is inhumane, costly and unworkable—despite the best efforts to amend it—the Tories seem resolved to pursue it rather than getting to grips with our broken asylum system? It is just another indication to the country that this Government are unfit to govern.
Stephen Kinnock
There is a clear choice between the common sense, hard graft and positive international co-operation set out in Labour’s plan to deal with this issue, and the headline-chasing gimmicks and empty gestures that are symbolised by the Rwanda policy. Politics is about choices; the Government have taken their choice and we have taken ours.
In that spirit, Lords amendment 1B is a Labour Front-Bench amendment that places a responsibility on the Government to have due regard for its current obligations under domestic and international law. Lords amendments 3B and 3C, in the name of the noble Lord Hope, together state that Rwanda may be considered a safe country only if and when the measures set out in the Rwanda treaty have been fully implemented and the monitoring committee has established that that is the case. The Government claim that the measures in the treaty address concerns in the Supreme Court’s recent unanimous ruling, so there is absolutely no reason for Ministers to refuse to accept Lord Hope’s amendments.
Finally, Lords amendment 6B, in the name of the noble Baroness Chakrabarti, allows Ministers, officials and courts to consider whether Rwanda is safe on a case-by-case basis. Given that the Government have accepted that some appeals will be allowed, we see no reason for them to reject this amendment.
I hope that colleagues from across the House will join Labour in voting for all the amendments. Of course, the amendment are no more than an exercise in damage limitation; the fundamental problem is that this hare-brained Rwanda policy is breaking all records for being the most unworkable and worst value for money policy in the history of the Home Office. But there is an alternative. In addition to our policy to go after the criminal smuggler gangs, we will deliver our backlog clearance plan to get asylum seekers out of expensive asylum hotels by surging decision makers and caseworkers to the Home Office, and by creating a new returns and enforcement unit with 1,000 dedicated staff focused on the faster removal of those with no right to be here, including failed asylum seekers and foreign criminals.
The Government are failing on all fronts. Despite their misleading boasts about progress, the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), admitted today that there are still almost 300 asylum hotels in operation. They are returning 44% fewer failed asylum seekers compared with 2010, when the last Labour Government left office, and 27% fewer foreign criminals. The number of small boat crossings has gone up again year on year—January to March figures—and the Government have no plan for the 99% who cannot be sent to Rwanda. We need Labour’s plans to smash the criminal smuggler gangs, save lives in the channel and strengthen our border security. We need Labour’s plans for faster processing, the end of hotel use and the removal of people who have no right to stay in the UK, and we need a Labour Government to deliver a firm, fair and well-managed asylum system that works for Britain.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I do not really feel that there is anything terribly useful I can say at this stage—I have heard all this before. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who speaks for the Opposition, is simply repeating what he has said before. Not only that; it is perfectly apparent that these amendments are just wrecking amendments, and the hon. Gentleman has not even addressed the arguments about international law. He knows perfectly well—because he cannot answer my questions on this issue—that we have a dualist system, and if we decide to legislate in our own Parliament, the courts themselves will implement that legislation.
The real point is this: let us get this Bill done, and let us get the House of Lords to calm down a bit. At the same time, let us wait for what is inevitably going to be another claim and then see the judgment of the Supreme Court on the wording of this Bill, provided that it is clear and unambiguous. That is all I need to say. I may come back again, however, if the Lords insist again on these ridiculous amendments.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Here we are again, debating this outrageous and unworkable Bill. We are no further forward, and the Government will fail to get any further forward, because the Bill is a complete waste of time and money. It is a ruse to get tabloid headlines, and at this stage I am not even sure whether the Government have any intention that this plan will work at all, given the incompetence they have shown so far. They are scrabbling around this week, trying to find airlines, because not one single responsible air carrier wants to be associated with the Government’s state-sponsored people trafficking plans. They have been trying to find other countries that they can try to send people to; Armenia, the Ivory Coast, Costa Rica and Botswana might be interested, but far more countries rather sensibly told the Government to go and get raffled.
I am not convinced that even Rwanda believes this plan will work or that people will be sent, because it has gone and sold off the housing that it built—that the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), so admired. If the Government do send people, there will not even be the facilities to put them in, unless they intend to stack them high as they often do in hotels in this country, treating people as human cargo that they can so easily dispose of. It is absolutely despicable.
So far, the Government have sent Home Secretaries and civil servants. Even the Joint Committee on Human Rights has gone to Rwanda, along with some hand-picked journalists, but no asylum seekers—nor is there much prospect of them going. While all this has been going on, dozens of Rwandans have submitted asylum claims here in the UK, and there is still concern about Rwanda’s sponsoring of the M23 rebels, who are engaged in conflict with their neighbours, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, last month wounding UN peacekeepers in the DRC; the group controls roads and mining sites in that country, and has displaced 1.7 million people. In The Guardian last week, Vava Tampa questioned international support for the Kagame regime, saying:
“The UN, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty are clear that without Rwanda’s backing, the M23 couldn’t have killed, raped, tortured and displaced as many as it has.”
I ask the Government why they want to pursue deals with such a regime—it is quite worrying.
I turn to the Lords amendments, which I will go through in turn. Lords amendment 1 asks that the Government have due regard for “domestic and international law”—that should be a basic element of any legislation that this House wishes to pass. The amendment slightly waters down the Lords’ previous amendment about
“maintaining full compliance with domestic and international law”,
but clearly, even having due regard for domestic and international law is too much for this Government. That includes obligations like the European convention on human rights, which is tied up with the Good Friday agreement and the devolution settlements in this country, and international laws such as the refugee convention, the UN convention against torture and the UN covenant on civil and political rights. Why would the Government not want to abide by those international agreements?
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
On that point, if the UK Government think they can just ignore all the international commitments to which they are already signed up—including ones that they helped to found, such as the ECHR—how on earth can they then turn around to other countries that might be breaching their obligations under international law and say that they should comply with those treaties?
Alison Thewliss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hypocrisy goes even further than that: this Government expect Rwanda to uphold all of its agreements and laws internationally and domestically, while specifically setting out to breach their own laws and obligations through this legislation. It is absolutely ludicrous.
Lords amendments 3B and 3C state that Rwanda
“will be a safe country when the arrangements provided for in the Rwanda Treaty have been fully implemented and for so long as they continue to be so.”
That question of how long those arrangements continue to be implemented is just as critical as whether Rwanda implements the measures we have just discussed, because through this legislation, the Government are stating that Rwanda is safe forever—in perpetuity. Nobody can say that of any country in the world at any point, so it is really quite bizarre to legislate specifically that Rwanda, uniquely, is safe forever and ever.
It is quite reasonable of the Lords to say,
“The Rwanda Treaty will cease to be treated as fully implemented if Parliament decides, on the advice of the Monitoring Committee, that the provisions of the treaty are no longer being adhered to in practice.”
There should be a check on that. The Government should not fear that; if they truly and deeply believe that the agreement will be adhered to, there is surely no harm in scrutinising it. The House of Lords International Agreements Committee has said that the treaty is
“unlikely to result in fundamental change in the short term”,
and the UK Supreme Court pointed out in paragraph 87 of its judgment that Rwanda refouled at least six people while the treaty was under negotiation. If that does not raise alarm bells with the Government about Rwanda’s ability to adhere to the treaty, I do not think anything will.
Lords amendment 6B deals with domestic law. It is not about international courts, foreign courts and foreign judges—as if that were a bad thing, and as if we do not send people to sit on those courts ourselves—but the integrity of our own courts and tribunals, of the UK-based judges and decision makers who the Home Office employs to do their job and who this legislation undermines. The amendment says that
“Section 2 does not prevent…the Secretary of State or an immigration officer from deciding…whether the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the person in question or for a group of persons to which that person belongs”.
That is quite reasonable: we should look at the evidence before coming to decisions. The amendment asks that the courts and tribunals be able to do their job, not to ignore the evidence or, as others have described, to engage in a legal fantasy where they cannot look at the evidence—cannot see it, cannot hear it, and cannot speak out about what they know to be true—because that is quite unreasonable.
Alison Thewliss
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that our own domestic judges should not be allowed to make decisions on these issues, I would be very interested to hear his point.
Sir William Cash
I was going to point out that section 57 of the Immigration Act 2023, to which the hon. Lady refers, makes the perfectly reasonable point that the courts must take account of the facts. That is the key question, and I did not hear her say that; it is something that is indisputable and, in my opinion, unassailable. If there were a question of fact regarding age or any other matter that falls within the framework of this amendment, the courts should surely be entitled to deal with those facts, but not to deal with the questions to which the hon. Lady has just referred.
Alison Thewliss
This legislation inhibits the ability to look at facts, and I think that is quite a dangerous road to go down. I do not think that that is really what the Government ought to be doing in any circumstance. No matter how much they may wish their will upon the courts, they should not be doing this in legislation. It is completely wrong.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Those are good points because vulnerable people are already being targeted by the Government, if on a voluntary basis. I recently had a young man in my constituency, with severe health problems, whom the Home Office has tried to persuade to go voluntarily to Rwanda, and it was severely traumatising for him. For somebody who has suffered previously in coming to the UK and in the experience they have had in their home country, to then have that degree of what they perceive as pressure—and possibly bribery as well, in a sense—is extremely traumatising. If this is the way the Government are going, these amendments are essential.
Alison Thewliss
Having met many constituents and other people who have been victims, as the hon. Member sets out, I know this is devastating for them, when it is already difficult enough to escape from their traffickers, and it is already difficult enough to speak out about this and have their case believed by anybody.
Article 13 of the Rwanda treaty, which will allow the UK to never conclusively determine whether a potential victim of modern slavery is even a victim, would put the UK in breach of its obligations, under article 4 of the ECHR and article 10 of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, to identify and assist potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. Tying this up with the immigration system in the way the Government have done again undermines people’s rights and undermines our obligations as the UK. I absolutely pay tribute to the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre for the evidence it has sent to Members. If it is in their inbox, they should please read it before they vote on this Bill, particularly on this amendment.
Lastly, on the exemption for agents, allies and employees of the UK overseas, it remains the case that many Afghans have come here on small boats because the UK Government schemes have failed. They have failed to protect people, and they have failed to bring in people who served alongside British forces in Afghanistan. They are people who put their trust in the UK to protect them and their families. They put their trust in the UK-US project in Afghanistan, and that trust has been thoroughly breached.
I regularly get emails from people who feel as though they have been deeply let down by the UK Government. That trust has gone, but putting this exemption in the Bill would at least give some prospect of there being some degree of trust in the future. If I was in some country that the UK became involved in, the last thing I would want to do is to get involved with UK forces, because as soon as the UK ships out, it is, “You’re on your own—too bad, tough.” It is a death sentence for the people who put themselves forward to help and support UK objectives overseas, and the way in which this Government have treated those people and their families is disgraceful.
As I have said many times before in this place, during the fall of Afghanistan I had many families living in my constituency who had relatives there, and very few of them ever got out. I do not know what happened to them. I do not know if they are dead or alive, and some of their families may not even know that either, but they have been let down by this UK Government. The schemes the Minister talked about have failed because they are not bringing people to safety. They have failed on the terms that were promised. I seriously doubt at this stage whether they will ever meet the number of people who were supposed to come over and get safety here. At the very least, the Government could have such a recognition in this Bill. At the very least, they could accept an amendment such as this one because they must know that, because Afghans are coming in small boats, their schemes and their supposedly safe and legal routes have failed.
I am not convinced that this Bill will be any kind of deterrent. Almost 3,500 people have crossed in small boats this year so far, and it has not deterred a single solitary one of them. However, what this has done is to make it incredibly difficult for the people who are now considered inadmissible to the system. I ask the Minister: what is going to happen to them? We know that the very small—the tiniest—proportion of people sent to Rwanda, if the Government even end up sending any, will be the tip of a massive iceberg of people who are now just swimming around in the system with no rights.
I have constituents coming to my surgeries who say that they are waiting. They cannot be dealt with and have their asylum claim processed, because this Government have deemed that they are inadmissible. What happens to them? Where do they live, and how do they continue to exist in this country if the Government will not process their applications and will not listen to their claims? That may have been through human trafficking or modern slavery, they may be people who have been victims of torture or—
Alison Thewliss
I am coming to the end of my remarks.
The Government will not even listen to these people’s stories, so what will happen to them and where will they live? This Government seem to have no consideration for the trauma people have gone through, and now they are leaving them in immigration limbo forever in this ridiculous, expensive and unworkable system. The asylum system is broken, and we know who broke it. We know that an independent Scotland would treat people far more humanely than this Government ever will.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for setting out in detail the changes and amendments the Government have made, both on the amendment paper and in their approach, in response to the concerns raised and points made by many in the earlier stages of this legislation. I will address the points made about Lords amendments 1B and 7B, and briefly touch on a couple of other points that have arisen in the debate and that, certainly from my experience in the world of local government, continue to have a relevance and will need to be addressed in due course if this is going to take effect in the way that we wish it to.
I am a great enthusiast for the European convention on human rights, and I think it is important to acknowledge in the context of this debate that, since this House previously considered and debated this particular piece of legislation, there has been a further development in respect of rule 39 interim orders. In fact, the various bodies concerned with the operation of that convention, including the Court, have recognised the concerns caused to the UK Government and other member states of the ECHR by the way in which those judgments had been handed down. I have confirmed that they will be updating their procedures to ensure operation of such orders will be different in a way that reflects the concerns expressed by many in this House. I see that as evidence that the ECHR remains a living document and also that the concerns the UK Government have expressed are being taken seriously.
Many Members will have been slightly alarmed by the recent judgment handed down in respect of environmental legislation, and I note that British judge Tim Eicke, whose dissenting commentary on that judgment has been publicised widely, set out in detail why many of the issues raised by Members of this House in respect of this particular piece of legislation were also relevant in that context—the risk of perceived overreach of developing a living document to the point where it went beyond the level of consent which the original contracting parties had in mind and that that remained something that the court needed to be alive to. I am very conscious that, because of the way the convention operates in practice, it should be an accountable process—accountable to the Parliamentary Assembly, to the Congress, to the Council of Ministers, and ultimately to the member states.
Patrick Grady
Does the hon. Gentleman think it is helpful for the Prime Minister and the former Home Secretary the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) and various others on his Benches to continually refer to the European Court of Human Rights as a foreign court?
David Simmonds
I know the Prime Minister has made the point that, given that the court is based in Strasbourg, certainly in a technical sense it can be described as that, but from my perspective, having served on the Congress, I am very much aware that it is a court of which the UK, partly through its role in the creation of the treaty of London which set up the convention in the first place, has always been an enormous supporter. We need to continue to play a part in ensuring it develops in a way in which we would wish to see it develop, through the input that Members of this House among others have through the Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Ministers and that other parts of the British political family have through bodies such as the Congress.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and I am not aware that I am a foreigner, but it has many difficulties and we are missing the essential point. For what it is worth, I support this Bill, but I am concerned that, in the absence of these people who land here being detained, if they are threatened with being deported to Rwanda at some stage in the future, they are simply going to bugger off into the community.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman means that they might disappear into the community. That phrase would be preferable.
Sir Edward Leigh
I was using rather colourful phraseology just to make my point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I take my ticking off.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I will forgive the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion: they will disappear into the community. I call Mr Simmonds.
David Simmonds
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for highlighting that in a way that I am sure many of our constituents would choose to highlight it as well.
To finish the point around the convention itself and amendment 1B, as the Minister said at the Dispatch Box, when we cannot be certain of a future potential legal challenge it is appropriate that the statement is made as it has been made in respect of this. However, it remains my view, and I think the view of many others, that we have many channels of influence, both diplomatic and political, and that this is a living convention. We know that it is embedded in many different parts of our constitution—not just the Good Friday agreement, but our withdrawal agreement from the European Union—and therefore our adherence to it remains incredibly important. But because it is a living document it is able to flex and evolve, to recognise that the world we see today—the world of asylum and the international context—is different from the world when the treaty of London was first very strongly championed by Winston Churchill in the 1950s. Therefore, I am very much persuaded that the Minister is correct in the way he seeks to reject these amendments while also acknowledging the spirit and tone behind them.
I would like to address some of the issues that arise in amendment 7B. I am again persuaded by what the Minister has said about this, but there is a long-standing issue with the way unaccompanied children are treated. The Children Act 1989, which set up the legal framework, sets out in some detail that a child who is not accompanied by a person who has parental responsibility for them by operation of law becomes the responsibility of a local authority. Whether or not that local authority goes through any process at all to bring that child into the care system formally, for example by seeking a care order, it remains the responsibility of the local authority where that child arises to take care of them. If they return later on in early adulthood and are able to make a case that they had been present in that local authority area as a child, they are also entitled to care-leaving responsibilities from that local authority under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to the House that we have just over an hour left for the remainder of this debate. I hope that we do not have to have a time limit, but if speeches are about seven minutes or so, everyone will have an opportunity to make their points. Speeches so far have not been too long—they have been perfectly reasonable—but I would like to keep to around seven minutes each, please.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
We are now on the final stages of the legislative journey of the Rwanda scheme announced two years ago, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) said from the Front Bench. What we do know is that £370 million is already committed to the Rwanda scheme, no individuals have yet been sent to Rwanda, and the Rwandan Government reportedly want to pause the scheme after the first tranche of removals. The question of how this policy will meet the Government’s objective of deterring small boat crossings remains pertinent, especially because, as we have heard, a record number of individuals have made the dangerous channel crossing in the first three months of this year.
I will turn to each of the Lords amendments, but I also say to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who is not in his place, that when I went along to the other place to hear the debate on the Bill, I was impressed by the debate and the points being raised. To say that the House of Lords needs to calm down a bit and that these are ridiculous amendments is doing a huge disservice to what the revising Chamber can provide for this part of Parliament. When the House of Lords thinks we have made mistakes and that things need to be looked at again, it gives us the opportunity to do that.
Lords amendment 1B is a modified version of the original Lords amendment 1. The original would have added a requirement to maintain full compliance with domestic and international law. Lords amendment 1B, which the other place has proposed in lieu, sets out a requirement to have
“due regard for domestic and international law.”
In moving Lords amendment 1B on 20 March, Lord Coaker said:
“We have put this forward because the Bill that your Lordships are discussing now explicitly disapplies aspects of domestic law and disapplies aspects of international law.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 213.]
As I made plain in the previous debate on Lords amendments, if the Government are so confident that the Rwanda scheme will be fully compliant with domestic and international law, they should have no objection to this amendment.
Lords amendments 3B and 3C, which relate to treaty implementation and monitoring committees, are modified versions of the original Lords amendments 2 and 3 respectively. Lords amendment 3B, like the original Lords amendment 2, states that Rwanda
“will be a safe country when, and so long as, the arrangements provided for in the Rwanda Treaty have been fully implemented and for so long as they continue to be so.”
The wording has changed slightly. There is no longer a reference to the arrangements in the treaty being “adhered to in practice”, but the effect is the same. Lords amendment 3C, like the original Lords amendment 3, sets out what full implementation should look like and would give the independent monitoring committee a significant role. Unlike the original Lords amendment, there is no requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the monitoring committee every three months. Instead, Lords amendment 3C states that the treaty
“will cease to be treated as fully implemented if Parliament decides, on the advice of the Monitoring Committee, that the provisions of the treaty are no longer being adhered to in practice.”
In moving Lords amendment 3C, Lord Hope of Craighead said that it was an attempt to respond to a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) in the Commons debate on 18 March. He said that
“my Amendment 3C in lieu does my best to make it clear that the authority lies with Parliament and not with the committee.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 227.]
The Home Affairs Committee has argued that the House of Commons should be given an opportunity to debate the treaty prior to ratification, in the light of how critical its implementation is to the Rwanda policy. Given that this opportunity to scrutinise the treaty was denied, Lords amendment 3B would at least provide some reassurance to Members that its provisions will be implemented and applicable to anyone relocated to Rwanda. Lords amendment 3C would enable Parliament to review the treaty’s implementation and respond to facts on the ground if they change.
These Lords amendments speak to the practicalities of implementing the Rwanda policy and how, sadly, too often the Government have sought to skate over them. Take the airline issue. In order for this policy to function, the Government must be able to transport people to Rwanda, yet Ministers have still not confirmed that they have secured an airline, with Rwanda’s state-owned airline reportedly declining a request to use its planes. Then there is the issue of where migrants will live if they are sent to Rwanda. Recent reports suggest that the majority of homes on a new Rwandan housing estate initially earmarked for migrants relocated from the UK have been sold to local buyers. Those are not moot points; they are the kinds of practical details that will determine whether the scheme works, and works safely. In the absence of prior scrutiny of the treaty, the House of Commons must be allowed to assess its implementation and act on the findings.
Lords amendment 6B relates to legal challenge. It is a modified version of the original Lords amendment 6 and, like the original, it would delete clause 4 of the Bill, allowing much wider grounds for legal challenge. Like the original amendment, it states that a court or tribunal may prevent or delay the removal of a person to Rwanda, but unlike the original, it adds
“providing such prevention or delay is for no longer than strictly necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the case.”
The Home Affairs Committee has always recognised that the opportunity for appropriate legal challenge is a necessary part of an effective and fair asylum system. That is why the amendment has significant merit.
Lords amendment 7B is a modified version of the original Lords amendment 7. The original amendment would have disapplied section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 in its entirety, meaning that people claiming to be children could appeal against a decision that they are over 18. Lords amendment 7B instead would insert a new subsection into section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act. In moving Lords amendment 7B, Baroness Lister explained:
“This amendment in lieu is much more modest and in effect meets the Commons’ formal objection to the original amendment. It would permit an age-disputed child to be removed to Rwanda with a pending challenge on a limited basis, but only if a proper age assessment has first been carried out by a local authority.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 252.]
During its channel crossings inquiry, the Home Affairs Committee heard examples of safeguarding processes failing across various parts of the asylum system, including cases of children being mistaken for adults. That is why I believe the Government must look again at this amendment.
Lords amendment 9 on modern slavery would add a new clause to the Bill to create an exception relating to the removal of victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. The new clause states:
“A person with a positive reasonable grounds decision from the National Referral Mechanism…must not be removed from the United Kingdom on the basis of the Rwanda Treaty until a conclusive grounds decision has been made.”
It also states:
“A person with a positive conclusive grounds decision…must not be removed…without a decision-maker considering whether such removal would negatively affect the physical health, mental health or safety of that person”.
The Government have proposed amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 9. It requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about the operation of the Act
“as it relates to the modern slavery and human trafficking provisions in Article 13 of the Rwanda Treaty”.
The Home Affairs Committee’s recent report on human trafficking expresses our concern that the Government are prioritising irregular migration issues at the expense of tackling human trafficking. Human trafficking is not an immigration offence; it is an exploitation offence, and the two must not be conflated. Lords amendment 9 would provide a vital safeguard for victims of human trafficking, and I hope the Government will look at that.
Finally, Lords amendment 10B is a modified version of Lords amendment 10. Like the original amendment, it would provide an exemption for people who supported our armed forces overseas or who have otherwise been agents or allies of the UK overseas. Lords amendment 10B includes a new subsection, which states:
“A person seeking to rely upon the exemption…must give the Secretary of State notice as soon as reasonably practicable to allow prompt verification of available records”.
In moving Lords amendment 10B, Lord Browne of Ladyton said:
“we are told that men who braved death, courted injury and are forced into exile as a result of assisting our Armed Forces in fighting the Taliban are to be punished for arriving here by irregular routes—even where, owing to wrongful refusals on our part or possible malfeasance on the part of the Special Forces, they have been compelled to take these routes in the first place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 254.]
We know that families from Afghanistan who helped our armed forces and subsequently fled to Pakistan are at imminent risk of deportation back to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. That is despite ministerial reassurances that a route for eligible separated Afghan families to come to the UK would be established.
Sir Robert Buckland
I will try to beat the extraordinary record of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who spoke for a princely two minutes. I am grateful to him for setting that new record—his personal best, I think. I will deal with the amendments in turn, but first return to the theme of clause 1, which I have previously warmed to, and which I think is an abomination. It is exactly the worst sort of legislative drafting, and we should be discouraging it. At best, it is declaratory legislation, which is never helpful, and at worst it sets up all sorts of potential legal arguments. The attempt by the Lords to amend it probably makes the situation even worse, which is why I will not support Lords amendment 1.
Sir William Cash
I returned to the Chamber especially to hear my right hon. and learned Friend, and I was delighted to hear what he just said. At last, he has seen the light.
Sir Robert Buckland
I have always walked in sunlight; it is others who have perhaps walked through a veil of shadows. We will draw a veil over that. In the spirit of my hon. Friend’s helpful intervention, I have mentioned to him that I thought that clause 5 was unnecessary. It is even more unnecessary now, because the reforms that I referred to in a previous speech on the Bill about rule 39 have now been clarified by practice direction. The threshold that the European Court will apply will be, again, a much higher one. I therefore think that the occasions where we could see it invoked in the Rwanda case would be vanishingly small—in fact, non-existent. It seems to me that any harm that might be judged to have been caused is clearly revocable in the form of a return of those individuals from Rwanda. That, frankly, should have been the position the last time round; the reforms of the European Court make that even clearer.
That makes a powerful general point, which supports the excellent arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) about the direction of travel of the Court. I strongly agree with him about the recent climate change decision, which was a wrong turn. We should be very much going back to fundamental human rights, and not talking about socioeconomic rights or trying to make everything into some form of right. Surely it is better to legislate for statutory duties and obligations by public bodies, rather than creating nebulous rights that then become the province of the courts. Herein lies the difficulty that we still encounter in the second batch of amendments—Lords amendments 3B and 3C—which I am still minded to support.
Whether we like it or not, the Supreme Court assessed evidence and substituted its own view for that of the decision makers. The noble Lord Howard of Lympne made a powerful speech in the other place about the wisdom or otherwise of going down that road. I agree with a lot of what the noble Lord said. I do not like it when I see courts of higher record in effect relitigating matters of evidence, which is what the Supreme Court did, but that is the situation that we have. That is why the Bill has come forward, and my abiding concern about deeming provisions, which I accept are not unprecedented, is that they should match reality.
That is why I press my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to answer some of the points made in the other place about the progress being made by the Government of Rwanda, not only in legislating for its treaty obligations—it has a monist system, so the treaty is already in force—but in carrying out the obligations it agreed to in the treaty, namely the reform of its appeal system and the use of trained advisers. Those are all measures that would go a huge way to reassuring not just me but any court that might be seized of this matter in the near future that all is proceeding well. The Scottish Lord Advocate seemed to concede in the other place that there needed to be full treaty implementation before the treaty was ratified. If that is the case, we are arguing over little. That is why I still commend those amendments.
I will now deal with the next questions, which relate to the arguments again trenchantly put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I agree with him about the danger of proxy judicial reviews based on the Children Act 1989 and care legislation. We need to take great care about that. Like him, I am not persuaded that there is merit in supporting the Lords amendments on that issue.
I am also encouraged—though still concerned—about the modern-day slavery position. I am encouraged that here alone in the Government’s response to the Lords amendments, they have come up with an amendment in lieu: amendment (a) to Lords amendment 9. I am prepared to support that, bearing in mind the sensitive and important nature of this legislation and the need to avoid us riding a coach and horses through the progress we have made, in terms of this country’s leadership on modern-day slavery. I am prepared to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and support the amendment in lieu.
My abiding concern remains for a class of people who served our country, who endured great danger in Afghanistan, who still find themselves in danger in a third country—namely Pakistan—and who may well fall foul of an entirely unintended consequence as a result of this legislation, however well intentioned it may be. That is why I am still not persuaded on Lords amendment 10B. The Government have moved on that—we are in an iterative process with the Lords messages—and I agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who reminded us of the invaluable role that the deliberative Chamber has in making sure that legislation is tested and up to the level of events.
We should not ignore what was said in the Lords about the evidential situation in Rwanda. That is the reality, and that is why when we pass legislation here, we should do everything we can to avoid legislative fiction. It is not good law. It creates a glass jaw, which can be broken by litigation and by judicial challenge, and we find the courts once again back in a position where I do not think any of us, least of all Conservative constitutionalists, want to see them. Let us legislate with care on this matter, and let us get it right.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I remind the House that due to the pressure on time, the debate on hospices will not take place tonight. I know that there is a lot of interest in that, so we hope that it will be reprogrammed as soon as possible. I also remind everybody that we are trying not to impose a time limit, but Madam Deputy Speaker did encourage seven-minute contributions and no more, so please tailor your speeches accordingly.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I rise in support of the Lords amendments, which I will vote to retain this evening. I will keep my comments brief. I want to express the need for the House to support Lords amendment 6B. It has already been said that under the Government’s preferred wording for clause 4, a court still cannot consider the risk of refoulement by Rwanda in contravention of any of its international obligations, even though that was the very risk highlighted by the UK Supreme Court. The amendment would reinstate the protection that the Government wish to remove. It would omit clause 4 and replace it with a clause that seeks to restore the ability of decision makers to consider whether Rwanda is a safe country. It would restore the jurisdiction of domestic courts and tribunals to grant interim relief—a temporary injunction preventing a removal.
During the most recent Lords consideration, the previous version of amendment 6B, which was rejected by this House, was changed. It now adds the stipulation that any interim relief be for
“no longer than strictly necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the case.”
The Member who tabled the amendment in the other House, Baroness Chakrabarti, said that it is a “significant concession” and a “genuine legislative olive branch” to the Executive. The Executive should accept that it is an improvement to the Bill and that, rather than neutering the powers of decision makers or the courts, it would allow for better decision making in the asylum process.
It remains my firm view that the Bill is an affront to international law, human rights and the rule of law more widely. It sets a dangerous precedent to other nations who wish to ignore the law, cause harm and demonise and exploit vulnerable people who are in desperate need.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
My hon. Friend will be aware that many people all over Europe, particularly in the Council of Europe, have expressed grave concern about this piece of legislation, which outsources our international obligations under all aspects of humanitarian law. If we pass this legislation, many others will follow, and Europe will turn its back on refugee problems that, often, it has helped to create.
Beth Winter
I fully agree that the Bill sets a dangerous precedent. I am pleased to say that the disgracefulness of this legislation is recognised by the Welsh Government, who have withheld legislative consent on similar draconian pieces of legislation and describe this Bill as cruel, inhumane, unworkable and unethical. It sets a horrific precedent for other countries to follow. I am so proud that we are looking to establish Wales as a nation of sanctuary, where we welcome, understand and celebrate the unique contribution that asylum seekers fleeing horrific situations can make to our country of Cymru.
The Bill is an assault on our checks and balances, and our scrutiny of powers. Quite frankly, it is unamendable and should be thrown out wholesale, but given that that is unlikely to happen, in a true attempt to make a bad Bill less bad, I will support amendment 6B and the other amendments before the House this evening.
Tim Farron
I rise to support the amendments from the other place that the Government are seeking to overturn this evening. The mass migration of people—refugees, or those fleeing from the consequences of climate change, seeking a better life for themselves or fleeing from war and persecution—is a huge and serious global problem, and this Bill is a deeply unserious response to it. The Bill has become a byword for Conservative incompetence, waste of public money and, at times, deep and unpleasant cruelty.
Tim Farron
I had better not, because I am taking up more time, although I am sure I would have agreed with whatever the hon. Gentleman would have said!
I will simply finish with this. This is a Bill riddled with pretence: the pretence above all that it would be a deterrence to anybody. It is a ridiculous waste of taxpayers’ money and deeply cruel. If Rwanda is a safe place, it will deter no one from coming here and then being sent there. If it is an unsafe place, no decent Government would ever propose to send anyone to it. They cannot have it both ways; they have it neither.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Bill casts a shadow over the reputation of this place and over our country as one where the rule of law is valued and respected. It is a matter of grave concern that the Government seem determined to ignore the many legal experts and human rights organisations that have voiced serious and fundamental concerns about the Bill. As Lord McDonald of Salford, a Cross-Bench peer and former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, set out clearly in the press over the weekend, the Bill declares as fact that Rwanda is safe enough to provide shelter for vulnerable people fleeing persecution in their home countries and that not only must British courts accept that Rwanda is safe; they cannot question that assertion even in the light of new evidence that Rwanda may no longer be safe. Surely all of us in this place know how quickly political change can arise in any state. It is nonsensical for the Government to make such a declaration about the safety of Rwanda, but to do so when the impact on vulnerable people has the potential to be so severe and affect their fundamental human rights and their safety is irresponsible and reckless.
Amnesty International UK is among those urging the Government to drop this divisive and dangerous piece of legislation. It has called the Bill an affront to international law, human rights and the rule of law more widely. It warned that, if passed, it will: leave the UK in serious conflict with its international human rights obligations; send a dangerous signal that other nations are free to show similar disdain for their obligations under international law; and harm people who are powerless, vulnerable to demonisation, and readily and cruelly exploited.
The Law Society described the Bill as “flawed” and said that it undermines important British values such as the rule of law and protection for victims, damages the UK’s constitutional balance, and will ultimately prove unworkable, while costing the UK taxpayer a great deal of money. It also highlighted research which suggests that 61% of people think the Government should either accept some amendments to the Rwanda policy or scrap it all together. Liberty described the Bill as
“a constitutionally extraordinary piece of legislation",
adding that “In several places” its
“provisions advance…into some potentially dangerous positions.”
For a Government to get to the point of trying to put through legislation that human rights experts describe as “potentially dangerous” is truly shocking. Why is it that the Government think they can ride roughshod over international law and human rights? The amendments we are considering today would, among other things: require the Government to give due regard to domestic and international law, a most important principle that no one could dispute; allow Ministers, officials and courts to consider whether Rwanda is safe on a case-by-case basis; and remove the risk of unaccompanied children being inadvertently sent to Rwanda. Lords amendment 6B, for example, would allow the court or tribunal to grant
“an interim remedy that prevents or delays, or that has the effect of preventing or delaying, the removal of the person to the Republic of Rwanda, providing such prevention or delay is for no longer than strictly necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the case.”
Surely any reasonable Government would want to ensure it had the power to do that?
There is still time for the Government to drop this horrendous Bill. I urge them to do so. I also urge all Members across the House who care about the rule of law, our international reputation, and the seriousness with which we should address our international responsibilities, to support the amendments from the other place and vote against the Government’s motions tonight.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
The dangers to any nation whose
Government seek to put themselves above the law and the courts are clear. The late Tony Benn put it well when he said that how Governments treat refugees is an indication of how they would treat their own citizens if they thought they could get away with it. The Government’s contempt for the people of the UK is revealed by the assault on the rule of law that the Bill represents. It is also self-evident that a country does not become a safe destination just because a Government declare it so. Human Rights Watch’s latest analysis of Rwanda is clear that
“repression of free speech, arbitrary detention, ill-treatment, and torture”
remain widespread.
The noble Baroness Chakrabarti’s amendment is an attempt to remove one of the most damaging aspects of the Bill, and restore the primacy of law above the whims and ambitions of politicians with regard to asylum applications, and to prevent the Government from simply declaring, blanket-fashion, that Rwanda is safe because they wish it to be and want to deport those fleeing terrible dangers who reach our shores—including, let us not forget, children. By denying access to a court to challenge the safety of Rwanda, the Bill is not compatible with the UK’s international obligations. It shames our country.
As I have said before, the only real solution to this malignant and discriminatory Bill is to scrap it all together. At the very least, its worst aspects must be mitigated. That includes the need to restore the jurisdiction of the domestic courts in relation to the safety of Rwanda, the power to grant interim injunctions, and at the very least the ability to look at matters on a case-by-case basis. I therefore support Lords amendment 6B and all other amendments from the other place. I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to do the same.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Following John McDonnell, with the leave of the House, the Minister will respond.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I only want to make four brief points, which are based on my experience in my own constituency. At the height of the number of asylum seekers being placed in hotels, I think I had the largest number—I think I still have. I had 2,500 asylum seekers in my constituency. I welcomed that; I welcomed them into our community. Our community in Hayes and Harlington has always risen to support people in need, and I was proud of the local community. There are four points I want to raise from the lessons of dealing with those asylum seekers, touring around the hotels and dealing with casework. In fact, one of the hotels is next to my constituency office.
One point is the point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron): these are desperate people—desperate people—and they will not be deterred from coming here, having experienced what they have experienced back in their home country and the way in which they have travelled here. Given the desperate circumstances they are in, in both instances, they will not be deterred by this legislation. They know, as we do, that this is a political stunt rather than anything else.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way on that point. It has been my privilege to visit Calais on a number of occasions over the past few years and I have had many conversations with people there. They are desperate; they are poor; they are hungry; they are homeless; they are victims of war and human rights abuses; and they are being treated as though they are enemies of the whole community here. They are not. They are people trying to survive in a very difficult world, and our message seems to be the opposite of all the humanitarian law that has been passed into common parlance over the past 70 years.
John McDonnell
The other lesson I have learnt from meeting a wide range of asylum seekers—and this, in a sense, follows on from what my right hon. Friend has said—relates to the skills they can bring to our country, and how desperate they are to make a contribution. All they want is for their cases to be processed, because the vast majority, even those detained in the two detention centres in my constituency, will win their cases and be received into the community. Their problem is that the processing situation means they cannot travel here through the normal processing arrangements, and when they do get here they are having to wait for up to two years just to have their cases heard. I do not think that the provisions in the Bill will deter desperate people from coming here in this way.
My second point concerns the amendment relating to the assessment of children. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is not present now, mentioned me because we both represent the London Borough of Hillingdon, which has accepted more unaccompanied children than any other borough because of its proximity to Heathrow. We have had a problem with age assessments, but it is not the problem that the media home in on, which is elderly people being assessed as children; it is the other way round. Children are being forced through a process that can be very demeaning and can have an impact on their mental health, and then are eventually found to be children, as all the statistics demonstrate. It is a brutal system. All that the amendment would do is ensure that assessments are carried out by those who are experienced in the process, namely local authorities.
Michael Tomlinson
With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I opened the debate by saying that we were not quite at the point of completing each other’s sentences, but perhaps we are there now. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) hinted that I might be in danger of repeating myself, so I will ensure that I keep my remarks to the point.
I thank all Members for their contributions. As always, I thank the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for the way in which he conducted himself; he reminded us that he is an inveterate optimist, as perhaps those sitting on the Labour Benches have to be. It is fair to say that this has been a good-natured debate, despite some uncharacteristic heckling from the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). I was gently chided by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for not giving way, but I was pleased that I did not give way to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), not least because he said that his intervention related to Lords amendment 2, which does not appear on the amendment paper—it is not on the list—and is not being debated.
As always, I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for her contribution. She will be pleased to know that we disagree again, which will reassure her, but I am sure that her campaign will continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) made some serious points, as always. On his point about the two local authorities—this is also relevant to the point made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—I recently met the leader of Hillingdon Council, Councillor Ian Edwards, and we discussed some of the issues and pressures. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for his contribution. He tempted me to go down a certain path, which is unnecessary in relation to the ECHR’s recent judgment. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) also tempted me to go down that path, but I will resist the temptation for the time being.
The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), mentioned a desire to debate the treaty. May I gently suggest to her that we have had ample opportunity to debate the treaty, not least as part of the proceedings for this Bill?
May I respond to the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon? He mentioned his liking for Lords amendments 3B and 3C, and he asked me what progress has been made. I can reassure him that progress has been made and that the Government will only ratify the treaty once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with their obligations under it. He also rightly asked, as did other right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, about Lords amendment 10B. I merely repeat the point that the Government recognise the commitment and responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether they are our own or those who showed courage by serving alongside us. We will not let them down.
I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to join us in the Aye Lobby. It will allow us to get flights off the ground to disrupt the business model of people smugglers, who are exploiting vulnerable people.
Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Gender Non-conforming Young People
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The subject of this debate has been thrust into the spotlight in recent weeks. Michael Shellenberger’s WPATH—World Professional Association for Transgender Health—files report by Mia Hughes was published on 4 March, swiftly followed last week by Dr Hilary Cass’s eponymous report. Both make it clear that gender identity and sex are completely different things, but ideological capture has blurred the lines.
In the early 1990s, I was asked a question by a relative who was volunteering for the Samaritans and speaking to a transvestite male who was struggling with his mental health. Did I, as a gay man, have any advice? I was bemused by the question, because the only advice I could muster was that I had absolutely no insight whatsoever into cross-dressing behaviours, as most transvestites were heterosexual males.
The notion that there is such a thing as an “LGBT person” is ludicrous. Homosexuality is an innate sexual orientation centred on one’s natal sex. I am not a lesbian, bisexual or trans; I am a gay male. Working with others who are same-sex attracted on shared LGB rights has always made sense to me. As I have illustrated, there was a time in the not-too-distant past when heterosexual cross-dressers were confused with what it meant to be a gay male. There is little evidence of any T in the LGB. As they were then, what we now call gender identity and sex remain completely unconnected concepts, and they must not be confused.
I started working in the NHS when I was 19 years old. Since then, I have had a responsibility for child safeguarding that continues to this day. In 2019, I assumed that my professional knowledge and academic experience would have been of value to my then political party, the SNP, as it attempted to grapple with gender recognition reform legislation, but I was wrong. I was an SNP candidate and the chair of Fife Pride when I met my then friend Shirley-Anne Somerville for a coffee to discuss my safeguarding concerns about gender recognition reform. In addition to her Cabinet Secretary role in the Scottish Government, she was also covering the equalities brief. This was someone I had known for years—someone who knew my family.
I covered all the bases, emphasising exemplar cases such as that of local sex offender Lennon Dolatowski, also known as Katie, who had been accused of sex offences in Ms Somerville’s constituency and convicted of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old in the Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency, which I was contesting. Despite assuring me throughout the conversation that she fully understood the concerns I raised, Ms Somerville concluded by telling me in no uncertain terms that the policy approach was Nicola’s priority, so I would have to keep my views to myself. In other words, I was being told to be silent on safeguarding. I told her that I would not be able to do that—I could not be silent on the matter of safeguarding children.
Soon after that meeting, the attacks from the gender-radical wings of the SNP, the Greens, Labour and the Lib Dems began. Since 2019, and indeed before that, people who have had concerns about LGB rights and the safeguarding of children and young people have been systematically silenced, and not just by the SNP. As recognised by the Minister for Women and Equalities, and again today in the Chamber by the Secretary of State for Health, there has been a deep-rooted capture within our institutions, with senior leaders ignoring the actual law and ideologically captured groups such as Stonewall misrepresenting it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue, which we touched on in the statement earlier today. Does he agree that we have a duty to protect children of all backgrounds from the lobbying groups that abuse the system to promote a harmful ideology? For example, multinational companies such as Starbucks have supported charities such as Mermaids. It is time that those types of charities, which advocate for those as young as 14, rethink their charitable endeavours. Charities should instead help to protect our children, who must be left alone. Let kids be kids.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I made this point earlier today during in the statement, but the tentacles and influence of Stonewall need to be rooted out of every institution across these islands. It has been my long-held view that the agenda that Stonewall has pushed has seen queer theory-based policies insinuate their way into every public body—
Neale Hanvey
I will go back a step. Stonewall has pushed queer theory-based policies into every public body, including in policing, education, and health, and even on to the Floor of the House of Commons, where straight women tell gay men to get back in their closet. The decision by Stonewall to add the T and incorporate cross-dressing heterosexual males under the wide banner of “trans”, or the more recently added “Q+”, was directly responsible for the elevation of concern among LGB people, women and transsexuals.
The damage done by Stonewall has been immeasurable. LGB people, women and transsexuals have all been subjected to vitriolic attacks from queer-theory activists who hide their vicious and vindictive mob behaviour behind hashtags such as BeKind. I could give a roll call of those who have stood up to that mob, or been dragged through the media and the courts for vexatious purposes, but I would be on my feet all week.
I also want to put on the record that the Labour party leadership needs to come out of hiding on this issue. The shadow Health Secretary’s recent Damascene moment of realisation does not mask the continued silence from the Leader of the Opposition, nor quell the ideological contingent of the parliamentary Labour party. That is not good enough in a general election year. People across these islands need to know that this nightmare is coming to an end before they cast their vote. I am encouraged by the emergence of sex equality and equity networks—known as SEENs—across the public sector, which challenge this harmful ideological capture. Silence will not cut it.
This indoctrination is causing very real and lasting damage, but the impact on those of us who spoke up has been nothing in comparison to the evil of medical malpractice visited on many vulnerable young people. Many of them were just lesbian, gay or bisexual, or young people dealing with trauma, mental health issues or neurodivergence, or in the care system. As Sex Matters, now a recognised human rights charity, has highlighted:
“A false global consensus around a ‘gender affirming’ approach has emerged because of ideological actors putting their individual belief-systems ahead of the protection of distressed young people, many of whom are lesbian, gay and bisexual.”
The WPATH files shone a light on the lack of evidence to support so-called gender-affirming care, and the ideological bias of documents masquerading as clinical standards. Tragically for children in the UK, WPATH’s standards of care have been extremely influential in shaping NHS protocols since 2011. Young people and many others have been badly failed.
The Cass review must be the final nail in the coffin for a “gender-affirming” model of care for gender-distressed children. Dr Cass builds on the concerns set out in the WPATH files report, which lifted the lid on the culture inside the World Professional Association of Transgender Healthcare. The Cass report also criticises WPATH guidelines as lacking in evidence and developmental rigour, and emphasises the vital need for fully informed consent, especially for young people with mental health conditions or other diagnosable co-morbidities.
I would ask the Minister to consider, and discuss with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, an urgent package of investment in child and adolescent mental health services as a starting point. That WPATH’s unscientific standards of care guidelines have repeatedly been lauded by Governments as international best practice is another issue of deep concern, and I ask the Minister if he will commit to looking into the reasons why that was allowed to happen.
Dr Cass dismisses any notion that puberty blockers or hormones have any part in standard treatment for under-18s. The report explicitly states that the medical pathway will not be right for most young people with gender distress:
“the focus on the use of puberty blockers for managing gender-related distress has overshadowed the possibility that other evidence-based treatments may be more effective… clinicians have told us they are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.”
Dr Cass decisively refutes the idea that suicide prevention is a reason for medicalising gender distress in youth:
“It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion.”
Gender distress has been treated within the NHS in a way that is different from other sorts of distress, to the detriment of vulnerable children.
The Cass review definitively shows that young people with gender distress have been badly let down by those who claim to be protecting them. It substantiates what so many, including Hannah Barnes and Helen Joyce, have argued: that gender-affirming care is not underpinned by a credible or developed evidence base. It leads to sub-optimal outcomes and the diagnostic overshadowing of complex underlying health and social issues. Dr Cass emphasises that there has been undue ideological influence on healthcare decision making, specifically noting a suppression of evidence and a rush to medicalise vulnerable young people.
This has been facilitated close to home in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, too. Carolyn Brown, a retired depute principal educational psychologist for Fife Council, said in The Sunday Post this weekend:
“The same harmful ideologies identified in the Cass report have been happening across Scotland for years now as senior officials in health, education and social work failed to listen to concerned voices and adopted the ‘Three Wise Monkeys’ attitude while vulnerable children were harmed…
Many children going through puberty do question their gender, their identity and their bodies. That’s just part of growing up. The danger comes when officials affirm those questionings and tell a child they can change their gender. This is ethically and morally irresponsible as well as psychologically harmful and more likely to compound the mental health issues the child already has and reinforce the child’s self-perception that he/she really is trans.”
According to queer theory extremists, these children were born in the wrong body.
Once again, I commend the bravery and strength of those who have de-transitioned and have had the courage to tell their stories—Keira Bell, Ritchie Herron and Sinead Watson and those yet to find their voice. It is a double scandal that we do not know how many other young people have been affected, and whose lives have been irreversibly altered, by medical malpractice. These young people were exceptionalised and subjected to life-altering treatments without due regard for safeguarding, and they were denied the necessary follow up expected in every other sphere of clinical practice.
The cohort of Gender Identity Development Service patients was disproportionately made up of girls. Prior to the publication of the Cass review, Tavistock whistleblower Dr David Bell spoke of young LGB people, especially lesbians, having their sexuality “transed away,” yet it is women’s voices that have been sidelined the most, and none more so than the voice of lesbians.
It will not have escaped the few people left in the Chamber that I am not, and never can be, a lesbian, so I turned to lesbian activists in Scotland to give me their perspective on the impact that Stonewall’s queer theory practices have had on their life. These are their words:
“It has become very difficult to exclude men from lesbian spaces, especially if those spaces, events, or groups are advertised publicly. Males are demanding access to lesbians for dating, and to shame, bully or threaten lesbians who refuse. This has had the effect of driving lesbian culture underground, which means it is very difficult for young or isolated lesbians to make connections…
Young lesbians tell us that they are under a great deal of pressure to accept men in their spaces and as romantic partners. Some of the lesbians in the group have been pressured to identify as trans because of their same-sex attraction… The campaigns around Gender ideology legislation has emboldened homophobes, who make lesbians feel that there is something shameful or bigoted about our sexual orientation. Lesbians who assert their sexual boundaries are described as being obsessed with genitals or as having a ‘fetish’ or ‘kink’.”
This is undeniable and unacceptable homophobia.
In Scotland, the Sandyford clinic is continuing with these discredited hormone treatments, and to date the Scottish Government have persisted with the claim that this amounts to “international best practice”. That is a claim we now know to be manifestly false and worthless.
As highlighted by the LGB Alliance, Dr Cass found that 89% of girls and 81% of boys referred to GIDS were ultimately not trans but were homosexual or bisexual. That indicates an alarming pattern of misdiagnosis and inappropriate, unnecessary and irreversible medical and surgical interventions, and confirms what many have feared: that the NHS GIDS’ adoption of gender affirmation as a model of care has led to their, whether inadvertently or not, practising medical and surgical gay conversion therapy. It is incoherent to put sexual orientation and gender identity under the same conversion therapy umbrella. Parliament should not legislate in this area until sound clinical evidence on the best model of care has been properly developed and validated.
In a letter to First Minister Humza Yousaf raising my concerns about so-called “trans-inclusive conversion therapy”, which we now know is gay conversion therapy, I made the following point:
“Legislating to compel belief in gender ideology runs counter to provisions in the Equality Act 2010 put beyond doubt by the Maya Forstater v CGD Europe and Others ruling. Forcing an ideology or belief on others...would transform the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscals Service into a pseudo-theocratic enforcement agency and would thus preclude any notion of receiving a fair trial. ”
The Scottish Government, under Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf, have abandoned any pretence they are upholding their public sector equality duty, putting women, children and LGB people at risk. They have been warned repeatedly, but they called such concerns invalid and went ahead anyway. This place must not do the same.
Both First Minister Humza Yousaf and Ms Somerville have defended the introduction of non-statutory schools guidance, enabling non-expert teachers to affirm and enable the so-called “social transitioning” of minors in the absence of parental involvement or consent, but in a landmark legal opinion, human rights barrister Karon Monaghan concludes that schools and councils using such an approach are very likely to be in breach of equality and human rights legislation, and at risk of being sued by excluded parents. As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) noted recently, both the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 are reserved matters, so the same risk of litigation should hold true in Scotland. There is little personal or professional protection for an activist teacher, given that this guidance is non-statutory, so the personal repercussions could be significant if they are pursued directly by excluded parents.
All of those warnings were stated long before the Cass report was published, but the virulent opposition to reason fostered and facilitated by Stonewall’s ideological capture across our public sphere has kept too many silent about the unfolding tragedy. Last week, I wrote to the Clerk of the House setting out in detail the legal and political incongruence and substantiated risk of harm from ropey ideologically-driven legislation. Therefore, I am seeking confirmation from the Minister that any such legislation will be excluded from the upcoming Criminal Justice Bill—I am referring to new clause 37—given the weight of evidence that Dr Cass has published about the dangers of embedding such practice in statute.
When I read the Cass Report and contrast its findings with the meticulous follow-up so carefully developed and provided to the children and young people I cared for during their cancer journey, it makes me furious and ashamed that clinicians could ever behave in such a cavalier manner. The LGB and other vulnerable young people who went to GIDS were subjected to life-altering treatments, only to be cast aside without follow-up. That must never be allowed to happen again—it is unethical and unprofessional, and the damage inflicted is, frustratingly, unknown. The evidence contained in the Cass report and the WPATH files is incontrovertible: in more than 80% of cases, gender-affirming “care” is gay conversion therapy.
Ending the routine prescribing of hormone supressing treatments is very much to be welcomed, but I wish to press the Minister further on the steps the Government will take to ensure that clinicians operating in private clinical practice and online pharmacies adhere to the NHS clinical guidelines issued by NHS England. This is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care, the Ministry of Justice and the equality hub to work on in concert.
What further steps will the Government take to ensure that private clinics and online pharmacies are not able to circumvent these clinical guidelines? What sanctions and enforcement measures will be put in place? Will the Minister make it clear that never again will services for children and young people be exceptionalised in the way that they have been, and that Dr Cass’s recommendations will be implemented in full so that healthcare, clinical practice and equalities will be based on evidence, the best interests of every child and young person, and clinical expertise?
In closing, I agree with Dr Cass that LGB and gender non-conforming young people “deserve very much better”. Members of this House no longer have any excuse to look the other way or to hide.
The Minister for Equalities (Stuart Andrew)
I thank the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) for securing this important debate. He has raised a number of very serious issues. As he will understand, we are still considering a lot of them, so I may not be able to go into too much detail at this moment, but I will be more than happy to write to him and update him on progress in each area.
I completely agree with him on the need for us always to think about the safeguarding of children and young people, regardless of whether they are LGBT. We need to ensure we uphold our obligations in that regard. We welcome much in the Cass report—it is a comprehensive report. As the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said to the House earlier, we will be considering and responding to a lot of points made in the report in due course. Much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that we need evidence-based decisions, which will clearly be incredibly important.
As I have mentioned at the Dispatch Box a number of times, this debate sometimes gets toxic, which does not help anybody. There are strong views on all sides of the debate, but for me it is really important that we base the debate on evidence and ensure we are careful in the way that we articulate our arguments. There are people out there, particularly young people, who will listen to some of those words and feel very affected and pressurised, in whatever direction that may be.
That is why the Government and I are committed to improving the outcomes of young people, especially recognising that LGBT young people can face very specific challenges, which may include bullying at school, an increased risk of mental health issues, which the hon. Gentleman alluded to, difficult family environments or, occasionally, even homelessness as a result of their sexuality. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the other equality hub Ministers and I regularly engage with our counterparts across Government Departments on these important issues.
To help achieve the goal of improving outcomes for LGBT people, we have ensured that spending for children and young people’s mental health services has increased. The hon. Gentleman was right to raise that important point. We have increased spending from £841 million in 2019-20 to just over £1 billion, but I will ensure that I write to my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to raise the points that the hon. Gentleman has made this evening.
Neale Hanvey
The Minister has raised the issue of mental healthcare for young people, including child and adolescent mental health services, which is extremely important to me. I wish to reflect on the statement that was made this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and some of the comments that came from the Opposition decrying the long waiting lists for good services. I would just like to make this point: in this area, there is an attrition rate of upwards of 80% of young people. Most of those were on a waiting list for a long time, during which they worked out that they were just lesbian, gay or bisexual, so they did not go through with the surgical medical treatments. Does he not agree that those long waiting lists may have saved some young people from the harm that has been inflicted on others, and that the focus now needs to be on CAMHS funding to make sure that young people get the mental health support they need before they make these irreversible and irrevocable decisions?
Stuart Andrew
That is exactly why the Cass report is so important. It is very carefully considered, and the Government now need to take the time to consider our response. None the less, the hon. Gentleman is right: when young people are deciding to come out or are wondering whether they are lesbian or gay, they should have the support that they need to help them to do that. We recognise that some may not have the sort of family support that I was fortunate enough to enjoy. I am blessed with an amazing family who were very supportive of me, but I do recognise that that is not the case for many others. The hon. Gentleman has made some important points and, as I committed to a moment ago, I will ensure that I write to my colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care with the questions that he raises.
It is important to point out that we work in partnership with the Department for Education as well, because we need to ensure that there is plenty of work going on in the anti-bullying arena. The hon. Gentleman alluded to some of the pressures that the people he has spoken to have felt. That is why we have allocated a further £3 million of funding, divided between five anti-bullying organisations, to tackle bullying in school. That is on top of the £4 million that has already been spent in this area since 2016, and this includes projects that specifically target anti-LGBT hate-related bullying.
In October 2022, we launched a victim support service for anyone affected by, or at risk of, conversion practices, regardless of sexual orientation, sex or transgender identity, and the helpline is there to provide support and information to anyone over the age of 13. As I have said on many occasions, conversion practices are not a one-way street. Conversion practices—changing somebody from what they believe they are to something else—are, in my view, abhorrent and clearly wrong. As I say, it can go either way, and it is really important that we acknowledge that.
I have also done a lot of work on homelessness. I have seen so many instances of young people who find themselves in these challenging areas ending up homeless. That could be because of that lack of family support that I mentioned or because of mental health issues. That is why last year I and the Minister responsible for homelessness convened a roundtable for local authorities and charitable organisations to ensure that we provide tailored support for LGBT people, which is something that we take incredibly seriously.
The hon. Member also mentioned the issues in Scotland. It would not be responsible for me to answer on the Scottish Government’s behalf, and I do not want to do that. But in terms of what we are doing here, we want to ensure that children are prepared for life in modern Britain, and they need to understand the world in which they are growing up. That is why the statutory guidance states that all pupils should receive teaching on LGBT content during their school years, including in secondary schools.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is a good sport, as always. Just for clarity on the issues in Scotland, the fundamental question is about the implementation and observation of responsibilities in the Equality Act 2010 and upholding the Human Rights Act, which are both reserved matters. In particular, the public sector equality duty has been an issue across a whole range of public bodies, not least the Scottish Government, who seem to have their own, perhaps Stonewall, view of how that should be interpreted. It is incumbent on all of us to refocus on the fundamental principles contained within that duty.
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the issues in regard to the Equality Act. This can get quite complex and I would be terrified of saying the wrong words at the Dispatch Box, but if he allows me, I will write to him with a few more details on those important points.
I was talking about the processes in the statutory guidance. Our colleagues in the Department for Education are reviewing the statutory guidance and we expect that to go out to public consultation later this year. The review has been informed by an independent expert panel, which brought together inputs from health, curriculum and safeguarding. We hope that that will be a good piece of work that provides updates on the guidance.
As for guidance relating to gender-questioning students, the hon. Member will be aware that the Department for Education published comprehensive draft guidance for teachers on how best to support pupils questioning their gender in schools. Parents, teachers and school leaders were encouraged to respond to that 12-week consultation, which closed on 12 March. A range of views will be considered, and I look forward to the publication of the consultation response as we continue to work in this sensitive area. It is important that we get that absolutely right and that parents are involved; that is incredibly important.
I feel like I have not given the hon. Member a million answers at this stage, but I hope he will understand that we have just had the Cass report, and it is important that we take the time to consider it. We are going through the review of the guidance that I mentioned. It is important that those proper processes take place. On the other issues that he has raised, I will write to my colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care, and I will update him when I have had a response.
In the meantime, I thank the hon. Member for raising this important area of work. My view is that we all want to help people to live their lives as they wish, without prejudice or pressure, and there is a responsibility on all of us in this House to do that in a way that is humane and compassionate. I am grateful for the opportunity to outline what we are doing as a Government to support that.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-Engagement
(7 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-Engagement.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Graham. The code of practice, which I will refer to as “the code” for the remainder of the debate, will give legal force to accepted standards about how employers should act when seeking to change employees’ terms and conditions.
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. Its report was published in June 2021. The Government then went further, asking ACAS to produce new guidance to ensure that employers are clear on their responsibilities when considering making changes to employment contracts. The 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 introducing the code, with the aim of ensuring that the practice is only ever used as a last resort and that employees are properly consulted and treated fairly. The code 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. The code will apply to all employers, regardless of their size, and we expect all employers in relevant scenarios to adhere to what it sets out. Employment tribunals will have the power to apply an uplift of up to 25% of an employee’s compensation if an employer unreasonably fails to comply.
In accordance with the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the Secretary of State consulted with ACAS on a draft statutory code before publishing it. Between January and April 2023, the Government publicly consulted on a draft code, enabling trade unions, employers and other interested parties to contribute their views. Careful consideration was given to those views, and changes were made to the draft code as a result. The Government are grateful to all respondents to the consultation for their considered and helpful responses. An updated draft code was laid in Parliament on 19 February. The Government response to the consultation was also published on 19 February.
There are calls to ban the practice of dismissal and re-engagement, and suggestions that we should legislate to restrict its use in a manner that would amount to an effective ban. The Government believe, however, that we must preserve companies’ flexibility to manage their workforce in times of crisis. The UK’s flexible labour market is key to economic growth and helping businesses to thrive. Therefore, it is 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. 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, and 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 the code is approved by the House, 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’s intention is for the code to be in effect by summer. I hope that Members will support it.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir Graham.
I thank the Minister for his introduction of the code of practice. It has taken more than two years, but we are finally here debating the action promised by the Government on dismissal and re-engagement. When the Government committed to introducing this code, there was a moment of consensus across the political spectrum that the situation we saw with P&O Ferries, which summarily sacked almost 800 workers over Zoom, could not happen again. The Business Secretary at the time, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), said that
“we will not allow this to happen again…where new laws are needed, we will create them…where legal loopholes are cynically exploited, we will close them, and...where employment rights are too weak, we will strengthen them.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 840.]
Well, I am sorry to say that those legal loopholes remain as open today as they did two years ago, and there is absolutely nothing to stop the outrage of P&O happening again. Why do I say that? It is there in black and white in paragraph 12.3 of the explanatory memorandum to the code of practice, which says that
“the Code does not impose any new legal obligations and operates within the current legal framework”.
That, in the final analysis, is why this code of practice is such a let-down—another promise broken, another capitulation to the bad bosses and another reason why it is time for change.
It has taken two years to get to this point. In those two years, P&O has still been benefiting from Government contracts, and all the while, fire and rehire continues to pollute the country’s industrial relations landscape. While the P&O Ferries case was not wholly a fire and rehire situation, I will return to it later, because it bore many hallmarks of the practice and exposed the gaps in our laws designed to protect workers, where employers with deep enough pockets could use fire and rehire to disregard our laws.
In the wake of the pandemic, there has been a jump in the number of employers using fire and rehire. Research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that between 2021 and 2023, the proportion of firms using fire and rehire had almost doubled. Many well-regarded household names attempted to do so, including Tesco, Clarks and British Airways. What was once a seldom-used device has become a mainstream practice and part of a wider pattern of growing insecurity at work. In short, it has become a first choice rather than a last resort.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman raises P&O, which I must point out is specifically not a case of fire and rehire. What is the Labour party proposing to stop another P&O situation happening in future?
Justin Madders
I thank the Minister for his intervention, but we have been down this road before where he keeps asking what Labour’s policies are. My answer is, “Call a general election and we’ll have a debate about these things.”
Justin Madders
The Minister knows perfectly well where our policies can be found. The new deal for working people has been well advertised and well covered in the press. As he knows, there is a lot of support for our proposals to end fire and rehire.
As a TUC investigation recently found out, around 38,000 employers were using fire and rehire as a tactic. In that context, we need to scrutinise the draft code of practice and consider whether it will end the commonplace use of those tactics. I am afraid that, despite having had two years to get this right, we are no closer to ending the scourge of fire and rehire. The code of practice is vague, it is weak and in its final analysis, it will not prevent another case as egregious as P&O. On that basis, the Government have failed to keep the promise they made two years ago.
Let us take the element that many people found most offensive about P&O: the fact that at the outset, its management were able to look at the sanctions that they were potentially liable for and decide whether they wanted to break the law. The cost of breaking the law was considered as just another business overhead to be factored in when making decisions and, as we saw, P&O decided that the sanctions were not a strong enough deterrent to prevent rule breaking.
It is welcome that the code of practice gives an indication to unscrupulous employers that they cannot get away scot-free with breaking the law. However, we have concerns that the 25% uplift on awards at tribunals for employers who have been found to have unreasonably failed to comply with the code will not be strong enough to deter bad employers.
First, we have concerns about the inclusion of an award cap in the code of practice. As I have mentioned, it was particularly concerning that P&O was able to look at the options and perform a cost-benefit analysis of whether to conform with the law. It knew the maximum penalty it would face in compensation for each employee, which it then priced into its decision. In effect, it was able to treat the law on compensation—a law that is in place to protect workers’ jobs and their dignity—as optional. What the code of practice means, in effect, is that breaking the law remains an option, though it is now slightly more expensive than it used to be.
Laws are only as strong as their enforcement, so we believe that sanctions should reflect the egregiousness of the transgression. If an employer decides to break the law, their sanction should not be capped but should instead be decided on the basis of the facts. That way, any employer tempted to brazenly flout their legal requirements would no longer be able to calculate the costs of doing so, because in the most serious cases that cost would not be knowable and they would have to take their chances in court. Smaller transgressions would be treated by a tribunal. As it stands, the most egregious cases still have a ceiling, which means that those who act with ill intent can still price in the cost of acting unlawfully.
The code of practice therefore retains the status quo, whereby an employer can look at the maximum fixed penalty associated with breaking the law and, in effect, choose whether they will abide by it. It is workers who suffer the consequences. Some bad employers might see consultation requirements as burdensome, but there is a reason why the law requires consultation.
The consultation process is a vital opportunity for the voices of workers and their representatives to be heard, and for alternative proposals to be put forward to save jobs and protect conditions. When consultation works best and is meaningful, it can benefit employers and employees. There are, thankfully, many good employers who understand that and work collaboratively with trade unions. We commend those employers, and we know that they already go above and beyond their legal requirements. However, this code of practice needs to be set in a robust framework for bad employers, who sadly are out there. Frankly, there is no evidence that the 25% uplift will act as a deterrent.
I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that, because I do not know how he can confidently assert that a 25% uplift will actually prove to be a deterrent. In response to my written question about the use of compensatory uplifts by employment tribunals, he said:
“Data on the use of compensatory uplifts by Employment Tribunals is not collected.”
That means that the Government do not know how much the compensatory uplift is used in other areas of employment law where there is a similar code of practice. That gives rise to the question: on what basis has it been decided that this measure is effective in preventing employers from failing to follow the code of practice? Does the Minister have evidence of its effectiveness that he can share with us today?
It is also worth reminding Members that this deterrent will not come into force straightaway. As the Minister indicated, secondary legislation is required to amend section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. He said that that will be introduced this summer. Will he confirm whether that means before the recess or at a later date over the summer? It would be useful to get a date for the introduction of that secondary legislation.
It must also be pointed out that under the current drafting of the code, the sanctions can be awarded only if an employee has been found to have been unfairly dismissed. We know how easy it is for an employer to dismiss a worker in the modern economy. Of course, generally speaking, those with less than two years of continuous service cannot be considered to be unfairly dismissed. Some may sign settlement agreements that offer them their statutory entitlement, but a hard-nosed employer may say, “Well, if you want to argue for an extra 25%, take your chances at a tribunal,” where the cost to the employee might be more than the potential sum to be gained.
On top of that, the code of practice protects only “employees”, meaning that some of the most insecure workers in the labour market will not benefit one jot. To add icing to the cake, or salt to the wound, the Government intend to reintroduce employment tribunal fees, which we know from experience have a significant impact on people’s ability to enforce their rights. Will the Minister provide an assessment of how many people will benefit from this code of practice, and how many employers he believes will not use fire and rehire as a result of it?
Paragraph 14 of the code refers to a 25% reduction in compensation where the employee—not the employer —unreasonably fails to comply. Is it the Government’s intention to give tribunals the power to reduce employees’ compensation in fire and rehire cases, and if so, what element of the P&O case led the Minister to conclude that that was necessary? As the TUC pointed out, the uplift does not cover redundancy situations. As we know, P&O was in part a redundancy situation, where surely the same sanctions should apply. Will the code apply where workers are replaced with agency staff?
Turning to the substance of the guidance, I have made the general point that, as is clear from the explanatory memorandum, the code creates no new legal obligations. That is sadly reflected in the number of times that the code says that an employer “should” rather than “must” do something. I will not list every example—I appreciate that people have other places to be—but there are some important instances where “should” comes in, such as paragraph 16, which says that the employer “should” consult in good faith. Paragraph 23 says that
“the employer should consider what information could be provided about…the proposed changes”.
Paragraph 28 says that the employer
“should genuinely consider the points that are put forward”,
and paragraph 31 says that
“a threat of dismissal should not be used as a negotiating tactic”.
On the last of those, why not say that the threat of fire and rehire “must” not be used as a negotiating tactic? I am pretty clear that that is what Ministers had in mind when they made those promises two years ago. Why is it a requirement only that an employer “should” consult in good faith? Surely we want every employer to consult in good faith; there should be a legal requirement for them to do so.
Justin Madders
Employers should do, yes—and that should be enforced in law.
There is a similar issue with the guidance offered in the code on the provision of information and how to conduct consultation with workers. Instead of clearly and unambiguously stating what information employers ought to provide, the code relies on the phrase “as reasonably possible” on numerous occasions. Instead of providing concrete guidance on the timeline of providing information, paragraph 21, for example, simply states:
“Information should be provided as early as reasonably possible.”
Similarly, paragraph 22 states that
“employers should share as much information regarding the proposals as reasonably possible”
in order for employees and their representatives to understand the plans and ask questions. Section D on consultation states that an employer should
“genuinely consider any reasonable alternative proposals”
and should
“consult for as long as reasonably possible in good faith, with a view to reaching an agreed outcome”.
Those statements are not really anything other than restatements of the existing legal principles on consultation, and the repeated references to “should” rather than “must” mean that in reality, the code does not strengthen protection for workers at all.
Insomuch as there is concrete guidance about the provision of information, I suggest that it is insufficient. Paragraph 23 lists the information that could be provided, such as the proposed changes, who will be affected, the business reasons for the changes, the timeframe, any other options considered, and next steps, but those are not the only pieces of information that unions or other representatives will require to propose truly viable alternatives to fire and rehire. It is unclear why the Government have chosen not to be more prescriptive with the types of documentation that could be provided. The TUC recommended that the list be expanded to include information similar to that set out in paragraph 11 of the ACAS code of practice on the disclosure of information to trade unions for collective bargaining purposes. That would mean that unions and other representatives could get sight of more information about a number of elements relating to staff, including productivity and efficiency data.
Perhaps most importantly, financial information would also be available—cost structures, profits, assets, liabilities and forecasts—which would help to formulate a credible alternative plan. In particular, financial information would help those representing the workforce to determine whether the financial position of the company was such that some sort of action was justified, as opposed to the situation that we often see in fire and rehire, where the company is making a healthy profit on the face of it but refers to vague and sometimes intangible reasons for the proposed changes. It may even refer to something as vague as
“the strategic direction of the business”,
which is mentioned in the first paragraph of the code of practice.
Choosing not to include that level of prescription in the code will limit the ability of unions and other representatives to suggest ways to avoid fire and rehire. Indeed, what we are presented with in the code of practice is perhaps the exact opposite of what ought to be best practice.
In particular, paragraph 27 of the code gives employers the opportunity to withhold information should they believe it to be commercially sensitive. The employer alone decides what to disclose, so they can hide behind that catch-all paragraph to keep whatever they want private. Yet the sharing of confidential and commercially sensitive information is commonplace in good industrial relations, and it can be the basis of a shared conversation to find a solution, particularly in cases of fire and rehire, when access to documents such as financial forecasts is critical to unions being able to assess the firm’s position and suggest viable alternatives. Instead of encouraging employers to withhold such information, as the code of practice does, it should suggest ways to facilitate the sharing of sensitive information. The code could easily have talked about circumstances in which it would be appropriate to disclose such information to the appropriate reps, perhaps on the condition of confidentiality, but it chooses not to.
Another glaring omission is the lack of clear and concrete guidance as to how to conduct an effective consultation process. There are comments that remind employers to conduct a meaningful negotiation and process, but no guidance on how to actually go about it. In its consultation response last year, the TUC suggested that the relevant section should include practical guidance about how to go about conducting an effective process. It recommended that there should be guidance on the exchange of written information, including responses to demonstrate that employers have actively considered alternative proposals. Those are the standards that we want to see in a good and effective consultation process. Of course, most employers want to do their best, so why shy away from providing that level of detail?
Instead of paying lip service to the idea of conducting a meaningful consultation, more practical guidance could drive up standards and ultimately improve the outcome of the consultation process. That is far beyond what is included in the code of practice. In fact, paragraph 25 states that the provision of information in writing is not even an obligation, but just “good practice”. Are the Government really saying that the information in consultation exercises does not have to be provided in writing? That sums up the failings evident in the section of the code of practice that deals with information and consultation. It is vague, it is weak and it does not encourage employers to make the most of the opportunities to avoid imposing changes on their workforce.
I want to say a few words about the advice in the code of practice that fire and rehire should be used only as a last resort. The code of practice is clear that it does not mean a last resort in the sense that there is no alternative to the action other than insolvency or redundancies, for example; rather, the suggestion is that it can be used as a last resort if negotiations are not successful. In practice, that means that employers can, as they do now, use the most spurious of reasons for proposing fire and rehire, but as long as they can show that they have attempted some consultation, they can still do it.
That brings me to the question of what an employer will be expected to produce to show that it considers its decision to fire and rehire as a last-resort measure when consulting unions and, indeed, when the matter is taken to a tribunal. Will that include anything to do with the disclosure of financial records, business forecasts or accountancy advice? In the absence of such information, how will unions be able to differentiate between employers considering dismissal and re-engagement as a genuine last resort and those that use it as a scare tactic? These fundamental points should have been addressed in the code of practice.
The original code of practice contained a whole paragraph that stated that, before making the decision to dismiss workers,
“the employer should take some time to reassess its analysis and consider carefully again”.
It listed conditions such as whether it was “truly necessary” to impose the new terms, whether any
“alternative options…could achieve those same objectives”,
and whether the changes would impact those with protected characteristics. In other words, it set out a much more thorough process than we have ended up with in the final version of the code of practice.
The removal of those requirements can be seen only as a capitulation to the interests of bad employers who disliked the idea of having to re-examine their business case to make sure that the imposition of changes was absolutely necessary. The consultation response notes:
“Some respondents indicated that re-examination would be overly burdensome for employers, suggesting a lighter-touch approach with employers reviewing only specific proposals, rather than their entire business strategy.”
I do not think that language sends out the message that fire and rehire is a last resort. It would be helpful if the Minister took the opportunity to explain why the decision was taken to water down the requirements in the original draft code of practice.
It seems clear to me that the changes reflect more of an intent to reduce concerns about the code being burdensome on business than an intent to protect workers from having new terms and conditions imposed on them. I suggest that those are not the actions of a Government intent on curbing the use of fire and rehire. We were clear that the original draft would fail to do so, but now that the draft has been further watered down it seems even more ill-equipped to deal with the scourge of fire and rehire.
Finally, the Minister will be aware that the P&O case led to a report and recommendations by the International Labour Organisation’s committee on freedom of association. That report came out at the end of last year. Can the Minister update us on what actions the Government have taken in response, and whether they intend to implement all the ILO’s recommendations?
What we have before us is a code of practice that fails to deal with the fundamental reason for its creation, which is to stop another case as egregious as that of P&O. It has taken two years to get to this point, yet we are no closer to the protections that workers in this country deserve. The code of practice represents a missed opportunity to right the very real wrongs that we have seen up and down this country for far too long.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham; I suspect that this Committee sitting is a lot more sedate than some others that you have chaired recently. It is also a pleasure to follow the Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, whose speech I agreed with in its entirety.
The Minister said that most employers want to do the right thing by their employees. I think most of us would probably agree, but too many employers do not. Sadly, that includes some of the UK’s biggest and best-known companies. The draft code is largely useless; it is a lamentable waste of parliamentary time, and I dread to think how many civil service hours were wasted on its drafting. Other than the possible—I stress “possible”—increase of up to 25% in any successful employment tribunal claim following an incident of fire and rehire, the 3,819 words in this document can be distilled to nine: “Please don’t fire and rehire…unless you have to.”
Further to the point that the Labour spokesperson made, paragraph 12 states:
“A failure to follow the Code does not, in itself, make a person or organisation liable to proceedings.”
All it does is potentially beef up the amount awarded to an employee when a tribunal finds that their employer acted outwith the law. That is no comfort whatever to someone who has just been brutally sacked, paid off and forced to claim the pittance of jobseeker’s allowance that the Government like to pretend is enough to live on.
According to the latest figures, it takes nearly a year from the employment tribunal receiving a claim to the first hearing. The 25% premium that breaching the code of practice might add to an award will be welcomed by a successful claimant, of course, but they will have had to wait longer than a year to get it. They will have been forced into alternative employment in the meantime, if they are lucky. It is toothless and a missed opportunity, to say the very least.
As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston noted, paragraph 15 states:
“Where this Code states that a party ‘must’ or must not do something, this indicates that that party is subject to a legal requirement. Where this Code states that a party ‘should’ or should not do something, this indicates a recommendation”.
Other than in paragraph 15 itself, the word “must” is used 10 times in the code, of which nine uses reflect existing legal obligations; the only use of the word “must” in relation to the code itself is in the provision stating that tribunals must take the code into account in relevant proceedings. On the other hand, “should” is used another 38 times.
The truth is that the code is little more than a wish list—a tick-box exercise so that it can be said that something has been done about fire and rehire. Moreover, as has been alluded to, a code of practice will have little effect on the likes of P&O Ferries. It, and future employers, will simply factor in the 25% increase in employment tribunal awards into the costs of doing business.
I was at the joint meeting of the Select Committees on Transport and on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy when we had the chief executive of P&O Ferries, Peter Hebblethwaite, in front of us. Many will remember his contemptible attitude to the law as it stood: he happily admitted that his company willingly and knowingly broke the law when it sacked 800 workers with no notice and no consultation. At the same time that P&O Ferries was evicting staff from ships and shoving their belongings into binbags on the quayside, its parent company DP World was forking over tens of millions to sponsor golf tournaments and was shoving $378 million into the pockets of shareholders, so the Minister will forgive me for being sceptical about the idea that a slightly beefed-up code of practice will make the next Peter Hebblethwaite think twice before dumping hundreds more workers in the skip to save the company a few bob.
When British Airways’ parent company, International Airlines Group, pulled the trigger on a fire and rehire action aimed at tens of thousands of staff in 2020, it could only do so in the UK. In Ireland and Spain, it was precluded from taking similar action because those countries have employee protections that stop employers treating their staff like chattels.
I welcome any action or progress that improves the lot of workers, particularly given the removal of so many of their bargaining rights over the past four and a half decades and the attempted defenestration of trades unions in this country—policies that have undoubtedly contributed to the UK falling further and further behind our European neighbours economically and socially—but the Government’s draft proposals are basically a sop to those of us across the House who have highlighted the egregious practices of fire and rehire and pushed for real action. This is not real action; it is a press release that will do nothing to stop the perpetrators carrying on as before.
Many of the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that this draft code hangs on to provide for criminal offences where the Act is breached. Perhaps it is time to bring the actions of the likes of P&O Ferries and the issue detailed in the draft code under those kinds of auspices. After all, it seems only fair that employers should be subject to the same potential consequences as employees. Mr Hebblethwaite’s attitude a couple of years back may have been somewhat less arrogant and cocky if he knew that his actions would result in him facing some time at His Majesty’s pleasure in Belmarsh.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has a private Member’s Bill that would ban fire and rehire—that is the position that he has adopted, and I respect it—but with P&O it was not fire and rehire; it was simply fire. What further measures is he suggesting that the Scottish Government or UK Government put in place to stop that happening in the future? P&O already broke the law. Is he proposing criminal sanctions connected to employment law?
Gavin Newlands
Of course I would suggest criminal sanctions to end such practices. The Minister is right to say that P&O did not use fire and rehire in the strictest sense, but there were elements relating to fire and rehire. In a sense, it was fire and replace. Those staff members were replaced by cheaper foreign workers. That is the truth: the jobs were not redundant. If I were to bring forward another law, I would ensure fire and replace were also made illegal in circumstances such as those at P&O. As it happens, fire and replace is not new; it was actually proposed back in 2002 by one Tony Blair during the firefighters’ pay dispute.
We have a real problem around employment rights in the UK. The balance has been tipped over the last four and a half decades far too far towards employers and away from ordinary women and men who need the protection of the law against what is thankfully the minority of unscrupulous employers. Forty-five years of continual assault on workers’ rights has left millions essentially at the mercy of bad bosses, or subject to the gig economy and classed as “contractors” by multinational corporations desperate to avoid taking any responsibility for them and their or anyone else’s welfare.
Those lost decades need to be reversed. Sooner or later, the UK parties have to realise that workers’ rights are a fundamental part of building a stronger economy. It is no coincidence that virtually every country in Europe has stronger workers’ rights and better protections for their workers, and also enjoys higher living standards and a more robust, more diverse economy and social infrastructure.
Unfortunately, I do not hold out much hope for an improvement after the next general election. I know that there are many, many good people in the Labour party—including in this room—but the Leader of the Opposition has shown little interest in workers’ rights. I am still waiting for a response to my letter asking for his support of my Bill to ban fire and rehire, and the slew of shadow Ministers proclaiming their admiration for Margaret Thatcher do not inspire much confidence that they will roll back her and her descendants’ attacks on workers’ rights.
Gavin Newlands
Of course. I thought the hon. Gentleman might want to intervene.
The Chair
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman takes the intervention, let me say that we are here to debate the draft code, rather than what may or may not happen after the general election or what happened 45 years ago.
Justin Madders
I understand what you say, Sir Graham, but I cannot let those comments go without a response. I just want to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the leader of the Labour party has promised that legislation on employment law will be introduced within 100 days of a Labour Government taking power. If his party is so keen on employment law, why did less than half of his colleagues vote for the private Member’s Bill to devolve employment law to Scotland?
Gavin Newlands
I thank the shadow Minister for that intervention, which did not surprise me. Nor did your point, Sir Graham—God forbid a lot of the politics enters the fray. It is a bit rich for the Labour party to talk about devolving employment rights when, as members of the Smith Commission, it was the Labour party that vetoed the devolution of employment law to Scotland. It would be devolved to Scotland if it were not for the Labour party, so it is unbelievable that that would be cast up in this way.
I say this in all sincerity: I genuinely hope that I am wrong about the lack of enthusiasm from Labour and the Leader of the Opposition for radical change of the status quo if they come to power. But I do know that I am right about the lack of ambition shown by the current Government and this code. Support is far too strong a word, as perhaps the Committee can gather from my remarks, but we will not oppose the code on the basis that it is slightly better than nothing. It would be nice to come to one of these Committees one day and be pleasantly surprised by the Government’s ambition, rather than despairing over their lack of it.
I was going to conclude with questions for the Minister, but the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, asked all my questions and more. For the benefit of Committee members I will not repeat them, but I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for their contributions. I will start with P&O because that has dominated most of the debate, despite the fact that it was not a case of fire and rehire. It was a disgraceful case and it broke the law. I am interested to understand what Members are proposing when we already have a law against this. The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, said that he would criminalise employment law. His proposal to criminalise some of this stuff might send a shiver up the spine of many employers in this country.
P&O Ferries broke the law, dismissing its workers without warning, which is completely inappropriate, and brought in agency staff to replace them. We have taken action in response, including legislating through the Seafarers Wages Act 2023, and there is an ongoing live investigation by the Insolvency Service into P&O’s conduct.
Gavin Newlands
The Minister talks about criminalising employment law or being aghast at the potential for criminalising employment law. I think there are certainly aspects that perhaps should be. How would he describe a business leader who knowingly and willingly broke the law to sack 800 workers and said he would do so again? Does the Minister not think that that person should face a criminal sanction?
Kevin Hollinrake
What that business leader did was disgraceful. We impose criminal sanctions on employers very cautiously because we want people to invest in our economy. That is hugely important. We make changes in employment law at our peril. It needs to be balanced between the needs of employers and employees.
Kevin Hollinrake
Perhaps the shadow Minister will answer this question as part of his intervention. In The Telegraph, Archie Norman, one of the foremost business people in this country, who has done tremendous work in making sure that people have good employment opportunities, described Labour’s potential package in the area of employment law and the changes the party intends to make. He said that the changes would reduce flexibility, make it more costly to hire people, deter people from entering the workplace and deter investment. Perhaps the shadow Minister will address Archie Norman’s criticisms when he intervenes.
Justin Madders
I could, but I fear that Sir Graham might say I am out of order. It comes as no surprise that a former Conservative MP would want to prevent the extension and strengthening of workers’ rights. The Minister said that there is no room for criminal law, but is it not the case that his Government referred the matter of P&O Ferries to the Insolvency Service for potential criminal proceedings?
Kevin Hollinrake
Yes, corporate criminal proceedings, not individual criminal proceedings. I think that what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North refers to is individual criminal sanctions, which would be disproportionate. If the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston thinks that a Conservative politician is only on the side of the employer, I do not think he has met Archie Norman. Perhaps he might benefit from a meeting with him. He is a very considerate employer who understands the need to treat employees right as well as make sure the framework is right for business in this country.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked why the 25% uplift would prove a sufficient deterrent. Clearly, it is a deterrent, because it is more than an employer would have to pay if they go through the simple process of consulting their workforce. I might describe it as bleeding obvious. The actual impact remains to be seen, but we certainly think it is a significant deterrent. The hon. Gentleman asked whether it will be implemented before, within or after the summer recess; we are intending to do so before the summer recess.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston also asked about these provisions applying only to employees with two years’ service. He is right to say that generally, unfair dismissal rights are around only after the first two years, unless there is something like discrimination, for example. I know the Opposition are seeking to change this in their proposals, which we think is disproportionate and wrong. In a collective situation, however, there are circumstances where people who have been in the workplace for less than two years are covered.
On the point about “should” and “must”, we are dealing here with provisions that will be heard before a court. A court can make the judgment, of course, on whether somebody has done the right thing. I think “should” is the right kind of phrase to use in that situation, because a judgment is made and the tribunal can award up to 25% on top of the normal financial requirements if an employer unreasonably fails to comply with the code. That joins the circle, in terms of making sure that this code is effective when people go before a tribunal.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the ILO. We are carefully considering the committee on freedom of association’s recommendations, and will provide information to the ILO in due course.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about some of the changes and said that they have been watered down, but that is not the case at all. We did make changes following consultation, and did some reordering to make it more straightforward, which was based on feedback we received. We also made changes suggested by trade unions, including saying that employers have to speak to ACAS before raising fire and rehire, and adding the award to claims that can attract 25% uplift for non-compliance.
Justin Madders
In the Government response to the consultation, there are some lovely pie charts showing the responses.
Justin Madders
I am glad the Minister has been looking at the artwork. A large proportion of responses —sometimes as high as 40%—to the question, “Do you agree?” are categorised as “unspecified”. Is the Minister able to explain what that covers?
Kevin Hollinrake
Not off the top of my head, but I am happy to confirm it via separate means.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the code should be more detailed in specifying exactly how a consultation might take place. We think that would be the wrong approach, and that the employer is the right person to determine that, in terms of how he or she consults members of their team. We did not want to get a very lengthy code that would naturally result in being too specific about exactly how that consultation should take place. I think I have covered all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman; he can intervene on me if I have missed anything.
Justin Madders
I have just one small point. The code of practice referred to compensation being reduced by 25% for employees not compliant with the code. Is the Minister able to confirm whether it is the intention for that to apply in this case?
Kevin Hollinrake
I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman’s question. Perhaps we can have a discussion about that afterwards.
To conclude, we are taking robust and appropriate action in this area. We believe that a statutory code of practice is a proportionate response to dealing with controversial fire and rehire practices. The code will address the practice of fire and rehire, 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. Employment tribunals will have the power to apply an uplift of up to 25% of an employee’s compensation if an employer unreasonably fails to comply with the code where it applies. Subject to approval by this House, the code will be in force later this summer, prior to recess, and I hope Members will support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-Engagement.
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Disapplication or Modification of Financial Regulator Rules in Individual Cases) Regulations 2024
(7 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Disapplication or Modification of Financial Regulator Rules in Individual Cases) Regulations 2024.
The regulations form part of the Government’s programme to deliver a smarter regulatory framework for financial services, using an approach to regulation that is tailored to the needs of the United Kingdom. Under this programme, the Government are delivering a regulatory framework that is logical, consistent and conducive to economic growth—rather like the Government as a whole—while preserving the robust regulatory standards that are the cornerstone of the attractiveness of UK markets.
The ability of a regulator to flex the application of its rules for individual firms is a useful regulatory tool that can enable a regulator to take into account a firm’s specific circumstances to ensure that rules are applied in ways that achieve the best regulatory outcome. That flexibility is not new; it has long been a feature of the UK’s regulatory regime and is supported by our regulators and the financial services industry as a whole.
Since it was introduced over 20 years ago, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, known as FSMA, has included such a tool. However, as part of our work to adapt our regulatory regime for the UK’s new position outside the European Union, the existing tool for flexing the application of rules was reviewed, and it was concluded that, while useful, it was not as effective as it could be.
The existing tool is provided by section 138A of FSMA, which provides that the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority can disapply or modify a rule made under FSMA if a firm has requested it or if the regulator has the consent of the firm. However, section 138A contains a test that must be met before a regulator can do that. The regulator must be satisfied that the rules in question
“would be unduly burdensome or would not achieve the purpose for which the rules were made”.
That requirement in section 138A does not always allow for rules to be flexed, even where appropriate disapplication or modification of such rules would provide a better regulatory outcome.
The Government addressed that issue by introducing a new tool for regulators to flex their rules in a wider range of circumstances, which was legislated for through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 and is now set out in section 138BA of FSMA. Under section 138BA, the Treasury may specify regulatory rules that the relevant regulator can then permit a firm to disapply or indeed modify in some way. Section 138BA retains the approach by which a regulator can permit a firm to disapply or modify rules only if the firm requests it or the firm consents.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
On a point of clarity, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on financial technology, and I am conscious that many firms have been very firmly nudged to request the removal of licences, particularly around payments and onboarding of new customers. Just to be clear, are these regulations needed retrospectively to cover a lot of those voluntary submissions of licences, or is this purely a tidying-up exercise for the future?
Bim Afolami
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I will respond to him in two ways. First, this is typically about looking prospectively forward, so it is not envisaged that this power will be used retrospectively. However, I will write to him if the position is in any way more nuanced than I have just described. Secondly—I was going to come to this point later in my speech, but I may as well answer it now—it is very important that firms have appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms. Those are set out to make sure that no firm, under any circumstances, will be forced—or nudged—to do anything that it does not think is in its interest.
The regulations do two key things. First, they enable the PRA to permit a firm to disapply or modify any PRA rule. After careful consideration, the Government have concluded that the PRA should have the ability to permit a firm to disapply or modify any rule under section 138BA. That is because flexibility in the application of these rules is particularly important for banks, large investment firms and insurers that are regulated by the PRA. These complex institutions, with highly specialised business models, often require a highly tailored approach to ensure that they are appropriately regulated.
Secondly, the regulations apply certain procedural safeguards to PRA decisions under section 138BA, and this may address my hon. Friend’s point to some extent. When the PRA refuses a firm’s application or imposes conditions on a firm’s permission to disapply or modify rules, the PRA must issue a notice explaining its decision. When a permission to disapply or modify rules is given, the decision notice that the PRA publishes must be clear so that it is public knowledge that a particular firm is subject to tailored regulatory requirements. If an affected firm is aggrieved or somehow disagrees with a PRA decision, the firm may appeal by referring the decision to the upper tribunal, which is part of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service responsible for hearing appeals against decisions made by various public sector bodies, including the PRA.
In closing, these regulations make use of an important regulatory tool approved by Parliament in FSMA 2023. They provide the PRA with the flexibility needed to ensure that the application of prudential rules to banks, investment firms and insurers can be flexed only where appropriate to ensure that regulation of these large and complex firms is effective. They also ensure that the PRA is appropriately accountable and transparent. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations, and I commend them to the House.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. The Opposition are supportive of the proposed changes, which would enact section 138BA to enable the PRA to more easily adapt, disapply or modify its rules for individual firms.
The greater flexibility the Minister outlined is welcome, but could a similar approach be used to clear the logjam of mid-tier banks wanting to use the internal ratings-based approach? The PRA has helpfully provided some flexibility in relation to IRB model approvals, which could narrow the capital requirements gap between mid-tier and large banks, therefore improving competition in UK banking markets. However, as the Minister may have seen in the Financial Times last August, UK challenger banks have faced multi-year delays to regulatory approvals, which has undermined the potential boost to competition in the market. Has the Treasury given any thought to whether section 138BA could be used to speed up the IRB model approval process for mid-tier banks currently on the standardised approach? I believe—and the Minister may agree—that that could dramatically improve competition in the banking market.
Bim Afolami
I thank the hon. Lady for her points. In essence, the regulations give the PRA much more flexibility around the entire rulebook to apply to any specific firm. If the question is whether they will give the PRA the ability to change rules in relation to a particular subset of firms, the answer, of course, is yes. However, if the question—she also mentioned this in her remarks—is whether they will somehow speed up or change the pace at which the rules will be made or applied, that is not what they are meant for. So, yes, the regulations will give much more flexibility—and it is a policy question as to whether that is desirable in any particular circumstance—but they do not necessarily increase or decrease the speed at which such rules change.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the Minister for that answer, and I understand what he is trying to say, but I would like to push this point. If we could speed up the IRB model approvals process for mid-tier banks currently on the standardised approach, that would help our country and the banking market generally, and both sides of the House obviously want to boost competition. I understand that that is not what this particular legislation will do, but have the Minister or the Treasury given any thought to the issue? In the long run, such a change would benefit the financial services sector.
Bim Afolami
In terms of where I agree with the hon. Lady, I did not just read about this in the Financial Times last year; I have met mid-tier banks, and I understand their challenges. Their concerns are valid, and we need to do everything we can to support that part of the sector. The regulations allow the banks to apply to the FCA in the way that the hon. Lady outlines. That is something that, if appropriate, I would be very happy to support. Yes, it is important that we have competition, but it is also important that we enable every type of business and every type of individual to be appropriately served by our financial services industry, and more firms offering more services in a way that is prudentially safe is positive to that.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Food Insecurity
Household Support Fund beyond April 2024
Protection of Breakwater Beach in Brixham
Immigration health surcharge
Sale of arms to Israel
Traffic congestion and road safety in Rother Valley
Rent and Service Charge increases in Lewisham East
Written Corrections
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Corrections
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hoare
There is a very long list of qualifying documentation for voter ID, and 99% of all voters have at least one form of acceptable ID, and many have more. There is also the voter authority certificate, which is free and lasts for three years. That meets the needs of the 1% of the population who do not have an acceptable form of ID.
[Official Report, 20 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 339WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare):
Simon Hoare
There is a very long list of qualifying documentation for voter ID, and at least 96% of all electors have at least one form of acceptable ID, and many have more. There is also the Voter Authority Certificate, which is free and which does not expire. That meets the needs of the small proportion of the population who do not have an acceptable form of ID.
Building Safety
The following extract is from the statement on Building Safety on 26 March 2024.
Lee Rowley
Yet already, almost 60,000 homeowners have peace of mind that remediation is complete, and a further 300,000 dwellings are well on the way to the same.
[Official Report, 26 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 1415.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley):
Lee Rowley
Yet already, almost 60,000 homeowners have peace of mind that remediation is complete, and a further 180,000 dwellings are well on the way to the same.
Written Statements
AUKUS
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
Two and a half years ago, the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia launched the groundbreaking new strategic defence and security partnership, AUKUS.
As we have seen through recent events, the world has become more dangerous. Against an increasingly contested and volatile landscape, defence partnerships like AUKUS have become critically important in ensuring the UK and our allies maintain a strategic advantage.
For over a century, AUKUS nations have stood shoulder to shoulder, along with other allies and partners, to help sustain peace, stability, and prosperity around the world.
On 8 April, along with my Australian and United States counterparts, I announced that AUKUS nations, having made sufficient progress trilaterally, are now ready to begin consultations with additional countries regarding areas where they can contribute to, and benefit from, this historic work under pillar 2: advanced capabilities. Our work on conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines under pillar 1 will remain trilateral.
Partners have always been clear on the intent to engage additional nations in pillar 2 projects as the work progresses. In identifying collaboration opportunities, we will consider factors such as technological innovation, financing, industrial strengths, ability to adequately protect sensitive data and information, and impact on promoting peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. Furthermore, the potential collaborations will complement and build on the close bilateral relationships that all three AUKUS nations have with other countries.
Therefore, Australia, the UK and US are considering the potential for involving Japan in some elements of the pillar 2 programme. Pillar 2 includes quantum technologies, undersea capabilities, artificial intelligence—AI—and autonomy, cyber, hypersonic and counter-hypersonic capabilities, and electronic warfare capabilities, supported by innovation and information sharing.
The UK, Australia, and the United States are committed to continued openness and transparency on AUKUS. This is another significant leap for the partnership, and I look forward to keeping the House updated on progress.
A copy of the full Defence Ministers’ statement has been placed in the Library of the House.
Attachment
The attached AUKUS Policy Paper can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2024-04-15/HCWS404/
[HCWS404]
Sunnica Energy Farm Development Consent Application
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)
This statement concerns an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by Sunnica Energy Farm for the construction and operation of a solar photovoltaic electricity generating station, situated across west Suffolk and east Cambridgeshire.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Act to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it.
The current statutory deadline for the decision on the Sunnica Energy Farm application is 11 April 2024.
I have decided to set a new deadline of no later than 20 June 2024 for deciding this application.
The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS398]
Hong Kong Six-monthly Report
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, has today made the following statement:
The latest six-monthly report on the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong was published today. It covers the period from 1 July-31 December 2023. The report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. A copy is also available on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office website.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/six-monthly-reports-on-hong-kong.
I commend the report to the House.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2024-04-15/HCWS400/
[HCWS400]
Sudan Conflict Sanctions
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
On 15 April 2024, in response to the ongoing conflict in Sudan, the UK announced a package of three sanctions designations under the Sudan (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. We are freezing the assets of three commercial entities linked to the parties responsible for the conflict, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), headed by Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), headed by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti). On 15 April 2023, the SAF and RSF dragged Sudan into a brutal and unnecessary conflict. One year on, the human cost has been terrible. We continue to see appalling atrocities against civilians, a serious lack of humanitarian access and an utter disregard for civilian life. Those responsible for human rights abuses and violations must be held to account.
UK sanctions on entities used by the SAF and RSF to finance their war effort are designed with a specific purpose—to press the parties to engage in sustained and meaningful efforts to achieve peace, to allow humanitarian access and assistance, and to end atrocities. It is crucial that the international community works to isolate SAF and RSF sources of funding.
Both the SAF and the RSF own and control vast commercial empires which provide them with economic resources and weapons that enable them to keep fighting. On 12 July 2023, we imposed asset freezes on six commercial entities. This comprised three commercial entitles operating under the authority of the SAF and three operating under the authority of the RSF.
Working with partners including the US, who designated two of the same entities on 31 January, these new UK sanctions will amplify the strong message of international condemnation sent to both parties to the conflict. The UK will continue to examine other levers to disrupt and constrain the sources of funding that SAF and RSF are using to fuel and sustain the war.
We are committed to ensuring that our sanctions do not have unintended consequences. The Sudan regulations include a humanitarian exception that exempts from asset freeze prohibitions all activities necessary for the timely delivery of humanitarian assistance and other activities that support basic human needs, when these activities are carried out by certain eligible organisations as laid out in UK legislation[1].
On 28 March, the UK announced a near doubling of aid to Sudan to address the deepening humanitarian crisis. This vital support will provide emergency and life-saving food assistance to support people particularly in hard-to reach areas in Sudan, including nutrition, water and hygiene services for 500,000 children under five.
The full list of designations is as follows:
Alkhaleej Bank, a central financial institution which has been central to the RSF financing its operations and to control key elements of the Sudanese economy.
Al-Fakher Advanced Works, a holding company used by the RSF to export gold. The proceeds of these sales are used to purchase weapons to allow the RSF to continue fighting.
Red Rock Mining, a mining and exploration company which is a subsidiary of Sudan Master Technology, who the UK has already designated and provides funds to the SAF. It is also closely linked to Defence Industries System, the economic and manufacturing arm of the SAF, which we designated last July.
Those companies designated on 12 July 2023 comprised three SAF-linked companies and three RSF: Defence Industries Systems, Sudan Master Technology, Zadna International Company for Investment Limited, Al-Junaid, GSK Advance Company, and Tradive General Trading.
[1] The Sanctions (Humanitarian Exception) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (legislation.gov.uk)
[HCWS399]
Cass Review
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Victoria Atkins)
Please refer to the oral statement I have made today on this subject.
[HCWS406]
NHS Prescriptions, Wigs and Fabric Supports: Charges Uplift
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
The National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (the Amendment Regulations) have been laid before Parliament to increase certain National Health Service charges in England from 1 May 2024. 2023-24 2024-5 from 1 May change in £ Single prescription charge £9.65 £9.90 £0.25 PPC 3 month £31.25 £32.05 £0.80 PPC 12 month £111.60 £114.50 £2.90 HRT PPC £19.30 £19.80 £0.50 Surgical bra £31.70 £32.50 £0.80 Abdominal or spinal support £47.80 £49.05 £1.25 Stock acrylic wig £78.15 £80.15 £2.00 Partial human hair wig £207.00 £212.35 £5.35 Full bespoke human hair wig £302.70 £310.55 £7.85
We have applied an increase of 2.59%, rounded to the nearest 5p, across the single prescription charge, three-month and 12-month prescription pre-payment certificates (PPCs) and the HRT PPC. This year we have increased the prescription charge by 25p from £9.65 to £9.90 for each medicine or appliance dispensed. The HRT PPC will cost £19.80, an increase of 50p due to its rate being set at twice the single prescription charge; and the three- month PPC and 12-month PPC will cost £32.05 and £114.50 respectively.
Charges for wigs and fabric supports will also be increased by the same rate. Details of the revised charges from 1 May 2024 can be found in the table below:
[HCWS397]
Death Certification Reform: Introduction of Medical Examiners
(7 months, 1 week 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)
I wish to inform the House that the Government will today lay before Parliament regulations which will reform death certification in England and Wales. Under these reforms all deaths will legally become subject to either a medical examiner’s scrutiny or a coroner’s investigation. The changes coming into force on 9 September 2024 will put all the medical examiner system’s obligations, duties and responsibilities on a statutory footing, and ensure they are recognised by law.
The changes will provide greater transparency on the circumstances surrounding a death. Medical examiners will always offer a conversation to the bereaved, providing an opportunity for them to raise questions or concerns with a senior doctor not involved in the care of the deceased. This will help deter criminal activity, improve practice and ensure the right deaths are referred to coroners for further investigation.
The introduction of medical examiners is part of a broader set of reforms to death certification, coronial and registration processes which will allow for the efficient flow of information between medical practitioners, medical examiners, coroners and registrars in the new system.
This is the most significant set of reforms to death certification in 70 years and we have allowed additional time to prepare for implementation. We are working closely with our partners in government, local registration services, coronial services and the health service to ensure that the appropriate operational processes are in place to deliver these changes in September 2024. There will be further communication regarding legislative changes and operational guidance between now and September 2024.
[HCWS395]
Lampard Inquiry
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Victoria Atkins)
I am today updating Parliament that the terms of reference for the Lampard inquiry have been finalised and were published on 10 April on gov.uk under the heading “Lampard Inquiry: terms of reference”. A copy of a letter to the Chair of the Health and Social Care Select Committee and the terms of reference were also deposited in the Library of both Houses. Due to parliamentary recess, this statement is being made in Parliament today.
My deepest sympathies continue to go to all the families who have been affected by the tragic deaths of mental health patients across NHS trusts in Essex. Patients should feel confident, safe, and supported—especially when receiving help for their mental health, which can be a time of great vulnerability. This was not the case for many mental health inpatients in Essex between 2000 and 2023, where many patients ended up tragically and needlessly dying—leaving their bereaved families with questions that need answering. I wish to thank those families who met me while I considered the terms of reference.
The former non-statutory Essex mental health independent inquiry was converted to a statutory inquiry on 27 October 2023 and Baroness Kate Lampard was appointed as the chair of the inquiry.
The inquiry will examine:
Deaths of mental health inpatients within healthcare settings in Essex between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2023;
Those who died as inpatients receiving NHS-funded care within the independent sector, as well as those in NHS units; and
Inpatient deaths, including those who died within three months of discharge from a mental health inpatient unit.
The inquiry will look at the delivery of treatment and care, the culture and governance of NHS providers, and their interaction with other public bodies, including commissioners, coroners, professional regulators and the Care Quality Commission. Other areas which will also be considered in relation to mental health inpatient deaths include the independent sector; serious harm short of death events; and neurodiversity and learning disabilities.
The inquiry’s work will now be a matter for the chair, Baroness Lampard. The Department will continue to support the inquiry with the resources it needs to undertake its investigations.
Baroness Lampard has indicated that she does not currently intend to appoint a panel to support her in this work and I concur with this view. If necessary, the chair may appoint any assessor(s) to assist her if she considers that person has relevant expertise that would assist the inquiry.
The terms of reference will enable the inquiry to start its work in earnest and provide the answers that affected families have been seeking for so long. I am pleased that the inquiry now has a firm basis on which to proceed, and we will ensure lessons are learned and patient safety is improved. Baroness Lampard and her team will undertake the inquiry thoroughly and as swiftly as possible.
[HCWS403]
NHS Consultant Workforce
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Victoria Atkins)
I am pleased to confirm to the House that the Government will move to implement the offer made on 5 March to the NHS consultant workforce in England.
Following negotiations with the British Medical Association (BMA) and Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association (HCSA) committees in February, their members have now voted overwhelmingly in favour to accept the revised offer made to them by around 83%.
This result demonstrates that the Government have listened carefully to the concerns of consultants in England, particularly around retention, motivation and morale, and worked closely with the unions to achieve a good outcome for patients, consultants and the taxpayer.
The core contract for consultants has not been updated for 20 years and this deal reforms and modernises the consultants’ pay structure, and will help mitigate the gender pay gap in medicine and improve equalities. The deal builds on the headline pay uplift for 2023-24. Changes to the operation of the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration (DDRB) will also be made to address matters raised by the BMA and HCSA.
This deal now ends damaging strike action by consultants that has had a detrimental impact on patients and the NHS and will allow consultants to focus their efforts on cutting waiting times for patients. The overall waiting list has dropped by almost 200,000 in the last five months.
I am also committed to finding a reasonable solution with SAS and junior doctors that ends industrial action. The consultants’ deal is testament to what we can achieve when both parties approach negotiations in good faith and with reasonable expectations.
[HCWS401]
Fourth Update on New Decade, New Approach
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
During the passage of the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act in the House of Lords, the Government committed to updating the House on progress made on the commitments in New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) we have delivered on to date. The first of these statements was published on 23 March 2022 and this is the fourth statement.
In December 2023, the Government held intensive discussions with the political parties in an attempt to reach agreement on how the Executive can return on a stable financial footing. A comprehensive financial package worth a significant £3.3 billion was agreed. This funding sets Northern Ireland on a sustainable footing with a bright future ahead. Over £700 million of reprioritised and new UK funding streams were made available to the restored Executive for public services transformation which includes NDNA Transformation funding and uncommitted Unique Circumstances funding. This funding is available to the Executive to help transform public services to meet the needs of people across Northern Ireland.
On 31 January, the UK Government published a Command Paper (CP1021) setting out measures to strengthen the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s place in the Union. Following this, the Northern Ireland Assembly was recalled on 3 February, leading to restoration of fully functioning devolved government in Northern Ireland after a two-year absence.
The UK Government are pleased that devolution has been restored in Northern Ireland and strengthened by a deal that will:
Further protect Northern Ireland’s place in the UK;
Promote and strengthen the UK internal market;
Recognise the importance of the connections across the United Kingdom now and in the future; and
Help put public services on a sustainable footing.
In parallel, we have continued to implement the commitments we signed up to in NDNA. Since January 2020, the UK Government have:
Published four reports on the use of the Petition of Concern mechanism;
Passed the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act to implement the institutional reforms agreed in NDNA;
Passed the Internal Market Act 2020;
Held a meeting of the Board of Trade in Northern Ireland;
Held the Northern Ireland Investment Summit which was led by the Department for Business and Trade in partnership with the Northern Ireland Office and Invest Northern Ireland in September 2023;
Announced an £18.9 million investment in NI’s cyber security industry, supporting NI’s development as a global cyber security hub and the target of achieving 5,000 cyber security professionals working in Northern Ireland by 2030;
Renegotiated the Protocol and restored the free-flow of trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland through a new UK internal market system, ensuring that Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the UK internal market;
Ensured that Northern Ireland can access the trade deals the UK is striking across the world;
Invited representatives of the Northern Ireland Executive to all meetings of the UK-EU Joint and Specialised Committees;
Changed the rules governing how the people of Northern Ireland bring their family members to the UK, enabling them to apply for immigration status on broadly the same terms as family members of Irish citizens;
Appointed Danny Kinahan as the first Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner in September 2020;
Passed the Armed Forces Act which further enshrines the Armed Forces Covenant in law;
Conducted a thorough review of the Aftercare Service, the purpose of which was to consider whether the remit of the service should be widened to cover all HM Forces veterans living in Northern Ireland with service-related injuries and conditions;
Marked Northern Ireland’s Centenary in 2021 with a £3 million programme of cultural and historical events, including the delivery of the Shared History Fund and schools planting project;
Passed the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act to provide greater information, accountability, and acknowledgment to victims, survivors, and families, through a framework which will deliver effective legacy mechanisms while complying with our international obligations;
Appointed the right hon. Sir Declan Morgan KC as Chief Commissioner of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery following recommendations from the three Chief Justices across the UK;
Accepted the recommendation for Peter Sheridan to be appointed as Commissioner for Investigations of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery;
Brought forward regulations to ensure designated Union Flag flying days remain in line with those observed in the rest of the UK;
Recognised Ulster Scots as a National Minority under the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities;
Provided £2 million in funding for NI Screen’s Irish Language and Ulster Scots Broadcast funds, which support a range of film, television and radio programming;
Passed the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act which will encourage and promote respect and tolerance for all of Northern Ireland’s diverse identities, cultures, and traditions;
Established a new hub—Erskine House—in the heart of Belfast, increasing the visibility and accessibility of UK Government Departments in Northern Ireland;
Reviewed the findings of the Renewable Heat Incentive Inquiry Report to consider its implications for the use of public money in Northern Ireland; and
Continued to foster closer ties and better collaborative working across sectors such as tourism, sport and culture, including through the successful joint UK and Ireland bid to host the 2028 European Championships.
To date, the Government have spent approximately over £800 million towards such outcomes as:
Bringing an end to the nurses’ pay dispute in January 2020;
Securing additional funding for the Executive in the 2020-2021 financial year;
The creation of a new Northern Ireland Graduate School of Medicine in Londonderry; supporting the transformation of public services;
Supporting low-carbon transport in Northern Ireland, enabling the Department for Infrastructure to order 100 low-carbon buses which have been deployed in Belfast and Londonderry; and
Addressing Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances through projects and programmes that tackle paramilitarism, promote greater integration in education, support economic prosperity, and support linguistic diversity.
The Government are now working to deliver the financial package agreed with the parties entitled to form an Executive in December 2023, and the suite of commitments as set out in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper published in January 2024. To this end, the Government look forward to working together with the newly restored Executive to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.
[HCWS394]
Fishers' Medicals
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Davies of Gower, made the following ministerial statement on 27 March 2024.
The Secretary of State for Transport is today announcing an exemption for fishers from the requirement to hold medical certification for those individuals who currently work on fishing vessels of 10 metres and under in length. This new measure is a sensible and proportionate step that balances our obligation to protect the health of fishers with ensuring they can continue to earn a living in the industry in which some have worked for their entire adult lives. We are pleased to have worked with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on this as a further signal of our united commitment to support the UK’s vital fishing industry.
It is right to seek to ease the regulatory burden on fishers already working on smaller vessels given that they are the most likely to be self-employed or small businesses. An existing fisher is someone who was working on a UK-registered fishing vessel of 10 metres and under for four weeks or more during the period 30 November 2021 to 29 November 2023. The exemption will apply to fishing vessels registered in any part of the United Kingdom and will take immediate effect. The requirement for medical certification for fishers joining the industry in the future and for fishers on boats over 10 metres in length will continue to apply.
I will place copies of the Government’s response to the recent public consultation on this matter and the relevant Merchant Shipping Notice in the Library of the House. These are also available on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS396]
Universal Credit Administrative Earnings Threshold Level
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Employment (Jo Churchill)
Since September 2022, the Government have increased the administrative earnings threshold on 26 September 2022 and 30 January 2023.
As a result, individuals with low incomes impacted by the changes have received direct one-to-one support from Department of Work and Pensions work coaches to access opportunities and agree steps to increase their earnings such as developing their skills, progressing in their current role or sector, or by changing their job.
These changes have helped achieve a better balance of the responsibilities asked of individuals in return for their benefits. They have ensured that there is a clear expectation that individuals receiving universal credit alongside their income should be taking every appropriate step to increase their earnings, subject to full conditionality and with the support of their local Jobcentre Plus.
Moving into better work boosts both the economy and the individual, improving life prospects and mental and physical health, and providing the opportunity to develop new skills. This is why the Government intend to lay regulations to amend Regulation 99(6) of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 in the coming weeks to raise the administrative earnings threshold level further, delivering on a commitment made in last year’s Spring Budget.
Individuals impacted by the upcoming rise in the administrative earnings threshold level will be contacted by the DWP through their universal credit journal. Our work coaches will review and agree new claimant commitments with each individual, providing support and setting appropriate requirements to help them access opportunities to increase their earnings. They will help identify barriers such as childcare, transport and skills and will support the customer with solutions.
This is part of our next generation of welfare reforms and mission to ensure work always pays and is backed up by our Back to Work plan which will help over a million people find, stay and succeed in employment.
The Department for Communities in Northern Ireland is aware of the upcoming administrative earnings threshold increase in Great Britian. While social security policy is a transferred matter and policy decisions rest with the devolved Northern Ireland legislature, Northern Ireland generally maintains parity with DWP on social security matters.
We will confirm further details on the threshold increase in due course.
[HCWS405]
Fit Note Reform: Call for Evidence
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Victoria Atkins), we wish to inform the House of our intention to publish a Command Paper launching “Fit Note Reform: Call for Evidence”.
At autumn statement 2023, the Chancellor announced plans to begin to test how we can give people receiving a fit note for a prolonged period of time the support they need to stay in or get back to work.
As part of these plans, we intend to publish a call for evidence in the coming weeks which will seek views and ideas from healthcare professionals, employers, individuals, and other stakeholders on how they would like to see the fit note process change to better support people to start, stay and succeed in work.
This is an important part of Government’s ambition to tackle economic inactivity due to long term sickness, improve health outcomes, and help people get access to the support they need to return to, remain and thrive in work.
[HCWS402]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
Good afternoon, my Lords. As usual, I begin by reminding your Lordships that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Data Protection and Digital Information Bill
Monday 15th April 2024
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 2022-23 View all Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 30-IV(a) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (15 Apr 2024)
Lord Clement-Jones
“(a) the rule of law, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, relevant legislation, both general and sectoral, including concerning public security, defence, national security and criminal law and the access of public authorities to personal data, as well as the implementation of such legislation, data protection rules, professional rules and security measures, including rules for the onward transfer of personal data to another third country or international organisation which are complied with in that country or international organisation, case-law, as well as effective and enforceable data subject rights and effective administrative and judicial redress for the data subjects whose personal data are being transferred;(b) the existence and effective functioning of one or more independent supervisory authorities in the third country or to which an international organisation is subject, with responsibility for ensuring and enforcing compliance with the data protection rules, including adequate enforcement powers, for assisting and advising the data subjects in exercising their rights and for cooperation with the Commissioner; and(c) the international commitments the third country or international organisation concerned has entered into, or other obligations arising from legally binding conventions or instruments as well as from its participation in multilateral or regional systems, in particular in relation to the protection of personal data.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the list of things that the Secretary of State must consider when deciding whether a third country provides an adequate level of protection for data subjects.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Once more unto the breach, my Lords—as opposed to “my friends”.
I will also speak to Amendments 112 to 114, 116 and 130. New Article 45B(2) lists conditions that the Secretary of State must consider when deciding whether a third country provides an adequate level of protection for data subjects. It replaces the existing conditions in Article 45(2)(a) to (c) of the UK GDPR, removing important considerations such as the impact of a third country’s laws and practices in relation to national security, defence, public security, criminal law and public authority access to personal data on the level of protection provided to UK data subjects.
Despite this shorter list of conditions to consider, the Secretary of State is none the less required to be satisfied that a third country provides a level of protection that is not materially lower than the UK’s. It is plain that such an assessment cannot be made without considering the impact of these factors on the level of protection for UK data in a third country. It is therefore unclear why the amendment that the Government have made to Article 45 is necessary, beyond a desire for the Government to draw attention away from such contentious and complicated issues.
It may be that through rewriting Article 45 of the UK GDPR, the Government’s intention is that assimilated case law on international data transfers is no longer relevant. If that is the case, that would be a substantial risk for UK data adequacy. Importantly, new Article 45B(2) removes the reference to the need for an independent data protection regulator in the relevant jurisdiction. This, sadly, is consistent with the theme of diminishing the independence of the ICO, which is one of the major concerns in relation to the Bill, and it is also an area where the European Commission has expressed concern. The independence of the regulator is a key part of the EU data adequacy regime and is explicitly referenced in Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which guarantees the right to protection of personal data. Amendment 111 restores the original considerations that the Secretary of State must take into account.
Amendments 112 and 113 would remove the proposed powers in Schedules 5 and 6 of the Secretary of State to assess other countries’ suitability for international transfers of data, and place these on the new information commission instead. In the specific context of HIV—the provenance of these amendments is in the National AIDS Trust’s suggestions—it is unlikely that the Secretary of State or their departmental officials will have the specialist knowledge to assess whether there is a risk of harm to an individual by transferring data related to their HIV status to a third country. Given that the activities of government departments are political by their nature, the Secretary of State making these decisions related to the suitability of transfer to third countries may not be viewed as objective by individuals whose personal data is transferred. Many people living with HIV feel comfortable reporting breaches of data protection law in relation to their HIV status to the Information Commissioner’s Office due to its position as an independent regulator, so the National AIDS Trust and others recommend that the Bill places these regulatory powers on the new information commission created by the Bill instead, as this may inspire greater public confidence.
As regards Amendment 114, paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 should contain additional provisions to mandate annual review of the data protection test for each third country to which data is transferred internationally to ensure that the data protection regime in that third country is secure and that people’s personal data, such as their HIV status, will not be shared inappropriately. HIV is criminalised in many countries around the world, and the transfer to these countries of personal data such as an individual’s HIV status could put an individual living with HIV, their partner or their family members at real risk of harm. This is because HIV stigma is incredibly pronounced in many countries, which fosters a real risk of HIV-related violence. Amendment 114 would mandate this annual review.
As regards Amendment 116, new Article 47A(4) to (7) gives the Secretary of State a broad regulation-making power to designate new transfer mechanisms for personal data being sent to a third country in the absence of adequacy regulations. Controllers would be able to rely on these new mechanisms, alongside the existing mechanisms in Article 46 of the UK GDPR, to transfer data abroad. In order to designate new mechanisms, which could be based on mechanisms used in other jurisdictions, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that these are
“capable of securing that the data protection test set out in Article 46 is met”.
The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the transfer mechanism is capable of providing a level of protection for data subjects that is not materially lower than under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act. The Government have described this new regulation-making power as a way to future-proof the UK’s GDPR international transfers regime, but they have not been able to point to any transfer mechanisms in other countries that might be suitable to be recognised in UK law, and nor have they set out examples of how new transfer mechanisms might be created.
In addition to not having a clear rationale to take the power, it is not clear how the Secretary of State could be satisfied that a new mechanism is capable of providing the appropriate level of protection for data subjects. This test is meant to be a lower standard than the test for controllers seeking to rely on a transfer mechanism to transfer overseas, which requires them to consider that the mechanism provides the appropriate level of protection. It is not clear to us how the Secretary of State could be satisfied of a mechanism’s capability without having a clear sense of how it would be used by controllers in reality. That is the reason for Amendment 116.
As regards Amendment 130, Ministers have continued all the adequacy decisions that the EU had made in respect of third countries when the UK stopped being subject to EU treaties. The UK also conferred data adequacy on the EEA, but all this was done on a transitional basis. The Bill now seeks to continue those adequacy decisions, but no analysis appears to have been carried out as to whether these jurisdictions confer an adequate level of protection of personal data. This is not consistent with Section 17B(1) of the DPA 2018, which states that the Secretary of State must carry out a review of whether the relevant country that has been granted data adequacy continues to ensure an adequate level of protection, and that these reviews must be carried out at intervals of not more than four years.
In the EU, litigants have twice brought successful challenges against adequacy decisions. Those decisions were deemed unlawful and quashed by the European Court of Justice. It appears that this sort of challenge would not be possible in the UK because the adequacy decisions are being continued by the Bill and therefore through primary legislation. Any challenge to these adequacy decisions could result only in a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act; it could not be quashed by the UK courts. This is another example of how leaving the EU has diminished the rights of UK citizens compared with their EU counterparts.
As well as tabling those amendments, I support and have signed Amendment 115 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Kirkhope, and I look forward to hearing their arguments in relation to it. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I rise with some temerity. This is my first visit to this Committee to speak. I have popped in before and have been following it very carefully. The work going on here is enormously important.
I am speaking to Amendment 115, thanks to the indulgence of my noble friend Lord Bethell, who is the lead name on that amendment but has kindly suggested that I start the discussions. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his support. Amendment 115 has one clear objective and that is to prevent transfer of UK user data to jurisdictions where data rights cannot be enforced and there is no credible right of redress. The word “credible” is important in this amendment.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his letter of 11 April, which he sent to us to try to mop up a number of issues. In particular, in one paragraph he referred to the question of adequacy, which may also touch on what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has just said. The Secretary of State’s powers are also referred to, but I must ask: how, in a fast-moving or unique situation, can all the factors referred to in this long and comprehensive paragraph be considered?
The mechanisms of government and government departments must be thorough and in place to satisfactorily discharge what are, I think, somewhat grand intentions. I say that from a personal point of view, because I was one of those who drafted the European GDPR—another reason I am interested in discussing these matters today—and I was responsible for the adequacy decisions with third countries. The word “adequacy” matters very much in this group, in the same way that we were unable to use “adequacy” when we dealt with the United States and had to look at “equivalence”. Adequacy can work only if one is working to similar parameters. If one is constitutionally looking at different parameters, as is the case in the United States, then the word “equivalence” becomes much more relevant, because, although things cannot be quite the same in the way in which administration or regulation is carried out, if you have an equivalence situation, that can be acceptable and lead to an understanding of the adequacy which we are looking for in terms of others being involved.
I have a marvellous note here, which I am sure noble Lords have already talked about. It says that every day we generate 181 zettabytes of personal data. I am sure noble Lords are all aware of zettabytes, but I will clarify. One zettabyte is 1,000 exabytes—which perhaps makes it simpler to understand—or, if you like, 1 billion trillion bytes. One’s mind just has to get around this, but this is data on our movements, finances, health and families, from our cameras, phones, doorbells and, I am afraid, even from our refrigerators—though Lady Kirkhope refuses point blank to have any kind of detector on her fridge door that will tell anybody anything about us or what we eat. Increasingly, it is also data from our cars. Our every moment is recorded—information relating to everything from shopping preferences to personal fitness to our anxieties, even, as they are displayed or discussed. It is stored by companies that we entrust with that data and we have a right to expect that such sensitive and private data will be protected. Indeed, one of the core principles of data protection, as we all know, is accountability.
Article 79 of the UK GDPR and Section 167 of our Data Protection Act 2018 provide that UK users must have the right to effective judicial remedy in the event of a data protection breach. Article 79 says that
“each data subject shall have the right to an effective judicial remedy where he or she considers that his or her rights under this Regulation have been infringed as a result of the processing of his or her personal data in non-compliance with this Regulation”.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 115 in my name. I start by saying a huge thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, who have put everything so well and persuasively that I have almost nothing else to say in support. I am looking forward to the Minister throwing in the towel and accepting all the measures as suggested. Noble Lords have really landed it well.
I shall not go through the principle behind my amendment because, frankly, its benefit is so self-evident and clear that it does not need to be rehearsed in great detail. What I want to get across is the absolute and paramount urgency of the Government adopting this measure or a similar one. This is a terrific Bill; I thank the Minister for all the work that he and his team have done on it. I sat through Second Reading, although I did not speak on that day, when the Minister gave a persuasive account of the Bill; we are grateful for that.
However, this is a massive gap. It is a huge lacuna in the provisions of a Bill called a data protection Bill. It is a well-known gap in British legislation—and, by the way, in the legislation of lots of other countries. We could try to wait for an international settlement—some kind of Bretton Woods of data—where all the countries of the world put their heads together and try to hammer out an international agreement on data. That would be a wonderful thing but there is no prospect whatever of it in sight, so the time has come for countries to start looking at their own unilateral arrangements on the international transfer of data.
We have sought to duck this commitment by stringing together a Heath Robinson set of arrangements around transfer risk arrestments and bilateral agreements with countries. This has worked to some extent—at least to the extent that there is a booming industry around data. We should not diminish that achievement but there are massive gaps and huge liabilities in that arrangement, as my noble friend Lord Kirkhope rightly described, particularly now that we are living in a new, polarised world where countries of concern deliberately seek to harvest our data for their own security needs.
There are three reasons why this has become not just a chronic issue that could perhaps be kicked down the road a bit but an acute issue that should be dealt with immediately in the Bill’s provisions. The first, which my noble friend hinted at, is the massive flood of new data coming our way. I had the privilege of having a look at a BYD car. It was absolutely awesome and, by the way, phenomenally cheap; if the Chinese taxpayer is okay with subsidising our cars, I would highly recommend them to everyone here. One feature of the car is a camera on the dashboard that looks straight at the driver’s face, including their emotional resonance; for instance, if you look weary, it will prompt you to stop and have a coffee. That is a lovely feature but it is also mapping your face for hours and hours every year and, potentially, conveying that information to the algorithmic artificial intelligence run by the CCP in China—something that causes me huge personal concern. Lady Kirkhope may be worried about her fridge but I am very worried about my potential car. I embrace the huge global growth of data exchanges and technology’s benefits for citizens, taxpayers and voters, but this must be done in a well-curated field. The internet of things, which, as many noble Lords will know, was invented by Charlie Parsons, is another aspect of this.
Secondly, the kind of data being exchanged is becoming increasingly sensitive. I have mentioned the video in the BYD car; genomics data is another area of grave concern. I have an associate fellowship at King’s College London’s Department of War Studies, looking specifically at bioweapons and the transfer of genomic data. Some of this is on the horizon; it is not of immediate use from a strategic and national security point of view today but the idea that there could be, as in a James Bond film, some way of targeting individuals with poisons based on their genomic make-up is not beyond imagination.
The idea that you could create generalised bioweapons around genomics or seek to influence people based in part on insight derived from their genomic information is definitely on the horizon. We know that because China is doing some of this already; in the west of China, it is able to identify members of the Uighur tribes. In fact, China can say to someone, “We’re calling you up because we know that you’re the cousin of someone who is in prison today”, and this has happened. How does China know that? It has done it through the genomic tracking in its databases. China’s domestic use of data, through the social checking of genomic data and financial transactions, is a very clear precedent for the kinds of things that could be applied to the data that we are sharing with such countries.
Thirdly, there is the sensitivity of what uses the data is being put to. The geopolitics of the world are changing considerably. We now have what the Americans call countries of concern that are going out of their way to harvest and collect data on our populations. It is a stated element of their national mission to acquire data that could be used for national security purposes. These are today’s rivals but, potentially, tomorrow’s enemies.
For those three reasons, I very much urge the Minister to think about ways in which provisions on the international transfer of data could be added to the Bill. Other countries are certainly looking at the same; on 28 February this year, President Biden issued executive order 14117, which in many ways echoes the themes of our Amendment 115. It says clearly that there is an “unacceptable risk” to US national security from the large sharing of data across borders and asks the DoJ to publish a “countries of concern” list. That list has already been published and the countries on it are as the Committee would expect. It also seeks to define priority data. In other words, it is a proportionate, thoughtful and sensible set of measures to try to bring some kind of guard-rail to an industry where data transfer is clearly of grave concern to Americans. It looks particularly at genomic and financial transaction data but it has the capacity to be a little broader.
I urge the Minister to consider that this is now the time for unilateral action by the British Government. As my noble friend Lord Kirkhope said, if we do not do that, we may find ourselves being left behind by the EU, including the Irish, by the Americans and so on. There is an important spill-over effect from Britain acting sensibly that will do something to inspire and prod others into action. It is totally inappropriate to continue this pretence that British citizens are having their data suitably protected by the kind of commercial contracts that they are signing, which have no kind of redress or legal standing in the country of destination.
Lastly, the commercial point is very important. For those of us who seek to champion an open, global internet and a free flow of data while facilitating investment in that important trade, we must curate and care for it in a way that instils trust and responsibility, otherwise the whole thing will be blown up and people will start pulling wires out of the back of machines.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Bethell and Lord Kirkhope, for tabling these amendments and for enabling us to have a good debate on the robustness of the proposed international data rules, which are set out in Schedules 5 and 7. Incidentally, I do not share the enthusiasm expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for the rest of the Bill, but on this issue we are in agreement—and perhaps the other issues are for debate some other time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
I welcome the Committee back after what I hope was a good Easter break for everybody. I thank all those noble Lords who, as ever, have spoken so powerfully in this debate.
I turn to Amendments 111 to 116 and 130. I thank noble Lords for their proposed amendments relating both to Schedule 5, which reforms the UK’s general processing regime for transferring personal data internationally and consolidates the relevant provisions in Chapter 5 of the UK GDPR, and to Schedule 7, which introduces consequential and transitional provisions associated with the reforms.
Amendment 111 seeks to revert to the current list of factors under the UK GDPR that the Secretary of State must consider when making data bridges. With respect, this more detailed list is not necessary as the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the standard of protection in the other country, viewed as a whole, is not materially lower than the standard of protection in the UK. Our new list of key factors is non-exhaustive. The UK courts will continue to be entitled to have regard to CJEU judgments if they choose to do so; ultimately, it will be for them to decide how much regard to have to any CJEU judgment on a similar matter.
I completely understand the strength of noble Lords’ concerns about ensuring that our EU adequacy decisions are maintained. This is also a priority for the UK Government, as I and my fellow Ministers have repeatedly made clear in public and on the Floor of the House. The UK is firmly committed to maintaining high data protection standards, now and in future. Protecting the privacy of individuals will continue to be a national priority. We will continue to operate a high-quality regime that promotes growth and innovation and underpins the trustworthy use of data.
Our reforms are underpinned by this commitment. We believe they are compatible with maintaining our data adequacy decisions from the EU. We have maintained a positive, ongoing dialogue with the EU to make sure that our reforms are understood. We will continue to engage with the European Commission at official and ministerial levels with a view to ensuring that our respective arrangements for the free flow of personal data can remain in place, which is in the best interests of both the UK and the EU.
We understand that Amendments 112 to 114 relate to representations made by the National AIDS Trust concerning the level of protection for special category data such as health data. We agree that the protection of people’s HIV status is vital. It is right that this is subject to extra protection, as is the case for all health data and special category data. As I have said before this Committee previously, we have met the National AIDS Trust to discuss the best solutions to the problems it has raised. As such, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will agree not to press these amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Can the Minister just recap? He said that he met the trust then swiftly moved on without saying what solution he is proposing. Would he like to repeat that, or at least lift the veil slightly?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
The point I was making was only that we have met with it and will continue to do so in order to identify the best possible way to keep that critical data safe.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The Minister is not suggesting a solution at the moment. Is it in the “too difficult” box?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I doubt that it will be too difficult, but identifying and implementing the correct solution is the goal that we are pursuing, alongside our colleagues at the National AIDS Trust.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry to keep interrogating the Minister, but that is quite an admission. The Minister says that there is a real problem, which is under discussion with the National AIDS Trust. At the moment the Government are proposing a significant amendment to both the GDPR and the DPA, and in this Committee they are not able to say that they have any kind of solution to the problem that has been identified. That is quite something.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am not sure I accept that it is “quite something”, in the noble Lord’s words. As and when the appropriate solution emerges, we will bring it forward—no doubt between Committee and Report.
On Amendment 115, we share the noble Lords’ feelings on the importance of redress for data subjects. That is why the Secretary of State must already consider the arrangements for redress for data subjects when making a data bridge. There is already an obligation for the Secretary of State to consult the ICO on these regulations. Similarly, when considering whether the data protection test is met before making a transfer subject to appropriate safeguards using Article 46, the Government expect that data exporters will also give consideration to relevant enforceable data subject rights and effective legal remedies for data subjects.
Our rules mean that companies that transfer UK personal data must uphold the high data protection standards we expect in this country. Otherwise, they face action from the ICO, which has powers to conduct investigations, issue fines and compel companies to take corrective action if they fail to comply. We will continue to monitor and mitigate a wide range of data security risks, regardless of provenance. If there is evidence of threats to our data, we will not hesitate to take the necessary action to protect our national security.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we heard from the two noble Lords some concrete examples of where those data breaches are already occurring, and it does not appear to me that appropriate action has been taken. There seems to be a mismatch between what the Minister is saying about the processes and the day-to-day reality of what is happening now. That is our concern, and it is not clear how the Government are going to address it.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in a way the Minister is acknowledging that there is a watering down taking place, yet the Government seem fairly relaxed about seeing these issues. If something happens, the Government will do something or other, or the commissioner will. But the Government are proposing to water down Article 45, and that is the essence of what we are all talking about here. We are not satisfied with the current position, and watering down Article 45 will make it even worse; there will be more Yandexes.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The Minister mentioned prosecutions and legal redress in the UK from international data transfer breaches. Can he share some examples of that, maybe by letter? I am not aware of that being something with a long precedent.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
A number of important points were raised there. Yes, of course I will share—
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but the point I made—this now follows on from other remarks—was that these requirements have been in place for a long time, and we are seeing abuses. Therefore, I was hoping that my noble friend would be able to offer changes in the Bill that would put more emphasis on dealing with these breaches. Otherwise, as has been said, we look as though we are going backwards, not forwards.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
As I said, a number of important points were raised there. First, I would not categorise the changes to Article 45 as watering down—they are intended to better focus the work of the ICO. Secondly, the important points raised with respect to Amendment 115 are points primarily relating to enforcement, and I will write to noble Lords setting out examples of where that enforcement has happened. I stress that the ICO is, as noble Lords have mentioned, an independent regulator that conducts the enforcement of this itself. What was described—I cannot judge for sure—certainly sounded like completely illegal infringements on the data privacy of those subjects. I am happy to look further into that and to write to noble Lords.
Amendment 116 seeks to remove a power allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations recognising additional transfer mechanisms. This power is necessary for the Government to react quickly to global trends and to ensure that UK businesses trading internationally are not held back. Furthermore, before using this power, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the transfer mechanism is capable of meeting the new Article 46 data protection test. They are also required to consult with the Information Commissioner and such other persons felt appropriate. The affirmative resolution procedure will also ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
I reiterate that the UK Government’s assessment of the reforms in the Bill is that they are compatible with maintaining adequacy. We have been proactively engaging with the European Commission since the start of the Bill’s consultation process to ensure that it understands our reforms and that we have a positive, constructive relationship. Noble Lords will appreciate that it is important that officials have the ability to conduct candid discussions during the policy-making process. However, I would like to reassure noble Lords once again that the UK Government take the matter of retaining our adequacy decisions very seriously.
Finally, Amendment 130 pertains to EU exit transitional provisions in Schedule 21 to the Data Protection Act 2018, which provide that certain countries are currently deemed as adequate. These countries include the EU and EEA member states and those countries that the EU had found adequate at the time of the UK’s exit from the EU. Such countries are, and will continue to be, subject to ongoing monitoring. As is the case now, if the Secretary of State becomes aware of developments such as changes to legislation or specific practices that negatively impact data protection standards, the UK Government will engage with the relevant authorities and, where necessary, amend or revoke data bridge arrangements.
For these reasons, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, but I am still absolutely baffled as to why the Government are doing what they are doing on Article 45. The Minister has not given any particular rationale. He has given a bit of a rationale for resisting the amendments, many of which try to make sure that Article 45 is fully effective, that these international transfers are properly scrutinised and that we remain data adequate.
By the way, I thought the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, made a splendid entry into our debate, so I hope that he stays on for a number of further amendments—what a début.
The only point on which I disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said—was when he said that this is a terrific Bill. It is a terrifying Bill, not a terrific one, as we have debated. There are so many worrying aspects—for example, that there is no solution yet for sensitive special category data and the whole issue of these contractual clauses. The Government seem almost to be saying that it is up to the companies to assess all this and whether a country in which they are doing business is data adequate. That cannot be right. They seem to be abrogating their responsibility for no good reason. What is the motive? Is it because they are so enthusiastic about transfer of data to other countries for business purposes that they are ignoring the rights of data subjects?
The Minister resisted describing this as watering down. Why get rid of the list of considerations that the Secretary of State needs to have so that they are just in the mix as something that may or may not be taken into consideration? In the existing article they are specified. It is quite a long list and the Government have chopped it back. What is the motive for that? It looks like data subjects’ rights are being curtailed. We were baffled by previous elements that the Government have introduced into the Bill, but this is probably the most baffling of all because of the real importance of this—its national security implications and the existing examples, such as Yandex, that we heard about from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope.
Of course we understand that there are nuances and that there is a difference between adequacy and equivalence. We have to be pragmatic sometimes, but the question of whether these countries having data transferred to them are adequate must be based on principle. This seems to me a prime candidate for Report. I am sure we will come back to it, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw.
Viscount Camrose
“(1) Section 72 (overview and interpretation) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1)(b)—(a) for “the special conditions that apply” substitute “additional conditions that apply in certain cases”, and(b) after “organisation” insert “(see section 73(4)(b))”.Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting amendments of section 77 of the Data Protection Act 2018 into Schedule 6 to the Bill.
“(1A) Before subsection (1) insert—“(A1) This section applies in relation to a transfer of personal data to a third country or international organisation for a law enforcement purpose.””Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the amendment in my name to Schedule 6, page 213, line 22.
“(a) for the words before paragraph (a) substitute “The controller in relation to the transfer must secure that the transfer takes place only if—”,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the amendment in my name to Schedule 6, page 213, line 20, make changes to reflect the fact that the duty to comply with the general principles in section 73 of the Data Protection Act 2018 falls on the controller by or on whose behalf the transfer is made.
“(3A) In subsection (4)—(a) after paragraph (a) (but before the final “or”) insert—“(aa) the intended recipient is a person in a third country who—(i) is not a person described in paragraph (a), but(ii) is a processor whose processing, on behalf of the controller, of the personal data transferred is governed by, or authorised in accordance with, a contract with the controller that complies with section 59,”, and(b) in paragraph (b)(i), for “other than a relevant authority” substitute “who is not a person described in paragraph (a) or (aa)”.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a further means of satisfying Condition 3 in section 73 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (conditions for international transfers of personal data by competent authorities for law enforcement purposes). Condition 3 relates to the intended recipient of the personal data.
Viscount Camrose
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the controller’s duty to inform the Information Commissioner about international transfers of personal data made subject to appropriate safeguards does not apply where a transfer is made to a processor in reliance on paragraph (aa) of section 73(4) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (inserted by an amendment in my name).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the controller’s duty to document transfers that take place subject to appropriate safeguards does not apply where a transfer is made to a processor in reliance on paragraph (aa) of section 73(4) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (inserted by an amendment in my name).
“7A For the italic heading before section 77 substitute “Additional conditions”.7B (1) Section 77 (conditions for transfers of personal data to persons other than relevant authorities) is amended as follows.(2) For the heading substitute “Additional conditions for transfers in reliance on section 73(4)(b)”.(3) In subsection (6), for “other than a relevant authority” substitute “in reliance on section 73(4)(b)”.(4) In subsection (7)(a), for “other than a relevant authority” substitute “that takes place in reliance on section 73(4)(b)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments provide that section 77 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (conditions for certain transfers of personal data to overseas recipients other than relevant authorities) does not apply to transfers to overseas processors made in reliance on paragraph (aa) of section 73(4) of that Act (inserted by an amendment in my name).
“(1A) Before subsection (1) insert—“(A1) Subsections (1) to (6) apply where a transfer to which section 73 applies takes place other than in reliance on section 73(4)(aa).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that a condition described in subsections (1) to (6) of section 78 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (subsequent transfers) does not need to be imposed where a transfer is made to an overseas processor in reliance on paragraph (aa) of section 73(4) of that Act (inserted by an amendment in my name).
“(za) omit “Where personal data is transferred in accordance with section 73,”,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment of section 78(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (subsequent transfers) is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting subsection (A1) of that section.
“(9) At the end insert—“(7) Where a transfer takes place in reliance on section 73(4)(aa), the transferring controller must make it a condition of the transfer that the data is only to be further transferred to a third country or international organisation where—(a) the terms of any relevant contract entered into, or authorisation given, by the transferring controller in accordance with section 59 are complied with, and(b) the further transfer satisfies the requirements in section 73(1).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment describes a condition that must be imposed where a transfer is made to an overseas processor in reliance on paragraph (aa) of section 73(4) of that Act (inserted by an amendment in my name).
Viscount Camrose
“6A In Article 46(2)(d) (transfers subject to appropriate safeguards: standard data protection clauses), after “Commissioner” insert “for the purposes of this Article”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting amendments of section 119A of the Data Protection Act 2018 into Schedule 7 to the Bill.
“16A In section 75 (transfers on the basis of appropriate safeguards), after subsection (7) (inserted by Schedule 6 to this Act) insert—(8)For provision about standard data protection clauses which the Commissioner considers are capable of securing that the data protection test in this section is met, see section 119A.16B In section 78A (law enforcement processing: national security exemption) (inserted by section 28 of this Act), in subsection (2)(e), after sub-paragraph (i) insert—(ia)section 119A (standard clauses for transfers to third countries);.17 (1) Section 119A (power of Information Commissioner to specify standard clauses for transfers to third countries etc providing appropriate safeguards) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), for the words from “provide” to the end substitute “are capable of securing that the data protection test set out in Article 46 of the UK GDPR or section 75 of this Act (or both) is met in relation to transfers of personal data”.(3) In subsection (3), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) may make provision generally or in relation to types of transfer described in the document,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Information Commissioner to exercise the power under section 119A of the Data Protection Act 2018 (power to issue standard data protection clauses) to issue clauses for use in making transfers of personal data in reliance on section 75 of that Act (transfers subject to appropriate safeguards). It also makes consequential changes.
Viscount Camrose
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables transitional provision in paragraph 30 of Schedule 7 to the Bill to be relied on in connection with transfers of personal data described in paragraph (aa) of section 73(4) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (inserted by an amendment in my name).
Lord Bethell
“Access to data for vetted researchers(1) Upon a reasoned request from the Information Commissioner, a data controller or processor that meets the requirements in subsection (9) must, within a reasonable period, as specified in the request, provide access to data to vetted researchers who meet the requirements in subsection (7), for the sole purpose of conducting research that contributes to the detection, identification and understanding of systemic risks of non-compliance with United Kingdom law that is upheld by one or more of the regulatory bodies, the Information Commissioner, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the Office of Communications (Ofcom) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).(2) Within 15 days following receipt of a request as referred to in subsection (1), the data controller or processor may request the Information Commissioner amend the request, where they consider that they are unable to give access to the data requested because one of the following two reasons—(a) they do not have access to the data;(b) giving access to the data would lead to significant vulnerabilities in the security of their service or the protection of confidential information, in particular trade secrets.(3) Requests for amendment under subsection (2) must contain proposals for one or more alternative means through which access may be provided to the requested data or other data which are appropriate and sufficient for the purpose of the request.(4) The Information Commissioner must decide on the request for amendment within 15 days and communicate to the data controller or processor its decision and, where relevant, the amended request and the new period to comply with the request. (5) Where the research request relates to United Kingdom law that is upheld by a different regulator, the Information Commissioner will notify the relevant regulator.(6) The data controller or processor must facilitate and provide access to data pursuant to subsections (1) and (4) through appropriate interfaces specified in the request, including online databases or application programming interfaces.(7) Upon a duly substantiated application from researchers, the Information Commissioner will grant such researchers the status of “vetted researchers” for the specific research referred to in the application and issue a reasoned request for data access to the data controller or processor pursuant to subsection (4), where the researchers demonstrate that they meet all of the following conditions—(a) they are affiliated to a research organisation;(b) they are independent from commercial interests;(c) their application discloses the funding of the research;(d) the intended research has demonstrated public interest and benefit;(e) they are capable of fulfilling the specific data security and confidentiality requirements corresponding to each request and to protect personal data, and they describe in their request the appropriate technical and organisational measures that they have put in place to this end;(f) their application demonstrates that their access to the data and the time frames requested are necessary for, and proportionate to, the purposes of their research, and that the expected results of that research will contribute to the purposes laid down in subsection (1);(g) the planned research activities will be carried out for the purposes laid down in subsection (1);(h) they have committed themselves to making their research results publicly available free of charge, within reasonable period after the completion of the research.(8) Data controllers and processors must give access without undue delay to data, including, where technically possible, to real-time data, provided that the data is publicly accessible in their online interface by researchers, including those affiliated to not for profit bodies, organisations and associations, who comply with the conditions set out in subsection (7)(b), (c), (d) and (e), and who use the data solely for performing research to advance the purposes set out in subsection (1) above.(9) A data controller or processor falls within the scope of subsection (1) if it has over 1 million service users or customers in the United Kingdom, if there is a large concentration of children on the service or if the researchers provide compelling evidence that the service is high risk.(10) The Information Commissioner must publish the technical conditions under which a data controller or processor must share data pursuant to subsections (1) and (4), including the application of data protection by design and default, and the purposes for which the data may be used.(11) The technical conditions under subsection (10) include the specific conditions under which such sharing of data with researchers may take place, as well as relevant objective indicators, procedures and, where necessary, independent advisory mechanisms in support of sharing of data, taking into account the rights and interests of the providers of data controllers and processors and the data subjects who use the service, including the protection of confidential information, in particular trade secrets, and maintaining the security of their service.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment mirrors the research provisions in the European Commission’s Digital Services Act and ensures that UK-based academic researchers are not put at a disadvantage when it comes to researching matters of public interest regarding whether the largest online services - including services most used by children - are safe, private and comply with UK law.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the issue of access to data for researchers is very familiar to all those involved in debates on the Online Safety Bill, now an Act. The issue is relatively simple and I am not going to spell it out in great detail. I will leave it to others to give more concrete examples.
The issue is that in the tech industry, there is a vast amount of data about the effect of social media and the impact on consumers of the technologies, algorithms and content that are in circulation. But there is a blackout when it comes to academics, epidemiologists, journalists or even parliamentarians who are trying to have a dig around to understand what is happening. What is happening on extremism or child safety? What is happening with fraud or to our national security? What is the impact on children of hours and hours spent on YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat and all the other technologies that are now consuming billions of hours of our time?
In other walks of life, such as the finance and retail sectors, there are open platforms where regulators, researchers and even the public can have a peek at what is going on inside. This is not commercial access; instead, it is trying to understand the impact on society and individuals of these very important and influential technologies. That kind of transparency absolutely underpins trust in these systems. The data is essential to policy-making and the surveillance is key to security.
What I want to convey is a sense that there is a very straightforward solution to this. There is a precedent, already being rolled out in the EU, that creates a good framework. Amendment 135 has been thoroughly discussed with the department in previous debates on the Online Safety Bill, and I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for a number of meetings with parliamentarians and civil society groups to go through it. The idea of creating a data access pathway that has attached to it a clear validation system that secures the independence and privacy of researchers is relatively straightforward. Oversight by the ICO is something that we all agree gives it a sense of credibility and straightforwardness.
I want to try to convey to the Minister the importance of moving on this, because it has been discussed over several years. The regulator is certainly a supporter of the principle: Melanie Dawes, the CEO of Ofcom, gave testimony during the Joint Committee on the Online Safety Bill in which she said it was one of the things she felt was weak about that Bill. She would like to have seen it strengthened up. It was therefore disappointing that there was not a chance to do that then, but there is a chance to do it now.
During the passage of the Online Safety Act, the Minister also made commitments from the Dispatch Box about returning to this subject during the passage of this Bill, so it feels like a good moment to be discussing this. There are 40 impressive civic society groups that have written in clear terms about the need for this, so there is a wide body of opinion in support. One reason why it is so urgent that we get this measure in the Bill—and do not kick the can down the road—is that it is currently getting harder and harder for researchers, academics and scientists to look into the impact of the actions of our technology companies.
Twitter/X has withdrawn almost all access to the kind of data that makes this research possible. Facebook has announced that it will be stopping the support of CrowdTangle, the very important facility it had created, which had become a very useful tool. The feedback from the Meta live content library that is its theoretical replacement has not been very positive; it is a clunky and awkward tool to use. TikTok is a total black box and we have no idea what is going on in there; and the action by Elon Musk against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which he pursued in the courts over its analysis of data, gives a sense of the very aggressive tone from tech companies towards researchers who are trying to do what is widely considered to be very important work.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 135 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to which I have added my name. He set out our struggle during the passage of the Online Safety Bill, when we made several attempts to get something along these lines into the Bill. It is worth actually quoting the Minister, Paul Scully, who said at the Dispatch Box in the other place:
“we have made a commitment to explore this … further and report back to the House in due course on whether further measures to support researcher access to data are required and, if so, whether they could also be implemented through other legislation such as the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/9/23; col. 806.]
When the Minister responds, perhaps he could update the House on that commitment and explain why the Government decided not to address it in the Bill. Although the Bill proposes a lessening of the protections on the use of personal data for research done by commercial companies, including the development of products and marketing, it does nothing to enable public interest research.
I would like to add to the list that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, started, because as well as Melanie Dawes, the CEO of Ofcom, so too the United States National Academy of Sciences, the Lancet commission, the UN advisory body on AI, the US Surgeon General, the Broadband Commission and the Australian eSafety Commissioner have all in the last few months called for greater access to independent research.
I ask the noble Viscount to explain the Government’s thinking in detail, and I really do hope that we do not get more “wait and see”, because it does not meet the need. We have already passed online safety legislation that requires evidence, and by denying access to independent researchers, we have a perverse situation in which the regulator has to turn to the companies it is regulating for the evidence to create their codes, which, as the noble Viscount will appreciate, is a formula for the tech companies to control the flow of evidence and unduly temper the intent of the legislation. I wish to make most of my remarks on that subject.
In Ofcom’s consultation on its illegal harms code, the disparity between the harms identified and Ofcom’s proposed code caused deep concern. Volume 4 states the following at paragraph 14.12 in relation to content moderation:
“We are not proposing to recommend some measures which may be effective in reducing risks of harm. This is principally due to currently limited evidence”.
Further reading of volume 4 confirms that the lack of evidence is the given reason for failing to recommend measures across a number of harms. Ofcom has identified harms for which it does not require mitigation. This is not what Parliament intended and spectacularly fails to deliver on the promises made by Ministers. Ofcom can use its information-gathering powers to build evidence on the efficacy required to take a bolder approach to measures but, although that is welcome, it is unsatisfactory for many reasons.
First, given the interconnectedness between privacy, safety, security and competition, regulatory standards cannot be developed in silo. We have a thriving academic community that can work across different risks and identify solutions across different parts of the tech ecosystem.
Secondly, a regulatory framework in which standards are determined exclusively through private dialogue between the regulator and the regulated does not have the necessary transparency and accountability to win public trust.
Thirdly, regulators are overstretched and under-resourced. Our academics stand ready and willing to work in the public interest and in accordance with the highest ethical standards in order to scrutinise and understand the data held so very closely by tech companies, but they need a legal basis to demand access.
Fourthly, if we are to maintain our academic institutions in a post-Brexit world, we need to offer UK academics the same support as those in Europe. Article 40(4) of the European Union’s Digital Services Act requires platforms to
“provide access to data to vetted researchers”
seeking to carry out
“research that contributes to the detection, identification and understanding of systemic risks in the Union, as set out pursuant to Article 34(1), and to the assessment of the adequacy, efficiency and impacts of the risk mitigation measures pursuant to Article 35”.
It will be a considerable loss to the UK academic sector if its European colleagues have access to data that it does not.
Fifthly, by insisting on evidence but not creating a critical pathway to secure it, the Government have created a situation in which the lack of evidence could mean that Ofcom’s codes are fixed at what the tech companies tell it is possible in spring 2024, and will always be backward-looking. There is considerable whistleblower evidence revealing measures that the companies could have taken but chose not to.
I have considerable personal experience of this. For example, it was nearly a decade ago that I told Facebook that direct messaging on children’s accounts was dangerous, yet only now are we beginning to see regulation reflecting that blindingly obvious fact. That is nearly a decade in which something could have been done by the company but was not, and of which the regulator will have no evidence.
Finally, as we discussed on day one in Committee, the Government have made it easier for commercial companies to use personal data for research by lowering the bar for the collection of data and expanding the concept of research, further building the asymmetry that has been mentioned in every group of amendments we have debated thus far. It may not be very parliamentary language, but it is crazy to pass legislation and then obstruct its implementation by insisting on evidence that you have made it impossible to gather.
I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions when he responds. Is it the Government’s intention that Ofcom codes be based entirely on the current practice of tech companies and that the regulator can demand only mitigations that exist currently, as evidenced by those companies? Do the Government agree that whistleblowers, NGO experts and evidence from user experience can be taken by regulators as evidence of what could or should be done? What route do the Government advise Ofcom to take to mitigate identified risks for which there are no current measures in place? For example, should Ofcom describe the required outcome and leave it to the companies to determine how they mitigate the risk, should it suggest mitigations that have been developed but not tried—or is the real outcome of the OSA to identify risk and leave that risk in place?
Do the Government accept that EU research done under the auspices of the DSA should be automatically considered as an adequate basis for UK regulators where the concerns overlap with UK law? Will the new measures announced for testing and sandboxing of AI models allow for independent research, in which academics, independent of government or tech, will have access to data? Finally, what measures will the Government take to mitigate the impact on universities of a brain drain of academics to Europe, if we do not provide equivalent legislative support to enable them to access the data required to study online safety and privacy? If the Minister is unable to answer me from the Dispatch Box, perhaps he will agree to write to me and place his letter in the Library for other noble Lords to read.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, there is little for me to say. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, have left no stone unturned in this debate. They introduced this amendment superbly, and I pay tribute to them and to Reset, which was with us all the way through the discussions on online harms at the Joint Committee on the draft Online Safety Bill, advocating for these important provisions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said, there is a strong body of opinion out there. Insight from what might be called approved independent researchers would enable policy-making and regulatory innovation to keep pace with emerging trends and threats, which can span individual harms, matters of public safety and even national security. We have seen the kinds of harms taking place in social media, and it is absolutely vital that we understand what is happening under the bonnet of social media. It is crucial in detecting, identifying and understanding the systemic risks of online harms and non-compliance with law.
When we discussed the Online Safety Bill, it was a question of not just content but functionality. That was one of the key things. An awful lot of this research relates to that: how algorithms operate in amplifying content and some of the harms taking place on social media. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, referred to X closing its API for researchers and Meta’s move to shut CrowdTangle. We are going into reverse, whereas we should be moving forward in a much more positive way. When the Online Safety Bill was discussed, we got the review from Ofcom, but we did not get the backup—the legislative power for Ofcom or the ICO to be able to authorise and accredit researchers to carry out the necessary research.
The Government’s response to date has been extremely disappointing, given the history behind this and the pressure and importance of this issue. This dates from discussions some way back, even before the Joint Committee met and heard the case for this kind of researcher access. This Bill is now the best vehicle by which to introduce a proper regime on access for researchers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked, why, having had ministerial assurances, are we not seeing further progress? Are we just going to wait until Ofcom produces its review, which will be at the tail end of a huge programme of work which it has to carry out in order to implement the Online Safety Act?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and his cosignatories for bringing this comprehensive amendment before us this afternoon. As we have heard, this is an issue that was debated at length in the Online Safety Act. It is, in effect, unfinished business. I pay tribute to the noble Lords who shepherded that Bill through the House so effectively. It is important that we tie up the ends of all the issues. The noble Lord made significant progress, but those issues that remain unresolved come, quite rightly, before us now, and this Bill is an appropriate vehicle for resolving those outstanding issues.
As has been said, the heart of the problem is that tech companies are hugely protective of the data they hold. They are reluctant to share it or to give any insight on how their data is farmed and stored. They get to decide what access is given, even when there are potentially illegal consequences, and they get to judge the risk levels of their actions without any independent oversight.
During the course of the Online Safety Bill, the issue was raised not only by noble Lords but by a range of respected academics and organisations representing civil society. They supported the cross-party initiative from Peers calling for more independent research, democratic oversight and accountability into online safety issues. In particular, as we have heard, colleagues identified a real need for approved researchers to check the risks of non-compliance in the regulated sectors of UK law by large tech companies—particularly those with large numbers of children accessing the services. This arose because of the increasing anecdotal evidence that children’s rights were being ignored or exploited. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, have given an excellent exposition of the potential and real harms that continue to be identified by the lack of regulatory action on these issues.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome this amendment. It is well-crafted, takes a holistic approach to the problem, makes the responsibilities of the large tech companies clear and establishes a systematic research base of vetted researchers to check compliance. It also creates important criteria for the authorisation of those vetted researchers: the research must be in the public interest, must be transparent, must be carried out by respected researchers, and must be free from commercial interests so that companies cannot mark their own homework. As has been said, it mirrors the provisions in the EU Digital Services Act and ensures comparable research opportunities. That is an opportunity for the UK to maintain its status as one of the top places in the world for expertise on the impact of online harms.
Since the Online Safety Act was passed, the Information Commissioner has been carrying out further work on the children’s code of practice. The latest update report says:
“There has been significant progress and many organisations have started to assess and mitigate the potential privacy risks to children on their platforms”.
That is all well and good but the ICO and other regulators are still reliant on the information provided by the tech companies on how their data is used and stored and how they mitigate risk. Their responsibilities would be made much easier if they had access to properly approved and vetted independent research information that could inform their decisions.
I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling this amendment. I hope that the Minister hears its urgency and necessity and that he can assure us that the Government intend to table a similar amendment on Report—as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, no more “wait and see”. The time has come to stop talking about this issue and take action. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I was in awe of the questions that the noble Baroness came up with and do not envy the Minister in trying to answer them all. She asked whether, if necessary, it could be done via a letter but I think that the time has come on this and some other issues to roll up our sleeves, get round the table and thrash it out. We have waited too long for a solution and I am not sure that exchanges of letters will progress this in the way we would hope. I hope that the Minister will agree to convene some meetings of interested parties—maybe then we will make some real progress.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, as ever, many thanks to all noble Lords who spoke in the debate.
Amendment 135, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bethell, would enable researchers to access data from data controllers and processors in relation to systemic risks to the UK and non-compliance with regulatory law. The regime would be overseen by the ICO. Let me take this opportunity to thank both my noble friend for the ongoing discussions we have had and the honourable Members in the other place who are also interested in this measure.
Following debates during the passage of the Online Safety Act, the Government have been undertaking further work in relation to access to data for online safety researchers. This work is ongoing and, as my noble friend Lord Bethell will be aware, the Government are having ongoing conversations on this issue. As he knows, the online safety regime is very broad and covers issues that have an impact on national security and fraud. I intend to write to the Committee with an update on this matter, setting out our progress ahead of Report, which should move us forward.
While we recognise the benefits of improving researchers’ access to data—for example, using data to better understand the impact of social media on users—this is a highly complex issue with several risks that are not currently well understood. Further analysis has reiterated the complexities of the issue. My noble friend will agree that it is vital that we get this right and that any policy interventions are grounded in the evidence base. For example, there are risks in relation to personal data protection, user consent and the disclosure of commercially sensitive information. Introducing a framework to give researchers access to data without better understanding these risks could have significant consequences for data security and commercially sensitive information, and could potentially destabilise any data access regime as it is implemented.
In the meantime, the Online Safety Act will improve the information available to researchers by empowering Ofcom to require major providers to publish a broad range of online safety information through annual transparency reports. Ofcom will also be able to appoint a skilled person to undertake a report to assess compliance or to develop its understanding of the risk of non-compliance and how to mitigate it. This may include the appointment of independent researchers as skilled persons. Further, Ofcom is required to conduct research into online harms and has the power to require companies to provide information to support this research activity.
Moving on to the amendment specifically, it is significantly broader than online safety and the EU’s parallel Digital Services Act regime. Any data controllers and processors would be in scope if they have more than 1 million UK users or customers, if there is a large concentration of child users or if the service is high-risk. This would include not just social media platforms but any organisation, including those in financial services, broadcasting and telecoms as well as any other large businesses. Although we are carefully considering international approaches to this issue, it is worth noting that much of the detail about how the data access provisions in the Digital Services Act will work in practice is yet to be determined. Any policy interventions in this space should be predicated on a robust evidence base, which we are in the process of developing.
The amendment would also enable researchers to access data to research systemic risks to compliance with any UK regulatory law that is upheld by the ICO, Ofcom, the Competition and Markets Authority, and the Financial Conduct Authority. The benefits and risks of such a broad regime are not understood and are likely to vary across sectors. It is also likely to be inappropriate for the ICO to be the sole regulator tasked with vetting researchers across the remits of the other regulators. The ICO may not have the necessary expertise to make this determination about areas of law that it does not regulate.
Ofcom already has the power to gather information that it requires for the purpose of exercising its online safety functions. This power applies to companies in scope of the duties and, where necessary, to other organisations or persons who may have relevant information. Ofcom can also issue information request notices to overseas companies as well as to UK-based companies. The amendment is also not clear about the different types of information that a researcher may want to access. It refers to a data controller and processors—concepts that relate to the processing of personal data under data protection law—yet researchers may also be interested in other kinds of data, such as information about a service’s systems and processes.
Although the Government continue to consider this issue—I look forward to setting out our progress between now and Report—for the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept this amendment. I will certainly write to the Committee on this matter and to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, with a more detailed response to her questions—there were more than four of them, I think—in particular those about Ofcom.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
Perhaps I could encourage the Minister to say at least whether he is concerned that a lack of evidence might be impacting on the codes and powers that we have given to Ofcom in order to create the regime. I share his slight regret that Ofcom does not have this provision that is in front of us. It may be that more than one regulator needs access to research data but it is the independents that we are talking about. We are not talking about Ofcom doing things and the ICO doing things. We are talking about independent researchers doing things so that the evidence exists. I would like to hear just a little concern that the regime is suffering from a lack of evidence.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am thinking very carefully about how best to answer. Yes, I do share that concern. I will set this out in more detail when I write to the noble Baroness and will place that letter in the House of Lords Library. In the meantime, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am enormously grateful to the Minister for his response. However, it falls short of my hopes. Obviously, I have not seen the letter that he is going to send us, but I hope that the department will have taken on board the commitments made by previous Ministers during discussions on the Online Safety Bill and the very clear evidence that the situation is getting worse, not better.
Any hope that the tech companies would somehow have heard the debate in the House of Lords and that it would have occurred to them that they needed to step up to their responsibilities has, I am afraid, been dashed by their behaviours in the last 18 months. We have seen a serious withdrawal of existing data-sharing provisions. As we approach even more use of AI, the excitement of the metaverse, a massive escalation in the amount of data and the impact of their technologies on society, it is extremely sobering to think that there is almost no access to the black box of their data.
Lord Clement-Jones
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that “proportionality” continues to be considered by competent authorities when they are deciding whether national security exemptions apply to their processing for the purposes of law enforcement.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
That was a very good conclusion to the response from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell—urging a Minister to lean in. I have not heard that expression used in the House before, but it is excellent because, faced with a Home Office Minister, I am sure that is the kind of behaviour that we can expect imminently.
Last time we debated issues relating to national security and data protection, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, was the responsible Minister and I had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Now I have the Minister all to myself on Amendments 135A to 135E and the stand part notices on Clauses 28 to 30. These Benches believe that, as drafted, these clauses fall foul of the UK’s obligations under the ECHR, because they give the Home Secretary too broad a discretion and do not create sufficient safeguards to prevent their misuse.
Under the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, laws that give unfettered or overly broad discretion to the Government to interfere with privacy will violate the convention, because the laws must be sufficiently specific to prevent abuses of power. This means they must make sure that, any time they interfere with the privacy of people in the UK, they obey the law, have a goal that is legitimate in a democratic society and do only what is truly necessary to achieving that goal. The court has repeatedly stressed that this is what the rule of law means; it is an essential principle of democracy.
Despite multiple requests from MPs, and from Rights and Security International in particular, the Government have also failed to explain why they believe that these clauses are necessary to safeguard national security. So far, they have explained only why these new powers would be “helpful” or would ensure “greater efficiency”. Those justifications do not meet the standard that the ECHR requires when the Government want to interfere with our privacy. They are not entitled to do just anything that they find helpful.
Under Clause 28(7), the Home Secretary would be able to issue a national security certificate to tell the police that they do not need to comply with many important data protection laws and rules that they would otherwise have to obey. For instance, a national security certificate would give the police immunity when they commit crimes by using personal data illegally. It would also exempt them from certain provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Bill would expand what counts as an intelligence service for the purposes of data protection law—again, at the Home Secretary’s wish. Clause 29 would allow the Home Secretary to issue a designation notice, allowing law enforcement bodies to take advantage of the more relaxed rules in the Data Protection Act 2018, otherwise designed for the intelligence agencies whenever they collaborate with the security services.
Both the amended approach to national security certificates and the new designation notice regime would be unaccountable. The courts would not be able to review what the Government are doing and Parliament might therefore never find out. National security certificates are unchallengeable before the courts, meaning that the police and the Home Secretary would be unaccountable if they abused those powers. If the Home Secretary says that the police need to use these increased—and, in our view, unnecessary—powers in relation to national security, his word will be final. This includes the power to commit crimes.
As regards designation notices, the Home Secretary is responsible for approving and reviewing their use. Only a person who is directly affected by a designation notice will be able to challenge it, yet the Home Secretary would have the power to keep the notice secret, in which case how could anybody know that the police had been snooping on their lives under this law?
Clauses 28 to 30 could, in our view, further violate the UK’s obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights because they remove the courts’ role in reviewing how the Government use their surveillance power. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled in the past that large aspects of the law previously governing the UK’s surveillance powers were unlawful because they gave the Government too much discretion and lacked important safeguards to prevent misuse. Clauses 28 to 30 could be challenged on similar grounds, and the court has shown that it is willing to rule on these issues. These weaknesses in the law could also harm important relationships that the UK has with the EU as regards data adequacy, a subject that we will no doubt discuss in further depth later this week.
The Government argue that the clauses create a simplified legal framework that would improve the efficiency of police operations when working with the intelligence services. This is far from meeting the necessity standard under the ECHR.
The Government have frequently used the Fishmongers’ Hall and Manchester Arena attacks to support the idea that Clauses 28 to 30 are desirable. However, a difference in data protection regimes was not the issue in either case; instead, the problem centred around failures in offender management, along with a lack of communication between the intelligence services and local police. The Government have not explained how Clauses 28 to 30 would have prevented either incident or why they think these clauses are necessary to prevent whatever forms of violence the Government regard as most likely to occur in the future. The Government have had sufficient opportunity to date to explain the rationale for these clauses, yet they have so far failed to do so. For these reasons, we are of the view that Clauses 28 to 30 should not stand part of the Bill.
However, it is also worth putting down amendments to try to tease out additional aspects of these clauses, so Amendments 135A and 135D would put proportionality back in. It is not clear why the word “proportionality” has been taken out of the existing legislation. Similarly, Amendment 135B attempts to put back in the principles that should underpin decisions. Those are the most troubling changes, since they seem to allow for departure from basic data protection principles. These were the principles that the Government, during the passage of the Data Protection Act 2018, assured Parliament would always be secure. The noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, said:
“People will always have the right to ensure that the data held about them is fair and accurate, and consistent with the data protection principles”.—[Official Report, 10/10/17; col. 126.]
Thirdly, on the introduction of oversight by a judicial commissioner for Clause 28 certificates, now seems a good time to do that. During the passage of the Data Protection Act through Parliament, there was much debate over the Part 2 national security exemption for general processing in Section 26 and the national security certificates in Section 27. We expressed concern then but, sadly, the judicial commissioner role was not included. This is a timely moment to suggest that again.
Finally, on increasing the oversight of the Information Commissioner under Amendment 135E, I hope that this will be an opportunity for the Minister, despite the fact that I would prefer to see Clauses 28 to 30 not form part of the Bill, to explain in greater detail why they are constructed in the way they are and why the Home Office believes that it needs to amend the legislation in the way it proposes. I beg to move.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I come to this topic rather late and without the star quality in this area that has today been attributed to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. I acknowledge both the work of Justice in helping me to understand what Clause 28 does and the work of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in formulating the probing amendments in this group. I echo his questions on Clause 28. I will focus on a few specific matters.
First, what is the difference between the existing formulation for restricting data protection rights “when necessary and proportionate” to protect national security and the new formulation,
“when required to safeguard national security”?
What is the purpose of that change? Does “required” mean the same as “necessary” or something different? Do the restrictions not need to be proportionate any more? If so, why? Could we have a practical example of what the change is likely to mean in practice?
Secondly, why is it necessary to expand the number of rights and obligations from which competent law enforcement authorities can be exempted for reasons of national security? I can understand why it may for national security reasons be necessary to restrict a person’s right to be informed, right of access to data or right to be notified of a data breach, as under the existing law, but Clause 28 would allow the disapplication of some very basic principles of data protection law—including, as I understand it, the right to have your data processed only for a specified, explicit and legitimate purpose, as well as the right to have decisions made about you not use solely automated methods.
Thirdly, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked, why is it necessary to remove the powers of the Information Commissioner to investigate, to enter and inspect, and, where necessary, to issue notices? I appreciate that certificates will remain appealable to the Upper Tribunal by the person directly affected, applying judicial review principles, but that is surely not a substitute for review by the skilled and experienced ICO. Apart from anything else, the subject is unlikely even to know that they have been affected by the provisions, given that a certificate would exempt law enforcement from having to provide information to them. That is precisely why the oversight of a commissioner in the national security area is so important.
As for Clauses 29 and 30, I am as keen as anybody to improve the capabilities for the joint processing of data by the police and intelligence agencies. That was a major theme of the learning points from the London and Manchester attacks of 2017, which I helped to formulate in that year and on which I reported publicly in 2019. A joint processing regime certainly sounds like a good idea in principle but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm which law enforcement competent authorities will be subject to this new regime. Are they limited to Counter Terrorism Policing and the National Crime Agency?
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard some fine words from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in putting the case for his Amendments 135A, 135B, 135C and 135D, which are grouped with the clause stand part debates. As he explained, they seek to test and probe why the Government have sought to extend the ability of the security and intelligence services to disapply basic data protection principles.
The new Government-drafted clause essentially, as well as disapplying current provisions, disapplies the rights of data subjects and the obligations placed on competent authorities and processors. The Explanatory Notes say that this is to create a regime that
“ensures that there is consistency in approach”.
Section 29 is designed to facilitate joint processing by the various agencies with a common regime. Like the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I well understand why they might want to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has done the Committee a service in tabling these amendments because, as he said, during the passage of the 2018 Act assurances were given that law enforcement would always abide by basic data protection principles. On the face of it, that assurance no longer applies. Is this because it is inconvenient for the security and intelligence services? What are the Government seeking to do here?
Can the Minister explain from the Government’s perspective what has changed since 2018 that has led Ministers to conclude that those critical principles should be compromised? The amendments also seek to assert the importance of proportionality considerations when deciding whether national security exemptions apply. This principle is again raised in relation to the issuing of a national security certificate.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, with Amendment 135E effectively poses the question of where the balance of oversight should rest. Should it be with the Secretary of State or the commissioner? All that new Clause 29 does is oblige the Secretary of State to consult the commissioner with the expectation that the commissioner then makes public a record of designation orders. However, it strips out quite a lot of the commissioner’s current roles and responsibilities. We should surely have something more convincing than that to guarantee transparency in the process. We on these Benches will take some convincing that the Government have got the right balance in regard to the interests of national security and the security services. Why, for instance, is Parliament being sidelined in the exercise of the Secretary of State’s powers? Did Ministers give any consideration to reporting duties and obligations so far as Parliament is concerned? If not, why not?
Labour does not want to see national security compromised in any way, nor do we want to undermine the essential and vital work that our intelligence services have to perform to protect us all. However, we must also ensure that we build confidence in our security and intelligence services by making them properly accountable, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, argued, and that the checks and balances are sufficient and the right ones.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, got it right in questioning the change of language, and I want to better understand from the Minister what that really means. But why extend the range of exemptions? We could do with some specific reasons as to why that is being changed and why that is the case. Why has the Information Commissioner’s role been so fundamentally changed with regard to these clauses and the exemptions?
We will, as always, listen carefully to the Minister’s reply before we give further thought to this framework on Report, but we are very unhappy with the changes that are taking away some of the fundamental protections that were in place before, and we will need quite a lot of convincing on these government changes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his amendments and thank the other noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. These amendments seek to remove Clauses 28, 29 and 30 in their entirety, or, as an alternative, to make amendments to Clauses 28 and 29. I will first speak to Clause 28, and if I fail to answer any questions I will of course guarantee to write.
Clause 28 replaces the current provision under the law enforcement regime for the protection of national security data, with a revised version that mirrors the existing exemptions available to organisations operating under the UK GDPR and intelligence services regimes. It is also similar to what was available to law enforcement agencies under the 1998 Data Protection Act. It is essential that law enforcement agencies can properly protect data where required for national security reasons, and they should certainly be able to apply the same protections that are available to other organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked whether the exemption was in breach of a person’s Article 8 rights, but the national security exemption will permit law enforcement agencies to apply an exemption to the need to comply with certain parts of the law enforcement data protection regime, such as the data protection principles or the rights of the data subject. It is not a blanket exemption and it will be able to be applied only where this is required for the purposes of safeguarding national security—for instance, in order to prevent the tipping-off of a terror suspect. It can be applied only on a case-by-case basis. We do not, therefore, believe that the exemption breaches the right to privacy.
In terms of the Government taking away the right to lodge a complaint with the commissioner, that is not the case—the Government are not removing that right. Those rights are being consolidated under Clause 44 of this DPDI Bill. We are omitting Article 77 as Clause 44 will introduce provisions that allow a data subject to lodge a complaint with a controller.
In terms of how the subject themselves will know how to complain to the Information Commissioner, all organisations, including law enforcement agencies, are required to provide certain information to individuals, including their right to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner and, where applicable, the contact details of the organisation’s data protection officer or, in line with other amendments under the Bill, the organisation’s senior responsible individual, if they suspect that their personal information is being process unlawfully.
Amendments 135A and 135D seek to introduce a proportionality test in relation to the application of the national security exemption and the issuing of a ministerial certificate for law enforcement agencies operating under Part 3 of the Data Protection Act. The approach we propose is consistent with the similar exemptions for the UK GDPR and intelligence services, which all require a controller to evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether an exemption from a provision is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.
Amendment 135B will remove the ability for law enforcement agencies to apply the national security exemption to data protection principles, whereas the approach we propose is consistent with the other data protection regimes and will provide for exemption from the data protection principles in Chapter 2—where required and on a case-by-case basis—but not from the requirement for processing to be lawful and the safeguards which apply to sensitive data.
The ability to disapply certain principles laid out in Chapter 2 is crucial for the efficacy of the national security exemption. This is evident in the UK GDPR and Part 4 exemption which disapplies similar principles. To remove the ability to apply the national security exemption to any of the data protection principles for law enforcement agencies only would undermine their ability to offer the same protections as those processing under the other data protection regimes.
Not all the principles laid out in Chapter 2 can be exempted from; for example, law enforcement agencies are still required to ensure that all processing is lawful and cannot exempt from the safeguards that apply to sensitive data. There are safeguards in place to ensure that the exemption is used correctly by law enforcement agencies. Where a data subject feels that the national security exemption has not been applied correctly, the legislation allows them to complain to the Information Commissioner and, ultimately, to the courts. Additionally, the reforms require law enforcement agencies to appoint a senior responsible individual whose tasks include monitoring compliance with the legislation.
Amendment 135C would make it a mandatory requirement for a certificate to be sought from and approved by a judicial commissioner whenever the national security exemption is to be invoked by law enforcement agencies only. This bureaucratic process does not apply to organisations processing under the other data protection regimes; forcing law enforcement agencies to apply for a certificate every time they need to apply the exemption would be unworkable as it would remove their ability to act quickly in relation to matters of national security. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will not press his amendments.
On Clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill, currently, only the intelligence services can operate under Part 4 of the Data Protection Act. This means that, even when working together, the intelligence services and law enforcement cannot work on a single shared dataset but must instead transfer data back and forth, applying the provisions of their applicable data protection regimes, which creates significant friction. Removing barriers to joint working was flagged as a recommendation following the Manchester Arena inquiry, as was noted by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and following Fishmongers’ Hall, which also recommended closer working.
Clauses 29 and 30 enable qualifying competent authorities and an intelligence service jointly to process data under a single data protection regime in authorised, specific circumstances to safeguard national security. In order to jointly process data in this manner, the Secretary of State must issue a designation notice to authorise it. A notice can be granted only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the processing is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security and following consultation with the ICO.
Amendment 135E would make the ICO the final arbiter of whether a designation notice is granted by requiring it to—
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
May I just intrude on the Minister’s flow? As I understand it, there is a possibility that relatives of the families affected by the Manchester Arena bombing will take to court matters relating to the operation of the security services, including relating to intelligence that it is felt they may have had prior to the bombing. How will this new regime, as set out in the Bill, affect the rights of those who may seek to hold the security services to account in the courts? Will their legal advisers ever be able to discover materials that might otherwise be exempt from public view?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
That is a very good question but the noble Lord will understand that I am somewhat reluctant to pontificate about a potential forthcoming court case. I cannot really answer the question, I am afraid.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
But understanding the impact on people’s rights is important in the context of this legislation.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I say, it is a good question but I cannot comment further on that one. I will see whether there is anything that we can commit to in writing and have a further chat about this subject but I will leave it for now, if I may.
Amendment 135E would make the ICO the final arbiter of whether a designation notice is granted by requiring it to judge whether the notice is required for the purposes of the safeguarding of national security. It would be wholly inappropriate for the ICO to act as a judge of national security; that is not a function of the ICO in its capacity as regulator and should be reserved to the Secretary of State. As is generally the case with decisions by public bodies, the decision of the Secretary of State to grant a designation notice can be challenged legally; this is expressly provided for under new Section 82E, as is proposed to be included in the DPA by Clause 29.
On the subject of how a data subject is supposed to exercise their rights if they do not know that their data is being processed under a notice subject to Part 4, the ICO will publish designation notices as soon as is reasonably practical. Privacy information notices will also be updated if necessary to enable data subjects to identify a single point of contact should they wish to exercise their rights in relation to data that might be processed under a designation notice. This single point of contact will ease the process of exercising their data rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked which law enforcement agencies this will apply to. That will be set out separately in the subsequent affirmative SI. I cannot be more precise than that at the moment.
For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
The Minister left us on a tantalising note. He was unable to say whether the law enforcement organisations affected by these clauses will be limited to Counter Terrorism Policing and the NCA or whether they will include others as well. I am rather at a loss to think who else might be included. Do we really have to wait for the affirmative regulations before we can be told about that? It seems pretty important. As the Minister knows well, there are quite a few precedents—following some recent ones—for extending to those bodies some of the privileges and powers that attach to the intelligence agencies. I suspect that a number of noble Lords might be quite alarmed if they felt that those powers or privileges were being extended more widely—certainly without knowing, or at least having some idea, in advance to whom they might be extended.
While I am on my feet and causing mischief for the Minister, may I return to the rather lawyerly question that I put to him? I do not think I had an answer about the formulation in new Section 78A, which talks about an exemption applying
“if exemption from the provision is required for the purposes of safeguarding national security”.
What does “required” mean? Does it simply mean the same as “necessary”—in which case, why not stick with that? Or does it mean something else? Does it mean that someone has required or requested it? It could be a pretty significant difference and this is a pretty significant ambiguity in the Bill. If the Minister is not willing to explain it now, perhaps he will feel able to write to us to explain exactly what is meant by replacing the well-worn phrase “necessary and proportionate” with “required”.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that. It is a lawyerly question and, as he knows, I am not a lawyer. With respect, I will endeavour to write and clarify on that point, as well as on his other good point about the sorts of authorities that we are talking about.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Perhaps the same correspondence could cover the point I raised as well.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am immensely grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Bassam, for their interventions. In particular, given his background, if the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has concerns about these clauses, we all ought to have concerns. I am grateful to the Minister for the extent of his unpacking—or attempted unpacking—of these clauses but I feel that we are on a slippery slope here. I feel some considerable unease about the widening of the disapplication of principles that we were assured were immutable only six years ago. I am worried about that.
We have had some reassurance about the right to transparency, perhaps when it is convenient that data subjects find out about what is happening. The right to challenge was also mentioned by the Minister but he has not really answered the question about whether the Home Office has looked seriously at the implications as far as the human rights convention is concerned, which is the reason for the stand part notice. The Minister did not address that matter at all; I do not know why. I am assuming that the Home Office has looked at the clauses in the light of the convention but, again, he did not talk about that.
The only assurance the Minister has really given is that it is all on a case-by-case basis. I do not think that that is much of a reassurance. On the proportionality point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I think that we are going to be agog in waiting for the Minister’s correspondence on that, but it is such a basic issue. There were two amendments specifically on proportionality but we have not really had a reply on that issue at all, in terms of why it should have been eliminated by the legislation. So a feeling of unease prevails. I do not even feel that the Minister has unpacked fully the issue of joint working; I think that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, did that more. We need to know more about how that will operate.
The final point that the Minister made gave even greater concern—to think that there will be an SI setting out the bodies that will have the powers. We are probably slightly wiser than when we started out with this group of amendments, but only slightly and we are considerably more concerned. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Camrose
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the language of new section 82B(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 to ensure that Article 3 of Regulation No 1182/71 (rules of interpretation regarding periods of time etc) will apply to it.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes
“Processing of data in relation to a case-file prepared by the police service for submission to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decisionIn the 2018 Act, after section 40 insert—“40A Processing of data in relation to a case-file prepared by the police service for submission to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision(1) This section applies to a set of processing operations consisting of the preparation of a case-file by the police service for submission to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision, the making of a charging decision by the Crown Prosecution Service, and the return of the case-file by the Crown Prosecution Service to the police service after a charging decision has been made.(2) The police service is not obliged to comply with the first data protection principle except insofar as that principle requires processing to be fair, or the third data protection principle, in preparing a case-file for submission to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision. (3) The Crown Prosecution Service is not obliged to comply with the first data protection principle except insofar as that principle requires processing to be fair, or the third data protection principle, in making a charging decision on a case-file submitted for that purpose by the police service.(4) If the Crown Prosecution Service decides that a charge will not be pursued when it makes a charging decision on a case-file submitted for that purpose by the police service it must take all steps reasonably required to destroy and delete all copies of the case-file in its possession.(5) If the Crown Prosecution Service decides that a charge will be pursued when it makes a charging decision on a case-file submitted for that purpose by the police service it must return the case-file to the police service and take all steps reasonably required to destroy and delete all copies of the case-file in its possession.(6) Where the Crown Prosecution Service decides that a charge will be pursued when it makes a charging decision on a case-file submitted for that purpose by the police service and returns the case-file to the police service under subsection (5), the police service must comply with the first data protection principle and the third data protection principle in relation to any subsequent processing of the data contained in the case-file.(7) For the purposes of this section—(a) The police service means—(i) a constabulary maintained by virtue of an enactment; or(ii) subject to section 126 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (prison staff not to be regarded as in police service), any other service whose members have the powers or privileges of a constable.(b) The preparation of, or preparing, a case-file by the police service for submission to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision includes the submission of the file.(c) A case-file includes all information obtained by the police service for the purpose of preparing a case-file for submission to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision.””Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause adjusts Section 40 of the Data Protection Act 2018 to exempt the police service and the Crown Prosecution Service from the first and third data protection principles contained within the 2018 Act so that they can share unredacted data with one another when making a charging decision.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 137 in my name. I apologise to the Committee that I was unable to speak in the Second Reading debate on this Bill, which seems a long time ago now.
This is a discrete amendment designed to address an extremely burdensome and potentially unnecessary redaction exercise in relation to a situation where the police are preparing a case file for submission to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision. The amendment was originally tabled in the House of Commons by Jane Hunt MP; both of us would like to thank the Police Federation of England and Wales for its assistance in briefing us in preparing the draft clause.
Perhaps it would be helpful to say by way of background that the existing data protection legislation requires our police forces to spend huge amounts of time and resources, first, in going through the information that has been gathered by investigating officers to identify every single item of personal data contained in that information; secondly, in deciding whether it is necessary or, in many cases, strictly necessary for the CPS to consider each item of personal data when making a charging decision; and, thirdly, in redacting every item of personal data that does not meet this test. I ask noble Lords to imagine, with things such as body cams being worn by the police, how much personal data is being collected these days every time officers respond to incidents. The police federation and the National Police Chiefs’ Council estimate that the national cost of this redaction exercise is approximately £5,642,900 per annum and that, since 1 January 2021, 365,000 policing hours have been consumed with this redaction exercise.
In his Budget last month, the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for ideas to improve public sector productivity, so it will come as no surprise to the Minister that the Police Federation has rushed to submit this idea as one of those suggestions about how we might improve that productivity puzzle. I want to share one example of what this redaction requirement means in practice. This came from a detective constable in Suffolk who was attached to a regional crime unit. They said that the case they were involved with was
“a multi-million pound fraud offence from Suffolk with 115 victims. After a five year investigation two persons were charged (in Oct 2023) however, these charges would have been brought far sooner had the CPS not insisted that all used and unused material in the case be provided and redacted prior to the actual charges being brought. The redactions took six months to complete and at times both officers and civilian staff were deployed full time to accommodate”
this exercise. Due to the nature of the investigation, the victims in this case were elderly and some had, sadly, passed away over the years.
While the detective constable accepted that the investigation itself was lengthy, they
“were able to manage the expectations of the victims by providing routine updates on the progress of the case”.
However:
“It was more difficult to explain come early 2023 that documents in the case then had to be redacted before the CPS would allow us to charge the suspects. The fact that documents of varying sizes (some several pages in length) of the unused material had to be redacted prior to charge, when these documents may or not be served and ultimately would be served secondary to the used items is difficult to understand for the officers let alone explaining this to victims who are losing interest and respect for both the Police and CPS. Anyone would question why we were spending time redacting documents that MAY NEVER be served. It is … easy to say redact everything! In turn the additional months redacting affected the court process, delaying that also. Victims are questioning whether they will be alive to see”
the conclusion of the process. While the delay was
“not solely down to the redaction demands a more targeted redaction process after charge is more logical and cost effective for all”.
The redaction exercise is potentially unnecessary in the case of any given case file because the CPS decides to charge in approximately only 75% of cases. In the 25% of cases where the CPS decides not to charge, the unredacted file could simply be deleted by the CPS. Where the CPS decides to charge, the case file could then be returned to the police to carry out the redaction exercise before there is any risk of the file being disclosed to any person or body other than the CPS.
The simple and practical solution, as the Police Federation has put forward, is for the police to carry out the redaction exercise in relation to any given case file only after the CPS has taken the decision to charge. I should be clear that what is being proposed here does not remove any substantive protection of the personal data in question. It does not remove the obligation to review and redact the personal data contained in material in a case file; it simply provides for that review and redaction to be conducted by the police after, rather than before, a charging decision has been made by the CPS.
The law enforcement directive on which the relevant part of the Data Protection Act 2018 was based would have permitted this when that Act was passed. Part 3 of the 2018 Act implemented that directive and makes provision for data processing by “competent authorities”, including police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service, for defined “law enforcement purposes”. However, although recital 4 to the law enforcement directive emphasised:
“The free flow of personal data between competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences … should be facilitated while ensuring a high level of protection of personal data”,
Part 3 of the 2018 Act contains no provisions at all to facilitate the free flow of personal data between the police and the CPS.
The effect of the proposed new clause as set out in this amendment would be, first, to exempt the police from complying with the first data protection principle—except in so far as that principle requires processing to be fair—and from the third data protection principle, when the police are undertaking processing that consists of preparing for submission and submitting to the CPS a case file seeking a charging decision. Secondly, the amendment would exempt the CPS from the first and third data principles to the same extent when it makes that charging decision. Thirdly, it would require the CPS to return the case file to the police if a decision to charge is made, after which the data protection principles will apply in full to any subsequent processing.
I appreciate—particularly with the Minister here—that the Home Office is really in the driving seat here. We understand that the Home Office objections to this amendment seem to boil down to the belief that it will only partially resolve the problem, because the legal requirements around sharing of data are broader than just the first and third data principles, and that there are other relevant provisions not addressed by this drafting. It is of course absolutely open to the Minister and the Home Office to say that they support the broad principles of this draft clause, while suggesting that the drafting of this particular amendment should identify some other relevant provisions, and it would be helpful if they did that rather than just objecting to the whole amendment as put forward.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has done us a service by raising this issue. My question is about whether the advice given to date about redaction is accurate. I have not seen the Home Office’s guidance or counsel’s analysis. I have taken advice on the Police Federation’s case—I received an email and I was very interested in what it had to say, because we all want to make sure that the bureaucracy involved in charging and dealing with the CPS is as minimal as possible within the bounds of data protection law.
Section 35(2)(b) of the Data Protection Act simply requires the police to ensure that their processing is necessary for the performance of their tasks. You would have thought that sending an investigation file to the CPS to decide whether to charge a suspect seems necessary for the performance of that task. Some of that personal data may end up not being relevant to the charge or any trial, but that is a judgment for the CPS and the prosecutor. It does not mean, in the view of those I have consulted, that the file has to be redacted at vast taxpayer cost before the CPS or prosecutor have had a chance to see the investigation’s file. When you look at sensitive data, the test is “strictly necessary”, which is a higher test, but surely the answer to that must be that officers should collect this information only where they consider it relevant to the case. So this can be dealt with through protocols about data protection, which ensure that officers do not collect more sensitive data than is necessary for the purposes of the investigation.
Similarly, under Section 37, the question that the personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose for which it is processed should not be interpreted in such a way that this redaction exercise is required. If an officer thinks they need to collect the relevant information for the purpose of the investigation, that seems to me—and to those advising me—in broad terms to be sufficient to comply with the principle. Conversely, if officers are collecting too much data, the answer is that they should be trained to avoid doing this. If officers really are collecting more information than they should be, redactions cannot remedy the fact that the collection was unlawful in the first place. The solution seems to be to stop them collecting that data.
I assume—maybe I am completely wrong—that the Minister will utter “suitable guidance” in response to the noble Baroness’s amendment and say that there is no need to amend the legislation, but, if there is no need to do so, I hope that they revise the guidance, because the Police Federation and its members are clearly labouring under a misapprehension about the way the Act should be interpreted. It would be quite a serious matter if that has taken place for the last six years.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, we should be very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, for her amendment. I listened very carefully to her line of argument and find much that we can support in the approach. In that context, we should also thank the Police Federation of England and Wales for a particularly useful and enlightening briefing paper.
We may well be suffering under the law of unintended consequences in this context; it seems to have hit quite hard and acted as a barrier to the sensible processing and transfer of data between two parts of the law enforcement machinery. It is quite interesting coming off the back of the previous debate, when we were discussing making the transfer of information and intelligence between different agencies easier and having a common approach. It is a very relevant discussion to have.
I do not think that the legislation, when it was originally drafted, could ever have been intended to work in the way the Police Federation has set out. The implementation of the Data Protection Act 2018, in so far as law enforcement agencies are concerned, is supposed to be guided by recital 4, which the noble Baroness read into the record and which makes good sense.
As the noble Baroness explained, the Police Federation’s argument that the DPA makes no provisions at all that are designed to facilitate, in effect, the free flow of information, that it should be able to hold all the relevant data prior to the charging decision being made by the CPS, and that redaction should take place only after a decision on charging has been made seems quite a sensible approach. As she argued, it would significantly lighten the burden on police investigating teams and enable the decision on charging to be more broadly informed.
So this is a piece of simplification that we can all support. The case has been made very well. If it helps speed up charging and policing processes, which I know the Government are very concerned about, as all Governments should be, it seems a sensible move—but this is the Home Office. We do not always expect the most sensible things to be delivered by that department, but we hope that they are.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions—I think. I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes for her amendment and for raising what is an important issue. Amendment 137 seeks to permit the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to share unredacted data with one another when making a charging decision. Perhaps to the surprise of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, we agree: we must reduce the burden of redaction on the police. As my noble friend noted, this is very substantial and costly.
We welcome the intent of the amendment. However, as my noble friend has noted, we do not believe that, as drafted, it would achieve the stated aim. To fully remove it would require the amendment of more than just the Data Protection Act.
However, the Government are committed to reducing the burden on the police, but it is important that we get it right and that the solution is comprehensive. We consider that the objective which my noble friend is seeking would be better achieved through other means, including improved technology and new, simplified guidance to prevent overredaction, as all speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, noted.
The Home Office provided £960,000 of funding for text and audio-visual multimedia redaction in the 2023-24 financial year. Thanks to that funding, police forces have been able to procure automated text redaction tools, the trials of which have demonstrated that they could save up 80% of the time spent by the police on this redaction. Furthermore, in the latest Budget, the Chancellor announced an additional £230 million of funding for technology to boost police productivity. This will be used to develop, test and roll out automated audio-visual redaction tools, saving thousands more hours of police time. I would say to my noble friend that, as the technology improves, we hope that the need for it to be supervised by individuals will diminish.
I can also tell your Lordships’ House that officials from the Home Office have consulted with the Information Commissioner’s Office and have agreed that a significant proportion of the burden caused by existing pre-charge redaction processes could be reduced safely and lawfully within the current data protection framework in a way that will maintain standards and protections for individuals. We are, therefore, actively working to tackle this issue in the most appropriate way by exploring how we can significantly reduce the redaction burden at the pre-charge stage through process change within the existing legislative framework. This will involve creating simplified guidance and, obviously, the use of better technology.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Is the Minister almost agreeing with some of my analysis in that case?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
No, I think I was agreeing with my noble friend’s analysis.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. We acknowledge this particular problem and we are working to fix it. I would ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Bassam, for their support. I hope that those watching from outside will be heartened by what they have heard. I think there is general agreement that this problem should be simplified, and the burden taken off policing.
I am interested to hear about redaction but, with bodycams and images, as well as the mass amount of data on items such as mobile phones, it is complicated. My noble friend the Minister mentioned that the Home Office and the Information Commissioner’s Office were consulting with each other to reduce this pre-charge redaction burden. Perhaps he could write to me, or we could have a meeting to work it out. The challenge in all this is that we have a debate in which everybody agrees and then it all slows down again. Perhaps we can keep the momentum going by continuing discussions outside, involving the Police Federation as well. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
“(a) to monitor the application of GDPR, the applied GDPR and this Act, and ensure they are fully enforced with all due diligence;(b) to act upon receiving a complaint, to investigate, to the extent appropriate, the subject matter of the complaint, and to take steps to clarify unsubstantiated issues before dismissing the complaint.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the statutory objective of the Commissioner by removing secondary objectives introduced by the Bill and clarifying role and responsibility of the Commissioner.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 140 and the submissions that Clauses 32 to 35 should not stand part. These amendments are designed to clarify the statutory objective of the new information commission; increase its arm’s-length relationship with the Government; allow effective judicial scrutiny of its regulatory function; allow not-for-profit organisations to lodge representative complaints; retain the Office of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner; and empower the Equality and Human Rights Commission to scrutinise the new information commission. The effective supervision and enforcement of data protection and the investigation and detection of offenders are crucial to achieve deterrence, prevent violations, maintain transparency and control options for redress against data misuse.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 142, 143 and 150 in my name, and I thank other noble Lords for their support.
We have spent considerable time across the digital Bills—the online safety, digital markets and data Bills—talking about the speed at which industry moves and the corresponding need for a more agile regulatory system. Sadly, we have not really got to the root of what that might look like. In the meantime, we have to make sure that regulators and Governments are asked to fulfil their duties in a timely manner.
Amendment 142 puts a timeframe on the creation of codes under the Act at 18 months. Data protection is a mature area of regulatory oversight, and 18 months is a long time for people to wait for the benefits that accrue to them under legislation. Similarly, Amendment 143 ensures that the transition period from the code being set to it being implemented is no more than 12 months. Together, that creates a minimum of two and half years. In future legislation on digital matters, I would like to see a very different approach that starts with the outcome and gives companies 12 months to comply, in any way they like, to ensure that outcome. But while we remain in the world of statutory code creation, it must be bound by a timeframe.
I have seen time and again, after the passage of a Bill, Parliament and civil society move on, including Ministers and key officials—as well as those who work at the regulator—and codes lose their champions. It would be wonderful to imagine that matters progress as intended, but they do not. In the absence of champions, and without ongoing parliamentary scrutiny, codes can languish in the inboxes of people who have many calls on their time. Amendments 142 and 143 simply mirror what the Government agreed to in the OSA—it is a piece of good housekeeping to ensure continuity of attention.
I am conscious that I have spent most of my time highlighting areas where the Bill falls short, so I will take a moment to welcome the reporting provisions that the Government have put forward. Transparency is a critical aspect of effective oversight, and the introduction of an annual report on regulatory action would be a valuable source of information for all stakeholders with an interest in understanding the work of the ICO and its impact.
Amendment 150 proposes that those reporting obligations also include a requirement to provide details of all activities carried out by the Information Commissioner to support, strengthen and uphold the age-appropriate design code. It also proposes that, when meeting its general reporting obligations, it should provide the information separately for children. The ICO published an evaluation of the AADC as a one-off in March 2023 and its code strategy on 3 April this year. I recognise the effort that the commissioner has made towards transparency, and the timing of his report indicates that having reporting on children specifically is something that the ICO sees as relevant and useful. However, neither of those are sufficient in terms of the level of detail provided, the reporting cadence or the focus on impact rather than the efforts that the ICO has made.
There are many frustrations for those of us who spend our time advocating for children’s privacy and safety. Among them is having to try to extrapolate child-specific data from generalised reporting. When it is not reported separately, it is usually to hide inadequacies in the level of protection afforded to children. For example, none of the community guidelines enforcement reports published for Instagram, YouTube, TikTok or Snap provides a breakdown of the violation rate data by age group, even though this would provide valuable information for academics, Governments, legislators and NGOs. Amendment 150 would go some way to addressing this gap by ensuring that the ICO is required to break down its reporting for children.
Having been momentarily positive, I would like to put on the record my concerns about the following extract from the email that accompanied the ICO’s children’s code strategy of 2 April. Having set out the very major changes to companies that the code has ushered in and explained how the Information Commissioner would spend the next few months looking at default settings, geolocation, profiling, targeting children and protecting under-13s, the email goes on to say:
“With the ongoing passage of the bill, our strategy deliberately focusses in the near term on compliance with the current code. However, once we have more clarity on the final version of the bill we will of course look to publicly signal intentions about our work on implementation and children’s privacy into the rest of the year and beyond”.
The use of the phrase “current code”, and the fact that the ICO has decided it is necessary to put its long-term enforcement strategy on hold, contradict government assurances that standards will remain the same.
The email from the ICO arrived in my inbox on the same day as a report from the US Institute of Digital Media and Child Development, which was accompanied by an impact assessment on the UK’s age-appropriate design code. It stated:
“The Institute’s review identifies an unprecedented wave of … changes made across leading social media and digital platforms, including YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Amazon Marketplace, and Google Search. The changes, aimed at fostering a safer, more secure, and age-appropriate online environment, underscore the crucial role of regulation in improving the digital landscape for children and teens”.
In June, the Digital Futures Commission will be publishing a similar report written by the ex-Deputy Information Commissioner, Steve Wood, which has similarly positive but much more detailed findings. Meanwhile, we hear the steady drumbeat of adoption of the code in South America, Australia and Asia, and in additional US states following California’s lead. Experts in both the US and here in the UK evidence that this is a regulation that works to make digital services safer and better for children.
I therefore have to ask the Minister once again why the Government are downgrading child protection. If he, or those in the Box advising him, are even slightly tempted to say that they are not, I ask that they reread the debates from the last two days in Committee, in which the Government removed the balancing test to automated decision-making and the Secretary of State’s powers were changed to have regard to children rather than to mandate child protections. The data impact assessment provisions have also been downgraded, among the other sleights of hand that diminish the AADC.
The ICO has gone on record to say that it has put its medium to long-term enforcement strategy on hold, and the Minister’s letter sent on the last day before recess says that the AADC will be updated to reflect the Bill. I would like nothing more than a proposal from the Government to put the AADC back on a firm footing. I echo the words said earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that it is time to start talking and stop writing. I am afraid that, otherwise, I will be tabling amendments on Report that will test the appetite of the House for protecting children online. In the meantime, I hope the Minister will welcome and accept the very modest proposals in this group.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, as is so often the case on this subject, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the three amendments that I have added my name to: Amendments 142, 143 and 150. I will speak first to Amendments 142 and 143, and highlight a couple of issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has already covered.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for tabling these amendments and raising important points about the Information Commissioner’s independence and authority to carry out his role efficiently. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, range widely, and I have to say that I have more sympathy with some of them than others.
I start by welcoming some of the things in the Bill—I am very pleased to be able to do this. It is important that we have an independent regulator that is properly accountable to Parliament, and this is vital for a properly functioning data protection regime. We welcome a number of the changes that have been made to the ICO’s role in the Bill. In particular, we think the move to have a board and a chief executive model, with His Majesty appointing the chair of the board, is the right way to go. We also welcome the strengthening of enforcement powers and the obligation to establish stakeholder panels to inform the content of codes of practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, also highlighted that.
However, we share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the Secretary of State’s requirement every three years to publish a statement of strategic priorities for the commissioner to consider, respond to and have regard to. We share his view, and that of many stakeholder groups, that this crosses the line into political involvement and exposes the ICO to unwarranted political direction and manipulation. We do not believe that this wording provides sufficient safeguards from that in its current form.
I have listened carefully to the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, of Amendment 138. I understand his concern, but we are going in a slightly different direction to him on this. We believe that the reality is that the ICO does not have the resources to investigate every complaint. He needs to apply a degree of strategic prioritisation in the public interest. I think that the original wording in the Bill, rather than the noble Lord’s amendment, achieved that objective more clearly.
Amendment 140, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raises a significant point about businesses being given assured advice to ensure that they follow the procedures correctly, and we welcome that proposal. There is a role for leadership of the ICO in this regard. His proposal also addresses the Government’s concern that data controllers struggle to understand how they should be applying the rules. This is one of the reasons for many of the changes that we have considered up until now. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on this proposal and agree that we need to give more support to businesses in how they follow the procedures.
Finally, I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which rightly puts a deadline on the production of any new codes of practice, and a deadline on the application of any transitional arrangements which apply in the meantime. We have started using the analogy of the codes losing their champions, and in general terms she is right. Therefore, it is useful to have a deadline, and that is important to ensure delivery. This seems eminently sensible, and I hope the Minister agrees with this too.
Amendment 150 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, also requires the ICO annual report to spell out specifically the steps being taken to roll out the age-appropriate design code and to specifically uphold children’s data rights. Going back to the codes losing their champions, I am sure that the Minister got the message from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding, that in this particular case, this is not going to happen, and that this code and the drive to deliver it will be with us for some time to come.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, raised concerns about the approach of the ICO, which need to be addressed. We do not want a short-term approach but a longer-term approach, and we want some guarantees that the ICO is going to address some of the bigger issues that are being raised by the age-appropriate design code and other codes. Given the huge interest in the application of children’s data rights in this and other Bills, I am sure that the Information Commissioner will want to focus his report on his achievements in this space. Nevertheless, for the avoidance of doubt, it is useful to have it in the Bill as a specific obligation, and I hope the Minister agrees with the proposal.
We have a patchwork of amendments here. I am strongly in support of some; on others, perhaps the noble Lord and I can debate further outside this Room. In the meantime, I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and other noble Lords who have tabled and signed amendments in this group. I also observe what a pleasure it is to be on a Committee with Batman and Robin—which I was not expecting to say, and which may be Hansard’s first mention of those two.
The reforms to the Information Commissioner’s Office within the Bill introduce a strategic framework of objectives and duties to provide context and clarity on the commissioner’s overarching objectives. The reforms also put best regulatory practice on to a statutory footing and bring the ICO’s responsibilities into line with that of other regulators.
With regard to Amendment 138, the principal objective upholds data protection in an outcomes-focused manner that highlights the discretion of the Information Commissioner in securing those objectives, while reinforcing the primacy of data protection. The requirement to promote trust and confidence in the use of data will encourage innovation across current and emerging technologies.
I turn now to the question of Clause 32 standing part. As part of our further reforms, the Secretary of State can prepare a statement of strategic priorities for data protection, which positions these aims within its wider policy agenda, thereby giving the commissioner helpful context for its activities. While the commissioner must take the statement into account when carrying out functions, they are not required to act in accordance with it. This means that the statement will not be used in a way to direct what the commissioner may and may not do when carrying out their functions.
Turning to Amendment 140, we believe that the commissioner should have full discretion to enforce data protection in an independent, flexible, risk-based and proportionate manner. This amendment would tie the hands of the regulator and force them to give binding advice and proactive assurance without necessarily full knowledge of the facts, undermining their regulatory enforcement role.
In response to the amendments concerning Clauses 33 to 35 standing part, I can say that we are introducing a series of measures to increase accountability, robustness and transparency in the codes of practice process, while safeguarding the Information Commissioner’s role. The requirements for impact assessments and panel of experts mean that the codes will consider the application to, and impact on, all potential use cases. Given that the codes will have the force of law, the Secretary of State must have the ability to give her or his comments. The Information Commissioner is required to consider but not to act on those comments, preserving the commissioner’s independence. It remains for Parliament to give approval for any statutory code produced.
Amendments 142 and 143 impose a requirement on the ICO to prepare codes and for the Secretary of State to lay them in Parliament as quickly as practicable. They also limit the time that transitional provisions can be in place to a maximum of 12 months. This could mean that drafting processes are truncated or valid concerns are overlooked to hit a statutory deadline, rather than the codes being considered properly to reflect the relevant perspectives.
Given the importance of ensuring that any new codes are robust, comprehensive and considered, we do not consider imposing time limits on the production of codes to be a useful tool.
Finally, Amendment 150—
Baroness Kidron (CB)
We had this debate during the passage of the Online Safety Act. In the end, we all agreed—the House, including the Government, came to the view—that two and a half years, which is 18 months plus a transition period, was an almost egregious amount of time considering the rate at which the digital world moves. So, to consider that more than two and a half years might be required seems a little bit strange.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I absolutely recognise the need for speed, and my noble friend Lady Harding made this point very powerfully as well, but what we are trying to do is juggle that need with the need to go through the process properly to design these things well. Let me take it away and think about it more, to make sure that we have the right balancing point. I very much see the need; it is a question of the machinery that produces the right outcome in the right timing.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, I would very much welcome a meeting, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, suggested. I do not think it is useful for me to keep standing up and saying, “You are watering down the code”, and for the Minister to stand up and say, “Oh no, we’re not”. We are not in panto here, we are in Parliament, and it would be a fantastic use of all our time to sit down and work it out. I would like to believe that the Government are committed to data protection for children, because they have brought forward important legislation in this area. I would also like to believe that the Government are proud of a piece of legislation that has spread so far and wide—and been so impactful—and that they would not want to undermine it. On that basis, I ask the Minister to accede to the noble Baroness’s request.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am very happy to try to find a way forward on this. Let me think about how best to take this forward.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and, in particular, for that exchange. There is a bit of a contrast here—the mood of the Committee is probably to go with the grain of these clauses and to see whether they can be improved, rather than throw out the idea of an information commission and revert to the ICO on the basis that perhaps the information commission is a more logical way of setting up a regulator. I am not sure that I personally agree, but I understand the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I welcome her support on the aspect of the Secretary of State power.
We keep being reassured by the Minister, in all sorts of different ways. I am sure that the spirit is willing, but whether it is all in black and white is the big question. Where are the real safeguards? The proposals in this group from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to which she has spoken to so well, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, are very modest, to use the phrase from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I hope those discussions will take place because they fit entirely with the architecture of the Bill, which the Government have set out, and it would be a huge reassurance to those who believe that the Bill is watering down data subject rights and is not strengthening children’s rights.
I am less reassured by other aspects of what the Minister had to say, particularly about the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to the codes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, we had a lot of discussion about that in relation to the Ofcom codes, under the Online Safety Bill, and I do not think we got very far on that either. Nevertheless, there is disquiet about whether the Secretary of State should have those powers. The Minister said that the ICO is not required to act in accordance with the advice of the Secretary of State so perhaps the Minister has provided a chink of light. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Camrose
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the language of new section 120F(4) of the Data Protection Act 2018 to ensure that Article 3 of Regulation No 1182/71 (rules of interpretation regarding periods of time etc) will apply to it.
Viscount Camrose
“(3A) In section 205(2) (references to periods of time), after paragraph (za) insert—“(zb) section 120H(3) and (4);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that Article 3 of Regulation No 1182/71 (rules of interpretation regarding periods of time etc) does not apply to new section 120H(3) and (4) of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Baroness Kidron
“Code of practice on EdTech(1) The Commissioner must prepare a code of practice in consultation with the Department for Education and in accordance with sections 33 and 34 of this Act which contains such guidance as the Commissioner considers appropriate on the processing of children's data by providers of EdTech services and products.(2) In addition, in preparing a code or amendments under this section, the Commissioner must—(a) have regard to—(i) children’s interests and fundamental rights and freedoms as set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and General Comment 25 on Children’s Rights in relation to the Digital Environment, and(ii) the fact that children are entitled to a higher standard of protection than adults with regard to their personal data as established in the 2018 Act;(b) consult with—(i) children,(ii) educators,(iii) parents,(iv) EdTech providers, and(v) persons who appear to the Commissioner to represent the interests of children.(3) EdTech Controllers or processors providing services or products to schools must comply with any such code and provide information on compliance to schools as part of the school’s procurement procedures.(4) Demonstrated adherence by an EdTech provider to the EdTech Code of Practice may be used by a school as a means of demonstrating compliance with their obligations as a data controller.(5) The Commissioner must prepare a report, in consultation with the EdTech industry, on the steps required to develop a certification scheme under Article 42 of the UK GDPR, to enable the industry to demonstrate the compliance of EdTech services and products with the UK GDPR, and conformity with the Age Appropriate Design Code of Practice and the EdTech Code of Practice.(6) In this section—“EdTech” means a service or product that digitise education functions including administration and management information systems, learning and assessment and safeguarding. They include services or products used within school settings and at home on the recommendation, advice or instruction of a school;“school” means a school that falls within the definition of school in section 14, 15 or 16 of Part 4 of Schedule 3 of the 2018 Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment proposes a statutory Code of Practice to provide guidance to companies that provide EdTech services and products. It aims to ensure that such companies meet their legal obligations under existing data protection law, protect children and empower schools.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 146 is in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Jones; I thank them all for their support. Before I set out the amendment that would provide a code of practice for edtech and why it is so urgently required, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and officials in the Department for Education for their engagement on this issue. I hope the Minister can approach this issue with the same desire they have shown to fill the gap that it seeks to address.
A child does not have a choice about whether they go to school. For those who do not fall into the minority who are homeschooled or who, for a reason of health or development, fall outside the education system, it is compulsory. The reason I make this point at the outset is that, if school is compulsory, it must follow that a child should enjoy the same level of privacy and safety at school as they do in any other environment. Yet we have allowed a gap in our data legislation, meaning that a child’s data is unprotected at school and, at the same time, invested in an unregulated and uncertified edtech market to develop promises of learning outcomes that range from unsubstantiated to false.
Schools are keen to adopt new technologies and say that they feel pressure to do so. In both cases, they lack the knowledge and time to assess the privacy and safety risks of the technology products that they are being sold. Amendment 146 would enable children and schools to benefit from emerging technologies. It would reduce the burden on schools in ensuring compliance so that they can get on with the job of teaching our children in a safe, developmentally appropriate and rights-respecting environment, and it would deal with companies that fail to provide evidence for their products and routinely exploit the complexity of data protection law to children’s detriment. In sum, the amendment brings forward a code of conduct for edtech.
Subsections (1) and (2) would require the ICO to bring forward a data code for edtech and tech used in education settings. In doing so, the commissioner would be required to consider children’s fundamental rights, as set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and their relevance to the digital world, as adopted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child in general comment 25 in 2021. The commissioner would have to consider the fact that children are legally entitled to a higher standard of protection in respect to their personal data than adults. In keeping with other data codes, the amendment also sets out whom the ICO must consult when preparing the code, including children, parents and teachers, as well as edtech companies.
Subsection (3) would require edtech companies to provide schools with transparent information about their data-processing practices and their impact on children. This is of particular importance because the department’s own consultation showed that schools are struggling to understand the implications of being a data controller and most often accept the default settings of products and services. Having a code of conduct would allow the Information Commissioner not only to set the standards in subsections (1) and (2) but to insist on the way that information is given in order to support schools to make the right choices for their pupils.
Subsection (4) would allow schools to use edtech providers’ adherence to the code as proof of fulfilling their own data protection duties. Once again, this would alleviate the burden on teachers and school leaders.
Subsection (5) would simply give the commissioner a role in supporting a certification scheme to enable the industry to demonstrate both the compliance of edtech services and products with the UK GDPR and conformity with the age-appropriate design code of practice and the edtech code of practice. The IEEE Standards Association and For Humanity have published certification standards for the AADC but they have not yet been approved by the ICO or UKAS standards. Subsection (5) would act as a catalyst, ensuring that the ICO and the certification partners work together efficiently. Ultimately, schools will respond better to certification than to pure data law.
If the edtech sector was formally in scope of the AADC and it was robustly applied, that would do some, though not all, of what the amendment seeks to do. But in 2018, Her Majesty’s Government, as they were then, made the decision that schools are responsible for children and that the AADC would be confusing. I am not sure whether the Government of the day did not understand the AADC. It requires companies to offer children privacy by design and default. Nothing in the code would have infringed—or will infringe—on a school’s safeguarding duties, but leaving schools out of scope leaves teachers or school data protection officers with vast responsibilities for wilfully leaky products that simply should not fall to them. Many in this House thought that the Government were wrong, and since then we have seen grand abuse of the gap that was created. This is an opportunity to put that error right.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I rise once again in my Robin role to support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on this amendment. We had a debate on 23 November last year that the noble Baroness brought on this very issue of edtech. Rather than repeat all the points that were made in that very useful debate, I point my noble friend the Minister to it.
I would just like to highlight a couple of quick points. First, in supporting this amendment, I am not anti-edtech in any way, shape or form. It is absolutely clear that technology can bring huge benefits to students of all ages but it is also clear that education is not unique. It is exactly like every other part of society: where technology brings benefit, it also brings substantial risk. We are learning the hard way that thinking that any element of society can mitigate the risks of technology without legal guard-rails is a mistake.
We have seen really clearly with the age-appropriate design code that commercial organisations operating under its purview changed the way they protected children’s data as a result of that code. The absence of the equivalent code for the edtech sector should show us clearly that we will not have had those same benefits. If we bring edtech into scope, either through this amendment or simply through extending the age-appropriate design code, I would hazard a strong guess that we would start to see very real improvements in the protection of children’s data.
In the debate on 23 November, I asked my noble friend the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, why the age-appropriate design code did not include education. I am not an expert in education, by any stretch of the imagination. The answer I received was that it was okay because the keeping children safe in education framework covered edtech. Since that debate, I have had a chance to read that framework, and I cannot find a section in it that specifically addresses children’s data. There is lots of really important stuff in it, but there is no clearly signposted section in that regard. So even if all the work fell on schools, that framework on its own, as published on GOV.UK, does not seem to meet the standards of a framework for data protection for children in education. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, this is not just about schools’ responsibility but the edtech companies’ responsibility, and it is clear that there is no section on that in the keeping children safe in education framework either.
The answer that we received last year in this House does not do justice to the real question: in the absence of a specific code—the age-appropriate design code or a specific edtech code—how can we be confident that there really are the guardrails, which we know we need to put in place in every sector, in this most precious and important sector, which is where we teach our children?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to be able to support this amendment. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, I am not anti-edtech at all. I did not take part in the debate last year. When I listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and even having had the excellent A Blueprint for Education Data from the 5Rights Foundation and the Digital Futures for Children brief in support of a code of practice for education technology, I submit that it is chilling to hear what is happening as we speak with edtech in terms of extraction of data and not complying properly with data protection.
I got involved some years ago with the advisory board of the Institute for Ethical AI in Education, which Sir Anthony Seldon set up with Professor Rose Luckin and Priya Lakhani. Our intention was slightly broader—it was designed to create a framework for the use of AI specifically in education. Of course, one of the very important elements was the use of data, and the safe use of data, both by those procuring AI systems and by those developing them and selling them into schools. That was in 2020 and 2021, and we have not moved nearly far enough since that time. Obviously, this is data specific, because we are talking about the data protection Bill, but what is being proposed here would cure some of the issues that are staring us in the face.
As we have been briefed by Digital Futures for Children, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, emphasised, there is widespread invasion of children’s privacy in data collection. Sometimes there is little evidence to support the claimed learning benefits, while schools and parents lack the technical and legal expertise to understand what data is collected. As has been emphasised throughout the passage of this Bill, children deserve the highest standards of privacy and data protection—especially in education, of course.
From this direction, I wholly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is proposing, so well supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. Given that it again appears that the Government gave an undertaking to bring forward a suitable code of practice but have not done so, there is double reason to want to move forward on this during the passage of the Bill. We very much support Amendment 146 on that basis.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 146 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken.
These days, most children learn to swipe an iPad long before they learn to ride a bike. They are accessing the internet at ever younger ages on a multitude of devices. Children are choosing to spend more time online, browsing social media, playing games and using apps. However, we also force children to spend an increasing amount of time online for their education. A growing trend over the last decade or more, this escalated during the pandemic. Screen time at home became lesson time; it was a vital educational lifeline for many in lockdown.
Like other noble Lords, I am not against edtech, but the reality is that the necessary speed of the transition meant that insufficient regard was paid to children’s rights and the data practices of edtech. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, as ever, has given us a catalogue of abuses of children’s data which have already taken place in schools, so there is a degree of urgency about this, and Amendment 146 seeks to rectify the situation.
One in five UK internet users are children. Schools are assessing their work online; teachers are using online resources and recording enormous amounts of sensitive data about every pupil. Edtech companies have identified that such a large and captive population is potentially profitable. This amendment reinforces that children are also a vulnerable population and that we must safeguard their data and personal information on this basis. Their rights should not be traded in as the edtech companies chase profits.
The code of practice proposed in this amendment establishes standards for companies to follow, in line with the fundamental rights and freedoms as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It asserts that they are entitled to a higher degree of protection than adults in the digital realm. It would oblige the commissioner to prepare a code of practice which ensures this. It underlines that consultations with individuals and organisations who have the best interests of children at heart is vital, so that the enormous edtech companies cannot bamboozle already overstretched teachers and school leaders.
In education, data has always been processed from children in school. It is necessary for the school’s functioning and to monitor the educational development of individual children. Edtech is now becoming a permanent fixture in children’s schooling and education, but it is largely untested, unregulated and unaccountable. Currently, it is impossible to know what data is collected by edtech providers and how they are using it. This blurs the boundaries between the privacy-preserving and commercial parts of services profiting from children’s data.
Why is this important? First, education data can reveal particularly sensitive and protected characteristics about children: their ethnicity, religion, disability or health status. Such data can also be used to create algorithms that profile children and predict or assess their academic ability and performance; it could reinforce prejudice, create siloed populations or entrench low expectations. Secondly, there is a risk that data-profiling children can lead to deterministic outcomes, defining too early what subjects a child is good at, how creative they are and what they are interested in. Safeguards must be put in place in relation to the processing of children’s personal data in schools to protect those fundamental rights. Thirdly, of course, is money. Data is appreciating in value, resulting in market pressure for data to be collected, processed, shared and reused. Increasingly, such data processed from children in schools is facilitated by edtech, an already major and expanding sector with a projected value of £3.4 billion.
The growth of edtech’s use in schools is promoted by the Department for Education’s edtech strategy, which sets out a vision for edtech to be an
“inseparable thread woven throughout the processes of teaching and learning”.
Yet the strategy gives little weight to data protection beyond noting the importance of preventing data breaching. Tech giants have become the biggest companies in the world because they own data on us. Schoolchildren have little choice as to their involvement with these companies in the classroom, so we have a moral duty to ensure that they are protected, not commodified or exploited, when learning. It must be a priority for the Government to keep emerging technologies in education under regular review.
Equally important is that the ICO should invest in expertise specific to the domain of education. By regularly reviewing emerging technologies—those already in use and those proposed for use—in education, and their potential risks and impacts, such experts could provide clear and timely guidance for schools to protect individual children and entire cohorts. Amendment 146 would introduce a new code of practice on the processing and use of children’s data by edtech providers. It would also ensure that edtech met their legal obligations under the law, protected children’s data and empowered schools.
I was pleased to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has had constructive discussions with the Education Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. The way forward on this matter is some sort of joint work between the two departments. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said that she hopes the Minister today will respond with equal positivity; he could start by supporting the principles of this amendment. Beyond that, I hope that he will agree to liaise with the Department for Education and embrace the noble Baroness’s request for more meetings to discuss this issue on a joint basis.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am grateful, as ever, to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for both Amendment 146 and her continued work in championing the protection of children.
Let me start by saying that the Government strongly agree with the noble Baroness that all providers of edtech services must comply with the law when collecting and making decisions about the use of children’s data throughout the duration of their processing activities. That said, I respectfully submit that this amendment is not necessary, for the reasons I shall set out.
The ICO already has existing codes and guidance for children and has set out guidance about how the children’s code, data protection and e-privacy legislation apply to edtech providers. Although the Government recognise the value that ICO codes can have in promoting good practice and improving compliance, they do not consider that it would be appropriate to add these provisions to the Bill without further detailed consultation with the ICO and the organisations likely to be affected by them.
The guidance covers broad topics, including choosing a lawful basis for the processing; rules around information society services; targeting children with marketing; profiling children or making automated decisions about them; data sharing; children’s data rights; and exemptions relating to children’s data. Separately, as we have discussed throughout this debate, the age-appropriate design code deals specifically with the provision of online services likely to be accessed by children in the UK; this includes online edtech services. I am pleased to say that the Department for Education has begun discussions with commercial specialists to look at strengthening the contractual clauses relating to the procurement of edtech resources to ensure that they comply with the standards set out in the UK GDPR and the age-appropriate design code.
On the subject of requiring the ICO to develop a report with the edtech sector, with a view to creating a certification scheme and assessing compliance and conformity with data protection, we believe that such an approach should be at the discretion of the independent regulator.
The issues that have been raised in this very good, short debate are deeply important. Edtech is an issue that the Government are considering carefully—especially the Department for Education, given the increasing time spent online for education. I note that the DPA 2018 already contains a power for the Secretary of State to request new codes of practice, which could include one on edtech if the evidence warranted it. I would be happy to return to this in future but consider the amendment unnecessary at this time. For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept the amendment and hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I thank everyone who spoke, particularly for making it absolutely clear that not one of us, including myself, is against edtech. We just want it to be fair and want the rules to be adequate.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for detailing what education data includes. It might feel as though it is just about someone’s exam results or something that might already be public but it can include things such as how often they go to see the nurse, what their parents’ immigration status is or whether they are late. There is a lot of information quite apart from this personalised education provision, to which the noble Baroness referred. In fact, we have a great deal of emerging evidence that it has no pedagogical background to it. There is also the question of huge investment right across the sector in things where we do not know what they are. I thank the noble Baroness for that.
As to the Minister’s response, I hope that he will forgive me for being disappointed. I am grateful to him for reminding us that the Secretary of State has that power under the DPA 2018. I would love for her to use that power but, so far, it has not been forthcoming. The evidence we saw from the freedom of information request is that the scheme the department wanted to put in place has been totally retracted—and clearly for resource reasons rather than because it is not needed. I find it quite surprising that the Minister can suggest that it is all gung ho here in the UK but that Germany, Holland, France, et cetera are being hysterical in regard to this issue. Each one of them has found it to be egregious.
Finally, the AADC applies only to internet society services; there is an exception for education. Where they are joint controllers, they are outsourcing the problems to the schools, which have no level of expertise in this and just take default settings. It is not good enough, I am afraid. I feel bound to say this: I understand the needs of parliamentary business, which puts just a handful of us in this Room to discuss things out of sight, but, if the Government are not willing to protect children’s data at school, when they are in loco parentis to our children, I am really bewildered as to what this Bill is for. Education is widely understood to be a social good but we are downgrading the data protections for children and rejecting every single positive move that anybody has made in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment but I will bring this back on Report.
Viscount Camrose
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the language of new paragraph 4(A2) of Schedule 16 to the Data Protection Act 2018 to ensure that Article 3 of Regulation No 1182/71 (rules of interpretation regarding periods of time etc) will apply to it.
Viscount Camrose
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the language of new section 164A(3) of the Data Protection Act 2018 to ensure that Article 3 of Regulation No 1182/71 (rules of interpretation regarding periods of time etc) will apply to it.
House of Lords
Death of a Former Member and a Member
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, on 6 April 2024. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends. I also regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on 10 April 2024. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Steel: Port Talbot
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the social impact of the Port Talbot steel works blast furnace’s closure on the surrounding communities.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the impact of transforming the Port Talbot steelworks. This is why we have established a transition board with membership from the local authority, the Welsh Government and Tata. The board has £100 million of funding—£80 million from the UK Government and £20 million from Tata—for projects to support the communities affected. The UK Government are contributing £500 million towards Tata’s £1.25 billion investment, to ensure a sustainable future for Welsh steel and to safeguard up to 5,000 jobs.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
I thank the Minister for those remarks, but can I have an answer to one question? What assurance have we that we have sufficient electricity to work the steel plants at full capacity? Without that, we could have large-scale unemployment. South Wales has known enough of that in the past. Also, our communities could be affected. I remember how many of our local organisations lost out because of previous unemployment, being unable to take part again. There will be all sorts of consequences if we do not have full-scale working plants, and that depends on full-scale electricity supply.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that point and agree with him. This is why we have invested significantly in developing the Celtic Freeport as an anchor for floating offshore wind. It will be sufficient to provide a large portion of the power for these two new electric arc furnaces.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, my union, Unite, last week voted to strike over Tata’s disastrous plan. The plan is an appalling act of industrial vandalism as far as we are concerned, with the loss of thousands of jobs devastating the local community and the local economy. As the Minister knows, Tata has other options, especially as Unite has secured a commitment from the Labour Party to invest £3 billion—not half a billion pounds—in UK steel. Will the Minister therefore urgently rethink the Government’s strategy and insist that Tata keeps at least one blast furnace going until the end of its life as a condition of investing any public money in this operation?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I must respectfully disagree. This is a very sound plan to ensure that we have a future of steel-making not just in this country but in Wales. This plan will save 5,000 jobs. It will make the steel industry profitable and result in a crucial circular economy where we take our scrap metal and turn it into real steel rather than importing steel or ore from abroad. The Opposition are keen to copy the Conservative Party in so many of our policies, so I am surprised that in this instance they refuse to do so.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is an outstanding record of employee work in Port Talbot, and that there has not been a significant strike for 40 years there? In these circumstances, is it not outrageous that Tata should now threaten to take back the employees’ pension and redundancy packages to try to stop any industrial action? Is it not time that the Government got a grip on this to secure the future of this vital plant?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful for that point. All of us in government are very sensitive to the people whose lives will be affected, which is why we are putting so much money into this process—£100 million in the transition board. I take this opportunity to thank Tata for its commitment to invest £1.25 billion in regenerating the area and renewing the British steel industry. I urge the unions to maintain their very strong record of good relationships, to not go on strike and to work with Tata, so that we can deliver what will be an incredible benefit for the area and the country.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I agree with all previous speakers that it would be an utter tragedy for steel-making to disappear from Port Talbot. However, does my noble friend agree that the only way of preserving a great British steel industry, and a green steel industry at that, is for the workers to work closely with Tata Steel, and for us to further green it using the offshore floating wind projects and with the potential of advanced modular reactors on site in Port Talbot?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that point, and she is absolutely right. If we look back six months or a year, there was very little future for steel-making in this country, and now we have one; we have a truly advanced manufacturing plan for this entire industry. This is something we should celebrate. It is a true industrial policy backed by government money, in partnership with the private sector, and supported by the extraordinary and brilliant talent of the people at Port Talbot.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will have noticed that the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition visited Barrow-in-Furness recently. The reason they went there, as he knows, is to see its submarine manufacturing process. Submarines need high-strength steel—the sort of steel that comes from blast furnaces and not from electric arc ones. Where will that steel come from? From which countries will we import it?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
It is very important that we have a strong defence basis; there is no question about that. The UK industry uses only about 1% of British steel. A quantity of the steel comes from Sheffield Forgemasters, which is owned by the Ministry of Defence. This plan will actually produce the right level of steel from recycled scrap, which is far more efficient for the environment, to enable us to provide for our defence needs.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the resources he has announced are enormously welcome? However, on the point the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, made about electricity supply, there should be an absolute guarantee. His Majesty’s Government might consider using the site for one of our many nuclear reactors that we have talked about for the last 18 months. This would be a wonderful situation if that were included on this particular site.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that comment. The possibility of advanced modular reactors or small modular reactors operating in conjunction with offshore wind was just mentioned. The key is to build a sustainable green steel industry. That is why the Government have put so much money and thought behind this extraordinary and very powerful revolutionary plan.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, demand for steel is expected to grow tenfold in the coming years. With proper investment, the UK could again be the steel-making capital of Europe. Will the Minister consider changing the procurement rules to ensure that UK public contracts use 100% UK steel, which by itself would create and maintain hundreds, possibly thousands, of jobs?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am always wary of insisting on local content when it comes to procurement. We want the best possible value and choice for our consumers, so I am not sure that is the answer. The point is to create a steel industry that produces steel that everyone in the world—not simply customers in the United Kingdom—wants to buy at the right price.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, we should be very grateful for the investment that Tata has made in the United Kingdom, starting with Tata Steel and then Jaguar Land Rover. These are huge, risky investments. With the big free trade agreement between the UK and India about to be signed, we should back Tata and appreciate what it has done.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for making that point. The first visit of my colleague Minister Mak as a Minister in my department was to Port Talbot to meet Tata’s managers. They made it very clear that they want to manage the redundancy process as closely as possible and by using a voluntary scheme. They have a huge amount of interest in this country and have partnered with us by creating a giga-factory, which kick-started our EV car industry in a major way. I echo the noble Lord when I thank Tata for all it is doing with the United Kingdom.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s decision to give £500 million to Tata means that 2,800 people will lose their jobs. These are desperate times. People are worried and angry. The Government’s negligence in the 1980s devastated industrial communities, and the scars of entrenched inequality are still evident today. The Port Talbot transition board has up to £100 million to invest in skills and regeneration. Seven months on, can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House if any of this has been spent and if the strategy for doing so will be set out?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I point out that the Conservatives have not been in government continuously since the 1980s; there was a prolonged period when Labour was in power. However, the next meeting of the transition board, on 27 April, will discuss exactly that: how will that £100 million be spent on local regeneration? The Government have also invested just under £800 million in the four city deals and £150 million in the Swansea Bay area. We are also investing significant tens of millions, nearly £60 million, in the offshore wind industry in the area, so we are definitely putting our money where our mouth is.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I will return to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Fox. What percentage of British steel will be used in the Dreadnought class, the AUKUS class submarines, Type 26s, Type 32s and fleet solid support ships? We need sovereign capability and resilience, and I have a feeling that we will be relying on France and other countries for quite a lot of this specialist steel.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
The noble Lord knows far more about building warships than I ever will. All I can say, as I said earlier, is that 1% of defence requirement is provided by UK steel. We believe that this plan will allow us to produce the necessary steel for all our industries, particularly as technology develops. I say again that this is truly a first-class plan to regenerate the area and create a green steel industry for the UK. We should celebrate it while putting in a huge amount of attention to detail to ensure that we mitigate for affecting people’s lives, as much as possible.
Schools and Colleges: Special Educational Needs
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that, when meeting the needs of those with special educational needs in the school and college system, a legacy of training and knowledge is retained within those institutions.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name in the Order Paper and remind the House of my declared interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan aims to create enduring and inclusive cultures in our schools and colleges, by delivering training and knowledge to improve SEND support. We are delivering teacher training frameworks for greater SEND content, a new qualification for school SENCOs, the universal services programme, national standards, teacher training bursaries for specialist SEND teachers in further education and partnerships for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply. However, why do we not have a strategic plan to make sure that at least the most common special educational needs—I once again remind the House of my interest in dyslexia—are embedded within schools? We do not want to go through the process of parents having to spot that their child is struggling, but for the school to come to the parents and say, “You have a special educational need”, not the other way round. It is reckoned that over half of special educational needs are not spotted at school.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I would say two things to the noble Lord. First, we do not need a diagnosis for a child to be able to offer them support; it is important that a child gets support as quickly as possible. Secondly, our improvement plan is exactly the strategic plan that the noble Lord refers to.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that provision for special educational needs in our country would be greatly damaged by Labour’s proposed education tax? The party says it would exempt from the VAT charge those in independent schools with education, health and care plans, but there are some 100,000 in independent schools with special educational needs who lack such plans. How on earth would the state sector cope with the large number of special needs students in independent schools who would be forced to leave them, with grave damage to their education, by Labour’s education tax? I declare my interest as president of the Independent Schools Association.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. As the House knows, the Government have invested very large amounts of money in increasing capacity for special school places, rising by over 60,000 places since 2010, but the sector is still using independent schools. It would put huge pressure particularly on those children and their parents.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, notwithstanding the list she gave in response to the first Question, the underfunding in our mainstream schools system means that there are many children in mainstream schools whose needs are not being met? Does she further accept that, occasionally, those children who get plans in primary school find it difficult to find a secondary school, because secondary schools can choose not to take children with plans, thus making them undesirable to schools because they know they cannot meet their needs?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The national funding formula is structured, as the noble Baroness is aware, to make sure that funding is targeted towards pupils who need additional support. In 2024-25, over £4.5 billion, or about 10% of the formula, is allocated according to deprivation factors, and £7.8 billion, almost 18%, will be allocated for additional needs factors. Both those elements correlate with the prevalence of SEND.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will know that there are many thousands of individual special needs teachers who go that extra mile in meeting the very individual needs of young people with special needs. What is the department doing to ensure that, where people have come up with innovative ways to address needs, learning is both retained within the institution, as in the original Question, and shared with other schools across the sector?
Baroness Barran (Con)
That is precisely what we are aiming to do through our practitioner standards. The noble Baroness will be aware that we are starting with the biggest areas of additional needs: speech, language and communication; autism; and mental health and well-being. We have a twin approach; we partly have academic researchers looking at the evidence base, but we are also working very closely with practitioners to make sure we capture the best practice, and then publish and share it.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, at the heart of my noble friend’s Question was surely the issue of teacher retention. Workload pressure is cited as the number one reason for teachers leaving the profession. The Government currently have a Workload Reduction Taskforce, which in January published its Initial Recommendations. One of those really surprised me; it was to fully implement and strengthen the recommendations of the two previous reviews, held in 2016 and 2018. Could the Minister assure us that the DfE and Ofsted will at some point publish a joint response on their success in fulfilling these recommendations, as they agreed at the time, or what confidence can the profession have that the recommendations of this current task force will be taken on board?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I can genuinely reassure the noble Baroness that teacher workload and teacher retention are incredibly high up our list of priorities within the department. It is a central focus of the team. In addition to workload, it is critical that we equip our teachers with the skills, experience and confidence they need to deal with what they are facing in the classroom. That is why, for example, the inclusion of much more content on special educational needs and disabilities in initial training and the early careers framework is so important.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, pupils with special educational needs are more than four times more likely to develop a mental health problem than other people. This means that one in seven young people with a mental health difficulty will also have another special educational need. Given the huge and increasing backlog for mental health support in schools, will the Minister tell us whether the Government will support Labour’s plan to place a mental health professional in every school?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As the noble Baroness knows, the Government have an ambitious plan in terms of the creation and development of mental health support teams in schools. We estimate that, from April 2024, those support teams will cover 4.2 million children and young people, and we think that will rise to about half of all children and young people by spring next year. The challenge, which the noble Baroness will recognise, is to make sure that the demand for mental health practitioners is balanced between the health service, schools and other parts of the economy.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, children with special needs are expelled from popular schools and transferred to less performing schools. What will the Minister do to make sure that that situation is addressed so that schools are not allowed to dump their children on another school?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We have to be very careful about talking about dumping children. I have not met a school yet that behaves like that. I want to pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. Some of the best practice I have seen is where schools are establishing small units within the school campus for children with the most disruptive behaviour and only the best teachers in the school are allowed to teach in that unit, thereby sending a strong message about how they value those children.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, according to the Government’s recent statistics, in only 49% of cases of children who have been assessed as needing an education, health and care plan are those plans produced within the 20-week statutory limit, leaving children, families and schools in limbo because they cannot access the funding required for the support the child needs. Can the Minister say what she is doing about this?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her important question, which is at the centre of parents’ concerns as they worry about getting the right support for their children. We are testing a number of measures through the change programme to try to improve the quality, consistency and timeliness of the education, health and care plan process. I asked colleagues the question that the noble Baroness is asking me, and it is too early to share the learnings, but as soon as we can, I will be delighted to do so.
Police: Joe Anderson
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Heseltine
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the conduct of the police in their treatment of Joe Anderson, who resigned as the Mayor of Liverpool in 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, an investigation involving Mr Anderson remains ongoing and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment while that remains the case. The police are rightly independent of government and decisions concerning investigations are operational ones for the respective police forces to make.
Lord Heseltine (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, was arrested on serious charges, including fraud and bribery. That was three years and four months ago. He lost his job, his reputation and his income. No charge has been made since then. Does my noble friend the Minister think that is justice?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I am unable to comment on whether this is justice or not. The fact is that the force has advised that this investigation remains ongoing and live. That includes ongoing investigation with the Crown Prosecution Service. By way of further context, Mr Anderson has previously challenged the decision to arrest him by way of judicial review, including with an appeal, and was unsuccessful in the courts. Since then, neither he nor anyone acting on his behalf has made a complaint to the police. However, the force has confirmed that it is seeking to conclude this investigation as expeditiously as possible.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine—one of the few Tories whose reputation is still strong in the city of Liverpool, thanks to the work following the Toxteth riots all those decades ago. I declare an interest insomuch as Joe Anderson is a friend of mine. He is a man who—as has just been said—has been destroyed. His reputation has been completely and totally destroyed, and everything that goes with it, although he has not been charged with a single thing. It reminds me of Sir Cliff Richard. Do not start charging and making allegations across anywhere to anyone if you do not have proof and cannot substantiate what you say. It is an absolute disgrace what has happened to this man.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, that is not a question: it is a statement. However, I am going to be unable to develop my theme, which is that I am afraid that I cannot comment on ongoing investigations, as the House well understands.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, we are not asking the noble Lord to comment on the investigation. Will he return to the question of justice, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, and reflect on the words of the Liverpool-born Prime Minister William Gladstone, who said that
“justice delayed is justice denied”?
Is it not outrageous that, after all this time, this has been hanging over someone and their family? The expedition of this case is the issue that the noble Lord has raised, not whether it is right or wrong.
Secondly, as far as the politics of Liverpool is concerned, it does not help politics or good governance for a case to fester like this for so long, undoing some of the achievements of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, who, as Secretary of State for the Environment, came to the city of Liverpool in 1981 and said, rightly, that he did not know that conditions such as those existed in this country. He vowed to do something about it, working across the political divide. Anything that impedes those achievements would be a very negative thing for Liverpool and the country as a whole.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I hear what the noble Lord has to say on the subject, but I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation. The noble Lord is, in effect, inviting me to comment on the complexity of the investigation and various other operational aspects of it, in order to make a judgment as to whether it is delayed, denied or whatever. I cannot do that.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my business connections in Liverpool, but I must ask the Minister to come back to the general question of the longevity of this investigation. We have just had a Member of the other House who was under suspicion for two and a half years, unable to do his job, and then no case was held against him. I am sorry, but this is unacceptable. We really cannot have a justice system that punishes people, guilty or not guilty, without them knowing what the case is, what the charge is, or why it has been held up for so long. The police really do have to come to some conclusion rapidly.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as I say, that may very well be the case in the majority of investigations. I cannot comment on the specifics of this one, not least because I do not know the specifics of this one. It would be completely inappropriate for me to do so. However, I will agree that, obviously, in general, investigations should be as speedy as possible.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there should be some maximum timeframe on this because, otherwise, it could go on for ever—and it looks like it is going to. Surely, there should be some point at which you know, at least, whether there is going to be further action taken against you.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I do not agree with that. It depends very much on the complexity of the individual investigation. As I have said, the Merseyside police have confirmed that they intend to conclude it as expeditiously as possible. Beyond that, I can go no further.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, it is fitting that we are discussing police conduct today, 35 years, almost to the hour, since the Hillsborough disaster that killed 97 people. Today, the Labour Party has confirmed that it would introduce a Hillsborough law to ensure public authority accountability. Does the Minister agree that there is much more that we can do to achieve justice for those killed and to ensure that such a disaster never happens again?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I join the noble Lord in honouring those who died, of course; 35 years have passed since the tragedy and the impact continues to be devastating for many. The families have my sympathy. The families of the 97 have shown tremendous courage and determination and obviously their loved ones will not be forgotten. In his Statement to the other place on 6 December, the Lord Chancellor committed to a debate later this year on the Government’s response to the Bishop Jones report. It would be unwise of me to pre-empt that debate, so I shall say no more at this point.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, in view of the Minister’s repeated remarks, do I understand that he is saying that the Government have no role in influencing the police in their inquiries?
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, while it is true that the Government should not be able to direct the police in inquiries such as this, as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said, the amount of time that this man and his family have been under suspicion and under investigation, with rumours floating about, is not fair on any individual person, let alone a person who seeks to represent his community in high office, be it locally or nationally. We have seen far too many cases of inquiries—whether involving parliamentarians or local government officials—going on for far too long. The Government ought to have a look at this to see if something should not be done to put it right.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I absolutely hear what my noble friend has to say on the subject and I will, of course, take that comment back to the department.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, notwithstanding the fact that he cannot comment on an individual case or its complexity, it does a disservice to the police service to be seen to be taking quite so long over this case?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Again, I would prefer not to pass judgment on the quality of the investigation that the Merseyside police have done, as the noble Baroness is asking me to do. I really do not know what the complexity of this case is. I do not know why it has taken so long to resolve. I would assume that there are very strong operational reasons, given the obviously high-profile nature of the people involved.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
May I ask my noble friend about a case on which he can comment? It is that of a public figure: Ted Heath. I can sense—although I cannot see—him gritting his teeth even as I raise that name. The only reason Ted Heath was accused, with the most vicious accusations, is that he was a public figure, and a vulnerable public figure. He died years ago. Surely, this is a matter of public service that we should be doing in this House, and my noble friend would become a local hero in this House if he simply went away and told the Home Office that this would be settled once and for all and that, at last, Ted Heath’s name could be cleared.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Well, I hear what my noble friend has to say. He has heard what I have had to say on this subject on at least 20 occasions and, no doubt, I will be called back to the Dispatch Box to say it all again. As I said last time, I have gone back to the Home Office and we are looking into ways of perhaps answering the noble Lord’s question.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I speak as someone who is proud to have been brought up, and to have gone to school, in Toxteth, and who has a huge amount of respect for Joe Anderson and all that he achieved when he was mayor. Having listened to the various comments made on all sides of this House, I hope my noble friend the Minister will agree that we should ask: is there not a better way in which we can handle situations such as this? Citing the various examples that he has heard, could he perhaps give us the opportunity of coming back when he has reflected with his colleagues in the Home Office on the points that have been raised?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that and I will of course reflect on the points that have been made. However, as I said in my earlier answer, it would be inappropriate for government to interfere with the organisational matters of the police.
Pandemic Preparedness
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Deech
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their state of preparedness for the next pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
The Government continue to plan and prepare for a range of pandemic and emerging infectious disease scenarios. These include respiratory diseases such as flu and diseases spread by contact, vector-borne or through oral transmission. This built on lessons learned through Covid-19. We are working with partners to strengthen our pandemic preparedness and to build a flexible and scalable response that can be adapted to any threat that the health and social care system faces.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, that is not very reassuring. With all due respect to my noble and learned friend Lady Hallett, the remit that she has been handed is too wide, too deep, too long and too expensive, not least due to the lawyers. It seems to be looking backwards rather than forwards. We do not need to know who said what to whom in the middle of the night a few years ago; we need to know whether we have innovative vaccine labs, ventilators, the right medical staff, preparedness with PPE, supply lines and so on. I suggest to the Minister that either my noble and learned friend’s remit be cut down or he set up a quick and short inquiry, looking forward to the next pandemic, which could be with us within months. Sweden managed its inquiry in two years. This one will take too long.
Lord Markham (Con)
I totally agree with the noble Baroness. What I am interested in as a Health Minister is what lessons we can learn so that we are better prepared next time round. My understanding is that stage 1 is going to be reported in early summer, and that should give us some of those findings. I completely agree that that is what really matters.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, an international pandemic treaty and government policies from 2021 are currently being negotiated by the World Health Assembly, aimed at preparing for the next global health emergency and preventing a repeat of what South Africa called vaccine apartheid, where countries had vastly unequal access to vaccines and drugs. Next month, World Health Organization member states are expected to vote on the final text. Where do we stand on the key issue of pathogen access and benefit sharing? Do we stand on the side of the group for equity or with those rich countries that have suggested that such an approach would undermine their sovereignty?
Lord Markham (Con)
I think our record in this speaks for itself. I am very proud of the action that we took as a Government to make sure that the AstraZeneca vaccine was prepared quickly, put in arms quickly and offered all around the world on a not-for-profit basis very quickly. Action speaks louder than words, and that is something that we are well-prepared on. I have been involved in some of the conversations about world pandemic preparedness. There is action that we think we can take collectively as a world, but what we are not prepared to see happen is our sovereignty—the management of our health services—being ceded to other countries.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, procurement during the pandemic has left a bitter taste in the country. While many good citizens stepped up in the public interest, there are legitimate concerns that others were profiteering at that difficult time. Can the Minister give a firm commitment there would be no VIP fast lane if there were another pandemic? Are the Government putting in place a much more transparent emergency procurement system as part of their preparedness planning?
Lord Markham (Con)
I think it is understood and accepted that the VIP fast lane was not a good way of going ahead; lessons have definitely been learned. At the same time, I refer to the fact that 97% of all procurement fit the bill and worked very well. Yes, 3% did not and lessons need to be worked on, but we should remember that, in those extraordinary times, 97% was pretty good.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has talked about lessons learned. Is not one lesson that was learned the terrible impact that the lockdowns had on our economy and society, children’s mental health, cancer rates and so on? In future, can we make absolutely certain, before taking any drastic step like a lockdown, that we weigh up the costs and benefits of such a policy?
Lord Markham (Con)
Absolutely. To respond to both this question and the earlier question from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the other things I would like to see the inquiry look at are the lockdown and comparisons with countries such as Sweden, what lessons can be learned across the whole health system, the impact on the mental health of our children and a lot of the other areas that my noble friend mentioned.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the WHO has identified Nipah virus as a priority candidate for the next pandemic. It belongs to the same group of viruses as the measles virus. Fortunately, Oxford University has developed a vaccine that went into human trial last week. The lesson therefore is that we should identify the organisms that are likely to cause pandemics and be prepared ahead of time with the vaccines; several other candidates have also been identified. For that to happen, we require a global conglomerate to focus on development of vaccines. Do the Government have any plans to establish one?
Lord Markham (Con)
We definitely look to work closely with our colleagues, and I have spoken to my Health Minister counterparts on this. One of the lessons from the pandemic was that you also need to have your own capability. The work we have done on the100-day mission, and the strategic relationship we have entered into with Moderna—which can develop vaccines in as little as four to six weeks to answer some of those unknowns—is very powerful.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, it is now two years since the UK Health Security Agency replaced Public Health England. As we await the Science and Technology Committee’s report on the threat caused by zoonotic diseases such as Covid, avian flu and Ebola, can the Minister update the House on the progress the agency is making in building resilience in these areas? It reported last year on global work on developing pandemic-fighting tools but not on the nitty-gritty needed to tackle underlying problems still hampering us, such as tackling widespread health inequalities, building systems for vaccine resistance and raising public awareness of the threats we all face.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. The UKHSA has been working and there are four main areas we want to be responding on. First, there is the vaccine, and the 100-day mission is all about making sure that we have the vaccines quickly. We have 100 million vaccines prepositioned for flu and 250 million for other diseases. Secondly, there is the manufacturing scale-up. We have a fund in place so that we have UK domestic production capability to produce vaccines quickly. Thirdly, there is the stock of PPE, and, fourthly, there is the diagnostic capability. That is how the UK Health Security Agency is making sure we have all the bases covered.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister turn again to the answer he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, about the international aspects of this? Does he not accept that throwing in the slightly abusive reference to the word sovereignty is simply a kind of “get out of jail” card to ensure that, next time round, again, equitable distribution across the world will not be achieved?
Lord Markham (Con)
Excuse me, but I think we will find that Britain was a world leader in developing a vaccine and making it available all round the world on a not-for-profit basis. If any noble Lord can come up with examples where countries have done more than we have in this space, I would be delighted to hear them. I, for one, am proud of what we did.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
The noble Baroness knows better than to shout at another Member when other Members before her are also trying to get in to ask a question.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, do the Government have a preprepared communications plan for the eventuality of another pandemic—which could be next week, next year or whatever—so that it is not made up on the hoof? We remember that, in 2016, there was a big exercise in London which was forgotten about when we got to the actual pandemic. Are those provisions being put in now and preparations being made?
Lord Markham (Con)
That is all a part of what I referred to as having a toolkit for a flexible response. The problem always in these things is that you tend to fight the next war on what happened in the last one. We have to be careful in what we do and that we are not trying to fight the next pandemic on the last one, because inevitably it will be different. Having a flexible and scalable response, including communications, is vital.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, some years ago, when I was chairman of the Public Health Laboratory Service, we had 31 public health laboratories dotted around the country. Their role was to track and trace the sources of infections. We lost those in a review of the Public Health Laboratory Service, and I resigned as a result of that. What a loss that has been. What efforts are being made now to replace those laboratories which can do the track and trace that we desperately need?
Lord Markham (Con)
As the noble Lord mentions, one of the key pillars is having diagnostic capability. The noble Lord will be aware that, for the sequencing of all the different Covid strands, it was the UK that they were sent to because our diagnostic and sequencing ability is second to none. I am assured that that capability still exists and, with that, our ability to scale up diagnostic testing very quickly.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Lord Roborough
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 42, the Schedule, Clauses 43 to 62, Title.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy on the Order Paper.
Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill [HL]
Monday 15th April 2024
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill will fulfil the Government’s commitment to address the impacts of the United Kingdom Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of the King on the application of PACCAR Incorporated and others v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others. The reference for the case is 2023 UKSC 28. It was handed down in July 2023. This case is colloquially known as PACCAR, taking the name of the lead applicants in the case.
First, I will address the judgment in question. It arose out of a claim against truck manufacturers regarding anti-competitive behaviour. The Supreme Court ruling rendered many third-party litigation funding agreements—LFAs—unenforceable by bringing them into scope of the regulatory regime for damages-based agreements, or DBAs. For the sake of brevity, I will refer from time to time to these vehicles by their initials.
The Supreme Court ruling has had a detrimental impact on access to justice and the attractiveness of this jurisdiction as a global hub for commercial litigation and arbitration. This is an important sector for the United Kingdom and so we must act now. Put simply, the Bill will restore the position that existed before the Supreme Court ruling in July 2023, which was that LFAs are not DBAs and hence are enforceable.
It will accomplish this by amending the definition of a DBA in Section 58AA(3)(a) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. It will also ensure that claimants can continue to access litigation funding to bring big, complex cases against larger, better-resourced corporations which they could not otherwise afford.
The restoration of the previous funding position is needed urgently to reduce uncertainty for both the future of litigation funding and for LFAs that had been entered into previously. By rendering many existing LFAs unenforceable, the position post judgment risks undesirable satellite litigation, an increased burden on the courts, and creating an unfavourable market for litigation funding, which, in turn, threatens access to justice. I will go on to explain in more detail how the Bill operates, but first will address why it matters.
Third-party litigation funding plays a key role in enabling ordinary people and small and medium-sized enterprises to bring large, costly claims against better-resourced companies and institutions. Litigation funding agreements involve a third-party funder, typically an independent financial institution. The funder finances all or part of the legal costs of a claim, in return for a share of any damages awarded. Third-party litigation funding is a niche market, which operates typically in high-value commercial, arbitration or group litigation claims, including the types of claims brought in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
A recent example of where an LFA was used is the Post Office Horizon case—Bates v the Post Office—which had the backing of a litigation funder. Some other examples of cases where LFAs have been used include equal pay cases; motorists bringing claims against car manufacturers over false diesel emissions; and consumers bringing claims against multinational companies regarding data breaches and data misuse.
In the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment in PACCAR, the court held that LFAs between claimants and litigation funders which entitle the litigation funder to payment based on a percentage of the damages recovered from the losing party are DBAs—damages-based agreements—as defined in Section 58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The principal problem is that LFAs which fall within the definition of DBAs are subject to, but generally will not comply with, the DBA Regulations 2013, as was noted in the PACCAR judgment. As such, those LFAs are rendered unenforceable against the claimant.
For many claimants, LFAs are not just an important pathway to justice; they could be their only route to redress against well-resourced corporations with deep pockets. I have no doubt that all noble Lords will have been moved by the plight of the sub-postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal, and their impressive campaign for justice. It is just one example of the importance of third-party litigation funding. Alan Bates himself has noted that, as things stand today, since the Supreme Court judgment, the sub-postmasters would not be able to bring their claim had it arisen. That is why we must remove the risk and return to the position preceding the July 2023 judgment: promoting access to justice for ordinary people by making sure that it is not the preserve only of big business, powerful institutions and the moneyed few.
The new legislation, which will apply to all proceedings, will allow the Government to deliver a return to a funding regime which promotes access to justice, as well as enhance the competitiveness of the jurisdiction and the attractiveness of a thriving United Kingdom legal sector which contributes over £34 billion per annum to the UK economy.
I return to how the Bill achieves this. The Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill provides that LFAs are not damages-based agreements. It should be noted that the legislation applies and extends to England and Wales only. This restores the position in place before the July 2023 judgment, making affected LFAs enforceable once again and enabling ongoing and future claims to continue to be funded by LFAs.
The Bill contains two clauses. Clause 1 amends Section 58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Subsection (2) amends the definition of a DBA to provide that an agreement, to the extent that it is an LFA, is not a DBA. Subsection (3) defines an LFA for the purposes of section 58AA of the 1990 Act. Subsection (4) provides that the amendments are to be treated as always having had effect. The amendment only addresses the Supreme Court’s finding that LFAs are DBAs and does not seek to reverse the finding that litigation funders provide claims management services.
Clause 2 explains the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill. Subsection (1) provides the territorial extent of the Bill, expressing that the Bill extends to England and Wales only. Subsection (2) provides the commencement provision for the Bill. The Bill will be commenced upon the day of its passing. Subsection (3) gives the shortened title by which the Bill can be referred as upon passing. This is described as the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Act 2024.
The Bill will have retrospective effect. The legality and propriety of the proposed retrospection, including its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, has been considered carefully. The Bill will achieve the important policy objective of preserving the rights of individuals to challenge alleged breaches of the law. Access to justice is an essential component of the rule of law. If the Bill were prospective only, there would be uncertainty as to the enforceability of agreements entered into before the PACCAR judgment but where the claim is concluded after the Act comes into force. This could lead to undesirable satellite litigation, which would benefit no one.
Retrospective effect will also ensure that the contractual rights and obligations agreed under LFAs entered into before the Supreme Court’s judgment continue to have effect as intended. Early commencement will minimise the period of retrospection. These provisions will remove any uncertainty about the enforceability of LFAs in cases that have settled and enable litigation funders to continue to fund cases, including existing cases.
On retrospective effect, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC, has raised a number of points for the Government to consider. I also acknowledge the engagement which I have had with my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts in relation to wider risks which may arise in some circumstances out of third-party litigation funding. I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, for sharing his expert views, and assure him that the Government will consider them in due course. In relation to the useful engagement which I have had with my noble friend Lord Hodgson, I will come on to discuss the ambit of a review of the matter which the Government have ordered.
There are a wide variety of views about litigation funding arrangements and how they should work. That is why, alongside legislative change, the Lord Chancellor has asked the Civil Justice Council—which is the body for overseeing and co-ordinating the modernisation of the civil justice system in England and Wales, under the chairmanship of the Master of the Rolls—to undertake a review of the third-party litigation funding market in England and Wales.
The review will consider questions raised during the discussions on the PACCAR judgment, including in your Lordships’ House, such as the need for greater safeguards for claimants, regulation of the sector and the possibility of caps on the returns made to funders. The CJC will publish its terms of reference and other related documents shortly. An interim report is due by this summer—2024—and a final report by the summer of 2025. The Government will consider the way forward following that final report.
By acting swiftly to restore the previous funding position via legislation, and investigating whether that position can be enhanced through a longer-term, forward-looking review, the Government will restore and improve a vital avenue to justice for all deserving claimants, not just those with the most resources. I submit that this is a much-needed Bill to address an important issue affecting access to justice. I beg to move.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I feel like an amuse-bouche before such a distinguished group of lawyers who have yet to speak. I will raise a very small number of points which come from my experience in business and investment and which I think are relevant, but I of course defer to the greater legal understanding of others on these points.
First, we should be very proud of the legal services industry that we have here and its quality and importance. We should retain it as a central objective for any Government and for whatever we do. Secondly, access to justice is absolutely key and an essential principle. We have to do more to provide it across the country, whether in civil or even criminal matters. Access to justice is a real foundation, but we feel that there is probably a lot more for us all to do. Making sure that members of the public have access to those things is important, and the promise of litigation funding is a key part of that.
There are four points that are very important in the context of this debate. We have heard some of them previously, when looking at other times when we have used the courts or lawyers to seek justice for other people, whether it was for vibration white finger or other things. That always comes down to the question of whether the fees, costs, contingencies or arrangements are too onerous on the people most in need of being the beneficiaries of whatever compensation or arrangements come at the end. That remains a huge issue for us—and it is very hard to dodge that, looking at the number of funding arrangements from the LFAs and wondering whether things such as the multiple of capital versus the percentage of fees can achieve those outcomes.
Even in the Horizon matter, we are looking at the level of what is gained by those who are trying to access justice. I think that some of us feel that those issues remain, so those people still lack a sense of justice because of the sums and arrangements that were come to. The retrospective arrangements in this Bill mean that everything will be retained as it should have been, and I suspect that there will many cases where the onerous terms that had to be accepted by the litigants should be looked at in some way.
The second point is that this is a business model. As someone who has looked at the public quoted company—which is being approached to put money into these companies and which has been looked at recently—and the secondaries market in this area, I know that there are some major issues with how this is developing. That is common with any sector or business activities that develop; there are consequences to creating such businesses. There are also some unintended consequences: when we look at these sorts of prospectuses over the period in which they can be tracked, we can see an increase in the costs of law. So, while we are looking at increasing access to justice because of the costs of law, they are actually accelerators of costs in litigation.
So, for a variety of reasons, there are unintended consequences, but these are complex models. Even with funds that say they turn down 96% of the people who come before them, what struck me most is that this is a market that is mainly dominated by those who can afford it and who have money. It does not extend access to justice in the way we are thinking or the way in which the Government have presented it. They have shown no evidence to this effect.
It is a good way of de-risking legal exposure in litigation—whether by passing it off to an LFA or by getting the LFA and the lawyers to do conditional fee agreements that also place that risk in other places. The people accessing these funds and these arrangements are not those from whom the Minister says the foundation of this piece of legislation has come. Other people and entities can use it to de-risk their litigation. This is not to say it does not have that purpose—and, by the way, I do not have a problem with people de-risking their legal exposure by using these arrangements. That is perfectly fine.
Thirdly, we must not say we are doing this only in order to widen access to justice. It does not. It has not done so in quite the way we had hoped, even, for example, in the context of important cases such as Horizon. We have to think about what we do in order to make that happen.
In evaluating this Bill, it is important to consider the real issues, consequences and impacts. We have to focus on making sure that we properly identify which elements extend access to justice. In that regard, the Government are to be applauded for deciding to institute a review of the wider sector and its growth. This is very important. I am not entirely convinced that the CJC is the right vehicle for this, because it is about the development of an economic market with economic activity, actors and consequences. This is currently outside its scope, which I am keen should be extended. I look forward to the Minister’s further comments on that in due course.
Finally, I have no problem with rich people using litigation funding. I just have a real problem with us not being able to get access to justice for people who do not have it. In the review, we should be much clearer about the sorts of things that can be done to achieve this objective. This is not just about LFAs. Rollover agreements will not achieve it. If we truly believe in extending access to justice, we should think about supporting other funding mechanisms. If they have sufficient public benefit, perhaps they could be extended into other areas such as the charitable and philanthropic domain. In the context of this debate, let us take this as it really is: a massively growing, active economic market that will achieve many things, but will not exclusively achieve access to justice. We should consider how we do that.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I also welcome the Bill. It is an enormous achievement of the Lord Chancellor. We ought to be grateful that he has recognised there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed quickly and has brought forward the Bill. I am also particularly grateful to the Minister for the clear way in which he has explained it. It is important to concentrate on what this Bill does and then, subsequently, to look at some of the other issues.
In the last few years, litigation funding has become part of the way in which access to justice is obtained. In a moment, I will say a little more about this. It is important to realise that this is a worldwide market. Issues similar to ours have arisen in Australia and across the member states of the European Union. There is a massive growth in litigation about this form of funding in the United States. The scale of this industry can be seen. The current estimate of the revenue of litigation funders is approximately $17 billion.
I was surprised, I think like many, that the Supreme Court reached the decision that it did, because over the years people had realised there was a clear distinction between damages-based agreements and what litigation funding produced. So, although the Supreme Court by a majority, reversing the Court of Appeal, came to the view that the principles applicable to damages-based agreements should also apply to these, otherwise they were unlawful, it was following what has been perceived in some states, such as Alabama, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, as a degree of hostility to this industry.
Given that so many thought that this was an industry that produced access to justice, and many have acted in reliance on what they thought the law was, it is plainly right that the decision should be reversed with retrospective effect. If there are issues about that, they can no doubt be looked at subsequently, but it is plain that litigation funding does provide access to justice. One has only to look at the Horizon case, where the very complex proceedings before Mr Justice Fraser involved a lot of financing in relation to technical issues, at equal pay cases, or at some of the consumer actions that have been brought to see that litigation funding is essential.
I, like many, wish that we had legal aid. On many occasions I have spoken of the wish that HM Treasury would open its pockets or that we would devise some other scheme, but I am afraid I have been a wholly unsuccessful advocate and legal aid has declined. Therefore, when those who criticise this industry come to look at what should be done, they ought very much to bear in mind that we as a state, and most other states in the western world, are failing in providing access to justice because there is no legal aid, and this industry has come, to an extent, to the rescue.
I will come back to the social responsibilities of this industry in a moment, but it is not only about consumers. It is also very important that SMEs and other medium-sized companies, which were never within the scope of legal aid, also have access to litigation funding. I am sure that hardly anyone in this Chamber could possibly contemplate the risk of litigation. It is far too expensive. Access to justice is not something that is open to an individual in this country, unless he falls within the very narrow band of people who can get legal aid or whose wealth is to be measured in enormous terms, so it seems important to have a sense of realism that no real alternative has yet been devised to this form of providing access to justice, given the cost of litigation. However, I do not want to descend into the costs of litigation because that would be straying off the point of what the Bill seeks to do.
I have also been very grateful, when speaking on this issue on previous occasions, to His Majesty’s Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and my noble and learned friends on these Benches for the support they have given in getting this issue back and dealing with it speedily. But I wish to raise two points. As the Minister mentioned, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, raised the question of regulation during the course of the debates. I too am delighted at what the Lord Chancellor has done in asking that this issue—the way in which these agreements operate—should be independently looked at.
The operation of litigation funding across many jurisdictions has been the subject of work by the European Law Institute. It established a working group and, by complete coincidence, Mrs Justice Cockerill, who at the time was the judge in charge of the commercial court, and Professor Susanne Augenhofer, were appointed as rapporteurs of this group. It is a project in which I am an assessor, so I have considerable knowledge of it, but to try to help progress this, the council of the European Law Institute has made available the core part of the report, which sets out the principles that have to be addressed, such as transparency, disclosure and whether there should be a cap. I am sure that this report, a copy of which I have provided to the Lord Chancellor and others, will give at least a head start.
This is not the time to go into the details of that. Although the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, addressed many of the issues, those are really not the subject matter of this debate; however, it is essential that they be dealt with. If you look at what is happening in the United States of America and what has happened in Australia, it is plain that the issues that arise are real and need detailed consideration. I therefore very much hope that the work done by the European Law Institute, along with some of the papers written about the position in the United States, will give the group that is to consider this at least an understanding of the broad issues that have to be resolved and the principles and alternatives that should be put before Parliament for its consideration in due course.
It may be that regulation is one alternative. I personally think that regulation has not served us well in many areas. Self-regulation may be the better thing; or, simply agreeing some principles and leaving the courts to police what is effectively in front of them may be a way forward. However, this is not a matter for debate today. We need a proper report, and we will need legislation in the next Parliament to deal with this, because it is such an important issue. There is a huge amount of learning, and I think you will find that the work done by the European Law Institute in its report will be of great assistance.
Finally, I want to turn to one other issue that I think it right to mention. Many think that people make a lot of money out of litigation in one way or another. The proverbial jokes, the proverbial cartoons, do not have to be referred to—they are well in everyone’s minds. However, I want to point to the example of one of the litigation funders, which established a not-for-profit company that provided funds that could be used for litigation that would not be suitable for litigation funding but that raised broader important issues. As is mentioned in the register of interests, when the funds were provided, I gave some advice as to the many competing claims for this. But I do hope—and this is a plea to the litigation funding industry, and maybe to others who do very well out of litigation—that they look at what can be done by way of providing some assistance for small but very important cases that have wide implications, and that are not suitable for litigation funding, and whether some of the money that is made can be put into this kind of enterprise, which is so important not merely for the rule of law but for our society as a whole.
It is an illusion to think that people have access to justice in this country: most people simply do not. Those who do so well out of litigation ought maybe to put in the back of their minds doing something along these lines, for the greater good of our society. I firmly believe that others who are better advocates than me will find that HM Treasury is a very, very difficult place to go and ask for money for litigation.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister, and to the Lord Chancellor, for securing a slot so quickly to right the consequences of the PACCAR judgment. I am impressed and surprised at the speed with which they have managed to do this. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas—whom it is an honour to follow—for encouraging the Lord Chancellor in his speediness by moving amendments to an earlier piece of legislation.
I speak briefly to point out the sad fact that, until Alan Bates secured litigation funding in the Post Office Horizon scandal, the political process had completely failed him and other sub-postmasters. Although a substantial number of MPs, including a Cabinet Minister, Oliver Letwin, had gathered together to say that the concerns about the Post Office’s behaviour had to be independently examined, we got nowhere. Subsequently, Post Office Ministers said that they were lied to and MPs said the same thing. The turning point in the story was the fantastic judgment of Mr Justice Fraser, as he then was. I pay tribute to him. He succeeded in “blowing the bloody doors off” where the politicians had failed. That is why litigation funding is essential.
There will be questions about how litigation funding should work. Many of them will come up during this short Bill. For example, it is regrettable that the 555 sub-postmasters failed to recover their full costs from the Post Office. It was certainly regrettable that, out of a settlement of £57 million, after legal and litigation funding costs only £12 million found its way into the pockets of the sub-postmasters.
However, I do not say that the litigation funders were unfairly recompensed. They took the immense risk of taking on the country’s most trusted brand, the Post Office, which was backed by the bottomless purse of the taxpayer. That was a risk that needed a high pay-off if it succeeded, because it would have been ruinously expensive for the litigation funders if it had failed. We know, and we watched, how the Post Office did its best to spend the sub-postmasters into submission in a disgraceful display of legal bullying, so the litigation funders deserved their fees.
Yet the entire story must make us wonder whether there could be a better way. Litigation is slow and expensive. I found the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, very interesting in this respect. Litigation funding must be one method of obtaining redress, but it should be considered alongside others, including the model of regulators-plus-ombudsmen recommended in various books by the chairman of the Horizon compensation advisory board, Professor Christopher Hodges, who is a friend of mine, with a properly regulated system of litigation funding that is subjected to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, says. Regulation is needed, and with a stronger system of ombudsmen for the public sector, maybe we could avoid another Post Office scandal.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a tremendous privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot. He has shown, in his conduct in connection with the Horizon case, the courage, rigour and persistence that we all should aspire to and yet do not always achieve.
Like the noble Lord, I welcome this Bill. I have fond memories as a baby barrister of taking over preparing small cases that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, as he now is, was far too successful to deal with by then. I used to sit in the spare bedroom at home, very early in the morning, drafting pleadings in personal injury cases. Some of them were for the defendants—the employers or their insurers—but not a small number of them were for individuals who could get legal aid to bring those cases before the county court, where I often appeared to present them if the wicked insurers did not pay up. At the end of every quarter, as I am sure the noble Lord will remember, we used to receive a payment for our civil legal aid work, from which 10% was deducted because it was legal aid. Justice was obtained by very large numbers of people through that legal process, which obviously involved solicitors instructing us as well. It was another era, and I suspect we were far too successful in the work we did for claimants and legal aid became too expensive—but there we are. We have been left with the loss of legal aid for the bulk of such cases. Litigation funding is what has replaced it and it is here to stay. I was astonished by the PACCAR ruling, because it removed the enforceability at a stroke. I do not understand how it happened—and I have read the PACCAR judgment in the Supreme Court on several occasions. There we were, with those who were funding a lot of small cases not able to recover any costs when they won.
I also recall, much later in my life as a barrister, being what one might call a jobbing, part-time chairman of the Competition Appeal Tribunal under the rigorous but agreeable presidency of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, when the CAT, on which I sat for 10 years, started to receive cases for bulk claimants. I now declare an interest, having been involved as an adviser in two such groups of cases that went before the Competition Appeal Tribunal. One group involved people who really could not afford to bring their own cases, but, taken together, the whole claim amounted to hundreds of millions of pounds. It is right that, where justice is on the side of such claimants, they should be able to bring their claims. Above all those commercial interests, it is right that people such as postmasters and postmistresses can recover damages.
There was a time in my life as a barrister when I used to do prosecutions for the Post Office on the Wales and Chester circuit, as it was then known. I do not know if I prosecuted any Horizon cases—I think not, because I took Silk a very long time ago and did not do it after that—but there was no doubt that, when instructions were presented to me as a prosecutor and when cases were presented to a court, there was a view that on financial matters the Post Office was infallible. It had a status which had an air of infallibility around it, and that has been proved to be horribly wrong. It is absolutely right that we should be supporting, in the right circumstances, those who will allow such cases to come to court. I very strongly support the principle behind the Bill and its very short provisions.
I want to express two lurking concerns, if I may, both of which have been dealt with in this debate already, so I will be brief. The first is that lawyers are regulated by statute but litigation funders are not. There is an organisation called the Association of Litigation Funders, but I have noticed that its 2018 code of practice has barely been mentioned in any publicity about this matter. My view is to welcome the CJC inquiry very strongly and that we should be prepared, if absolutely necessary, to provide statutory legislation for litigation funders—though I suspect from what I have seen that they will be willing to move voluntarily to a proper level of regulation, which is in some ways much better than statutory legislation because it is much more flexible.
Another point that has come to light came to my attention this morning, when I received a very large amount of information from an interested party, who I think instructed the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald—who has been mentioned and for whom I have immense regard—as legal counsel to provide an opinion on whether the Bill falls within the European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister has certified that it does and that it is in the Bill, which would not be here if it did not—except in the one case that we will be discussing tomorrow. I simply ask the Minister, at the appropriate time, which may not be this afternoon, whether he has had more than the three or four hours that I have had to consider what was presented to me by another person as very opportunistic lobbying, including the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and whether he will advise the House on whether there are any ECHR problems.
I note that, at the end of his opinion, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, described the case against the ECHR as “arguable”. That was the word that he used, I suspect with great care. We have all used it from time to time in our legal lives, and it does not express the highest level of conviction. I am sure that the House would like to be sure that we are not, by accident, falling foul of the European convention, to which, in most respects at least—I cannot help saying this—the Government are devoted.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who made his points in his usual succinct style—notwithstanding that the usual channels, in what must be the paradigm case of the triumph of hope over experience, have allowed this debate between lawyers to proceed with no time limit whatever on speeches.
I begin by declaring my interest. I am a practising barrister in commercial and competition cases, which include cases where one party is supported by litigation funders; sometimes that is my client, and sometimes it is the other side.
As the House has heard, there is no doubt that third-party litigation funding is now and will remain part of our legal landscape. While this is not a debate about the merits of legal aid, there is no doubt that, in the real world, there is little prospect of a Government of any colour massively increasing the scope of civil legal aid. We must therefore be realistic about what will be in its place. Third-party litigation funding provides an important means to enable people to access justice, which is a fundamental part of the rule of law, and so to vindicate their legal right. That is the reality in the United Kingdom in 2024.
I remember doing cases where one party or the other—sometimes both—had to take out large loans or remortgage their home to fund legal costs, including the risk that they would lose and have to pay the legal costs of not only their side but the other side as well. This country usually has the “loser pays” system, which means that, if they lost, they could face financial ruin.
I therefore suggest that third-party litigation funding, together with the appropriate insurances that can be obtained, is a more attractive proposition for most litigants than taking out large loans, and therefore ought to be a more attractive proposition for society as well. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, explained, this is a worldwide market and an important one for the United Kingdom to remain a leader in. I suggest the real question is how we arrange our law to deal with the reality of such funding. That means we have to strike a balance: on the one hand, we want to provide access to justice, which is, as I say, an essential element of the rule of law; on the other, we do not want to see litigants given a raw deal by one-sided funding agreements, which mean that when they win, they can be left with very little.
However, it is perfectly right, as the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, pointed out, to recognise that in many of these cases, the litigation funder is taking a very real risk. It is very easy after the event to say, “Oh, well that case was bound to win”. There is no such thing—I keep telling my clients this—as a case that is bound to win. Sometimes there are cases that are bound to lose, but that is a different matter. Therefore, we have to try to find a balance in this area. I very much welcome the review that the Lord Chancellor is setting up; I pay tribute to him for doing so. I hope and expect that this will be a cross-party endeavour.
PACCAR had the effect of treating many litigation funding arrangements as damages-based agreements—DBAs, as they are called in the vernacular—with the result that, unless they met the requirements of the DBA Regulations, they were unenforceable. I will not get into whether or not PACCAR was a surprising decision—I am reminded of one of AP Herbert’s “Misleading Cases”, in which losing counsel in the House of Lords seeks to avoid an order for costs on the basis that a decision of the House of Lords was an act of God, being something that no reasonable man could have predicted—but the fact is that PACCAR caused a real degree of consternation among litigation funders. It has also led to a huge amount of satellite litigation about funding agreements themselves, rather than the cases the funding agreements are there to support.
True it is that some funding agreements were renegotiated post PACCAR, so that instead of receiving a share of the damages—which is what caused the problem in PACCAR—the funder is instead paid an agreed multiple of its investment. There are, I understand, three cases of that type currently proceeding in the CAT—the Competition Appeal Tribunal. I think there are three; I am briefed in two, in one for the funded claimant and in the other for the defendant facing a funded claimant.
The fundamental point at issue is whether the decision in PACCAR should stand. The Government have concluded that it should not, and I broadly agree. I therefore support the Bill, which reverses the decision of the Supreme Court in PACCAR. As I say, that decision has been widely criticised.
I will make two other points. First, like the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, I have my mind on other things happening this week. I gently note that this is a good example of the fact that Parliament is sovereign. There is nothing wrong with Parliament reversing a decision of the Supreme Court; ultimately it is for Parliament and not the courts to make the law in this or in any other area. The Bill is therefore perfectly constitutionally proper.
The second, and perhaps more substantive, point is this. I said that I broadly support the Bill, and I do. The reason for that slight note of caution—and it is a slight note—is that there is one issue I want to highlight. It is an issue which has been explained to me by people working in the area; it is not a matter relevant for any client for which I am acting.
The Bill as drafted restores the position ex ante—see Clause 1(4); it is retrospective in that regard. The phrase “retrospective legislation” is sometimes used to imply that the legislation is therefore, and necessarily, bad. That is not the case. The problem with retrospective legislation is not that it is bad in itself. It is that retrospective legislation should not, or at least should not without very good reason, disturb existing legal rights entered into on the faith of the law as it was.
I am concerned about the following sort of situation. Let us assume that someone had a funding agreement with funder A, which is then deemed to be unenforceable by PACCAR, so the litigant goes off and enters into a new funding agreement with funder B, which is PACCAR-compliant. The Bill, as I understand it, would revive the funding agreement with funder A and so leave the litigant with two funding agreements with two different funders on two different sets of terms. That is because the Bill operates retrospectively and does not cater for the fact that some litigants may have done all you could reasonably expect of them at the time; that is, going out to replace the unenforceable funding agreement with an enforceable funding agreement. I suggest that that does not make any sense and is not the intention of the Bill, although it seems to me, and, I think, to others, that that is what the Bill as drafted actually does. I have brought this to the attention of the Minister. I am grateful to him for his time in discussing the issue with me and to his officials for reaching out to discuss the matter with others. I am confident that a solution can be found to this perhaps niche, but none the less important, issue; otherwise, I support the Bill and look forward to participating in its further stages in your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, with his niche points. I keep finding myself in debates with lawyers. I must say, they have some very interesting anecdotes that we all listen to with great interest.
It is fair to say that I am deeply suspicious of everything that this Government bring to your Lordships’ House. All the legislation seems to me to be based on some at times quite cruel intentions. I am actually a little bit more suspicious of short Bills, especially those that come so quickly to this House. At first glance, the Bill does seem fairly simple. It restores the law to what it was less than a year ago and so is quite sensible, but the more one looks at it, the more it appears to be designed to protect the profits of hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds, banks and other backers of these litigation funding agreements, without any consideration of the impact that it will have on the claimants being funded.
One illustration of this is 555 sub-postmasters who were awarded compensation of £57 million against the Post Office for the Horizon scandal. It is reported that £46 million of that money was immediately payable to litigation funders. That seems an extraordinary amount: 80% of the damages awarded. I accept that it was a probably a very difficult case, but at the same time, the sub-postmasters were left with only £20,000 each, when their damages were estimated to be well over £100,000 each. In essence, they got 20% of the £100,000 they were really owed.
It makes you ask why any claimant would agree to put up so much of their compensation. The truth is that normal people cannot afford to take a case to court without such litigation funders. I have heard that we are stuck with this system and that legal aid is not likely to come back, but it seems that we have a particular lack. The noble Lord, Mendelsohn, put it quite well. If he was the amuse-bouche before the meal, perhaps I can be the mid-meal sorbet. Legal aid at least had the benefit of enabling everyone to get justice or to try to get justice. This system means that that is not true for everybody.
There is an inequality of arms in negotiations between a potential claimant and a litigation funder. Without robust regulation and protection for claimants, a litigation funder can reap huge profits by doing nothing other than provide funding for the claimant to take their case to court. One might say that there are dangers in that: of course there are, but this is a business and there are always dangers in business. This, to me, is a failure of successive Governments—just the current Government, which fail in so many ways, but also previous Labour and Liberal Democrat Governments, eroding legal aid and the state’s role in ensuring access to justice.
This litigation-funding business is now worth tens of billions of pounds, and it is a highly lucrative industry for those engaging in it. Legal aid and access to justice have been, essentially, privatised and turned into yet another arena for exploitation by hedge funds and financiers.
This Bill is also extremely lazy, because what the Government have done is choose between two options: do nothing or reverse the PACCAR judgment. They did not put any energy into thinking about a better solution: something that would help the majority of people, not just the few who get taken up by litigation funders. So I would say, “All right, it’s not awful, as some of the legislation is, but really it’s not very good”.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, this Bill, and the Supreme Court decision which prompted it, have shone light on the somewhat arcane topic of third-party litigation funding. It is an area with which many legal practitioners frankly have little real familiarity, and with which most of the judiciary only have to deal from time to time. As stated in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, third-party litigation funding is a niche market which typically operates in high-value claims. That is correct: it is less to do with individual smaller claims and little to do with filling gaps left by the loss of legal aid—on which I join my noble friend Lord Carlile in resisting the temptation to go down memory lane.
A rather cynical friend suggested to me that the speed with which this Bill has been produced shows how much money is at stake. However, in the shorter term, there is a need to limit the adverse consequences of the Supreme Court decision, hopefully including the need to avoid satellite litigation seeking to rectify or sever existing arrangements or to test out new arrangements trying to get round the effects of the Supreme Court decision. That is best achieved, as the Bill proposes, by stating the law to be what many people, including the losing party in the Supreme Court, said it was.
Additionally, there are clearly wider considerations and a need to preserve and improve established benefits of properly managed funding arrangements. If there are any significant concerns about commercial litigation funding, as suggested in a briefing paper that I received only today, they surely must predate the Supreme Court decision and are unlikely to be cured or made worse by this Bill.
Although the Long Title to the Bill will limit the extent of any permissible amendment, the passage of the Bill, distinguishing litigation funding agreements from damages-based agreements, should provide some opportunity to consider both types of arrangement.
Dealing specifically with damages-based agreements, these are governed by regulations made in 2013, about which, in a case in 2021, a member of the Court of Appeal said that nobody could pretend that those regulations represented the draftsman’s “finest hour”.
In a case in which I was recently involved, concerning only matrimonial property and finance, I was particularly concerned, and rather surprised, to see that the legal representative of the former wife had got her to sign what was called a damages-based agreement. The use and the terminology of such an agreement seemed quite out of place and inappropriate in matrimonial proceedings, particularly when there was no question of damages being awarded, but only allocation of the proceeds of sale of the modest family home.
However, in general, I understand that respectable practitioners favour damages-based agreements, which have advantages for both lawyer and client in sharing the litigation risks, with each doing only as well or badly as the other. In 2019, revised draft DBA regulations were produced and were, as I understand it, well received. If so, why have they been left in limbo and what is going to happen to those draft regulations now?
As to third-party funding arrangements, in an article in 2014, Professor Mulheron described the framework governing such arrangements as consisting of the 2014 code of conduct for litigation funders, its supervision by the Association of Litigation Funders, and sporadic judicial oversight of litigation funding agreements, with some unenacted legislation in the background for good measure. The experience of the subsequent 10 years does not indicate to a detached observer any consensus about whether, how and to what extent improvements can best be made.
During the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill in this House, an amendment proposing a requirement for the Government to review the litigation funding market and its regulation was not accepted by the Government. The Minister then explained that they were not blind to some of the challenges and opportunities to reform and improve the funding system. On that basis, the review by the Civil Justice Council has been commissioned. The Minister has answered the questions that I was going to ask today about the progress and scope of the review being undertaken. I am sure that it will be informed and assisted by the valuable work being done and the formulation of principles undertaken by the European Law Institute. In that context, it would also be instructive to learn what is happening in Scotland.
More generally, I suggest that what will be required will be clarity without overregulation: in particular, with the benefit of hindsight, regulation that does not give rise to the sorts of problems that needed resolution by the Supreme Court and then amending legislation, as we have with this Bill. Importantly, also, it should be regulation that does not hamper or restrict the funding market.
I assume there is no reliable statistical or other information to show how much British litigation is commercially funded by those who are not members of the Association of Litigation Funders. If regulation is to remain with no more than a light touch, it is all the more important that sufficient safeguards exist and are understood to protect the consumer—and important that, wherever possible, those who seek or who recommend funding arrangements are firmly guided towards members of the ALF and funders who adhere to their code of conduct.
In the area of law with which I am most familiar, statute provides that family proceedings cannot be subject to enforceable conditional fee agreements. That, together with the demise of legal aid and also the limited costs jurisdiction, makes the availability of bespoke third-party funding all the more important in financial remedy proceedings. It is not only in the wealthier family cases that funding options have to be explored. Sometimes, a bank loan or a loan from a relative or friend will suffice; but these can give rise to distracting arguments between the litigating parties about whether or not they are so-called “soft loans”.
I need hardly say how depressing it is for the judge at or near the final hearing to be told that the funding has dried up, so that one or other party will have to continue without representation. Typically, but not invariably, it is the wife in matrimonial proceedings, with only limited or illiquid funds, who most needs help, against a spouse with deeper pockets and with the means and motives to conceal assets and to frustrate disclosure and enforcement.
The family judiciary has welcomed the availability of funding arrangements to those who need or choose to use them. I therefore suggest that, in addition to referring the matter of litigation funding to the Civil Justice Council, it could be helpful to invite the views of the Family Justice Council, if only to confirm that no problems exist or are foreseen.
Finally, to return to the contents of the Bill before the House, in his recent article in the New Law Journal Professor Dominic Regan strongly welcomed the introduction of the Bill here and its succinct drafting. Indeed, he wrote:
“I will never again hear a bad word said about those old duffers in the other House”.
As none participating in this debate would admit to anything more than early late middle age, I suggest we return the compliment and should give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I rise, rather like the Arctic roll, to complete the speeches from the Floor. I congratulate the Government on moving swiftly and decisively to introduce the Bill. I congratulate the Minister too on his very clear opening. It has been a privilege to listen to today’s speeches, with many valuable insights that have opened our minds to a lot of issues that need to be addressed.
As we have heard, the Supreme Court’s decision in PACCAR rendered unenforceable third-party litigation agreements between claimants and third-party funders who finance litigation in return for the right to payment, usually set as a percentage of the damages. It was at once clear, as we know, after that decision on 19 July this year, that most current litigation funding agreements did not comply, and that it was very hard, if not impossible, to draft one that would comply. This, as we now know, has had serious ramifications for existing and future claims. It needed swift action, which is why we must all congratulate the Government on the course that they have taken.
It is interesting and important to remember that it has been government policy for at least 10 years, and in fact rather longer, to positively favour litigation funding agreements. I remind the House, as I have done previously, that the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said in this House, in Committee on the then Consumer Rights Bill, on 3 November 2014 that
“there is a need for claimants to have the option of accessing third-party funding so as to allow those who do not have a large reserve of funds or those who cannot persuade a law firm to act pro bono to be able to bring a collective action case in order to ensure redress for consumers. Blocking access to such funding would result in a collective actions regime that is less effective”.—[Official Report, 3/11/14; col. GC 583.]
As we all know, the High Court group action by which the sub-postmasters obtained the critical findings exposing the defects in the Horizon system was possible only because they obtained very large sums of funding from litigation funders. After PACCAR, such litigants, and others like them, were left without the potential for an effective civil remedy. Group actions by individuals and smaller companies in the Competition Appeal Tribunal were at a stroke bereft of the means to litigate, and, as we know, so I shall not spend time on it here, that applied to other actions in the High Court.
Legal aid, as we have heard, is no longer available for claims of this sort or for any claims for damages, other than in clinical negligence and certain other categories, nor is it likely to be reintroduced. However, let us all remember that the promise of a property-owning democracy rings hollow if citizens do not have the opportunity to assert or defend rights through the legal system. The happy functioning of society requires that individuals have a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal remedies. The recovery of compensation and a judgment is not just about money; it is about redress. It is about an individual sense of fairness, of being valued by society, and of good name and reputation. The sub-postmasters epitomise that.
In the absence of legal remedies, much of the fabric that maintains our economic system is damaged or lost. The sense of individuals that we live in a society in which harm done falls to be recompensed, or that obligations made will be honoured, or that we will not be bullied by monopolists, is an important contribution to the individual’s sense of well-being and the value we place on the society in which we live. Concern to find funding mechanisms to achieve legal remedies for these individuals, and for smaller companies and the like, who do not have the resources to achieve this is a concern to preserve social value. It is the pursuit of the public interest. A market economy in which people do not have effective access to justice and cannot enforce their rights is not worthy of the name. The market, in turn, ceases to operate fairly or efficiently. I remind this House that, in December 2019, the Conservative Party’s election manifesto rightly included a commitment to access to justice for ordinary people.
Litigation funding agreements, whatever the complicated issues they bring, are an important plank of our justice system. For the reasons my noble friend the Minister has explained, there is an unusual retrospectivity provision. Like him, I believe it to be justifiable, but no doubt we shall have to look at it in Committee to see that it really works properly and fairly.
While congratulating the Government on the Bill, we must also ensure that defendants to claims funded by such funders are not going forward improperly harassed. We must ensure that payments recovered by the funder are reasonable for the risks involved and the money laid out. Successful claimants must be left with broadly fair recompense. Those issues are complex; they require difficult balancing arguments and it would be difficult to regulate or to manage, but they are not reasons for allowing the PACCAR decision to stand. This Bill is necessary.
Like other noble Lords, therefore, I applaud the Lord Chancellor for asking the Civil Justice Council to review the current operation of such agreements and to consider the need for further regulations and safeguards. This will ensure that those who provide such funding do so on an appropriate and fair basis. Funders must not be free to take excessive proportions of recoveries or harass defendants. I do not suggest that they do, but we must ensure that they do not going forward.
In this review process, I urge that proper attention is paid to a forthcoming report, of which we have heard, by the European Law Institute. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, is an important member of the working party, of which he has spoken. I remind noble Lords that this project seeks to develop
“principles containing safeguards in order to provide an environment in which”
third-party litigation funding
“is allowed but balances the availability of the tool with the interests of claimants and defendants and a healthy litigation market”.
Finally, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that the Government should look again at the draft Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2019. They came in at the time when I was just finishing my practice before retirement. It was a mystery to practitioners at the time that, after all the work that had gone into them, they were never laid. We should look again at those. Looking forward, I commend this Bill to the House.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I make precisely the same declaration of interest as did the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I occasionally advise funders and I quite frequently act in cases in which one party is funded and the other party is aggrieved by the existence of litigation funding.
I do not think anyone has spoken directly against the Bill, so I need not say too much, if anything, directly in support of it. I will just make one or two observations about the Bill and then, if I may, I will travel briefly off-piste and pick up some points made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about the DBA Regulations.
The reality, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, is that there is no prospect of anything resembling a functioning legal aid system coming back into place. What follows from that is that there are very serious problems with access to justice in this country. Litigation funding unquestionably has its part to play.
In her very interesting—and, with respect, powerful—dissenting judgment in the Supreme Court PACCAR case, Lady Rose quoted an American judge:
“The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17m individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30”.
One could substitute $3,000 or even $30,000 for that sum; that is the reality. Without access to litigation funding, class actions or group actions—litigation of that type, which will sometimes be highly meritorious—simply cannot be brought.
One can test whether the practical consequences of the PACCAR decision are benign or malign by considering what probably would have happened if that decision had been handed down by the Supreme Court shortly before the litigation funders supporting Mr Bates and the other postmasters were going to take their case to trial, and shortly before a final decision had to be taken on the funding of that litigation. Almost certainly, the funders would have withdrawn. The Post Office, as one knows from what one has read about the history of that litigation and other matters, would have seized on that and sought to take advantage from it. Almost certainly, the proceedings would have been aborted. Mr Justice Fraser would never have handed down his masterful judgment and, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, the doors would not have been blown off and the injustices which have horrified the country might have remained concealed. That suggests, I think, that the consequences of the PACCAR decision are not benign, and the Government are right to act in the way that they have.
I do not want to say any more about the merits of the Bill. I will make two points which involve travelling slightly off-piste. They build on what has already been said by the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Sandhurst, about the 2013 DBA Regulations which were at the centre of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the PACCAR case. Those regulations were put in place very shortly after the reforms founded on Sir Rupert Jackson’s report were enacted. Sir Rupert, in making significant changes to the conditional fee regime, strongly recommended that damages-based agreements should generally become lawful in this country. That recommendation was an important part of his overall approach to the reform of litigation in this country.
However, everyone, including the Ministry of Justice and just about every judge who has ever had to read the regulations, recognises that the 2013 regulations were badly drafted. In particular, they leave a very undesirable uncertainty about whether hybrid agreements involving an element of a damages-based agreement and an element of a more orthodox funding scheme are permissible. They leave a great deal of uncertainty as to what happens to the lawyers’ entitlement to remuneration if the client terminates the agreement in the course of the relevant litigation.
That is why the ministry instigated a review of the position, which led to the preparation of significantly better draft regulations by a group including Nick Bacon KC, a colleague of mine, who is a master in this field. There is no doubt that those draft regulations would represent a major improvement. If those draft regulations from 2019 had been put in place back then, we would not be having the current debate and there would be no PACCAR problem. Nick Bacon and his team spotted the difficulty that underlies the decision of the Supreme Court in PACCAR and drafted the new regulations to remove the relevant ambiguity and took litigation funding agreements outwith the scope of the DBA Regulations.
I am sorry to be mean to the Minister but, like the other Members of the House who spoke on the point, I would be very grateful if he were able to provide any further information or assurance as to the speed with which the ministry and the Government will move in the direction of reforming the DBA Regulations, as indicated.
My final point is a broader point about the way the Bill and the underlying regulations are structured. In this area, as in others, they operate in a completely binary way. They say that this agreement—a conditional fee agreement or a damages-based agreement—is either enforceable, if all the boxes and regulations have been ticked, or it is unenforceable. There is no middle ground whatever. There is nothing resembling the jurisdiction in the consumer credit legislation, which gives the court a power to hold that a consumer credit agreement is enforceable notwithstanding that there has been some technical non-compliance with the relevant regulations. Something of that sort would work well here because where there is the completely binary structure of enforceable or wholly unenforceable, there is trouble ahead: the stakes are raised much too high.
With this sort of structure, a party who shows that the relevant agreement is unenforceable stands to gain massively. A finding of that nature will close down the litigation and lead to a saving of millions, many of millions or hundreds of millions of pounds. You get very expensive, time-consuming, recondite satellite litigation which goes all the way to the Supreme Court and filters back down through the court system, causing judges to wrestle with difficult points. It is possible that all or most of that could be avoided if the scheme was structured so as to give the court the power to say, “Yes, this DBA or CFA is technically non-compliant with the regulations, but no detriment or prejudice has been caused and therefore we, the court, declare the relevant agreement to be enforceable”. That would be a better way forward.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, rather repetitively, I suspect, I too declare an interest as a practising commercial barrister. I agree entirely with the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that litigation funding now forms part of the landscape of civil litigation both domestically and internationally.
I also pass on an apology from my noble friend Lady Brinton. She is not just my noble friend, but a non-lawyer, whose contribution would have been very welcome for that reason. Unfortunately, she has had to withdraw from the debate due to a family illness.
Like others, I broadly support the Bill and applaud the speed with which it has been introduced. That is because the unexpected decision of the Supreme Court—unexpected, I say, while hesitating to use the word “surprising” suggested and then withdrawn by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson—in PACCAR has left us in an unsatisfactory position, with nearly all LFAs unenforceable on the basis that they generally do not comply with the DBA regulations applicable to damage-based agreements, as we have heard. The regulations date from 2013.
The Secretary of State’s Written Ministerial Statement of 4 March, announcing the intention to introduce this legislation, made a number of points—points which were also made and expanded upon in opening by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart. The fundamental point made is that:
“Third-party litigation funding enables people to get funding to bring big and complex claims against bigger, better-resourced corporations”
than the claimants, which those claimants
“could not otherwise afford”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/24; col. 31WS.]
I agree that this is the fundamental advantage of LFAs. I also agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that LFAs add to the attractiveness of the United Kingdom as an international centre for commercial litigation and arbitration. It is highly significant that the legal sector brings in, on one estimate, £34 billion a year.
Where I slightly diverge from the Government’s position is where the noble and learned Lord made the point that the sub-postmasters’ claim was possible only with the backing of a litigation funder, without at the same time qualifying that statement by pointing out that the vast majority of the damages in that case went to the litigation funder and the lawyers. For many members of the public, that fact is bordering on the offensive. It is, however, certainly right that the postmasters were able to bring their case to court only because of the availability of litigation funding. I join with others in commending the endeavours of the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for the postmasters, and the success of those endeavours, for which they owe him a great deal. It was also made absolutely clear in the ITV programme “Mr Bates vs The Post Office” that the availability of litigation funding was crucial.
I also agree with the points made not only by the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, but also by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, as to the magnitude of the risk regularly taken by litigation funders. One of the issues that we need to address, I suggest, is how to consider that risk without that risk and its effects damaging the actual recovery of the claimants in these cases.
The truth, as this debate has exposed, is that unregulated litigation funding leaves us caught in a bit of a jungle out there. We know that the Lord Chancellor shares that view. In his press release, also issued with the MoJ and the Courts & Tribunals Service, he said that the Government were
“considering options for a wider review of the sector and how third-party litigation funding is carried out”,
and it is entirely welcome that he has now initiated the process of such a review. The Minister has explained that the review of the whole litigation funding market has been ordered. That review could consider the need for increased regulation and for safeguards for people bringing claims to court, particularly given the growth of the sector over the last decade. For my part, I do not see why we should be left with uncertainty for long. I completely agree that we need a review, but there are some principles that we may be able to address now and in the later stages of the Bill—not necessarily by amendment, but by discussion and by formulating something approaching a way forward.
The traditional rules against champerty were founded on a distrust of investors, in effect, gambling on other people’s litigation. Despite the growth of litigation funding, the grounds for that distrust have not been entirely extinguished. On the other hand, they have to be balanced against the need to enable access to justice—a point that has been made. That is a need that, I suggest, can be met by a well-regulated and fully functioning system of private sector legal funding alongside a fully functioning legal aid system. I do not share the pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, that there is no future for legal aid. There are a number of areas where LFAs simply cannot replace legal aid; they are not suitable for a great deal of the litigation that used to be handled with the benefit of legal aid, but for which it is no longer available.
A great deal has been made of the 2013 DBA regulations. As the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, have reminded us, those regulations did not represent the finest hour of parliamentary draftsmen. Nevertheless, they sought to introduce—and did introduce—some controls and limits on what might be arranged between clients and, generally, their lawyers. That included: a definition of the circumstances in which the funder would be paid; definitions of the reasons for payment being transparent; excluding some classes of claims from such agreements; and, most importantly, limiting the overall percentages of damages that might be payable to funders. Those areas are important, and those regulations and the feelings behind them teach us some lessons. I was interested in the proposals apparently put forward by Nicholas Bacon KC for the proposed new regulations and to hear the description from the noble Lord, Trevethin and Oaksey, of those proposals.
But what we will have now, with this Bill, is no such helpful restrictions. Litigation funders have long argued, for reasons that they plainly find attractive, that the DBA restrictions do not apply to LFAs. That argument was rejected by the majority in the PACCAR case in the Supreme Court—undoubtedly doing, in effect, great damage to the structure of the whole sector in this country—but what we are left with has other weaknesses. Not only are there no limits on the percentages of overall recovery to be received by the funders, but there are no or very limited incentives, in a case in which the client is likely to win, for the funders to hold down the amount of costs and other fees that can be charged to the client’s account and very little control for the clients over the costs to which they might, ultimately, be exposed. That point was not made directly by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, but he alluded to similar points about the lack of control for clients over litigation funding.
Because of the requirements in Clause 1(4) that the provisions of the Bill are to be
“treated as always having had effect”,
there is the full retrospectivity alluded to by a number of speakers. That means that the avenues for challenging existing LFAs, where they exist, would probably be largely closed. I understand the Minister’s argument for retrospectivity—that it will restore the status quo pre-PACCAR—but it may, at the same time, undermine potential challenges that might have been made to existing LFAs.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, raised what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, might have called the “niche issue” about the interesting problem of litigants with overlapping LFAs. I see his point. It remains to be seen whether it would arise in practice.
I agree overwhelmingly with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. The whole issue of retrospectivity and its effect will need to be carefully considered in Committee.
There are tricky areas in this Bill. It is interesting that the Competition Appeal Tribunal has developed a practical and flexible scheme for considering litigation funding agreements in assessing the ability of clients to fund costs of their own and meet potential adverse costs orders. There is much to be said for consideration of that scheme.
It would be wise to consider what amendments, if any, might improve this legislation. The need for regulation seems clear and I suggest that the overall balance of opinion in this Chamber today has been to the same effect.
I have some questions for the Minister about the review. I have no wish to pre-empt it by asking questions and seeking answers that might ultimately prove embarrassing for the Government. It would be interesting to know what areas the noble and learned Lord regards as important for the review to consider. What proposals for regulation would he see as being possible? What type of regulation would he consider to be within the review’s ambit? What limits, if any, would he foresee on the reward of litigation funders and how might they operate? When will we see the terms of reference of any review? Will it be open to consider alternatives to litigation funding, as has been suggested, particularly in cases against the Government where claimants face what has been called the “bottomless purse” of the taxpayer?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for introducing this Bill, which we support.
First, I will set the wider scene. Third-party litigation funding in the UK has experienced a huge growth since 2010, highlighting the need for comprehensive oversight and regulation. Globally, it is worth more than £13 billion a year and it is on course to grow by 9% per annum for the next five years, taking it up to £20 billion a year.
The UK’s 15 largest litigation funders saw their balance sheet assets soar tenfold to £2.2 billion in the decade to 2022, while the number of funders operating in the UK has grown fourfold to 70—of which only 16 are members of the self-regulating industry body, the Association of Litigation Funders. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, questioned what proportion of the business goes to the regulated and to the non-regulated funders.
The industry is highly profitable. The insurance company Swiss Re has estimated that the average internal rate of return on personal injury cases from 2019 to 2021 ranged from 20% to 35%. For mass tort lawsuits, profits ranged from 20% to 25%.
The Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill would confirm in legislation that litigation funding agreements in England and Wales are not damages-based agreements. Thus, LFAs would once again not be subject to regulation under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and the Damages-Based Agreement Regulations 2013—a return to the position that existed before July 2023, when the Supreme Court ruled that LFAs could be DBAs if the funder’s remuneration was based on a percentage of the damages recovered.
Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, LFAs and the litigation funding industry were self-regulated. DBAs are a type of no-win, no-fee agreement between a client and their representative—usually their lawyer or claims management company. DBAs must adhere to the statutory and regulatory requirements set out in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013.
In July 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in the PACCAR case, which we have heard so much about, that LFAs could constitute DBAs if the funder’s remuneration was based on a percentage of the damages recovered. The Government and the litigation funding industry both expressed concern that many LFAs would be deemed unenforceable because they did not comply with the legislative requirements for DBAs. The Government said that this uncertainty risked impacting access to justice and could damage the attractiveness of the England and Wales jurisdiction for commercial litigation and arbitration.
The organisation Forward Global argues that the PACCAR judgment enables parties of LFAs prior to July 2023 to challenge these agreements in court. It argues that Clause 4 would stop sub-postmasters, who signed their LFA in March 2016, and other victims of “excessive” LFAs seeking justice. We believe that the Government must ensure that third-party funders have an appropriate and not excessive reward for the risk they take. This is of importance because excessive reward is usually at the cost of the successful claimant who has suffered the wrong.
Although the Bill itself does not expressly include any safeguards, with future safeguards or regulation of the litigation funding sector to be delayed until after the conclusion of the review by the Civil Justice Council, the Government say that the review is expected to
“expressly consider the need for further regulation or safeguards”.—[Official Report, 11/3/24; col. 1888.]
The noble and learned Lord the Minister gave an update on the progress of the review and when it is likely to report, but I did not pick up whether its terms of reference are available and would be available to Members taking part in discussions on the Bill.
During the recent passage of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, which is soon to have ping-pong, an amendment was proposed to require the Government to conduct a review of the litigation funding market and its regulation. The Government did not accept the amendment but, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Offord, did concede that they were
“not blind to some of the challenges and opportunities to reform and improve the funding system”.—[Official Report, 11/3/24; col. 1888.]
I think the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made this point as well.
The Association of Litigation Funders argues that Alan Bates, the lead claimant against the Post Office for the Horizon scandal, said that the backing of the litigation funders helped him and his colleagues to secure justice, expose the truth and clear their names and reputations. However, it seems that, based on Forward Global’s briefing, the funders arguably made an excessive profit. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, that there was very real risk in embarking on that litigation and that he believes that they did indeed deserve their fees but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, argued, the sub-postmasters themselves are left with £20,000 each—a fraction of the total award. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Marks, who said that, on first reading, those numbers look offensive and unfair to the sub-postmasters.
Speaking frankly, the suggestion by some that, if the Bill passes, it means that LFAs will escape regulation altogether is unconvincing. They should be regulated in their own right, but not by regulations that would not have been expected, by either side, to apply when the agreements were being drafted and which are generally agreed, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, to be a dog’s dinner in drafting terms. We recognise the gravity of retrospective legislation, but without it there is no way to preserve all the agreements in cases that have now been concluded. The briefings I have received say that there is no actual problem here, because all live agreements can be renegotiated. However, it is the older agreements that would stand to damage the industry most, hence the need for the Bill.
There is also the separate issue, which has not been mentioned today, of transparency regarding who is funding the litigation. We have all had briefings, including me, from various groups saying that litigation is being used as a vehicle for circumventing international sanctions. This might be a satellite issue but it is still a real one, and I look forward to the Government addressing it.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, litigation funding arrangements raise issues that are worldwide. The issues are very similar, whether in continental Europe, the United States, Singapore or Australia, and they are covered by the Vienna-based European Law Institute, as he said. While it is not directly relevant to this Bill, the findings of that institute, and the work of the noble and learned Lord and Dame Sara Cockerill, will be of great interest and relevance. I accept his point that there is likely to be further legislation in this area within a relatively short time.
Today, we are concerned with the Bill before us. We support it and we are very conscious that most industry figures do so too. There have been comments such as this is the “beginning of the end” of the issues caused by the PACCAR ruling, and the Bill is “a great starting point” for removing these uncertainties. It is in that spirit that we support the Bill.
In conclusion, I want to reflect on my experience in business. I think I am one of three noble Lords who have taken part in this debate who is not, and never has been, a lawyer. I remember when I got promoted from engineer to chief executive, I had to start dealing with all the legal issues that came across my desk. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks: it is a bit of a jungle out there. I was very grateful that my business partner was a lawyer; he managed to save me from some of the problems of managing a business. I listened very carefully to my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn when he went through the various benefits of litigation funding. I took two points from his speech. First, poorer individuals and organisations are not particularly benefiting from this way of funding. That is the political point, which I wholeheartedly endorse. The second point he made rang absolutely true for me, as a former chief executive: it is a way of managing risk. The business I ran was relatively wealthy, but we had unpredictable cash flows. Such arrangements were very beneficial, because anything can happen when you are running a business. De-risking and managing legal costs over a period of time was a very useful technique when actively running a business.
Having said that, we of course support the Bill, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the various points that were raised.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those noble Lords who participated in this debate. I am grateful in particular to the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, from their Benches, for the broad support they are giving. But if a financial metaphor is not inappropriate in the circumstances, I do not take either of them to have issued the Government with a blank cheque as far as this legislation goes. If your Lordships are minded that a Committee of the whole House should be established to consider this Bill, as I will move, I look forward to your contributions, and those of the whole House, in giving the Bill the scrutiny it deserves.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, opened the responses and in many ways set the parameters for the interesting debate that followed, setting up the question of access to justice and stressing from a historical perspective the medical legal cases arising out of the condition known as vibration white finger. That prompted me to recollect the importance of associations such as trade unions and others in providing legal assistance for their members when entering into costly litigation relating to the safety of the workplace.
It is quite correct that funding litigation is frightening for individuals and smaller companies who are contemplating it in defence of their right. It is for that reason that the Government have put forward this Bill to address the consequences of the PACCAR ruling. Legal Members of your Lordships’ House touched on that question, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to the surprising character of the judgment. Certainly, it took lots of people in the profession by surprise. It is to deal with the consequences of that decision that the Government tabled the Bill. I respectfully endorse the characterisation of the dissenting judgment by Lady Rose, which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, as a powerful one.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in a characteristically thoughtful analysis of the position, set forth what is accepted across the House with one exception—that there is no real alternative to funding of this sort in the litigation landscape as we currently find it. I do not wish to depress the House by saying that legal aid is dead. On civil cases in England and Wales, legal aid can be provided as an exceptional case funding measure, for matters out of scope where the failure to provide legal services would breach or likely breach a person’s ECHR rights. Where a matter is within legal scope or could be caught by exceptional case funding, the applicant must also pass a means and merits test.
The Ministry of Justice published the Government’s response to the means test review consultation exercise on 25 May 2023. That set out the detailed policy decisions underpinning the means test arrangement. The Government assess that their changes will increase the number of people eligible for civil legal aid in England and Wales by 2.5 million. Therefore, although there are concerns from Members across the House—particularly the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, Lord Meston and Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, and while legal aid will remain an important feature of how access to justice is delivered, it is the view of the Government and I think of the debate overall that we must take steps to address the necessity of third-party funding to permit access to justice for the sorts of persons, organisations and corporations which I have described.
The very interesting contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, anticipated me in referring to the decision of the American judge who said that the alternative to class actions funded by funders of this sort was not 17 million individual actions but no actions at all because, as the noble Lord quoted, and as I am happy to repeat, only a lunatic or a fanatic would litigate over $30. The noble Lord also, along with my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot, put before the House a quote from “The Italian Job”. I wonder whether that is the first occasion when that particular work has been referred to in your Lordships’ counsels.
Both noble Lords—and my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot spoke with the immense moral authority that he carries with him as a result of his selfless and tireless work on behalf of the sub-postmasters—made important points about access to funding for litigation. As I quoted in opening the debate, the eponymous Mr Bates has referred to the importance of third-party litigation funding in enabling the process by which justice is arrived at to commence.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, referred to the manner in which, as all of us common lawyers know, definitions or concepts of enormous importance across the whole mighty edifice of the common law world can emerge from the least important-sounding or most apparently trivial causes, whether it be snails emerging from bottles of ginger beer in cafés in Paisley or other areas in which matters of huge import for the civil common law have arisen from small-scale disputes between parties.
All the noble Lords were united in their concern about the sums ultimately received by litigants and the potential sums realised by litigation funders. The best vehicle for discussion of this point will be the review by the Civil Justice Council to which reference has been made, but it is a problem of which the Government are acutely conscious.
I am grateful too for the contribution to the debate made by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and for his informed engagement with me at an earlier stage, to which he was good enough to refer your Lordships—an earlier stage before I rose to address the House this afternoon. I am grateful to him for his analysis of the concept of retrospection in legislation, as I am for his endorsement of the constitutional position in relation to Parliament being responsible for making law.
My noble friend Lord Sandhurst referred to the importance of maintaining a situation where defenders are not unduly harassed by litigations funded by third-party funders, and he was quite correct to make that point. I am sure that this is something that the review being carried out under the chairmanship of the Master of the Rolls will consider.
A number of specialist points were made during the debate. In relation to a series of questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, I look forward to engaging with the points that he made. In the first instance, I will write to him in relation to those specific points with which he concluded his submission, and I would like to do so against the basis of an understanding of the terms of reference of the forthcoming review. In relation to him and to the point echoed from the Opposition Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, as your Lordships heard from me in opening, an interim report is expected in the summer; the terms of reference under which that report will be carried out will be published in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, expressed herself as suspicious of everything that comes out of the Government. I have to echo that by saying I am suspicious of everything that comes out of the Green Party. After all, I have to live in Scotland where we see the effects of government by the Green Party, and they are absurd where not actively malign.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am sorry for intervening. It is a separate Green Party. It actually disaffiliated itself because of me, and I feel strongly about it.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
As always, the noble Baroness has fulfilled a valuable public service.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on the scope of the Bill, the view of the Public Bill Office confirms that this is a one-purpose Bill. Its scope is closely connected to the enforceability of litigation funding agreements and the Public Bill Office does not think that amendments relating to the wider category of damages-based agreements would be in scope, nor would more general issues relating to litigation funding. Again, I would be happy to revert to the noble Lord with further details on those points, as I learn them.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, along with my noble friend Lord Sandhurst and the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, also posed a question on the revision of the current DBA regulations. The Government will consider the timetable to make improvements to the DBA regulations without encouraging unnecessary litigation. Any revisions to the current regulations will be subject to a statutory consultation, which is set out in Section 58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, and to an affirmative resolution, which is set out in Section 120 of the 1990 Act.
I apologise to any noble Lords whose valuable contributions to this interesting debate I may have overlooked. To sum up, I gauge the mood of your Lordships’ House as one of concern that access to the courts, the reputation of which the House is jealous of and grateful for, should not be artificially constrained. I also recognise noble Lords’ concerns that access to justice on behalf of a less well-funded party or individual should not come at the expense of excessive profits for those responsible for funding. In my own jurisdiction of Scotland, it is a matter of daily encouragement and inspiration to enter Parliament Hall in Edinburgh and pass the portrait of a notable lawyer, of whom it was said after his death that, while he lived, no poor man in Scotland wanted for a good lawyer. It is the aspiration of the whole House that that should apply today as much as it did in previous centuries. I hope that, ultimately, the Bill passes and that the House, as a whole, accepts that it is done with the intention of furthering that aspiration.
Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2024
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the draft Order laid before the House on 6 March be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, I direct noble Lords to my register of interests. I do not believe I have any specific conflicts, but I am a shareholder in various companies and so on, and it is important for me to highlight that point at the start.
The Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2024 and draft guidance, issued under Section 110(1) of the Deregulation Act 2015, were laid before the House on 6 March 2024. I am aware of the amendment that has been tabled, to which I will respond in due course. I also reassure the House that I have responded to the SLSC, following a submission from Wildlife and Countryside Link, which, again, I will cover in due course.
Regulators play a vital role in shaping the UK economy through the way in which they regulate. Regulators set strategies and make decisions that significantly affect the types, the scale and the locations of economic activity in important sectors of the economy. It is therefore critical that regulation is cognisant of the requirements of growth. Efficiencies from improved regulation can translate into lower input costs and higher economic growth overall. I will be publishing a White Paper shortly that addresses the relationship of regulation and growth in greater detail; I look forward to discussing that with many noble Lords in the future.
The instrument and guidance we are debating today relate to the growth duty, a duty that requires specified regulators to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth when exercising certain regulatory functions. The instrument extending the growth duty will support an increase in the productivity of our businesses, drive economic performance, and grow our economy. By extending the growth duty to Ofgem, Ofcom and Ofwat, we will ensure that these critical regulators have regard to the need to promote economic growth.
It is clear that regulators can affect growth through their policy decisions. However, regulators can also affect growth through the approach they take to regulation and the wider environment that they establish, including in their relationships with regulated businesses. A good regulatory environment, emerging from the attentive and responsive stewardship of an effective regulator, can create the conditions for business confidence and investment, sensible risk-taking and innovation.
The growth duty currently applies to more than 50 regulators and came into statutory effect alongside the relevant statutory guidance on 29 March 2017 under the Deregulation Act 2015. Currently, the growth duty does not apply to the Office of Communications, also known as Ofcom; the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, Ofgem; and the Water Services Regulation Authority, Ofwat. This instrument will extend the duty to these three regulators. These regulators oversee industry sectors which alone account for 13% of annual private UK investment and around 4% of UK GDP.
In extending the growth duty, the department has also taken the opportunity to refresh the related statutory guidance, to provide greater clarity to support regulators in their application of and reporting against the growth duty. The refreshed guidance has identified “drivers of growth” and “behaviours of Smarter Regulation”, which will assist regulators to better support sustainable economic growth. I hope that noble Lords have had a chance to read the guidance, which is an extremely well-written document.
I will talk about some of the key drivers of economic growth. I will list them, if I may: innovation, infrastructure and investment, competition, skills, efficiency and productivity, trade, and—very importantly, please take note—environmental sustainability. I understand that there is a perception that the growth duty is in conflict with environmental duties or protection of the environment. I assure all noble Lords that nothing could be further from the truth. The refreshed growth duty statutory guidance sets out in the opening paragraph the importance of ensuring
“adequate protections for consumers and the environment”.
It goes on to state:
“Natural capital and the ecosystem”
in which we live
“are fundamental to economic growth”
and therefore need to be safeguarded for economic growth to be sustained. The growth duty does not legitimise non-compliance with other duties or objectives, and its purpose is not to achieve or pursue economic growth at the expense of necessary protections.
Together, the extension of the growth duty and revised guidance will support the positive shift in the way that regulation is delivered, driving growth and paving the way for businesses to start to grow. An economy that promotes growth is one which is better able to attract businesses to our shores, to innovate and to serve households, and delivers prosperity across our nation.
The extension of the growth duty expands the remit of what Ofgem, Ofcom and Ofwat should consider when exercising their regulatory functions. Requiring these regulators to consider the growth duty will empower them to consider other areas which may not be reflected or may be only partly reflected in their duties, such as promoting innovation or trade. The growth duty is not prescriptive. It does not mandate particular actions; nor does it create a hierarchy over existing regulatory duties. The draft statutory guidance is clear that it is for regulators to balance their duties. We recognise that decisions on growth will need to be carefully considered along with other duties. The Government have also committed to review the impact of the extension of this SI within the related impact assessment and will consider the impact and effectiveness of the growth duty on investment growth, the environment and other factors in detail at the committed review point.
The refreshed guidance outlines drivers of sustainable economic growth supported by case-study examples to provide clarity to regulators within scope of the duty and help them to promote growth. For the purposes of this debate, I refer noble Lords to the previous sets of guidance, which I found to be limited in terms of the sorts of ambitions that we have, particularly when it comes to making sure that regulators understand the balance of their different duties.
The guidance also identifies behaviours that contribute to good regulatory decision-making and smarter regulation. The purpose of the guidance is to assist regulators to give appropriate consideration to the potential impact of their decisions on economic growth within the sectors they directly regulate and the broader UK economy alongside or as part of consideration of their other statutory duties. Decisions on growth will involve consideration of a regulator’s other duties; for example, they may relate to environmental or consumer protection, and there may be a need to balance multiple objectives. As independent and experienced bodies, regulators are best placed to balance their decision-making in this regard, and the revised guidance intends to encourage transparency and accountability for growth across regulators, attracting investment and, we hope, creating jobs.
Before concluding, I turn briefly to the regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. The amendment is concerned that the growth duty could impact Ofwat’s ability to take enforcement action against polluting companies. We are aware that water pollution levels are totally unacceptable, so we expect Ofwat to take the right decisions to protect our waterways. I reassure the House that it is not a case of growth versus the environment.
First, I confirm to the House that the growth duty does not, has not and will not legitimise non-compliance with existing protections and does not prevent Ofwat taking enforcement action. This includes environmental responsibilities and this is explicit in the revised statutory guidance. The purpose of the growth duty is to ensure that specified regulators consider the potential impact of their activities and decisions on economic growth alongside their other statutory duties. The statutory guidance is clear that this does not legitimise non-compliance with existing duties. Further, it specifically lists environmental sustainability as a driver of economic growth and reiterates that the Government are committed to the net-zero and environmental targets in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021. A well-protected and healthy population and environment lead to higher productivity and growth. Therefore, we consider that there is no tension between a regulator’s protection duties and the growth duty.
Secondly, the guidance does not in any way set restrictions on regulators about how their enforcement can and should operate. We can all agree that non-compliant activity or behaviour that undermines protections to the detriment of the environment needs to be appropriately dealt with by regulators. Regulators operate independently from the Government and are free to make enforcement decisions based on the evidence presented to them. The growth duty does not prevent any enforcement. I want to be clear that degradation of the environment does not support long-term growth, and it is not something that the growth duty seeks or permits.
In conclusion, this statutory instrument is necessary to ensure that the energy, water and communications sectors strive for maximum efficiency over a sustained period. A well-regulated system will deliver efficient outputs and drive economic growth and productivity. The refreshed guidance makes it clear that regulators should work with businesses on, among other things, the environment, trade, investment and skills to ensure sustainable medium to long-term economic growth. This ensures that current-day economic growth can be achieved without undermining the ability of future growth. Applying the growth duty to the regulators of the energy, water and communications sectors will help ensure an efficient system by encouraging pro-growth regulatory practices where these are compatible with existing duties. The refreshed growth-duty guidance will support regulators in their application of and reporting against this growth duty. The guidance will assist regulators in discharging their responsibilities under the growth duty and provide clarity for stakeholders as to what they should expect of regulators.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
At end to insert “but this House regrets that the new growth duty imposed on Ofwat could seriously impact its ability to take enforcement action against polluting water companies, and further regrets the failure of the Government to prioritise the sanctioning of polluters and the cleanliness of waterways.”
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2024 and the draft Growth Duty: Statutory Guidance Refresh which accompanies it. I congratulate him on his enthusiasm.
Economic growth is important, but not at any cost. Although interested in the work of Ofcom and Ofgem, I am speaking this evening only to the issues as they relate to Ofwat and the water industry. I am indebted to the Wildlife and Countryside Link for its briefing and to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing this to the attention of the House. It is certainly of great interest to the public.
Many of your Lordships have expressed concern over the state of our waterways, lakes and rivers for some time. The public are also very concerned about the level of pollution continually flowing into what was once sparkling, clear water in which fish and wildlife could thrive but is now stinking and discoloured. Ofwat has struggled to ensure that the water companies fulfil their duties to provide clean water and effective disposal of sewage.
During many debates, the issue has been raised of withholding dividend payment to shareholders and bonuses to chief executives and directors of polluting water companies as a means of getting them to realise that their duties extended to the public, as well as to their shareholders. Customers of water and sewerage companies are finding their bills increasing, but the quality of the water in our waterways is decreasing daily. This order makes it harder for Ofwat to take enforcement action against polluting water companies, as this could be construed as hindering the growth of those companies. This is something of a gift to the three opposition parties in this Chamber in the run-up to the general election.
My main purpose this evening is to press for this order to be withdrawn. If that is not successful, then I would wish for the accompanying draft statutory guidance to be significantly amended. Unless this happens, it is extremely likely that Ofwat will be hindered in its ability to tackle freshwater pollution and other sources of environmental harm, such as unsustainable levels of abstraction.
The order significantly shifts water regulation away from environmental considerations. Over recent years, as new data is collected, it is emerging that the level of freshwater pollution and unsustainable abstraction caused by water companies has reached an all-time high. There is strong public support and political call for tighter regulation of water companies to prevent further environmental harm.
We had seen Defra appearing to be responsive to this, echoed in the 2023 Plan for Water, which pledged
“to address sources of pollution, and boost our water supplies through more investment, tighter regulation, and more effective enforcement.”
That is good so far. However, the order we are debating this evening from the Department for Business and Trade moves in the opposite direction, towards lighter regulation, in the hope of boosting economic growth. The Minister makes a very good case for this. As the Wildlife and Countryside Link says:
“Framing non-economic regulation as a burden on business rarely spells good news for the environment.”
I have the overwhelming impression that Defra has been lent on by the DBT. Has the 25-year environment plan been shelved completely? It is difficult to equate the DBT imposition of a growth duty, which is designed to lighten the burden of regulation on the water industry, with Defra’s commitment to tighten regulation of the same industry. When asked by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about this, the DBT responded that
“the growth duty will not take precedence over other duties”,
and the Minister has reiterated that this evening. However, I remain unpersuaded, as do others. Is regulation to be tightened to help protect the quality of the water in our chalk streams, lakes and rivers, or is it to be sacrificed to increase shareholder dividends? Can the Minister help us with this dichotomy?
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
This statutory instrument, despite the very expert way that it has been presented by the Minister, I believe could seriously inhibit the regulation of the water industry. I cannot help but echo a number of remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell; they are worth repeating.
Unfortunately, under current parliamentary procedures, it is not possible in either House of Parliament to amend secondary legislation. Having considered this and other similar issues, I urge both the Government and the Opposition to consider whether a better way cannot be found for Parliament to improve secondary legislation in the way that so often happens with primary legislation.
With regard to the order, I shall comment, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, only on the inclusion of Ofwat, the water regulator, in the scope of the order and the effect the order will have on the way that Ofwat operates as the financial regulator of the water companies. As everyone in this House knows, there is wide public concern about the continuing voluminous discharges of sewage into our rivers and on to our beaches. There have been many calls for tighter regulation. Even the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pledges in its Plan for Water—which was published only a year ago, as has been mentioned—among other laudable objectives,
“tighter regulation, and more effective enforcement”.
However, this order, coming from a different department of state, proposes lighter regulation and less enforcement. The Minister continues to deny that, but I must quote directly from the draft statutory guidance, which says on page 26 that
“certain enforcement actions … can be particularly damaging to the growth. These include, for example … financial sanctions; and publicity … that harms public confidence”.
I suggest to the Minister that the failure to fine water companies and publicise gross discharges of sewage is far more likely to harm public confidence in the system of regulation of water company monopolies. We have to admit—again, despite the Minister’s enthusiastic proposal—that the order will cause Ofwat to hesitate before fining companies or taking enforcement action, for fear of being accused of limiting economic growth.
I have also read the impact assessment, published on 9 January and signed by the responsible Minister. Unfortunately, I could not read the signature, so I do not know who it was. Ah, it was the noble Lord, Lord Johnson—I am so sorry, it was signed by our Minister in the Lords. Again, I feel I have to quote from it. It says that
“the Gross Value Added … of the water sector has shown little long-run growth”.
I am sorry to say I think that phrase sums up how the Department for Business and Trade considers the water industry. It clearly does not believe that the water industry can generate economic value for the country, but the water industry can and should contribute to an improvement in the environment that we will pass on to our children and our grandchildren—and that has value, even if it cannot be measured by the Department for Business and Trade.
It is certainly the case that most businesses and the public at large want and expect a plentiful supply of clean water, fewer leaks from pipes and a huge reduction in discharges of sewage into our waterways. There is a strong argument, which in a sense the Minister has already deployed, and I am sure will continue to deploy, that less regulation will normally produce economic growth. That may indeed be true for many sectors of the economy, but a monopoly industry where there is no competition, and which is causing so much damage to the environment, needs more regulation and enforcement, not less. So I ask the Minister to discuss with his Secretary of State whether the order really should apply to Ofwat along with the other regulatory bodies within scope of the order. My conclusion is that this order as drafted really could further damage an already degraded aquatic environment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I speak at quite a lot of sewage rallies and in sewage debates and I always give him credit for leading the charge against the Government’s laissez-faire attitude to sewage. There is usually a slightly stunned silence that I am congratulating a Duke—but that is life.
We heard some very fine words in the opening statement about the environmental considerations not being affected and so on. I am really sorry, but it is nonsense. If you have growth, you are going to have environmental devastation. It is automatic; it happens everywhere. At the moment, we have torrents of sewage pouring into our rivers, on to our coastlines and into our chalk streams. But, instead of stopping it, this proposal aims to increase it; and instead of giving Ofwat tougher powers to regulate the water industry and turn off the tap of CEO bonuses and shareholder dividends, Ofwat is now being told that economic growth is more important than clean water.
Whenever this Government do anything, I always ask, “Who benefits?” Who benefits here, of course, are Conservative Party donors and the economic growth they are going to experience at our expense and, in this case, developers who provided almost one-third of Conservative Party funds for the previous decade. What the Government mean by “economic growth” is the ability of developers to build cheap, sell high and connect up a lot of new houses to sewerage systems that cannot even cope with existing demand without emptying the excess into our local rivers and streams.
The only way to ensure that new houses are connected to a modern, effective sewerage system is to have public ownership of water companies. The only way to ensure that our water bills are being used to build local sewers rather than offshore bank accounts is to have people in charge who work for the public good and not for private greed.
By asking Ofwat to consider economic growth, the Government are not asking it to make a judgment on whether that growth is desirable, yet a growth in pollution that requires millions to be spent on clearing it up is classed as economic growth. More money spent on medicines that fight off gastric diseases from polluted water is economic growth, as is money repeatedly spent on restocking the fish populations of rivers. Are we really saying to Ofwat that growth at any cost to the health of humans and nature is a desirable thing that it should promote?
Last year, this House defeated the Government’s attempt to allow developers to build new homes that would have added pollution to some of the most sensitive waterways in this country. From the Norfolk Broads to Devon, the Government hoped to let developers pass on the clean-up costs for pollution to local people paying their water bills. We in your Lordships’ House stopped them. I would have liked us to do the same today, but clearly it is not going to happen.
I know that I will be on the Opposition Benches pestering the next Government to change these rules back. It will not take legislation; it is something a Minister can do and I will expect them to do it. Back in 2021, when the Government stripped out the last of our amendments on stopping sewage in the Environment Bill, without timetables and targets, I said, Cassandra-like:
“This will come to haunt MPs”.—[Official Report, 9/11/21; col. 1161.]
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned earlier, this piece of legislation is a gift to the three opposition parties. At the rally I was at yesterday, all three opposition parties had a very sympathetic hearing, but, I am afraid, the Conservative MP had a very tough time, even though she was clearly very concerned about the issue. This Bill is a vote loser and the Government should remember that.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to the order. I assume that one of the objectives it to try to bring some rationality to the different range of regulatory functions that exist between the different regulators. That is perhaps a laudable objective. But it is a missed opportunity in this case, as nothing is said in this order—nor has the Minister indicated that he would like to see this—about the regulators collectively trying to do what they can to ensure that the industries for which they are responsible operate so as to be resilient and able to deal with a variety of shocks. I declare my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission.
This is not just about environmental sustainability, although that is one element of it. It is about their ability as industries to respond to what may befall them. At a time of heightened international crisis—I appreciate that most noble Lords are here to discuss precisely that—it is extraordinary that the Government are not taking the opportunity to use the regulatory mechanisms to try to improve the ability of our critical national infrastructure to be resilient and to respond. I hope the Minister will be able to explain why the opportunity has not been taken to extend the remit to ensure that there is a broader definition—one not just about economic growth but promoting resilience. This has, for example, been taken on board by the UK Regulators Network as one of its longer-term strategic aims.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I will take this opportunity to pause the current business on the SI so that the Leader of the House can repeat an Oral Statement taken in the House of Commons earlier today.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, before we begin, it might be helpful for the House to know that the usual channels have extended the Back-Bench speaking time to 30 minutes.
Iran and Israel
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I intend no inconvenience to the House and those taking part in the debate in coming to the Chamber at this time. I hope that it is understood that the position was agreed by the usual channels. I will repeat the Statement made by the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, before I start, I would like to express my deepest sympathy, and, I am sure, that of the whole House, on the death of your father. He was a true giant not just of this House but the other place too”.
I am not supposed to go aside from the Statement, but I think we would all agree with that.
“I also want to express my solidarity with our Australian friends after the horrific and senseless attacks in Sydney in recent days. Our thoughts are with all those affected.
On Saturday evening, Iran sought to plunge the Middle East into a new crisis. It launched a barrage of missiles and attack drones over Iraq and Jordan and towards Israel. The scale of the attack, and the fact that it was targeted directly at Israel, are without precedent. It was a reckless and dangerous escalation. If it had succeeded, the fallout for regional security and the toll on Israeli citizens would have been catastrophic. But it did not succeed.
In support of Israel’s own defensive action, the United Kingdom joined a US-led international effort, along with France and partners in the region, which intercepted almost all the missiles, saving lives in Israel and its neighbours. We had already sent additional RAF Typhoons to the region as part of our existing operations against Daesh in Iraq and Syria. I can confirm that our forces destroyed a number of Iranian drones. We also provided important intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support for our partners. Our pilots put themselves in harm’s way to protect the innocent and preserve peace and stability. I spoke to the RAF earlier today. They are the best of the best and I know the whole House will join me in expressing our gratitude.
With this attack, Iran has once again shown its true colours. It is intent on sowing chaos in its own backyard and on further destabilising the Middle East. Our aim is to support stability and security because it is right for the region and because, although the Middle East is thousands of miles away, it has a direct effect on our security and prosperity at home. We are working urgently with our allies to de-escalate the situation and prevent further bloodshed. We want to see calmer heads prevail, and we are directing all our diplomatic efforts to that end.
Yesterday I spoke to my fellow G7 leaders. We are united in our condemnation of this attack. We discussed further potential diplomatic measures, which we will be working together to co-ordinate in the coming days. I will also speak to Prime Minister Netanyahu later today to express our solidarity with Israel in the face of this attack, and to discuss how we can prevent further escalation. All sides must show restraint.
Our actions reflect our wider strategy in the Middle East, which I have set out in the House previously. I believe there are three vital steps to putting the region on to a better path. First, we must uphold regional security against hostile actors, including in the Red Sea, and we must ensure Israel’s security. That is non-negotiable and a fundamental condition for peace in the region. In the face of threats such as those we saw this weekend, Israel has our full support.
Secondly, we must invest more deeply in the two-state solution. That is what we have been doing over the past six months, including working closely with the Palestinian Authority, so that when the time comes, it can provide more effective governance for Gaza and the West Bank. It is significant that other regional partners actually helped to prevent a much worse attack over the weekend. It reminds us how important the attempts to normalise relations between Israel and its neighbours really are, and it holds out precious hope for the region.
Thirdly, the conflict in Gaza must end. Hamas, which is backed by Iran, started this war. It wanted not just to kill and murder but to destabilise the whole region. This weekend, it rejected the latest hostage deal, which offered a road to a ceasefire. It is Israel’s right, and its duty, to defeat the threat from Hamas terrorists and defend its security.
I want to be clear: nothing that has happened over the past 48 hours affects our position on Gaza. The appalling toll on civilians continues to grow: the hunger, the desperation and the loss of life on an awful scale. The whole country wants to see an end to the bloodshed, and to see more humanitarian support going in. The recent increase in aid flows is positive, but it is still not enough. We need to see new crossings open for longer to get in vital supplies.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the three British aid workers who were killed in Gaza: John Chapman, James Kirby and James Henderson. They were heroes. The children of Gaza whom they were risking their lives to feed need a humanitarian pause immediately, leading to a long-term sustainable ceasefire. That is the fastest way to get hostages out and aid in, and to stop the fighting. Israelis and Palestinians alike deserve to live in peace, dignity and security, and so do people across the entire region.
In conclusion, Saturday’s attack was the act not of a people but of a despotic regime, and it is emblematic of the dangers that we face today. The links between such regimes are growing. Tel Aviv was not the only target of Iranian drones on Saturday; Putin was also launching them at Kyiv and Kharkiv. Which was the sole voice speaking up for Iran yesterday, seeking to justify its actions? Russia.
The threats to stability are growing, not just in the Middle East but everywhere, and we are meeting those threats, time after time, with British forces at the forefront. It is why our pilots were in action this weekend. It is why they have been policing the skies above Iraq and Syria for a decade. It is why our sailors are defending freedom of navigation in the Red Sea against the reckless attacks of the Iran-backed Houthi militia. It is why our soldiers are on the ground in Kosovo, Estonia, Poland and elsewhere, and it is why we have led the way in backing Ukraine, and we will continue to back it for as long as it takes. When adversaries such as Russia or Iran threaten peace and prosperity, we will always stand in their way, ready to defend our values and our interests, shoulder to shoulder with our friends and our allies. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for repeating what is a very important Statement.
At the outset, we associate ourselves with and thank the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal for their genuine sympathy on the passing of our colleague from these Benches, Lord Doug Hoyle. His was a long life, well lived, and we join in the condolences of the Lord Speaker to his family. I hope noble Lords will accept that on these Benches today we also mourn the loss of another Labour colleague, Lord Richard Rosser, who served on our Front Bench for many years, including as a shadow Defence Minister. We also associate these Benches with the Prime Minister’s comments on the terrible attacks in Sydney.
The Prime Minister rightly described the British aid workers, John Chapman, James Kirby and James Henderson, who were killed in Gaza, as heroes. They lost their lives when all they wanted to do was to help others.
Iran’s actions over the weekend have, as Keir Starmer said in the other place,
“left the world a more dangerous place”.
There was clear intent to destabilise the region and fuel further tensions. Innocent civilians were targeted. It is right that these actions were swiftly condemned by the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition and much of the international community. We endorse the Prime Minister’s calls for restraint.
We also acknowledge the professionalism and bravery of our Armed Forces, both for their contribution to the weekend’s combined defensive action and for their ongoing work in the region. Given recent events, we welcome the decision to send additional RAF jets and refuelling tankers to bolster Operation Shader, the existing counter-Daesh operation in Iraq and Syria.
The repelling of Iran’s attack against Israel is important for several reasons. First, lives were saved, as 99% of the drones and missiles were intercepted. The attack failed. Secondly, Israel acted with strength and courage. Thirdly, the success of that defensive action gives hope that, with political will from the relevant parties, and with diplomatic support from partners, escalation can be avoided. The Foreign Secretary commented earlier that Israel should be
“smart as well as tough”.
The strength and courage that we have seen should now be harnessed to try to de-escalate action and tensions in the region.
Britain is resolute in our support for the collective security of Israel, Jordan and other partners in the region, and we urge every nation to proceed with restraint. The Prime Minister’s Statement is clear that, although the Middle East is thousands of miles away, it has a direct impact here at home, and we want to do all we can to prevent further bloodshed and conflict.
In the Statement, the Prime Minister said he had spoken to other G7 leaders and that “further potential diplomatic measures” had been discussed. Diplomacy is key to urging restraint, so we welcome those discussions. I do not know if the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal can today say more about what actions might be expected in the coming days, given the urgency of the situation now faced. Can he confirm that the Government agree that, as a matter of principle, diplomatic premises must not be targeted and attacked?
With the Iranian regime sponsoring terrorism across the region and beyond, repressing its own population and supporting Putin’s war in Ukraine, are additional sanctions being planned? If so, how will they be enforced and their impact monitored?
Are the Government now considering proscribing the IRGC? What additional steps are being taken to limit the revolutionary guard’s ability to glorify terrorism here in the UK? I would be grateful, and it would be helpful to the House, if the Lord Privy Seal could say whether that is now being looked at.
Given Iran’s use of drones in the attack against Israel, what steps are we and our international partners taking to prevent the regime accessing western-made components?
We do not accept that there is justification at all for Iran’s attack on Israel, but we acknowledge the role that the ongoing war in Gaza has in driving regional tensions. We are now more than six months on from the dreadful Hamas terror attack, yet hostages remain separated from their families and thousands of innocent Palestinians have been killed or wounded. Many more have been displaced and more than a million people are on the brink of famine.
Over the recess period, there were some positive signs in relation to the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. I do not know whether the Lord Privy Seal is in a position to give us any current figures or an update on that, but could he outline what additional diplomatic and practical steps the Foreign Secretary and others are taking to ensure a continued scaling up of aid provision? He will be aware of the logistical challenges in getting aid to where it is desperately needed. UNRWA has the expertise and capability to do that, and Japan has now joined Canada and Australia in resuming payments. Can he say more about the Government’s intentions on aid distribution?
It is right that we condemn Iran’s actions and it is essential that we work with others to defend our allies in the region. It is right that we unite and seek the end of the conflict in Gaza to create a route to a sustainable peace through a two-state solution. Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have spoken of support to the Palestinian Authority. Can the Lord Privy Seal outline what form that is likely to take and what co-operation we would expect and get from our allies? While we do these things, we must show restraint and urge others to do so as well. This is essential if we are to prevent greater violence, conflict, death and destruction.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I join the condolences that have been expressed to the family and friends of Lord Hoyle and Lord Rosser, both of whom were great servants of Parliament and this House. I also associate these Benches with the expression of solidarity that the Government gave to our Australian friends after the horrific attacks in Sydney.
Since the appalling attack on 7 October, one of the ever-present fears has been that the conflict would spread beyond Gaza to involve the wider region. Sadly, that is exactly what happened, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Houthis in the Red Sea, and now the first direct attack by the Iranian regime.
On last Saturday’s attack, we join the Prime Minister in expressing our gratitude to the RAF personnel who performed their role, as usual, so professionally and successfully. We support the Government in their work, in co-operation with international partners, to stand up for Israel’s security. We also support the Government’s priority, at this point, of seeking to de-escalate the situation and prevent further bloodshed. There is nothing to be gained by further retaliation on either side. We must hope that the pressure exerted by the UK, the US, EU member states and others on the Israeli Government and on Iran results in calmer heads prevailing.
The Government are right to seek to uphold regional security, including, as the Statement points out, in the Red Sea. Can the Minister inform the House about recent activity there? Has there been any increase in Houthi attacks in parallel with the Iranian strikes on Saturday? More generally, what has been the level of Houthi attacks on naval vessels and civilian shipping in the recent weeks since we last discussed the issue in your Lordships’ House?
It is of course right to seek a two-state solution for the benefit of both the Palestinian and Israeli people, but also for the stability that it would help bring to the wider region. In that respect, the Statement rather intriguingly refers to the involvement of “regional partners”, which it says
“helped prevent a much worse attack over the weekend”.
I realise that he may be unable to do so, but can the Leader of the House say anything further about what this actually involved?
It is depressing that it has so far proved impossible to negotiate a ceasefire in Gaza. Of course, we support all attempts to do so. In the meantime, the threat of famine continues to increase. Food shipments are also increasing, but at nowhere near a level to meet needs. Will the Government keep up the pressure to open up the additional routes by land and via Ashdod which the Israeli Government have promised, but which have so far failed to materialise, so that the threat of famine can finally be lifted?
The Statement rightly points out that Iranian drones were in action over the weekend not only in the Middle East but in Ukraine. The position there is desperately worrying and getting more so. Can the Minister update the House on the Government’s assessment of the likelihood of resumed military support from the US to Ukraine at a significant stage, particularly in the light of the Foreign Secretary’s recent visit to the United States?
There are a limited number of unilateral actions which the UK could take against Iran, but we could finally proscribe the Iranian Revolutionary Guard—a sponsor of terrorism across the region—as a terrorist organisation. Will the Government now do so?
It is clear that there is a large measure of agreement across the House about the nature of the crisis in Israel, Gaza and the wider Middle East, and about the broad approach needed to resolve it. Whether it is about strikes against the Houthi or the Royal Air Force’s action at the weekend, the convention that Parliament should have the opportunity—albeit retrospectively—to express its view formally when the UK takes military action has not been followed. We therefore urge the Government to have a debate, with a Commons vote, not least so that all the actors in the Middle East are absolutely clear about British resolve on this issue.
After Saturday’s attack, the prospect of a lasting peace in the Middle East looks further away than ever. For the UK, this must simply mean that our efforts to try to reach one are redoubled. The Government will have our full support in this endeavour.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their responses. I will not be able to deal with specifics on some of the points they raised. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, conceded, there are certain sensitivities over who does what in particular places and times, including—obviously—particular details of our own operational activities.
I thank both parties opposite and, by the way, I must add my own and our side’s sympathy for the loss of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I have indicated this privately to the noble Baroness opposite. He will be greatly missed on all Benches of this House. He was the ultimate exemplar of a courteous servant of your Lordships’ House.
The noble Baroness was quite right to say that one of the few encouraging aspects thus far is that it is clear that the Iranian action, unjustified as it was, was a failure. This does not mean that its gravity can be in any way underestimated—and nobody has suggested that. I echo the Prime Minister and others in calling for restraint on all sides. This is a grim and difficult situation, where all wish to avoid further escalation. It must not be forgotten that this whole grievous episode started with a merciless lack of restraint by the Hamas terrorists who burst into the homes of civilians and murdered women, children and old people in the most brutal and despicable manner. However much we deplore and rightly express concern about ongoing developments, we must never lose sight of the real naked horror of Hamas terrorism.
Both responses asked about sanctions, specifically on the IRGC. The Prime Minister touched a little on this in his Statement in the other place. I have said before, and it is true, that we have already sanctioned more than 400 Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC in its entirety for roles in weapons proliferation. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, rightly referred to the very disturbing evidence—there is a good deal of it—of co-operation between Iran and Russia in the deployment of weapons in the Ukrainian theatre.
The IRGC has been involved in fomenting regional conflicts, violating human rights and terrorism. We have introduced a new Iran sanctions regime to give us more extensive power to designate, and the National Security Act—I was asked about domestic security, which we take extraordinarily seriously—implements new measures to protect the British public, including new offences for espionage and foreign interference, and tougher powers to arrest and detain people suspected of involvement in state threats.
The option of proscription of the IRGC obviously remains open to us, but the British Government’s position remains that it is not helpful to speculate on whether a group is being considered for proscription. We recognise the threat from Iran. The police, security services and courts have all the tools they need to sanction, prosecute and mitigate those threats and, as I said, the IRGC is sanctioned in its entirety.
On sanctions more generally, following the welcome convening of the G7 by the Italian Government, for which we are grateful, it was agreed in the communiqué that
“we demand that Iran and its proxies cease their attacks, and we stand ready to take further measures now and in response to further destabilizing initiatives”.
Obviously, the most effective actions are those taken on an international basis.
I was asked about diplomatic activity. There has been a great deal of diplomatic activity, including the Prime Minister speaking to G7 leaders on Sunday when, as I just said, Iran’s attack was unequivocally condemned. We have expressed our full solidarity and support to Israel and its people, and the G7 reaffirmed its commitment to its security.
I recognise the other points made—the other side of the coin, as it were. We will also strengthen our co-operation to seek to end the crisis in Gaza, working towards an immediate and sustainable ceasefire, the release of hostages by Hamas—something it refuses to do—and increased humanitarian aid to Palestinians in need. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary spoke to his Israeli and Iranian counterparts, expressing continued support to Israel and condemning the Iranian attack, making it clear that Iran must take immediate action to de-escalate. We will continue to make those efforts.
Humanitarian aid is vital. The UK’s humanitarian support this financial year stands at over £100 million and we are working with our international partners to develop that further. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, Israel has committed to significant steps to increase the amount of aid getting to Gaza, including delivery of aid through the Port of Ashdod and the Erez checkpoint, increasing the number of aid trucks to at least 500 a day, increasing capacity through the Jordan land corridor, extending the opening hours of the Kerem Shalom crossing and approving more types of aid, including fuel to enable more bakeries to open and hospitals to function.
The UK has urged Israel to take these steps for a long time and they are welcome, but, although these commitments represent significant progress, I agree with the noble Lord that we must see further action to ensure more aid actually gets over the border, as the noble Baroness emphasised. The UK is calling on Israel to make progress on the following additional action: a major change in the conduct of hostilities to protect civilians and reform of the deconfliction mechanism to ensure the safety of aid workers. The situation in Gaza is dire. The entire population faces famine.
The Houthi attacks have continued, but shipping continues to go through the Red Sea and we will continue to protect that.
As far as Ukraine is concerned, I have little time to respond—I apologise for that—but the MoD remains fully engaged with industry allies and partners to ensure continuation of supply to Ukraine. If I have the opportunity, I will write to noble Lords setting out in detail some of the actions we are taking there.
I thank both parties opposite, and I urge restraint on all in this very difficult and dangerous situation.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the air defences were spectacularly successful and, for once, they rebutted that old air power adage, “The bomber will always get through”. However, will His Majesty’s Government heed the stark lesson for the air defences of the United Kingdom? Many weapons might be fired overnight by an aggressor, from land or sea, at the United Kingdom. What steps have the Government taken to protect London and the rest of the United Kingdom, to deter any serious attack, to retain our own air supremacy, and, indeed, to avoid facing defeat in a second Battle of Britain?
Lord True (Con)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his remarks and I repeat what I said about the role of the Royal Air Force. The defence of the realm remains, obviously, one of the prime duties and responsibilities of His Majesty’s Government. Defence spending has been increased substantially in the various reviews since 2020, and I can certainly assure the noble and gallant Lord that the most careful consideration has been given to the continuing air defence, of all types, of our United Kingdom.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, on Saturday night, I experienced three emotions: fear, pride and hope—fear, because I have close family in Israel and I was worried for them and about them; pride, when I heard that our planes, with their brave pilots, had taken part in protecting Israel from Iranian attacks; and hope, when I heard that the royal air force of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan had also participated. Does my noble friend agree with me that that last point is absolutely key? If we want to see peace in the Middle East, which we all pray for and work for, we should be supporting those bilateral alliances between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt, and multilateral groupings such as the Abraham accords, because that is the way, in the long run, to bring peace to this region. -
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I certainly sympathise with my noble friend. I do not have the direct engagement that he does, but it so happens that, because of family reasons—some Members of the House will know that I have connections in Egypt—a number of members of my family are in the Middle East at the moment, so I do understand those personal feelings.
The fundamental point that my noble friend makes is absolutely right: ultimately, this great region of the world, the cradle of human culture and so much of our spiritual and historic strength, needs peace. It needs people who wish for peace, and the vast majority in that part of the world crave peace. The evil people who wish to unleash violence are in a minority—and, unfortunately, in powerful positions in some places. But I wholly agree with him that the evidence of growing understanding and friendship between Israel and partner nations in the Middle East is a great sign of hope in these times.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, de-escalation is clearly in everyone’s interests, but that might well not happen. Last week, we saw the Iranians take down a neutral ship in the Strait of Hormuz. Basically, two of the world’s key maritime choke points are under threat. Have we discussed with the Americans deployment of the UK carrier? They are very stretched and have only one carrier in the region at the moment, and we need to cover both these choke points to be able to respond to the Houthis. Then, should things not de-escalate, we will have forces in place to assist in ensuring that shipping can move in that region.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, again I will not comment on specific discussions as to deployment or strategic deployment. Obviously, we are already involved in the protective operations in the Red Sea. I know that the noble Lord loves to talk about the deployment or non-deployment of UK aircraft carriers. I am very proud of the world-leading Royal Navy, which remains a great service and hopefully will be an even greater service as we go forward. I am not going to discuss the potential deployment of HMS “Prince of Wales” in any particular place, but the aircraft carrier, as he knows, will be a part of combined exercises involving NATO forces in Steadfast Defender. Obviously, its availability is obvious, but deployment is a matter for another day.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, has already talked about the brave pilots as part of Operation Shader and asked whether the United Kingdom is sufficiently defended. However, linked to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord West, there is also a question about how much more naval deployment we might need in the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz. Our own service personnel have done a fantastic job, and we must pay them a great tribute. However, as we look to what is happening in the Middle East, do we not need to think about ensuring that we are increasing our defence positions to support trade continuing and to support our allies in the Middle East? I need to declare that I was in Israel as part of a parliamentary delegation just before Easter.
Lord True (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. The Royal Navy is one of the top five in the world. Of course there is a need to defend our country and act co-operatively with other nations. The overall Ministry of Defence equipment plan for the next decade is £288 billion, including £41.5 billion for the Royal Navy. That will include a Dreadnought, Astute and AUKUS submarines, fleet support ships, ocean surveillance capability and Type 26, Type 31 and Type 32 frigates. As far as the RAF is concerned, the plan is that it should become increasingly a digitally empowered force. The future combat air system will provide us with sixth-generation fighter jet capability, building on what is currently provided by typhoons and the F35. We are in a close partnership with the Italian and Japanese Governments in relation to future fighter capacity.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I would like the Minister to take the long view on this. First, in relation to Gaza, it must not be forgotten that this is happening against a history of nearly two millennia of persecution. There is no other people in the world who have been persecuted for so long and against whom there is a constant existential threat. Therefore, the priority in Gaza must be for Hamas to come out of the tunnels and hospitals and release the hostages if they have them, and then you get your ceasefire.
Secondly, with Iran—taking the long view—we seem to have forgotten the nuclear plan, the JCPOA. We have taken our eye off that. Iran is within minutes of getting nuclear capability and is mad enough to use it. We must return to sanctions. If the Government are not going to ban the IRGC, then at the very least visas should not be granted to those so-called clerics that go forwards and backwards between Tehran and London and foment trouble in London. So, please, let us remember the priorities in Gaza and, secondly, stop the flow of malevolent individuals into this country.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there is much to be desired in what the noble Baroness says. As a historian and someone with a sensitivity to all the genius of human culture, of course I understand what she says about the experience of the Jewish people. It is clear that Hamas cannot remain in charge in Gaza: the British Government have made that clear, and the Foreign Secretary has said that it is a requirement.
On her important remarks on Iranian nuclear ambitions—if there be such, and the objective observer suggests that there might be—there is no credible civilian justification for enrichment at the levels that the IAEA has reported in Iran. The British Government remain determined that Iran must never develop a nuclear weapon. We are considering next steps with our international partners and we are committed to using all diplomatic tools available to ensure Iran never develops a nuclear weapon, including using the snapback mechanism if necessary. These matters, as I said earlier, must be carried forward in co-operation with our international allies, and that is our diplomatic objective.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am sure that no one in your Lordships’ House would advocate escalation, but I wonder whether protesting against the idea of escalation does not come a bit too easily to the lips of Israel’s allies. Should the Government not reflect that, if you were in Tehran today, you might be quite pleased that the immediate reaction of the western allies is to call for Israel to restrain itself, when Israel is not the problem. Is it not the case that we would not think in this way about an attack on any other country in the world? It would not be our immediate response to aggression against another country that we would urge the victim to do nothing.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, that is a slight elision of what I have said from this Dispatch Box; indeed, I said that one must not forget where this whole matter began with the most atrocious eruption by terrorists into private and peaceful civilian life. The Government are absolutely clear that threats to destroy what some term the Zionist entity, the State of Israel, are wholly unacceptable and unforgivable, and can be no basis for any way of going forward to a long-term peaceful solution. We express our full solidarity and support to Israel and its people. We have reaffirmed our commitment to its security, and we condemn the Iranian action. But every human part of us would wish that somehow a road can be found to peace—and a road to peace must ultimately come from restraint and forgiveness. May all those involved see that.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my registered interest as president of Conservative Friends of Israel. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby; I have countless times called for the proscription of the IRGC. All I can say to the Lord Privy Seal is: if not now, when?
A Jewish Chronicle investigation by journalist David Rose revealed that academics at a dozen UK universities were working alongside Iranian counterparts on drone research. As a result, on 23 June 2023—10 months ago—the Prime Minister announced an inquiry into these allegations that scientists at British universities have been helping Iran develop technology that could be used to upgrade its suicide drone programme. In light of the appalling Iranian attack on Israel, can I ask the Lord Privy Seal to write to me urgently with an update on this inquiry?
Lord True (Con)
Yes, I will do so. On my noble friend’s initial point about proscription, I did tell the House that the IRGC is sanctioned in its entirety. Also, if he looks at Hansard, he will see that I did say words about the consideration that is being given in international fora as to what further action might or might not be taken.
On UK universities, it is true that it appears that there has been co-operation on drone technology. My noble friend is right to say that the UK Government launched an investigation into such allegations. No universities were singled out when the investigation was announced.
We will not accept collaborations that compromise our national security. We have made our systems more robust, expanded the scope of the academic technology approval scheme to protect research from ever-changing global threats and refused applications where we have had concerns. We look at all allegations of suspected breaches of our sanctions policy. Under the new UAV trade prohibitions, it is illegal for a UK business, UK national or anyone in the UK not just to export UAVs and their components but to provide technical assistance, financial services, funds and brokering services. So I give my noble friend the assurance that this matter is being taken very seriously indeed.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, while the Government are absolutely right to condemn the attack on Israel by Iran and to place their emphasis on avoiding escalation of the conflict, I noted that the Lord Privy Seal referred to intensifying diplomatic efforts and that the Governments of Belgium, France and Germany summoned Iranian ambassadors to their places of work, so to speak. I therefore ask the Lord Privy Seal what consideration has been given by the UK Government to having immediate discussions with the Iranian ambassador in the UK to de-escalate tensions and get back to a situation in which we can forge peace, prosperity and an end to violence, particularly in Gaza. There is need for access of aid to the people there and, above all, to end all forms of conflict.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Foreign Secretary spoke yesterday to both the Israeli and Iranian Foreign Secretaries. He expressed to both the United Kingdom’s continuing support for Israel and condemnation of the Iranian attack. The UK Government have already summoned the chargé d’affaires of the Iranian embassy to the Foreign Office to make it clear to the Iranian authorities that they must take meaningful action to halt their reckless behaviour. They have been left in no doubt as to where we stand.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, given the situation in Gaza that the Minister mentioned, where we have had lots of assurances that aid will be allowed in but very little action, and given that this is fuelling instability in the region, made worse by attacks on Palestinian villages in the West Bank, could the UK Government perhaps make some conditions on their unequivocal support for Israel? A lasting peace will happen only if both sides are willing to discuss it. At the moment, the already inflammatory situation and worsening, so would the UK consider making conditions on its support for Israel? The situation seems to be growing out of control and the humanitarian situation will make things even worse in Gaza if there is a famine and people are starving.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have referred to the importance that we attach to humanitarian aid and said something of what we have discussed with the Israeli Government. However, the fundamental truth is that the Israeli Government have sought to deconflict wherever possible in relation to civilians, which is very hard in this brutal situation. It is the position of the British Government that Israel has every right to defend itself against the kinds of attacks that it has had and the further attack it had at the weekend.
Of course we wish to see restraint, but one simple step could be taken: Hamas could lay down its arms, drop its evil propaganda calling for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews, get out of Gaza and let the Palestinian people get on with their lives.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I was in Israel a couple of weeks ago, and we actually saw the RAF flight that dropped aid over northern Gaza. One of the things, as the Lord Privy Seal has mentioned, is the ability to distribute the aid that is going in. We saw that it is going in, and there is some responsibility on Hamas to allow that aid to be properly distributed. Will the noble Lord assure the House that we are taking steps such that the aid that is going in should be recognised and that the conditions of hostage release have to be associated with any negotiations of a ceasefire and further support going in?
Lord True (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness on the continued holding of hostages. It is never justifiable to take or hold hostages. I repeat that Hamas can end this by taking a whole series of actions. Interfering with, and indeed seeking to abscond with, aid is equally unacceptable. Obviously, we make every effort through our counterparties to ensure that that does not happen, but Hamas’ activities do not make the delivery of humanitarian aid easy.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I try to think of how I would feel about being told to exercise restraint, if I were living in Israel at the present time and had been subject to this attack, knowing that this evil regime, which has now come out into the light, supported these vile groups that were responsible for 7 October and other attacks. Of course, restraint is important. But I would also be worried that this evil regime is developing a nuclear capability. I very much welcome what my noble friend said—that efforts will be made internationally to deal with that—because no one in Israel can sleep safe in their bed at night knowing that this regime might have the capability of developing nuclear weapons. I think, with hindsight, that we have perhaps been a little less determined to deal with this problem, through sanctions and other matters, than we could have been.
I warmly welcome my noble friend’s Statement, which has exactly the right kind of balance and sensitivity that we have come to expect from him. But I think the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moore, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, are very important.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I fully understand that, and can sympathise with that. I sympathise with it deeply. There is a wound there which cannot be removed, but ultimately we have to find a way for wounds to heal. They cannot heal while the kinds of actions being taken by Iran continue.
Dealing with Iran is a matter for international agreement. The question of how to deal with it has been going on since the original discussions between President Obama and the Iranian Government. Attempts were made under the present US Administration to table viable deals in relation to the Iranian nuclear programme in 2022, which would have returned Iran to full compliance with its commitments and returned the US to the deal. But Iran refused to seize that diplomatic opportunity in August 2022 to conclude such a deal, and although we remain committed to a diplomatic solution, I have to say that Iran’s actions over the past months have made the prospect of progress much more difficult, which informs the other comments I made earlier.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, for highlighting the development of a nuclear capability in Iran and calling for the proscription of the IRGC, the Minister’s noble friend Lord Polak and I were sanctioned by the Iranian regime; therefore, it is not passing strange that we would press again about the proscription of the IRGC. However, can I ask specifically, first, about the 25 attempts over the past two years to kill British nationals or Iranians dissidents in this country, as recently as last month, leading to an Iranian dissident journalist bleeding on the streets of London and his three assailants able simply to leave this country immediately afterwards? How could that happen? Secondly, on the question of sanctions, companies that are making Shahed drones that are going to Moscow and then being used against Ukrainian civilians have western links. What are we doing to ensure that they are sanctioned? We look as though we are doing far too little in the face of a country that has aligned itself with North Korea, China and Russia in an axis that threatens the democracy and freedoms that we enjoy.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I agree with much that the noble Lord said. Indeed, he is right to say that since January 2022 we have identified at least 15 threats towards the lives of UK-based individuals. We are stepping up our response to Iranian regime activities. Last December, my noble friend Lord Cameron summoned Iran’s most senior diplomat to the Foreign Office in relation to reports of Iranian plots to kill two Iran International employees. We will not tolerate these kinds of threats. The Foreign Secretary reiterated to the Iranian Foreign Minister that these threats are unacceptable and must stop.
So far as drones and Russia and Ukraine are concerned, we have sanctioned 18 Iranian individuals and three entities for their involvement in the manufacture and transfer of drones used in Ukraine, as referred to briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, adding to our existing sanctions on the Iranian drone programme. I referred to the illegality of assisting with these threats to our national security. At the Wassenaar Arrangement meeting in October last year, we called out Iran and Russia’s unacceptable collaboration in proliferating weapons, and as recently as last December we held Iran and Russia to account at the Security Council for this unacceptable collaboration, sharing evidence of the drones that Iran has provided to Russia to other Security Council members, and in meetings on Resolution 2231. We will continue to expose this rather desperate and, frankly, despicable alliance and to press this issue at the United Nations and elsewhere.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. I am grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for the comments that he has made. He has praised the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy and, no doubt, he will get round to mentioning the Army in a moment. Is he not aware of the widespread feeling of disappointment that there was in our armed services about the failure to increase the defence budget in the recent financial statement? In the context of widening international tensions, not just in the Middle East but in Europe itself, and China’s threats against Taiwan, is he really satisfied that we are doing enough to prepare for some of the threats that might happen in terms of international relations? A specific point has been made about drones. Three years ago, I looked at the capacity of this country to respond to drone incursions. There was some good work being done, but it was still fairly narrow. What has been done in the intervening three years? Would we as a nation be able to deal with 300 incoming drones?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am slightly saddened by the normally delightful noble Lord’s slightly jaundiced question. I referred to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force because I was asked about them, first by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, and then by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. Of course, this Government support all the armed services. What the noble Lord left out of account is that in the spending review 2020, the MoD received an uplift of £24 billion in cash terms over four years, which was the biggest defence investment since the end of the Cold War. In 2023, we confirmed an additional £5 billion to the Ministry of Defence over two years and further funding has been cited.
We also expect, if you take into account the use of reserve funds, a further increase in spending on defence in 2024-25 over 2023-24. Some of the comparisons here are not actually comparing like for like. This Government remain committed to the long-term objective of spending at least 2.5% of GDP on defence, and the figure actually spent has been well over 2% in recent years.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will recall that an Iranian woman, Narges Mohammadi, received the Nobel Peace Prize last year for her efforts to fight for democracy and human rights in Iran. There has been a huge, brave effort on the part of many people in Iran—particularly women—to resist the misogynist, autocratic and theocratic regime. Will the Government seek to refer to the Iranian regime or the Iranian Government, rather than just using the word “Iran”, acknowledging the difference between the Iranian people and the Iranian Government or regime when speaking against their vicious attack on Israel and other actions?
Secondly, the Statement makes no reference to the Israeli attack on the Iranian embassy in Syria. That is unfortunate. Can the noble Lord reassure me that the Government are stressing to Israel the need to avoid escalatory actions, given the perilous current state of the region?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it was not actually an attack on the Iranian embassy in Syria. I am not sure whether that embassy is the embassy of the Iranian Government or the Iranian people, but the people who were caught in Syria, in whatever way we would like to describe it, were involved actively in warlike activities against the State of Israel and were encouraging terrorism.
However, I agree with what the noble Baroness said about the courage and heroism of the people in Iran, and particularly many Iranian women. One’s heart stirs when one sees the enormous courage of those people. I am often struck by how little opportunity we are given to see Iranian women when we see the serried ranks of the IRGC and others saluting the members of the Iranian regime who have been responsible for these deplorable events in the last few days.
Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2024
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister is the latest government Minister to wade into the sewage debate, but having previously tried to crack a joke about wading into sewage, I will not do it again.
Having had that interlude, we have had a chance to reflect on some of the comments that the Minister made. Some of the tricks of good government are timing and self-awareness. Those two things are absent from the extremely maladroit introduction of this order. At the centre of it is the conflation of Ofgem, Ofcom and Ofwat. As we heard from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, these are very different markets. The communications market and the energy market are distinctly different from the privatised regional monopoly system which is the water industry. Because of that, the role of the regulator is substantially different. The idea, for example, of causing competition in the water market is irrelevant—there is no competition in the water market. This puts into focus the problem that is central to this order: it is inappropriate in the markets that it is seeking to address. That is at the heart of what your Lordships have said today.
We look forward to the Minister’s White Paper on competition. When the Truss Administration had their brief flurry, a whole bunch of stuff was said about growth and the “anti-growth coalition”. I am sure the Minister is smarter than the people who were using that language then. The role of growth in amongst the role of regulation is an important issue; the Minister is right to have broached it. On its seeking to influence the water market at this time—coming back to timing—this is not the moment to seek to rein back on regulation. This is the moment when we need to target regulation in the places where it is quite clearly breaking down.
The Minister sought to calm us about the effect of growth on environmental enforcement. Again, the noble Duke gave the lie to that issue by very clearly pointing out what I was going to point out in this document: that the two are very much conflated.
I will suggest a hypothetical issue: I am a regulator. I am about to implement an environmental order. This will undoubtedly affect the growth prospects of some companies in the region. Am I now inhibited by this order? The answer is: it seems so. Moreover, can the companies that receive the downside of this environmental order take it to judicial review? I believe they can. The Minister can confirm that or otherwise. So, at the very least, the environmental order is delayed.
We do not have a problem with the water industry restricting growth; we have the opposite. I cite my home river, the River Wye, as evidence of that. The unrestrained growth of the poultry industry has killed part of that river—not polluted it or made it a little bit dirty but killed it biologically. That is the effect of unrestrained growth. We need the opposite of what the Minister is talking about.
With these thoughts, I am very pleased that my noble friend has brought this amendment, and I am pleased to hear the contributions of your Lordships today. I hope the Minister will stand up and say, “We will set this aside”. If he does not say that, I hope he will say that these rules will be rewritten to make sure that the number one priority for the water industry is to solve the environmental crisis that is currently in our midst.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulation and all noble Lords who have spoken. Every day, we hear of sewage dumping. On average, a sewage dumping event now takes place every two and a half minutes. The lack of investment in our water systems over the past 14 years is a scandal that is increasingly hard to ignore. Billions have been extracted in shareholder dividends and millions in bosses’ bonuses, all while delivering a deteriorating system.
During the passage of the Environment Act, Conservative MPs had the opportunity to support a Labour-backed amendment that would have brought an end to sewage dumping. Of course, they did not do so. We should be extracting sewage from water supplies, not extracting value in unjustified dividends and overleveraged debt. Let us imagine the economic growth, the skilled jobs and supply chains that could have been created if, instead, this money had been funnelled into developing creaking infrastructure, repairing and upgrading pipelines, and preparing for the predicted increase in demand and increasing rainfall.
The Labour Party has long been making the case for the increasingly urgent need to invest for the long term and to improve quality in the short and medium term. So on this issue we agree with the Government that bringing these three regulators within scope of the growth duty will help to ensure they consider how best to promote growth in their sectors.
However, making the changes required by this instrument will obviously require dedicated resources within Ofcom, Ofwat and Ofgem. As the amendment to the Motion makes clear, these regulators already have a lot on their plates, so can the Minister indicate how they are expected to juggle this as well? Are the Government confident that the regulators have the capacity to deliver to the full extent that the order demands?
Like the regulators, we want to support businesses and stimulate the vital investment needed to ensure a quality service to current and future consumers. For example, Labour’s plan to establish “GB Energy” would create half a million new skilled jobs in the industries of the future, rebuild the strength of our industrial heartlands and reduce energy costs and carbon pollution. Labour is already thinking ambitiously about the long-term future of this country.
Given that the Government’s order is about long-term growth, could the Minister explain over what timeline they expect to see the benefits of the change, and over what timeline they will be reviewing its impact?
As far as Ofcom is concerned, the growth duty will also not apply to its regulatory functions under Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002, which concern mergers. In particular, it will ensure that Ofcom is not required to consider other factors when providing advice to the Secretary of State on the public interest considerations on media merger cases. Can the Minister explain the reasoning for that very specific exception?
In this regulator’s sector in particular, many noble Lords will know that I am passionately interested in the enormous potential for growth in our telecoms industry, especially in AI, but the world will not wait for us. We risk missing out on exploiting the potential commercial benefits from our world-leading research base if we do not have a clear industrial strategy, if we do not encourage and invest in tech start-ups and scale-ups, and if we do not develop a serious regulatory presence alongside the USA and the EU as global standards are being established.
To conclude, we support bringing the three regulators within the scope of the growth duty, but we regret—who could not?—the failure of the Government to prioritise the sanctioning of polluters and the cleanliness of waterways. Just last month, rowers in the world-famous boat race, some of the fittest people in the nation, fell sick because of their exposure to the water in the Thames. I would be hard pushed to invent a metaphor more apt to sum up why this Government have so comprehensively failed—on regulation, on public health, for young people today and in investing in their tomorrows. Labour stands ready to deliver the decade of national renewal that this country self-evidently needs.
While we support the regulation, we acknowledge the amendment to the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. We must address the sanctions needed against short-term profiteering by the CEOs of utility companies enriching themselves. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords for their participation in this debate. I particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Leong, on what I thought was an excellent example of good rhetoric in terms of his parallels.
I shall cover some of the points in turn. I am happy to have further conversations with noble Lords about this important statutory instrument. I am grateful for the undertone of what I think the noble Lord, Lord Fox, was suggesting and the overtone of what the noble Lord, Lord Leong, was suggesting. Unfortunately, I did not hear a great deal of support from any other Member of the House; I am sorry to see that on my own Benches the enthusiasts of better regulation seem to have deserted me today.
Ultimately, the statutory guidance, which I will be happy to touch on in a few moments, is an important and useful document to help regulators by refreshing the statutory guidance that we already have. If noble Lords read the original document, as I suggested at the beginning of this debate, and compare it to what we have now, they will see that if you care about the economy, the environment and better outcomes then this is a far better document in terms of directing the regulators in how they perform and enact.
I also said—because this is a particular passion of mine—that this will enable us to have better regulation, not less regulation. This is about regulating in a better way for businesses, for the economy, for consumers and for this nation’s future growth. I said to my officials that I would like to avoid the topic of water and Ofwat and focus on the other 52 regulators and the opportunities this presents—but it is absolutely right, when we are looking at this broad waterfront of how we run our economy and how we regulate for our own safety, for trust in markets, for the consumer and for the environment, that we have this debate.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I understand that it is not normal practice for Ministers to give way in a debate like this. I would be grateful if he would look again at the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I know a bit about the Wye Valley and the damage that has been done by the excessive number of nitrates going into the river. It was not so much that all those poultry producers were breaking the law; it was the sheer scale of those operations that was having such an impact. Could the Minister comment on that particular point?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for the intervention. I did not realise I did not have to give way; my newness to the House probably insisted that I did so.
What is important is that we were discussing the guidance on growth for 52 or 53 regulators. This is not a debate about the Wye Valley. I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said about that situation. I understand that the Government have announced this week an action plan and full review. I am delighted that this is a good example of where there is cause and consequence.
I want to bring us back to the guidelines. It is important that a functioning economy allows all stakeholders to operate in it. Clearly, that is the whole principle. If there is one stakeholder that is dominating its universe through its own actions, that is unacceptable in terms of creating the trust and framework we need in the market.
I return, in conclusion, to what has been a very important debate. I hope it will continue to be an important debate. I stress again that in four years we will have a full review of the growth duty so that we can see how it has been successful. One of the questions asked was: how soon will we know whether it has been successful? I hope it will start to show economic growth, in some of the points I will come to in a moment, immediately. We will certainly do a review after four years. There will be an explicit focus on ensuring that areas such as the derogation of consumer rights, the environment, or whatever it may be, will clearly be included in this.
I will touch on two final points because it is good to have this on the record. Regulators should have regard to medium- and long-term growth—not necessarily short-term growth or the profitability of the actions of any one company—by ensuring that key policy decisions and strategic choices are informed by consideration of key drivers of economic growth. This may include, but is not limited to, innovation, infrastructure and investment, competition, skills, efficiency and productivity, trade, and environmental sustainability, which I have touched on before. That is very important because, if you are running a business, you want to produce phenomenal products for the future of our nation. All too often we have had issues with regulators and the Government being slow to regulate on the innovative products we need to make this economy successful, both for our health and the economy around that.
How many times have businesses come to noble Lords—not all of your Lordships will have been approached by businesses, but many will—to complain about the lack of transparency around the regulator’s decision-making or the timeliness of its response on permitting, or to suggest that international standards could be used or that our own standards could be improved on, or to ask for more skills in regulators or for regulators to help them be skilful? It is so important that we respond to this. I am aware of the comments made around the water industry, and I hope that, to some extent, I have reassured noble Lords that this in no way derogates our responsibilities and abilities to act.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
The Minister has many times referred to the wording in the draft statutory guidance refresh, which I assume can still be amended. Therefore, I ask the Minister to comment on page 26, which I quoted earlier, where it says that
“certain enforcement actions … can be particularly damaging to the growth. These include, for example … financial sanctions; and publicity”.
Surely the Minister would agree, in view of what he said, very persuasively, that those words should be looked at again. They certainly will inhibit a regulator from enforcing financial sanctions.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Duke for those points. The relationship between the draft document and the formal document is a matter of moments before we finish the debate, so I do not think that is a possibility—but I am happy to be corrected by someone with better procedural knowledge of the House. I will deal with that in a moment, but I do not want to spend too much longer on this because I know that we want to move on.
I return to what this is about. As I say, there are 50 or so regulators covered by the statutory instrument. This is a refresh, so only three new regulators are affected, though there may be other smaller regulators that come into scope; fundamentally, it will be the main economic regulators that we have talked about. The rest of the regulators are covered by the existing statutory guidance, and the refresh improves on that. It is a very good thing, and I hope noble Lords will support us in this quest.
It is right that regulators—even the water regulator—should be pro-innovation, skilled and capable, business aware, proportionate, effective and responsive, and collaborative. I have had a number of businesses represent to me that too many regulators cross over each other and cause a great deal of confusion. They should be internationally aware, and they should be consistent, transparent and accountable. I do not see how any of us in this Chamber can suggest that these ambitions for the regulatory environment are not good. They should be reinforced. If we are to have a strong economy, we have to apply those decent, sensible, long-term economic criteria to the three main regulators.
I am happy to have further discussions as we head towards the White Paper around this. I am also happy to flag other points that noble Lords think will help in constructing a better regulatory framework to enable companies to flourish, consumers and the environment to be protected, and the overall economy of the country to see the necessary growth for the strength and wealth needed to protect our environment in the long term. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate, and I commend the SI.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords for their contributions, especially the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who has long been a champion of dealing with sewage overflow discharges and getting the water companies into a decent state. The economic growth of water companies will be achieved only when they invest in improving sewage overflows, ensuring developers separate surface water from foul wastewater, and when Ofwat is empowered to take stringent action against polluting water companies.
As I said earlier, my main purpose was to press for this order to be withdrawn—that was not successful—and then for the accompanying draft guidance to be significantly amended, especially as the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has indicated. Growth in the water industry has a place, but regulators, especially Ofwat, must be able to take action against those water companies.
The Minister has mentioned the millions that have been returned to water customers as a result of fines, but this is paltry in comparison to the billions that have been paid to directors and shareholders of water companies, with no account taken of the sewage discharges into our waterways, instead of investing in improvements in infrastructure.
I and my colleagues on these Benches are naturally disappointed that the Minister is unable to agree to our reasonable request, and I feel certain that the public and others will be similarly disappointed. This is a matter about which I feel extremely strongly—so strongly that were it not for the fact that this is the first day back after the Recess, and that there are important votes tomorrow, I would have wished to divide the Chamber. However, I feel certain that we will be return to this issue before too long, perhaps when the White Paper is published. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my regret amendment.
Growth Duty: Statutory Guidance Refresh
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the draft Statutory Guidance laid before the House on 6 March be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument.