House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we start today’s proceedings, I bring to the attention of the House that the speaking time for all the debates today is three minutes. That means that when noble Lords get to two minutes, they need to start making their concluding remarks. At three minutes, their time is up. It is important that we ensure that every Member can speak and is treated fairly. I ask noble Lords particularly to remember our colleagues in the last debate, who want to leave the House at the allotted time.
Education (Values of British Citizenship) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, fundamental British values were first introduced in 2011 as part of the Government’s Prevent strategy. In November 2014, the Department for Education published guidance on how they should be promoted in schools. These fundamental British values, as at present defined, are: democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.
I am absolutely committed to the teaching of fundamental British values in schools. The purpose of my Bill is to make these values clearer and more holistic, and thereby to strengthen the teaching of citizenship in schools. The introduction of these values aroused opposition at the time on two grounds. First, some in the Muslim community felt that their introduction was directed at them in particular. Then there were those who felt that they were asserting British values as somehow superior to those of other cultures. More than 10 years have passed since their introduction, and now is exactly the right time to consider whether the original formulation was adequate and, in particular, whether it is possible to find a form of wording that is more rounded and is independent of the aims of the Prevent strategy.
An influential interfaith committee was set up by the Woolf Institute in Cambridge and chaired by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Its report, Living with Difference, published in December 2015, strongly advocated the teaching of British values in schools but regretted that they were brought in as part of the Prevent strategy. In paragraphs 3.13 and 3.14 it looked forward to a more holistic understanding, independent of that strategy.
In fact, thought has already been given to these values in a House of Lords Select Committee report, The Ties that Bind: Citizenship and Civic Engagement in the 21st Century. The committee was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and it reported in April 2018. He regrets that he cannot be here this morning but wants it to be known that he supports the Bill. I declare an interest, having been a member of that committee and of that which produced Living with Difference. The whole of chapter 2 of The Ties that Bind is given over to a discussion of fundamental values. What I am putting forward in this Private Member’s Bill is based in particular on the recommendations in paragraphs 46 and 58 of that report.
As mentioned, I believe passionately that fundamental values should be taught in schools. At a time when the world has a growing number of dictatorships, autocracies and managed democracies, it is vital that pupils in our schools should understand the fundamental political values on which our society is founded. A first change suggested in my Bill is that these values should formally be termed the “values of British citizenship”. This was recommended in paragraph 46 of The Ties that Bind. This wording avoids the implication that they are superior to the values of any other culture or country; it just states that they are, as a matter of fact, the values of being a British citizen, whether by birth or naturalisation. Being British commits you to these values. They might still be known as British values for short, but tying them explicitly to British citizenship would not only answer one of the original objections but give the concept more legal precision.
On the specifics of the values there are, of course, major overlaps between the present wording and what is now being put forward. Most obviously, both affirm the rule of law and democracy—there is no change there. However, whereas the present wording refers to “individual liberty”, the Bill uses “freedom” and, in subsection (3), states that this includes
“(a) freedom of thought, conscience and religion, (b) freedom of expression, and (c) freedom of assembly and association”.
It seems to me that “individual liberty” is far too vague by itself and that what is fundamental to our way of life, as the wording of the Bill suggests, is freedom to think and state what we believe, and to do this, on occasion, in association with other people. The phrase “individual liberty” is individualistic. The freedom of our society includes freedom of the press and the freedom to form a company or a political party. In short, this freedom is social and is as much about institutions as it is about individuals.
The present wording refers to
“mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.
We note that this is all one clause. It does not affirm mutual respect as a separate value; rather, mutual respect, in the formulation, is tied to tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. This is a great defect and shows the clear influence of the time it was brought in, as part of the Prevent strategy. Respect for the fundamental dignity and worth of every person ought to be included in its own right, not simply in relation to different faiths and beliefs. Also, “tolerance” is far too vague. It is far better to say clearly, as in the Bill, that freedom includes freedom of religion—that is the internationally accepted term. It is a case of not just tolerating different views but recognising that freedom of religion is fundamental to our society.
As I said, the present wording refers to “mutual respect”, which is a nice way of putting it but, in the wording, is tied to different faith and beliefs and does not bring out what is fundamental—namely, the equal worth and dignity of every human being and the respect that is due to them as a result of that. In this Private Member’s Bill, Clause 1(1)(d) refers to “individual worth”, which is defined in subsection (4) as
“respect for the equal worth and dignity of every person”.
In the wording we have at the moment, there is no mention of the word “equal”. There are many ways in which we are unequal, but we are all agreed as a country that we are equal before the law, that we all have one vote—no more, no less—and that, whether we are old or young, disabled or a minority group, we should be treated equally by the state, and indeed by all of us at an individual level. It is very important that this should be explicitly stated as one of the fundamental values of our society, but it is not mentioned in the wording that we have at the moment.
A major addition to fundamental values as we have them now, which goes beyond what was recommended in The Ties that Bind, is what is set out in subsection (1)(e), “respect for the environment”, which is then defined in subsection (5) as
“taking into account the systemic effect of human actions on the health and sustainability of the environment both within the United Kingdom and the planet as a whole, for present and future generations”.
For young people, that is often the key moral issue of our times. I believe that the addition of “respect for the environment” would help young people to see the importance of this set of values as a whole.
One reason why I believe strongly in this Bill is because I think it would help to strengthen the teaching of citizenship education in schools. Citizenship education is meant to be taught in schools, but the committee that produced The Ties that Bind discovered that, while a few schools do it very well, some do not do it at all, and many more subsume it under spiritual, moral, social and cultural education. While SMSC is eminently worth while, there should be a specific content to citizenship education, concerned with our political system and why it matters, which needs to be taught in its own right. I believe that the more rounded wording of this Private Member’s Bill would give a boost to citizenship education, showing clearly the political values that are to be taught and giving the subject a much sharper focus. I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord on bringing forward this Bill and on his contribution to the Select Committee he mentioned. I was proud to serve with him on it, under the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson.
There is a lot to be said in three minutes, but this is a timely moment—timely because there is a curriculum review now initiated under the chairmanship of Becky Francis; because, sadly, we saw over the summer the riots taking place across our country; and because, of course, we see the most enormous threats both from distortion on social media and from the re-emergence of the far right across the world. This is the moment to reinforce the importance of those values that hold us together—the ties that bind.
British values are not exclusive to Britain, but they are about our country. We debated this at great length in the committee and came to the conclusion that of course other people will share those values in their own context, but to reinforce them is really important, as former Prime Minister Gordon Brown endeavoured to do in the debate he initiated just under 20 years ago.
I was proud to introduce the idea of citizenship and democracy teaching in the curriculum over 20 years ago. Sadly, many of those who have the power to ensure that it works never had citizenship and democracy taught to them when they were at school, so they do not really get the message. That applies right across the most powerful elements within our education system. So if we are to make this work—and to detach it from the Prevent strategy, mentioned by the noble and right reverend Lord in terms of what happened in 2011, which I think is the right thing to do—we need to move quickly.
I could go on and on, but I do not have the time this morning, about how my old tutor, Professor Bernard Crick, who chaired the working group that led to the curriculum on citizenship and democracy, used to ask, “How can you tolerate the intolerant?”. Tolerance is a very odd phrase, because if you have to tolerate something, your dislike of it is such that you do not accept that you can respect and hold it on common terms.
If we are to make this work—there have been a number of iterations, and my noble friend Lord Knight has brought forward ideas about the environment—we must train teachers, we must give bursaries, which we are not doing, to enable that to take place, and we must get rid of the Catch-22, which is that if you do not teach children, they will not go forward through the GCSE. If they do not do that, the department rules out providing the support to train more teachers —and round we go. Let us take this Bill and use it as a mechanism to go forward, genuinely believing that, if we do not teach this now, we will regret it later.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and right reverend Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord on his Bill, which seeks to update and clarify the principles underlying the teaching of fundamental British values in our schools, within the national curriculum’s citizenship programme.
We all understand that sensitive issues are involved. One is the use of the term “fundamental British values”, which, when it was introduced as part of the Prevent strategy in 2011, met with opposition from some communities where people felt that the term was directed at them. Others felt the term suggested that British values were somehow superior to other nations’ values. The Bill meets these criticisms head-on by referring instead to the “values of British citizenship”. There are other textual but very important changes in the Bill, and the extremely interesting addition of “respect for the environment”—but there are questions about the current teaching of citizenship in our schools.
I turn to the Minister, whom I warmly welcome to her post. She will know that, in 2013, Ofsted reported positively on the teaching in schools of citizenship education. It said that
“headteachers had recognised the rich contribution the subject makes to pupils’ learning … and to the ethos of a school”.
But by 2018, a Lords Select Committee report entitled The Ties that Bind found that
“citizenship education is being subsumed”
into PHSE and was focusing on the personal development of young people rather than teaching them about their role in society, ignoring the political element of being a citizen. Rather alarmingly, the Lords Liaison Committee heard in 2022 from the Association for Citizenship Teaching that
“there was a general lack of … understanding of the subject by inspectors of what Citizenship is”.
I am shocked. I spent some time in my professional career as a schools inspector and this seems a rare accusation.
What has caused this change? We all value citizenship teaching, but do teachers now find the concept vague and difficult? Or do they, conscious of the sensitivities involved, need the confidence of new definitions and more clarity? I hope that the Government will see the proposals in the Bill as thoughtful and sensitive and a positive way forward.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of Young Citizens, formerly the Citizenship Foundation. Teaching citizenship has a relatively short history in the UK, certainly when compared with other European countries. Its formal inclusion in the national curriculum began only in 2002. At this time, citizenship education had become compulsory and a GCSE in citizenship studies was introduced. However, this early promise was not maintained and in 2014, a government review resulted in a weaker programme that stressed constitutional history and volunteerism rather than active citizenship. Furthermore, the requirement for most schools to teach the national curriculum was removed, resulting in a significant decrease in citizenship teaching and, indeed, teachers.
Yet young people today face an extremely complex world, from riots and food poverty in the UK to wars and environmental degradation, but they also feel distanced from a democratic system that might address their concerns. The distrust of politicians, institutions and the democratic process has never been greater: 44% of young people surveyed had little or no confidence in their ability to participate and 63% did not believe that their voice was ever heard or had any impact.
The Bill goes some way to redress the balance. It restates and changes the current set of values, emphasising freedom of thought, speech, religion and assembly, individual worth and respect for the environment. In reframing the fundamental British values, it gives schools the opportunity to focus on cultivating the new values and introduces new connections with human rights, government and policy. In this sense, citizenship education is both a subject in itself and provides a framework for perceiving and relating to society more generally.
Values and attitudes need to be actively taught; in other words, we need to bring citizenship to life. This can be achieved by means of interactive and practical learning. As always, the real test will lie in the implementation. There are many steps that need to be taken, starting with providing teachers with training and resources. The next step is a firm commitment on the part of all schools to incorporate the values of British citizenship within the curriculum. Thereafter, the task will be to evaluate the impact of such courses, hopefully armed with positive results, and to continue to encourage policymakers to recognise the importance of values and support their long-term inclusion in national curricula.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill. I hope that the Government are sympathetic to it and, whether or not it manages to complete its passage through both Houses, will take up the issue of citizenship education as a very important element.
We face a collapse in public trust in our democratic institutions. Surveys show that public trust in Westminster politics is lower than it has ever been since surveys began. We had the lowest turnout for a century in the most recent election. We should not regard our democratic institutions and respect for the rule of law as entirely secure. We see populism in the United States threatening to undermine the entire structure of the American constitution, democracy and the rule of law, and in three or four weeks, we may be watching with some horror what might be the contested outcome of the American election. We need to make sure that populism does not begin to get a stronger hold here. That requires us to engage our citizens and teach them the values of mutual respect, freedom of expression and the value of our institutions as such.
There is very little respect for Westminster politics at all in the public at the moment and many of us are worried about the decline among our young in the willingness to tolerate and have mutual respect for alternative opinions, which is part of the current freedom of speech debate, and where the limits of freedom of speech are. So we do need this Bill, or we need the Government to take it on board. We know the obstacles. I read the Telegraph from time to time, which tells me that all teachers are left-wing and that university teachers are systemically left-wing and indoctrinate their pupils. We know all those things, but actually, it is possible to teach citizenship in a relatively neutral way and to challenge people. I used to have Chinese and Singaporean students at the London School of Economics and I had to work very hard to explain to them that disagreeing with me, as their teacher, was a good idea—but that is part of what one has to do.
Yes, we need proper education for teachers, too, to encourage them to do it. We need to make sure that our schools are part of their local community, which they have ceased to be, partly, in recent years. We need to make sure that school budgets are large enough for this, because citizenship education is a vital part of ensuring that our democracy flourishes.
In this House in the early 19th century, a number of Peers objected to universal education on the grounds that it would lead to having a population that did not respect its elders and betters. However, when the Reform Act 1866 came through, there were a number of Liberals who argued that “Now is the time we need to educate our masters”. We need to educate our citizens and that why this Bill is a good thing.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, on bringing forward this Private Member’s Bill, and indeed on the many years of thinking and hard work which have brought the Bill to this point. I welcome the Bill, support its aims and heartily welcome the five specific headings, which together give some definition of what is meant by “British values” in an educational context.
Especially in an educational context, it will be vital to foster a culture in which these headline categories are inhabited in a meaningful way. This kind of culture is capable of being fostered as much in the teaching of maths and science as through the teaching of citizenship, PSHE or RE, but these latter subjects provide an opportunity for values to be addressed directly and explicitly. I shall say something further about RE in particular, but the list of values identified in the Bill includes respect for the environment, and I would also like to say something about the potential for a natural history GSCE.
I will address RE first. The statutory inspection process for Anglican and Methodist schools and their teaching of RE means that church schools can confidently guarantee a high-quality, diverse religious education that supports children to develop the skills and knowledge they need to grow into global citizens and to navigate the nuances of a secular, multi-religious society. However, both citizenship and RE subjects have fallen foul of the English baccalaureate system. Since its introduction in 2017, uptake of RE at GCSE has fallen sharply and social studies uptake has consistently remained below 10%. It is my sincere hope that, through the Bill and through the current government curriculum and assessment review, timetables and curriculum frameworks will be structured to prioritise and value the crucial learning currently taking place under the banners of citizenship and religious education.
Secondly, on the proposed natural history GCSE, the Bill provides an extraordinary opportunity to embed respect for the environment into British values through the education system. Wisely applied, this could ensure that young people are taught about climate and nature issues consistently and systematically, rather than as part of discrete subject areas such as geography and science. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, lead Bishop for the environment, assures me that the natural history GCSE has gone through the required iterations and is ready, but the launch of this new GCSE has been delayed without explanation. I would be grateful for some clarification from the Minister as to what problem, if any, there is in launching this new pathway.
I support the Bill and hope that it will give renewed purpose to the teaching in our schools of RE and citizenship on the one hand, and natural history on the other, while also recognising that the five headline areas identified in the Bill will only ever be headings unless we foster the culture in which they can truly be inhabited and lived out.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, today is Wear Red Day, the annual fundraising day for Show Racism the Red Card, of which I am the national vice-president. It is an educational charity specifically working in schools and increasingly in workplaces on anti-racist education and anti-racism. It also helps to train teachers, specifically in Wales, but we hope in England too.
Individual worth, as envisaged in the Bill, must mean the promotion in schools of anti-racism—of challenging racism of all types. Prejudice, or ignorance-based behaviour, as my noble friend Lord Mann sometimes describes it, is not acceptable. Show Racism the Red Card has programmes to challenge the background to racism as well as its contemporary manifestations, and to look at hate crime and how to challenge it.
A report out this week, A Portrait of Modern Britain, paints a somewhat rosier picture of the state of our country than some might recognise, but it rightly asserts that racism and discrimination have not been eliminated. I think we are all well aware of that. If the Bill provides an opportunity to look again at the curriculum and how we challenge islamophobia, anti-Semitism and all forms of racism—to be explicit, how we teach anti-racism—it would be a very good thing. It seems to me that individual worth adequately covers the notion that we should be teaching anti-racism.
Finally, I would like to say a word about the Prevent strategy. I was still engaged in education full time at the time of its introduction, and I am all too well aware that there were very big problems with it. The National Education Union, then the NUT—my union—believed that we should be taking a child protection approach to the issue of children being groomed into extremism. That is all the more true because according to Amnesty International, 87% of referrals of under-15 year-olds through the Prevent strategy do not meet the criteria for an intervention. It seems to me that there is something not helpful about the Prevent strategy. Certainly, decoupling it from the teaching of values and citizenship would be a profoundly good idea.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, on the introduction of the Education (Values of British Citizenship) Bill. I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests.
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and I congratulate her on the important work she is doing on Show Racism the Red Card. I also agree with the decoupling of the Prevent strategy—I will say something about that later—although it is nevertheless important.
The changes that this small Bill brings about are few, but they are important. They are largely but not exclusively based on the work of the House of Lords Citizenship and Civic Engagement Committee, which reported in April 2018—some time ago—and was so ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.
Broadening out British values as shared values of British citizenship seems wise; it strengthens those values, recognising they are both international and essentially British. It is absolutely true that we cannot take democratic institutions and their survival for granted. They are being challenged, and it is important that we seek to protect them. I see the Bill as doing just that.
The Bill also substitutes respect for the inherent worth and autonomy of every person in place of the existing mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. I support that too; that is important.
I quite understand the rationale behind breaking the link between the curriculum and the counter-extremism policy, Prevent. It is right to break that link, but of course, a massive number of incidents involve not just some religious fanatics but also the far right. The link should be broken, but that does not mean that the strategy is not very important. Breaking the link strengthens both the strategy and the curriculum.
As I say, I very much support the Bill. In my view, the extension to respect for the environment is also to be welcomed. The desire to protect our earth, seas, lakes, rivers, and flora and fauna is inherent to our education and our very being. I have just one question for the noble and right reverend Lord and possibly for the Minister: education is a devolved policy matter in Wales—devolved therefore to the Senedd—yet the legislation purports to cover both England and Wales. There may well be some very good reason for that, but I cannot quite see it myself, and I would be grateful if somebody could clear up that apparent discrepancy.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, this is an important Bill. It is an equally important reminder than unless children in schools learn about the importance of values for British citizenship, how on earth are they to grow up and live with their neighbours of different ideas, cultures, religions, beliefs, or none of those? As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, said, I chaired the commission in 2015, of which he was a most valued member. He largely kept us in order, which was actually quite important since there were 20 of us of various religions and none.
The noble and right reverend Lord referred to a great deal of what was said in part of that report, which came before the Select Committee and I hope had some influence on it. At the end of the day, living with difference is what we have to do, since we are a multicultural society. In our report, we set out a vision very similar to the wording of this important Bill. We included the importance of a national story, and that people should be treated with equal respect and concern. Concern matters as well as respect; we should recognise other people’s needs as well as their views. We also included freedom to practise beliefs, religious or otherwise.
Clause 1 of the Bill refers to
“democracy … the rule of law … freedom … individual worth”
and, very importantly, as other noble Lords have said,
“respect for the environment”,
which is a valuable addition to what has already been said.
The Government absolutely must take notice of what the Bill is saying and breeze it through both Houses, as I would hope, or at least bring it into whatever legislation they choose to introduce. One way or another, it is extremely important, as other noble Lords have said, that the Government pick up and act on what is being said today by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. It is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
In 1973, as a secondary school student, in the eyes of all my teachers except one, I was visible only through the ancient, preconceived notion of the cultural and religious oppression of women—that higher education was useless for an Asian girl who, at most, would work in a factory and would certainly be married off at an early age. I did not disappoint anyone, in that I did get married very early, but of my own choosing. It is a fact that the third and fourth generation particularly of Muslim girls and women continue these trajectories of British values.
It is not culture, colour or faith that constrain individuals from reaching their full potential or aiding their sense of belonging; it is history and a legacy of colonisation, racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia rooted in our institutions that intrinsically deny citizens equitable opportunities to excel. In 2024, countless UK education establishments continue to fail generations of children who are working class, black British, of Afro-Caribbean descent and of Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritages. We see the grave consequences of prolonged alienation, which leads to distrust in communities and violence on our streets.
It is not just a piece of paper that induces pride in citizenship; a plethora of social actions is required to repair broken communities, with a systemic shift in unbiased education, social policies and investment. I also fear the risk of othering, in the context of redefining new British values, when we prescribe who is worthy of legitimate freedom of speech and assembly, while questioning the inalienable rights of others who are seen through a prism of spreading hate, including the threat of revoking citizenship.
Our conduct at home and our action elsewhere are visible to the global village. Equally, our response to international wars and conflicts, in upholding the values of human rights and international law, is rightly receiving significant scrutiny and eroding confidence and trust in our democratic institutions at home. When we speak of British values, it is impossible to consider their application without the intrinsic hierarchy of the implied legacy of slavery and colonisation and the lenses of culture, religion, racial wars and class divisions. Unless we recognise the complexities of common values, we will not prevail among all citizens equally.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I have three minutes and three points. First, I was last a school pupil in 1977. This House is ahead of the Commons on this issue, but we are both well behind the times and get so by the day, never mind by the year. Five hours ago, Mr Musk launched a website, where he is paying any registered voter in Pennsylvania $100 to sign up to his charter and hand over their data, and a further $100 for recruiting another registered voter. That may be, in the short term, a political electoral attempt to do something, but behind and beyond it is something far more fundamental in trying to mould people’s views. This Bill, which is an excellent initiative, refers to the UK Youth Parliament, which is asked to feed back. Frankly, I am curious, but no more than that, on what UK youth think on the big issues of the day. However, on this subject, it is critical to me—and, I suggest, to all of us—to understand how young people see themselves in today’s world.
Secondly, we need more data. I have a micro analysis on what is happening with anti-Semitism in schools, which is, I think, the biggest and only one that exists anywhere in the world. It is not public and I am contemplating what to do with it; it is certainly available to the Minister and her officials. It shows the nature of what is going on, and it shocked me in how wrong I was on some of the things I was looking at, even though I am the government adviser—I have a degree of expertise in this area. Data on what is going on is critical, and we need more.
Thirdly, something is going on with the various extremists, who are particularly targeting young women or all women, that is so big and profound that we are in danger of missing it. It is so dangerous. This work, as well as being in schools, must also be in school sixth forms and further education. There, it will not be content-taught; it is about how we allow the young people, in a sense, to organise themselves to think and discuss this. I strongly recommend that this Government re-engage with the National Union of Students, with 16 to 18 year-olds being the key priority for a new initiative.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but I make it clear that I am speaking in a personal capacity. This is my first opportunity to interact with the Minister, whom I warmly welcome to her important role; I look forward to future engagements.
I have huge respect for the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, so I find myself in an unusual position of opposition to this Bill. I hope to explain why something as nebulous as values are not capable of codification, especially as they change over time, as they should. This Bill might be better seen as describing a set of British rules or as a political Highway Code for the basic rules of any liberal democracy, not just those of Britain. For a liberal democracy to function well, it needs more than these widely agreed political rules; it needs a high degree of trust and fellow feeling between citizens.
In turn, that requires a shared language, some degree of shared norms and even a broadly shared way of life, albeit with different streams all flowing into the mainstream. That has to grow organically; it cannot be imposed in the form of some programme of British values. One of the central paradoxes of liberal societies is that, although they need a high degree of common norms or values to function well, the doctrine of liberal pluralism insists that individuals should be able, as long as they respect that political Highway Code, to pursue radically different ideas of the good life. Atheists and pious believers of many kinds, egalitarians and libertarians, moralists and libertines; all must be accommodated in liberal societies. That means that the attempt to codify a workable set of British values, which is more than the political Highway Code, is a project that is inimical to liberalism.
Another factor against the Bill is its practical workability. It is very brief—too brief to accommodate a workable set of definitions. These are high-level and worthy sentiments, but who is to interpret the guidance? Is it the Department for Education, the regulator Ofqual or some other public authorities that are currently unnamed? That guidance will not be subject to the rigorous scrutiny that we might see on primary legislation. Only three of these values are defined, yet it can be argued that even the others are contested. The rule of law is seen sometimes as the rule by law: an adherence to the rules, rather than the broader understanding of equality under the law. For example, freedom is already part of our law, with an active regulator in the EHRC as the national human rights institution in England and Wales. What is more, tribunals and our higher courts regularly interpret and clarify these norms. How long would it be before whatever guidance produced was out of date?
I hope to elaborate on these thoughts as we go forward to Committee. Nevertheless, I appreciate this positive attempt to make our young people think more carefully and learn about the glue that binds us together.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for bringing his Private Member’s Bill to the House, and I look forward to working with the Minister. I will take the couple of minutes I have to share the journey of my family in this country.
My grandfather arrived here in 1938, before World War II, from a business family in India. He fell in love with this country when he arrived and became part of rebuilding it during and after the war that broke out. My mother and father arrived here in 1960, with me as a nine month-old baby. My mother could not speak English. We were so lucky in those days that, even though there was huge discrimination, there was also great good will among communities. I had Irish neighbours on one side and Scottish neighbours on the other, and I grew up with broth and stew. I also grew up with them taking a keen interest in my mother being able to integrate. My father could speak English perfectly well, but my mother wanted to be part of the community. We grew up seeing our parents taking their full role in the community that we had the privilege of living in.
For me, what has always been important for all people who come to our great country is the ability to speak, read and write English. It enables everybody to integrate, to understand, to share and to be able to enjoy, as well as to join in sorrow when things go wrong. Sadly, over the years, that focus on people coming together, learning a language, being able to share and being able to understand each other has become more and more distant; I speak about this from my knowledge of my own city of Leicester. I want us to put real emphasis on the need for language. I want us to help those parents who have been here for many years but cannot integrate, because they cannot speak the language, so that they can share in that language.
My mum, who is now 85 and a real, proud British citizen, brought us up to look at ourselves as just citizens of this country. I do not want children growing up thinking that they are different. I want them to be able to be like me, sharing in festivals; Christmas in our house is probably bigger than in those of most families—28 of us get together—and then there are all the festivals. We grew up to respect and share our values with others, and they shared their values back. I hope that this is shared among us today.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, both for bringing us the Bill on this initiative and for his fine introduction. I agree with many of the speeches made already—that of the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, and notably that of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, with her expressions of concern about Prevent.
Given the time limit, I will focus on Clause 1(5), which concerns the required inclusion in educational directions of respect for the environment. This follows from the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield; I repeat his question for the Minister on where the new GCSE in natural history is.
We have inherited a disastrous set of values and attitudes towards the environment, with thinking that goes back a long way and which we have adopted into our intellectual tradition. It includes the great chain of being, which is the concept that human beings are some kind of pinnacle of life, and the idea that the whole complexity of life on earth—the living system that James Lovelock identified as Gaia, which has evolved over billions of years—is there for us as a species, under our control and for our exploitation.
The 21st century has exposed that for the dangerous fallacy it is, with the climate emergency, the nature crisis and the poisoning of our planet with novel entities; six of the nine planetary boundaries have been exceeded. We know that there are other intellectual traditions and other ways of looking at the world, which are attracting attention from our scientists and researchers. For example, I note that, across many African religions, there is the concept of ukama, which states that animals are part of a community with humans; it emphasises mutual dependence, a sense of unity and, at least sometimes, a moral imperative of respect.
For those for whom that perhaps goes a bit far, I go back to 21st-century science. It tells us that we are holobionts, a complex of tens of thousands of species. We need to understand our own bodies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, said yesterday in my Oral Question about biocides. I point noble Lords to a book written by a Member of your Lordships’ House—the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, who is not currently in her place—entitled Good Nature: The New Science of How Nature Improves Our Health. We are failing our children if we do not educate them about their place as part of nature; that needs to be part of a much broader change where our education system works to prepare people for life, not just exams and jobs.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I welcome this Bill, so comprehensively and eloquently introduced by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. It is indeed time to pay more attention to what citizenship consists of and what our society stands for. We benefit from a diverse society but its cohesion has deteriorated during the past years. The Bill would improve cohesion by affirming common and positive values. In general, it would give our children—and others—firm ground on which to develop the standards of behaviour that we need to live together peacefully and creatively. It covers the important elements that make our social norms.
I would like to highlight one provision. A principle from which we would particularly benefit from promulgating is that underlying the Bill’s inclusion of individual worth: the value of respect for and acknowledgment of the dignity of each of our fellow citizens. We have expressed this in our laws of human rights. They essentially enable tolerance; if we are to be tolerant, we need to be aware of what we tolerate and what the enemies of tolerance are. Both democracy and the rule of law underpin freedom but, without respect for individual worth, freedom is undermined and, in particular, minorities suffer from majority decisions. It is also time, I think we all agree, that respect for the environment took its place among our ideas of how we respect each other.
We should take pride in a degree of ownership of modern ideas of human rights. It is true that the ideas of respect and tolerance have an ancient pedigree—the code of Hammurabi and the edicts of the fifth century BC Indian king Ashoka are often quoted as the origins of human rights concepts; perhaps they are inherent in the way human nature has developed—but the European Convention and the post-war United Nations instruments have had substantial British input. Whatever some eccentric politicians might say, they have been universally adopted and underline our sense of common humanity. I would like to see the words “human rights” on the face of the Bill, therefore; I hope that, nevertheless, our Government can give it, or their own version of it, a fair wind.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries. I shall talk about the Woolf Institute’s report of the Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life, Living with Difference. It had a vision of a society at ease with itself—some of us would, I think, say that that is not the case right now—in which all individuals, groups and communities feel at home and in whose flourishing all wish to take part. Everyone must be treated with equal respect and concern by the law, the state and public authorities; everyone must know that their culture, religion and beliefs are embraced as part of a continuing process of mutual enrichment; and everyone must be free to express and practise their beliefs, religious or otherwise, providing that they do not constrict the rights and freedoms of others.
When Living with Difference was published, under the superb chairmanship of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, it recommended that a national conversation be launched across the UK by faith leaders and others to create a shared understanding of the fundamental values underlying public life. The outcome might be a statement of the principles and values that foster the common good, which should underpin and guide public life. This has not happened in full. If we are serious about instilling citizenship values in the young, those principles from the commission need to be shouted from the rooftops and studied in school. Those classes should not be just a bit of religious studies here and personal and social education there; there needs to be a strong, agreed citizenship syllabus, and every child needs to participate in it. Although Governments have argued for the inclusion of some of this before, schools tackle it in different ways; sadly, some do not tackle it at all.
It was profoundly unhelpful that all this emerged from the Prevent strategy, giving it a bad name among many. It should come as a discrete subject—citizenship —and be governed by the values of organisations such as Young Citizens rather than Prevent. We all agree that it is necessary; it is how it is done, as well as the alleged motivations, that causes the problems.
I support my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth in bringing forward this Bill. I hope that the Government will listen and take it forward.
Baroness Warsi (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the noble and right reverend Lord’s tabling of this Bill and support much that has been said, particularly the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friend Lord Bourne. It is timely and necessary and allows us to discuss some vital issues that will determine the kind of nation that we will be in the future.
The summer riots saw violence, arson attacks on places of worship and street attacks, and are evidence, if further evidence was needed, that many in our society do not abide by what we have deemed fundamental British values—this, despite those FBVs having been a key plank of government policy on fostering cohesion and promoting a shared sense of belonging since 2011. The failure is to some extent borne by successive Governments, including the one that I was a part of, because we implicitly and explicitly implemented this policy and promoted FBVs in ways that suggested that it is an issue for immigrant-background communities, recent arrivals and asylum seekers—that they and only they are in need of education on what it means to be a British citizen and how to live well with others in British society.
We also failed because of our insistence on coupling citizenship education with counterterrorism. It was a debate that we had at length in government when FBVs were introduced in the Prevent strategy in 2011. This was considered by the Lords Select Committee, which was right to argue that it does an injustice to the innate worth of the teaching of democracy and democratic values in our education system. It is not just terrorists who undermine our society’s democratic status and the freedoms and rights that we enjoy as British citizens but extremists, far-right racists, and anti-refugee and anti-asylum-seeker demagogues. These too are a threat to the functioning and flourishing of our democracy. The teachings of these values should not be a minority problem but a majority concern.
I also welcome the shift from FBVs to values of British citizenship. It underlines that all citizens in the UK, whatever their background, race, ethnicity, wealth, geography, sexuality, age or gender, share and live by these values as citizens of a common entity—the United Kingdom. The term “FBV” came to be perceived as values that are somehow native to some and therefore fundamental to their identity and history, and foreign to others, who were therefore in need of education.
The far-right chanting heard during the summer riots, of “We want our country back”, is paradoxically an illustration of this very point. Ethnicising our values or employing ethno-nationalist language in speaking about them suggests that the majority ethnicity possesses them, even as it breaks the law and engages in thuggery, and that the minority need to be taught them. This divests our democracy of its most basic characteristic—that democratic values do not belong to one ethnic group but are held by all people of British citizenship, whatever their ethnicity. I welcome and support this Private Member’s Bill as a positive step in the right direction.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this Bill and the change in the language. The Bill rightly calls these principles “values of British citizenship”. They are civic values. Far from being a recent invention or a fiction, as some have suggested, civic Britishness is a very real concept which is now more important than ever before.
Diversity can be a very good thing but, where there are large and disparate ethnic communities in a country, as there are now in the UK, the possibility of conflict and distrust arises. To be able to resolve any tensions which come with that demographic change, the crucial precondition is that every citizen of this country is able to participate as a citizen in the processes and institutions through which we can make decisions about social harmony, the common good and our rules of engagement. If not, we risk in academic terms losing our pluralist society and becoming plural. Instead of having a unity within which we understand our differences, we will be truly and deeply divided.
However, there is good news, as was mentioned earlier. New immigrants to the UK are proud of this country’s history and traditions. As a recent Policy Exchange research document told us this week, the majority of British people of Caribbean, Chinese, Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani heritage believe Britain to have been a force for good in the world.
We are shockingly unvigilant about defending our enduring values in this country. Other European nations, such as France, are dramatically more insistent on inculcating those civic values. Yet in our country, there are actors who continue to claim that the British values strategy and the intelligence and research on which it is based are frivolous and therefore racist. Frankly, it is not so. The evidence says otherwise: that we have a clear and identifiable problem of a small proportion of people who reject our national values, where that problem is ideological—the product of competing value systems. We need a national education strategy to combat that. We are duty bound, for the good of everyone in this country, of all backgrounds, to refuse to allow people to be isolated, ghettoised and disfranchised by the holding of some of these attitudes. We must positively enfranchise these communities. Education is a natural first point of action.
Through such a strategy, we must stress that citizenship is no small thing but rather a calling to live up to. It is certainly not a purely self-serving right. It comes with a duty to participate in national life according to our common standards and customs. That is not degrading to those isolated communities. It is dignifying. The degrading thing would be to allow ghettoisation and a parallel world to continue unchecked. I commend this strategy and the continuing emphasis on our civic values, so well reflected in this Bill.
Lord Bird (CB)
Democracy, the rule of law, freedom, individual worth and respect for the environment —I can honestly say that I was not born into that world, I did not live in that world, and it took me a long time to get into that world. I would like your Lordships to imagine a boy who is in a prison cell at the age of 14. He is offered dinner. He does not want it. He is given the dinner but, instead of eating it, he puts it on the door so that it falls all over the next person to come in—a police officer or somebody else who has been charged. That person was a person who was outside democracy. That person was a person who was outside the rule of law. That person was all sorts of things.
We are coming at this the wrong way. We are talking about education. Education is a great changer, but we have another problem. The same boy goes to school at the age of five, and his Irish mother says to him, “Get in there and behave yourself”—not “Get in there and learn things”, not “Get in there and become a different person”, not “Get in there and get away from the poverty that you were born into”. He is the same boy as me. I was blessed, as I keep telling everybody, by the restorative justice of a prison system that looked after young people and give them the chance to earn and learn and get educated while they were banged up because they missed it when they were in civilian life.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, makes the point about populism. We all are worried about populism. People stir it up, but populism largely comes from economic indecision and economic fear. It comes through the loss of jobs, the growth of a powerful China where all the jobs were exported from America —creating a situation where people did not know where the next loaf of bread was coming from. Unless this House and that House wake up to the dominance of poverty in everything, we are not going anywhere. Unfortunately, we now have a Government who follow the same lines as the previous scattergun Government, who talked about ending poverty but never did it in a convergent way that could make poverty history.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have, I take this opportunity at the beginning of my remarks to pay tribute to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. I am delighted to see that his persistence and eloquence on this subject have been given another opportunity for expression today.
Mindful of time constraints, I will focus on two specific elements of the Bill. First, I fully support, as set out in Clause 1(1), the expansion of the list of values to encompass democracy, the rule of law, freedom, individual worth and respect for the environment.
Clause 1(2) may seem a cosmetic change, but I believe that it is both substantive and necessary. Replacing the phrase “British values” with “values of British citizenship” is a change for the better for a couple of reasons. First, it is simply more accurate. These values are not narrowly or uniquely British but, for the most part, Enlightenment values that find a culturally specific expression in this country.
I do not believe—and nor, I think, does any other Member of your Lordships’ House—that these values are inapplicable in France, Germany, the United States, the Netherlands and a host of other democratic nation states. A phrase that implies, or is even open to the interpretation, that they are the possession of Britain alone obviously stands in need of revision.
I support the retention of the word “British”, however, for one clear reason: the United Kingdom is not one country but a collection of four. Although education is a devolved matter and the provisions of the Bill would apply only to England and Wales, this is something with which we should engage as the Bill makes its way through Parliament.
The latest British Social Attitudes survey, published in June this year, reveals significant shifts in conceptions of citizenship in the UK as a whole and especially in the devolved nations. Across the UK there has been a shift towards regarding civic rather than ethnic conceptions of national identity as being of greater importance. That underscores the importance of the provisions of the Bill, with around half of people believing that being born in Britain is essential to being truly British, as opposed to 73% of the population in 2013. But when it comes to the devolved nations—perhaps unsurprisingly, I will focus on Scotland—there is a disinclination to see being “British” as a key marker of civic identity, even among those who support the union. While 45% of the English population see themselves as both English and British, well over half of Scots regard themselves as exclusively or primarily Scottish, while just a quarter see their Scots and British identities as coterminous.
It was disappointing, though wholly unsurprising, that the phrase “British Values” was listed under the heading “Problematic Language” in the Prevent guidance in Scotland. We know that, under previous Administrations, both in Scotland and in Westminster, there was increasing divergence in this area. The Bill, among other things, may bridge that gap. As and when it proceeds through your Lordships’ House, it may be worth considering this context if we are to ensure that these precepts of UK citizenship act as a means of binding our population more closely together rather than providing yet another excuse for ideological contestation.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, the ambition in the Bill of highlighting the importance for education purposes of democracy, the rule of law, freedom, individual worth and respect for the environment is to be warmly welcomed. These constitutional issues go to the very heart of our values as British citizens. I therefore applaud the noble and right reverend Lord for pursuing this agenda over a number of years.
Ideally, like the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, I would like to have seen included on the list a reference to human rights and the balance to be struck between such rights and individual responsibilities. Sir Peter Gross’s Independent Human Rights Act Review strongly recommended
“an effective programme of civic and constitutional education”
in our schools and universities, with a focus on human rights. There is a reference to human rights in the requirements for key stage 4, but we know from two House of Lords committees of inquiry, in 2018 and 2022, that this and the teaching of other constituent elements of citizenship have been badly neglected.
The 2022 committee report also recommended a statutory entitlement to citizenship education from key stages 1 to 4. The noble and right reverend Lord’s amendment to the Schools Bill in July 2022 would have achieved this. After setting out the same list of values of British citizenship included in this Bill, the amendment would have required those values to be taught as part of citizenship at all four key stages. As he said then, this would not have involved a change to the curriculum, which requires British values to be taught at the moment, but rather is an accurate listing of the values in question to gain greater support from teachers and pupils.
For me, this is what is missing from today’s otherwise excellent Bill, since it is restricted to statements made by the Secretary of State, Ofsted and other public authorities. There does not seem to be a direct link, legally at least, with the curriculum and its requirement to teach citizenship, so I do not see how the Bill will legally require the teaching of citizenship to refer to the key values of British citizenship set out here, even if the Secretary of State and public authorities are required to refer to them when making statements relating to British values for education purposes.
That said, I shall of course support the Bill and hope that citizenship teachers will see statements by the relevant authorities as an encouragement to improve citizenship education along the lines that the Bill sets out.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to add my support to this timely Bill, and I emphasise my hope that young people will be involved in these conversations going forward, whether they are in the Youth Parliament, are in school councils around the country or are students in FE and higher education. I draw attention to my entries in the register, particularly, given the nature of the Bill on education, as master of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge.
This is an important Bill sitting at the heart of our national identity. The values that we define ourselves by and teach in schools to our future citizens must reflect modern Britain. It is not where you were born; it is where you live.
However, things need to change. The current list of values taught in our schools—democracy, rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance—has served us well as a starting point, but things move forward. The current framework of British values was, regrettably, too rooted in the Prevent strategy. As many others have said, it is time to separate Prevent from the discussion of broader values.
Democracy and the rule of law remain cornerstones of our society, but the Bill goes further in emphasising freedom in its broadest sense—freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression, assembly and association. It introduces the concept of individual worth, enshrining
“respect for the equal worth and dignity of every person”,
and I strongly support that. Importantly, it adds respect for the environment, acknowledging our responsibility to the planet and future generations—a concern that we know is particularly resonant with young people today. These proposed changes reflect a modern, inclusive Britain, a confident and tolerant Britain that is proud of its heritage but looks forward.
Modern Britain must also embody modern patriotism and pride in our diversity, our ability to come together in times of need and our shared values. We could do worse than to look at Gareth Southgate’s words back in 2021. These values, as we move forward, must be lived and taught. They must be embedded, day by day, in our schools, workplaces and wider communities.
I am pleased to support the Bill today, and I hope that others will. My honest fear is that we end up with more commissions, working groups, conversations and reports. There is a broad range of agreement here, so it is really time to get on with it.
Lord Storey (LD)
That was well said: get on with it. We very much support this Bill. It is hugely important for our nation but, as has been said, particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Shephard, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, this will work only if we take it seriously in schools. It is no good putting up a poster on core British values, ticking that box and thinking, “Yes, I’ve done that”. It is no good saying, “Well, who will take the lesson on citizenship this week? Oh, we’ll give it to the PE teacher or the French teacher”. Do we train people to do these subjects? It will end up, as often happens with subjects that are not exam assessed, just something that is pushed to one side. If we are really serious about this, we have to be serious about it in schools.
If we want schools to develop it further so that it is part of their ethos, other things will have to be considered. We cannot just do chalk and talk—actually, that is the wrong phrase now; it ought to be laptop and learning. We should not just do laptop and learning. It should be about teamwork, team sports, drama productions, summer camps, visits to museums and galleries, and all the other things that bring pupils together so that they have common experiences together.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will be pleased to know that, when I spoke to my Swiss cousin about our core British values, she looked at them and said, “Yes, those would be our values, too”. There was a long pause, then, “But what about the environment, looking after the environment for future generations? You English”—not British—“are not very good at that and look how dirty your streets are”. She has a point there.
While we recognise and celebrate the values of the UK, the interpretation can cause stresses and strains on different sections of our society, reflecting broader tensions and debate about identity and diversity. Collective values should strengthen communities, not divide them. The promotion of values should contribute positively to the UK as a diverse and dynamic country. There is a debate to be had and considered about whether the emphasis on British values might unintentionally alienate individuals and communities who feel that their own cultural and religious values are being marginalised or viewed as not being compatible with so-called British values. There is a concern, strong among ethnic minorities and immigrant communities, about the imposition of a monocultural agenda. There is a continuing debate about how British values align with the UK’s multicultural policy, with some arguing that promoting British values is essential to fostering integration, while others believe that it undermines the successful multicultural fabric of British society by fostering certain values at the expense of cultural diversity.
Regional differences on what contributes to British values can significantly vary across the UK. While older people might emphasise tradition and historical achievements as core components of British values, focusing on continuity and preservation, young people would perhaps be more inclined to stress the values of inclusivity, social justice and tolerance. As was said— I have forgotten who said it now—let us ask young people what they think and what they would regard as their values. I bet we would get a shock and be surprised at what they would say.
I will end with two things that I think are important to our values. Tomorrow, I am travelling to Coventry. I am patron of the Royal Life Saving Society. Up to 1,000 people, from teenagers to people in their 70s, give up their time completely free to help teach people to swim and do life-saving, and talk about water safety. They will be there to receive honours and thanks for their service to that community. They are one example of nation that takes volunteering and charity work seriously.
Whenever there is a problem or tragedy, people in this country from every walk of life will dip into their pockets and make a contribution. In my home city, a charity called Zoe’s Place for terminally ill babies found that it could not build the centre it wanted because the costs had doubled. It announced that it was not going to go ahead with it. Suddenly, there was a campaign to raise the difference in money. Within literally 24 hours, £1 million had been raised in that community. We are a nation—I am told, but I do not know whether it is true—that gives more in charitable donations per capita than any other country in the world. That is a value that we should be proud of. Volunteering and charitable work are really important.
I will end by saying something that noble Lords might perhaps not like. It should not just be left to schools to promote values. Should it not be about the leaders in our society, whether in politics and public life, industry or the media? Sadly, far too often, they are the ones who let us down.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, this has been an in-depth and wide-ranging analysis of the Private Member’s Bill from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. It is a subject of great significance to the future of the UK and the character of all ages, young and not so young. I am conscious that this is an emotive topic and I will endeavour to do everything I can to treat the subject matter with the respect that it deserves.
Democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs—born out of the 2011 Prevent strategy and further enhanced by the 2014 government guidance—are the British values that both independent and state-maintained schools are currently required to actively promote. In line with the Education Act, they should form one part of a broad and balanced curriculum that
“promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils”
in our schools.
But education is about much more than just the transfer of knowledge. It is about passing on the sense of identity of who we are as a people, encouraging all ages to be responsible members of society. We should view the holistic education system as the primary driver of informing and enthusing young people about their country. It is crucial that we get this right. British values existed well before 2011 and we must ensure that the Government strengthen the autonomy of parents, schools and communities to deliver that goal.
The current Administration are seeking to centralise and nationalise Skills England and Great British Energy; we should be wary of a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to an issue as fundamental as moral education. Will the Minister explain to the House how she plans to ensure that British values are passed on through communities and families, not just via the state?
Regarding the values themselves, the Chief Rabbi has expressed a concern that the average person does not know what British values are. The Catholic cardinal the Archbishop of Westminster has criticised the values as being “a bit rootless”. The chief executive of the Refugee Council asked the next Government to
“rebuild a system based on British values of compassion, fairness and respect”,
while, in the other place, British values have been described as decency, tolerance and the rule of law, as well as decency, respect and kindness.
We are incredibly lucky to live in a diverse and tolerant society, but it is important that we as a nation are aligned on what our values are. Does the Minister believe that there is a need for change, and please can she give us details of exactly what the Government’s British values are and which stakeholders are being engaged to ensure we get this right?
Currently, in the form of citizenship education, the British values are taught in a variety of different ways across different schools. Some schools will teach them via PSHE while others will teach them as a stand-alone subject. This is leading to a wide range of both positive and less positive outcomes. Please can the Minister explain the Government’s approach to the curriculum and educating people on British values? How will schools be clearly told to implement the strategy? Pupils are currently not tested on the values, which means that head teachers are much less focused on this. Will the Government start testing?
The Bill from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, elaborates on the definition of “freedom” to include “freedom of expression”. Would the Minister agree that freedom of speech is a non-negotiable universal principle that should apply to everyone in this country? Can she explain to the House how freedom of speech will be taught in our schools to guarantee that the principle is strengthened and not undermined in the future?
The Bill also refers to British values being renamed as the “values of British citizenship”. We look forward to hearing the Government’s stance on that.
Of the UK’s 10 best state secondary schools, based on 2024 GCSE results, Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School came in first place with 57% of GCSEs graded 7 to 9. The report notes that the school
“consistently performs well academically while also placing a significant emphasis on moral and spiritual development”.
The Chief Rabbi believes that tolerance is
“the symphony orchestra in which we have separate instruments, each one making its own unique sound and, under the baton of the conductor, blending together to produce perfect harmony”.
Every successful enterprise has a mission statement. We need to know what mission statement the Government will assign to the education system for “British values”, and how exactly they will benchmark their success to prove that those values are being retained and understood for the benefit of everyone.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, on securing this Second Reading for his Education (Values of British Citizenship) Bill. As many contributors to today’s debate have asserted, the aims of the Bill are admirable. It is vital that pupils have a sound understanding of the fundamental values on which our society is founded and their relevance to the rights, responsibilities and opportunities of living in modern Britain.
This debate also exemplifies one of the most important aspects of our approach to values in this country, which is the ability to be able to debate, engage widely and develop our understanding. In that respect, the noble Baronesses, Lady Butler-Sloss and Lady Neuberger, identified in talking about the Living With Difference report the importance of us continuing to have a national debate, beyond our schools, about our values and the best way to inculcate and develop them.
My noble friend Lady Morgan made the important point that our values develop and need to be lived. Although I turn to many sources of wisdom on this, I am most certainly willing to turn to Gareth Southgate when it comes to living our values.
Labour Governments have a proud history of promoting British values across our education system. We were the first Government to introduce mandatory citizenship education into the national curriculum under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Blunkett—with me as a lowly junior Minister at the time doing some of the legwork. This Government will continue that tradition to ensure that our children and young people are supported to become active and engaged citizens. I will say more about citizenship in a moment.
Although some have sought to use these issues as a political football—not in this morning’s debate but more widely—to sow division and hatred across our communities, it is only through promoting genuine respect and tolerance through our education system that we will tackle the shameful actions we saw across our towns and cities this summer. The riots showed that we cannot take these values for granted but must continue to embed them within every child’s education.
There were compelling contributions to the debate from my noble friend Lady Uddin and the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady Warsi. My noble friend Lady Uddin, while talking about her own experience, made a strong case, as have others, that the development of these values needs to be broader than simply in our education system. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, is right to identify the significance of speaking English to enable people to be able to feel fully part of our communities. The noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, is right that our discussion about British values should not be about setting one person against another or defining the difference in terms of those who have come to this country and accepted and lived our values, and that everybody, whether born or coming to take up citizenship, is equally able to exemplify our values.
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, challenged me to clarify how this Government will develop the significance of British values in our schools, and I will do that, because I would like to clarify how this understanding, and many of the issues identified in this morning’s debate, are already being satisfied by some of the existing duties on schools and current curriculum requirements, and also the action that this Government want to take to go further on that.
Our schools have a statutory duty, as the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, identified, as part of a broad and balanced curriculum, to promote pupils’ spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development. This is a duty that stems from the Education Act 1944 and was reinforced in 2002. The previous Government published guidance in 2014 to support schools in delivering that requirement with respect to fundamental British values. That guidance rightly acknowledges that
“while different people may hold different views about what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ … a school’s ethos and teaching … should … support the rule of English civil and criminal law”.
That in practice means embedding
“British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs”.
Noble Lords have made important contributions today on how those ideas need to be developed.
It is important that teachers and schools have the capacity and range of ways to ensure that they are embedded in our schools. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, meant to be insulting to teachers in suggesting that in our schools people are only putting up a poster in order to do that because, actually, there is a whole range of different activities that schools are already using to successfully embed the values across a whole breadth of provision. This means that the values are taught in the curriculum, reflected in behaviour policies, reinforced in assemblies and deepened through carefully planned opportunities to, for example, experience democratic processes. Having been on the receiving end of the Somers Park Primary School Pupils’ Parliament only a few weeks ago, I know how rigorous and important some of those processes can be.
There are difficult questions for teachers and our schools to consider and to reflect in the teaching and experiences that they provide for our students. That rightly brings a responsibility on to the Government to provide appropriate resources and we should continue to develop those. The department currently provides a range of support to the sector, in particular, for some of those issues that are very difficult for teachers to teach, through the Educate Against Hate website. I took a look at that yesterday and was impressed with the range of specific resources to support schools and colleges, not only to promote values but to deal with some of the difficult and contested issues that it is important for our schoolchildren to be open to and engaged with.
I want particularly to talk about citizenship, given the focus that many noble Lords have put on it this morning. Since its introduction under the previous Labour Government, as I outlined, citizenship remains compulsory in the national curriculum at key stages 3 and 4 in maintained schools. Although it is optional for primary schools, it is supported by non-statutory programmes of study at key stages 1 and 2. In the curriculum, pupils learn about democracy, politics, Parliament and voting, as well as human rights, justice, media literacy, the law, the economy, and the need for mutual respect and understanding. Pupils also learn the skills of active citizenship, as called for by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, through practical opportunities to address issues of concern to them in school and the wider community.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, identified how important it is that we equip our children with the ability to distinguish fact from opinion and to have critical media literacy. That is an important part of citizenship teaching. My noble friend Lady Whitaker and others identified the significance of human rights teaching, which is an important part of the citizenship curriculum. I say in response to my noble friend Lord Browne that pupils should also be taught about the diverse national, regional, religious and ethnic identities across the United Kingdom, and the need for mutual respect and understanding.
However, I take noble Lords’ point that, as well as some of the resources that I have already outlined, which probably need further development, it is also crucial that we have sufficient appropriately qualified teachers. It is the case that the number of specialist teachers has fallen over recent years. This Government have a commitment, both in their recruitment of 6,500 additional teachers and in the approach to professional development for classroom teachers and leaders, to ensure that teachers are equipped to deliver what we believe to be important in schools. This area of citizenship is certainly, in my view, one of those areas.
My noble friend Lady Blower rightly talked about the significance of schools in tackling racial and religious discrimination. It is absolutely right that, as part of a broad and balanced curriculum, there are opportunities to discuss racism and other forms of discrimination. Those include citizenship education, which teaches about religious diversity, and mutual respect and understanding; relationships education, which teaches about the impact of prejudice and the importance of respect and individual worth, as many noble Lords have mentioned; and religious education, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield also rightly challenged us on, which teaches about religious tolerance. Once again, the Education Against Hate website provides important teaching resources to help schools discuss those sensitive topics. The department is also committed to tackling all forms of prejudice, including Islamophobia, and other forms of racism. Earlier this month, my right honourable friend the Education Secretary announced that the Government are resuming the procurement of £7 million-worth of funding to tackle anti-Semitism in schools, colleges and universities.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield also asked what the DfE is doing about rolling out the GCSE in natural history. The natural history GCSE was a commitment made by the previous Government. We will want to set out our policy priorities for the curriculum in due course—I will come to the curriculum and assessment review in a moment—but that does not mean we do not believe, as was rightly emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that respect for the environment is a very important part of what we need our schools to be able to develop.
Topics related to climate change and the environment are taught within the current national curriculum for citizenship. For science and geography, teachers have flexibility to take account of new developments, societal changes or topical issues. As a result, we are seeing some excellent work in climate and nature education in many schools. The department launched—to be fair, this was under the previous Government—a number of initiatives to encourage all education settings to take a holistic approach to climate, nature and sustainability. My ministerial colleague, Stephen Morgan, recently launched the first- year report for the National Education Nature Park, which brings together all of the land from across education settings into a vast virtual nature park. We are seeing a real change in the way that very many schools are using their estate and their environment to educate young people, develop those environments and habitats, and boost the biodiversity in their sites.
My noble friend Lord Mann rightly talked about the challenge of tackling misogyny in the work that we do on values in our schools. The Government are enormously serious, both in our department’s work in tackling misogyny and in the mission across government to tackle violence against women and girls, about focusing on prevention through relationships education and ensuring that pupils are safe while at school through schools’ compliance with their safeguarding duties. We are currently reviewing the RSHE statutory guidance and want to ensure that it provides schools with the direction and ability to protect all pupils from the growing scourge of misogyny. His idea about the way in which the NUS might support schools in developing that work was very interesting.
Several noble Lords mentioned the fact that the Government have delivered on their manifesto commitment to establish an independent curriculum and assessment review for England. The review will look at how we deliver a curriculum that ensures young people develop the knowledge and skills required to thrive as citizens in work and throughout life—a curriculum in which they are represented. That has the potential to reinforce the good work already happening in schools, and it will be important for us to consider any wider issues raised by the review within our next steps in government. I will certainly make sure that the very important contributions made in this debate are brought to the attention of the review.
The noble Lord, Lord Bird, gave a passionate explanation of how those outside the mainstream also need to be supported in their consideration of British values, and how, understandably, they may feel alienated from what others of us take for granted. Our curriculum and assessment review must consider those who are disadvantaged and excluded; that is a specific objective for it. The Government are committed to tackling poverty, particularly child poverty. The task force led by my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will look precisely at how we ensure that fewer children have to grow up in poverty in the way that the noble Lord explained.
As I conclude, I want to talk briefly about my concern about legislating for values in the way in which this Bill would do. At the moment, fundamental British values are not set out as a list of values that exist within law. The guidance is non-statutory, and I fear that primary legislation that changed, and to a certain extent set in stone, British values would potentially limit schools’ freedom to tailor their approach and would open schools up to external challenge to their provision, beyond Ofsted inspections, which are right to ensure that values are being properly dealt with. Dealing with that challenge would in turn place huge burdens on schools.
In saying that, I support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, who talked about the danger of too rigid an interpretation of values. I also agree with the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, that ensuring that schools have some autonomy in this area is important. Schools need to be free to embed the values in a way that meets the needs of their pupils. They need to be supported in doing that, but they can include a full range of issues, ideas and materials in their curriculum, including where they are challenging or controversial, subject to their obligation to ensure political balance.
While we support the importance of schools reinforcing these values and considering, in the way in which the noble and right reverend Lord’s Bill would ensure that they do, the updating and development of those values in what is taught in our schools, I do not believe that more rigidly legislating for them is the right way to secure effective implementation by schools. That is why I must express reservations on the content of the Bill. The current arrangements provide a sound basis for delivering British values, but there is room for improvement. I assure noble Lords that this Government will continue to support our teachers, provide resources and give clarity about how we expect schools to go about the range of ways in which they teach British values and bring coherence and cohesion to our communities. I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for the contribution of the debate this morning.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. Because of the shortage of time, I am unable to comment on individual speeches, but I hope the Minister will note the great number of people who wanted to speak in this debate, reflecting the importance of the subject; the fact that there was so much significant experience, particularly educational experience, behind the speeches; and that there was support from all sides of the House. I hope she will bear that in mind. It is good to have the Minister in the House, with her long experience in the Commons. I thank her for meeting me prior to the debate so that we could discuss how we might take this forward.
The Minister’s main point was that these fundamental values are not part of the law of the land and there would be a disadvantage in making them part of it. I can understand that, but, on the other hand, one could say that as we do not have a written constitution it might be good to have something in the law of the land about these fundamental values—and we are talking about political values, not personal values, or, in the old-fashioned term, civics.
Where we could look to is the guidance. These fundamental values are in guidance, and I would like to see that guidance changed in order to bring about the better wording of this Bill. I think there is pretty widespread support for the idea that we need to move on from what was appropriate for the Prevent strategy to something that exists in its own right. I hope that the Minister will work with me on possibly a change in the guidance and the important review of the curriculum and assessment to go along with that.
Clearly, there are one or two issues that need to be taken forward, including engaging more nationally with youth forums and the Youth Parliament—that was a very important point. There is also the question of the devolved Governments, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Bourne, and the relationship between these values in England and in Scotland and Wales. That clearly needs further teasing out.
I again thank the Minister very sincerely for her commitment to the subject and everybody who has spoken.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we start the debate, I remind the House that the advisory Back-Bench speaking time is three minutes. That means that when noble Lords get to two minutes, they need to start making their concluding remarks, and at three minutes their time is up. It is important to respect all Members of the House, in particular those Members taking part in the final debate, who will be hoping to leave at the expected time.
Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I should start my speech with, “As I was saying,” given that this is the fifth such Private Member’s Bill from these Benches since 2017. My noble friend Lady Ludford introduced numbers 3 and 4.
I declare an interest as a trustee of a trust established by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, which has introduced me to a number of young asylum seekers applying for funding to attend university. Like so many young refugees I have met, they have impressed me by their resilience and their determination to contribute to the UK.
The first purpose of the Bill is to provide in primary legislation, not just in amendable rules that can be changed without Parliament’s involvement or scrutiny, the rights of people who seek safety in the UK to be joined by their family. It is not enough to hope that the Home Office will use its discretion. The second purpose is to define “family”. It is an unambitiously narrow definition, in the hope that the Government will see this extension to enable children to sponsor immediate family to join them as modest and doable—she says looking straight at the Minister. The right to sponsor applies to people with protection status—that is, refugees—and those with humanitarian protection who are at real risk of harm if returned to their country of origin but not for the specific reasons which bring them within the refugee convention. I shall refer to them all as refugees. The third purpose is legal aid.
Since 2017, when the first Bill was introduced, the plight of refugees has not changed, nor have the UK’s moral obligations or the importance of family, which politicians continue to emphasise. However, the political context has not stayed still: the areas affected—afflicted —by conflict; the greater politicisation of immigration; the conflation of asylum and immigration; and small boats have succeeded the lorries and trains used by desperate asylum seekers. Last year, 7% of asylum claims were from unaccompanied children. The academic think tank UK in a Changing Europe reports that 33% of the public think that the figure is not 7% but 40% or more. There is a huge leadership role for government to be clear here.
This Bill sits squarely within calls for safe routes for refugees; I acknowledge that we have some, mostly very specific. I acknowledge that, under the new Government, families separated during the evacuation from Kabul airport will benefit from an expansion of the ACRS and that a child evacuated without his parents will be able to make a referral to relocate them or—GOV.UK says “or”—his siblings. But there is so much more to do to put safe routes in place.
Today is Anti-Slavery Day. We know the dangers of being in the hands of traffickers—a very real risk for children alone—and of extreme exploitation. The organisation Missing People is clear that being missing very often means harm. I hope the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, with her experience, will expand on this. Her report seven years ago found that closing off safe routes feeds the trafficking and smuggling networks.
Last year the Justice and Home Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House, which I had the privilege of chairing, published a report on family migration. We were all affected by the evidence about children seeking asylum. A young Eritrean reached the UK alone after the sort of journey that is hard to imagine. His brother made it to Libya, which is not a good place to find yourself; he was picked up by traffickers. His sister was picked up at the border of Egypt and imprisoned there for two years. That committee is one of a number—in the Commons too—to have called for an extension to family reunification.
The Government’s response was:
“Our policy is not designed to keep child refugees away from their parents, but in considering any policy we must think carefully about the wider impact to avoid putting more people unnecessarily into harm’s way”.
Well, they are in harm’s way at home. There are plenty of “push factors”, but that Government often deployed the “pull factor” argument. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has said, it is “inherently implausible”. That Government’s attempts at deterrence in other contexts were not notably successful. We cannot prove a negative, but various respected organisations have reported that they cannot find support for the contention. It does not seem to me a compelling argument; indeed, there is evidence of children not wanting the Red Cross to trace their family in their country of origin for fear of endangering them.
What is compelling is the importance of family. They may not always be perfect, but being separated from your parents in childhood tends to have a significant impact on your mental health and well-being, indeed your very development. I know that other noble Lords will refer to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights. Siblings, too, are hugely significant; what a difference it must make in a strange country if you are with your brother or sister.
Our rules reflect a very westernised view of family. In many cultures, it is common for children of both sexes to live with their parents until marriage, and for three or four generations to stay together as a unit. Dependants are not as limited a cohort as we think of them. I have been urged to add more relatives to the list, and I well understand that; my own aunts were hugely important to me. I have said that the Bill is deliberately unambitious but, under it, the Secretary of State could add to the categories: criteria would include risk to physical, emotional or psychological well-being, and the interests of the child. I have heard the term “unexpressed grief” in connection with mental health, and “the freedom to be a child”.
There are benefits to society of supporting the integration of refugees. A moment’s thought will confirm what being settled means, in the non-technical sense, for refugees and for the rest of the population. It means stability; you can focus and achieve. If you are a child, you can focus on your education rather than being one of those described as “challenging” because you are always on edge, hoping your mother might be able to phone you.
Would there be a cost to the UK? Common sense tells me the contrary. Parents can take care of their children. We all know of the costs to local authorities of looking after children they are required to accommodate and support.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Perhaps the noble Baroness could inform the House how many people she envisages, on an annual basis, would be granted refugee family reunion status under these measures.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I will not go into that now; I do not have it in my speech. I am time limited and conscious of other people’s need for that time. I will happily tell the noble Lord later. From the tone of that question, he obviously opposes what I am saying. I will go into that with him later, but he does not have his name down to speak.
In 2018 the UK Government requested information from EU member states about the impact of their family reunion policies. The UK is quite an outlier in Europe. There was little assessment about public services or the costs to Governments, but Italy reported that it had seen no financial effect on public resources. If the noble Lord who has just intervened is worried about numbers, he might think about costs, which are another factor. I can tell the noble Lord that the Refugee Council and Safe Passage estimate an additional 240 to 750 visa grants—not sponsorships—a year.
I turn lastly to legal aid. Yes, of course, there is a shortage of lawyers, but family reunion needs to be in scope. Exceptional case funding is so exceptional as to be well-nigh invisible. The current rules are a maze, almost impenetrable to applicants and to many lawyers.
I urge noble Lords to see this Bill all the way through, and the Government to accept what it provides. At the last iteration, the Labour Front Bench was very supportive. I will not name the spokesman for fear of embarrassing him, but he was very senior.
I have received a lot of support from outside the House. The International Rescue Committee says that it
“welcomes and strongly endorses this Bill which would see children and young people, who have fled conflict and persecution, finally reunited with their loved ones in the UK”.
In 2020, 14 children from a London primary school who had read the book The Boy at the Back of the Class—I commend it to noble Lords—told me how sad they were about the plight of lone refugee children. The boy at the back of the class was an unaccompanied asylum seeker. They were happy, though, that the book had a happy ending. In fact, the fiction involved the intervention of the late Queen Elizabeth. One child wrote:
“It must be very scary … to be in a big new country surrounded by new people. A strong country like ours can help”.
I beg to move.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on putting forward this important Bill and on her eloquent and forceful introduction. I intend to make just a few remarks with regard to unaccompanied refugee children having the right to bring their siblings or parents to join them, something currently disallowed under the refugee family reunion rules. My immediate concern on learning of this was that it would potentially be a pull factor, something we can little afford considering the current stresses and strains of migration.
However, looking at the facts and figures, it became clear to me that this reaction on my part was a reflection of the general narrative in recent years on the issue of migration. In fact, a report by the House of Lords European Affairs Committee categorically came to the conclusion that there was no evidence provided by EU member states where children are allowed to sponsor family members that they had in some way been coerced into going ahead with the rest of their family to seek refuge, and for others to follow on the back of that. In other words, there is no evidence to support the pull-factor premise. In fact, this gap in the UK family reunion policy of refugee children in the UK being unable to sponsor any family members under the Immigration Rules is out of step with every country in the European Economic Area other than Switzerland and Liechtenstein.
The Bill would expand family reunion and allow refugee children to sponsor their parents and siblings. Importantly, in 2016 the Home Affairs Committee recommended this policy change, as did the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee in 2023. We may ask what the estimated result would be in terms of numbers if this rule were to be implemented; the noble Lord asked that very question. On average it would increase family reunions by as many as an additional 750 visas. To put that in context, that is around two people in each of the council areas in England and Wales. However, statistics obscure the reality of the people behind them and how they are affected. There are many examples of depression and thoughts of suicide.
Any such measure would of course have to be carefully monitored, but I hope it will be given serious consideration. This change to the refugee family reunion rules would have a huge and positive impact on the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice- chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation.
Unaccompanied refugee children, the subject of the Bill, are not well cared for in this country. There are many dangers for all of them. There is a particular danger for a certain group of the children about which we should all be very concerned: the possibility of being exploited and trafficked. This is not a vain concern; it happens, and that is what the Government need to recognise. Between 2021 and 2024, such children were being placed in asylum hotels, and 440 children disappeared, 132 of whom have not yet been found. Where are they? Almost certainly they have been trafficked.
There is very little help at the moment. Asylum hotels are not used, and local authorities are expected to take over the children. Anyone who reads the news knows that Kent is completely overwhelmed and unable to deal with the children who flow into its care. It cannot look after them. These are all unaccompanied refugee children.
There is what is called a national transfer scheme, but it is utterly inefficient. Children are not kept track of. Independent child trafficking guardians—something Lord Field put forward in the report of 2019, with which I was involved and which, thank goodness, the previous Government took on board—do not look after refugee children. They look after them in Scotland, so why on earth do they not look after them in this country? There are not so many such children that there could not be guardians to do it. In Scotland that is done extremely efficiently; not everything in Scotland is, but that certainly is.
The previous Government had a series of adverse High Court decisions that it would be illuminating for the present Government to read. These children need families, not care homes. It would save a lot of money if the present Government looked at the cost to the country of the care of each individual child.
This is a situation that is drifting. The Bill is timely, welcome and important. Not only should this Government listen; they should act.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for bringing forward this important Bill, and I acknowledge the work of other noble Lords on similar Bills.
The sustained interest in a Bill of this kind should tell us something: that the current route to family reunion is unduly restrictive and prohibitive. Government data shows that in 2023 there were over 7,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the care of local authorities in the UK, 141 of those in the communities that I serve as bishop in Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield.
Despite the best efforts of dedicated professionals and public agencies, the care system is simply not the right place to house children, least of all children seeking asylum. It is deeply regrettable that so many are in care when they have family members only too willing to come and look after them—if the family reunion routes only made that possible.
These are just the children we know about—just the children on the books, as it were. The risk that unaccompanied children will go missing outside the legal process, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, just reminded us, and fall into the hands of exploitative gangs is horrendous and simply unacceptable.
Of course borders need to be managed. The strains on host communities are real, and we should not minimise or overlook them. Resources are needed to help host communities and incomers to live with dignity side by side and integrate well. However, the reality is that families can be separated on their journeys to safety, and we strengthen communities when we strengthen families.
In July this year the Government allowed children who were separated from their parents during the evacuation from Kabul in August 2021 to apply to have their parents join them in the UK; the last Government deserve credit for that. Will the current Government afford that same right to children from other countries?
I very much support the Bill and hope it makes good progress through the legislative process.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hamwee on introducing this Bill. Her commitment and that of my noble friend Lady Ludford to the cause of those seeking refuge in our country is as impressive as it is long- standing.
Over the many years that I have been involved in advocating for those entangled in the immigration system, I have been baffled by its unfathomable complexity and its inability to resolve cases, leaving applicants in limbo. Applicants are told one day that they have been granted refugee status, but the next day that that was an error. People are told that they have the right to work, then that they do not, and then told again that they do, but it will take months to get the residence card they need. In all these unfathomable difficulties, I have always been grateful for the help of the former Immigration Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe; and now the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, is proving very helpful as well.
Above all, I have been disturbed that often the system seems so disconnected from human feeling or human understanding. Nowhere is that lack of human feeling more apparent than in the effective prohibition of children granted refugee status in the UK sponsoring the immigration of their close family members. It is hard to imagine the deep emotional trauma that this must cause for child refugees already traumatised by the process that led them to seek refuge in the first place, now discovering that they are barred from ever reuniting with close family in the UK. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, gave us compelling statistics on the real consequences of this in terms of children who have gone missing.
The position taken to date by the UK Government goes entirely against the interests of these children and is in contravention of our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UK’s own expressed policy that the best interests of the child should be the primary consideration. We have already heard that the reports of the Commons Home Affairs Committee in 2016, the European Affairs Committee and, most recently, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee have concluded that this change in the law is essential and there is no evidence to support the argument that this would be a pull factor.
My noble friend described this as a modest Bill, but it would restore some humanity to our immigration system, and as such I warmly commend it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I begin as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, did by suggesting that I could say, “As I was saying before”. I was delighted in 2022 to bring the Green group’s strongest possible support to the Bill presented then by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. We are now in a new political environment. I would have hoped that I would not have to be here strongly backing the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but that I would be able to welcome a government Bill to deliver the same things as this Bill. As that is not the case, however, I can promise that we will work as hard as we can to promote the Bill’s progress and hope to see it on the statute book as a Private Member’s Bill.
While I have the Minister’s attention, I should like to raise an issue about not refugees but workers who came to the UK before 11 March. These are workers who, because they had sole responsibility for children, had the right to bring their children with them. I met the group Women of Zimbabwe, part of the Care for Someone charity, and met scores of mostly women to whom the Home Office is clearly unjustly and inaccurately refusing the right to bring their children.
This is relevant to the Bill because, in the Tory Government’s response to this debate last time, we kept being told, “There is, under exceptional circumstances, the possibility that the Home Office will provide legal aid and support”. But I am afraid that this case—of workers rather than refugees—shows that the Home Office still cannot be trusted to behave with humanity and justice. Therefore, we need this legal provision.
I shall make one more point, which I am not sure has already come out in this debate, powerful though it has been. It is a simple fact that the UK has far fewer rights for child refugees than nearly all of the rest of Europe. That point needs to be hammered home. I said last time that we were
“world-leading in cruelty to child refugees”.—[Official Report, 8/7/22; col. 1237.]
I very much hope that the new Government do not want to keep that same label.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hamwee on introducing this Bill, which I support, and assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that I will carry on hammering the point. Since the Children Act 1989, all legislation must primarily consider the best interests of the child. This comes almost word for word from Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK has long been a signatory.
However, this does not always underpin policy. Article 10 of the convention states that
“applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner”.
Current policy is not humane. Under Article 22, Governments must help refugee children separated from their parents to be reunited with them. That means they should get legal aid too. As we have heard, currently the UK is the only major European country that refuses this, and it is directly at odds with the best interests of the child.
This policy is leaving some of the most vulnerable children separated from their families at a time when they need their parents most. It puts child refugees in the care of local authorities, which, as we have heard, can ill afford to support them. This leaves parents with an impossible choice: never to see their closest family again or to embark on a dangerous journey to try to reach them. This is contrary to the Government’s own policy of reducing the incentives for people to attempt to enter the UK illegally. The Government have recognised these children as refugees, stating that it would be unsafe for them to return to their country of origin, yet, unlike adult refugees, they are denied the opportunity to be joined by their closest relatives.
Child refugees should at least be treated as equal to adult refugees under the Government’s family reunion policy. Indeed, they have more need for family reunion than any adult. The last time this was debated, the government spokesman claimed that a similar Bill would undermine government “safeguarding responsibilities”. I believe it would do the opposite. Having one or more parents with them in the UK is more likely, as long as checks about their best interests are made, to improve the safeguarding of children who are vulnerable, as we have heard, to recruitment by criminal gangs for modern slavery, sexual exploitation or illegal work.
The UK Government have argued that changing the rules would encourage parents to send their children on unsafe journeys to secure refugee status to enable families to join them. There is no evidence to support this argument. Family separation is not only not in the children’s interests, it is not in anyone’s interests.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I very much welcome and support the Bill. It takes a common-sense approach to the definition of family—what the person on the Clapham omnibus would reasonably consider, were the family to be in the United Kingdom, to be a family member who should be with other members of the same family. The public would, I believe, regard any of the family members described in the Bill as “close” rather than “extended” family.
There are not enough safe and orderly routes. According to the family reunion in the UK organisation, outside the three nationality-specific schemes, fewer than 500 people were brought to the UK by any other safe route in the year ending June 2024. The International Rescue Committee is clear that expanding safe and orderly routes, such as family reunion provided by this Bill, is the best way to ensure that people can safely access protection in the UK so that they do not have to resort to dangerous journeys.
To suggest that allowing those aged under 18 to bring close family members to this country will encourage parents to endanger their own children’s lives—sending vulnerable people on perilous journey’s just so that, if their children make it, they can apply to bring their parents to join them—risks further demonising asylum seekers as heartless, reckless and less worthy of our compassion. As a number of briefings that we have helpfully been provided with say, there is no evidence that families are sending children as—I think the word is regrettable in all the circumstances—anchors, as the House of Lords European Union Committee termed the alleged practice in its 2017 report Children in Crisis. The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, mentioned this.
Asylum seekers, by their very nature, at the very least in the early stages of their time in this country, are likely to be unfamiliar with the legal system that stands between them and family reunion. Therefore, there is a compelling fairness argument that legal assistance to help refugees navigate this system should be provided.
We need asylum seekers who have been given refuge in this country to feel welcome as full members of society and to be fully integrated, enjoying the same entitlements and privileges of those around them—including being able to be with close family members. They are likely to be happier, more productive and more loyal members of society if they can have their close family members with them, not to mention reducing the dangers of trafficking and exploitation highlighted by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
Not only is the Bill common sense in its scope and the legal aid it seeks to provide, it is common sense in ensuring those granted sanctuary are even more loyal and productive, and in helping to put the criminal people smugglers out of business by providing a much-needed safe and orderly route for refugees’ close family members.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in the Bill—again. I will say something about why it is important. We know that, for children, bringing in family members—notably parents, but sometimes siblings—would make them feel safer. We have heard why that is important in graphic detail. It would allow them to thrive. I declare an interest as chair of the Schwab and Westheimer charitable trusts, which give young people access to education. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I too have been impressed by the resilience in appalling circumstances of some of these young people, many of whom came on their own without their parents.
This problem will not go away and the Bill will not solve it for everyone, but it will help some children significantly and it takes note of the best interests of the child. It would not only allow children to sponsor parents and siblings but allow legal aid for family reunion purposes. It is not a big ask, and here is why we should do it. In the case of the Kindertransport, so often cited in this House as astonishing British generosity before the last war—bringing 10,000 children to this country from Nazi Europe—we often hear those who came, grateful as they are, ask why the Government could not have allowed their parents to come too. In the memoirs of many of those Kindertransport children, they never got over their parents not getting out.
Andrea Hammel of Aberystwyth University puts it brilliantly, stating that
“in the last 20 years, extensive research has shown that the legacy of the 1938/39 Kindertransport should be seen in a more critical light … Most of the children who travelled to the UK on Kindertransport left their parents behind on the continent … only about half … saw … their parents again … Where parents and child refugees were united after 1945, it was not usually a straightforward happy ending. In most cases … children and parents had lost their emotional bonds and common cultural and linguistic backgrounds … Even those families that were able to reunite were often broken beyond repair”.
We know this about separated children and about long periods of separation. Why, then, will we not accept the evidence and put it into policy, allowing children to sponsor parents and siblings, giving them legal aid to do so, and allowing family reunion that way round? This is a relatively small ask of the Government, who, in opposition, sponsored this move. I very much hope they will still support it.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have played a relay with Private Members’ Bills on this important subject of refugee family reunion. She has explained the history, going back seven years and now five Bills. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield noted, the sustained interest in this cause should tell the Government something. My noble friend’s expertise and commitment to this cause, and many others in the field of asylum and immigration, have inspired me and continue to do so.
The Bill would address some of the key gaps in eligibility and remove some of the existing barriers to family reunion. Notably, it would enable child refugees to sponsor their close family members—parents and siblings—as well as cautiously expand the range of family members that adult refugees are allowed to sponsor to include siblings, parents and adult dependent children. The core proposition is that families belong together and that we should do what we can to mend the effects of war and persecution that tear them apart. It is simply inhumane to keep families apart.
This Government are, thankfully, committed to the European Convention on Human Rights. What about its Article 8, on the right to family life? What about the Convention on the Rights of the Child? My noble friend Lady Walmsley asked why the Government are not prioritising the best interests of the child.
Family ties are a key reason why people risk their lives on dangerous journeys to reach the UK, so safe and legal family reunion routes provide a vital alternative to life-threatening channel crossings, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—still my friend—stressed. Restricting family reunion drives vulnerable women and children into the hands of ruthless people smugglers and traffickers, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, so forcefully reminded us. Family reunion accelerates refugees’ integration in the UK. Permitting a refugee to be with their family will greatly improve their chance of leading a stable and productive life, without threats to their well-being and mental health. Imagine trying to move forward with your life and work while worrying about the safety of family back home.
Family relationships can be key to the psychological recovery of a child refugee. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, referred to the grief of the Kindertransport children. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, reminded us, family unity may save the public purse; it costs £30,000 a year to look after a child in a residential home or foster care who might be supported by parents and other relatives if they were allowed to come to the UK—memo to Rachel Reeves.
In 2022, the previous Government demonstrated an admirable awareness of how refugees need their families by introducing the Ukraine family scheme, as has already been referred to, which allowed Ukrainians to sponsor a wide range of extended family members. This Bill suggests definitions of family that are not nearly as broad as the Ukraine scheme.
The previous Government defended the ban on child refugees sponsoring their parents or close family members to join them—in which we are an outlier in Europe, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, stressed—by claiming that it would act as a pull factor, encouraging more children to make dangerous journeys to the UK. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and my noble friend Lord Oates cited, in 2016 the EU Committee of this House categorically concluded that there was no evidence provided by EU member states operating the family reunification directive, which permits children to sponsor family members but which the UK declined to opt into, that children had been exploited by being sent ahead for other family members to join them. Its report on child migrants said:
“We received no evidence of families sending children as ‘anchors’ following the implementation of the Family Reunification Directive by other Member States”.
The Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place reached a similar conclusion under the chairmanship of the right honourable Yvette Cooper, now Home Secretary. In any case, the deterrence argument assumes it to be morally as well as legally sound to block the right to family reunification in order to send signals to prospective immigrants to give it up. This is surely not going to be the new Government’s position.
It is important to note that, while the Bill would make a big change for the families able to be safely reunited, the increase in the number of refugee family reunion visas issued would be relatively small. My noble friend answered the noble Lord, Lord Murray, who made an intervention without a speech. The Refugee Council and Safe Passage have estimated that allowing children to sponsor close relatives could result in between 240 and 750 family members being granted visas each year.
Just over two years ago, during Second Reading on a similar Bill that I introduced, there was an important contribution from the then shadow Chief Whip—I will name him—the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, now the actual Chief Whip. He said:
“I support the Bill and hope that we will get a positive response from the Minister … This issue is not going to go away until the Government deal with the question of how we can have proper safe and legal routes and deal with the criminal gangs. This Bill is one attempt to deal with those problems”.—[Official Report, 8/7/2022; col. 1242.]
I rest my case. This remains the case in October 2024. If the new Government are serious about strengthening safe routes, supporting women and children, endorsing family life and tackling the smuggling and trafficking gangs, they will back this Bill. I sincerely hope that the Minister can give us a positive response today to this modest and doable Bill, as my noble friend says.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who has been a very strong advocate for family reunion over many years and a number of Bills. She will recall that the previous Conservative Government did not support this or other similar Bills, and we still have concerns about the likely impact of this Bill. This is on the grounds that it would potentially jeopardise vulnerable children’s safety, as well as having substantial implications for our already stretched public resources, including legal aid and other budgets.
I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that families belong together, but our view in government was that this Bill is too wide in scope because it gives the Secretary of State enormous discretionary power to grant people leave to remain in this country. The Bill is not limited to granting leave to enter to family members but also to any
“such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine”.
Clause 1(4) says that
“‘protection status’ has the same meaning as in the immigration rules, meaning a person with … permission to stay as a refugee … humanitarian protection … temporary refugee permission, and … temporary humanitarian protection”.
That is potentially a very large—indeed, an almost impossible to predict—number of people. The Library briefing note has published data released by the Home Office on family reunions. It shows that 16,244 people were granted family reunion visas in the year ending June 2024, which suggests that the system is not as dysfunctional as has been painted.
We are clear that significantly expanding our policy to enable children to sponsor family members goes against our safeguarding responsibilities. It is highly likely that, if passed, the Bill would create further incentives for more children to be encouraged, or even forced, to leave their families and risk extremely dangerous journeys to the UK in order to sponsor later relatives. I accept that the committee has said that that is not the case, but it is very interesting that a number of the EU countries that it cited as providing no evidence are, as we speak, busily setting up what they are calling return hubs. Poland has shut its borders, and France, Italy and Germany are all looking at these sorts of things. I suggest that what they are doing and what they are saying are not necessarily entirely the same.
Of course, it is not possible to prove this—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, you cannot prove a negative—but she should be under no illusions that the criminal people smugglers will be watching developments with considerable interest and an eye to profit. I was watching Sky News recently and one Yemeni male said, “The previous Government, they wanted to deport us, but now they are making the process easier”. What happens here is noted and it does change behaviour. As we have seen—including, I believe, overnight—that can have fatal consequences.
As we have seen in a number of EU states, rules such as the one this Bill seeks to implement would open up children to huge exploitation risk. That completely contradicts the hard work and commitment of the previous Conservative Government in protecting children from modern slavery and exploitation. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, illustrated some of the practical difficulties with regard to this work—work that I know the current Government are committed to maintaining and no doubt building upon. We refused to play into the hands of criminal gangs, and therefore we should not extend this policy to allow child refugees to sponsor family members into the UK.
On legal aid, I reassure noble Lords that the Conservative Party fully supports the principle of family unity and shares the concerns for those families who have been separated by conflict or oppression. The Bill proposes reinstating legal aid in family reunion cases, but I remind noble Lords that legal aid for refugee family reunion may already be available under the exceptional case funding scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that that was very difficult to access, but again the statistics surely indicate that it is not that difficult if 16,244 people were able to achieve family reunion visas in the year ending June 2024.
Failure to provide legal aid would mean risking a breach in the individual’s human rights, subject to the means and merits test. In 2019, the previous Government amended the scope of legal aid so that separated migrant children are able to receive civil legal aid for applications by their family members and extended family members. This includes entry clearance and leave to enter or to remain in the UK made under the Immigration Rules or outside the rules on the basis of exceptional, compassionate or compelling circumstances. We must remember that legal aid is paid for by taxpayers and resources are not limitless. It is important that it is provided for those most in need, including those who seek protection.
I shall finish here, but on the subject of scarce resources I will stray a little from the brief, if I may. I was reading yesterday that the Development Minister is on record as saying that the Government intend to reverse the previous Government’s policy of using some development aid to pay for migrant and refugee housing. That is allowed under the rules. Nevertheless, the previous Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, provided a top-up to mitigate some of the effects. Will the Minister shed any light on the Government’s intentions in this area? Will development money be used? If yes, will the Treasury provide a top-up, as has reportedly been requested by the Foreign Secretary? I mention this against the backdrop that I was reading that hotels are being reopened and, no doubt, the daily costs are rising.
This country has a proud record of supporting refugees, from the Kindertransport, as has been mentioned, to the Homes for Ukraine scheme and ACRS, but we must ensure that the rules are not abused. We must also ensure that the safeguarding of children is enabled by our legislation and that taxpayers’ interests are paramount. For the reasons I have set out, we on these Benches will be unable to support the Bill.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for bringing the Bill before the House today. I feel a bit of a latecomer to the debate, having heard that there have been four or five previous attempts to cover this issue, before my membership of this House—indeed, before my membership of another place ceased in 2019. I appreciate the tenacity of the noble Baroness and will certainly reflect on the comments made not just by her but by Members across the House today.
This Government are trying to reset the debate on migration issues as a whole. We are undertaking some significant policy changes which will come before this House, on a range of issues to do with gangs, boat crossings and border security, which will reflect the change of tone in the approach to tackling some of these difficult migration issues. I understand and respect the reasons why the noble Baroness has brought this Bill forward today and hope I can answer some of the points that she raised.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that we are still in the 106th day of the Government. There is therefore an opportunity to look at a four-year plus programme, not just at what happens in the first 106 days, which have already been a time of significant challenge for the Home Office on a range of issues and will continue to be so.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for raising this very important issue. I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful and passionate contributions to our debate today and for their analysis of some of the reasons why those drivers are present. I reassure all noble Lords that the Government fully support the principle of family unity and share their concerns regarding families who have been separated by conflict or persecution. It is for precisely that reason that the Government support what has been referred to already: an existing comprehensive framework for reuniting refugees with their families in the UK. I emphasise to the House that this framework is set out in the Immigration Rules, which a number of noble Lords have referenced today, and in our refugee family reunion policy.
The Government fully recognise that families will become fragmented and that the nature of conflict and persecution, referred to by a number of noble Lords, will continue to cause difficulties. However, the family reunion policy allows those with protection status in the UK to sponsor their spouse or partner and children under the age of 18 to join them here in the family unit, when an individual has fled their country of origin to seek protection in the UK. That family reunion policy has seen more than 62,605 individuals reunited with their family members in the last decade, when the party of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, was in power. Over half of those individuals are children and this significant number highlights the policy’s success in providing a vital safe route.
There is no fee for family reunion. Sponsors are also not required to meet any financial or maintenance requirements. Immediate family members, such as partners and children under 18, are entitled to that sponsorship and protection status. It is very important to recognise the baseline from which this House begins, which is that the UK’s refugee family reunion policy is in this regard at least as generous—in some cases, more generous—than European and non-European countries.
I also invite noble Lords to consider the range of routes across the Immigration Rules through which family reunification can be sought. In addition to the refugee family reunion policy, the UK wants to meet its international obligations, and this Government certainly want to continue to meet theirs, so that close relatives with protection status in the UK can sponsor children where there are serious and compelling circumstances. This can be in situations where the child has no family other than a non-parent relative in the UK, who they could reasonably expect to support or care for them. Furthermore, individuals with that protection status can sponsor adult dependent relatives living overseas to join them as well.
There are issues already in place where those international obligations can be met and, in line with those obligations, this Government recognise that some applicants do not meet those current rules. None the less, in exceptional circumstances their applications will be granted by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, where a refused application would mean a breach of their family life and responsibilities. I recognise the difficult situations for people whose protection status in the UK means that they find themselves across the world from their family members. I take this moment to make clear the Government’s commitment to reuniting families whose lives have been disrupted due to conflict or persecution.
Ministers always come to a “However”, and I now come to mine. However, there are challenges in this Bill that the Government need to reflect on, some of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, in his contribution. I see some of them in the Bill. The focus of today’s debate has been on children; I understand that, but the Bill is about not just children but the wider family, and there is no assessment or acceptance of what the parameter of that might be. That needs reflection by the Government as part of their consideration of today’s debate. It is essential that this Government take time to reflect on the issues that have been raised in this House, give thoughtful consideration to them and look at them in the context of the wider government policy we are now undertaking.
This Government are trying to establish a border force and put some real action against the criminal gangs to stop them operating. They are trying to disrupt the gangs through ways that have not been utilised before. They are trying to ensure that we have in place a speedier, more efficient and more effective asylum and refugee system than we had previously. They are trying as well at making sure that we look at using immigration for the wider good of the economy. All those issues are currently on the table, and it is important that we examine the concerns that a number of noble Members have raised in this House in the context of that wider policy. In looking at any policy changes, the Government have to strike the right balance between what they want to do as the right thing—ensuring the protection of children and reuniting refugees and their family members in the UK—and, difficult though it is to say this from the Dispatch Box, the issues around local authorities, public services and the pressures on them. They have to take into account the way this Bill will impact the wider government policy on asylum, migration and the other issues before this House today.
Expanding the policy to extended family would—undoubtedly, in my view and in those of my colleagues across the Home Office—have a significant and difficult impact on stretched public resources. It would also mean that we have to bring more people into scope of the policy, including those who may not necessarily need international protection themselves. I want to make sure that we examine in detail the points put before the House today and the points in the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We need to do that in a way that makes sure that we maximise the best use of our resources and efficiencies within the complete picture of the Home Office’s approach to this issue.
We are clear that significantly expanding the policy to enable children to sponsor family members would also potentially cause difficulties around safeguarding responsibilities. Again, I am acutely aware of and have looked at—and will look again at —the issues raised by committees of this House and the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place. But on our 106th day in office, it would be rash to take those steps today without a reflection on that as a long-term responsibility. It is important that we make sure that we safeguard our own responsibilities, as well as safeguarding the children who will come here as refugees, by looking at that in a clear and open way.
While the issue of children being sent as a magnet for their parents may be controversial and have no merit—some discussions may be needed—it is important that we reflect on that and look at it in detail. We must make sure that the policy we bring forward as a Government meets the obligation of safeguarding children while meeting our international responsibilities and doing what we said we would do: ensuring that, wherever possible, family reunion is important. Again, there are criminal gangs which will watch this debate and the Bill’s progress and seek to exploit these issues. It is important that we reflect on that in a sensible and productive way, hearing what the House has said while looking at that in detail downstream.
Family unity is a key priority under the Government’s policy and there are ways through which we can do that. Mention has been made of Article 8 of the ECHR. I am proud to say today that this Government will not withdraw or scrap the ECHR; we are committed to its implementation. The right to family and private life is a qualified right, however. It is therefore the prerogative of a responsible Government to consider the economic well-being of the country and to balance Article 8 with the interests of maintaining effective immigration control and protecting the public purse. That is not to say that we rule out the points made by the noble Baroness, but we have to reflect on them, look at them and understand what the Bill means in practice.
The Bill would reinstate legal aid in family reunion cases. I remind noble Lords that legal aid for refugee family reunion can be applied for under the exceptional case funding scheme, where failure to provide legal aid would risk breaching an individual’s human rights. Under the scheme, separated migrant children are able to receive civil legal aid for applications made by their family members and extended family members. This includes support for entry clearance and permission to stay in the UK made either under the Immigration Rules or outside the rules on the basis of exceptional circumstances or compassionate and compelling circumstances. However, as has been mentioned, legal aid is paid for by the taxpayer. As noble Lords will understand, we will shortly come to a Budget and resources are not limitless. It is important that we examine the demands made today in the light of those resource pressures, ensuring that we still support those who need and seek our protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made some points on discussions that he has read about overseas aid and development. Some of those points relate to Budget discussions and, again, the House will understand that I am not at liberty to discuss those today, but I will reflect on what the noble Lord said. If there are points that I can share with him, I will certainly write to him in due course.
As I set out, the Government’s family reunion policy is designed to welcome the immediate family members of those recognised as needing protection in the United Kingdom. We also provide protection to the most vulnerable people in areas and regions of conflict and instability. That global humanitarian need will continue to grow: the UNHCR has assessed that, by the end of June this year, more than 122 million people around the world had been forced from their homes, with 37 million of them now refugees.
This Government have a generous UK resettlement offer, which is an integral part of our challenge in addressing the needs of vulnerable refugees. The UK will continue to provide safe and legal routes for tens of thousands of people to start new lives here through the UK resettlement scheme, as well as community sponsorship and mandated resettlement schemes. Take the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme as an example: it has now provided support for more than 28,000 people, including women and children. The Ukraine family resettlement scheme and the Homes for Ukraine scheme have also enabled hundreds of thousands of individuals to seek sanctuary in the United Kingdom.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for raising this issue and thank noble Lords for contributing to our thought-provoking discussion today. This will remain an emotive issue—one that it is important to consider and one on which the Government, in particular the Home Office, will reflect in future. I look forward to continuing the debate and listening further when this Bill progresses in this House.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Bill. I know that, for at least two, being here was not straightforward. I also put on record the support that I have been asked to mention by four who have had to be elsewhere—the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and the noble Lords, Lord Dubs, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Purvis of Tweed.
I thank the organisations that have briefed Peers for this debate and the individuals in them for all their work in the sector. I know how pressed they are. I will not name them all, other than to thank the Refugee Council—Jon Featonby has helped me so much to get this Bill and its predecessors to Second Reading.
I am sorry that, over the years, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and I have been put into oppositional positions, as it were. It is not something that I wish at a personal level. He said that the system is not as dysfunctional as it has been painted, but I think that it is dysfunctional for the children whom we have been talking about.
The noble Lord also talked about playing into the hands of smugglers. It is widely regarded that establishing safe routes is the best way to address smuggling. I and the whole House look forward to a policy from the new Government on this. The Minister referred to a change of tone; I look forward to a change of policy and a change of law. The Government accept the importance of family reunion, but it is more than children joining their parents. It is illogical that it does not apply the other way round.
The term “exceptional” is prayed in aid, in respect of both legal aid and how the rules can be disapplied. I think that this separation should always be regarded as exceptional; it is the separation that is exceptional. I hope that there may be an opportunity to reflect with the Government, not against them. I anticipated a number of the objections that were made but, on resource pressures, several noble Lords made it clear that those pressures are best reduced by simplifying the rules and procedures. My noble friend Lord Oates referred to the processes; if they were smoother, that would save everyone an awful lot.
I am not going to take the time to refer to all the points that have been made but I realised that, since I have to wear spectacles, I could not see that I had rather more time left at the beginning. So I will take a moment to share with the House the responses that I received from the Migration Observatory, which I contacted to ask about numbers in preparation for this debate. It said that, as so many factors influence asylum migration, isolating the impact of family and reunion rights on asylum flows would be difficult statistically. However, it gave me two examples that it thought were instructive.
In 2016, Ireland changed domestic policy to enable children to sponsor family members and saw no significant change in numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the two years following the change. Very properly, the Migration Observatory said that one could always argue that, absent the change, numbers would have been smaller, but this is again impossible to verify statistically.
The example of Norway, which has family reunion for these children, suggests that a small share sponsor family members to join them—just 12% from 1990 to 2015. The Migration Observatory also refers to a report by the Refugee Council and Safe Passage, which said that this small percentage is supported by anecdotal evidence from service providers in the UK, which say that separated children are often unable to locate their family members. This makes sponsoring them very difficult. I beg to move.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we start the debate on this important Bill, I remind the House that the speaking time for Back-Bench contributions is three minutes. That means that when noble Lords get to two minutes, they need to start making their concluding remarks. At three minutes, their time is up. We have done very well today, but it is important to remember that colleagues in the last debate equally want to leave the House on time.
Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, your Lordships will remember the controversy in the House in 2015 over the regulations withdrawing £4 billion of tax credits, affecting 3 million people. Everybody had a go: opposition to the Government’s measure outside the House was led by the Mayor of London, one Boris Johnson; the Liberal Democrats laid a straightforward fatal Motion, which did not pass; and the Bishops laid a regret Motion, which was pre-empted. The amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on the Cross Benches and by Baroness Hollis, who will long be remembered for her acuity and her passion for Labour causes, succeeded. Their amendments were to decline to consider the regulations until the Government had undertaken certain actions—in particular, consultation and a consideration of an analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Although the Clerk of the Parliaments had advised that these were not fatal amendments, the Government treated them as such. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said there was only “a binary choice”: approve or disapprove. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, then Leader of the Opposition, said this:
“We believe that our Motion is the only one that can lead to meaningful change. It gives Ministers the opportunity to take a step back and listen properly to the clamour of voices calling for them to think again. That is the right role for your Lordships’ House to take”.—[Official Report, 26/10/15; col. 1022.]
Today’s Bill creates a mechanism that will allow the Commons, if they have already approved the instrument, and, more importantly, the Minister who promotes the secondary legislation to think again.
On 27 October 2015, the day following the passionate tax credits debate, the Times headline was: “Osborne vows to rein in Lords after humiliation”. There were threats that 150 Conservative Peers would be created—well, that happened anyway. But on that following day, the day of the Times headline, something very interesting happened in this Chamber: there was a different fatal Motion on a different subject, electoral registration. It was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, then the Labour home affairs spokesman, moved an amendment—with some passion—to strengthen our Motion, which the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, duly accepted. It succeeded by 10 votes. The Labour-amended fatal Motion was then immediately put to the House but, to the Liberal Democrats’ surprise, was defeated by 10 votes. An analysis of the voting shows that 11 Labour Peers had failed to go through the Lobby again. I cannot believe that their dinner engagements were so pressing that they could not have delayed the five or 10 minutes necessary to walk through a second time—we do it all the time in this House.
The Labour Party in opposition, presumably as a matter of policy, did not support any fatal Motion thereafter, even through all the Brexit legislation. It had some reason for caution: the Tories had brought out their most effective howitzer, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to carry out a review, and in particular to consider
“how to secure the decisive role of the elected House of Commons in relation to its primacy on financial matters, and secondary legislation”.
His review, when it emerged, was prefaced with an introduction:
“The Lords convention on statutory instruments has been fraying for some years”,
and it was
“imperative that we understand better the expectations of both Houses”.
He considered three options, the first of which was the removal of the House of Lords from statutory instrument procedures altogether. That he rejected, but he did recommend that a new procedure should be created, set out in statute—note that: in statute—allowing the Lords to invite the Commons to think again when a disagreement exists, although still insisting on Commons primacy. I believe my Bill does just that.
As pointed out by the DPRRC, the SLSC and the Constitution Committee in a series of reports, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and his distinguished advisers had been tasked with the wrong question. The key concern was not the primacy of the House of Commons; the relationship at issue, these committees held, was the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive.
The Government’s response to the Strathclyde review was to do nothing. The Leader of the Commons, David Lidington, said that the Government remained concerned that there was
“no mechanism for the elected chamber to overturn a decision by the unelected chamber on SIs”.
Again, I believe my Bill deals with that issue.
This Bill does not come out unaided off the top of my head. Not only have I paid regard to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his review but it follows from the work being done by the Hansard Society in relation to secondary legislation. I am very grateful to the society for the hard thinking it has put into it.
The amendment to the 1946 Act in Clause 1 introduces a simple mechanism: when the House of Lords is considering the approval of a draft statutory instrument under the affirmative or “made affirmative” procedures, it may withhold such approval, as suggested by Baroness Hollis in 2015, pending the resolution of concerns which are to be communicated to the House of Commons. The mechanism would be by message, as usual, and when that message is received the Minister would be required to table a Motion in the Commons to debate the House of Lords’ concerns. The Commons may reject those concerns, in which case the instrument comes back to the House of Lords either to approve or to disapprove as drafted.
The Commons may, on the other hand, request that the Minister make amendments to the instrument to reflect the concerns it has received. The primacy of the Commons is entirely observed by this proposal. I recognise that the Minister, in tabling a draft statutory instrument in the first place, is exercising a power granted to him or her by Parliament in an enabling Act. This Bill does not interfere with that prerogative. With subsection (4), the Minister has a choice, within 40 days of receipt of a request from the Commons, either to withdraw the draft instrument or to lay a further copy, as amended or unamended, in the usual way. Where the draft instrument is re-laid, amended or unamended, that is it—no ping-pong or agreement between the Houses. The Lords has no second opportunity to voice concerns.
I have been advised that to amend the negative procedure would be technically tricky. Accordingly, as a first step, I have concentrated on the affirmative procedures. Clause 2 puts into statutory form an existing non-statutory slip rule, and Clause 3 is a technical consequential.
Two points remain. First, how frequently would this House use the conditional amendment power proposed? The assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, so far as his option was concerned, was that in practice there would be no significant increase in Motions to amend. Similarly, I would expect the mechanism in this Bill to be used to express concerns in place of Motions to Regret, but it would be more positive and constructive, and no more frequent than the current use of that procedure.
Secondly, what concerns would be addressed? An analysis of the successful regret Motions passed in the last two Sessions—five and four Motions respectively—shows that, apart from two attempts to introduce by secondary legislation matters that had previously been rejected in primary legislation, the main concerns have been failures by the relevant Minister to have regard to an impact assessment or other information from outside sources, and lack of consultation, which should have informed and influenced his decision. For instance, in the modern slavery regulations, there had been no consultation on the definition of “slavery and trafficking” and, consequently, the scope of those regulations was argued to be too narrow.
The fundamental problem with the present procedures is that secondary legislation is unamendable. All the regulations relating to the nine regret Motions on which the Government were defeated went through anyway, as laid, without any amendment. This Bill will encourage a discipline which will ensure that policy is set out in amendable primary legislation. That will mean fewer skeleton Bills like the unfortunate Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which, disappointingly, is limping through the House at this, the earliest moment of this Government’s legislative programme.
I began with quotes from the Leader of this House and the Lords Chief Whip in the new Government. I end with a passage from the new Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, from his excellent Bingham lecture on Monday of this week. He said:
“Excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses or skeleton legislation upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the Executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values that I have already outlined but at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty”.
He continued:
“In my view, the new Government offers an opportunity for a reset in the way that Government thinks about these issues. This means, in particular, a much sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards”.
I hope the safeguard that this Bill envisages will appeal to him. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I first declare my interests as set out in the register; in particular, I have the honour to chair the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on putting forward this measure, and I have to tell him that I am favourably disposed to his Bill. I also congratulate him on the most enjoyable journey into the history which he has given the House.
However, I speak in a personal capacity; I do not seek to speak for the committee I chair or for the party of which I am a member. Before I joined the SLSC, I was aware there were serious shortcomings in far too much of the secondary legislation that continues to burgeon under Governments of every hue. I just had no idea how serious the problem was.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford: the system we have is anachronistic. Despite our best efforts and those of our excellent but small team of clerks, we struggle to cope, not only with the sheer volume of secondary legislation but with its all too frequent inadequacies.
The reasons why an instrument might fall short are set out in the terms of reference of the SLSC, in section 3. Despite repeated ministerial undertakings, inadequate explanatory material is the principal culprit—seemingly an endemic problem across almost every government department.
I am very proud of the work we do and of the absence of partisanship across the committee. However, if the ever-expanding reliance upon secondary legislation is now to be a fact of life, we can no longer rely on rules and conventions designed for an earlier era. Although we provide a useful service to the House in pointing out when an SI falls short on one of the grounds, it is frustrating that in response to that scrutiny this House can do no more than object in the form of a regret Motion. It would improve the quality of secondary legislation and the balance of power between the legislature and the Executive if there were a stronger mechanism for the House to object to an SI, while still falling short of rejecting it altogether. This is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is proposing. I congratulate him on his initiative and look forward very much indeed to hearing the Minister.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
It is a pleasure to follow the chairman of the committee on which I also have the honour to sit. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has put forward, congratulate him on his clear explanation and agree completely with him that the process must be amended by primary legislation. This Bill provides one step, but a very important step, in getting the balance right. It may be thought to be a matter of importance only to constitutional nerds and lawyers. It sounds very uninteresting, but this is a matter of great importance for two reasons. First, the Attorney-General in his Bingham lecture explained why it matters to the rule of law, but it also matters to the form of government we have. Secondly, the form of government we have now, as the three Nobel prize winners earlier this week have shown, is essential to economic prosperity and growth, so we cannot put this in the category of “not important”. It is central that we get some reform.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, the Attorney-General said in his lecture on Monday that a sharper focus on taking delegated powers is justified and there must be more careful consideration of the appropriate safeguards. I hope that, today or on a subsequent occasion, the Minister will be able to set out the concrete steps the Government intend to take to remedy this terrible problem. May I make three suggestions? First, it is plain that the Government have an addiction to delegated powers, the use of which became extremely extensive during Brexit interlude. There may have been reasons, but we must stop using them so much. The fact that the power is there does not mean it has to be used. I hope one of the steps we can take is to make Governments explain in Explanatory Memoranda why they are using delegated powers, rather than simply just using them. Breaking an addiction is difficult, but we have to take positive steps.
Secondly, there should be a requirement, save in exceptional circumstances, that no draft instrument be put forward without an impact assessment where the amounts at issue cannot be proved to be below the threshold for the provision of such an impact assessment. We need to return to the principle of good government: policy first, fully costed legislation second.
Thirdly, although the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is taking great steps to improve matters through league tables, they are no substitute for a proper government department to supervise the standards of ministries, which differ enormously.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this is a modest but constructive proposal for a change in the way in which Parliament and the Government interact. I very much hope that the Government will welcome it and give it their support or take it forward in some other way. We are talking about balance: the very important balance between Parliament and the Executive, and the equally important balance between primary and secondary legislation.
There is a major underlying principle that I have become more and more irritated about during my years in this House. One hears people talking about the principle of parliamentary sovereignty—how that is the foundation of our constitution—but the reality, we all know, is prime ministerial sovereignty, Executive dominance and “elective dictatorship”, as a former Lord Hailsham described it when in opposition. He of course did not think that way when in government. I noticed that on the Conservative Front Benches only a week ago the noble Lord, Lord True, said, in effect, that this Government were behaving like an elective dictatorship. It is not something he would have been saying a few months ago.
One sees a new Government coming in and one hopes that the quality of governance will improve. So far, the signs are not good. One sees Ministers wishing to rush ahead with a whole set of proposals. One sees reports that Labour Whips are telling their MPs that under no circumstances are they to vote against any government proposals. That does not have much to do with parliamentary sovereignty.
What we saw under the last Government was a situation in which primary legislation got more and more like skeleton Bills, secondary and tertiary legislation increased and, as Ministers came and went every six to nine months, the belief that they should act immediately and push something else through meant that we had inconsistent policies and, frankly, increasingly bad government. Good government is slow and considered government, with rationales for what is being proposed and with impact assessments.
The Bill proposes that the Government should be willing to think again and that, when there is secondary legislation, some mechanism should be provided to make the Commons and the Government think again. I remind the Minister that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report says:
“The abuse of delegated powers is in effect an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of democracy”.
We are not talking here about the primacy of the Commons; we are talking about the fundamental importance of parliamentary scrutiny for democracy in holding the Government to account.
The second report said that,
“if because of modern conditions Parliament is being asked to accept new ways of legislating, then it is surely right that the Government must stand ready to accept new methods of scrutiny”.
So I ask the Minister: will the Government accept that we need to change the rules? Do they also accept that that has to be done by primary legislation? Or do they agree with the comments of the Hansard Society that this could be done by changing the Standing Orders of both Houses? In which case, would the Minister agree to look into that and see how quickly it might be done?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate this important matter. I am especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for warning me of his intention and for his clear and very amusing explanation of recent history.
I thank the other speakers, including my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, the distinguished chair of our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which does such a wonderful and often unheralded job in sifting through thousands of SIs, both negative and affirmative, the latter being the subject of this Bill.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that impact assessments are important—I always used to say that from the Back Benches, as many will remember.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, to the Dispatch Box for the Cabinet Office and very much look forward to hearing from her.
The arguments have been well made. However, I believe that the Bill as drafted has major constitutional implications. We need to consider it very carefully and, as far as possible, in a spirit of non-partisanship. The most significant effect of the Bill if enacted is that it would leave the House of Lords with greater theoretical power than the House of Commons across significant sections of rules and regulations. Is this credible? Much as I love this House, I fear the answer is no.
I have a number of other points to make. Having lived with fellow Peers through the relentless increase in the use of secondary legislation, I have sympathy with the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Under the provisions of the Bill, only the House of Lords would be capable of triggering a mechanism to amend a statutory instrument. There are no provisions in the Bill that would allow concerned MPs to instigate a change themselves. It would be decidedly odd for elected Members of Parliament to find themselves in this position of inferiority; it would undermine the primacy of the House of Commons.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, claims that the provisions in the Bill, which would require the Commons to debate the concerns of the House of Lords, would ensure that the balance of power remained as it should. However, as we know, Parliament is a busy place and the House of Commons schedule is already packed. The mechanism suggested here would only add to that in an unpredictable manner.
Further, it concerns me that the Bill might enable an interventionist or troublesome House of Lords—perish the thought—to obstruct the actions of a Government by amending a succession of draft affirmative statutory instruments. While the noble Lord believes that in practice the suggested mechanism would not be used more frequently than regret Motions, there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that that is the case.
At first sight, Clause 2, which nobody has mentioned, looks unobjectionable. I do remember my fury at the business department when I inherited SIs that needed to be corrected because of typos or sloppy drafting. However, there is an unfortunate lack of precision in the Bill. What would constitute a “substantive error” as opposed to an error? I might also ask how a Minister could correct an instrument to achieve a so-called “intended effect” when he or she has no defined means of ascertaining the intention of Parliament.
I believe that the lawyers who draft statutory instruments should get them right first time—a principle of mine. It stands to reason that, should we make it easier to repair errors in secondary legislation, there would be less pressure to ensure that the initial drafting was clear and effective. Further, if it became easier to tweak secondary legislation, I believe, from my experience as both a civil servant and a Minister in many departments, including the Cabinet Office, that it would reduce the impetus to craft good primary legislation.
We have an ever-growing problem with the amount and content of secondary legislation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, called it an “addiction”, while the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, rightly mentioned the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which will introduce huge delegated powers, including alignment with EU law, on matters of real substance. Similarly, the Water (Special Measures) Bill grants significant power to Ministers to make regulations under the legislation, and the Government expect this House to pass it without sight of the draft regulations.
We cannot allow what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee terms “skeleton legislation” to become the norm. We should also look back at the agriculture and environment Bills, which on our watch also overuse delegated powers, as I argued at the time. The fact is that Governments of all colours should know what they are doing when they introduce Bills and not just take wider powers to do what they like. I sound like the grandmother that I am but, when I was a civil servant, we drafted the statutory instruments alongside the legislation and consulted on them as well. A power to think again could provide yet another excuse for initial sloppiness in parent primary legislation.
For the reasons I have stated, this side of the House has doubts about the Bill. Of course, as part of comprehensive reform of the House of Lords, there might be scope for increasing a second Chamber’s control of legislation, and that could include secondary legislation. That could mean better use of the wide experience and expertise of many noble Lords. However, that is a much bigger topic, requiring widespread agreement across the political parties on the way forward. I believe we need more comprehensive reform, rather than bits and pieces—one of the reasons I regret the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, although that is not for today.
In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for leading such an important debate. However, I have outlined a number of concerns that I believe show that this particular Bill should not proceed.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for raising the important issue of how we legislate and how we should legislate. It is the constitutional duty of this House to ensure that legislation that the Government bring forward is of the highest standard. I know that this duty is taken seriously by all Members of your Lordships’ House. The Government consider Parliament’s role in the legislative process to be of the utmost importance and hold the contribution of this House in the highest regard, taking seriously the comments and concerns raised by noble Lords, especially today. Your Lordships’ House’s ability to scrutinise is second to none, even if that does make it slightly terrifying for a new Minister.
I acknowledge the work over recent years of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Constitution Committee. Their tireless work to support and scrutinise the creation and use of delegated powers, and the legislative process more broadly, helps to shape policy and uphold the high standards that Parliament and the public expect. Their diligent scrutiny and focus are an example of your Lordships’ House at its best.
I turn to the substance of the Bill. The issue of statutory instruments and, more broadly, the nature and scope of powers conferred to the Executive is not new. There has always been a need to strike a balance between providing the Government with the flexibility they need to deliver for the country and ensuring that the legislature can retain proper control over changes to the law. This debate is as old as Parliament and has been a running sore—perhaps most notably with the powers conferred by the Proclamation by the Crown Act 1539, which granted King Henry VIII sweeping powers to legislate by decree, without any semblance of parliamentary oversight as we would recognise it today. We can be thankful that the Act was repealed shortly after his death. That being said, the interesting debate today is evidence of the persistent and lively nature of the subject of delegated powers and the importance that Parliament gives to the legislative process.
Procedures for delegated powers have come a long way since Henry VIII—although it does not always feel like it—but that is not to say that the situation is perfect. This Government are clear that, too often, Parliament has been asked to approve overly broad and insufficiently constrained powers, and not been given the information it needs to fully scrutinise legislation. That is why this Government have pledged to do better—to respect Parliament’s role and to enable proper legislative scrutiny. To that end, I have a great deal of sympathy with the proposals before us. However, I do not believe that they are the right way to address the problems we see.
It is important to remember that Parliament already has the opportunity to scrutinise the nature and scope of powers during the passage of enabling primary legislation, as well as the content of statutory instruments when they are laid before Parliament. Parliament routinely requires that statutory instruments are subject to parliamentary scrutiny through either the negative or affirmative procedures. Under either procedure, once an instrument is laid before Parliament, Members of both Houses may scrutinise and debate its purpose and form, and even move to prevent it becoming or remaining law. Scrutiny of statutory instruments and delegated powers begins before a Bill even reaches Parliament. A high bar has been set to ensure that any delegated powers are justified. The Government have been clear that any delegated powers must possess a robust rationale, must be legally sound, and should not be taken in lieu of underdeveloped policy.
Indeed, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General spoke passionately about the rule of law in his maiden speech, when he promised to guard against the abuse of the proper role of secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, quoted the Attorney-General’s 2024 Bingham Lecture, titled “The Rule of Law in an Age of Populism”—I think he will be delighted at how many noble Lords have followed his speech on Monday. My noble and learned friend spoke about the proper balance between Parliament and the Executive, saying that:
“Secondary legislation has an indispensable role to play in a modern, regulated society”,
but that there is a need for a
“sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards”.
I strongly believe that this is the right approach. This emphasis on adherence to good legislative practice ensures that primary legislation is specific and measured in the powers it grants, and that Parliament has ample opportunity to scrutinise any provisions for statutory instruments.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, highlighted, the Government have specific concerns with the procedural processes set out in the Bill. They would require that a greater proportion of parliamentary time is spent on secondary legislation. Most draft SIs would be subject to the affirmative procedure, under which both Houses must debate and approve instruments before they become law. Subjecting these instruments to the possibility of further debate would, in effect, create yet another forum for relitigating debates that took place during the passage of the primary legislation.
Furthermore, the proposed procedure is asymmetric between the Houses. It would allow the other place to require the Government to withdraw and reconsider an instrument only on the initiative of this House. This would sit in tension with the fundamental principle of the primacy of the elected Chamber, and it is not for this House to tell the other how to operate. I think we can acknowledge that we would not welcome such an approach either from the other place, if they tried it. As such, the Bill in question would represent a significant step and fundamentally alter the way that government business is arranged, particularly in the Commons.
It is often statutory instruments on which the Government rely to respond to dynamic and emerging national and international issues; this is not something we would wish to restrict. I am sure we can all understand the negative effect that the Bill would have on this process, introducing the possibility of multiple, potentially drawn-out debates and votes on statutory instruments that would truly hinder the Government’s ability to respond to ever-changing national and international opportunities and challenges and take up precious parliamentary time. It is the opinion of the Government that our efforts should instead be directed at ensuring that we get the regulations right in the first place—that is to say, that they are drafted to the highest standard and Parliament is provided with the necessary information to hold the Government to account.
We are working hard to achieve this. The Explanatory Memorandum template has been revised to ensure that they are clear and meet the needs of Parliament and the public. We will review the template and guidance, which was published for the first time earlier this year, in the new year to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. We are also developing and delivering a range of training initiatives, including e-learning focusing on the project management aspect of secondary legislation, which will be available to all civil servants. This is complemented by a biannual programme of high-level seminars covering the delivery of secondary legislation, alongside an ongoing programme of workshops on the fundamentals of secondary legislation and how to draft effective Explanatory Memoranda. The team that develops these resources works closely with the SLSC secretariat. Ministerial training is now being delivered on a regular basis to ensure that Ministers have a clear understanding of the key issues, and understand the process around statutory instruments and broader delegated powers.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, asked about impact assessments. We agree that legislation should arrive in Parliament with all the necessary supporting documents to ensure that we in this place and those in the other place are best positioned to conduct appropriate scrutiny. We will do everything that we can to ensure that all impacts assessments are delivered when required.
Before I conclude, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his contribution. I know that he has spoken in this debate in a personal capacity. However, I am grateful for all his work as chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and that of his committee—especially when I was in opposition and used much of it in debates on SIs in the Moses Room, and especially recommendations that it has made about the importance of seeing improvements to the Government’s approach to secondary legislation. I hope that he will be reassured by my response to the debate. I assure him that the Government have heard his arguments today, and as chair of his committee, and we look forward to continuing to work with him.
As the now shadow Leader so succinctly put it, in a previous debate before the House:
“It is the Government’s constitutional role, and indeed their right, to put before your Lordships … legislation they judge to be expedient to deliver on their manifesto commitments and to address the issues of the day. It is Parliament’s role to ensure that this legislation is effective, necessary and balanced”.—[Official Report, 6/1/2022; col. 793.]
Statutory instruments are often the appropriate device for such events. The Government have confidence that the existing processes are robust and fit for purpose. They necessarily provide the Government with the means to respond effectively to developing circumstances while upholding the constitutional duty of Parliament to scrutinise the laws that this Government bring forward. However, it is important to recognise that there will be times when the Government will not get this right. This process is not static.
This debate has been welcomed and heard by the Government, but I remind your Lordships that we are 106 days in. It may take us some time to get this right. If this debate has shown one thing, it is the noble intent of Members of this House to uphold the highest standards of scrutiny and legislative procedure. I commend everyone for that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords, who have spoken so well in this debate and are generally supportive—although perhaps not in all the detail that I would like. I congratulate the Minister on her response at the Dispatch Box, which was been extremely interesting and well said.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to the anachronistic rules that we have at present, which he said smacked of an earlier era. The Minister went further, saying that it has been a running sore since 1539. It might be time to apply a patch or two to that particular running sore. I have not attempted to revise the whole of the statutory instrument procedure. It is a big task. I did not look at the negative resolutions at all. “One step enough for me” is a familiar phrase. This is a first step, which I commend to the Government, in their early days.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her contribution and her good wishes, but she rather forgot the role of this House, which is as a revising Chamber. That is why we are here, to ask the Commons to think again—or the Minister, when they effectively are making the law, as happens with statutory instruments. That is what we are here for. There is no point in coming here otherwise. The suggestion that my Bill attacks the primacy of the Commons misunderstands what I am trying to do. This House should send a message to the Commons to think again. If the Commons says, “We are not interested; we will not think again”, then that is it. The Bill then comes back to this House and we either approve it or disapprove it. When the Statutory Instruments Act was passed in 1946, in the early days of the Attlee Government, that was thought of as a check on legislation. It has been used about seven times in the history of statutory instruments. Consequently, it is no longer an effective check. Regret Motions are useless. Many people do not bother to vote or come to listen to proceedings where regret Motions are involved.
I am not attacking the primacy of the Commons. I am saying, “Think again”, and that if the Commons says, “Get lost”, well, that is it. Similarly, if a Minister is presented on the other hand with reasoned concerns from this House, such as that there has been no consultation and no impact assessment, and has the same message from the House of Commons, he may very well think that he should withdraw the instrument which has been put forward and not pursue it in that form.
We are a long way from Henry VIII, but he increasingly holds sway. I refer to the new Bill concerned with standards that is going through. It is a bad Bill. What does it mean? It brings about bad government. The Government have been going for two or three months and they are producing—I say this with the greatest respect—bad law. It is the absolute epitome of a Bill which hangs secondary legislative powers from its branches. No doubt it will proceed in due course through all stages in this House, but the Government should expect to hear disappointment from those of us who hoped there would be a change from the addictions of the past—addictions to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, referred.
The noble and learned Lord pressed the point that primary legislation is required to deal with this problem. The Hansard Society said, in relation to this Bill, that it would prefer the introduction of a conditional amendment procedure to be through an amendment to Standing Orders—great. The reason that I am looking for primary legislation is that, as the joint reports of the committees to which I referred earlier stated, the issue is not the primacy of the Commons but the balance between Parliament and the Executive Government—the elective dictatorship to which my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire referred. An editorial in today’s Guardian, “Modernising Parliament: Time for Creative Changes”, suggested that:
“Parliament can sometimes come across as an alien irrelevance, in which politicians spout platitudes offering little hope to stressed lives.”
The 2015 debate regarding tax credits for 3 million people is an excellent example, where the Government paid no heed at all to the decision of this House that they should think again, despite the fact that they were dealing with so many millions of people and so much money. I have no confidence at all that any Government would be motivated to modify Standing Orders in favour of Parliament. Parliament must fight its own corner, by the use of its legislative powers, and this Bill is where it starts.
Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, late on Friday afternoon, or even early on Friday afternoon, is known in academic circles as the graveyard slot. I hope that this is not the slot where my Bill enters the graveyard. In introducing the Bill, I declare my interests as set out in the register; in particular, that I am on the scientific advisory board of the Cambridge Conservation Initiative, a consortium of NGOs and Cambridge University, and that I am an independent scientific adviser to Drax, the power company. I thank the Minister for meeting me to discuss the Bill —in fact, twice—and Richard Benwell and Matt Browne of Wildlife and Countryside Link for their help in preparing the Bill and providing a briefing.
We have outstanding legislation in this country relating to climate and the environment, so why the need for further legislation? I intend to explain that over the next few minutes. The Climate Change Act 2008, and its associated secondary legislation, sets a legally binding target to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 and to meet the interim targets in the carbon budgets. Furthermore, the same Act places a requirement on the Government to ensure that the country adapts to the inevitable impacts of climate change on our infrastructure, buildings, land and people.
The Environment Act 2021 also places specific legal obligations on the Government, including targets on biodiversity, water quality and use, woodland cover, waste and air quality. Examples include halting the decline of biodiversity by 2030 and reducing nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in water from agriculture by 80% by 2038, compared with the 2020 baseline.
The unfortunate news is that, in spite of this excellent legislation, the Government are nowhere near on track to meet their legal obligations on climate and nature. The Climate Change Committee said in its report to Parliament in July this year:
“The UK has committed to reduce emissions in 2030 by 68% compared to 1990 levels, as its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement. It is the first UK target set in line with Net Zero. Now only six years away, the country is not on track to hit this target”.
In the same report on adaptation, the Climate Change Committee said:
“The UK’s Third National Adaptation Programme … lacks the pace and ambition to address growing climate risks, which we are already experiencing”.
In its January 2024 report, the Office for Environmental Protection said:
“Government remains largely off track to meets its environmental ambitions and must speed up and scale up its efforts in order to achieve them”.
The OEP concluded that the Government were on track to meet just four of the 40 targets it examined.
This is where my Bill comes in. The simple fact is that myriad day-to-day decisions that could help to deliver the targets are not in the hands of central government. It is as though the Government have a set of levers on their desk that they can pull, but the levers are not connected to anything under the desk. Instead, these actions are spread across many public authorities, which are listed in the Bill. These include land managers, such as the Forestry Commission, Forestry England and the national parks authorities; regulators such as Ofwat; local authorities responsible for planning decisions; and infrastructure authorities such as Network Rail and National Highways. The Bill encompasses not just the public sector but, indirectly, the private sector, such as water companies that are regulated by the authorities listed.
Meeting the legally binding targets will require a Stakhanovite effort not just from central government but from all those public authorities. In fact, I argue that, without action from the public authorities, there is little or no chance that the Government will meet their targets. This Bill would give the public authorities a duty to have as a priority helping to meet the targets. Contributing to the targets is referred to in the Bill as the environmental recovery objective and the listed public bodies have a duty to take all reasonable steps to meet that objective.
Some of the bodies predate the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act, so it is not surprising that they do not have a responsibility to help to meet the targets in these Acts. For instance, the work of Forestry England, the country’s largest landowner, is closely tied to legislation written over 100 years ago. In general, where public authorities do have duties in relation to the environment and climate change, the duties are weaker than those implied by the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act.
For example, National Highways, established under the Infrastructure Act 2015, has as one of its eight objectives to
“minimise the environmental impacts of operating, maintaining and improving the network and seek to protect and enhance the quality of the surrounding environment”.
It is also obliged to
“conform to the principles of sustainable development”.
These are well-intentioned obligations, but they do not imply a specific duty to help to meet the biodiversity or greenhouse gas emission targets, yet transport infrastructure can have a major impact on both. We know that surface transport accounts for roughly a quarter of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions and these emissions have barely reduced at all over the past 30 years.
Local authorities have a key role in this Bill, and councillors from across the political spectrum and from a range of councils across England have expressed their support for it, both personally to me in writing and in public statements. The briefing from Climate Action is very revealing and salient. It concludes that, without action by local authorities, the Government will not achieve its net-zero target and that voluntary action is not sufficient.
In 2024, according to the Local Government Authority, two-thirds of councils were not confident that they would reach their net-zero target. The barriers to achieving the targets include lack of money, lack of expertise and lack of political will. In Scotland, all councils have to produce an annual report on climate action. In England, under two-thirds of councils do so. That is the case for giving public authorities a duty to help meet the targets in the two Acts to which I have referred.
There will no doubt be objections to the Bill, so I will address three of them. The first objection is that it is unnecessary because the listed public authorities are already doing the work. The second is that it is too burdensome and costly for the nominated authorities to implement. The third is that it is too blunt an instrument.
It is apparent that the first two of these objections cannot both be true at the same time. If it is unnecessary because public bodies are already doing it, by definition it cannot be too burdensome. Some public authorities may already be contributing to the targets to the best of their ability. For them, there will be no extra burden or cost. However, as my examples have illustrated, not all public authorities contribute to meeting the targets. Many of them—perhaps most—have weaker obligations than those implied by the Bill. In fact, if all public authorities were contributing fully to meet the targets, one might ask why we are so far off track in meeting them.
What about costs? There might be some modest additional costs in the short term, but they have to be considered alongside the costs that will be avoided. These include costs associated with flood damage, damage to infrastructure from extreme weather, and loss of ecosystem services such as clean air and clean water, and—we now know from the excellent book by my noble friend Lady Willis of Summertown—good health. Those costs could be avoided by modest investment in taking action to help protect the climate and nature.
The third possible objection that I raise is that the Bill is too blunt an instrument, imposing requirements on public authorities that they cannot meet because of other priorities. However, although the Bill is prescriptive, it is not too prescriptive. It states:
“The environmental recovery objective is a principal objective”,
not the principal objective. So public authorities have it within their discretion to balance it against other objectives.
Finally, two further considerations are measurement and reporting. How will progress be measured and who will assess how well public authorities are doing? The targets are in the two Acts to which I have referred; therefore, the measurement of progress and the baseline for each target will be based on the criteria that the Government have set out in these Acts. The most obvious body to assess public authorities’ progress in meeting the targets would be the Office for Environmental Protection.
In summary, the Bill fills a gap in the Government’s plans for climate and nature. We know that they are not on track to meet their targets. If they do not accept the Bill, or at least the principles within it, I would ask the following question: if this is not part of the answer to the question of how to get back on track, what do the Government propose as an alternative? I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I thank him for bringing forward this terribly important Bill. I also thank Wildlife and Countryside Link, Green Alliance and Climate Action for their comprehensive briefings on it. This is not what you always see on a Private Member’s Bill, when you think of the weight of backing that represents.
To encourage the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, although there is no doubt that the graveyard slot means that we do not have the numbers we might have had, a recent headline from Scientific American noted that
“graveyards are surprising hotspots for biodiversity”.
So we can flower from this graveyard something rich, productive and great for the health and well-being of the country.
Ours is one of the most nature-depleted corners of this battered planet, as the public have increasingly come to understand over the past few years. There is a great deal of concern about the state of our rivers and seas, but there is also a growing understanding of the state of our peatlands, both uplands and lowlands. My social media feed sometimes seems to be entirely full of people desperately fighting to protect an ancient tree that is not only very valuable to a community but an absolute hotspot for biodiversity.
There is huge public concern to deliver on the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021, but as the noble Lord has already set out, it is patently obvious that we are not seeing delivery. Any one Act of Parliament, or action, cannot possibly deliver that. This week I attended, along with many other Members of your Lordships’ House, an event focused on the much-promised land use framework, which is among the other things we desperately need. Also, our Treasury needs to be given not a target for GDP growth but something like the New Zealand living standards framework, so that the environment is at the absolute heart of everything it does.
None the less, as the noble Lord has already set out, we have a whole set of bodies which are absolutely crucial to getting us moving in the right direction, at least, for our climate and nature targets, but they are not currently equipped to do so. They do not have the statutory framework to make this happen, and that is essentially what the Bill provides.
Let us consider the evidence. Under two recent Governments we have seen new oil and gas projects, new roads, airport expansion, and the destruction of ancient woodland and the valuable trees I talked about. As a vice-president of the Local Government Association, I stress the importance of local authorities being properly resourced to play their full part. They are not, and the Bill would help with that. The Green Party offers its strongest possible support for the Bill.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak in full support of my noble friend Lord Krebs’ Environmental Targets Bill, specifically the need for public authorities’ duties to be aligned with climate and nature recovery targets.
My noble friend has already eloquently explained many of the reasons why we need the Bill, but I want to give another two important ones. First, the Environment Act targets as set out in secondary legislation have so far proved insufficient to improve the slow pace of delivery on our overarching nature recovery and climate aims, because some of the interim targets are not binding. In addition, some are far from perfect. They are set far into the future and are not easy for those responsible for delivery to interpret.
I will illustrate this with an example target from secondary legislation for marine protected areas:
“Before the … 31st December 2042 the number of protected features”
which
“… are in ‘favourable condition’ is … not less than 70% of the total number of”
all
“protected features within”
a marine protected area. After 35 years as an ecological scientist, I would not know where to begin on this target, and I do not think I would be alone in that.
Secondly, a point very relevant to the Bill, to which my noble friend alluded, is that most public bodies were established well before climate change and nature became national priorities. Many of these public bodies —for example, National Parks England—have solely economic objectives, which is why the Bill is needed to bring them up to date.
Can we do that on a piecemeal basis? It has been tried, often via amendments in this House, and has sometimes met resistance. One such effort, on the Crown Estate Bill, was dismissed as unnecessary earlier this week; I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the amendment I tabled yesterday to the water Bill.
Let me give noble Lords a specific example of this approach not working. At the end of last year, when the protected landscapes amendment to the then levelling-up Bill came into force, a requirement was placed on public bodies to further the objectives of protected landscapes; this included mitigating and adapting to climate change. Yet nothing has happened since then. We are still at a point where only 6% of national parks are managed effectively for nature and only a quarter of the SSSIs in national parks are in a favourable state, compared with the national average of 33%.
Can the measures proposed in the Bill work, or will this be just another set of hollow targets? We have some evidence suggesting that they can work. My noble friend Lord Krebs mentioned Climate Emergency UK, which publishes council climate action scorecards to rate local authorities’ progress towards climate targets. The Scottish councils, which have a statutory duty on climate action, score the highest of any councils in the country—well above the 52 councils in England and Northern Ireland, which have no statutory duty and are failing miserably on these climate targets. Once it becomes a statutory duty, it absolutely focuses attention and leads to action. Ensuring that all public bodies have an environmental recovery objective as part of their remits would be co-ordinated and impactful and would drive progress towards the various environmental targets. This Private Member’s Bill has my full support.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I too support the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for bringing it and for his well-worded explanation of it. I am also grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Willis, for lending their support and for the speeches they have given.
The Bill requires specified public bodies to contribute to the delivery of statutory targets established under the Environment Act 2021 and the Climate Change Act 2008. As it stands, our climate change and nature protection legislation has a gaping hole at its heart in that no statutory duty is applied to the many public bodies on whose everyday decisions and actions we depend in order to meet the targets. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, put it very well: the Government have all the levers on their desks, but the trouble is that the levers are not connected to anything. So far, our ad hoc efforts in this area have not worked. The state is already in possession of all the obligations but it does not have the statutory powers required to fulfil them.
The Bill is carefully crafted so as to be effective but, equally, not to be overly burdensome. Its thoughtful application includes regulators such as Ofwat, Ofgem and the Environment Agency; local authorities; key bodies such as Natural England, the Forestry Commission and National Highways; and some other 40 specified public bodies. It also contains an option for Ministers to include national parks in England and Wales by secondary legislation; I think this should be done.
The Bill uses well-versed legal language, saying that each of the identified bodies
“must, in the exercise of its functions, take all reasonable steps to meet the environmental recovery”
obligations. This duty is specific and active. It provides a clever means of aligning the functions of many organisations around a single shared goal. The Bill is careful not to define how the obligations should be met. Equally, it does not introduce a significant extra cost; indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, it may induce cost savings from cost implications avoided, bringing longer-term cost savings. Importantly, my understanding is that the Local Government Association has signalled its support for the Bill. The simple and sad truth is that, as a country, we do not assign a fair value to nature. Our statutory powers are inadequate and do not provide the required levels of protection.
The Bill updates many bits of individual legislation that were written long before the nature and climate change crisis. One example is that for the Forestry Commission, which is over 100 years old. Often, they do not have clear environmental goals. This Bill also saves all of us, as parliamentarians, a job of putting down multiple amendments to lots of Bills that simply waste precious parliamentary time.
The UK has many key targets in place, but without statutory obligations such as these we will just not meet them. The Labour manifesto states that the UK faces a nature crisis, accelerated by climate change, and argued that the UK has become
“one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world”.
Labour committed in the King’s Speech to improve access and I hope that this Government do that. We face an interlinked and conjoined nature and climate crisis, and we must work at pace and scale to meet it. That manifesto also included a clear commitment that Labour would take
“action to meet our Environment Act targets”.
Here is a clear and effective way to do that at pace and scale. I hope the Minister agrees and can lend government support to the passage of this Bill.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. As an aside in relation to the previous Bill, as a former chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I published a report on the appalling abuse of delegated powers by all Governments over the past 30 years. It is just as well that I was not replying for the Official Opposition, because I would have probably supported the Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
When the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, proposes something, we should all pay close attention because he speaks from a position of great authority. We have all had in the past 24 hours—at least, Conservative Members have—a note from the Chief Whip reminding us of the proper appellations and how we should address people in this House. In this House, we have noble and gallant Members and noble and learned Members. I always thought we should have a category of noble and expert Members, of which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, would be the prime example. I recall a debate during the gene editing Bill, when the noble Lord was making some important but totally inexplicable technical point about DNA with the noble Lord, Lord Winston. It was inexplicable to every other Peer present, as we had no idea what they were talking about.
On this occasion, I think I understand the thrust of the noble Lord’s argument. I worry about overreach and that it may detract from the core tasks some of these public bodies have. That is the fourth reason I would worry about the Bill, not that I necessarily support the other three reasons; I have no objection to them in principle.
Take national parks, about which I know a little. Legislation which has received universal support over the past 75 years gives them two purposes: conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the designated national parks, and promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those areas by the public. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that the national parks do not have an economic objective. In fact, one of the criticisms many of the national parks make is that they do not have that economic objective in their powers.
We all agree that national parks and AONBs, now called national landscapes, need to do more to recover wildlife and biodiversity. I have lived in the Lake District national park for many years and, as the Minister will agree, it is just as devoid of wildlife as the areas outside it, unlike US national parks. Recognising that, Defra introduced the grant scheme for farming and protected landscapes. It offers grants to farmers, provided that they deliver on climate change and biodiversity goals. They must support nature recovery and mitigate the impacts of climate change. They must provide opportunities for people to discover, enjoy and understand the landscape and its cultural heritage. They must protect or improve the quality and character of the landscape or place.
I suggest that these remain in sync with the national park aims and that we need to let these develop. Indeed, I would urge the Government to expand them before imposing the requirements in this Bill. I also suggest that the national parks will be out of their depth in trying to assist in meeting a target for particulate matter or air improvement. On water quality, we shall probably debate amendments to the water Bill on sewage in Lake Windermere, over which the national park has no control.
On local authorities, this House made some substantial changes via the Environment Act 2021 to amend the NERC Act 2006 to conserve and, now, enhance biodiversity. A public authority must consider what action it
“can properly take, consistently with the proper exercise of its functions, to further the general biodiversity objective”.
That objective, set out in the Act, is
“the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in England”.
Section 104 of the 2021 Act creates local nature recovery strategies, and 48 designated “responsible authorities” are now developing such strategies, covering every inch of England. Every nature organisation agrees that this will be the greatest boost to wildlife recovery in our lifetime.
Noble Lords may say that takes care of the biodiversity targets, but what about climate change, water and air? To that I would say that many of the organisations listed here do not have the ability or competence to assist in meeting those targets. We spoke about the problems of water quality at Second Reading of the Water (Special Measures) Bill last week and will debate it in more detail in Committee, but the only organisations that can improve water quality are the water companies, the Coal Authority, which has a specific obligation, the Environment Agency and Ofwat. I see that Ofwat is listed in Clause 2(2)(i) as a public body which must
“take all reasonable steps to meet the environmental recovery objective”.
I think there was probably agreement from all sides of the House last week that Ofwat has failed in its relatively narrowly defined key regulatory role, and no one would trust it with any responsibilities on climate change adaption, air quality and biodiversity recovery.
I would have similar concerns if we gave all local authorities the duties under this Bill to assist with all the targets on climate change and the Environment Act. My concern is that many local authorities with no expertise in the targets in this Bill would be diverted into doing this badly instead of the day job. As we have seen, many local authorities have gone off on woke tracks in recent years. If given these duties they will, I am certain, merrily employ climate change, air and water quality officers, and our dustbins will not get emptied regularly and recycling rates will fall further behind.
Let us look at Ofgem’s priorities. They are:
“shaping a retail market that works for consumers … enabling infrastructure for net zero at pace … establishing an efficient, fair and flexible energy system”,
and
“advancing decarbonisation through low carbon energy and social schemes”.
Ofgem is already on board with the net-zero targets and, I suggest, would be at a loss to assist with air quality and biodiversity aims.
Take Great British Nuclear, which was created in 2023, not 100 years ago. It has as its objects
“to facilitate the design, construction, commissioning and operation of nuclear energy generation projects for the purpose of furthering any policies published by His Majesty’s government”.
I do not think you can make a better contribution to net zero than that.
I will not go through all the 28 organisations, but a final example is Network Rail, which has as its objective
“to get people and goods to where they need to be, and in turn to support the UK’s economic prosperity. Our role is to run a safe, reliable and efficient railway, serving our customers and communities. We oversee the running of the railway as an entire system and work closely with train operators to deliver train services as safely, reliably and punctually as possible. We lead the industry’s planning for the future of the railway, and we’re committed to a sustainability agenda”.
I say that with a straight face. I think we all have views on how well Network Rail has fulfilled its primary purpose, and I would dread to see it having the slightest responsibility for net-zero or biodiversity objectives.
I am glad that this building is not included because I have counted six oil heaters trying to boost the heating in this building, as our 150 year-old steam generators are not quite working yet. I am not sure what contribution we are making in this House to burning extra carbon and use of electricity.
I have spoken more about biodiversity and nature recovery than climate change—possibly inevitably, since I am, for the next two months, still the deputy chair of Natural England and a member of the board of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, both organisations listed in the Bill. I submit that those two organisations do not need these provisions to drive forward, within their areas of expertise, all the relevant targets. They are already leading the way.
I also believe that climate change and nature recovery are two sides of the same coin and that, if we restore our peatlands, which hold 3 billion tonnes of carbon, plant the right trees in the right places, conserve our sea-floor and keep carbon trapped there, and go for nature-friendly solutions, then we can avoid the excessive cost of going too far, too quickly on heat pumps, electric cars and getting rid of gas boilers, not to mention the appalling damage to our natural landscape caused by wind turbines and pylons.
Personally, I have always considered biodiversity loss to be more important than climate change. With enormous political will and an awful lot of money, climate change can be reversed, but once a species is lost it is lost for ever, and the world is losing species at an alarming rate.
In Committee, I will judge the Bill by what these 28 public bodies can legitimately do, without detracting from their core duties, to increase species abundance and recover nature. I believe that that is the top priority and the key to unlocking climate change improvements and water quality. I wish the noble Lord well with his Bill, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the noble Lord sits down, for clarification, he appears to be suggesting that climate change and nature have to exist in certain silos and that getting people around the country by rail is a different and entirely separate silo. Do I take it from that that His Majesty’s Opposition’s position is that we should not mainstream climate and nature across all areas of action of government and public bodies?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Of course we want to “mainstream” it, but I am suggesting that some of the Bill may be overreach for some of the authorities and that they may not be competent to do it. I am not making any argument that it may be too costly, but we must try to achieve our targets on climate change reduction and in the Environment Act by the measures that the last Government took and that the current Government plan to take. I would be rather worried if we gave additional powers in the Bill to some of those authorities, but I remain to be convinced in Committee. I am sort of neutral on the Bill, and I respect the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in his ability. In Committee, we can explore the points the noble Baroness raises.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and congratulate him on securing this debate on his Private Member’s Bill this afternoon. I thank all Members who have stayed behind on a Friday afternoon to take part. It has been important to continue to highlight the intertwined issues of environmental decline and climate change. There are, of course, vital issues which this House must continue to highlight and help find solutions to.
The intention of the Bill to drive and strengthen local and other public authority action towards meeting national environmental and climate targets and objectives is important. Indeed, the noble Lord and I have discussed the need to ensure that such action is appropriately and proportionately considered, supported and delivered. This is clear from the Government’s commitment to the 13 legally binding environmental targets set out under the Environment Act, which have been discussed during this debate. These include targets on water, biodiversity, resource efficiency, and tree and woodland cover. We intend to share more delivery information about this in the future to help ensure that we get on track to meet these statutory targets.
The Government have wasted no time—it was one of the Secretary of State’s first actions—in announcing a rapid review of the statutory environmental improvement plan, the EIP, to make sure that it is fit for purpose. After our rapid review of the EIP, we will publish a revised version. This revised plan will focus on cleaning up our waterways, reducing waste across the economy, looking at the numbers of trees we will need to plant, improving air quality and, importantly, halting the decline in species by 2030. Ensuring nature’s recovery is a key priority and is fundamental to the Government’s approach to economic growth. We will develop the new plan working closely with representatives of the public, private and third sectors, and I would hope that that would include noble Members of this House.
Throughout this time, action to deliver against existing commitments will continue at pace. This includes action on regulatory and policy measures intended to deliver the kinds of action that this Bill sets out to ensure, notably those under the Climate Change Act 2008, including our targets in the net zero strategy to reduce direct emissions from public sector buildings by 75% by 2037, and the Environment Act 2021. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about the land use framework. I said in a debate earlier this week that we were looking to publish a Green Paper by the end of the year. This will be for consultation as part of the development of the framework as we go forward.
I want to mention local nature recovery strategies. They are an important tool that we can use while we take action to deliver against our existing commitments. They will set the strategic priorities for nature recovery in a particular area and identify the best locations for land management actions to deliver these priorities. Forty-eight responsible authorities across the country are currently preparing nature recovery strategies for their area and we expect to see publication from March next year. They will be delivered through a combination of funding streams, such as biodiversity net gain, other green finance initiatives and public funding pots and, crucially, through an Environment Act requirement for public authorities to have regard to carrying out these activities.
This requirement, which is the biodiversity duty under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, was strengthened through the Environment Act. Noble Lords who took part in that will remember our debates on this. It came into force in January of last year. Under the duty, all public authorities must consider the actions they can take to conserve and enhance biodiversity in England and, where actions are identified, set policies and objectives as soon as practicable to deliver actions and then take that action. In making their considerations and taking such action, all public authorities must have regard to any relevant LNRSs as well as to any relevant species conservation strategies or protected sites strategies prepared by Natural England.
Local authorities and local planning authorities must also publish five-yearly reports setting out the action they have taken under the duty. The first reports have to be published by 1 January 2026. We expect this strengthened duty to ensure that public authorities make the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity a core part of the delivery of their functions.
I want to make it very clear that this Government are fully committed to protecting 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030. We intend to take immediate action to realise the urgent step change needed to deliver 30 by 30 on land. We are currently in the process of reviewing our approach, and later this year we hope to confirm the criteria for land counting towards 30 by 30 in England. This will set a clear, ambitious standard to ensure that only areas that are effectively conserved and managed can contribute towards this commitment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, all mentioned protected landscapes. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, we both understand the challenges that the Lake District National Park particularly faces. The Government are actively considering further options to ensure that our protected landscapes have the tools and powers they need to deliver for people and nature, including through regulation and guidance. Relevant authorities must now seek to further the purposes of protected landscapes to deliver better outcomes for nature, people, climate and place. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, also asked about marine protected environments. The Government have taken significant steps to protect this environment. At the moment, there are 181 NPAs, including three highly protected marine areas. They cover about 38% of UK seas. Our priority now is to ensure that those areas are properly protected.
The Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, rightly recognises the crucial role for climate adaptation. England’s third national adaptation programme summarises the collective actions that the UK Government are taking to address risks and opportunities from climate change and to ensure that adaptation is incorporated into government programmes. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said in his introduction, this is a legal requirement under the Climate Change Act 2008 and government departments are required to respond to the risks and opportunities raised in the most recent climate change risk assessment report.
The Climate Change Committee monitors and evaluates the performance of governmental organisations that have actions to address climate risks, as set out in this national adaptation programme. It publishes its findings in a biannual progress report on climate adaptation. The last report was published in March 2023; the next will be in 2025. We will then review the CCC’s recommendations from that report.
I recognise the importance of the proposed Bill’s ambition and principles. However, there are measures in place seeking to realise this ambition. Some, I know, will need time to take form, but we are fully committed to this and are closely monitoring progress. Furthermore, the review and revision of our environmental improvement plan provides the ideal vehicle to consider the Bill’s principles and their practical implications, in the manner they deserve and in collaboration across society.
I turn briefly to the question of access, which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. This is part of my portfolio and something that I am keen to work on in a proactive way. I am currently looking at our existing access to blue and green spaces, so that we can build on our manifesto commitment to create new river walks, and further access, going forward.
I finish by saying that, although time is not on nature’s side—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made that very clear—by working hand in hand across sectors on these vital issues, I am confident that we can use the opportunity of the Bill in front of us today to discuss and collectively agree on a way to deliver what sits at the heart of the vision of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs: to reduce and adapt to the impacts of climate change and restore and improve our natural environment.
I thank the noble Lord again for bringing this Bill to the House and enabling this debate. I have been very pleased to have discussions on this with him and with other noble Lords. I look forward to working with him and other noble Lords who take a keen interest in this area as we review and revise our environmental improvement plan. I assure noble Lords that this Government are firmly committed to working collaboratively as we move forward to improve the natural environment.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate and sacrificed their Friday afternoon. I will not spend a lot of time going through the contributions as I am sure we are all quite keen to get away.
However, I shall respond to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for whom I have the greatest respect, and I thank him for his kind words about me. He raised a mixture of points, including that some public authorities are already straining every sinew to help to meet the targets, that some of them have no capacity to do so and would not know how, and that for some of them some of the targets are irrelevant. These are all arguments worth exploring, and I hope that in Committee we can have a further debate on those points.
I have a particular point about Network Rail. Those of us who suffer at its hands travelling in and out of London all agree that we wish that Network Rail, the train operating companies and their public owner successor could actually get the trains to run on time and get us from A to B. However, it is nevertheless the case that Network Rail owns 55,000 hectares of land, is a neighbour to 7 million people and has a biodiversity strategy. Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, and I met its director of biodiversity, Neil Strong, and discussed this Bill with him. He was broadly supportive of it; he thought it would help Network Rail with its ambition to have no net loss of biodiversity by the end of this year—which by the way is way ahead of the Government’s target of 2030—although it was not clear to us that Network Rail was measuring biodiversity in the right way and therefore whether it would know if it had achieved the target. I do not think Network Rail would push back at the Bill if a duty were placed upon it, and it would be up to the company to balance that duty with the duty of getting the trains to run on time.
I thank the Minister for her response and for the two meetings we have had, and welcome her offer of further discussions. I took away a number of points from her response. The most important was that the revised environmental improvement plan may be a home for some of the ideas in the Bill, and I would very much like to discuss that with her.
Another important point made by the Minister, which I had forgotten to make and which had not been made before, is that this is about not just avoided costs but economic growth. The Government’s plans for green growth would be supported by the skills and actions that followed from the Bill.
The Minister also made the point that the Government are still relatively newly in place. She used the words, “reviewing” and “actively considering”. I take the point that many of these issues are under review. Perhaps, once those reviews have concluded, or even while they are being carried out, we will be able to discuss the merits or demerits of the proposal in my Bill. I am not claiming that it is a magic bullet, and there may be better solutions. If so, I would like to hear them, and I look forward to further discussions.