Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, 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.
Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill
Tuesday 23rd April 2024
(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill 2023-24 View all Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee - (19 Apr 2024)
Baroness Hayman
“(A1) The OGA must not invite any new seaward area production application licences until the Secretary of State has by regulations brought into effect a ban on flaring and venting relating to new offshore installations other than that required in an emergency.(A2) From two years after the day on which this Act is passed, the OGA must not invite any new seaward area production application licences until the Secretary of State has by regulations brought into effect a ban on flaring and venting relating to existing offshore installations.(A3) A statutory instrument which contains regulations under subsection (A1) or (A2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(A4) In subsections (A1) and (A2)—“flaring” means the burning of hydrocarbons produced during oil and gas extraction;“venting” means the release of un-combusted hydrocarbons directly into the atmosphere.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents the invitation of new seaward area production licences until the Secretary of State has introduced a ban on flaring and venting by new offshore installations. It also requires the Secretary of State to prevent licensing rounds if a wider ban is not in place within two years of Royal Assent.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this Committee stage, and I promise to resist the temptation to relitigate any of the issues of principle that we discussed previously. I declare my interests as chair of Peers for the Planet and director of the associated company.
In moving Amendment 1, I will also speak to Amendment 2, but I look forward very much to hearing the argument on Amendments 9 and 10, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on Amendment 1. I would also like to thank those organisations that have supplied briefing, including Uplift, Oceana and the Green Alliance.
In the vein of trying to do what we can to improve a fundamentally flawed Bill, my Amendment 1 seeks to make progress on the important issue of greenhouse gas emissions from venting and flaring and builds on an amendment introduced in debates in the other place by Sir Alok Sharma. The amendment is a simple and pragmatic proposal, which seeks to give statutory force to existing voluntary guidance on this issue and to factor in the recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee of the other place, made in January 2023, which recommended a ban on venting and flaring by 2025.
The amendment does two things. First, it says that there should be no invitations for new licences until the Secretary of State has introduced a ban on venting and flaring from new installations. Secondly, it would give the Secretary of State a maximum of two years to introduce a ban on venting and flaring from all installations if any further licensing rounds are to take place. The EAC’s report recommended a ban not later than the end of 2025. My amendment recognises that time has moved on since 2023 and amends the timeline appropriately. Adopting this change would help the Government to demonstrate that they are serious about maintaining their global leadership on climate action by turning their stated ambition into delivery.
The practice of venting and flaring is a serious issue. It takes place when extra gas is produced, usually as a by-product of oil extraction that producers need to get rid of, rather than sending back to shore. They do this by venting the natural gas, releasing it directly into the atmosphere as methane, or by flaring—burning the gas—which, as well as releasing methane, releases volumes of other greenhouses gases and pollutants such as black soot and nitrous oxide. Both practices are damaging and polluting, as well as being, in the words of the IEA, an “extraordinary waste of money”.
Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas. It is the second biggest cause of global heating after CO2 and has a far higher warming effect in the short term. However, its short lifespan in the atmosphere compared with other greenhouse gases means that taking action to cut methane now is one of the fastest and most cost-effective ways to limit global warming in this crucial decade.
It is also a very wasteful practice. Green Alliance research has found that just 18 of the highest polluting oil and gas platforms in the North Sea are losing enough gas through venting and flaring to power 140,000 homes, equivalent to a city the size of Aberdeen. The North Sea transition deal commits the industry to a voluntary cut in emissions of 50% by 2030 on a pathway to net zero by 2050. The Climate Change Committee described those targets as weak and significantly lower than its sixth carbon budget advice—but, even so, the industry is not on track to meet them. Added to that, the North Sea Transition Authority emissions monitoring report of 2023 shows that UK oil is more polluting than average, compared to that of other major producers, including gas imported via pipelines from Norway and other nations operating in the North Sea.
The Government agreed in 2020 to phase out routine venting and flaring by 2030. There is guidance in place from the regulator, the NSTA, which expects the industry to adhere to zero routine venting and flaring by 2030, and where all new developments should be planned on the basis of zero routine flaring and venting.
In response to Sir Alok’s similar amendment in Committee in the Commons, the Minister argued against putting its ambition into legislation. However, this is not groundbreaking: Norway has had a ban in place since 1971 and even the US Bureau of Land Management is now taking action. Voluntary guidance is just not doing what is needed; it is not always followed by industry or the regulator. Just last year, the NSTA granted approval for the , permitting the operators to flare unwanted gas until 2037, in spite of the guidance that new developments should have zero venting and flaring by 2030. Progress to reduce methane emissions in the UK has, according to the Government’s 2022 methane memorandum, been very slow, particularly in the energy sector, where percentage drops year on year have stayed flat.
The CCC, the EAC and the net-zero review have all highlighted that the UK is not going fast enough on methane reduction. There are no technical barriers to ending routine venting and flaring, as the IEA has said. As for cost, industry spending on reducing emissions from venting and flaring is subject to a tax break of £1.09 for every pound spent. As the Government’s 2022 methane memorandum put it,
“Action on methane is … recognised as the ‘last low hanging fruit’ in tackling climate change because measures are readily available and in some cases very cost effective”.
If the Government are serious about their commitments to reduce methane, there really is no excuse for not using this Bill to make faster progress to reduce the emissions from oil and gas production. At Second Reading, the Minister said that he would listen carefully to views on this, so I look forward to his response to the debate that we are about to have.
I move on to Amendment 2, which is also in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for adding their names. At Second Reading, many noble Lords highlighted the need to address the long-term employment prospects of those currently working within the oil and gas sector. My Amendment 2 seeks clarification from the Government on their plans for workers currently employed in our declining North Sea basin to transition to the sustainable jobs of the future. Rather than losing the 30,000 or so direct roles in oil and gas and the valuable skills of those workers, who may be forced to move elsewhere, we need to nurture their transformed skills into the new net-zero roles.
My amendment proposes that there should be no new applications for licences until the Secretary of State has published a green skills retraining plan setting out what support the Government will provide for those in the oil and gas sector who wish to transition to work in green economy jobs. Specifically, it proposes the introduction of a skills passport for workers, which will provide financial and practical support to access training so that those workers can, easily and without additional cost to them, reskill and retrain for the future and be part of the green economy.
The Government recognised in Committee in the Commons that the skills and expertise of the oil and gas industry will be needed to support the net zero transition; however, action to achieve this appears to have stalled. The CCC has pressed for more to be done on net zero skills. It noticed in its 2023 progress report that its earlier cross-cutting policy recommendation for an action plan for net zero skills was “overdue”. It focused on the need for a strategy for those
“workers and communities affected by industries that are expected to experience job losses as a result of the Net Zero transition, including by providing reskilling packages and tailored support to transition to alternative low-carbon sectors”
A recent POST briefing note on green jobs noted that the UK Government’s green jobs delivery group planned to publish a net zero and nature workforce action plan in the first half of 2024. Can the Minister provide an update on when this is likely to be published and any insight into what it is likely to offer? The North Sea transition deal involved commissioning an integrated people and skills plan, which was followed by an Offshore Energies UK 2023 Workforce Insight report that promised to deliver a skills passport so that people can move seamlessly between sectors. Can the Minister provide an update on the skills passport and when this is likely to be produced? Can he confirm that it will provide financial support for workers looking to move into green jobs?
The second part of my amendment probes another recommendation of the Workforce Insight report: the creation of a green skills retraining task force to co-ordinate the retraining provisions that are required across the UK. Will the Government be progressing this recommendation? If not, how will the required skills transition be delivered? I hope the Minister will be able to provide some insight into the Government’s thinking on this important issue and give much needed assurance to workers in the oil and gas sector that their skills are valued and needed, both now and in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 9 in my name and say a little about Amendment 10. I have also put my name to Amendment 1, about which we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—I thank her for moving that amendment so well—and Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis.
Amendment 9 is in my name and I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis and Lady Young. It would require the Secretary of State to publish a marine spatial prioritisation policy, and a spatial prioritisation test to be passed before future licensing could take place. It would mean that before any more oil and gas licensing is permitted, it would have to fit into what the North Sea of the future looks like, with space set aside for other priorities—the priorities of the future, I suggest: marine health and renewable infrastructure. Specifically, the plan would need to ensure that the targets under both the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act are prioritised and achieved.
For the purposes of this amendment, the test could not be passed unless a marine spatial prioritisation policy was in place. This is something the Government have committed to, but there is a risk that, without this amendment, we could be inviting future licensing rounds which will not take account of, or even be in accordance with, a strategy the Government are currently producing. I believe it is wholly pragmatic in its approach. The NSTA did not run licensing rounds while it waited for the now redundant climate compatibility checkpoint to be published, so there is a precedent here for this approach.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, very much. I will speak on the marine amendments in this group—Amendment 10 in my name and Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord. I also support the other amendments in this group.
Amendment 10 is really very simple: it would stop licensing in our marine protected areas. As I stated at Second Reading, these areas have been designated for protection and enhancement in order to conserve the critical species, habitats and ecosystems that they contain. Their protection is critical for many reasons, not least because we have signed up to this in both UK and international law. We now have 377 marine protected areas, which account for 38% of our seas.
In order to be included in the 2030 target—to protect 30% of our oceans by 2030—the Government’s own suggested criteria are that these MPAs need to have long-term protection and/or management in place that works against adverse pressures on biodiversity objectives. However, the interpretation of what constitutes adverse pressure on these MPAs is where there is the most disagreement, even between government departments, a point that is highly relevant to this Bill. Currently, there is nothing in the licensing process to prevent the North Sea Transition Authority from offering up licences in marine protected areas. Indeed, licences are currently being granted in marine protected areas: in the most recent licensing round, 22% of the licences granted were in such areas.
Is oil drilling in an MPA a problem? Well, it makes a huge difference. As I mentioned at Second Reading, the evidence suggests that it can have a large and irreversible impact. However, when asked about this, the Government have said, in various responses to the Parliamentary Questions looking at the impact, that the OPL Bill will not affect the UK’s ability to reach the targets for ensuring that marine protected areas are in a good or recovering state and that the licences will only ever have been awarded once the environmental regulator is satisfied that the activities would not negatively impact protected areas. This was reiterated by the Minister at Second Reading, when he stated:
“We already have a robust regulatory framework in place to ensure that marine protected areas are effectively protected. Licences will be awarded only after ensuring that the environmental regulator OPRED is satisfied that activities will not have negative effects on those important protected areas”.—[Official Report, 26/3/24; col. 657.]
However, that overstates the case. The more I have looked into the processes for assessment of the environmental impact of oil drilling on MPAs, the more convinced I have become that we simply do not have in place a system that is fit for purpose, certainly not to protect these marine protected areas.
This is because the process and the responsibility for environmental regulation currently sits with OPRED, which is part of DESNZ and is advised by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, but there is a very complicated and convoluted process and path by which the expert advice from the JNCC reaches the Minister. First, as a statutory consultee, the JNCC’s advice must be considered when OPRED produces an environmental assessment, but OPRED is under no duty to follow the JNCC’s advice, which is also not published. Then, in an instance where OPRED advises the Secretary of State not to issue a licence, the Secretary of State can disregard it if they believe that there is an overriding public interest.
A secondary problem is that the assessments do not consider cumulative impacts in a robust way. For example, OPRED will look at a pipeline and say, “Well, a pipeline in the grand area of an MPA is a tiny footprint”, but of course it is not just the pipeline that we are looking at. The cumulative effects of all the different things going on will have, and has been shown to have, a significant impact on the MPA.
The third and final problem is that OPRED assessments often have a tendency to assume that, if there is no scientific evidence, there is no problem, instead of adopting the precautionary principle. In fact, irrespective of what the environmental assessments from the JNCC say, OPRED and the Secretary of State can decide to grant licences to MPAs anyway. Looking at the evidence base, we can see that that is exactly what is happening. For example, in the past three years, the JNCC has objected to 54 development applications in MPAs from the oil and gas industry, yet not a single one of those applications has been turned down. In fact, I did a trawl over the past 17 years—since 2007, when the first MPAs came into place—and could not find a single licence that had been turned down on an environmental basis. That would suggest that the environmental assessment system in this case is not working.
What I find most concerning is that the JNCC has expressed its concerns. For example, in a letter to DESNZ on the recent 33rd oil and gas licensing round, the JNCC wrote a strong letter stating that it was unable to agree with the conclusions that the projects would have no adverse impact on site integrity. The committee strongly advised that no new oil and gas infrastructures should be located anywhere within an MPA. It also pointed out that the Government’s approach to licensing oil and gas activities was inconsistent with the approach taken with other industries—for example, wind farms. Those three statements are extremely concerning. Our Joint Nature Conservancy Committee is making strong statements about these issues and yet, somewhere along the line, this is not being taken into account. Remember that no licences have been turned down, as far as I can see, based on environmental impact.
This process does not seem to be working and will result, and is resulting, in damage to the MPAs, which the Government have heralded. I join them in that, given that we now have marine protected areas in the oceans around the UK. Therefore, the onus is on the Government to show how increased licensing in the MPAs, as part of this OPL Bill, will not cause harm and to publish the evidence base that supports this. They also need to outline in detail exactly how these harms, once they are caused, will be mitigated while still meeting our 2030, now 2040, targets, which we and Defra are very much holding everyone’s feet to the fire on. If the Government cannot do this, the solution surely must be to put this amendment into the Bill.
I also want briefly to turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, to which I have happily added my name. We need both these amendments. Without a proper seabed plan and a land use strategy for the sea—I wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, were here—MPAs will not live up to their name. We know that we require multiple resources from the oceans around us. However, we need to be able to plan those in tandem, rather than in a somewhat random approach, where one thing is trumping the other—and trumping it sometimes through financial gain without properly considering the other requirements. Until we have a spatial prioritisation plan in place, we should not be granting any licences. We need to know what we want to take from where and how we ensure that the best use is made of the precious resource that we have around us. Until the Government come up with this spatial plan, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, mentioned, they promised a while ago, we should not go forward with any of these licensing rounds.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support in particular Amendments 9 and 10, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. I have quite a lot of experience of marine protected areas in the south-west and the Isles of Scilly. I recall having a useful discussion with the Environment Agency, English Nature and others about how one applies an MPA to a group of islands and whether one would be allowed to run any type of ship across them. The answer was, “Not really”. I said, “Well, who is going to enforce these regulations?” The answer was the Navy. That was even more interesting, because I asked, “Who is the most likely culprit?” They said that the most likely culprits around Scilly were people in kayaks. If one is trying to merge our latest aircraft carrier with people in kayaks, there is work to be done.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I rise to support all the amendments in this group but I will focus my comments on Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to which I have added my name in support. I would also value hearing the rest of this debate.
On Amendment 10, I reiterate the question I asked at Second Reading: what steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to safeguard marine protected areas, and why are they not taking the IUCN’s recommendations seriously by excluding MPAs from extraction in the Bill?
I will not rehearse the valuable arguments that the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has already made on whether we have a robust regulatory framework on MPAs. From the evidence she has provided, I am greatly concerned about whether that is the case. Certainly, the new Rosebank field overlaps with the Faroe-Shetland MPA—a fragile ecosystem and marine environment. Excluding MPAs from the licensing rounds altogether would ensure their protection and that is why I support Amendment 10.
According to the Government’s own figures, only 44% of protected features in MPAs are currently assessed as being in favourable condition. We have rightly set ambitious and strong targets to protect species and restore natural habitats: 70% of MPAs need to be in good condition by 2042 and 30% of the sea must be protected for nature by 2030. Unamended, the Bill risks making this far more difficult to achieve. Meeting these targets will be ever more challenging, which sends a damaging message to the international community about how we regard our natural environment.
It also goes against what Ministers in other departments are saying. For example, in January 2023, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, said during the debate on the Environmental Targets (Marine Protected Areas) Regulations 2022 that
“MPAs are one of the most important tools we have for protecting the wide range of precious and sensitive habitats and species in our waters … Establishing this network is an important step in achieving our goal of conserving our protected species and habitats. Now that they have been designated, we need to increase the protections for these valuable marine environments to help them recover, which is why we are setting this target”.—[Official Report, 24/1/23; col. GC 31.]
So, in one part of government MPAs are a valuable tool to achieve our national and international commitments.
There is further evidence. While he did not refer to MPAs directly, when Defra Secretary of State, Steve Barclay, announced the closure of sand-eel fisheries in the North Sea and restrictions on bottom trawling, he commented that:
“Protecting the environment is fundamental to the prosperity of our country and our new commitments will drive forward our mission to create a cleaner and greener country for all”.
Are we really doing what is adequate to protect our marine environment? I do not believe that we are, because we are playing fast and loose with marine protected areas at the moment. We need joined-up government around our commitments in this area. As your Lordships know, there are so many environmental impacts from both surveying and drilling, including habitat loss and damage; the noise from seismic surveys, which was illustrated for us at Second Reading; and oil spills, toxic vapours and the release of toxic chemicals, with a wide range of impacts on flora and fauna, including skeletal deformities. It is so important that we take all this into account in our thinking about the Bill. It is of course separate from the combined impact of further extraction of fossil fuels and the related carbon emissions on this, our single island planet home.
The Bill as it stands puts at risk the marine habitats found around our shores. We have marine protected areas for a reason; the clue is in the word “protected”. I once again ask His Majesty’s Government not to jeopardise their commitments to MPAs and, by supporting this amendment, to exclude them from surveying and extraction in the Bill. I happily support Amendment 10.
Moving on, I also support Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, because a skills passport would facilitate workforce mobility between sectors. One of the key arguments put forward repeatedly at Second Reading was that jobs would be impacted and that, if we did not have this Bill, further job losses would occur. The reality is that the North Sea is a declining basin. New licensing is unlikely to prevent the ongoing decline of jobs in the oil and gas sector. More than 200,000 jobs, both direct jobs and those that support the oil and gas industry, have been lost in the past decade, in spite of around 400 new drilling licences. A skills passport would facilitate that mobility, enabling people to transition from the oil and gas sector into other sectors.
Further, a green skills retraining plan, as proposed by this amendment, would assist those wishing to transition in using the valuable skills they already have so that they can flourish in a new sector—sectors that will be emerging and coming on stream yet far more into the future. Currently, oil and gas companies are not required to provide retraining or support for workers. This measure would be something of such foresight for them to do. A skills passport would help this work- force navigate the transition to net zero so I support Amendment 2.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my declaration of interests, in particular my being a trustee of the Blue Marine Foundation. I support not only Amendments 1 and 2 but the previous two that we have been talking about.
First, I congratulate the Government on the fact that we have these marine protected areas. The Government have also reached out to what might be called the “confetti of empire”; we have, in fact, created an increasing number of marine protected areas around the world. This is leadership by Britain, which is now being followed by others: the French are keen to do similar things. We really have led the world on this; in fact, it was this Government, under a previous mix, who did it. We have this background.
We then have the marine protected areas rules and suchlike, which have been quoted clearly. The words of my noble friend Lord Benyon are particularly germane to this discussion. However, I must remind the Government that they had to be sued by the Blue Marine Foundation to stop bottom trawling off Dogger Bank, one of the most important areas that we have. It was only the court case that managed to get a change in the Government’s attitude. This matter is not an exact parallel but it suggests that the instinct of government is not to protect, although the legislation of government demands protection.
Therefore, I say to my noble friend the Minister: there is a real issue here for him, not least because there are two different concerns about the Bill. At the moment, we are not concerned with the first, which, I remind the Committee, is mine. It is that, by passing this, we have given up our leadership in the world on the expansion of gas and oil exploration; that is a great sadness and turns its back on some very real progress made by previous Conservative Governments.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to this group of amendments. Noble Lords will know that I have spent pretty much all my adult life in the north-east of Scotland and have seen the North Sea oil and gas industry pretty much from its inception right through to where we are today. It is a declining industry, as the right reverend Prelate rightly said, and it will continue to decline whatever we do. The question is: how quickly, and how will it impact the transition?
Turning to Amendment 1, on flaring, as far as I understand it from the transition authority, all new developments that are approved will be zero flaring, so, in a sense, the amendment is already being tested. I do not have a problem with it, but I think that is the case. I accept that the desire to reduce or eliminate flaring on existing fields leaves a tension as to timescale. It would be good if it could be speeded up, and the transition authority should be encouraged to make that happen, but it is not quite as easy as people say, because it has implications for the physical operation of platforms. However, I do not think it is a wrong aspiration.
On Amendment 2, on green skills, we should absolutely be developing them. However, the point I hear every day in the north-east of Scotland is that we are producing oil and gas and it is going to decline, but its revenue, technology and supply chain are all being redeployed to the transition. If we do not have that revenue, our ability to redeploy will be slowed down or stopped, and that is a real factor.
There is huge enthusiasm in the north-east of Scotland for the rapidest transition we can make. Indeed, just this week, one of the largest offshore wind farms in the world has been announced, off Peterhead. This is an investment of £3 billion in 35 turbines and potentially hundreds of jobs; there is huge enthusiasm for that. A lot of that will be going to companies in the oil and gas supply chain. The really important thing here is to get the balance right. If we accelerate it too quickly, that supply chain will disappear. The faster we bring in the investment in offshore, the faster we can make the transition, but it is really important to get the balance right. That is the debate the north-east of Scotland wishes to happen nationally.
That is one of the reasons why I support my noble friend’s amendment to replace “must” with “may”. As I said at Second Reading, the Bill is not necessary because we can issue licences whenever we like, and it has been up to the transition authority to determine whether that may be the case. To those who say that we should not have any more licences, I do not mean to be patronising at all, but some understanding of the North Sea reveals that there are sometimes requirements to bring things on stream in order to facilitate decommissioning, as well extending the life of existing infrastructure. Saying that it is not going to be done at all will probably almost immediately lead to a situation in which the practicalities mean that it makes more sense. So, there should be that discretion. However, the onus should be put on the transition authority to do that only if it believes it is necessary in order to achieve the transition in an orderly and efficient manner. That is essentially why the amendment makes practical sense.
Investing half the profits in renewables is a good idea. I am not sure whether one should be quite as specific as that; however, the reality is that the companies I talk to are investing increasingly in renewable energy because they can see that oil and gas is a declining asset. They know, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, knows, that every projection for oil and gas through to net zero still has oil and gas in the mix.
So, oil and gas will be around. There is a sensible question to be asked: why should it not be ours, rather than importing it, as long as we can do that in the most efficient and least environmentally damaging way? I accept that it has an impact. In the process, we can ensure that the transition from the oil and gas industry to the renewables industry enables the jobs, the technology and the companies to be smoothly part of it. There is a real flight of investment from the UK in this sector right now, because of a combination of uncertainty—the Labour Party’s policy does not encourage people—and the Government’s confusing people, I have to say to the Minister. On the one hand, we have a Bill that says, let us have an annual licensing round; yet, on the other hand, we are saying that we are going to tax the industry to the nth degree.
Frankly, a lot of the companies are saying that the UK does not seem like a decent investment. For those in this room who are not keen on the North Sea, that may make them all happy but there are consequences. It is a successful major industry and a significant part of our economy. It is one of our high technologies. We are the world-leading experts in subsea technology. About one third of the market is UK-based, driven by what we do in the North Sea. To throw all that away, if we do things too quickly, would be a criminal waste of talent and resource, and would be an economic self-wound. We can do this properly and right, in an orderly fashion, or we can try to reverse it, which is foolish and will not work, or we can accelerate it at a level that would be damaging and destructive.
These amendments set the balance, I hope. We can make sure that if we are going to manage this transition and the decline in the North Sea, it is done in a way that respects the contribution that the people who have developed this industry over the past 40 years have given and can give. It would also allow us to develop the new technologies at a pace that will create a viable industry quickly, without causing a huge dip in economic activity and unemployment, which can be avoided.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, my interests are set out in the register. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, did not quite do himself a service by saying that he was there at the start 50 years ago; I am sure it is little bit less than that. I was very much involved some 35 years ago as Minister for Energy, at the time when this whole question started. There was extensive gas flaring in those days and no value was associated with gas. Therefore, the environmental impact was appalling and we wanted to assess it, especially when it came to the central North Sea. The southern North Sea had yet to be moved forward. The northern North Sea had far less of a problem of associated gas, but the central North Sea fields were very much in the context of what we are discussing.
I echo many of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, about these amendments, in particular Amendment 1, which I want to address. The important points he has raised go to the comments of my noble friend Lord Deben. All new developments absolutely should be planned on the basis of zero routine flaring and venting. That is the case, as of today. I hope that the Minister can echo that point, because that is substantively what the amendment seeks to achieve.
My second point is that it is not wise to put equal weight on the environmental impact of venting and flaring. Venting is far worse. Methane is about 30 times more damaging to the environment than CO2, which comes, effectively, from the flaring process. However, both are recognised by everyone who works in the oil and gas sector, particularly the supply and service sector, as practices we should end. There is a clear, unequivocal decision by government and by everyone working in the sector that we should bring these practices to an end by 2030.
The question is one of timing. As I read it—I may be wrong—the amendment is really about whether, two years on from the Bill receiving Royal Assent, we start the process as though it is 2026 rather than 2030. There is merit in considering that in detail, but we should also look at the industry’s capacity to retrofit by that timetable. It may be possible, but my research shows that it is quite difficult, and we would have to move from the current voluntary system. To be fair, that system has worked well. Progress has already been made in reducing flaring. It is down by some 50% since 2018 and we can get the rest of it removed by 2030.
The question is: should that be accelerated? In fairness, I think that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is putting to us today—that this amendment, if passed, would not affect the new developments that are already being planned, on the basis that there was zero routine flaring and venting, but would accelerate the timetable for the rest of the platforms. My question to the Minister concerns that timetable and speeding it up. Do he and the Government believe, and can they demonstrate, that the voluntary-based momentum that needs to accelerate —the industry recognises that it must accelerate in order to achieve the 2030 deadline—is better or worse than a slower, compliance-based mechanism, which would require a complete infrastructure from government to achieve the sort of timetable that is set out in this amendment? That is the real question. By the way, the amendment is not precise because it will depend on when the secondary legislation is introduced before Parliament, so it might be implemented quite close to the 2030s or in the late 2020s.
Lord Lilley (Con)
May I just add a few brief comments? I endorse what my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, have said.
I speak from a position of considerable ignorance. I used to know quite a lot about this but I know much less now. However, it seems that everyone is agreed that future fields will not be allowed to flare and vent and are not planning to flare and vent. So the first subsection of the proposed new clause to be inserted by Amendment 1 would legislate for something that is going to happen anyway.
However, the second proposed new subsection says that we should not allow any new fields until old fields have been prevented flaring. I do not see the relevance of the connection between the two. If we can stop old fields flaring and venting, we ought to. If we cannot, that is a problem, but what has it got to do with new fields, which will not flare and vent? Unless we have some explanation from the backers of this amendment of why they are linking the two, I cannot see why we should support it.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of all the amendments in this group.
I start with the first amendment, which is in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Blake of Leeds, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge; I have also put my name to it and support it. The amendment comes out of Alok Sharma’s amendment in the Commons; it was the one amendment that the Minister in the other place said the Government were prepared to go away and look at.
I take the points that have been made about what has been achieved under a voluntary mechanism. I also recognise that the new oil fields do not have this, but I would like to hear from the Minister and get a response from the Government as a productive one was not really given in the Commons. This is a real issue that needs looking at, and the Government may have real concerns about bringing this measure in for old fields.
My understanding is that some of this can be done by replacing methane with compressed air, et cetera. If there are concerns, I would like to hear them because, as we have heard, methane is 80 times more potent over 20 years than carbon dioxide. It is a huge greenhouse gas and the Government have signed up to the 2030 commitment to reduce it; indeed, the UK leads the world in some of these respects. So it would be good to see stricter regulations written in.
Progress has been made. The Government have committed to zero venting and flaring by 2030. Already, a near 50% reduction in flaring since 2018 has been achieved, but to put that in perspective, Norway banned venting and flaring in 1971, which is the year I was born. This is not rocket science; it is not difficult to achieve. While I recognise that progress has been made, I am 52 now, so we are 52 years behind Norway. These are powerful greenhouse gases, so we are waiting for this voluntary system to come in, but we need to take action: we need action at speed, at pace, to make sure that these things happen. I want to hear from the Minister whether he has ideas about how that can be done.
I recognise as well that the NSTA guidance currently states that there should be none for new developments and it should be phased out by 2030. However, the problem with this is that the enforcement is patchy and 2030 is still a long way off. It is a long time for us to be letting out these extremely powerful greenhouse gases, so I think something should be done at scale and speed to make that happen.
The Government argued throughout this Bill that they want to give the industry certainty, and that is one of the underlying themes behind the need to put forward these measures. My question to the Minister is why we are not doing that on venting and flaring. If this is about certainty for industry, and this involves industry having to invest to change and adapt, why are we not giving a clear steer—clear guidance, clear timetables—on the intention to do this? That would seem to be the sensible thing to do and the thing that industry would welcome the Government doing, so I call on the Government to do that and I support the amendment. I thank everybody who has spoken to it.
My Amendment 6 is a simple amendment replacing one word with another. It replaces “must” with “may”, but it goes to the very heart of the Bill. The story is that the Bill was cooked up over a boozy lunch as a way of dividing the Opposition. Who knows whether that is true or not but, if our energy crisis and energy security could be resolved by a two-clause Bill, I suspect that somebody might have done it before and that it would not have magically appeared when nobody else had managed to do it.
The Bill actually says that there is a duty to invite applications. I listened to all the debate in the Commons as part of my preparation for the Bill, partly because I am new to this place and am a bit sad, sitting there on the weekends, but I felt that this point was missed in the Commons, which is why I tabled this amendment. Having spoken to colleagues on the Opposition Benches, I kindly ask the Government to look at this probing amendment, because it is important to understand their motivations. They are putting this legislation forward, taking parliamentary time, telling us that it does things that are needed and are important, and I had to ask the House of Lords Library for a special briefing on the Bill because I was frankly astounded that it could be passed and never again would another North Sea oil or gas licence be agreed. How do these two things happen?
The Government are telling me that this is resolving our energy security and providing certainty, yet the Bill can pass and another licence can never be granted. I am confused about what the Bill actually does and have put forward this amendment in the hope that there is substance in the Bill and it is not just an attempt to divide the Opposition and destroy the consensus that existed on climate change. This is so important not just to the way we work here or in the other place but to the message that we send to the people of this country as we transition. We had the chief executive of the CCC on Laura Kuenssberg this weekend and have heard Alok Sharma; the Government have had resignations and this Bill has damaged our international reputation.
It is important that we understand what the Bill does if we are selling our international reputation for it. What does it do? What is the point of it and what does it achieve? My amendment is really an attempt to figure that out. That is why I have included it and I will question the Minister on that.
My Amendment 7 would mean that only companies that have publicly stated that they will invest in the green economy half the profits derived from winning an application can be invited to apply. I point out that 50% is a random figure—we can amend and debate that—but I believe in the green transition and in the need to protect these jobs. I believe in a just transition and that these things are extremely complicated. I also recognise that we will continue to have some dependence on oil and gas as we transition to net zero, not just for our energy needs but for lubrication and other industrial purposes.
I recognise that we will have oil and gas licences, but we must act at scale and speed to disinvest from oil and gas. We must leave as much of this stuff in the ground as we can. Once it is extracted, it may not count towards our net-zero targets, but it will for some other country after it has been sold on the international market, as 80% of it will be. It will be burned. We live on one planet and have one atmosphere. Emissions go somewhere and they will affect us. The idea that the Bill does no harm is not correct; it has consequences. A lot of oil and gas companies do not invest in the green economy in the North Sea, and they should. This amendment is simply an attempt to lay down a marker.
My Amendment 8 would mean that
“the OGA cannot invite nor accept an application for a seaward area production licence from a Russian oil and gas company”.
This point was raised by Richard Foord in the other place. It is my understanding that one Russian oil or gas company has a licence in the North Sea, when we have a war in Ukraine and continued threats to our European security. The Minister spoke quite clearly at Second Reading about the Bill providing for our energy security, but these Benches have questioned that because 80% of our oil goes into the international market.
This is a simple, clear, straightforward amendment that does what it says on the tin. If we are concerned about energy security, why are we allowing Russian oil and gas companies to bid for, win and run licences to extract our oil and gas, put it on the international market and perhaps even sell it back to us? The Government would then have to subsidise bill payers with billions of pounds to pay for it, in a vicious circle that helps no one. This amendment is clear, and I would like it to be agreed to.
Of the other amendments, I strongly support Amendment 9 on a marine spatial strategy. It is extremely important, and it is important that we plan for the future. If we are to have new oil and gas licences, it is important that we do not rule out the ability to have other green energy. I also support Amendment 10 in this group, but I apologise for getting a bit carried away and going over my time.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I start by reflecting on the comprehensive discussion we have had. All noble Lords in the Room are looking forward to the Minister’s comments on the points raised.
Just to reflect on the Second Reading in the Chamber, many of us asked then about the purpose of the Bill, whether this legislation is really necessary and if it will satisfy its stated objectives to boost the economy, deliver energy security and transition to net zero. I do not need to go through those points again; we made them very clearly at Second Reading and could well return to them.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I was just going to strike a more positive note by saying that, although I question why this legislation is before us and how necessary it is, I welcome within the amendments, particularly in this group, an opportunity to seek improvements on a wider particular area, and we have had some good justification today as to why that is.
I am pleased to have been able to sign the first amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which is also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I just emphasise that this amendment is looking to prevent the invitation of new seaward area production application licences until the Secretary of State has introduced a ban on the flaring and venting of methane by new offshore installations, and it would further require the Secretary of State to prevent further rounds if a wider ban is not put in place within two years.
We have heard very clearly today that there is a general feeling that the damage caused by methane has been overlooked, and this presents an opportunity to address that, to acknowledge its potency as a greenhouse gas and to bring it up to speed, with the focus that there has been on carbon dioxide. In addition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, the statistics are quite staggering in terms of the sheer waste every year in the burning off of wasted gas. Just think of the powering of the number of homes times the number of years: we are talking into the hundreds of thousands and, really, we should be doing better.
As we know, NSTA guidance states that there should be zero routine flaring and venting from any new developments—that is very clear. That seems to give a sense of security to some noble Lords in the debate. There was also an acknowledgement that routine flaring and venting should be phased out by 2030. However, I emphasise that, although those words are there, the problem remains that enforcement is patchy and measures are found only in non-binding guidance. I believe that this amendment seeks to manage this situation and help us move forward.
The one point on which I would like to press the Minister picks up on the conversations and discussions that we had at Second Reading concerning the amendment put down by the Member of Parliament Alok Sharma and the suggestion from the Minister in the other place that there would be another look at this. I would just like an update on whether those discussions have progressed and, if they have not so far, would the Minister be prepared to meet with us to talk about how we could come to some agreement or consensus—a way of moving forward that would satisfy the serious concerns that have been expressed in different debates?
Referencing Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also signed by my noble friend Lord Knight, I do not honestly think that we emphasise enough in our discussions around this agenda just what an opportunity is presented. This was the basis of the discussions of the chief executive of the CCC over the weekend. We should be talking about the growth potential and opportunities that should be created, not only in jobs, as we have heard about today, but in attracting investment into this whole area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank everybody who contributed to what I think has been a positive debate on a number of important issues.
Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, seeks to prevent the NSTA inviting applications for licences until regulations banning non-emergency flaring and venting on new offshore installations are in force. After two years, it would also prevent the NSTA inviting applications until additional regulations banning all flaring and venting on existing offshore installations are in force.
Flaring and venting are controlled processes to dispose of gas. These activities can take place for emergency or safety purposes, during non-routine operations and on a regular basis, as a result of the design of existing platforms. This latter category is known as routine flaring and venting.
The Government are clear on the importance of having a target for zero routine flaring and venting in the North Sea. This is a key measure for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from production. We are committed to the World Bank’s zero routine flaring initiative, which aims to eliminate the practice globally by 2030; indeed, we are going further with a commitment to ending not just flaring but venting for both oil and gas by 2030.
The North Sea Transition Authority’s current strategy includes enforceable obligations on industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from a range of sources, including flaring and venting. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Lilley pointed out, the NSTA’s current guidance to industry also makes it clear that all new developments should be planned on the basis of zero routine flaring and venting. Further, the new OGA plan, published last month, confirms the expectation that there should be zero routine flaring and venting on all platforms from 2030 and requires industry to report in more detail, including on financial planning, to ensure continuous improvements in flaring and venting.
The UK’s proactive approach is already reaping rewards. Based on the latest data, North Sea flaring is down by 50% since 2018. The sector is on track to deliver on the ambitious decarbonisation target in the North Sea transition deal to reduce emissions from operations to 50% of 2018 levels by 2030, ultimately ensuring that the UK continental shelf reaches net zero by 2050. Key to delivering a 50% emissions reduction by 2030 will be eliminating routine flaring and venting in a responsible manner and electrifying platform operations to enable this to happen.
I say in reply to my noble friend Lord Moynihan that it is the Government’s view that our 2030 flaring and venting target is already ambitious. Significant changes to infrastructure, which require appropriate time and planning, need to be made. If we do not carefully manage the ending of routine flaring and venting, it will lead to the early closure of platforms—I suspect that some noble Lords would welcome this—and the potential loss of both the appropriate UK production and the jobs, tax revenue and economic activity that go with it.
Of course, as I have pointed out repeatedly, loss of domestic production will also increase our reliance on imports, including liquefied natural gas, which, as we have said repeatedly, has higher production and transportation emissions. My submission is that that would make no sense either economically or from the point of view of emissions. As drafted, this amendment would also prohibit flaring and venting for emergency and non-routine purposes after two years. That would create unacceptable health and safety risks for workers and would likely result in a shutdown in production in those circumstances. Taking on board the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, I am always happy to meet further with the Opposition to discuss this important matter.
Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would require the Secretary of State to publish a green skills retraining plan for oil and gas workers before the NSTA could invite applications for offshore production licences. I can reassure the Committee that the Government absolutely recognise how important the skills, expertise and resources of the oil and gas industry are for our transition to cleaner technologies. A report by Robert Gordon University found that over 90% of the UK’s oil and gas workforce have medium to high skills transferability to the offshore renewables sector.
It is vital that the transition to cleaner energy is managed carefully and responsibly. We must ensure that oil and gas jobs are not lost before renewables and other clean technologies grow sufficiently to take up those valuable skills and workers. That is why we are taking action, including by introducing this Bill to safeguard those jobs for the future.
To take an example, a key commitment of the landmark North Sea transition deal between the Government and the industry is to ensure that people and skills from the existing oil and gas workforce are transferable across the wider energy sector. This includes the development of a digital skills passport to facilitate this transferability, which is being funded by the Scottish Government and industry. We are interested in this work and keen to take it forward. Indeed, we are working with the Scottish Government, the industry, relevant skills bodies and trade unions to support the delivery of this work, which is led by Offshore Energies UK and Renewables UK.
In addition, the Government are shortly due to launch our green jobs plan in the first half of this year, supported by the green jobs delivery group. This plan will provide the actions needed to ensure that we have the skills and occupations within the UK workforce, at the right time and in the right place, to develop our net-zero, nature and energy security targets.
All in all, the Government’s spending and policy ambitions will support up to 480,000 green jobs by 2030. The additional requirement that this amendment places before further licensing can take place would damage investor confidence and cause confusion for industry, employers and the workforce. It would therefore only undermine the ongoing work across the UK and could be inappropriate, given the responsibilities of the devolved Administrations also in this area.
Amendments 6 to 8 are in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Amendment 6 would remove requirements on the NSTA to invite applications for production licences when both the net importer and carbon intensity tests have been met. I take this opportunity to remind the Committee of the purpose of the Bill: it is designed to give industry certainty on the future of licensing rounds. By providing industry with this confidence, the Bill will support the required ongoing investment and protect the jobs and skills required to support the energy transition. Amending that duty on the NSTA when the net importer and carbon intensity tests have been met would undermine the purpose of the Bill and the confidence that it is designed to provide, and will put these important benefits at risk.
Amendment 7 would modify the duty that the Bill places on the NSTA, so that only companies that have committed to investing half their profits from activities carried out under licences in the green UK economy would be invited to apply for production licences.
The Government have a tremendous record for attracting investment into green industries. Since 2010, we have seen around £300 billion of public and private investment in the low-carbon sectors. According to BloombergNEF, total public and private investment in UK low-carbon sectors reached £60 billion in 2023—up by 71% in real terms from 2022.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I was just making the point that the licences provided for in the Bill, where granted, will give exclusive rights to explore an area. Additional permissions will be required before any activity can take place, such as the drilling of a well or construction of a development facility. At each stage and ahead of every such permission being granted, an environmental assessment takes place including, where necessary, public consultation and consultation with nature conservation bodies, to ensure that the impact on the environment, including MPAs, is taken into account in the licensing process.
In response to a specific question, I am not aware of my department having received any communications from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee about the Bill, but noble Lords can be assured that the Government remain committed to ensuring that we meet our Environment Act target on MPAs.
The Government’s marine spatial prioritisation programme will ensure that a strategic approach is taken to identifying future marine development sites. The programme is exploring opportunities to optimise the use of the seas and enable marine activities to co-exist.
Similarly, the strategic spatial energy plan, which the Government will commission in spring 2024 from the National Energy System Operator, will assess the most efficient locations and types of energy infrastructure, reducing inefficiency in infrastructure build. The Bill will not undermine our ability and ambition to ensure co-existence between strictly regulated human activities that may be both possible and necessary in an MPA and, of course, the wider marine environment, including fishing, offshore wind construction and offshore oil and gas, to ensure that we continue to strike the right balance between the full range of our different priorities.
I hope that with those assurances and the explanations that I have been able to provide, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to everyone who took part in this very useful debate. I very much take to heart the comments made by those with long experience in the North Sea about the need to make sure that the scale and pace of change is appropriate. I remain unconvinced that the voluntary system on venting and flaring is going fast and comprehensively enough to meet the targets we need. The Minister said that the 2030 target we have is “ambitious”, and others questioned whether we could get there by 2026 or so, which is the date in my amendment. I will say only that the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place thought that those were attainable targets. So, there is a lot to think about and I hope a lot to talk about with the Minister between now and Report.
Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is not in his place. I would have said to him that I take the stricture that using the licensing process to institute a ban on flaring on current installations is not a very elegant way. However, it has one enormous advantage: it is in the scope of this very narrowly drawn Bill. But with that, and hoping that we can have further conversations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lennie
“(aa) the climate change test (see section 4ZD);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with the other in the name of Lord Lennie, sets out the climate change test to be applied by the Oil and Gas Authority before inviting applications for seaward new production licences.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 3 and 18 in my name. These amendments set out the climate change test to be applied to the Oil and Gas Authority before inviting applications for new seaward production licences. Before detailing what the amendment calls for, I point out, as I said at Second Reading, that this is an unnecessary and damaging Bill. It undermines the independent authority of the NSTA and reinforces the perception around the world that the UK is rowing back from climate change, as described by Sir Alok Sharma MP, the highly respected former president of COP in the other place. So, nothing we can do in Committee or on Report would improve the Bill better than ditching it altogether; no improvements can make fresh fruit out of rotting vegetables.
The tests that the Bill sets are fundamentally flawed, and any tests that we may introduce would still be weaker than Labour’s overall position of no new exploration licences. Labour recognises—this is to reassure those who are concerned—that production will continue in the North Sea for decades to come. Oil and gas will continue to supply our domestic energy market well beyond the lifetime of most of us in the Room.
The Bill could or should have set a strategic direction or plan for how we deal with North Sea workers transitioning to new jobs in renewables, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. However, how we manage our North Sea assets for the long term and maximise the low carbon potential of the North Sea are also missing from the Bill. It does not do any of this; it just sets these tests that cannot be failed and demands that the NSTA carries out annual licensing of new oil and gas fields.
These tests are, first, that the carbon intensity of domestic natural gas is lower than the carbon intensity of liquefied natural gas imported into the United Kingdom. It is, and it always will be. The second test is that the UK is projected to remain a net importer of oil and gas. It is, and it always will be. The amendment that replaced these tests states the following:
“The climate change test is met in relation to a relevant year if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the mitigation of climate change publish a report following the passing of this Act which makes a finding that the granting of additional seaward area production licences is consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade”.
It is the Government’s policy to achieve 1.5 degrees centigrade. It was agreed at the Paris Agreement that 1.5 degrees centigrade is what we should achieve. This test is very straightforward and consistent with government advice of achieving 1.5 degrees of global warming. The IPCC has previously said that the Bill as it stands is not compatible with our climate change goals. However, unlike the Government’s tests, this test is not set up so that we cannot fail. If the evidence base was updated to suggest that this action was compatible with our climate goals because the climate science had changed, or because the technology around oil and gas extraction developed, the Labour test could be passed.
If we are to take our responsibilities seriously as a prime mover in the fight against climate change, we should adopt the strategy that carefully manages our North Sea oil and gas production, while maximising the low carbon potential of the North Sea. The government tests just simply do not achieve this. We need proper policy developed in the round for this to happen. The Bill as drafted does not allow for this. It is concerned only with the unnecessary mandatory licensing rounds, and as such is a nakedly political proposal, as has been suggested by others.
Does the Bill even attempt to approach the fact that demand for gas will undoubtedly decline as we decarbonise our power sector and electrify more? Can the Minister say what the Government’s strategic thinking is in this area? Instead of doing the hard work and producing holistic plans, they have played politics with the UK’s reputation and workers’ futures. We can and should do better than this.
As for the other amendments in the group, I highlight those in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. They remind us that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero confirmed that the Bill would not reduce energy bills, and that that is not its purpose. With the cost of living crisis hurting everyone, reducing energy bills should be a priority for the Government, and the Bill should reflect that—but it does not. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak to the two amendments in my name, Amendments 4 and 19, but I also want to say that I very much enjoyed the introduction to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. He said that this is a very damaging Bill, and that is absolutely true—but what offends me so deeply is that it is so old fashioned and out of date. It does not take into account any of the science that has happened over the past 10 years. But luckily, these amendments expose the falsehoods that have been told by the Government in attempting to justify new fossil fuel extraction in the midst of a climate crisis.
First, the Government are deluded in saying that new oil and gas licences can in any way be compatible with delivering our climate targets. That is impossible. Secondly, they are deluded in thinking that propping up the oil and gas industry can possibly be in the interests of workers—and doing that rather than genuinely engaging with the need for a just transition and the practicalities of how that can be delivered. Thirdly, they are deluded in thinking that new oil and gas extraction will do anything to reduce domestic energy costs rather than be exported on the world market to the highest bidder.
Amendments 3 and 8 would establish a climate test, which is very necessary. The UN Production Gap Report has warned that the worlds’ Governments already plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting heating to 1.5 degrees centigrade. The IPC’s sixth assessment report was clear that
“projected CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure without additional abatement would exceed the remaining carbon budget for 1.5 degrees centigrade”.
Closer to home, the Climate Change Committee observed in its latest progress report that
“expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with net zero”.
Regardless of the claims from some people, possibly on the opposite Benches, that the UK will continue to need some oil and gas up to 2050, again to use the words of the Climate Change Committee,
“this does not in itself justify the development of new North Sea fields”.
The issuance of new fossil fuel extraction licences will directly contribute towards global heating. The Government will not accept a climate test in this Bill, because they know that new oil and gas is incompatible with a safe climate. If the Minister would like to hear more about this, I would be very happy to meet him and explain it as simply as I possibly can.
My Amendments 4 and 19 set out the just transition test. It is ironic that this Government try so hard to invoke the destruction of working-class communities by the Thatcher Government when they attempt to use oil and gas workers as an excuse to continue pumping new oil and gas, which will further inflame the climate emergency and actually make life harder and harder for people. The choice that we are facing is between a managed and fair worker-led transition now, or chaos later, when the reality of the planet crisis bites even more fiercely. Without serious plans for a just transition, communities will once again be left behind and hollowed out as a result of Conservative policy.
This proposal would require just transition plans for the North Sea workforce that are compatible with limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees centigrade. It specifies that these plans must be agreed through formalised collective agreements with unions and that they apply to all workers, whether they are directly or indirectly employed, or even self-employed—which is vital, given the heavy casualisation in the oil and gas workforce. This amendment will be a step towards delivering a just transition that would see workers at the centre of transition planning, with a clear and accessible pathway out of high-carbon jobs. We have to do this—we absolutely must, if we care about people and their work.
So, rather than propping up jobs that we know will not exist in the future, the Government should be actively supporting workers to transition out of the oil and gas sectors while also addressing their very real concerns—such as around the cost of retraining, which is often borne by workers themselves. The failure to deliver a just transition is not inevitable; it is a political choice. If the Government were serious about listening to workers and protecting jobs, they should have no problem supporting this amendment, which puts job security at the heart of the transition to a green future.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 5 and 17, which would introduce a cost of living and consumer energy price test that the OGA must conduct before inviting applications for seaward area production licences. The cost of living and consumer energy price test is met in relation to a relevant year if the production of domestic natural gas will clearly, first, lower energy prices and, secondly, reduce the cost of living.
Originally, as was alluded to, the Minister in the other place claimed that this Bill would reduce energy prices but very quickly had to retract that statement from the public domain. My question is: why are we passing this Bill if it will not have any impact at all on reducing the cost of energy bills for consumers? Some 80% of all the natural oil and gas here will be exported. As we have heard, the Bill will do little, if anything, to help our energy security, protect jobs, transition and help the green economy, which is the energy of the future. Instead, we are investing in the energies of the past, and that investment seems to bear few benefits for people or the planet.
We are already seeing individuals with record debt for their energy prices. We have seen the war in Ukraine and the spike in energy prices. As long as we as a country continue not to invest in energy efficiency or renewables and continue to be dependent on the international energy markets, we will continue to suffer as those markets fluctuate. The Government themselves have had to invest £7 billion in subsidising energy bills—in effect, a continued and added subsidy to the oil and gas companies on top of the tax breaks that they already have. We have the most expensive energy prices in Europe so this amendment simply seeks to put in a test where the cost of energy to consumers should be considered.
On the other amendments in this group, Amendments 3 and 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, would apply a climate change test. I fully support applying a climate change test. The question I would put to the noble Lord, in relation to these specific amendments, concerns asking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change whether it is set up and in the best position to conduct that particular test for us as an individual country. I suggest that, if we want a climate change test, it might be better for the UK’s own Climate Change Committee to pass a judgment on whether that test could be met.
Finally, on to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, of course, although we on this side recognise that we will continue to have some oil and gas as part of our energy mix—even under net zero—we want to see a move to a just transition. I welcome this amendment as an attempt to do that.
However, the amendment is slightly ill defined. I would rather see that transition come about through the profits from the extraction of this energy being directly allocated to the green economy. So, while I welcome the amendment and we do not oppose it, my personal view is that that is a more efficient way of doing it.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I share the frustration of many people that we produce our own oil and gas but base it on world market prices, and there is no immediate direct benefit to the consumer. I understand the reasoning behind it, but the public feel very frustrated: if we are oil and gas producers, there should be a direct economic benefit. Can the Government be a bit more creative and imaginative? They would argue that during the height of the crisis, they effectively used excess taxes to cut consumer bills, but is there a way in which to build in a formula that might have a more long-term connection that would be of some benefit?
It is also fair to say that I reject the argument that because we export a lot of the oil and gas, we do not really need it and therefore should not produce it. Of course, balance of payments do matter. The reality is that we have always exported a very substantial amount of our oil production and we import it back in refined products—more so than we did, because we no longer have the capacity to refine. Nevertheless, one pays for the other, but that is not immediately apparent. It is equally true that if we are producing our own oil and gas, and it is profitable, there is tax accruing to the Government which presumably funds public services or other tax cuts that could be directly connected to the consumer if the Government were prepared to be creative.
It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to ask why, if we are maintaining our oil and gas production, we cannot give a direct benefit to the consumer from that. I acknowledge that there are real benefits. Those who suggest that because we go for the world economic price there is no benefit ignore the balance of payment effect and the taxation effect. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is not in his place because in a Committee exchange I asked him why, if oil and gas is part of the mix, right to and through net zero, we would not maintain some of our own production, if we can do it sensibly, efficiently and rationally while we are accelerating the transition? His reply was that we should set an example to the world, that plenty of other people produce oil and gas and we can import it. I found that extraordinary and irresponsible. If we are going to use it anyway—there is a further group of amendments that relate to the carbon base of our gas, for example—we know perfectly well that domestic gas has a much lower carbon footprint than imported gas, certainly liquid gas.
It is naive to suggest that there are no real benefits from producing oil and gas. There is a real economic benefit, but I tease the Government to say that it might be interesting if they could find a way of making a direct connection that people could feel in their cost of living, specifically in their fuel bills. People would find that an extra justification for maintaining what we are trying to do.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I intervene briefly to express a little scepticism about Amendments 5 and 17. I declare an interest because I used to be deputy chairman of Shell for a time. I think the answer to the very fair question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is that we cannot, unless we nationalise the companies or direct their sales, because they will sell at the market price. I do not think that the condition that Amendments 5 and 17 would impose will ever be met. We will never be able clearly to demonstrate that prices and the cost of living would be lower X many years out. First, one cannot be clear. It takes five, seven or eight years for a project to come into production and guessing prices and the cost of living that far ahead, as I saw at Shell, is not an exact science. It is difficult to do “clearly”—the wording in the amendment.
Secondly, I am not clear whether this third test is a cumulative condition, like the carbon intensity test and the net importer test. If it is cumulative, then no licenses will be issued at all, because that will never be able to be proved.
I am afraid that, for the same reasons, my scepticism also extends to the net importer test. I do not understand the Bill. We are setting out a perfectly reasonable set of propositions for a nationalised industry, but if you want the North Sea to be developed as it is now, or for the development to continue as it is now, run by commercial companies, then the commercial companies will sell at the world price. They will not allocate a little bit to you at a better price so that you can satisfy your tests; in particular, a cost of living test. It does not work like that. I am making everybody in the room angry, because I do not really agree with Amendments 5 and 17, and I do not actually agree with the Bill when it comes to the net importer test.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the expertise of the noble Lord who has just spoken, but I think that the two tests in the Bill—which is the subject of this group of amendments, because we are looking to see whether it is feasible and appropriate to add to those tests—are important tests.
On the net importer test, it is fundamentally important as a country to have security of supply. Security of supply comes through diversity of supply, and that security of supply has been shown to be exceptionally important recently, not least with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the impact that had on western Europe’s gas, being at the end of the pipeline from Russia. It was important to bring home the reality that we need to develop our own energy sources efficiently and economically, in the most benign, sustainable way that we can possibly do with modern technology. The net importer test is important, and I am pleased that it is in the Bill. It absolutely underpins the concept of security of supply, which has always been the basis for our energy system in the United Kingdom.
The carbon intensity test is also relevant, in this day and age of developing reserves internationally and bringing them here with LNG, then transferring that LNG, through a process, to natural gas for power generation in the United Kingdom. If the LNG had a lesser carbon footprint than what we produce in the North Sea, then there would be a very real argument for not having further licensing rounds in the North Sea, because the environmental impact of what we do in this industry is vital, and that is shared on both sides of the Committee.
It is important to question whether we should move towards a position whereby we go to a global test, which the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, suggested, through what was probably a probing amendment rather than one that he would like to see in the Bill. We have an important but minimal impact on whether that 1.5 degree average surface warming above pre-industrial temperatures under the Paris Agreement is achieved. We should be looking to make sure that, as far as possible, everything we do in the North Sea is as sustainable as possible, with the lowest possible carbon footprint. As far as I am concerned, sustainability is one of the four pillars for the consideration of our energy sector. We must address sustainability concerns; we must address GHG emissions; and we must ensure the protection and stewardship of our environment. As I have mentioned, at the same time, we need to have security and reliability. That is the second pillar. We must ensure that current and future energy demand is supplied reliably and responsibly, and, as I said earlier, is able to robustly withstand system shocks.
The third pillar is accessibility and affordability. We must enable energy provision to consumers while minimising cost, and we must support social and economic development. That is one of the reasons we have diversification of supply in the country and the free market to ensure that that is the case.
That free market point is important because we need economic viability of investment. Investment in, and the adoption of, energy solutions characterised by a sustainable return on investment is the fourth and most fundamental pillar. I would just question whether we need to go further than the two tests in the Bill.
I have never, either at Second Reading or in Committee, thought that this Bill was top of the agenda in terms of importance to any Government. I am not sure that it is. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that we can have annual licensing rounds if we want them. In any event, if it is important that they are annual as opposed to biennial, to me, is debateable. The important thing is that all the licences that are awarded must be awarded against a set of criteria; increasingly important in the set of criteria is the environmental footprint around every single aspect of offshore oil and gas production.
We need firm, reliable energy in the United Kingdom to underpin a growth in renewables, but that firm power must be uninterrupted. At a time when we are not moving towards new nuclear as fast as we should be, gas is that basic firm power that will fuel the whole electrification of our system. The other side of this coin is that we are looking for far greater electrification of our rail and wider transport system. Well, for that, you need firm power.
How renewables are at the moment, as well as the lack of good battery storage power—it is interesting to note that the existing battery storage power in the UK covered approximately only eight minutes of average UK electricity demand for the whole of 2023—this lack of battery technology and breakthrough on renewables, without firm power, shows just how much further we have to go. We must have improved and enhanced battery technology. We need firm energy as our lifeblood in this country, not sporadic energy, although moving towards a greater reliance on renewables is, to me, critical. That needs to be underpinned by maximising our gas reserves in the United Kingdom.
Given the limitations of this Bill, those two tests seem reasonable and appropriate to me. I am not sure that the additional tests that are being recommended in the amendments are necessary or helpful in achieving the four pillars that I set out in response to the noble Lord’s very good introduction, if I may say so, of his amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all those who contributed. I start with Amendments 3 and 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, which seek to impose a new climate change test as part of this Bill.
I say at the outset, in response to the challenge presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that this Bill is entirely consistent with the Government’s target to reach net zero by 2050. Even with continued exploration and development, UK oil and gas production is expected to decline by 7% a year. This decline is faster than the average annual global decline needed to align with the IPCC’s 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. The noble Baroness might not like those facts but they are facts nevertheless.
As net importers, we produce less than we need—a point made ably by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. This is projected to remain the case even as our demand for oil and gas shrinks as we achieve net zero. There are already a number of climate checks to ensure that offshore oil and gas activities remain consistent with our climate goals: the climate compatibility checkpoint ensures that the compatibility of future licensing with the UK’s climate objectives has been evaluated before a new licensing round opens; and the North Sea Transition Authority has a specific obligation to assist the Secretary of State in meeting the net-zero target. The recently published OGA plan makes clear that, for production to continue in the North Sea, it must continue to become cleaner. Adding a new test to this Bill is, in our view, therefore unnecessary.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, at Second Reading, I quoted Alan Whitehead MP saying that this Bill was cooked up over a long lunch and should have been buried before the effects of that long lunch had worn off. Unfortunately, it has not been, so we have to try to deal with it. The Minister appears to be not complacent but content that we are making the progress we need to make. The Government believe that we are on track to hit 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050 but the test would introduce an independence to the measurement of that, through the IPCC—the global body and the right body to do the test. It is not a body in this country but a global body that can measure, compare, contrast and make judgments about whether our plans do indeed meet the intended targets.
The cost of living issue is a probing one but it reminds us what the Secretary of State said in response to a question about it—the Minister has repeated it—which is that it is not the purpose of this Bill to reduce energy costs. Surely the question of how we make sure that we reduce energy costs must be fundamental to all our considerations of energy policy in this country. There has been a reduction since the massive inflationary pressures of the post-Covid years, but they are not low and we can do more to reduce those costs to customers.
On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the carbon intensity test applies to gas, oil, and any other petroleum products on an equal basis, and probes why the government has chosen to only apply the test to natural gas.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
All the amendments I have tabled here reveal the scam that is absolutely built into this Bill—it is really offensive to the general public—because this carbon intensity test has been deliberately drafted so that UK oil and gas are always deemed to be low carbon, as compared to international comparisons. So there will never be any limit to the number of oil and gas licences issued. My Amendment 11 probes why the Government have chosen to apply the carbon intensity test only to natural gas. It is our first example of how the Government are fudging the numbers with egregious greenwashing.
Why is the carbon intensity of crude oil being ignored in the Government’s test? The answer is obvious: oil is more carbon intensive than gas and the North Sea produces far more oil than gas, making North Sea production more carbon intensive than most of the countries we import oil and gas from. So the Government fiddle the numbers by ignoring oil altogether, thereby making North Sea extraction look like it is somehow tackling climate change rather than pumping even more carbon into the atmosphere and making it ever harder to reach net zero.
The second part of the scam is that the Government do not compare like with like. Despite the fact that most of our imported gas comes via pipeline from Norway, which has less than half the carbon intensity of UK oil and gas, the Bill compares the UK’s gas with liquefied natural gas. LNG is almost four times as carbon intensive as a UK gas and almost 10 times as carbon intensive as gas from Norway because of the processing necessary to liquify, import and regasify the LNG. By comparing UK production with imported LNG instead of all natural gas imports, the Government have added another layer to this dubious test that will green-light new oil and gas licences for decades to come.
The Government have drafted this Bill at an extremely well liquified dinner—if my guess is right—to exclude the bulk of UK oil from the equation, despite oil being the most carbon-intensive component of North Sea production. It is an absolutely outrageous piece of draftsmanship, and yet another example of this Government legislating against reality to create whatever legal conditions are required to force through government policy.
Taken together, my amendments will ensure that the carbon intensity test compares like for like. The amended carbon intensity test will compare all UK oil and gas production with their equivalent imports and include all relevant processes for the extraction, transportation and delivery of oil and gas in usable form to its final customer. I hope that all noble Lords will agree that, if a carbon intensity test is to be used, it must properly assess the carbon intensity of North Sea oil and gas relative to their imported equivalents. It is essential to amend with the Bill along the lines that I propose. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
I speak in favour of the amendments in this group. They all relate to the two tests in the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has said. The LPG and the UK net importer test are both one-way gates, where the answer is always yes. That is not good enough. There needs to be a proper test that counts the carbon cost of doing these things.
My slight issue with this is that a lot of the amendments in this group are not in scope in this very short, almost Private Member’s Bill-type of legislation. Inevitably, the amendments were gathered around the little bits that are in scope in the Bill to be amended. From our side’s point of view, there are lots of amendments seeking to change these tests. I am not minded to say which is the best amendment to take forward. From our side of the Room, some thought should be given to coalescing around one of those tests. I am happy to support that, but we need to go away and do some thinking to get a unified position.
On the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to remove Clause 1, if that were to be pushed to a vote, I would be prepared to support it. The Minister makes a lot of grand claims for this Bill. In his summing up, he keeps saying that the granting of licences do X, Y and Z. That may well be true, but nothing in the Bill commits to anyone granting any licences. The only thing that the legislation does is to say that there should be tenders. The joined-up logic that the Minister is giving us for the Bill does not, in point of fact, bear relevance, because it could be passed but no licences ever granted again. Equally, we could continue to have licences every year without this Bill.
The Bill does little other than to drive a wedge between us and our commitments to protect the environment, and serves as a way in which to politicise this issue in the run-up to the election. That is all I have to say.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I acknowledge the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. To repeat the concerns as outlined at Second Reading, our belief is that the tests identified in the Bill will be impossible to fail and are thereby fundamentally flawed, as my noble friend Lord Lennie has previously outlined.
Amendments 12 and 15 in my name are straight- forward. The intention is to be as simple as possible, leaving out “liquified” from the Bill to include all natural gas imported into the UK. We need to achieve clarity, which is not present in the current wording. If the Government want to keep it in, they should be open about the consequences. Liquified natural gas will always be more greenhouse gas intensive in production than UK natural gas. The North Sea field will not meet our total demand for oil and gas, as we know. We need to replace these tests with ones that produce a proper judgment about whether a licence should be issued. The main consideration should be whether issuing a licence is in line with our climate change goals.
Another disappointment with this Bill, as we have discussed, is that there is no reference to previously introduced climate change compatibility tests into production generally—quite an omission. Including only LNG presents a serious problem. We acknowledge that substantial amounts of natural gas come into the UK from Norway via the pipeline. The production of that gas is substantially cleaner than that of UK natural gas. Indeed, we need to be sure that managing the decline in demand for gas is at the heart of a successful net-zero transition. The best and fairer test would be to consider gas imports in the round.
We are trying to amend a Bill that is deeply flawed, as I have previously recognised. I recognise the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to the Bill as a whole. I believe that this a simple way in which we could make some improvements; I look forward to the Minister’s comments with interest.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, tabled notice of her intention to oppose Clause 1 standing part of the Bill so let me begin my remarks by briefly outlining the purpose of that clause. Under the Petroleum Act 1998, offshore oil and gas licences are administered by the Oil and Gas Authority, which is operating as the North Sea Transition Authority. A seaward production licence grants exclusive rights to the licensee to explore, bore for and produce oil and gas from the geological formations that lie beneath the UK’s offshore waters, within an area defined by the licence. Additional permissions are required before any activity can take place.
Periodically, the NSTA launches licensing rounds inviting companies to apply for such licences. During this process, interested companies submit bids and licences are awarded to bids that promise to ensure the economic recovery of the UK’s oil and gas resources, while of course supporting the drive to net zero by 2050. This existing arrangement means that industry does not have certainty as to when—or, indeed, if—the NSTA will launch a new licensing round. This clause provides that certainty by amending the Petroleum Act 1998 to place a duty on the NSTA to invite applications for seaward production licences in each annual period, which runs from October to September each year. This is subject to two tests being passed: that the average carbon intensity of domestic UK gas is lower than the average carbon intensity of imported liquified natural gas; and that the UK remains a net importer of both oil and gas.
Together, these tests, which will be conducted by the NSTA, will ensure that the annual duty on the NSTA applies only where this supports our wider energy security and energy transition objectives. If the annual duty is triggered, the NSTA proceeds with the current licensing process. It will remain a matter for the NSTA as an independent regulator to decide how many and which blocks or part-blocks to offer for applications—with a minimum of one block—and to ensure and apply the appropriate criteria for determining those applications. It will remain the responsibility of the NSTA to decide whether to offer and grant any licences at the conclusion of that process and whom to offer them to; the NSTA will retain the discretion to grant licences outside of this new annual process in the usual way where needed.
I assure noble Lords that the offering and granting of licences under the new annual process will remain subject to the existing rigorous environmental regulatory requirements. These include the obligation written into the NSTA’s strategy to assist the Secretary of State in meeting the target of net zero by 2050. Indeed, I want to be clear that nothing in this clause contradicts our steadfast and, of course, legally binding commitment to achieving net zero by 2050. We do not need to choose between either delivering net zero or supporting our domestic oil and gas sector; the two things are not mutually incompatible.
Amendments 11, 13, 14 and 16 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and Amendments 12 and 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, seek to amend the carbon intensity test. This test looks at historical carbon dioxide emissions from the production and supply of natural gas during an assessment period spanning the preceding three years. The test is passed if, during that timeframe, per unit of energy, the carbon emissions of producing gas domestically were lower than the average carbon emissions from the production and delivery of liquefied natural gas from all geographic locations.
The amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seeks to change the test to include in the comparison all imported and produced petroleum products, including crude oil, and all forms of natural gas. The amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, seek to include an assessment of the carbon intensity of all imported natural gas.
It is important to recognise that the markets for oil and gas work very differently; it is not possible to make the same comparisons for oil as it is for gas. In the case of gas, we have a choice either to maximise domestic production or to import more. The more gas we produce domestically, the less we need to import; that seems obvious to me. For oil, we do not have that same choice because oil has to be refined before it is used. For historical reasons, UK oil is generally processed abroad—predominantly in Europe, where our production supports the energy security of our European allies. So a comparison of the carbon intensity of imported oil versus domestically produced oil would be the wrong one to make.
Turning to the test for gas, LNG has been chosen as the relevant comparator as it is a critical marginal source of energy, providing an essential buffer source—especially in winter, when gas demand is higher. Over the past decade, LNG has become an increasingly important method of moving natural gas to market. This will only intensify in the coming years because UK natural gas production peaked in 2000 and the UK has been a net importer since 2004 in order to meet domestic demand.
It is fortunate that some of the UK’s gas imports, in particular pipeline imports from Norway, have relatively low production emissions. However, it is a fact that Norwegian production, like our own, is declining. We will still need gas in the coming years as we transition to net zero. With both UK and Norwegian production declining, it is likely that LNG will play an increasingly important role. During periods of high demand in winter, LNG is a key, flexible source of supply; this role will only increase over time as UK and Norwegian production declines. Producing less domestically means importing more carbon-intensive LNG, which is why a comparison with LNG is the right one to make, in our view, and why we have included it in the Bill.
With the explanation I have been able to provide, I hope that it is clear why the test focuses on LNG and not comparators with oil, which is completely different, or other forms of gas. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It is hard to summon up the energy to rebut anything. What the Government proved to us yesterday with the Rwanda Bill is that they are prepared to deny reality. So I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, we are reliably informed that there will be a Division in the Chamber in about half an hour—hint, hint.
Clause 2: Extent, commencement and short title
Amendment 20
Earl Russell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean the Act does not extend to Scotland.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I shall be brief, as these amendments are pretty straightforward. I recognise that the amendment would have an impact on the Bill but against that, it must be said that Scotland has provided the UK with lots of North Sea oil and gas and very little is coming back to Scotland. There is no allocation of money for the green transition and no commitment to the green transition—nothing flows back to Scotland. There is no protection for the workers; not a single penny that is generated from this extra extraction of North Sea gas and oil is in any way directly allocated to come back to the people of Scotland or to their industry.
The other amendment in my name would delay the implementation of the Act until 1 September 2025. To my mind, the Bill is not really properly put together; it is not properly worked out or part of a full and coherent energy strategy. Everyone on this side of the Room has recognised that we will continue to be dependent on oil and gas, even under net zero—but there is no coherent, conjoined or constructive strategy for providing energy security or lots of the things that are claimed in the Bill. For that reason, there are good and sound reasons for arguing for the implementation of the Bill to be delayed. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I will speak to my Amendments 22 and 23. I see the Bill as completely pointless and, as I said before, out of date—just not in touch with reality. My two amendments are to corral it slightly so that it does not spill over in any direction.
Amendment 22 would ensure that the provisions of the Bill are not brought in before 1 September 2025 and are brought into effect only by regulation, so that this stuff has to come to the House again. Amendment 23 would sunset the Act after 10 years, which is plenty of time to waste on this, unless a Minister of the Crown intervened, and it would give Ministers the power to disapply Clause 1 in any year, after consultation.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
I apologise for the fact that I did not participate at Second Reading. I declare an interest as a Scottish income tax payer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is concerned with what comes back to Scotland. I am horrified at his idea that Scotland should be left out of the Bill.
As far as my memory serves me, in July 1998, in discussing Schedule 5, all energy was reserved to Westminster and, at a later date, renewable energy was devolved to Scotland. So if Scotland does not appear in this Bill and there is no continuing power to develop things in Scotland, this amendment would mean the end of any exploration for petroleum products in the Scottish area, in the surrounding oceans or on land.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate so far. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his proposal about omitting Scotland from the Bill, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for his horrified response to the proposal to omit Scotland from the Bill. I am not sure about the debate on Scotland, to be honest, but on balance I think I would keep Scotland in the Bill. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that I can see why these amendments would delay the Bill coming into effect, which would not be a bad thing. It would be better if the Bill were not here at all, but, hey, we cannot have everything we want.
The Government have admitted that the Bill will not take a penny off energy bills and will do nothing for energy security, because oil and gas are sold on the international market. The Bill will send precisely the wrong signals to investors about the UK’s commitment to the green transition: Amanda Blanc, chief executive officer of Aviva said that new oil and gas drilling
“puts at … risk the jobs, growth and the additional investment the UK requires to become more climate ready”.
The Bill has been slammed from many quarters, including some surprising ones, such as Theresa May, former Prime Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, former chief executive officer of BP, said it
“is not going to make any difference”
to Britain’s energy security.
Annual licencing rounds will not boost the UK’s economy, as North Sea oil and gas is already in decline, as the Minister confirmed, and over the next decade, in Scotland and England, there will be 25 new jobs in clean energy for every job that is lost in oil and gas. That is what we have to secure: the transition of workers from oil and gas to the new green, clean energy. More extraction in the North Sea will not improve any security or lower energy bills. Remaining reserves are mostly oil, not gas, and 78% of that oil is exported, as it is not in the right form for use in the United Kingdom. The UK is already feeling the devastating impact of climate change, and granting licences simply amplifies the effects. Campaign groups have indicated that the current licences will send “a wrecking ball” through the UK’s climate commitments.
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, I thank noble Lords for their brevity on this group.
Amendment 20 seeks to amend the Bill to exclude Scotland. Of course, the vast majority of offshore oil and gas activity takes place off the coast of Scotland to the benefit of all citizens across the United Kingdom. Excluding Scotland from the scope of the Bill, which I understand is the intention of the amendment, would significantly undermine the benefits that the Bill is intended to create. It would risk causing unnecessary confusion for industry and create considerable complexity for the independent regulator. This is particularly true as we transition towards a low-carbon economy and workforce.
As I have already mentioned in previous groups, a report by Robert Gordon University found that over 90% of the UK’s oil and gas workforce have medium to high skills transferability to the offshore renewables sector. Many of those, of course, are in Scotland, where OEUK estimates that over 90,000 jobs are supported by the oil and gas industry. If we rush the transition, or create additional uncertainty in the investment environment, we risk losing the jobs and skills that we will need as we scale up the clean technologies needed to realise that crucial net zero target.
Earl Russell (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response and thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. Of course I recognise what the Minister has said to me, but my understanding is that all the Bill does is require an annual tendering for licences to take place. While I recognise a lot of the sentiment and the answers that the Minister has given me, I do not feel that the consequences flow just from not having an annual tender for licences for Scotland. We could still have licences granted every year if the Bill was not in place.
I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for his contribution. Again, I do not see how it was my intention to remove in any way the whole of Scotland from the renewables debate, and I am not aware that this is a consequence of my amendment, but I will of course go away and have a look at that. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Goodman of Wycombe
Covid-19 Vaccination: Coronary Disease
(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the connection between COVID-19 vaccination and increased prevalence of coronary disease.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
The Government are taking action to tackle cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease, including through supporting improved uptake of the NHS Health Check England cardiovascular disease prevention programme. There is no evidence linking Covid-19 vaccines to increased levels of coronary heart disease. All vaccines used in the UK are authorised only once they have met robust standards of effectiveness, safety and quality set by the UK independent regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
Lord Farmer (Con)
I thank the Minister for his reply. A considerable number of cardiologists, other medical practitioners and scientists have raised concerns about a link, especially among younger people, amid a pervasive sense of a lack of transparency. A reluctance to disclose the full gamut of information sits uneasily with the Government’s ongoing encouragement for people to get vaccinated. To resolve this, can the Government at least publish data on cardiac deaths in the ever vaccinated and never vaccinated by age group for 2022, 2023 and onwards?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend for this question. The ONS has provided this information and made it available for research purposes to make absolutely sure that we get to the bottom of this issue. For the understanding of noble Lords, every medical vaccine has side-effects, but the MHRA has investigated this, and the side-effect that people are worried about is heart inflammation. One to two people per 100,000 who have had a vaccine experienced side-effects, but, for people who have had Covid, it is 150 per 100,000. Having these vaccines is a much safer route to go.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, there is one substance that we put into our bodies during Covid that has been clearly linked to thousands of excess deaths: alcohol. Are the Government carrying out studies into what happened with alcohol consumption during the pandemic, who was most at risk and how we can ensure that in any future pandemics we do not see excess deaths? We are talking about 2,500 excess deaths during 2022.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right. There were much wider effects and impacts in the lockdown, and alcohol intake was one of them; mental health, particularly of our children, was another. My sincere hope is that these are the kinds of issues that the Covid inquiry should really be investigating: the wider impacts on society caused by lockdown.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, a recent study published in Vaccine of a cohort of 99 million people who were vaccinated with one of the vaccines—either vector or messenger RNA vaccines—showed an increased risk related to myocarditis and pericarditis. The incidence, particularly among the younger people, was about one in 10 in a 1 million population, as opposed to the non-vaccinated who got Covid. That should be the comparison, not the non-vaccinated who did not get Covid. In those cases, things such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, which is a long-term viral fatigue syndrome, occurred at a higher incidence in non-vaccinated people than in vaccinated people, particularly with the Oxford/AstraZeneca number 1 vaccine, which was withdrawn. Therefore, it is a balance of whether the disease or the vaccine will make you more sick. With any treatment in any branch of medicine, there is always a risk to the treatment. There has to be a balance.
Lord Markham (Con)
I am sure I speak for the whole House when thanking the noble Lord for his expert understanding and insights. As he said, the evidence is very clear that while no vaccine is risk-free, what it saves you from is much greater. The very firm advice is that you are much better off having the vaccine.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister about the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing transmission? It does seem to be very good at keeping people out of hospital and keeping people alive, but we built the most immense edifice of restrictions around the idea that it was preventing the transmission of Covid. We had vaccine passports and travel bans, and it now seems that both the WHO and Pfizer knew at the time that its efficacy when it came to preventing transmission was negligible. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House what his department’s latest assessment is of the vaccine’s ability to prevent giving Covid to other people?
Lord Markham (Con)
The main thing that the vaccine did was prevent any bad effects if you did get Covid. While it might not have reduced transmission much, its main benefit was that it reduced the effects if you had it, as well as hospitalisations and deaths. Making Covid a less serious disease, basically, enabled us to open up the country and we were one of the first to get going again because we knew that the disease no longer posed the high risk that it did before we had the vaccines.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I have some personal experience here. One week after I had my first course of Covid vaccination, I had an attack of pericarditis and ended up in St Thomas’ Hospital. I am convinced that there is a link, but it is important to look at the longer-term effects—having an attack of Covid causes more heart problems, as well as having a long-term impact on your general health.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely correct. The MHRA study on heart inflammation, which he mentioned, said that there is that side-effect for one to two people per 100,000—unfortunately, the noble Lord seems to have been one of them. However, if you get Covid it affects 150 people per 100,000. On balance, if you have not had the vaccination, your risk is 22 per 100,000. The statistics are very clear.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister think that we need to do far more on public awareness of vaccines and their benefits? All sorts of people out there are spreading malicious tales about the implications of taking them, whether for mumps or Covid.
Lord Markham (Con)
Absolutely. We are all very aware of the damage done by all the myths around the MMR vaccine 20 to 30 years ago and the impact that has had on people. The more we can get the message out, the better. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked me yesterday, we have learned that it is about making sure that we communicate to all groups so that we can make sure that ethnic minorities and other minority groups get that information.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, after many years of stalled progress, the rate of premature deaths from cardiovascular disease continues to increase, for reasons that the British Heart Foundation describes as “multiple and complex”. The warning signs of this have been present for over a decade. As this phenomenon did not start with Covid, what assessment has been made of the contributory factors of government policy pre Covid and what steps are being taken to turn this around?
Lord Markham (Con)
Deaths from heart disease among those under 75 are down by about 20% compared with 2010, which is a clear trend. Notwithstanding that, we are very aware—Sir Chris Whitty is concerned about this—that Covid meant that a lot of people did not get basic heart and blood pressure checks. That is why we have introduced the Midlife MoT, which is designed to give people a 10-year risk analysis; have put blood pressure devices in pharmacies and all sorts of other places to get 2 million checks; and have a workplace heart disease strategy check. All this is designed to get that prevention in place so that people are aware of and understand the risks.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although we are talking about heart disease, we must also remember pulmonary embolism from clotting disorders, which can persist for up to six months after even a mild Covid infection? A massive pulmonary embolus is another cause of mortality in people who have Covid. One of the problems with the virus is its ability to mutate, but the evidence is that vaccination, even if it does not give you complete protection, moves you from obtaining serious Covid to having milder Covid. That risk of thromboembolism also needs to be monitored in the long term in relation to Covid infections, including for those who have had a mild infection and those who have long Covid.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely correct: a vaccine helped you avoid not just heart disease but all the other impacts of Covid that she mentioned, including long Covid and a whole list of other things. Again, the undeniable advice is that it is much better to have the Covid vaccine.
Expansion of Free Childcare
(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implementation of the expansion of free childcare hours.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I can confirm that over 200,000 parents of two year-olds are now benefiting from the Government’s help with childcare costs as part of the largest ever expansion of childcare support in England. From September 2025, our full expansion will save parents up to £6,900 a year. Our investment will be over £400 million in 2024-25 alone, and by 2027-28 we expect to spend in excess of £8 billion every year on free hours and early education, doubling our current spending.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, the DfE’s own pulse survey from last week found that 45% of childcare and early years providers said that it was unlikely that they would increase the number of places they offer to under-threes as a result of the Government’s childcare expansion. The maths does not add up for providers and there is patchy provision across the country, with the sector still losing staff. Despite the confidence of the Minister and in the Statement earlier today in the other place, is this not simply a good idea that is going disastrously wrong?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We have to be careful about describing 200,000 additional children going into childcare aged two from this April as something “going disastrously wrong”. I argue that it is a huge success.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I know from some of the information that has come to me that it has been estimated that we are 40,000 workers down on the target to implement this fully—in a sector where about half the workers are saying that they want to leave within the next 12 months due to a lack of pay and overwork. What will the Government do to square that circle?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The figure of 40,000 is the increase in the workforce that we need to achieve by September 2025. That is exactly why we are having a phased introduction to this policy. Even before we increased the rates for providers last year, there was almost a 13,000 increase in the workforce, and we have a number of initiatives to build on that.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the increase in free childcare hours, but is my noble friend the Minister aware that some parents of children with special educational needs are finding it difficult to find a placement? Is she satisfied that the extra allowance attached to those children is sufficient to encourage nurseries to take them on?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that, because this can be an incredibly valuable support for children with special educational needs in their early years. We have increased the hourly funding rates and the dedicated additional SEND funding, but the department is doing a review of the SEND inclusion fund, to understand better how it is being used and whether we can improve on it.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has been asked many times about the apparent disconnection between the aspiration of this policy—which is admirable, as I have said before, and I think that most people would agree—and the ability of the sector to deliver it, and it has come up again today. If, for example, she had in her family a young person who was thinking about making a career in early years work, would she recommend them to do so? Where would she expect them to find the best career opportunities in the next three or four years?
Baroness Barran (Con)
First, it is more than an aspiration. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State talked about aiming for 150,000 additional children taking up the entitlement offer in April. As I said, we are at just over 200,000, and we think that that number will continue to tick up, so it is more than an aspiration. Secondly, I was genuinely having this conversation at dinner with a friend, whose granddaughter was thinking about what to do with her career. There are fantastic opportunities in early years and childcare, such as apprenticeships and bootcamps, and we are introducing a route for people with experience but perhaps not the same formal qualifications. These are for all age groups and stages, and they include men as well as women.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the increase in free childcare hours is a welcome development, especially for families with the least and with the greatest needs. It is a step along the way. Could the Minister assure the House that there are plans in place to extend the facilities across the country, to make sure that there is availability of these important services?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is right that one part of delivering this is to do with workforce, and we are focused on delivering that, but the other part is to do with the physical buildings and facilities, particularly for much younger children. We have supported local authorities with £100 million of capital funding and we are also testing a pilot in school and college facilities where they have spare space, to determine how that might be made suitable for childcare provision.
Care Worker Visa Regime
(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review the care worker visa regime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the Government introduced changes to the visa requirements for how carers can be recruited to the UK on 11 March. The Home Office worked with the Department of Health and Social Care to implement these measures. We will continue to keep all visa routes under review, and will consider changes where appropriate.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I am sure the Minister will agree that the already beleaguered and inadequate social care workforce needs extra people. Until we are able to recruit and train them here, they must be found from overseas. There have been multiple failures identified in the Home Office system for awarding care worker visas. It has underestimated demand by a large degree, it applied an inappropriate scheme in a high-risk area, and it has nothing like enough staff to regulate licence sponsors or process applications. As they review this policy, will the Minister commit the Government to working with the social care sector, which is knowledgeable about these issues, to rectify these problems, and to ensure that there is sufficient supply of care workers to meet the ever-growing demand?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The Home Office seemed to bear the brunt of the noble Baroness’s accusations, but this was a cross-government exercise, involving the Department of Health, the Treasury, No. 10, the Cabinet Office and other departments. The fact is that the most recent published statistics, relating to the year ending December 2023, show that we have issued more than 146,000 health and care worker visas. To suggest that we are not supporting the sector would be inaccurate—we are. That includes things such as how to register good applications, explaining the rules around genuine vacancies and addressing the mismatch between the actual job and salary, not things such as anticipated demand. There is a lot of work going on.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, there are accounts of care workers coming to the UK being exploited, as either the jobs do not exist as advertised or they find themselves in hock to middlemen. Does the Minister agree that people who come here and apply for these visas in good faith should be treated with compassion? Can he explain how many people the Home Office has employed to help those people by going after fraudulent sponsors and exploitative agents?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord is right; there has been some abuse of the system, which is readily acknowledged by the sector itself. I noticed that the Skills for Care website points out that this system has been open to abuse in the past, and it provides some helpful links to some of the stories about modern slavery. Of course, the Government will not tolerate illegal activity in the labour market in general. Any accusations of illegal employment practices will be thoroughly investigated, and we strongly condemn offering health and care worker visa-holders employment under false pretences, which partly motivates these changes.
Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice (CB)
My Lords, the charity Unseen and the union UNISON have compiled substantial evidence of the exploitation of some of these workers, who now find themselves in limbo because they have been hired by agencies that do not have enough hours for them and they are not allowed to switch to any other profession. Will the Minister undertake to look at what quality control the Care Quality Commission used last year when it licensed a very large number of new providers into the market, which is already saturated with providers? Have the Government looked at the churn in the number of those providers and how many of them have already closed? What steps can the Government take to stop these fraudulent recruitment agencies operating in other countries? They are fundamentally misleading good people who wanted to come to our country and have been sorely mis-sold.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point about activities that have taken place in some other countries. Our abilities to influence those are somewhat constrained. I do not know how the Care Quality Commission goes about licensing. I will find out and report back to her on that. I repeat my previous answer: we will of course go after all those who are engaged in fraudulent practices.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
Does the Minister agree, on reflection, that preventive measures should have been put in place? Many unions and organisations are now arguing that no business should be able to sponsor care workers unless it has been in operation for at least two years and unless it has had an inspection first, rather than after the event. Also, how are we going to go after abuses in the labour market when there are so few inspectors? For example, 18 inspectors are supposed to deal with an agency sector covering 40,000 businesses.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I cannot comment on the number of inspectors because I genuinely do not know the answer to how many there are, but I take the noble Baroness’s points. I reiterate that we will go after people who are abusing the visas and the individuals. We should remember that the employers also need to be supported to recruit staff from abroad in a way that meets the needs of those people. Skills for Care makes that point, and I completely agree.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the work of care workers is extremely valued, particularly by those who are dependent on them for their daily living. This extends across the whole age range of the population, not only in residential establishments but in home care facilities. Underlying all this is one of the difficulties: although this care work is highly valued, it is a low-paid occupation. I hope the Government will give thought to a way in which we can improve the status of care workers and thereby their earning potential in this country.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I very much agree with the noble Lord that the care workers themselves need all our support and, indeed, our praise for the very important and necessary work they all do. Of course, care workers are not subject to the same salary cap as other workers, so applicants to the health and care visa are exempted from the new £38,700 salary threshold. They must be paid at least £23,200 per annum, so the system, as constructed, takes into account the relatively low-paid nature of this work.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, following on from the very good question from the noble Lord, Lord Laming, do we not have a moral duty and a responsibility in terms of public policy not just to import the best people from abroad but, given that we have record numbers of people on out-of-work benefits, to give opportunities, training and skills to our own young people, who would benefit very much from that and enhance that industry, rather than continually looking to foreign nationals to come in and do the jobs that British people could be trained to do?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with my noble friend on that. We remain committed to developing the domestic workforce. We are doing that by investing in retention—there is a high churn rate in this sector, as is well understood—through better workforce training, recognition and career progression. A new career structure is being launched for care workers so that all staff can build their careers and more experienced care workers are recognised for their skills. We are creating new qualifications and a digital skills record to reduce the need for retraining costs. We are increasing funding for learning and development. The Government have made available up to £8.6 billion in additional funding over the financial years 2023-24 and 2024-25 to support adult social care and discharge. I trust that all noble Lords will support the PM’s valiant efforts to mobilise those who are not currently engaged with the domestic workforce.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister spoke of fraudulent sponsors and exploitative agents. What assessment have the Government made of the need to tighten up repayment clauses for relocation and visa costs, and requiring compliance with Department of Health and Social Care rules on international recruitment as a condition of gaining a sponsor licence?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord develops on a theme explored earlier, in a question I could not entirely answer. I will come back to him with a better answer in due course.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, given that the Minister in effect embedded the idea of care work being low paid, in the answer he gave earlier about salary caps in relation to visas, does he think that £23,500 is an adequate reflection of the real value that any individual care worker provides through their work?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I did not embed anything; I was just restating a fact. Whether or not I think it is the right number for the sort of work that is done, obviously there is considerable variety in the type of care that is given. I do not think it would be appropriate to comment on the number in its totality.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will feel, at the end of this, that anyone listening to the totality of this Question will see that there are very serious issues. The Government have failed to address the whole issue of social care. It is a sector that is failing the country, at a time when we know there needs to be a lot more because, as we see around us, we are all getting older and living longer, and need more care. The Government have now had 14 years; when will they actually address the sector as a whole and reform it?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness asks me about the care sector in general; I am obviously here to talk about visas. What I will say about visas is that the Government have in fact clamped down on the abuse of the visa system and once again are endeavouring to protect the integrity of our borders; I am sure the noble Baroness would welcome that.
Personal Independence Payments
(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on disabled people and their families of changes being considered in the review of personal independence payments announced by the Prime Minister on 19 April.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, we will shortly publish a consultation on personal independence payments. This will explore potential options to reshape PIP, to ensure that support is focused on those with the greatest needs, and will run for 12 weeks, ending in July. Outcomes for disabled people will be considered before implementing changes. There will be no immediate changes for current PIP claimants. I encourage all stakeholders to input to the consultation when it has been published.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. In his announcement, the Prime Minister singled out people with mental health problems as a particular group that could be excluded from personal independence payments in the future. As we know, these were introduced to help to meet the higher cost of daily living associated with long-term disability and ill health. The Prime Minister stated that people with mental illness would be better helped by treatment and services, but he failed to admit that there are currently 1.9 million people on waiting lists for NHS mental health services in England; they simply cannot get the treatment, because of chronic under- investment by the Government. Mental health services are, frankly, on their knees. Families living with disability are already disproportionately represented among the millions of our citizens currently struggling to meet the rising cost of living. If they are to be denied access to personal independence payments, does the Minister conclude, as I do, that these families would be pushed even further into more severe hardship and poverty?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
We need to take a step back. It has been over 10 years since the introduction of PIP, and we need to ensure that our system is fair and accurately targeted at those who need our support most. In the decade since PIP was introduced in 2013, the nature of health and disability has changed. The noble Baroness mentioned mental health, and she is right, but there may be better ways of supporting people to live independent and fulfilling lives. This could mean financial support being better targeted at people who have specific extra costs.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, only yesterday in Grand Committee, my noble friend the Minister stated that the DWP is forecast to pay out nearly £300 billion in benefits by 2024-25, a sum which is completely unsustainable if we are to have sufficient funding for any other departments: defence, health, education and so on. Will he please just remind us of the future cost of the personal independence payment?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I reiterate that there are several reasons why we want to bring forward this consultation, which will be launched in coming days. Cost is one factor but not the only factor, as I alluded to in my answer to the noble Baroness. Over the coming four years, PIP spending alone is forecast to rise by 63% from £21.6 billion to £35.3 billion. That is for the years 2023-24 to 2028-29. That is one of the reasons why we are reviewing PIP to ensure that the system is fair, accurately targeted to those who really need it the most, and delivers the right kind of support for people with disabilities and health conditions.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lord, PIP is not a general living benefit, unlike universal credit. It is designed specifically to help fund the extra costs that long-term severely disabled people have just to be able to live their lives, and often to be able to get to work. The Minister said just now that it is important to review all processes. I entirely agree, so why is it that seven out of 10 PIP appeals are won on the same evidence that the DWP had originally, which shows that this funding is desperately needed for the most disabled in our community?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I have already said that this Green Paper is a conversation that we are starting to see how the costs are best targeted and how people are best supported. The noble Baroness will know that some claimants will have considerable extra costs relating to their disability—quite right too—and others will have fewer costs or minimal costs. That is why this Green Paper will look at whether there are ways in which we can improve how we support people in the right way and in a way that is fairer to taxpayers.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, yesterday I visited National Star, an FE college that serves young people with severe lifelong disabilities. Many of them are being subjected again and again to reassessment throughout their lives. That is not only traumatising but a complete waste of time and resources. What will the Government do to take this into consideration so that people with severe lifelong disabilities are not subjected to reassessment again and again, unless, of course, that disability is generative?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very good point. It chimes with what I said earlier, which is that we need to target our resources in the right place and be sure that individuals are looked after in terms not of the end result but of the process. That is extremely important. I will make this point again: where an individual has severe conditions, it must be right that we, the state as a compassionate country, look after them, and we need to be able to provide a better focus. This is, again, one of the reasons why we are bringing forward this Green Paper.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, it is common ground among commentators that claimants who have realistic work prospects should be offered high- quality employment support. Why do the Government have so little confidence in their own policy that they feel it necessary to impose benefits cuts and the threat of sanctions, risking greater poverty and even destitution, rather than the life of dignity promised in the DWP press release?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As the noble Baroness will know, you can claim PIP whether you are in or out of work. More than 5 million disabled people are in work. One of the aims is to continue to encourage those who are disabled to take up some form of work. I say again that it is incredibly important that this is done in a measured and targeted way in line with the needs of the individual.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentions that this as a conversation but that is not how the headlines read, is it? The headlines are that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are all about cracking down on young people, mental health problems, people who are sick, and people who do not want to work. The Government created PIP, so if there is a problem with PIP it is their problem. Everything about it is the Government’s responsibility. We have had 14 years. We have a problem with record numbers of people being locked out of work because of long-term sickness. How much of that is to down to the NHS failing? How much is down to lack of mental health services? How much is down to the fact that the systems that the Government have created do not work? We need change but, somehow, it is always jam tomorrow. I want to hear the Government come up with ideas. I do not want speeches that point out that we have spent 14 years buying no jam, then saying that there is no jam, then saying that jamlessness is a problem—but no actual jam comes along. Where is the jam?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am certainly not going to allude to any jam. It may come with my tea later if I am allowed it. As the noble Baroness has alluded to, this conversation is designed to consider what future support for individuals should look at. That is why we are bringing forward this consultation on PIP. As the Prime Minister said on Friday morning, and I was there in person to see him deliver what I thought was a brilliant speech:
“This is not about making the welfare system less generous”.
It is for a greater focus on those “with the greatest needs”, for whom
“we want to make it easier to access”
support “with fewer requirements”. Those who need support will continue to get the support that they need. The consultation will explore changes to the eligibility criteria, the assessment process, as alluded to earlier, and the types of support that can be offered so that the system is better targeted towards individual needs.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, does anyone give any attention to the many millions of trade unionists who are paying the tax bills for all this? We keep on about the need to do things, which I am sure we need to do, but we seem to forget who is paying the taxes to make all this possible. We have to have a better balance. Tax has never been higher for middle-income earners. It needs to be put under control.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend is right. I have been very careful to say—and it is true—that we clearly need to continue to focus on those with the greatest needs. As has been mentioned earlier, we are due to spend £69 billion this year on benefits for people of working age with a disability or health condition. This is not sustainable, as the Prime Minister said himself on Friday morning.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) Order 2024
(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the draft Order laid before the House on 25 January be approved.
Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 18 April.
Goods Vehicles (International Road Transport Permits and Haulage Within the EU) Regulations 2024
(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 4 March be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 April.
Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 23rd April 2024
(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 View all Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 25 March 2024 - large print - (25 Mar 2024)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Amendments 2 to 17.
The Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill has returned to us in good shape thanks, in great part, to the expert input of noble Lords when we first considered the Bill. The Government have therefore made only a small number of amendments to the Bill in the other place, which we will consider today.
Clause 11 ensures that there is clarity for tele- communications operators operating within the IPA framework, as to which regulatory body certain personal data breaches should be notified to. It also provides a statutory basis for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to be notified of such breaches.
Amendments 1 and 2 update this clause to provide a clear route to redress for those impacted by personal data breaches committed by telecoms operators. They ensure that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider and determine complaints about such breaches, within the context of the use of investigatory powers, and grant a remedy.
Turning to Amendments 15 and 16, noble Lords will recall that the Government accepted several amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, on Report in relation to the alternative triple lock process for warrants which enable the intelligence agencies to acquire the communications of parliamentarians. As I set out at the time, while the Government agreed with the bulk of these amendments, our view was that we would need to clarify one relatively small aspect. The inclusion of “routine duties” was overly restrictive and would have undermined the resilience of the triple lock process that these clauses seek to safeguard. Amendments 15 and 16 therefore replace this with “relevant operational awareness” to ensure the necessary flexibility and resilience while maintaining a proportionate scope for delegation.
I turn now to Amendments 3 to 6, which make changes to Clause 14. This clause concerns the restoration of specified public authorities’ general information powers to secure the disclosure of communications data from a telecommunications operator by compulsion. These amendments do not create new powers for these bodies. These amendments limit the restoration of the powers to those public authorities already listed in Schedule 4 to the IPA and those in new Schedule 2A.
Bodies in Schedule 4 to the IPA may use powers within the IPA to acquire communications data for the statutory purposes within the Act. Therefore, it is right that they are also able to use their existing statutory regulatory and supervisory powers outside the IPA in support of their statutory functions, provided there is no intention to use the communications data for the purpose of investigating or prosecuting a criminal offence.
The creation of new Schedule 2A ensures that those bodies which are not in Schedule 4 but have a clear requirement to utilise their existing supervisory and regulatory powers can continue to do so, such as His Majesty’s Treasury in respect of the sanctions regime. This schedule can be amended in future via a new delegated power, ensuring continued parliamentary oversight of which bodies are included.
Once again, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee for their engagement on improving this clause. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the amendments provide greater clarity and ensure that Parliament has oversight of the bodies to which the relevant powers can be restored.
Finally, Amendments 7 to 14 make minor and technical changes to Clause 21 on notification notices, ensuring consistency in language across the Investigatory Powers Act. Amendment 17 removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords and is procedural. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, when I heard that the Government were bringing forward amendments to this Bill in the Commons, I was somewhat suspicious, but I am pleased to say that it seems, after yesterday, the Minister has migrated to a slightly calmer situation today, as the amendments in front of us are all amendments that we can pass without too much ado. Amendments 3 to 6 are useful clarifications of where we should be; the Commons has done a good job in clarifying that area and that should be noted. I am sure that Amendments 15 and 16 will be an understandable change to the original amendment of the noble Lord, Lord West. I would like again to thank the Minister and the Bill team for their openness and their help in working through these amendments and, of course, the previous Bill. With that, we on these Benches are happy to accept these amendments.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, once again, I thank those in the intelligence community who defend our country. I thank all MPs and Peers from both Houses for their dedicated scrutiny of the Bill, which we fully support. As the noble Lord outlined, it is a good Bill that has been improved by your Lordships’ scrutiny, and it benefited from starting in your Lordships’ House before it went to the other place. I thank—as did the noble Lord, Lord Fox—the Bill team for their work and for their genuine engagement with us as the Bill progressed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for the detailed report that he did, which led to much of what we see in the Bill, and it is good to see the noble Lord in his place.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who were involved in the passage of the Bill. I restate my thanks to the intelligence agencies and law enforcement for their contributions to the Bill and of course for the work they do every day to keep this country safe.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that I genuinely thought that I had got away with being the Prime Minister’s diary secretary for once. I am afraid the answer is that I have not.
I thank both noble Lords for their appreciative comments about the Bill team and indeed about the Government. We have tried hard to engage to make the Bill as good as it can be, and by and large I think we have succeeded.
I shall address the specific points that were raised. The noble Lord asked about His Majesty’s Treasury and local authorities. New Schedule 2A has been created to provide Parliament with further clarity on which public authorities will have their regulatory and supervisory information-gathering powers restored by Clause 14. That follows concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord West, and other members of the ISC.
We are aware that His Majesty’s Treasury and local authorities in particular require legal certainty on the exercise of their pre-existing statutory powers in respect of their supervisory and regulatory functions. Other bodies which have been affected by the revocation of powers by Section 12 of the IPA, such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Financial Conduct Authority, are already listed in Schedule 4 as they are able to acquire communications data in support of their criminal investigations under Part 3 of the IPA. There will be other public authorities which have pre-existing information-gathering powers in respect of their supervisory and regulatory functions, but it has not been possible to establish a complete list at this time; instead, we have created a new delegated power to add further bodies to Schedule 2A as necessary.
On the specific questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the existing definition of “local authority” as found at Section 86 of the IPA applies in respect of the communications data acquisition powers under this Act, so it is not mayors. I have, helpfully, been sent what “local authority” means and I will read it into the record. It is a district or county council in England, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, a county council or borough council in Wales, a council constituted under Section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 and a district council in Northern Ireland. In terms of the Treasury and what that involves, it is the Treasury and its arm’s-length bodies.
The noble Lord also asked why we are using the negative procedure, rather than an affirmative one, to add new bodies to Schedule 2A. These amendments limit the effect of Clause 14 and will afford Parliament greater scrutiny than under the original drafting. The House did not object to the original drafting, so I hope we will welcome the additional parliamentary oversight that the amendments provide. As the process will focus solely on ensuring that pre-existing statutory powers can be effectively exercised, an affirmative procedure would be disproportionate. This is because the appropriate in-depth parliamentary scrutiny will have already occurred when relevant bodies were given their statutory responsibilities in the first place. The negative procedure is more appropriate as it allows for additions to be made to the schedule swiftly to ensure that existing statutory powers are not unduly inhibited from being exercised. Since the information-gathering powers are necessary for these bodies to fulfil their regulatory and supervisory functions, any delay could hinder a body from operating effectively. These reinstated powers will be available only where there is no intention to use that data for the purposes of investigating or prosecuting a criminal offence.
The Bill will help our intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies keep pace with developments in technology and changes in the threat landscape. They will help to make the UK a safer place. I remain hugely grateful for their work, and I hope that noble Lords will see fit to agree to the handful of Commons amendments before us today.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2 to 17.
“(1A) In section 65 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (the Tribunal)—
(a) in subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) to consider and determine any complaints made to them which, in accordance with subsection (4AA), are complaints for which the Tribunal is the appropriate forum;”;
(b) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4AA) The Tribunal is the appropriate forum for a complaint if it is a complaint by an individual about a relevant personal data breach.
(4AB) In subsection (4AA) “relevant personal data breach” means a personal data breach that the individual is informed of under section 235A(5) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (serious personal data breaches).”
(1B) In section 67 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (exercise of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction)—
(a) in subsection (1)(b), after “65(2)(b)” insert “, (ba)”;
(b) in subsection (5)—
(i) the words from “section” to the end become paragraph (a), and
(ii) after that paragraph insert “, or
(b) section 65(2)(ba) if it is made more than one year after the personal data breach to which it relates.”;
(c) in subsection (6), for “reference” substitute “complaint or reference has been”.
(1C) In section 68 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Tribunal procedure), for subsection (8) substitute—
“(8) In this section “relevant Commissioner” means—
(a) the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or any other Judicial Commissioner,
(b) the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for Northern Ireland, or
(c) the Information Commissioner.””
“(5A) After subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) In this section “specified public authority” means a public authority which is—
(a) listed in Schedule 2A, or
(b) listed in column 1 of the table in Schedule 4.
(5B) The Secretary of State or the Treasury may by regulations modify Schedule 2A by—
(a) adding a public authority to, or
(b) removing a public authority from, the list in that Schedule.””
“(6A) In section 267 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (regulations), in subsection (5), after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) regulations under section 12(5B),”.”
“(6B) In the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, after Schedule 2 insert—
“SCHEDULE 2A
SPECIFIED PUBLIC AUTHORITIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 12
1 The Treasury.
2 A local authority.
In this Schedule “local authority” has the same meaning as in Part 3 (see section 86).””
““relevant operator” has the same meaning as in that section.”
“(b) has the necessary operational awareness to decide whether to give approvals under subsection (2).”
“(b) has the necessary operational awareness to decide whether to give approvals under subsection (3) or (6).”
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Tuesday 23rd April 2024
(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 View all Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 57-II(Rev)(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Revised Marshalled List) - (23 Apr 2024)
16:59 - Division on Amendment 19 - Ayes: 82 / Noes: 211 - Amendment 19 disagreed.
17:35 - Division on Amendment 57 - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 192 - Amendment 57 agreed.
17:46 - Division on Amendment 58 - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 192 - Amendment 58 agreed.
18:54 - Division on Amendment 77 - Ayes: 168 / Noes: 177 - Amendment 77 disagreed.
19:53 - Division on Amendment 80 - Ayes: 144 / Noes: 154 - Amendment 80 disagreed.
Baroness Brinton
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) must make provision for a person to be able to obtain free of charge, on request, a transcript of the court’s summing up and sentencing remarks from a trial in which—(a) the person was a victim of a crime, and(b) that crime is tried in a court where the hearing is recorded.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment will provide all victims with a right to free transcripts of the sentencing remarks and the judge’s summing up where the trial takes place in a court where the hearing is recorded.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 19 in my name was originally proposed by my honourable friend Sarah Olney MP in another place. It highlights a scandalous failure towards victims, especially in the most serious crimes such as rape, serious sexual assault and stalking. It is completely unacceptable in this day and age that victims are forced to pay thousands of pounds to access a transcript of their own case while defendants can access them as part of their basic rights.
Let me quote:
“Accessing transcripts from proceedings in serious criminal cases is not only a fundamental right of victims but is also essential for maintaining transparency and accountability within the justice system”.
These are not my words, or Sarah Olney MP’s words; they are the words of the Government’s own Minister, Mike Freer.
In order to recover and cope, victims and family members need to be able to understand the reason a verdict has been reached, or the reason a certain sentence was imposed. Without this, many are left traumatised and are unable to move on with their lives. We have heard from many victims, saying they are constantly advised by the police and prosecutors not to attend a trial after they have given their evidence and, worse, not to attend sentencing hearings. Letters from the witness care unit literally capitalised the word “NOT” in “You are NOT required to attend”. Furthermore, videolinks to observe trials are rarely offered or facilitated for victims or bereaved families.
Unfortunately, the Government have cited the cost of court transcripts delivered through contracts with private, profit-making companies, and these prices can be prohibitive. With that, we agree. While the average sentencing remarks may only be £45 to £60, according to the Government, many complex cases can be significantly higher just for these comments—up to £200. The judge’s summing up can be higher still and we have heard of figures of over £500.
We are very grateful to the Government, and to the Minister particularly, for the meetings we had since Committee. We note that there is a pilot proposed. While the pilot proposed by the Government is welcome for these victims, it simply does not go far enough. It would, for example, not support the mother whose partner attempted to murder her and who is unable to move on. The pilot is very narrow in scope, running only for one year, only applying to victims of rape and serious sexual offences, and only giving access to sentencing remarks. Furthermore, we are not quite sure that the Government are clear on what they are hoping the pilot will achieve or demonstrate. We have discussed, with the Minister, the issue about data, and that remains an issue.
Ministers have suggested that transcripts are expensive to produce manually and the technology to automate the process is either expensive or not yet up to the standard. We do understand this point from the Government. This is why my amendment has been tabled, following discussion in Committee. Automation of the process at this stage would be needed only if the cost of producing transcripts was beyond the reach of government. In limiting this amendment to only sentencing remarks and summing up, we believe the cost, while prohibitive to many victims individually, is able to be taken on by the Government to provide open justice.
In conversations, the Government have questioned whether sentencing remarks really present a barrier. We know that they do, and I will give two very brief examples in a minute. Ministers have, on at least two occasions, said victims can go to a Crown Court and listen to the relevant audio recordings from the trial but may not record it themselves or transcribe it. This is wholly impractical, unknown among professionals, and we have never seen it happen once in practice. Having spoken with members of the judiciary, they were unaware that the practice even existed. The victims we are aware of who have tried to access this have all been denied.
The Minister has also previously stated that, in certain cases, a copy of the sentencing remarks can be made available to the public free of charge at the judge’s discretion. If this is true, members of the judiciary whom we have talked to are also unaware of this. We are certainly aware of some cases where they have been refused.
Here are two very brief cases. Juliana Terlizzi was quoted thousands of pounds for a transcript of her trail, and said:
“The trial was a culmination of almost two years I had fought to bring a dangerous, prolific sexual predator to justice. I was shocked to find out that I had to pay over £7,000 to get the transcript and I knew I couldn’t afford that”.
Rowan, whose daughter went through a gruelling court experience said:
“My daughter remains traumatised by her two days on the witness stand where she was character assassinated by the defence barrister.”
To prove the defence acted outside their own code of conduct, the family needed a copy of the court transcript and was quoted £22,000. This puts justice beyond the reach of victims.
There are other victims as well whom I have met and talked to: Charlotte, David, Victoria, Lily and Rosie. Those are not all their real names, because some of them are too scared to have their names mentioned. I particularly thank Claire Waxman and her team at the London Victims’ Commissioner’s office.
I have also signed some other amendments in this group and will be very brief. I have signed Amendments 57 and 59 on collaboration and adding stalking to the duty to collaborate. I have also added my name to Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on supporting a parliamentary report, once every three years, setting out the position regarding stalking. Importantly, I have also signed the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s Amendment 70, about the Secretary of State including statutory guidance on sustainable, multi-year contracts. One of the big problems we have with victim services at the moment is that there is nothing in the medium term, let alone long-term planning.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, a number of the amendments in this group are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Thornton.
Addressing first Amendment 19, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has spoken to, we agree with every word she said about the importance of this amendment. Access to transcripts for victims seems basic, given that this is a victims Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, eloquently set out her case. Unfortunately, if she is to press this question to a Division, we will abstain. I regret that position, but it is a reality of the costs involved implicit within the amendment. I know that the Minister is going to acknowledge the desirability of court transcripts; I know that judges acknowledge that as well. There needs to be a technical fix for this, which will take a certain amount of investment and redrafting of existing contracts. But it is eminently achievable and I hope that the Minister will explain how the Government propose to achieve this end.
Moving on to Amendment 57, which is in my noble friend’s name, this proposed new clause would place a duty on specified public authorities to co-operate with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses. The Government have previously agreed that it was vital for bodies to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. However, the Government Minister, Mr Argar, previously stated that the Government chose not to add the duty to the Bill as they
“have not seen any evidence that there have been problems with a lack of co-operation in practice and therefore feel that the additional duty is unnecessary”.—[Official Report, Commons, Victims and Prisoners Bill Committee, 29/6/23; col. 258.]
They concluded that it was neither “necessary or proportionate” to alter the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner in this way.
The proposed clause would allow the commissioner to request a specific public authority to co-operate with them in any way they considered necessary for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the victims’ code. It also places a duty on the specified public authority to comply with that request. The clause would increase the powers and authority of the Victims’ Commissioner, in line with those of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who is the most recent commissioner to be granted that power. These powers are essential for commissioners to drive forward change, and to hold agencies and national government to account for their role in responding to domestic abuse. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to grant the Victims’ Commissioner the same authority. I know that the Minister has moved in a number of ways on this issue, and I will listen very carefully to what he says when considering how to proceed with this amendment.
Amendment 61 is in my name. It seeks to ensure that consideration of children’s support needs is built into the heart of the Bill. We require that authorities must provide evidence in the published strategy of how they are meeting victims’ and survivors’ needs under the duty to collaborate. The needs of children are distinct from those of adults. It is vital that this legislation directs named authorities to explicitly consider this when delivering victim support services. They must be held accountable.
The support that children and young people require after experiencing abuse or exploitation is specialised in nature. It demands services and practitioners that understand their specific needs and requirements. We must support authorities to get it right for children. In order for the duty to collaborate model to be successful, the Bill must direct attention to and seek consultation with those who are best placed to understand the needs of children affected by abuse and exploitation.
I remember attending various meetings with other noble Lords taking part in this Report stage about the very specialist support that children need and the ambition to arrange things so that children have to tell their story only once. That is a difficult ambition to achieve and it works only when different authorities integrate their support, with people who understand children’s particular vulnerabilities. This amendment seeks to address that issue.
Amendments 72 and 73 are in my name. They state that the Secretary of State must issue guidance about specified victim support roles in England, but that Welsh Ministers should issue guidance in Wales. I tabled the amendment on behalf of the Welsh Government. The same amendment was tabled during similar stages in the other place. The Government have tabled Amendment 75, because previously there was no requirement in the guidance for the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers. The government amendment is an improvement to the Bill—we acknowledge that—because it will require the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers about the guidance to be issued under Clause 15. Nevertheless, I will listen with interest to the Minister’s response to Amendments 72 and 73, although I acknowledge that Amendment 75 has gone part way to meeting the requests in the amendments in my name. I will certainly not be pressing my amendments to a vote.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, this is quite a large group and I will speak briefly on the amendments I have my name to or on which I have something to say.
The first amendment in the group, from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is on free transcripts. What I would ask the Government—I think the answer will be yes—is whether they agree in principle that this is and should be a right of victims: a proportionate right, without exorbitant costs and without needing pages and pages of transcripts. Do they agree that it is a fundamental right for victims to have the essence of what is said in a trial that involves them or their perpetrator, to understand the deliberations and the verdict that the judge and jury have come to, in a form and manner that is helpful to them and that they can use? In the same way that prisoners or perpetrators who have been found guilty go to appeal, the right that they have to access transcripts—quite rightly—is completely disproportionate when compared with the current right of victims to get almost any proceedings from the trials that concern them.
I think we are looking and hoping for an acceptance by the Government that the principle is right, understandable and correct; we are trying to find a practical way of achieving a form for that right to be exercised in a proportionate way for victims. While the RASSO model is a good start, it is clearly quite limited in extent. I will listen very carefully to what the Minister says in reply, and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will come to her own conclusions about what she decides to do.
Amendment 57, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is about the duty to collaborate. The Minister may recall that, last week, we spoke about the fact that, if there is not a duty to collaborate, certain agencies will take it upon themselves to interpret statutory guidance in a way that is convenient to them, rather than in a way that is aligned to the requirements of the relevant commissioner.
In particular, I mention the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Nicole Jacobs. I was able to catch up with Nicole yesterday afternoon—I suspect it was not very long after she ran into the Minister—and we had a discussion. The content of the discussion was that, even if you have statutory guidance that says one should be collaborating, the fact is that some agencies will take that on board in the spirit it is intended and will collaborate, while others will say that they understand in theory that it is very important and should be done but will decide that they have other things that are more important, or that they do not have the time, money or resources to respond. That makes the role of a commissioner extraordinarily difficult.
Data is king. Knowing what is going on is fundamental to interpreting what is and is not working. If you do not have systematic, reliable data from every part of the country, it is very difficult to do one’s job and give sensible advice to the Government. It is hard, frankly, to look victims in the face and say, “We are doing everything we can for you”. Despite the fact that statutory guidance is written down, some agencies are deciding for themselves whether or not to comply. This is clearly unsatisfactory.
I asked the Domestic Abuse Commissioner what she would change, with the benefit of hindsight, about the way in which this was encapsulated in the Domestic Abuse Act and the guidance. She said that it is ultimately about accountability in so many areas; it is about who is ultimately responsible and who will be held to account if something which should be happening is not. At the moment, that is quite unclear. Having 43 different police forces, with police and crime commissioners on top, makes it rather difficult. The commissioner’s instinct was that perhaps one should hold police and crime commissioners’ feet to the fire and make them primarily responsible for ensuring that all the agencies in their jurisdiction take the statutory guidance seriously and comply. If they did not comply, some very awkward questions should then be asked of the police and crime commissioner to find out why.
Another thing that would be helpful is something that we have started to do in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. We have a table which lists each department and ranks them by the egregiousness and inadequacies of their Explanatory Memoranda and the idiocy of their impact assessments. We are hoping that this will concentrate minds because, once again, data is king. It is extraordinarily important that one is able to measure what is going on.
I will listen carefully to what the Minister says on this and to the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. From the well-intended evidence about what we hoped and thought was going to happen in the Domestic Abuse Act, we have a chance to learn from what we thought was going to work well and which is not working so well and to try to do it better this time.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I am so sorry; I thought that the noble Lord had finished.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
Nearly—soon, I devoutly hope, but I have more to talk about, sorry. My Amendment 59 is about the inclusion of stalking within the scope of the duty to collaborate. Alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, I had the privilege of speaking at a conference of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust this morning, because this week is National Stalking Awareness Week. I say on the record that we are extremely grateful that the Home Office issued some new guidance yesterday on the creation of stalking protection orders, which has significantly changed the game. Previously, one had to reach the level of criminality for a stalking protection order to be put in place, but it is now at the level of a civil offence, which is a great improvement that we are extremely grateful for. But I can only emphasise again how important it is that stalking is included. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust made a freedom of information request to every police force about what they were doing on stalking, and only seven had a dedicated stalking officer in place, while 12 of them admitted to having none at all. You have to concentrate on this really hard to make people realise that they have to take it seriously.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester will, I am sure, speak to his amendments, so I will not go on about them, other than to say that I broadly support them. I will listen carefully to the arguments he puts forward and to the Minister’s reply. I understand that any plea that involves pounds and pence does not go down terribly well with His Majesty’s Government at the moment, but I will listen carefully to what they have to say.
Lastly, Amendments 62 and 71 are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, who is unable to be here. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, will speak to those later—I see her nodding, so I do not need to go on at length about them. They are part of our campaign, working with the children’s coalition, to better support children through the provision of services and of advocacy for children, both of which are incredibly important.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 60, 64 and 70, which echo amendments on support services for victims that I tabled in Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for his responses at that stage and for his kindness in meeting me and representatives of Refuge and Women’s Aid in the interim. In light of those conversations, it is not my intention to press any of these amendments to a Division today. However, I hope that, in this debate and in the Minister’s response to it, we can clarify a little further how His Majesty’s Government will seek to ensure that victims across the country have access to quality support services provided by organisations that hold their confidence and understand their specific circumstances. As we are now on Report, I will not repeat the detailed arguments of Committee, but I think their force still stands.
Amendment 60 places a duty on the Secretary of State to define in statutory guidance
“the full breadth of specialist community-based support domestic abuse services”.
This would ensure that victims receive quality support that meets their needs, and that they are made aware of the variety of community-based support available to them. Victims seek various forms of support, which might include advocacy, outreach, floating support, formal counselling or being part of a support group. All of these have a vital role to play. The guidance could cover the holistic support intersectional advocacy that is often provided by what we call “by and for” services —these are particularly helpful for black and minoritised women—as well as those providing specialist advocacy to deaf and disabled people and LGBT+ victims.
The implementation of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 demonstrates why a clear and precise definition is now critical. Under Part 4 of that Act, a statutory duty was placed on local authorities to fund domestic abuse support in safe accommodation. We found that organisations with a much wider remit than domestic abuse, and often services that had no expertise at all, because they are eligible for refuge funding under the duty, have now moved into that area, entering a sector previously run by specialists who really understood the service users.
What we find when local commissioning bodies rely too much on non-specialist organisations—which can be for financial reasons, or because they are easier to get hold of or to deal with—the result is that victims, particularly those from minority backgrounds or specialised contexts, receive much poorer support, yet these are, of course, often among the most vulnerable in our society. The amendment would simply ensure that commissioning bodies have to pay attention to their needs. Although I am not pushing it to a Division, my question to the Minister is: in the absence of placing a duty on the Secretary of State in the Bill, what assurances can he offer us today that the Government will place appropriate pressure on local commissioning bodies to procure the full range of specialist services from specialist organisations that such victims need?
Amendment 64 would require the Secretary of State to address the funding gaps identified by joint strategic needs assessments and support local authorities, integrated care boards and police and crime commissioners to deliver their duties under the duty to collaborate. The amendment has been framed so as to avoid requiring the Secretary of State to go outside the normal spending review processes, which I hope will give some assurances that this is not about trying to break the bank.
Without sufficient funding, it will not be possible for local commissioners to have regard to their joint assessments when producing strategies and providing services. The gaps in service provision that will likely be identified are already known, and there simply is not the funding available to plug them. Ultimately, the scale of the funding shortfall facing local commissioners —and in turn those specialist services—means that the Government do have a role to play.
Although the Ministry of Justice has committed to increasing funding for victim and witness support services to £147 million per year until 2024-25, this funding is not ring-fenced to domestic abuse services. Of course, existing commitments are simply insufficient to meet the demand around the country. Women’s Aid has found that a minimum of £427 million a year is really needed to fund specialist domestic abuse services in England: £238 million for community-based services and £189 million for refuges. Moreover, specialist services are now feeling the effects of this concerning rise in local authorities issuing Section 114 notices. This is a crisis that will only get worse.
However, I welcome the Minister’s statement in Committee that a ministerially led national oversight forum will be set up to scrutinise the local strategies. This could be the vehicle to identify systemic shortfalls in service provision, and hence to put pressure on commissioning bodies to plug the gaps. It could also provide the evidence to justify more adequate funding settlements, with specific requirements to include specialist community-based services. I would therefore be grateful if he could say a little more about how the ministerial-led forum he has promised will function.
Finally, Amendment 70 would require the Secretary of State to include advice on sustainable, multi-year contracts with statutory guidance. I know that the Government are already committed in principle to multi-year contracts in the victims funding strategy. The problem is that in practice, this is not happening. Refuge monitors all commissioning opportunities nationally, and half of commissioning opportunities are for less than three years. There is no enforceability mechanism for the victims’ funding strategy, and in the absence of that, short-term contracts are prevalent across the specialist domestic abuse sector. Such contracts make recruitment and retention of staff more difficult as services cannot offer fixed-term contracts. That leaves survivors forced to find alternative sources of ongoing support at critical points in their recovery and prevents services being able to take root properly in local communities. This is why I feel that a statutory requirement is necessary.
This amendment is a change from the one I proposed in Committee, where I sought to put the requirement into the Bill. I am glad that the Minister acknowledges the problem and would be grateful if, in responding, he could set out what further action the Government will take to ensure that longer-term contracts for specialist service providers become the norm and not the exception.
Finally, I support other amendments in this group, in particular Amendment 79 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, but will leave my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester to speak to that.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly again in relation to the provision of transcripts covered by Amendment 19. I fully understand the point and the force of the amendment and wish to emphasise a point that perhaps the noble Baroness did not. She is not, in fact, talking about transcripts of the whole trial or transcripts of sections of evidence. I could not help suspecting that the costly examples she gave were of much lengthier transcripts than transcripts of the summing-up and sentencing remarks about which she seeks to make provision under this amendment.
To that extent, the noble Baroness may well have undermined her own case, because I suspect that transcripts of the sentencing remarks and summing up are much cheaper, but I cannot give expert evidence on that. Particularly important to some victims is the transcript of the sentencing remarks, because that gives the victim, and those who may advise or support them or provide them with therapy and counselling, an appreciation of what the judge assessed to have been the culpability of the offender and the impact on the victim.
As far as it concerns the provision of a transcript of the summing up and sentencing remarks, I support this amendment. This is subject to the caveat I mentioned at an earlier stage: in the case of sexual offences the distribution of transcripts needs to be subject to safeguards, because otherwise they can and do fall into the wrong hands. From time to time, I have been asked to authorise the distribution of a transcript, and a lot of thought has to go into who can and cannot see them and what happens to them once provided. If they get into the wrong hands, it will do the victim, among others, a great disservice.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 57. Why would I not, since it is a duty to collaborate and co-operate? We like a lot of “C”s in this Bill. I also support what has been said about transcripts. It is so important to have the sentencing remarks, so that further down the line you have the time to read them and digest them. I have some sympathy and understanding of what it feels like.
This amendment is so important to future Victims’ Commissioners. In Committee, I told noble Lords that it was time we gave the Victims’ Commissioner the tools to do the job that Parliament intended. I am not on the state pension yet, but this amendment would mark the coming of age of the role of Victims’ Commissioner. It would require criminal justice agencies listed under the victims’ code to co-operate with commissioners not as a favour or because they happen to get on with them but because they have a statutory duty to do so. This is how it should be.
When I met my noble and learned friend the Minister to discuss this amendment, he told me that commissioners had very different roles, and that the authority given to one commissioner should not automatically be given to others. I do not disagree but—I say this with the greatest respect to him—that is not why I back this amendment. All commissioners rely on the co-operation of government departments and agencies to deliver an outcome. They do not, as a rule, have executive powers invested in them. Whatever the differences in their remits, whether it be victims, domestic abuse, children or modern slavery, the underlying requirement to work collaboratively with key stakeholders remains the same. All commissioners are dependent on the co-operation of others if they are to effect change.
My office was asked to provide examples of where agencies have not co-operated in the past. We duly provided this information. I do not intend to share our examples today, but I believe they made the case for the change that we are calling for. To allay any concerns, we recognise that sometimes data might simply not be available or that there may be very good reasons for not sharing it with us. However, the reasons for withholding information are not always explained to us, and we do not always get the impression that agencies have considered whether they hold other sources of data that might be helpful as a substitute.
In conclusion, when asking my team members for other examples, I was concerned to be told that they generally do not ask for information as they know that it will not be shared with them. That cannot be right. If further Victims’ Commissioners are to be part of the solution in driving change and improvement, they need the support and co-operation of criminal justice colleagues. I await to hear what the Minister will say, but I am tempted to support the amendment if it is put to a vote.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 79, in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, would ensure that migrant victim-survivors of domestic abuse subject to the “no recourse to public funds” condition would be fully entitled to services covered by the victims’ code. I return to this amendment because of the unsatisfactory ministerial response to it in Committee, which simply repeated what was said in the House of Commons—which I had already challenged—and which tried to reassure us that the amendment was not necessary. However, on-the-ground organisations—notably Southall Black Sisters, to which I pay great tribute for its indefatigable work in this area—and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner see it as very necessary. Moreover, in February, the UN special rapporteur on VAWG recommended scrapping the NRPF condition altogether for this group.
In Committee, I asked for an explanation as to why the Government have still not implemented a long-term solution for this group, despite three years of pilots—now extended to 2025—which have been subject to both an official and unofficial evaluation, that clearly demonstrated where reform is needed, and despite strong pressure not just from the sector but from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner herself. The pilot was set up because the Government said that they needed more evidence. While that need was disputed at the time, surely now they have sufficient evidence to put in place the long-term solution that is needed. Once again, I ask: why have they not done so?
I hope that the Minister will not try to argue that the reforms to what was the destitute domestic violence concession—now the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession—spelled out in his letter to me and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, constitute such a solution. While these reforms extend the concession’s protection to partners of worker and student visa holders, they do not also extend eligibility for settlement under the domestic violence indefinite leave to remain.
Southall Black Sisters dismisses this reform as a red herring. In a letter to the Home Secretary, written along with over 50 other organisations, it makes clear:
“We oppose this so-called ‘extension’ because it creates a cliff edge at the end of three months for those who are unable to pursue any settlement route. They are usually expected to leave the country, which will discourage many victim-survivors from coming forward for fear of deportation, rendering the extension ineffective”.
It is also concerned that
“creating a separate route which is a watered-down version of the DDVC and DVILR model”—
the value of which, it is worth pointing out, is recognised internationally—
“will create confusion for victim-survivors and professionals, putting victim-survivors at risk of not making informed decisions about their rights”.
That is all the more true, given the near total destruction of legal aid and the lack of adequate funding for specialist services that could provide advice.
Here, I express my support for Amendment 60, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, as specialist community-based domestic abuse services, particularly “by and for” organisations, are a vital element of the domestic abuse victim-survivors infrastructure.
Returning to the question about “no recourse to public funds”, the DAC has commented that the revised scheme
“doesn’t even scratch the surface of what is truly needed to support migrant victims and survivors of domestic abuse. The time-limited support of the MVDAC, and its separation from the DVILR provides no clear pathway for migrant survivors to regularise their status”.
She explained that we know that the two schemes
“work best when they work together”.
Far from providing the long-term solution that she and others have been calling for, she fears that this reform
“is little more than a 3-month sticking-plaster and will discourage migrant survivors from coming forward”.
She calls instead for
“thoughtful investment to ensure that all migrant survivors have access to public funds, specialist domestic abuse support, and a route to regularise their status. Anything short of this simply won’t be enough”.
In view of these criticisms of the reforms outlined in the Minister’s letter, from both specialist front-line organisations and the DAC, can he please address their concerns in his response? Will he provide an explanation as to why there is still no long-term solution to ensure the adequate protection of migrant victim survivors of domestic abuse?
Finally, if the only real objection to the amendment is that it is not necessary, what harm would there be in simply accepting it, to show that the Government are at least listening to some of the concerns of front-line organisations and the DAC?
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 60 and 64 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, to which I have added my name. I declare my interests as set out in the register. The charity that I run operates a specialist domestic abuse service. I want to use my charity as an example of why these amendments are needed.
Muslim Women’s Network operates a national specialist helpline. It runs other projects in addition, but because it is not solely a domestic abuse service it has been excluded from stakeholder meetings by decision-makers, and also excluded from funding. For this reason, it is important to define the full breadth of specialist community-based domestic abuse services, which can then be used to hold decision-makers to account if they are excluded from being consulted, or when it comes to applying for funding. It can be quite short-sighted if organisations have that intersectional experience of cases. They also hold important data.
There is a huge funding gap, which has been mentioned. Barriers are put in the way particularly of small, specialist minority-ethnic organisations. We have seen this more in recent years under the current Government. As an example, there are very high thresholds to make grant applications. Thresholds can be so high that they exclude minority groups from putting in funding applications unless they form a coalition, which can be burdensome for a small organisation. The other problem this poses is that, if they form a coalition and there is a lead partner that gets a large chunk of money, most of that money goes out to the other partners in the coalition. That organisation then goes to, say, the charitable foundation sector to try to obtain funding and is told, “You’ve gone over the income threshold; you can’t apply for the funding because you have plenty of money coming in”. It is not considered that most of that money is going back out—this poses another barrier for small, specialist organisations.
These types of issues need to be considered to effectively commission relevant victim support services. I support the other amendments in this group, of course.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 19 from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, principally because it is a good idea in principle that victims should have the reasons why the sentence has been decided. You could argue that the summing up can be a very long process and has to account for all the evidence that is offered; I can therefore understand why the costs might mount for the summing up, but I cannot understand why the costs would mount for the sentencing.
It seems vital for the victim to understand why a sentence was given. There has not always been a reasoned decision as to why a sentence was given, but they are provided more often now, not least because the suspect has the right to appeal their sentence, and they need to understand—as does any appellate court—the reason why a sentence was awarded.
I would have thought, although I have been quietly informed otherwise by a noble and learned neighbour, that all judgments, and the reasons for the sentence, would be written down. Apparently, they are more often ex tempore. That seems a little dangerous to me, but I am not in a position to argue. Apparently, there are times when sentences, and the reasons for them, are written down and published—and there must be times when they are transcribed for appeals et cetera—so, if they are available, that is not an extra cost.
In any case, I would have thought that judgments need to be recorded. If they are recorded, why can they not be shared, certainly for the victims’ reasons? I understand that there might have to be a cut-off point—perhaps for the seriousness of the sentence given, which may be imprisonment compared with a more summary offence—but I cannot quite understand why the sentencing decisions cannot be shared with the victims. It might well be that they do not want to be in court when the sentence is announced, or that they are not available to be in court. Quite often, nobody knows the time at which the sentencing decision will be made: nobody knows exactly when the hearing will finish, when the jury will decide its findings or when the judge will be available to deliver the sentencing judgment.
I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and if she decides to divide the House I will certainly support it. I realise that the Opposition have decided not to, but I am a little surprised.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, from listening to this debate, I am struck again and again by how so much of what we are saying was said in this House during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill. We need to listen to and be aware of that. I hope the Minister will reflect on that.
I agree with much of what has been said this afternoon. I will briefly add my voice in support of Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which I have added my name. I simply echo her frustration that we are no further forward in securing a long-term solution for migrant victim survivors of domestic abuse who are subject to the no recourse to public funds condition. I raised this during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill. As has been said, we were told then that the Government needed more evidence before implementing policy change, and here we are three years later, with so much evidence produced, both officially and unofficially, about the need for reform but a reluctance from the Government to make the much-needed change. I simply hope that the Minister might answer the very valid questions raised by the noble Baroness, especially on the inadequacy of the reform to the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I fully support my noble friend Lady Brinton’s Amendment 19 and her passionate and common-sense contribution, which I hope the Minister will consider. I will speak on Amendments 62 and 71, to which I have put my name.
Child abuse and exploitation affects hundreds of thousands of children across this country each year. Sadly, any child, in any place, can be a victim of abuse. Children are also disproportionately impacted by abuse. The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse found that children are the victims of 40% of sexual offences. Being a victim of abuse has a devastating effect on children, with the impacts often staying with them for the rest of their lives. Yes, childhood lasts a lifetime.
Despite this, we are leaving our most vulnerable children without access to essential child-specific victim support services and child-specific victim support roles. It is key that, when commissioners decide what services and roles to commission to support victims, they must pay attention and due regard to the need for child-specific victim support services and roles to meet the need in their local area.
That is why I put my name to Amendments 62 and 71. These amendments would strengthen the duty to collaborate in the Bill and have a huge impact for children who have experienced the most horrific crimes. Child-specific victim support services play a crucial role in helping a child to start to recover from abuse and trauma, giving children a space to work through their trauma and offering mental health and counselling services.
However, support services are hugely underfunded and undervalued, and children are facing a postcode lottery in accessing them. Recent research by the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse found that across England and Wales there are only 468 services providing support to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. This is despite an estimated half a million children suffering from some form of sexual abuse every year. Barnardo’s, which offers child sexual exploitation services—I declare an interest as its vice-president—has found that an additional 1,900 child independent domestic violence advisers and almost 500 child independent sexual violence advisers are needed across England and Wales to support the number of identified child victims of domestic and sexual abuse.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this group but, having heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I want to add my 100% support for what she has just said. As a family judge for something like 35 years, I tried cases of sexual abuse against children. I also happened to do a report on the diocese of Chichester, and I met adult members of that group who had suffered serious sexual abuse. It lasts a lifetime, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said. I particularly realised it when I met these young men who had suffered abuse from clergy, I am sad to say—one of whom went to prison and one of whom died before. It lasted years and years. Everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, is entirely right, and I support it tremendously.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I was surprised when there seemed to be a hiatus—I had not allowed for his need to draw a breath. He mentioned his conversation this morning with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. I am not surprised to hear what she said. I recall that, before the Bill even arrived in this House, she was making her views about a duty to collaborate very clear and well known.
I simply wanted to support my noble friend in her amendment on transcripts. I have to say that sitting through most of the Committee and Second Reading of this Bill has really made me reflect on how victims can be treated as almost peripheral to a trial, because inevitably there is a focus on the defendant. It is inevitable because the court is determining guilt or—I was going to say innocence—not guilt. It would never have occurred to me that the availability of a transcript might depend on whether it has to be available to the defendant.
As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, this is quite a narrow amendment. The Minister was very clear about the constraints and difficulties. As well as being narrow, this amendment would reduce costs, which we were talking about at the previous stage. It is important that we pursue this.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and Amendments 62 and 71, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. In this, as ever, I must declare my interest as a state secondary school teacher.
The great thing about following the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is that it is like somebody doing your homework for you. All the way through this stage of the Bill, we have talked about children as being separate victims, and we got the “Uncle Tom Cobley and all” reason back—in that, if you have to mention one, you have to mention all in this. I think we have to be specific. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and I went to the Lighthouse child house and saw its model. We saw how, when victims are treated specifically, we can get higher levels of prosecution, better health for them in future and save money in the outcome. Why would you not do that?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I first bring forth the Government’s Amendment 75, which requires that Welsh Ministers be consulted on any guidance on victim support roles under Clause 15, so far as the content relates to devolved matters. Victim support roles may operate across criminal justice settings and include devolved health and local authority responsibilities. It is therefore right and entirely in line with the devolution settlement that Welsh Ministers are properly and fully consulted and that the Welsh context is properly reflected in the resulting guidance that will flow from that. I warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his Amendments 72 and 73, which relate to this matter. It is the Government’s view that government Amendment 75 covers that ground and that it is no longer necessary for the noble Lord to press his amendment in this respect.
Amendment 61 is about consultation with providers who are under a duty to collaborate. It would create a mandatory requirement for relevant authorities to consult those providing support to child victims during the formulation of their strategy under Clause 13. We have just heard moving contributions on children. As I said last week during the debate, the Government have been clear throughout Part 1 that the distinct needs of children should indeed be taken into account. That is reflected in particular in Clauses 13(4) and 15(5), which specifically relate to children, now defined as individuals under the age of 18. Those clauses, among other things, require the commissioners to make reasonable efforts to obtain the views of relevant victims, which will expressly include children. The guidance will underpin that duty and set out best practice for consulting child victims and those who provide services to such victims.
We have fully discussed children. I do not think I need repeat anything that I have already said. The position of children is very widely recognised. Therefore, in the Government’s view, Amendment 61 is overtaken by the provisions that already exist in the Bill and what has already been said on behalf of the Government in this respect.
I come to Amendment 79 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, which relates to support for victims with no recourse to public funds. I thank her for tabling that amendment. The code is clear that victims are entitled to access services, including support services, under the code regardless of their resident status. As has been mentioned, there is also access to funding and support through the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession. That mechanism was expanded last February to give victims who are here as the partner of a worker or student a short period of lawful status, financial stability and support while they consider their future options. That is a major extension of the concession that was first introduced in 2012.
Of course, the Government have heard the concerns raised about the need for a longer-term solution in this matter. Basically, two points arise. First, this is not that easy to address in the context of the wider immigration system and immigration policy. We cannot ignore the fact that there is a risk of creating a route that is attractive to some who seek to shortcut or abuse the immigration system, rather than the genuine victims of domestic abuse whom we all seek to support. That has to be worked through. However, if I may speak frankly, while the Government will of course continue to support this important matter, which has been raised many times in recent years, resources are not unlimited and this must now take its place in the next spending review. No doubt the Government will then come to a view as to how resources are allocated.
In the meantime, there is support under the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession. There is also the support for the migrant victim scheme, which provides wraparound support, including accommodation, subsistence and counselling to victims with no recourse to public funds. As I understand it, that has supported over 1,200 victims since April 2021. I would like to go further towards the noble Baroness and others who have supported this amendment, but I hope that what I have been able to say will at least persuade her not to press it further.
I come now to Amendments 60, 64, 66 and 67, which variously relate to guidance defining specialist community-based services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and so on, as well as the funding gap, a requirement that sufficient funding is provided annually to the relevant authorities to commission the relevant victim support services, and the establishment of cross-government “by and for” funding services. It is quite a large group, but your Lordships will have the general picture.
First, I very much thank the right reverend Prelate and others for their engagement on these amendments, along with representatives from the sector. Of course, the duty to collaborate under the Bill will need to have regard to the joint needs assessments, and the local strategies, which will be published, should include evidence of how the relevant authorities have carried out their needs assessments, as well as how those assessments have informed commissioning decisions.
I can commit that noble Lords will see in the draft guidance, shortly to be available, that it will set a clear expectation for local commissioners to share both a self-contained joint needs assessment document and joint strategies with the Ministry of Justice to enable the Government to bring together local intelligence on need. I very much hope and expect that this will provide the national framework for addressing the problems raised in this debate.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group, and particularly the Minister for his response. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for his clarification of which parts of the court process are concerned. I was quoting both the judge’s summing up and judgment as well as the bigger costs for a wider trial transcript. I was trying to make the point that it can be asked for now but it is entirely at the judge’s discretion whether it happens and therein lies the problem, which is why we find ourselves here.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his help. He said: why can sentencing not be shared? I think that is one of the key points here.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his explanation but the difference between my amendment and the pilot is that the pilot remains at the judge’s discretion, which means that it becomes very difficult to collect any data on the efficacy of allowing victims to have these decisions at the point of judgment.
I was very moved by the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, relating to Amendment 57 —which I did not comment on earlier—and if the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, wishes to test the opinion of the House, these Benches will support her.
I believe that victims need to see progress in this area. I recognise that my amendment is not what they really want but it would be a step forward and, on that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bellamy
“(8A) The victims’ code may make different provision for different areas.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is a drafting change to reflect current practice not to treat provision for different areas as provision for different purposes.
“(8A) In considering whether to exercise the power in subsection (8)(a), the Secretary of State must have regard to the particular needs of victims who are under the age of 18 or who have protected characteristics within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State, when considering whether to make different provision in the victims’ code for victims of different descriptions, to have regard to the particular needs of victims who are under the age of 18 or who have protected characteristics.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of Clauses 5 to 10.
Lord Bellamy
“(b) the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, and(c) the Welsh Ministers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment of Clause 4, page 4, line 22, requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner and the Welsh Ministers when preparing or revising the victims’ code.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment of Clause 3, page 3, line 28, requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner and the Welsh Ministers when preparing or revising the victims’ code.
Lord Bellamy
“(A1) Where the victims’ code makes provision about a service to be provided to victims by a person, the person must provide the service in accordance with the code unless the person has good reasons not to. (A2) Any person who is subject to the duty in subsection (A1) and is not an individual must ensure that procedures are in place by which other persons may complain about an alleged failure to comply with the duty.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires persons specified in the victims’ code to provide services in accordance with it, unless they have good reasons not to, and to have procedures for dealing with complaints.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Lord Bach
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (2) must require information about compliance with the victims’ code to be linked to a consistent victim identifier that is used across the agencies of the criminal justice system.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow for the creation of a unique identifier for victims in the criminal justice system which would be linked to information on compliance to the victims’ code.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 35 would require information on compliance with the victims’ code to be linked to a consistent victim identifier. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for supporting this amendment. Members may recall the helpful discussion on this issue in Committee. I am grateful to colleagues and to the Minister for their engagement on this topic.
I have been moved to reintroduce this amendment because I remain convinced that, without this change, the Government’s ambition to harness the Bill to put victims at the heart of the justice system and increase accountability may well fail; it is that serious. I thank Natalie Byrom, whose article in the Financial Times in January 2024 kicked off this important debate.
I begin by being extremely clear about what is being proposed. Put simply, this amendment contemplates the creation of a unique identifier allocated to victims at the point at which they first report a crime to the police, to which all subsequent crime numbers and case updates can be linked. Compliance with the measures in the victims’ code must also be recorded against this identifier. Information about the victim’s demographic and protected characteristics can also be added to the victim identifier, provided that the victim consents to provide this. In the absence of the introduction of this identifier, it will continue to be impossible to routinely link information on victims’ code compliance to the demographic characteristics of victims or criminal justice outcomes. This makes it impossible to tell what measures are working and for whom. Information will remain partial, piecemeal and costly to collect.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support this, with a slightly heavy heart. It has the virtue of common sense, which I feel might not necessarily chime terribly well with the Front Bench; it seems eminently sensible. I realise that the Minister often talks about the need to join the dots, and I think this is a textbook example of a challenge of trying to join up a great many dots that are all over the place at the moment.
I recognise that the Front Bench is not going to stand up and say, “What a wonderful idea; we will do it immediately”. At the very least, if there is an acknowledgement of the fact that we have a problem—and I think we all agree that the status quo at the moment, as far as victims are concerned, is a long way from where we would wish it to be—it behoves the Government to think about putting together a properly resourced project to look at this systematically, across all the different agencies, and at least analyse the scale and complexity of the problem and perhaps come up with a range of two or three possible solutions, with the pros and cons of each, the costs and the time they would take to implement. We would then, at least, have a better handle on how we might deal with this problem, which we all acknowledge is a problem.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is important to acknowledge that we need to improve the kind of data collection that we have. This is a really good idea, and I would like it to be pursued. I have an amendment later on consistency of data. One of the things I felt when I was looking at the issues was that, too often, victims are not counted properly. We know that there is a range of ways to produce crime statistics: discussions about victims can be very emotive and subjective. The more accurate information we have and the more rationally collected it is—a point was made about common sense—the better it is for society, so that it cannot be turned into a political football. We would know exactly what was going on, so that the right kind of research and resources could be allocated. I would like to hear from the Minister some ideas about at least being open to this and experimenting with it. It is eminently worth exploring further, and I would like to hear a positive response.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I spoke in Committee on this issue, and I continue to offer our support from these Benches. I will not repeat the detail of what I said, but through the passage of the Children and Families Act we had to make sure that there was specific identifying data to link up children who were having to access services in more than one department. That picks up very much on a point made by the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Russell, about the complexity of data.
There has been a really good period between Committee and Report in which the Minister and other Ministers have made themselves available for discussing lots of these amendments, but the main problem is that we do not have a lot of data about victims. We have plenty of data about crime, but we just do not understand victims’ experience through data. One of the side benefits of the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is that having that unique identifying number will create automatic access to make assessments, while protecting GDPR. I have spoken about that on other Bills, but it is important. I hope that this Government and any future Government will assess this as a key part of better services for victims, because we will better know and understand who they are.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this amendment. As he said, we had a helpful discussion on this proposal in Committee. The unique identifier for victims is a good idea and may well solve a lot of problems. As he said, why not harness this Bill to do it?
I will briefly repeat a point I made in Committee. I strongly suspect that this is a more difficult problem than it might seem on the surface, given that there are different computing systems in different parts of the system and different ways of collating data. It is a problem. I am well aware of the shortcomings of data retention within the wider criminal justice system. When I sit in a magistrates’ court, I see the PNC for offenders; very often, they will have multiple dates of birth and names. One only hopes that one is dealing with the same individual as recorded on the police national computer. There is a single identifier for the offender, but there may be a fair number of errors in there as well.
Nevertheless, it is a good idea. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, said that it has the virtue of common sense; I almost thought he was going to say that it has the vice of common sense. It needs to be considered carefully. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we want to hear that the Government are taking this seriously and that there is a programme in place to look at this seriously and try to help victims through this mechanism.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his amendment, which seeks to introduce a consistent victim identifier for the collection and sharing of code compliance information.
The Government agree that data is a vital tool to help better understand victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system and whether and how they are receiving the relevant entitlements under the victims’ code. That is precisely why the Bill also introduces duties on criminal justice agencies to collect, share and jointly review code compliance information.
In addition, to respond to the questions and comments of many noble Lords, our existing Better Outcomes through Linked Data, or BOLD, programme is already exploring linking system data about victims’ interactions to improve our understanding of victims’ experiences. The BOLD programme is funded by HM Treasury’s shared outcomes fund from 2021 to 2024; it is a long-term project conducted by the Ministry of Justice to improve our understanding of victims’ experiences. BOLD has just received an extra year’s funding to continue exploring data and data linking until March 2025. It has been created to demonstrate how people with complex needs can be better supported by linking and improving the government data held on them in a safe and secure way.
The Ministry of Justice is leading on a victims’ pilot that seeks to share and link data to help improve outcomes for victims. We hope that it will unlock insights into supporting victims of crime, such as understanding their end-to-end journeys and experiences, the effectiveness of victim services and the factors behind victim attrition rates at different stages of the criminal justice system. This is a proof-of-concept research project, and findings on the BOLD victims’ pilot will be published in 2024 and 2025. The pilot has initially focused on exploring what data is available in both criminal justice system agencies and victim services, particularly at a local level through partnership with Synergy Essex, a partnership of rape and sexual abuse centres in Essex.
The pilot work is a necessary precursor to data linking, and this essential precursor work should be completed first. As BOLD shares findings and as the duties in the Bill begin to be operationalised by bodies, the emergent picture will inform future innovation on how data can be used to improve the victim experience. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, I say that this demonstrates the Government acknowledging and addressing the issue.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his response. I also thank noble Lords around the House who have been sympathetic to the amendment that I moved.
Because it is such common sense, this will happen in time. The sooner it happens, the better for victims and the justice system. I am realistic, so I understand that there are complications, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said, that will have to be worked through before we get to the stage—which I hope will happen sooner rather than later—where something like this comes into being.
For the moment, I am delighted to hear that the Government understand the problem and are working hard to solve it. There is a real issue as to whether the BOLD development is the answer to the issue that I have tried to raise today. I ask the Government to look very carefully at whether that is a better alternative to the proposal I made today. It seems to me that it would not be sensible to divide the House on the issue, however much I might be tempted to do so, because there is more work to be done. However, I go away with the feeling that the Government are sympathetic to the idea that this whole system should be very much simplified. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner before making regulations under Clause 6.
“Arrangements for collection of victims’ feedback(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State has made arrangements with a person for the collection by the person of information which—(a) relates to the characteristics or experiences of users of services provided by a relevant criminal justice body in a police area, and (b) is collected for the purposes of assessing whether and how those services are provided in accordance with the duty in section 5(A1).(2) The Secretary of State and the Attorney General may by a joint direction require the body to provide specified information to the person for the purposes of enabling or assisting the performance of the arrangements.(3) A relevant criminal justice body which is directed to provide information under this section must provide it—(a) in such form and manner as may be specified, and(b) at such times or within such periods as may be specified.(4) In this section—“relevant criminal justice body” means a criminal justice body falling within paragraphs (a), (b) or (e) of the definition of “criminal justice body” in section 6(6);“specified” means specified in the direction.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause, to be inserted after Clause 6, requires certain criminal justice bodies to cooperate with persons with whom the Secretary of State has made arrangements for the collection of feedback from victims, if directed to do so.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner before making regulations under Clause 7.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner before making regulations under Clause 8.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner before making regulations under Clause 9.
Lord Bellamy
“(A1) The Secretary of State and the Attorney General, acting jointly, must—(a) keep under review the code compliance of the persons mentioned in subsection (1), and(b) annually, prepare and publish a report about the code compliance of those persons in the period to which the report relates.(A2) If the Secretary of State and the Attorney General agree that the code compliance of a person mentioned in subsection (1) is unsatisfactory they may—(a) if the person is the chief officer of police for a police area, give the elected local policing body for the area a notice setting out their reasons for being of that view;(b) in any other case, give the person a notice setting out their reasons for being of that view.(A3) If the Secretary of State and the Attorney General give a notice under subsection (A2) they must—(a) if the notice is given under paragraph (a) of that subsection, send a copy of the notice to the chief officer of police to whom the notice relates, and(b) in any case, publish the notice in such form and manner as they consider appropriate.(A4) The Secretary of State and the Attorney General must consult the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses before—(a) publishing a report under subsection (A1)(b);(b) giving a notice under subsection (A2).(A5) The Secretary of State must publish such compliance information as the Secretary of State considers will enable members of the public to assess the code compliance of the persons mentioned in subsection (1) in the period to which the information relates.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Secretary of State and the Attorney General joint functions in relation to reviewing compliance with the victims’ code by police forces and other criminal justice bodies. The Secretary of State must also publish certain information in relation to the code compliance of such bodies.
“(1) The persons are—”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 10, page 8, line 26.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 10, page 8, line 26.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new Clause to be inserted after Clause 6.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
“(3A) The first report under paragraph (b) of subsection (A1) may relate to any 12 month period that includes the day on which that paragraph comes into force.(3B) Subsequent reports must relate to the 12 month period immediately following the 12 month period to which the previous report relates.(3C) The Secretary of State must lay each report before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 10, page 8, line 26.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 10, page 8, line 26.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 10, page 8, line 26.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment replaces a reference to “children” with a reference to under-18s.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner before issuing guidance under Clause 11 on raising awareness of, and reviewing compliance with, the victims’ code.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Duty to co-operate with Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses(1) The Commissioner may request a specified public authority to co-operate with the Commissioner in any way that the Commissioner considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the victims’ code.(2) A specified public authority must, so far as reasonably practicable, comply with a request made to it under this section.(3) In this section “specified public authority” means any of the following—(a) a criminal justice body, as defined by section 6(6);(b) the Parole Board;(c) an elected local policing body;(d) the British Transport Police Force;(e) the Ministry of Defence Police.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to—(a) add a public authority as a specified public authority for the purposes of this section;(b) remove a public authority added by virtue of subsection (4)(a);(c) vary any description of a public authority.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would create a duty for specified public authorities to collaborate with the Victims and Witnesses Commissioner.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornton, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 57.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
“Training: support for victims(1) The Secretary of State must publish and implement, in consultation with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, a strategy for providing mandatory training on the contents and application of the victims’ code for relevant staff of the following organisations—(a) the police,(b) the Crown Prosecution Service,(c) probation services,(d) the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office,(e) health and social services,(f) victim support services, (g) maintained and independent schools and colleges of further education, and(h) such other bodies as the Secretary of State deems appropriate.(2) The strategy under subsection (1) must be reviewed and updated every three years.”Member's explanatory statement
To ensure justice agencies responsible for giving effect to the Victims Code are properly trained and familiar with its provisions and deliver it effectively.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, we debated this amendment on the first day on Report last week. It is to do with training. All of the discussions that I have had in the intervening time with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, with the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and with others, demonstrated the overwhelming importance of training, and the lack of training being a common theme, again and again, when things go wrong for victims. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces a reference to “children” with a reference to under-18s.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces a reference to “children” with a reference to under-18s.
“(8) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers before issuing guidance under this section, so far as the guidance relates to a matter provision about which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Ministers about guidance to be issued under Clause 15, so far as it relates to a matter provision about which would be in the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru.
Lord Bellamy
“Disclosures by victims that cannot be precluded by agreement(1) A provision in an agreement is void in so far as it purports to preclude the making of a disclosure falling within subsection (2).(2) A disclosure falls within this subsection if it is a disclosure of information that is made by a victim or a person who reasonably believes they are a victim—(a) to any person who has law enforcement functions, for the purpose of those functions being exercised in relation to relevant conduct;(b) to a qualified lawyer, for the purpose of seeking legal advice about relevant conduct;(c) to any individual who is entitled to practise a regulated profession, for the purpose of obtaining professional support in relation to relevant conduct;(d) to any individual who provides a service to support victims, for the purpose of obtaining support from that service in relation to relevant conduct;(e) to a regulator of a regulated profession for the purpose of co-operating with the regulator in relation to relevant conduct;(f) to a person who is authorised to receive information on behalf of a person mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) for the purpose mentioned in that paragraph;(g) to a child, parent or partner of the person making the disclosure, for the purpose of obtaining support in relation to relevant conduct.(3) But a provision in an agreement is not void by virtue of subsection (1) so far as it purports to preclude a disclosure made for the primary purpose of releasing the information into the public domain.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section—(a) to add, remove or modify a description of disclosure in relation to which subsection (1) applies (“a permitted disclosure”);(b) to extend the application of subsection (1) to a provision in an agreement which purports to impose an obligation or liability in connection with a permitted disclosure.(5) But regulations under subsection (4)(a) must not make any provision which would apply subsection (1) in relation to a disclosure—(a) made by a person other than a victim or a person who reasonably believes they are a victim, or(b) that does not relate to relevant conduct.(6) In this section—“entitled to practise” , in relation to a regulated profession, is to be read in accordance with section 19(2) of the Professional Qualifications Act 2022; “law enforcement functions” means functions for the purposes of the investigation or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties;“partner” : a person is a “partner” of another person if they are married to each other, in a civil partnership with each other or in an intimate personal relationship with each other which is of significant duration;“qualified lawyer” means a person who is an authorised person in relation to a reserved legal activity for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007; “regulated profession” and“regulator” have the same meanings as in the Professional Qualifications Act 2022 (see section 19 of that Act);“relevant conduct” means conduct by virtue of which the person making the disclosure is or reasonably believes they are a victim (see section 1(1) and (2)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause, to be inserted after Clause 15, would make a provision of an agreement void if it purports to preclude a victim from making certain types of disclosure, unless the disclosure was made in order to release the information into the public domain.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 76 has been tabled to clarify that victims of crime can get the support they need without fear of legal action under confidentiality clauses, also known as non-disclosure agreements or NDAs. NDAs can and do serve a valid purpose to protect commercially sensitive information and deliver a clean break where parties seek closure on an issue, but they have been misused to make victims fear repercussions if they seek access to justice or support services. Reporting a crime to the police is already protected under common law, but the legal position is not as clear as it could be. The Government wish to avoid a situation where NDAs might be used to prevent victims telling support services and close family about criminal conduct that has happened to them.
I am therefore pleased to bring forward this amendment, which makes it clear in primary legislation that confidentiality clauses cannot be legally enforced to the extent that they prevent victims reporting a crime or accessing confidential advice and much-needed support. It sets out who a victim can make disclosures to and for what purposes, which includes the police, regulatory bodies, lawyers, support services, and a victim’s partner, parent, or child. However, to protect legitimate uses of NDAs, subsection (3) of the proposed new clause makes it clear that disclosure to those permitted third parties must not be for the primary purpose of releasing information into the public domain, because we want to avoid a situation where somebody, for example, uses a lawyer to front up the disclosure of confidential information when that is not justified.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in my name: Amendments 87, 88, 89 and 94. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy for his time and for the Government’s thought on these amendments, which, as he rightly pointed out, concern the disclosure of therapy notes. I am sure he probably questioned his life choices when he saw me and other colleagues popping into his Zoom calls quite a bit over the Easter Recess. I am absolutely delighted that he has indicated that the Government will accept these amendments. It has been a long, hard- fought campaign by a formidable team of campaigners from Rape Crisis, the Centre for Women’s Justice, the End Violence Against Women Coalition and Rights of Women. I thank the Government for listening.
I believe this will make a material difference to the confidence and well-being of victims of rape, and I hope that over time it will also help reduce the attrition rate in the justice system, which, at 62%, we can all agree is far too high. These amendments are a proportionate compromise. Again, I want to praise the Government. They thought long and hard about getting these amendments right. They do not jeopardise the right to a fair trial, which is crucial, but they correct a significant wrong when it comes to routine intrusion into victims’ therapy notes.
I will be very brief because we are on Report, but just to set the context of why these amendments are needed, when a rape victim reports the offence to the police, they are often put in the impossible position of being forced to choose between pursuing justice or seeking counselling due to the likelihood of their private records and counselling notes being accessed by the police. We know that more than one-third of rape cases had those notes accessed. Very often, victims choose not to seek counselling and those who continue with therapy ahead of a trial are often told that they must not talk about what happened to them. How ridiculous is that? You need to talk about the rape, the thing that happened to you, in order to get over it. Both scenarios leave many victims without vital support at a time when it is needed most. The reality is that the notes that counsellors take in those sessions are to inform their next session. It is not an evidence-collecting process, so very often those notes are not very useful and are often thrown out of court if they get into a courtroom situation. They are not useful, but they are incredibly damaging. Also, justice and proper support should never cancel each other out.
I am very grateful that my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy has set out the detail, so I will not repeat it in a too-drawn-out way. Essentially, the important point of this amendment is that it raises the threshold at which the police and other bodies are able to request counselling notes during an investigation. In order to request such notes, the police will have to show that they have been able to rebut the presumption that counselling records are not necessary and proportionate to a law enforcement purpose and that they consider that the counselling records are likely to be of “substantial probative value”, which is a higher threshold than “necessary and proportionate”, which we have at the moment. To ensure that this new threshold of substantial probative value is properly understood, because we know that, with 43 police forces around the country, it could easily be misunderstood or not adhered to, the Government should provide clear guidance in the code of practice, working with other relevant partners such as the CPS, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Attorney-General.
Finally, a very important part of these amendments is requiring the Secretary of State to publish a review of how these measures are working and being adhered to three years after the provisions come into force. We all know that post-legislative scrutiny of these difficult areas of law and of how the measures are working in practice is crucial. Taken together, the new threshold and the guidance will enhance the work of transformative programs such Operation Soteria and are another step in the right direction of dismantling the criminal justice system’s focus on victims’ credibility rather than the actions of the suspect.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 87A, 88A and 158, which, as the Minister has already said, discuss additional protections for victims of rape who are subject to requests for third-party material. I thank my noble friend Lady Finn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their support for these amendments, which I know are also supported by my noble friend Lady Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner, and across the House as well. I am sorry that I was not able to speak to them myself in person—I am very grateful to those who did —in Committee due to a family emergency.
The Government argue that their amendment covering these issues sets out clearly in law that the police should request third-party materials only if they are necessary and proportionate to a reasonable line of inquiry. However, these amendments do no more than reinforce existing legal provisions that are already not adhered to. No additional safeguards or protections are being offered. This will do nothing to change policing culture around excessive requests because it will merely reaffirm what already exists in law rather than encouraging operational change. I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say. Although I do not necessarily intend formally to move these amendments this evening, I am concerned to hear that the third-party material we are talking about is not going to be treated as sensitively as mobile phone data because the material we are talking about could be medical material, school information or even social services records. It may be created by a third party, but it is all sensitive data about the victim of a rape or a serious sexual assault. I think it is a mistake not to have entertained more the protections that we are talking about in these amendments.
Just last week, the Home Office published its report of a case file review of police requests for third-party material in rape cases. The findings are truly shocking, and I encourage anybody who does not believe this is an issue to read that report in full. I think we should consider the findings regarding each of the tests that the police are supposed to apply when making requests for this material. First, is it necessary? In the review of 342 third-party material requests, only 176 requests had a recorded rationale, leaving 49% of requests without an explanation for the necessity of that request. Is the request proportionate? The report found that nearly two-thirds of requests did not contain any parameters, such as a timeframe, to limit the amount of information about the victim being requested. Is the request following a reasonable line of inquiry? Nearly one-quarter of rationales given for the third-party material request were generic or not specific to the case. If the reasoning for making a third-party material request is speculative, it is unlikely to be necessary to make the request in pursuit of a line of inquiry.
We know there is a problem, but there is also a solution. As we have already heard, there is a well-developed framework within the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. That framework applies to requests for digital data held on phones, and it sets out that requests for victims’ digital data must receive the consent of victims. If consent is not received, this must not lead to the termination of the police investigation. One of the most serious aspects of this is that where the victim does not give consent, that is almost used as a reason to drop the investigation, which is devastating for the victim concerned. In that Act, there are strong safeguards offering key protections for vulnerable victims. That is what these amendments seek to do: to amend the wording in the Bill to mirror that in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act.
Anecdotal evidence from victim advocates indicates that, since that Act was introduced, they have seen fewer requests, as well as requests being more appropriate in scope, because of that framework. I do not understand why the Government will not adopt that framework for third-party material requests. It does not make any sense to have two different regimes. Often, this material is sought in tandem. It would be better for victims, and for the police, for there to be one regime.
Victims of crime should not be forced to choose between their own privacy and their right to justice. I hope the Government will look favourably on these amendments, if not now, then in the future.
I want briefly to pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lady Bertin for Amendments 87, 88, 89 and 94. She is absolutely right that victims and survivors of sexual violence should never have to choose between seeking justice and accessing therapy and support. I thank all those across the House who have supported her in making that case, and my noble friend the Minister for listening.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I am using IT in this speech—trying to get trendy, as my daughters tell me to do. My apologies, as I have sausage fingers with arthritis.
First, I would like to speak to Amendment 85. In April 2018, I published a report highlighting the discrepancies between the treatment of those victims whose perpetrator was serving a sentence in prison and those whose perpetrator had been detained under the Mental Health Act. I pressed the Government for change. Dame Vera Baird, who followed me, also took up the cudgels on behalf of this too-often overlooked group of victims. Our argument was that the grief and trauma caused by serious violence and sexual crime was no less if the perpetrator was in a hospital rather than a prison. They all deserve support. They all deserve to have their voices heard.
When I returned to the office last October, there remained unfinished business. Victims of patients detained in hospitals still could not submit a victim’s personal statement to the tribunal when discharge was being considered. Neither could they attend the hearing to present. I am therefore delighted that, on this occasion, the Government and my noble friend the Minister have listened and acted. I welcome the government amendment, which will ensure that, at long last, there will be parity of treatment for this group of victims. I again thank the Minister and his team for bringing this about. I feel sure that it will be welcomed across the House.
I support of Amendments 87A and 88A, which would, if adopted, increase protections for victims of rape who are subject to requests for third-party material. Before turning to those amendments, I thank the Government for their thoughtful consideration of amendments tabled in Committee by my noble friend Lady Bertin. These sought to provide additional protections for victims around notes of therapy, measures which I truly support. I am delighted that the Government have agreed to change the legal threshold for this material, and I hope that they may be persuaded to provide greater protections around other forms of third-party material.
I turn now to Amendments 87A and 88A. The Government argue that their own amendment to the Bill will stop demands for personal and private information from rape complainants but, as they stated in Committee, their clauses do nothing more than consolidate the current legal framework—a framework which has not been followed. How can things change? The Home Office report to which my noble friend Lady Morgan already referred found that, in almost a quarter of these cases, credibility was specifically cited as the reason for requesting third-party material. While credibility can sometimes form a reasonable line of inquiry in investigations, it is most often used in rape investigations. That is because, in rape cases, it is the victim who is being investigated to see if they are believable or credible, not the accused. In no other crime type is the credibility of the victim so scrutinised. Victims must be properly protected from these intrusive demands, as they have been by the Government’s measures in the PCSC Act, which successfully curbed the ambiguous practice of digital download from complainants’ phones—the digital strip-search, as it was known. The Government could, as it did there, introduce a new regime that empowers and protects victims, but instead they are merely reiterating the current framework and hoping that guidance will elicit change. It will not. The officers making the requests referred to in the Home Office report were operating under the existing framework —the same framework that the government clauses will consolidate in this Bill.
The Government point to the defendant’s right to a fair trial as the reason why Amendments 87A and 88A cannot be adopted. But there are other legal mechanisms available to the police and prosecution to obtain this material if the complainant does not agree to access, so the right to a fair trial is not impacted. Additionally, these amendments would provide consistency with the framework around digital material. This consistency is good for the police, and it is so good for the victims.
I urge support for Amendment 87A and 88A, which, along with the Government’s own measure on digital material, and now on notes of therapy, make a significant difference to the victims of this horrendous crime. I also support Amendments 77 and 78, which both seek to provide rape victims with legal advocacy when their right to privacy is engaged by the system. The Government have promised on numerous occasions to explore this option, but they have yet to do so in a meaningful way. It is being considered as a recommendation to the Government by the Law Commission, precisely because of the huge invasions of privacy that victims experience if they report a rape. I urge noble Lords to support these measures.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 96. I thank those noble Lords who added their names to this amendment: the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Brinton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester.
The Government’s aim in this Bill is to improve victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system and their access to support, yet the Bill provides no protection for victims with insecure immigration status who have been the subject of serious crime. If these victims provide information for the police, the Bill as its stands allows their personal details to be passed to the immigration authorities. Amendment 96 tackles this problem. This is important because migrant victims are more vulnerable to experiencing serious crime and less likely to receive redress. In particular, we need Amendment 96 so that migrant victims are protected under the Bill from crimes such as violence against women and girls and modern slavery. The amendment is explicit that the personal data of a victim of a crime of domestic abuse, harassment, modern slavery, a sexual offence or other offences specified in regulations by the Secretary of State must not be used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of the individual.
The amendment also ensures that, before issuing any guidance under this amendment, the Secretary of State must consult the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner or other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. The amendment is thus well protected in statute.
Immigrants are particularly vulnerable to serious crime, including violence against women and girls and modern slavery. Abusers use their control over the victim’s immigration status and their right to live and work in the UK to threaten and trap these victims in abuse or exploitative working conditions.
We have a wealth of evidence that, for victims with insecure immigration status, the fear of data sharing between the police and immigration services constitutes one of the most severe barriers to accessing the criminal justice system. Research by the Latin American Women’s Rights Service and the Step Up Migrant Women campaign found that fully 62% of migrant women had specifically been threatened about their immigration status if they reported abuse. These are not empty threats. For example, the Police Service of Northern Ireland was reporting 29 victims and witnesses of crime to the Home Office every day; that amounts to nearly 10,000 people in a year.
To date, the Government have rejected the firewall proposal. They prefer to try to combine enforcement of immigration control and the protection of victims. I, along with the organisations working in this field, do not accept the Government’s proposal as workable. The Justice Committee recommended the introduction of a complete firewall, as proposed here, and, along with the EHRC, called for the immediate end of data sharing between the police and the Home Office for immigration enforcement purposes.
This is urgent. We know from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s office that all police forces in England and Wales share victims’ data with immigration enforcement staff. The absence of a firewall significantly harms not only victims of crime but the public interest, as crimes of course are not reported and therefore remain unpunished. Other countries have recognised the importance of building trust with migrants in order to solve more crimes and prevent and address serious crimes.
I did not fully understand the introductory remarks by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, but I hope that on reflection he will feel that a firewall in this field is justified and could support this amendment or introduce a similar government one in its stead.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I offer some brief words in support of Amendment 96. Like the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, I was very disappointed with the response in Committee, which simply rehashed old arguments that I had already challenged. I have two practical questions. First, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, promised the long-awaited code of practice for parliamentary scrutiny by the spring. It may not feel very spring-like, but spring is passing and there is still no sight of it. Surely it should have been made available in time to inform our debate today. The Minister said it would hopefully be this spring, but he did not sound very sure. Can he give us a firm assurance that it will be made available this spring?
Secondly, whereas I had been told in a Written Answer that the also long-awaited protocol would be published in early 2024, all that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, could say in Committee was that it would be launched “later this year”. How much later? Why the delay?
Finally, I never received an answer to my much more fundamental question: how do the Government square their intransigent position on the firewall supported by the DAC, various parliamentary committees and all organisations on the ground with repeated ministerial assurances that domestic abuse victims/survivors must be treated as victims first and foremost, regardless of immigration status? As it stands, it is a case not of safety before status, as called for by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, but of status before safety.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendments to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has spoken. This was an issue that I came across only when preparing for Second Reading. I do not want to repeat her arguments, and I could not make them as well or as thoroughly as she has, but I was shocked to discover the problems that have arisen in connection with counselling and advice. I also support the firewall amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. We have been here before many times, have we not?
Last week the previous Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, speaking to the committee reviewing the Modern Slavery Act, raised the interesting position of one law enforcement sector withholding information from, or not sharing information with, another law enforcement sector. She came to her conclusion, but I did not read her as having reached it entirely easily. I reached the conclusion that there should be a firewall for the reason put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher: imbalance of power—that is what it is about—between a victim and somebody to whom material is made available for abuse. These are very vulnerable victims. I have circled words such as “later this year” and so on, which the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned. I will not repeat them, but it would be good to make some progress on this issue.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, my honourable friend Layla Moran laid an amendment about the ending of non-disclosure agreements that prevent victims disclosing information to the police or other services, including confidential support services, ensuring that they cannot be legally enforced. She has campaigned on this issue for some considerable time. She and I both thank the Minister for the progress in Amendment 76, which is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. It certainly will help some victims access the support they need, but we on these Benches regret that this is not enough to fully give victims their voice back. We still need a complete ban on the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of sexual misconduct, harassment and bullying to ensure that no victim is ever silenced. We will campaign on this in future but appreciate the step forward that has been made in this Bill.
I have signed Amendments 87, 88, 89 and 94 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. I also thank the Minister for the meetings, his Amendment 76 and what he said in introduction—I agree with the response by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, talked about third-party data requests, and again it was a privilege to be involved in those meetings. I thank her for her comments and her remaining concerns. She is absolutely right that it does not take us further forward enough.
Finally, I signed Amendment 96 from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on the immigration firewall. My noble friend Lady Hamwee was absolutely right: we have been here before. I was just thinking about amendments during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill, the safety of Rwanda Bill and, I suspect, the Nationality and Borders Bill before that—yet we are not making progress. It is very unfortunate that the Government have gone backwards since the Modern Slavery Act in the protection of these particular victims. I know that across the House we will continue to push for ensuring that the loophole is closed.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is really a pleasure to respond to this group from these Benches, because there is real progress. It is important to record thanks to everybody who has made this progress happen. I very much welcome the clarification that the Minister has made in Amendment 76. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is quite right, though, that this is a first step. Indeed, today a useful brief was sent to me and possibly other noble Lords from the Bar Council, which makes the point that the issue of non-disclosure agreements is ripe for legislative change. The Bar Council welcomes the Government’s intention to implement legislative reform and recognises that some NDAs are abusive in nature. NDAs cannot cover criminal acts, and under existing common-law protections many are already unenforceable, but those who are asked to sign them are not always aware of the relevant legal principles. When you have the Bar Council and everybody else on your side, you know that this is an important first step.
On the Government’s amendments, I welcome Amendment 85, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, welcomed it. I thank the Minister and his team for listening and for bringing forward this amendment, which was aired in Committee very powerfully indeed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Newlove. Then, of course, there is a suite of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. I was very pleased to be able to support these in Committee. These Benches are absolutely in favour of them; they have the support of the whole House. I know from the very long time ago when I was a Minister how much work goes into getting to this place. I congratulate the noble Baroness and say how much we are in favour of these amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, is absolutely right to be disappointed about the Government not accepting Amendments 87A and 88A. It is probably clear that we have not come to the end of this. The noble Baroness is quite right in nodding to say, “We have definitely not come to the end of this discussion about what needs to happen to support victims with requests for dealing with digital and other information, and providing the right kind of safeguards for them”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is right, and she has our Benches’ support for her amendment. If there were to be a Division on this then it would be next week. Between now and then we need to look at what the Minister has said to see if we can push him a bit further than he has gone, and then maybe we could avoid that, but the noble Baroness needs to know that she has these Benches’ support, and probably that of the Liberal Democrats, if we need to take the issue further. All in all, we have made great progress.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I shall answer a couple of questions and make one clarification. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who said, “Come on now, when are the code and the protocol going to be available?” I am afraid that, at this point, I cannot advance matters further other than to say, according to my instructions, that the code will be available for parliamentary scrutiny this spring—I know that is not as precise as anyone would like—and that the protocol will be launched later this year. These matters are under the control of the Home Office, and we had a discussion earlier about the relationship between 102 Petty France and Marsham Street. That is as far as I can go at the moment, and I apologise to the noble Baroness that I cannot be more precise.
I am prepared, as always, to have a further exchange of views on Amendment 96. I am not sure we can take it much further but we are always ready to listen, since throughout the Bill we are dealing with the problem of striking a balance between effective immigration control and victim support, and unfortunately there are always trade-offs to be made.
To respond to my noble friend Lady Morgan about requests for relevant information, new Section 44A(6) requires that the request is proportionate. The authorised person must be satisfied that there is no other means of obtaining the information or, if there are such means, that they are not practicable. The decision to release the information ultimately lies with the third party, and that third party has their own obligation under the Data Protection Act and their own duties of confidentiality owed to the person concerned. Again, I respectfully suggest that, bearing in mind my noble friend Lady Bertin’s amendments, the balance between fair-trial rights and victim protection is effectively drawn in the result that we have arrived at. It is not perfect, I know, but it seems to be a practical solution to a very difficult problem.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I hope the Minister will forgive me for interrupting him, but I want to thank him for suggesting that we might meet to discuss Amendment 96 before we come back next week. Obviously, I would be delighted to have a discussion about that.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am always happy to meet, but we might not get much further.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I just wanted to put on record that we have agreed that we will meet, and I welcome that.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Free independent legal advocates for rape victims(1) The Secretary of State must develop proposals for a scheme to give victims of rape access to free, independent legal advocates available in every police force area in England and Wales.(2) For the purposes of this section “independent legal advocate for rape victims” means a person who is a qualified solicitor, with experience working with vulnerable people, who provides appropriate legal advice and representation to individuals who are victims of criminal conduct which constitutes rape.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to develop proposals for the provision of free legal advocates for rape victims in every police force.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to this briefly, although we regard it as fundamentally important. Amendment 77 would require the Secretary of State to develop proposals for the provision of free legal advocates for rape victims in every police force. Amendment 78, which we regard as part of the same package, would require the Secretary of State to develop proposals for the provision of free independent legal advice for rape victims. A lack of resource cannot and should not be a reason for not getting legal advice, and it should not depend on a postcode lottery either. This is a similar point to those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, on Amendments 87A and 88A. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames wanted to speak to these two amendments but is unable to be here today, for which he apologises.
In Committee, the Government’s position, which was entirely sympathetic in principle—the noble Earl is rarely unsympathetic—was that the Law Commission is going to consider this in any event, so we should wait for it to do so before pressing the matter further. However, my noble friend says that that is not good enough. There is no reason for a further report before proceeding with the provision of free legal representation and advice for rape victims. If we wait for the Law Commission then there will have to be a further consultation, but that is not necessary—Liberal Democrats do not say that consultations are not necessary lightly—and then there has to be the process of producing a report and then, finally, a Bill. All in all, that is a long delay on an issue on which the principle is uncomplicated and, in any event, conceded. We support these two amendments.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and, in her absence, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for Amendments 77 and 78, which, as we have heard, seek to require the development of proposals for schemes to give victims of rape access to free independent legal advice and representation.
I agree that it is extremely important that victims are aware of their rights and confident in those rights, particularly when preparing for trial and when requests for their personal information are made. While it would be novel to provide access to free legal advice and representation for just one type of crime, we recognise that, if there is one category of people who are especially vulnerable, it is victims of rape and sexual offences. We also recognise that victims of these crimes are more likely to receive requests for sensitive personal information as part of an investigation, and that there are calls for independent legal advice to help victims with that situation as well.
That is why the Bill tackles the problem in a different way, by introducing measures designed to minimise requests for information, as my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy explained in the previous group of amendments. Through the Bill we are placing a new statutory duty on the police to request third-party material relating to victims only when necessary, proportionate and relevant to a reasonable line of inquiry. Following the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Bertin, which the Government have accepted, there will also be a requirement that the Requests for Victim Information code of practice must state that the police and other law enforcement agencies should start an investigation with the presumption that requests for counselling notes are not necessary or proportionate.
My noble friend’s amendments also mandate that counselling notes can be requested by police only if they are likely to have “substantial probative value” to a reasonable line of inquiry. This higher threshold will ensure that police are not routinely requesting counselling notes and that the privacy of these victims is respected.
As I have said, we do not want to create a hierarchy of support by granting government-funded legal advice to victims of just one type of crime. Alongside that, there are some complex and sensitive considerations regarding the introduction of independent legal advice for such victims. In particular, we have to be mindful of the role of the victim as a witness in proceedings and avoid anything that might have an unintended impact on the defendant’s right to a fair trial. This concern emerged very explicitly from the pilot scheme run in the north of England. I direct that point particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Marks; we need to take account of the findings from that pilot, which expressed those concerns. A subsidiary but still important point is to consider the potential impact on timeliness as a result of another process being inserted into the system. That was another concern that arose in the pilot.
These are all far-reaching considerations which, I suggest, require expert input before any statutory measures are considered. The Law Commission’s review will consider all these factors, including—the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, may like to note—the impact of existing schemes in other jurisdictions. When it publishes its report later this year, its findings and recommendations on independent legal advice will provide us with the robust evidence base that we will need should we wish to go forward and develop the sort of policy proposals that the amendment points us towards. Therefore, it is right for us to wait for those findings.
There is a further point of principle which I ought to flag: it really is not appropriate to place a duty on the Secretary of State in primary legislation to develop policy, especially without any specification of what such proposals should entail and who is responsible for implementing them once they have been developed. Once again, it is much better that we await the Law Commission’s recommendations.
I know how important this issue is to noble Lords opposite, but I hope that I have given the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, sufficient pause as regards his original intention to divide the House. There are some good reasons why the amendments should not be pressed, which I hope I have been able persuade him of. I therefore very much hope that he will withdraw Amendment 77 and not move Amendment 78.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I am not convinced by the noble Earl. When he opened, he acknowledged that this is an especially vulnerable group and that some cases have a case for novel funding arrangements. He talked about the possibility of unintended consequences of unfair trials—a comment about the pilot funding scheme. In other jurisdictions, such as the family court, there is funding for victims of domestic abuse. If a woman—and normally it is a woman—is a victim or potential victim of domestic abuse, there is funding available in that case as well. Given that this is such a vulnerable group, and since this is an issue of great importance to many Members of this House, I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 77.
Baroness Chakrabarti
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the presumption of custody for children of offenders of child sexual abuse, requiring a Crown Court to make a prohibited steps order protecting the children of an offender on sentencing.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, we are now in the family court because in the real world and in a joined-up justice system, victims are being dealt with not just in the criminal justice system but in the family system.
I have Amendments 80, 83, 84, 91 and 92 in this group. I will try to deal with them as succinctly as possible given the hour and what noble Lords across the House have had to endure in the last 24 hours. I am dealing with three issues. The first relates to Clause 16, the so-called Jade’s law. I will speak to that in a moment. That is covered in Amendments 80, 84—which is consequential on Amendment 80—and 83, which is distinct, but I am led to believe that the usual channels have agreed that Amendments 80, 83 and 84 will be treated as a package. I will wait for someone opposite to jump up and tell me if I am wrong about that.
Amendment 91 deals with “cowboy experts”—I am trying to be as succinct as I can—that is, unregulated experts giving opinions and getting paid. These unregulated opinions and expertise lead to considerable injustice in the family court, including people having to spend a lot of money and people losing responsibility for or contact with their children. Amendment 92 would ensure that those suspected of or charged with domestic abuse, sexual violence and child abuse are not permitted unsupervised access to their children.
Jade’s law is Clause 16, on which the Government are to be commended. Amendments 80, 83 and 84 attempt to tighten up loopholes in Jade’s law, and they are supported by the family of Jade Ward. On account of the time, I will not recount the details of that case. Noble Lords will know that, in its current form as proposed by the Government, Clause 16 places a parent convicted of the murder or manslaughter of the other parent under a prohibited steps order. This is so that we do not have the murderer or manslaughterer effectively controlling the family from behind bars. The Government are to be commended on responding to the campaign and taking up that issue, but we think there is a loophole in that there are sex offenders—not just murderers and manslaughterers—who are attempting the same coercive control, by way of the family courts, from behind bars.
Amendments 80 and 83 would extend Jade’s law and are supported by the family of Jade Ward, whose campaign originally led to Clause 16. We would extend the provisions of Clause 16 to those convicted of a sex offence against a child in the family.
I am aware that, in response to an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill in the other place from my right honourable friend Harriet Harman, the Government have announced that they want to do something and give a concession in our direction in relation to those who rape a child under 13. With huge respect to the Government, that is not enough, because there are very serious sex offences that are not rape and there are very vulnerable children who are just over 13. A child is a child—not least for the purposes of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, if one can still talk about such instruments in Parliament—until they are 18, and certainly there are very serious sex offences that are not rape. So we wish to go further in the ambit of Clause 16, which is Jade’s law.
We also have Amendment 83. This deals with the exception to Jade’s law, as rightly constructed by the Government in the principal amendment. Understandably, and very sensibly in my view, the Government have created, from subsection (5) onwards, an exception to the prohibition in relation to the murderer or the manslaughterer, normally but not always a woman, who is a victim of domestic abuse that led to the murder or manslaughter.
We seek to include domestic abuse, as defined in legislation. At the moment there is an exemption where the offender is convicted of manslaughter and it appears to the Crown Court that this would not be in the interests of justice. We say “the interests of justice” is too vague a concept and they have to be a victim of domestic abuse, as determined by the 2021 Act. “The interests of justice” is too vague a concept to ensure proper protection for all those we seek to protect.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to these four amendments. I feel quite strongly about Amendment 80 in particular, although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that they are in fact a package. I was, as I have said many times, a family judge and I tried a great many sexual abuse cases. I spoke earlier about the trauma of sexual abuse lasting right through adulthood. But I ask your Lordships: can you think of anything worse than a child being raped by a parent? It is the destruction of trust in a whole part of the family, where one member creates a situation in which the child is abused. I have to say that they can be abused in two orifices, not just one—and I have heard all too many cases of both.
Sexual abuse seems to be an issue that is almost as important as murder, because the parent is lost to that child for the rest of the child’s life, but the parent retains, under Section 2 of the Children Act 1989, parental responsibility for the whole of the child’s childhood up to 18—I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, would prefer us to refer to “those who are under the age of 18”.
It is such a serious matter that I commend the Government—I really congratulate them—on Clause 16. It is splendid, but it needs this one extra bit. The clause needs to recognise the intense seriousness and the unbelievable trauma for a child. I heard the case of one child, a little girl of the age of four, who was so sexualised by her father that she became a danger. It was not a case between parents, but a care case in which no foster parent who was a man could possibly care for the child. A single woman had to be found to care for that child and teach her to live a normal life. I remember that case always; it really shocked me.
Amendments 83 and 92 deal with the impact of domestic abuse. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, in a case where a mother, or occasionally a father, has been so traumatised by domestic abuse that he or she—mainly she—kills the other parent who has committed it, it would not necessarily be right to deny them parental responsibility.
In relation to Amendment 91, I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I have had the experience of listening to experts say that one parent was unfit, and I am glad to say that I just did not believe them. However, some of them are quite persuasive and have the most extraordinary proposals. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has talked about parental alienation. There was a certain period in which that was rather popular, but it is dangerous. There are parents who alienate children from the other parent, but it is not a syndrome; it is a fact of life, and it is a very unattractive way in which one parent treats the other. It should not be given the status of some sort of medical condition. There is nothing medical about it; it is just abhorrent.
I also support Amendment 92, but what really matters for me is Amendment 80. We should add sexual abuse to the otherwise admirable Clause 16.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments. They are underpinned by a simple principle: the best interests of the child. They seek to prevent the subversion of the family court, so that it cannot be used by abusers to extend their influence and control over victims; and to ensure that, as far as possible, children are protected from abuse and trauma.
Whether directly or indirectly, children are victims of domestic abuse in a household. Tragically, they are sometimes victims of abuse at the hands of their own parents. In such circumstances, the normal assumption that their best interests are served through contact with their parent must be reconsidered. This is why we seek to extend Jade’s law so that not just offenders who are convicted of murdering a partner but those convicted of sexually abusing a child in the family will automatically have their parental responsibility suspended on sentencing, rather than placing the burden on the family to go through family court proceedings after the criminal conviction.
It is why we seek to prohibit unsupervised contact for a parent who has perpetrated domestic abuse, sexual violence or child abuse. Too often, “best interests” has been determined as almost synonymous with increased parental contact. In most cases, that may be true, but we need to make sure that the law works when it is not. Sadly, contact does not correlate to care. Unsupervised contact with someone accused of abuse is a serious risk to the well-being and safety of a child.
Other amendments in this group seek to limit the ability of domestic abusers to carry on their abuse by subverting our justice system and using court procedures to harass and control their victims. The proceedings of our courts must be fair, and we must not let them be used as a tool of abuse. To that end, we must also make sure that any expert advice is properly regulated. This was discussed in some detail during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act. The sorry truth is that we continue to see allegations of so-called parental alienation used routinely by abusers and the so-called experts they produce in the courts to try and discredit children’s testimony and avoid the charges they face. Victims are even encouraged not to disclose domestic abuse as it will only see them cast as unco-operative. This is a deeply alarming situation which poses a real risk for victims and children.
The UN Human Rights Council report Custody, Violence Against Women and Violence Against Children recommends that states legislate to prohibit the use of parental alienation or related pseudo-concepts in family law cases, and the use of so-called experts in parental alienation and related pseudo-concepts. In an early 2023 case involving a regulated psychologist, the President of the Family Division held that it was at Parliament’s discretion whether a tighter regime should be imposed. We should exercise that discretion.
My sense from Committee was that the principles behind the various amendments in this group are widely supported across the House and the differences are largely down to practicalities. It is precisely because of the practicalities that these amendments are needed. Without them the psychological, practical and financial burdens placed on families trying to recover from abuse is very heavy. I shall give just one example. A mother in Cardiff had to spend £30,000 on court costs to remove parental rights from her ex-husband, who was a convicted child sex abuser, to protect her daughter. This is sadly not untypical. In another case I have been told about, a father was found to have used abusive behaviour towards his children and rape their mother. The mother’s court costs were £50,000. Eventually, the father was ordered to pay, but the very prospect of such high sums risks putting children’s safety at an unjust price.
Victims of domestic abuse must be able to have faith that any abuse endured will not be manipulated against them in court. These amendments are firmly in line with the Government’s ambitions for the Bill. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept them.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendments 80 and 84. These amendments would extend the provision of Jade’s law in the Bill, which relates to murder and manslaughter cases, and would deprive a convicted offender of parental responsibility. The amendments would extend the provisions to sexual offences against children in the family. A powerful case has been made for this extension. It was recently approved, as has been said, in another Bill before the Commons. The examples provided in the briefing material fully justify this amendment.
If I may be pedantic for a moment, I will point out that in the explanatory statement attached to Amendment 80 there is an incorrect reference to removal of “the presumption of custody”. There is no such presumption, and the concept of custody has not existed since the Children Act 1989, although it persists in soap operas, to the irritation of family lawyers.
This amendment would prohibit the exercise of parental responsibility by convicted offenders in cases of child sexual abuse. Allowing sexual offenders to continue to exercise parental responsibility would be wholly inappropriate. Amendments 80 and 84 are well suited to the structure of the Bill, which provides for an order to be made by the Crown Court and then automatically reviewed by the family court when there is perhaps a fuller picture of the family circumstances and a fuller picture of wider implications.
In many ways, cases of sexual offending are more difficult because, sadly, in cases of murder and manslaughter, both parents are not alive. When both parents are still alive, and when there is the possibility that the offender is not in custody—or not for very long —serious thought needs to be given, after the automatic order in the Crown Court, by the family court. That is why I suggest that these amendments are well suited to the structure of the Bill.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendments 80, 83, 91 and 92, and I support Amendment 84 as well, although I have not signed it. I will not repeat everyone else’s comments, but I support virtually all of them—though I might take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on a couple of minor details about why amendments have been laid.
I will make one point about Amendment 91 that nobody else has made. The very helpful briefing that we received from the Association of Clinical Psychologists and the Law Society Gazette this week set out the technical anomaly that exists with regulated psychologists. The position of the regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council, is that it wrote to the director of workforce at the Department of Health and Social Care to highlight risks presented by unregulated psychologists, including in relation to the provision of expert evidence. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that it was writing in a broader way than just for the courts.
In the landmark case of Re C, the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, determined that the courts could not prohibit the appointment of an unregulated person who called themselves a psychologist as a psychological expert because there is no regulation of the term “psychologist”. The way round this would be to take this amendment, to make it absolutely clear. However, there are slightly broader issues that the Government now need to look at, not just from the courts but the wider health system, to make sure that those who are bound by the HCPC are the ones who are regulated to work in these areas—nobody else should be permitted to do so.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, although this has been a relatively short debate, it has been quite comprehensive. All noble Lords have spoken with brevity about these sensitive issues.
I will highlight two points. First, I pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about how any order made by the Crown Court should automatically be reviewed by the family court. That was a useful addition to the amendment, although I suspect my noble friend may be pressing the amendments as they are. Nevertheless, I thought it was an insightful point.
My other point about Amendment 91, on psychologists and people with professional expertise, is that the problems extend beyond experts. In family courts, I see McKenzie friends who clearly have their own agendas, and it is an issue with which one has to deal—but that is a tangent to the main points in these amendments. If my noble friend chooses to press her amendment, we will of course support her.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, we have before us various amendments that deal essentially with family justice. I will deal first with Amendment 91, which proposes that only experts regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council undertake certain psychological assessments. The Government entirely appreciate the aim of this amendment—something needs to be done. This problem probably extends to healthcare generally. In the Ministry of Justice, we have been in discussion with the Department of Health about the term “psychologist”, what it means, whether one should regulate it and so forth. The Government’s position is that only psychologists who are regulated should be undertaking psychological assessments in the family court.
The short point is that this is going to be better dealt with under the Family Procedure Rules than in primary legislation. In particular, in this Bill, for reasons of scope, you can deal with it only in relation to victims of criminal conduct. We need an across-the-board solution, worked out through the Family Procedure Rule Committee, to implement changes that would ensure that, where a psychologist undertakes any psychological assessment in private law children proceedings, they are suitably regulated and that that broader work encapsulates any other problems that arise in relation to unregulated experts. The position of the Lord Chancellor is that this matter should be undertaken now by the Family Procedure Rule Committee—which operates in very close collaboration with practitioners, judges and all those involved in the family law scene—to implement changes, rather than it being done through this primary legislation.
Lord Meston (CB)
I fully understand the point that the Minister is making. Can he indicate whether this problem has now been referred to the relevant Family Procedure Rule Committee? If it has, I would hope that it would get urgent and speedy consideration. If it has not, when will it be?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
There have been preliminary discussions with the committee but it has not formally started work. I cannot give the noble Lord a precise date, but I can say that there is a reserve power under Section 78A of the Courts Act 2003 which entitles the Lord Chancellor to require the Family Procedure Rule Committee to consider the point. In the Government’s submission, that is the way that this should be dealt with, rather than in this necessarily narrow Bill.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
It would be extremely regrettable if the Family Procedure Rule Committee were to refuse to embark on this exercise, particularly in the light of the comments made in the House today and in the other place. It is clearly something that should be done. That is as far as I can reasonably go at the Dispatch Box. That is essentially our position on Amendment 91: let us take it down the route of the Family Procedure Rule Committee.
Amendment 83 brings us to Jade’s law and Clause 16. This is where one parent murders the other. It is a very specific situation, because you have got only one parent left. In all other situations that we are discussing, you have two parents. Amendment 83 concerns where the parent who has committed the murder is a victim of domestic abuse. That is the purpose of this. The Government’s position—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Meston, came quite close to saying the same thing—is that this is effectively already dealt with in the existing Clause 16. It does not suspend parental responsibility for an offender convicted of voluntary manslaughter where it would not be in the interests of justice to do so.
We are talking here about a Sally Challen-type case, if I may use that expression. The “interest of justice” test is one with which Crown Court judges are familiar in the context of sentencing guidelines. Engaging the test is a matter for judicial discretion, but certainly in those cases where the victim has lashed out after years of abuse, they are very likely to fall within this exception, and that is why we have provided for voluntary manslaughter.
It does not seem to the Government that we need any more formal provision in the existing Clause 16 to take account of the situation where the murderer has suffered domestic abuse, because that is already implicit in the clause. If it were the case that, for some reason, Clause 16 was nonetheless to bite, it does, as has been pointed out, provide a pathway for review by the family court. The family court is not going to take away parental responsibility from a mother who has lashed out, if I may use that expression. The Government’s view is we do not need Amendment 83: it is already fairly well covered. I take these points quite shortly because I think it is important to keep this debate fairly short.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I hope noble Lords will forgive me for forgetting courtesy in my brevity. I failed to mention the various supporters, some of whom have identified themselves: my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Helic, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. As always, I am also grateful for their expertise—including correcting an error in the explanatory note—and the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Minister for understanding the problem with unregulated experts. He alluded to a potentially broader, and quite possibly effective, solution by way of procedure rules and, under pressure from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said that it would be extraordinary if this did not happen. I will hold my fire until Report and have great hope—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Then I have no hope. But I will take comfort from the Minister’s comments, because that would be a better, rounder solution in relation to proceedings and it could be broader than just victims. I would prefer that outcome. I hope the Government as a whole will look at unregulated psychologists more generally, in relation not just to proceedings but the public more generally. I take comfort from that and am grateful for it.
On Amendment 83, the current provision for the Jade’s law exemption is vague. If we are trying to deal with domestic abuse, let us call it what it is—it is defined in statute.
On the presumption of parental involvement, the logic of the idea that convicted sex offenders should be presumptively allowed parental involvement escapes me. Jade’s law should be extended. The Minister is almost with me. He wants to act in another Bill, but the clock is ticking for this Parliament and we have a Bill right here on Report in which we could protect children from sex offences, including very serious sex offences that are just short of rape, for reasons which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, put more graphically and with greater expertise. We should take this opportunity to act. I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 80.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the extent of the restrictions placed on an offender with respect to a child by a prohibited steps order made under new section 10A of the Children Act 1989.
“(za) making the order is prohibited by section 29(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002,” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means that the Crown Court must not make a prohibited steps order under new section 10A of the Children Act 1989 with respect to a child who is the subject of a placement order under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
Lord Bellamy
“Victim representations to mental health tribunals(1) Chapter 2 of Part 3 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (victims’ rights to make representations and receive information) is amended as follows.(2) In section 37(8)(c)(i), for “that area” substitute “that local probation board”.(3) After section 37 insert—“37ZA Victim impact statements where restriction order made(1) This section applies if, in a case where section 37 applies, an application or reference mentioned in subsection (5) of that section is made to the First-tier Tribunal or the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales.(2) The relevant probation body—(a) must take all reasonable steps to ascertain whether a person who appears to the body to be the victim of the offence or to act for the victim of the offence wishes to provide a victim impact statement to the body, and(b) if the person provides such a statement, must forward it to the tribunal.(3) Where a victim impact statement has been forwarded to the tribunal under subsection (2), the tribunal must—(a) allow the person who made the statement to request permission to read the statement to the tribunal at a relevant hearing, and(b) grant such permission unless the tribunal considers that there are good reasons not to.(4) The tribunal may have regard to the statement when determining a matter specified in section 36(5)(a) or (b) (but must not have regard to it for any other purpose).(5) In this section—“relevant hearing” means any hearing held by the tribunal before making a decision which disposes of proceedings on the application or reference mentioned in subsection (1);“the relevant probation body” has the meaning given in section 37(8);“victim impact statement” means a statement about the way in which, and degree to which, the offence has affected and (as the case may be) continues to affect the victim or any other person.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for victims of certain serious offences, where the offender is subject to a hospital order with a restriction order, to provide a "victim impact statement" to a tribunal which is considering certain matters in relation to the discharge of the offender.
Lord Bellamy
“(za) in subsection (1)(c), for “section 32” substitute “section 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, including the extent to which the duty in section 5(A1) of that Act (duty to provide services in accordance with the code) is being complied with”;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Victims’ Commissioner to keep under review compliance with the victims’ code (see my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27).
Baroness Bertin
“(3A) A counselling information request may be made only if the authorised person has reason to believe that the information sought is likely to have substantial probative value to a reasonable line of enquiry which is being pursued, or is to be pursued, by the authorised person or another authorised person.(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), a “counselling information request” means a victim information request to a person who provides counselling services of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires an authorised person to believe that the information sought by a counselling information request is likely to have substantial probative value.
Baroness Bertin
“(10) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3B) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations defining the counselling services in relation to which my amendment of Clause 24, page 22, line 38 applies to be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Baroness Bertin
“(1A) The code must in particular—(a) provide that an authorised person must, when considering whether they are satisfied as required by paragraph (c) of section 44A(3) in relation to a counselling information request, start from the presumption that the request is not necessary and proportionate to achieve a purpose in that paragraph, and(b) set out the steps that must be taken by an authorised person when deciding whether that presumption is rebutted.(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), a “counselling information request” has the meaning given by section 44A(3B).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the code of practice issued under new section 44D of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to provide for authorised persons to presume that counselling information requests are not necessary and proportionate and to take certain steps when considering making such requests.
Earl Howe
“Child victims of domestic abuse(1) The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 is amended as follows.(2) After section 49 insert—“Notifying schools etc if child is suspected victim of domestic abuse
49A Arrangements to notify schools etc(1) A chief officer of police of a police force maintained for a police area must ensure that arrangements are in place to secure the objective in subsection (2).(2) The objective is that, if a member of the force has reasonable grounds to believe that a child who resides in the police area may be a victim of domestic abuse, any relevant educational establishment is notified as soon as is reasonably practicable except in such circumstances as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) For the purposes of this section, each of the following is a relevant educational establishment in relation to a child—(a) a school at which the child is a registered pupil;(b) if the child is not a registered pupil at a school—(i) if the child is receiving education at only one educational establishment, that establishment;(ii) if the child is receiving education at more than one educational establishment, such one or more of those establishments as is determined in accordance with the arrangements in place under subsection (1) for the police area in which the child resides.(4) In this section—“child” means a person under the age of 18 years;“educational establishment” means—(a) a school in England or Wales;(b) an institution within the further education sector, within the meaning given by section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;(c) in relation to England, a 16 to 19 Academy, within the meaning given by section 1B of the Academies Act 2010;“registered pupil” , in relation to a school, has the meaning given by section 434 of the Education Act 1996;“school” has the meaning given by section 4 of the Education Act 1996. 49B Power to extend section 49A to childcare providers
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend section 49A so that the objective in subsection (2) of that section applies in relation to childcare providers, or childcare providers of particular descriptions, as it applies in relation to relevant educational establishments.(2) In this section—“childcare” —(a) in relation to England, has the meaning given by section 18 of the Childcare Act 2006;(b) in relation to Wales, means anything that amounts to child minding or day care for children for the purposes of Part 2 of the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010 (nawm 1) (see section 19(2) to (5) of that Measure);“childcare provider” means—(a) in relation to England, a person who provides childcare—(i) in respect of which the person is registered under Part 3 of the Childcare Act 2006,(ii) in respect of which the person would, but for section 34(2) or 53(2) of that Act, be required to be registered under Chapter 2 or 3 of Part 3 of that Act, or(iii) in respect of which the person would, but for section 63(3) of that Act, be able to be registered under Chapter 4 of Part 3 of that Act;(b) in relation to Wales, a person who provides childcare in respect of which the person is registered under Part 2 of the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010.”(3) In the italic heading before section 50, for “and orders” substitute “, orders and notification arrangements”.(4) In section 56 (interpretation of Part 3), in subsection (4), after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) section 3 (children as victims of domestic abuse).”(5) In section 87 (regulations), in subsection (6), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) regulations under section 49B,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires police chiefs to ensure that arrangements are in place for relevant schools and colleges to be notified if a member of the force has reasonable grounds to believe that a child who resides in the police area may be a victim of domestic abuse.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy. Government Amendment 90 would require the police to notify schools as soon as possible when they have reasonable grounds to believe that a child in their police force area may be a victim of domestic abuse. That means that all children who may be a victim of domestic abuse will receive the necessary support and relevant safeguarding interventions.
Domestic abuse is an abhorrent and sometimes fatal crime, yet it is far too common. It is high volume, high harm and high cost. We fully recognise the devasting impact that it can have on children and young people, which is why we are determined to protect and support better the victims of abuse, including children, and bring perpetrators to justice. The landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 acknowledged, for the first time, the appalling damage that domestic abuse can inflict on children and young people and recognised the damage caused to children who see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse.
Recognising children as victims of domestic abuse in their own right is a very important step. It helps to ensure that children themselves remain visible in the multi-agency response to domestic abuse. This government amendment will help us take this work one step further. It will legislate that each chief officer of police across England and Wales must ensure that arrangements are in place to notify schools when they have reasonable grounds to believe that a child may be a victim of domestic abuse.
This amendment places the notification scheme, widely known as Operation Encompass, on a statutory footing. It is already in operation across all 43 police forces in England and Wales on a voluntary basis. By enshrining the scheme in law, we can ensure that it is consistently applied across all forces. This will help improve early intervention and enable the most vulnerable children to be safeguarded from the harms of domestic abuse.
This Government are committed to supporting child victims and protecting them from domestic abuse. The amendment will be key in our efforts to do so. I therefore hope that the House will welcome it, and I beg to move.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 90, which provides for the relaying of information to schools. Schools need accurate and prompt information about what is going on. They need to know, and understand, what is happening, or what is suspected. Therefore, I welcome the amendment. It is almost as important as the information going the other way—that is to say, schools relay information to local authorities and, where appropriate, to the police.
I am afraid to say that there are a few cases I have come across where schools, or individual members of school staff, have been reluctant to get involved in child abuse cases, or where there is suspected child abuse. Albeit this amendment provides for the information to pass the other way—from the authorities to the school—if it serves to do anything it may well encourage the passing of information in both directions.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, we also welcome Amendment 90. I want to add one other issue though. It is very much a one-way system, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has announced, and I ask whether the noble Earl will write to me, the noble Lord, and any noble Lords who speak in this group, to report on the Government’s progress on the recommendations that they have accepted following the independent inquiry into child sex abuse. Recommendation 13 is about the need for mandatory reporting, and the Government said, over a year ago, that there would be a full public consultation beginning with a publication of a call for evidence. I have seen neither, but, more importantly, I want to know when we can—perhaps through this Bill—have something going the other way, as the noble Lord so rightly pointed out.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I have a genuine question. Of course, I support the amendment, but the wording here is
“if a member of the force has reasonable grounds to believe that a child who resides in the police area may be a victim of domestic abuse”.
If there is a situation where one of the parents calls the police, and there is what is called a “call-out”, that will be recorded, and that sort of information is made available to courts in particular circumstances. But would the child be seen as a potential victim of domestic abuse because the parents have made that telephone call because of a dispute between the parents?
Nevertheless, I support the duty to notify, but I wonder whether the Minister can answer that specific question.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment. I will deal, just briefly, with the points raised.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, a child is considered to have suffered the effects of domestic abuse even if they have not been the direct recipient of that abuse. That is why I made it clear in my opening remarks that it is as much about children who see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse as it is about a child who themselves have been on the receiving end of such abuse. It is all encompassing in that sense.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as I understand it the position at the moment is that the statutory safeguarding guidance, Keeping Children Safe in Education, outlines that all schools and colleges must have regard to their legal duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. However, as far as the noble Baroness’s specific question is concerned, I shall need to write to let her and other noble Lords know exactly how far we have reached in the process she outlined. I am afraid I do not have that information with me today.
Baroness Fox of Buckley
“Collection of data on victims of crimeThe Secretary of State must issue guidance for relevant bodies including police and crime commissioners in respect of data collection to ensure that sex registered at birth is recorded for both victims and perpetrators of crime.”
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Amendment 93 simply but crucially calls on the Secretary of State to
“issue guidance for relevant bodies”,
such as the police and police and crime commissioners,
“in respect of data collection to ensure that sex registered at birth is recorded for both victims and perpetrators”.
Just to note, the heading in the amendment is rather misleading when it says:
“Collection of data on victims of crime”.
Actually, the main confusion lies with the perpetrators, which obviously has an impact on the victims.
For the policies and proposals in the Bill to be effective, which we all want, many of them will rely on evidence. That means criminological research and official crime data, such as recorded crime and victim surveys, which will enable stakeholders, policymakers and researchers to analyse patterns in both victimisation and offending, and will allow interventions and services to be developed and resources to be targeted effectively.
As I pointed out in Committee, criminal justice data needs to be accurate, credible and consistent. However, data on a person’s sex is now not accurate, credible or consistent because agencies in the criminal justice system do not distinguish between sex, gender identity or self-declared sex. I will not repeat the detailed evidence collected by freedom of information requests that I cited in Committee, but police forces increasingly differ from area to area, recording crime statistics variously, some by biological sex but others by some other concept based on ever-fluid and subjective ideas about gender identity, which is often recorded as if it were sex.
The guidance I ask for in this amendment would clarify that gender should not be used as a synonym for sex, as it leads to confusion and conflation. In turn, this conflation of sex and gender compromises official statistics in terms of trustworthiness, quality, and value for policy and for public understanding. The guidance should untangle the vast array of muddled recording practices around government records, such as passports, driving licences, NHS numbers, et cetera, all of which can be changed, but no amount of documentation changing affects the need for a consistently applied legal identity that is fixed and unchanging from birth to death, registered with the state and necessary for the state to fulfil its responsibilities to citizens—no more so than in criminal justice. That is why data based on sex registered at birth is so important, as it is a fundamental demographic variable, reflecting the reality of sex-based differences between men and women.
Those compiling the guidance might look at other identifiers. For example, in the debate on my Amendment 18 on the previous day on Report, I discussed the problems of identity confusion in relation to safeguarding checks. Keep Prisons Single Sex has made an interesting recommendation relating to the mandatory use of national insurance numbers for DBS checks in relation to identity changes. National insurance numbers remain constant throughout an individual’s life. They are unique to each individual. They do not change and they are unchangeable—even, for example, when an individual obtains legal recognition of acquired gender. So even if someone is issued a GRC, the individual’s new details are listed against their existing national insurance number, which is unchanged and retained until 50 years after the individual’s death. It seems that the state does understand the importance of accurately recording and knowing who a citizen is, and their natal sex, when it comes to collecting taxes. Such seriousness is necessary in other policy areas.
We can see the dangers of confusion if we look at what the Cass review has to say about data in relation to NHS numbers; I am grateful to Sex Matters for its briefing on this issue. NHS numbers are the unique national patient identifier in the UK’s health and social care system, and are vital for clinical safety, record management and, of course, clinical research. However, it has been policy for some time that GP surgeries can change a patient’s recorded sex on their medical records at any time, without requiring diagnosis or any form of gender reassignment treatment, and request a new NHS number. Public Health England tells GPs that medical information on the person’s record must be gender neutralised and transferred to a newly created medical record.
The Cass review found that many children seen by GIDS had changed NHS numbers before they had been seen by specialists, and some were “living in stealth”—that is attending school in the opposite sex. The Cass review draws attention to the dangers this poses, which is helpfully analogous to the problems I am raising and that we face in the lack of clarity on crime data. Dr Cass raises
“concerns about children and young people’s NHS numbers being changed inconsistently, as there is no specific guidance for GPs”.
The review highlighted changing NHS numbers putting children and young people “at risk”—for example,
“young people attending hospital after self-harm not being identifiable as … on a child protection order”,
And, from a research perspective, creating difficulties in identifying
“long-term outcomes for a patient population for whom the evidence base is weak”.
In criminal justice, inconsistent data collection, due to the conflation between sex and gender, can similarly compromise safeguarding and especially distort research—as a consequence, potentially distorting the way the public access facts in relation to crime. Take the differing offending patterns between males and females. Males commit the large majority of offences per se, and some offence categories are only or very rarely committed by females, such as sexual offences or violent crime in particular. That means that even if only a small number of natal males who identify as females are recorded as women, this skews the female sex-offending statistics in a misleading way.
This amendment proposes that the Government use guidance to bring clarity to the situation. This is of democratic importance and seems an important part of the Bill, which means more accountability to and about victims and accountability to the public about the victims and perpetrators of crime. The truth is that the practices of criminal justice agencies recording self-declared sex as actual sex were introduced by public authorities without proper democratic debate, behind the backs of the public, depriving the public of clarity about what is measured in crime data. That then seeps over into misleading the public about precisely who commits crime when it arrives in the public sphere, via the media, for example.
I warmly welcome the manifesto for police and crime commissioners published by campaign groups Fair Cop and Keep Prisons Single Sex, and one section seems especially pertinent to finish with. It says that police and crime commissioners’
“Press releases and communication with the public must be written in accurate and accessible language. Suspects, and other persons of interest, must be described in a way that the public can clearly and quickly understand. Sex registered at birth is always information that must be shared with the public”
and not concealed. Beyond this official crime agency language and media reporting, police-collected data must not be allowed to erase measurable facts and objective reality.
I hope that this amendment will receive support across the House as a modest contribution to clearing up these confusions. I am hoping the Overton window has shifted of late, by the way. How welcome it was to hear Labour shadow Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood acknowledge that she agrees with JK Rowling that
“biological sex is real and is immutable”.
As well, I welcome her comments on the dangers of justice by hashtag and free speech. This amendment simply seeks to ensure that criminal justice data also recognises the immutable nature of sex. I hope the Labour Party will back me in relation to this. I am grateful as well to the Government and the Minister, who has organised for officials to discuss these issues with Kate Coleman from KPSS before Third Reading. It is in everyone’s interest that crime data is accurate, credible and consistent. At present, it is not. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for her Amendment 93, which requires guidance to be issued on data collection of sex registered at birth for victims and perpetrators of crime. I recognise the noble Baroness’s commitment to this topic, and I believe the House will return to the subject tomorrow. Many of the points I will make were made last week while discussing the noble Baroness’s other amendment that sought to require data to be collected. I therefore apologise for any repetition.
The Government recognise that accurate data and statistics on biological sex are important to good research and effective policy. For this reason, the Home Office issued guidance in April 2021 in the annual data requirement that sex should be recorded in its legal sense, what is on either an individual’s birth certificate or their gender recognition certificate. Gender identity should also be recorded separately if that differs from that. For consistency, this is based on classifications used in the 2021 census for England and Wales.
Since implementing this guidance, the Government have commissioned an independent review of the recording of sex by public bodies, which will report at the end of August 2024. The Home Office will consider this new guidance once it is available in deciding whether changes are needed to the recording of the sex of victims and perpetrators dealt with by the police.
However, we recognise that there are concerns in this area, and the department has committed to meet groups such as Keep Prisons Single Sex to hear their concerns. Legislation is not required for guidance to be issued on this area. We will continue to work with stakeholders and await the outcome of the review for whether further guidance is needed in this area. I respectfully ask that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, when I was at school, there used to be a tactic called sending people to Coventry, in which you were ignored as a sign of contempt. I am disappointed a second time that the Opposition Benches do not think it worth engaging on the issue, regardless of whether they want to engage with the individual who is putting forward the issue. I am very glad to hear the Minister’s words that the Government are taking this seriously. I genuinely hope that Opposition parties will take this seriously as well, because there is a problem. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Bach, talk earlier about the importance of accurate and consistent data and simplifying data. He made a good point, and I backed him up on it. I was rather hoping that this side of the House—the Labour Benches—might see that through and at least make some positive comments in relation to my amendment.
I will, of course, withdraw the amendment, but I do not withdraw the importance of the issue. I hope that the detail that will be brought by somebody who has got a detailed knowledge of this—Kate Coleman—to the meeting will help any guidance that might emerge in August and also ensure that we no longer carry on showing the public confused data and hoping that they can work their way through it. It is a democratic question, and I hope that, in future, democrats will take it more seriously than perhaps we have seen tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.