House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
We know that prolific offenders represent only 10% of offenders but account for nearly 50% of all sentences. That clearly cannot continue, which is why I have specifically asked David Gauke to look at this issue in the independent sentencing review, to ensure that we have fewer crimes committed by prolific criminals.
Sir Ashley Fox
I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for her answer. Can she tell the House what data her Department holds on the nationality of prolific offenders, and what steps she will take to deport those who are non-British?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member will know that we retain data on foreign national offenders, and this Government are on track to remove more foreign national offenders this year than in the previous year. I obviously want to make further progress on this issue, and I hope that there will be consensus across the House so that we remove those who commit crimes in this country and who have no right to be here.
Joe Robertson
The Government’s early release scheme has an impact assessment for it to run for 10 years. For however long it does run, will the Government confirm that no prolific offenders will be released early?
Shabana Mahmood
The impact assessment is done over the usual period of time, but I have committed to review the policy 18 months from the moment it was brought in, which is a commitment that we will keep. I recognise that we have a problem with prolific offending. It has gone up over the last decade or so, which is why I have specifically asked the sentencing review panel to consider the interventions that we should make to cut the cycle of prolific offending.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Retail workers in my constituency tell me that they can predict, almost to the week, when somebody will arrive at their store to begin shoplifting again after their oftentimes all-too-short sentence. Does my right hon. Friend agree with them that the solution to hyper-prolific offending must be longer sentences in certain cases?
Shabana Mahmood
The length of sentences, and how to deal with the problem of prolific offending, will be looked at specifically by the independent sentencing review panel. My hon. Friend will understand why I cannot pre-empt the findings of that review, but he will note that this Government are committed to scrapping the effective immunity for some shoplifting, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government, by removing the £200 threshold. That shows that we are determined to clamp down on the sort of shoplifting he describes.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
We know that one of the key ways in which we manage prolific offenders is through tagging—both GPS tagging and home detention tagging. The Secretary of State has assured us that the problems with early release tagging have now been resolved, but I understand that problems persist for thousands of other prisoners who are due to be tagged. Can she assure the public that everyone who is being released, and who should be getting a tag, is being tagged on time?
Shabana Mahmood
Yes. The specific problem that the hon. Gentleman refers to, which relates to Serco’s performance and the two tranches of SDS40 releases, has now been resolved. The backlog has been cleared, and Serco’s performance is now back to where it should be. Of course, we will continue to monitor Serco’s overall performance and keep the contract under regular review.
Dr Mullan
The House will have heard that the Secretary of State did not answer my question. I acknowledge that the problems with the early release scheme have been tackled, but I am told by many people working in the criminal justice sector that there are many other delays with the thousands of other prisoners who are due to be tagged. Again, can she assure the House that the thousands of prisoners who are due to be tagged are being tagged on time?
Shabana Mahmood
Yes. There are no additional issues in relation to tagging or the process by which the tagging takes place with Serco, but where there is contract failure by Serco, we will not hesitate to take action. We have already imposed financial penalties for the things that went wrong with the SDS40 releases, and we will keep this issue under regular review. The Prisons Minister in the other place discusses these matters directly with Serco on a regular basis, as do my officials, and we will continue to monitor the situation.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
The prison estate conditions survey programme is a live assessment of the condition of our estate, but there is still much to do. Approximately 4,000 cells were lost to dilapidation under the last Government. That is why we are investing £220 million in Prison and Probation Service maintenance in 2024-25, and up to £300 million in 2025-26.
Bobby Dean
A constituent who is now a prisoner of HMP Coldingley wrote to me recently about the appalling conditions in his prison. He spoke about the prevalence of drugs, violence, discrimination and denial of access to healthcare. In his most recent letter to me, he said that the conditions had got so bad that he made an attempt on his life. Another report on Coldingley has described the conditions as “inhumane”. Can the Minister tell me what urgent work is being done to ensure that all our prisons have humane conditions for prisoners?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
This Government are determined to ensure the best possible conditions in our prisons. We have inherited a crisis in our prisons, I am afraid, but if the hon. Member wishes to write to me about that particular issue, I will be happy to write back to him.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The condition of our Victorian prisons in particular is not conducive to rehabilitation or preparation for life on release. The Government are pressing ahead with the construction of 20,000 new prison places, which their predecessors failed to honour. What thought has been given, in the design and operation of these major new prisons, to the training, education, addiction and mental health needs of inmates, for whom prison is currently little more than a human warehouse?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
These new prisons will be built with all the things my hon. Friend mentions taken fully into account. The Government are determined to put in place 14,000 more prison places.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Last week, this Government introduced domestic abuse protection orders in selected areas. This will improve protection for victims of domestic abuse, including non-physical abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour. We have also committed to fast-tracking rape cases through the courts in order to deliver swift justice for victims of this abhorrent offence.
Elaine Stewart
I recently visited South Ayrshire Women’s Aid in my constituency as part of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. Will the Minister join me in praising the hard work of Women’s Aid in supporting women and girls who have suffered violence? Does she agree that we need more support for these organisations up and down the country, particularly in respect of reliable funding?
Alex Davies-Jones
I wholeheartedly echo my hon. Friend’s words about the vital work of organisations such as Women’s Aid, who do such brilliant work in empowering women and children to rebuild their lives after experiencing domestic abuse. This Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls within a decade. That is why I have decided to protect violence against women and girls victims spending in the Ministry of Justice by maintaining the current funding levels for sexual violence and domestic abuse support for the next financial year.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
In August 2008, Alan Jermey brutally murdered Kirsty Wilson, strangling her and setting her body on fire while their two young daughters slept upstairs. He has now been recommended for transfer to an open prison, which could allow him unchaperoned access to the community within six months. His daughters, now 18 and 23, are my constituents, and they are terrified by the thought of encountering him, or worse, of him coming to their home, as he knows their address. Will the Lord Chancellor meet me and these young women to discuss their fears and ensure that this transfer is stopped?
Alex Davies-Jones
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman and his constituents to discuss the case.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware of increased reports of internet image abuse and the rise of deepfake pornography. What is her Department doing to ensure that women and girls are safe online and that this modern form of abuse can be prevented?
Alex Davies-Jones
This Government share the concern that more needs to be done to protect women from this appalling form of abuse. That is why we made a clear commitment in our manifesto to criminalise the creation of sexually explicit deepfake images of adults, and I look forward to setting out our position on this in more detail soon.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Four schoolgirls suffered sexual abuse by their headteacher, Neil Foden, who was sentenced in July to 17 years with a two-thirds tariff. The Crown Prosecution Service now tells me that Foden will instead spend half his sentence in prison, because the most serious of his crimes can only be sentenced to 14 years. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how to safeguard the victims, whose abuser was in a position of trust, because they live in fear of his early release?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am aware of the appalling case that the right hon. Lady mentions. It is horrific and all my thoughts are with the victims of those crimes. If she wants to write to me with more details, I will happily look at the case. As she knows, sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary, but I will look at the case and meet her to discuss it further.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
We are mandating careers advice in prisons and introducing a life skills curriculum. All released prisoners have access to an employment advisory board that can connect prisoners with work, and banking and ID administrators are preparing prisoners for life after prison.
Paul Davies
The UK faces a major labour shortage that is costing billions of pounds annually. Lacking prospects, many ex-prisoners return to a life of crime. Enhancing prisoner literacy and numeracy and providing vocational training can help equip them with skills for employment, leading to a reduction in reoffending rates. I welcome the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, which will address the issue. Does the Minister agree that failing to tackle the issue will not only cause a lifelong challenge for individuals, but create a significant problem for the state, including lost opportunities and increased crime?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I agree with my hon. Friend. We know that having a job and a home are the best ways to reduce reoffending. That is why we have employment hubs in all resettlement prisons, where prisoners can access job vacancies and support with their applications.
Bob Blackman
The Minister will know that prison governors have a statutory duty to ensure that prisoners are prepared for life outside prison before their release. One of the main issues for released prisoners is finding a secure home, so that they can have somewhere secure to live rather than going back to the place where they were probably involved in gangs or with particular individuals. Now that prisoners are being released from their sentences early, what action is the Minister taking to ensure that they are fully prepared for life outside prison and there is no risk that they will reoffend?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
We know that accommodation is key to reducing reoffending. That is why we are expanding our transitional accommodation service and working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to develop a long-term strategy to put us back on track to ending homelessness and ensuring this issue is tackled correctly.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The Government recognise that there are serious concerns about the funeral director sector and that the legislation that governs what happens after we die is outdated. We are considering how to ensure that appropriate standards are introduced, including through the potential for some form of regulation. We have asked the Law Commission to create a future-proof legal framework to address what happens to our bodies after we die.
Dr Luke Evans
As the Minister knows, we have been in correspondence about that sector. She kindly wrote back to me to say that the Fuller inquiry’s phase 2 interim report has been released. My constituent Joseph Barsby runs G. Seller, one the biggest independent funeral directors. He is passionate about how we can bring forward a compassionate way of looking at people who have died, while ensuring that standards are kept high. Will the Minister consider meeting me and him to further discuss ways that we can bring the sector into the 21st century?
Alex Davies-Jones
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the vast majority of funeral directors treat people in their care with the utmost respect, as that business in his constituency will do. Nevertheless, there are some serious issues of concern in the sector. As I mentioned, the Government are currently considering the full range of possible next steps, including meeting with sector directors. I would be happy to inform the hon. Gentleman when that meeting is taking place, so that he and his constituent can take part.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before we come to question 6, I notice that it was grouped, but to be honest I cannot see a relationship between the questions or why they were grouped together. I hope a message can be passed back to the Department to say that we need to have relevance in the way questions are grouped.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The victims code sets out the services and support that victims of crime are entitled to receive from the criminal justice system in England and Wales. That includes the right to access support, which applies regardless of whether they decide to report the crime directly to the police. We provide police and crime commissioners with annual grant funding to commission local, practical, emotional, and therapeutic support services for all victims of crime.
Dr Chambers
England is home to 85% of the world’s chalk streams, which are very rare habitats. In Winchester we are lucky to have the Rivers Itchen and Meon running through the constituency. We know that they are struggling, with only 17% of chalk streams rated as having good ecological health. That is partly because of over-abstraction, partly because of pollution, and partly because of water companies dumping sewage in them. We know that that not only destroys biodiversity but makes people who swim in it sick. Will the Minister, in addition to coming down harder on water companies, commit to implementing a sewage victims compensation scheme for that particular problem?
Alex Davies-Jones
I will ensure that the hon. Member’s comments are passed to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Minister responsible for water quality. I can confirm that we are committed to delivering for nature, taking action to meet our targets in the Environment Act 2021, and that we work in partnership with civil society, communities and businesses to restore and protect our natural world.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
We will expand our transitional accommodation service and launch employment councils to strengthen the relationship between employers and HM Prison and Probation Service.
Mr Sewards
People who commit crimes should be prosecuted and put in prison as quickly as possible. It is also clear that we need to do more to reduce reoffending rates in order to keep the public safe. To keep up with the current demand for prison places, we need to build three mega-jails a year, costing the taxpayer millions. Given those facts, does the Minister agree that we need to invest in technology to bring reoffending rates down, so that we can help those people turn their lives around and, crucially, keep the public safe?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Absolutely; public safety is our No. 1 priority and new technology gives us every advantage to do things differently. That is one of the things that the independent sentencing review under David Gauke will be looking at.
Dan Aldridge
Providing quality education and training for offenders is one of the most effective ways of reducing reoffending. Weston College in Weston-super-Mare runs a transformational prison education programme across the south-west of England, which supports successful rehabilitation, resettlement and employment of offenders on release. Can the Minister advise what steps the Department is taking to ensure that more offenders can develop the skills they need to successfully gain employment and reintegrate into society?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I very much welcome the work that Weston College does in prisons. We are also developing our training offer for employers in areas such as rail tracks and construction, and HMPPS’s Creating future opportunities programme is working to improve the employability of offenders in both prison and the community.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I declare an interest as the founder and chairman of a prison rehabilitation charity. The Minister has helpfully set out what the Government are doing about reducing reoffending, which I welcome. Is he aware, though, of the enormous pressure put on prisoners who are approaching the end of their release, given the pressures that the prison service is under? That is partly because of early release itself, which is releasing prisoners before they finish programmes provided by charities or the prisons, but also because of the churn of prisoners being shipped around the prison system because of the pressure on that system. Is there anything he can tell us about what the Government are doing to ensure that prisoners approaching the end of their sentence have some stability in the prison they are serving in so that they can get support as they approach release?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Several of the things that I have mentioned already are designed to do exactly that, and we recognise exactly what the hon. Gentleman says. On the SDS40 scheme, prison and probation officers have done an outstanding job in supporting prisoners through that journey.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
A constituent of mine reported a rape and sexual offence case well over two years ago but, like many victims, is still waiting for her case to be processed by the Crown court, leaving her pessimistic about the criminal justice system’s ability properly to tackle violence against women and girls. What is the Ministry of Justice doing to tackle the backlog and support victims of VAWG through the criminal justice system?
Mr Speaker
Order. That is not relevant to the question that has been asked.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
We took immediate action to prevent the collapse of the prison system by changing the automatic release point for standard determinate sentences. We are building 14,000 new prison places and we will publish our 10-year capacity strategy shortly, which will set out exactly where and by when we will get the places that we need. The previous Government left prisons in crisis. We will fix them for good with that capacity strategy and the independent review of sentencing.
Patrick Spencer
I welcome what this Government are doing to increase prison capacity, but what will the Secretary of State do on tougher sentencing? If she goes to my constituency of Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, she will be met with a tough, gruff East Anglian accent that says, “What’s the point of building prison places if you are not going to use them?”
Shabana Mahmood
I am sure the hon. Member’s constituents will also recognise that, even with the new supply that we are building, we will still run out of prison places, as the demand in the system is much greater than the building planned. We simply cannot build our way out of this problem, so to make sure that there is always a prison place for the people who need to be locked up and that we never run out of prison places again, we need an independent review of sentencing.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
The Lady Chief Justice has said that the courts are not operating at full capacity, perpetuating the record numbers in prison on remand, awaiting trial. There could be an extra 6,500 sitting days if the Government allowed them. Cases such as rape and sexual assault are being pushed into 2027. Baroness Carr warned the Justice Secretary that failure to maximise judicial capacity would actually cost the Government more in costly and limited prison places, yet the Justice Secretary failed to agree to her request. Why are the Government letting out criminals rather than hearing more cases?
Shabana Mahmood
I am tempted to remind the shadow Minister about his own Government’s track record. He ought to know that it was my predecessor, his colleague, the former Lord Chancellor who agreed the allocation of sitting days with the Lady Chief Justice and that that concordat agreement was concluded during the election period when the Tories were still conducting business. When the right hon. Gentleman responds, perhaps he would like to explain why the allocation was made for only 106,000 sitting days. What I have done is increase sitting days by a further 500 and increase magistrate courts’ sentencing powers, which is the equivalent of an additional 2,000 Crown court sitting days, in order to start cracking down on that backlog.
Robert Jenrick
Instead of increasing sitting hours, the Justice Secretary’s defining intervention in her five months in office has been to accidentally let out dangerous criminals from our prisons. Just last week, she rushed to Parliament to close loopholes that she created for stalking, for disclosing private sexual images and for murder. She could be signing deals with other countries to get new prisoner transport agreements. She could be using visa sanctions with foreign countries to force them to take back the 10,000 foreign criminals in our prisons. She is not doing so. Meanwhile, criminals are being released and are reoffending already. Will the Justice Secretary commit now to ending her dangerous and unnecessary early release scheme?
Shabana Mahmood
The shadow Minister could at least have apologised to the country for being part of a Government and a party that ran out of prison places. It was the Tory party that ran the system at boiling hot—at over 99% capacity. I hate to remind him, but for months before the previous election, the Tory party operated its own emergency release scheme, which did not have any exclusions for offences connected to domestic abuse. I will take no lessons from him, as it is this Government who are cleaning up the mess that his party left behind.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
The Crown court backlog that we inherited from the Conservatives was dire. Instead of cutting the number of cases waiting to be heard, as they promised, the backlog of cases exploded under their watch. This Government are getting a grip of the problem. We have taken important first steps. We have funded 106,500 Crown court sitting days this year, and we have increased magistrates’ sentencing powers to free up more sitting days in the Crown court to hear the most serious cases, but we know that there is more to do.
Luke Myer
I am campaigning to put more police on our streets, but that is only part of the picture. This backlog in our courts means that the entire criminal justice system is creaking and justice is being delayed. This time last year, there was a backlog in my region of more than 9,000 cases. Will the Minister ensure that this Conservative court chaos is dealt with and offenders are brought to justice?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to describe the situation as Conservative court chaos. Indeed, the full picture of the last Government’s terrible inheritance will become clear when we publish Crown court data later this week. Demand on the criminal courts is increasing at a faster rate than the actions we are able to take, and we must therefore go further. This Government understand the scale of the problem and are ready to confront it with the fundamental reforms that will be necessary.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The Minister referred to court chaos. A tribunal judge and a court worker from my Taunton and Wellington constituency wrote to me. The tribunal judge said:
“tribunals are being cancelled every day as they say there are not enough judges to cover the cases. This is absolutely not the case,”
and
“People are waiting months for their benefit appeals in appalling poverty and again we cannot deal with the cases because of this limit”
on sitting days. What will the Minister do to increase sitting days in Taunton and Somerset courts?
Sarah Sackman
We are investing in increased court capacity and in the recruitment of 1,000 judges and tribunal members. As the Lord Chancellor said, we have increased the number of Crown court sitting days by 500, but it is not simply enough to increase court sitting days. We have to look at fundamental reform to address the serious backlogs we have inherited from the Conservative Government.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The Government are determined to provide support for all victims of crime. That includes publicly consulting on a new revised victims code in the new year. I remind the hon. Member that the Minister for Gambling in the other place recently announced a legally mandated levy on gambling companies to address gambling harm and to introduce NHS-led treatment and support.
Shockat Adam
I welcome that response from the Minister. Gambling addiction destroys lives. In fact, on average, 496 gambling-related suicides occur every year. It is not just the lives of the gamblers that get destroyed; there is an invisible group of victims—the families who have to pick up the pieces. A local charity in my constituency—Spinney Hill drugs, alcohol and addiction support—told me of a talented young man from a deprived socioeconomic background whose family saved every single penny to send him to university. He spent that and more on gambling because of his addiction. The family are now in spiralling debt, and the whole family unit has been destroyed. Does the Minister agree that gambling companies should pay a levy to help compensate families, especially when children are becoming addicted?
Alex Davies-Jones
The Government recently announced a mandatory levy on the companies directly to provide support and NHS-led services. I will pass his comments to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to give him an answer.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Bearing down on the outstanding caseload in the Crown court and bringing down waiting times is a priority for the Government. We want to ensure that every victim has the swift access to justice that they deserve. We know rape victims are waiting a disproportionately long time for their trials, and that is why we have committed to working with the judiciary to fast-track those cases through the courts.
Rebecca Smith
Recently, Truro Crown court, which serves my constituency of South West Devon, has been forced to shut one day a week due to recent budget cuts and the judicial sitting day reductions. Some cases have already been postponed until late 2025, including lengthy cases that involve victims of violence, and it is prompting those victims to consider withdrawing their cases. Given the maxim justice delayed is justice denied, what additional steps are being taken to support victims to continue with their cases across Devon and Cornwall?
Alex Davies-Jones
As the hon. Lady knows, rape is an abhorrent crime and cases are usually complex. That means despite judges prioritising cases involving vulnerable complainants and witnesses, rape victims can wait disproportionately longer than victims of other cases for their trial to come to court. I remind her that the Government have increased the number of court sitting dates by 500 days this year, and the Lord Chancellor agreed to increase capacity in the magistrates courts so that we can get through cases more quickly. We are also introducing independent legal advocates in the new year to advise rape victims from report to trial, which will ensure they stay in the system longer, feel supported and get to trial.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
In the last five years, the number of magistrates covering Telford and wider Shropshire fell from 91 to 76. In 2022, 50% of the court sessions went unused. At the Crown court, victims are waiting an average of 18 months, with some sexual offences taking up to three years to be dealt with. Telford voted for change. Will the Minister ensure that victims of crime get justice and that criminals are punished?
Alex Davies-Jones
Absolutely. The Minister with responsibility for courts, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), has already outlined the steps that the Government are taking to increase sentencing in our courts. We will of course consider what other action we can take. We know that the budgetary position that the Government face is incredibly tight, because of the inheritance that we received. However, it is vital that we make fiscally responsible decisions.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
SDS40—the standard determinate sentences early release scheme—was an emergency measure that we had to take to avert the complete collapse of the criminal justice system following the shocking inheritance left to us by the previous Government. The emergency measure is not, of course, the solution to the crisis that we inherited. That is why we will build the 14,000 prison places that we need, and have launched the independent review of sentencing.
Sir Edward Leigh
What concerns me is not the past but the future and how to protect the public. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the screening process is sufficiently robust to ensure that violent and dangerous criminals are not released into the community?
Shabana Mahmood
I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that the past is relevant in so far as it sets the context for the crisis that we have inherited, which needs resolving. Given that we all but ran out of prison places—numbers had fallen to fewer than 100 in the summer—it is important that we recognise that the prison system is and has been on the point of collapse. That is why we had to take emergency measures. We have made exclusions to the SDS40 scheme that should take account of his concerns. It is of course important that offenders are monitored and supervised effectively when they are not in prison, and that is what we are trying to do now. Tech can play a bigger role there, and I have asked the independent review into sentencing to look into that.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
There are no specific domestic abuse offences in law, so abusers hiding behind convictions such as actual bodily harm are being let out early under the SDS40 early release scheme. That is not right, so I have introduced the Domestic Abuse (Aggravated Offences) Bill to create a specific set of domestic abuse aggravated offences—a bit like racially aggravated offences—that could be excluded from early release schemes. Women’s Aid is backing my Bill; will the Secretary of State back it, too?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right to note that, under current legislation, it is possible to exclude only offences, rather than classes of offender. I am sure that his Bill will gain some interest across the House. If any such changes were to be made, they would be for the future, as they do not help us with the current crisis. I will ensure to discuss the details of his Bill with the Home Secretary.
Josh Babarinde
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer—I hope to have the chance to meet her to discuss it in more detail. The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned about survivors who have been told that, as it stands, their abuser is set to be released early. One such survivor is Elizabeth Hudson, who I met on the set of “Good Morning Britain” today when launching this campaign. She has written to Ministers about her concerns, but says that she has not received a response. Will the Secretary of State meet Elizabeth and me to discuss her case and how survivors can be respected and protected?
Shabana Mahmood
I believe that all who have written have received a response from the Ministry, but I will chase down that specific case. The way we implemented the policy meant that we were able to give the Probation Service time to prepare which was not available to it under the previous Tory Government’s end of custody supervised licence scheme. That means that all victims who were supposed to be notified under the victim contact scheme have been notified.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I recently met the chief coroner. We did not discuss the specifics of this issue, but coroners have a statutory duty to investigate deaths that are not reported to them if they suspect that the cause is unknown, violent or unnatural, or that the death occurred in custody or other state detention.
Olly Glover
The charity SUDEP Action, which is based in my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, provides specialist support for bereaved families. Improvements to the coroner service would help to reduce trauma, improve understanding of the causes of death, and enable more research to aid prevention of future deaths. Will the Minister press for more investment in, and support for, the coroner service?
Alex Davies-Jones
The Government recognise the impact of delays and the other issues facing coroners at the moment, and the impact that that is having on bereaved families and the wider systems. We welcome the recent Justice Committee report on the coroner service, and I look forward to working closely with the chief coroner, local authorities and key partners to devise and deliver a wider strategy for those services.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
My hon. Friend is right to ask this question. Under the previous Government, a process was already under way to put in place new contracts for prison maintenance. We need to make sure that those contracts deliver good value for the public purse.
Kim Johnson
I thank the Minister for that response. The prison maintenance contract is set to be retendered to the private sector next year. Prisons such as Walton in my home city of Liverpool—a crumbling Victorian prison—struggle to get the smallest repairs undertaken, and there is £1.8 billion-worth of unreported repairs within the prison system. We know that privatisation leads to higher costs and increased squalor, so can the Minister or the Secretary of State call time on this failed experiment and bring prison maintenance back in-house where it belongs?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The previous Government paused work on essential maintenance, which has added to the problems we are now dealing with. My hon. Friend is right to say that all options need to be looked at in order to ensure we get the best possible value for money for the public purse from any new contracts or arrangements.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for that response. One story that has been quite prevalent in the press over the past two months has been the amount of mould growth in prisons, which will obviously lead to health issues. Will the new prison maintenance service that the Minister has referred to be able to deal with that specific issue? If it is not dealt with, it will lead to ill health among those who are in prison.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Clearly, issues such as that need to be dealt with. Staff at His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service are doing their utmost to try to tackle those issues, but we will redouble our efforts after the hon. Gentleman’s encouragement.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
Last week, the National Audit Office released a damning report on the previous Government’s record on prison building, showing that their promise of 20,000 prison places by the mid-2020s was hollow. Unwilling to face down opposition on their own Back Benches, the last Government dithered and delayed, ultimately building less than a third of the cells they promised. As a result, they left our prisons overcrowded and at the point of collapse. Later this week, I will set out in my 10-year capacity strategy a realistic plan for building the 14,000 prison places that we need, and I will ensure that our prisons are never left at the point of collapse again.
Antonia Bance
I thank the Justice Secretary for that answer. In common with many Members of the House, I have heard horrific stories of perpetrators breaching orders to which they are subject, giving them further opportunity to terrorise, injure, or in some cases kill women protected by those orders—may Harshita Brella and so many others rest in peace. What action is the Justice Secretary taking to assess and improve the effectiveness of civil orders in safeguarding survivors of domestic abuse?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that this Government have launched a pilot of domestic abuse protection orders in a number of areas, which will bring together the strongest possible protections for victims in other existing protective orders into a single order. Breaching such orders will be a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in prison, and unlike other orders, there will be no maximum duration.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
In London, there is a phone theft epidemic, and this time it is not the former Transport Secretary on the loose. Last year, more than 64,000 mobile phones were reported to the police as stolen in the capital alone. The small number of individuals responsible should be locked up for a long time, yet last month, a criminal who used a motorbike to steal 24 phones an hour was jailed for just two years. Enough is enough, so will the Justice Secretary commit to dramatically increasing sentences for career criminals, get them off our streets and slash crime?
Shabana Mahmood
Where was the shadow Secretary of State over the past 14 years when the theft epidemic began? Again, given the scale of his party’s general election defeat, some humility is usually required—perhaps even an apology to the British public—before he and others can earn the right to be heard again. He is right about the issues with mobile phone theft, and the Home Office and the Home Secretary in particular are meeting with tech companies to talk about how we can break the business model of those criminals.
Robert Jenrick
Cousin marriage has absolutely no place in Britain. The medical evidence is overwhelming that it significantly increases the risk of birth defects, and the moral case is clear in that we see hundreds of exploitative marriages that ruin lives. Frankly, it should have been stamped out a long time ago. Will the Justice Secretary commit to ending this medieval practice, which is rearing its head once again in modern Britain?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Member will know that there has been a recent Law Commission report on marriage law more generally. The Government are going to consult on broader reform of marriage law, and we will certainly consider the issues that he has raised before setting out a public position.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
One of the very first actions of the Government was to accept the Prison Service pay review body’s independent recommendations in full, delivering a pay increase of 5% for prison officers. In addition, we monitor exit interview data and use it to help design interventions to improve retention.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The hon. Member raises an important issue, which is always under review, but that is where we are at the moment.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend. Tagging technology can monitor offenders effectively in the community. We have tags that monitor curfews and exclusion zones, tags to impose home detention—in effect, the equivalent of house arrest—and sobriety tags with a 97% compliance rate. We are currently looking at expanding the use of technology to improve productivity in the Probation Service. We will also fund an additional 5,000 new tags to expand the use of tech outside prison.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Shabana Mahmood
We are currently using a data collection and publication approach inherited from the previous Conservative Government—probably from the hon. Member’s time as an adviser to the former Home Secretary and Prime Minister—but I will continue to monitor the data that we collect and publish. We are committed to ensuring that we deport foreign national offenders, and are on track to deport more this year than were deported in the previous year. We will make more progress in that respect.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I can assure the House and my hon. Friend that HMP Parc is receiving targeted support. She points to the recent visit by my hon. and noble Friends to the prison, and the Minister for Prisons in the other place is providing full evidence about this and other matters to the Welsh Affairs Committee tomorrow.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
Shabana Mahmood
There are no girls currently in Wetherby. We have not changed and will not be changing the policy we inherited from the previous Government in relation to single-sex spaces and the prison system; that policy will remain as it has been. The women’s justice board will consider the issues that relate to female offenders across the women’s estate.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The previous Government undertook a review of the scheme; it ran three consultations respectively. When the election was called in May no response to those consultations had been published. We are considering the support we provide to victims including child victims, and we are advising on a new victims’ code in the new year specifically to look at that issue, including any response to the review, and we will set out our plans in due course.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Since the beginning of this year, 17 inmates have died at HMP Parc. It has been under the control of G4S since opening in 1997. What consideration has the Lord Chancellor made of returning the prison to the Ministry of Justice?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
As I said in answer to an earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), HMP Parc is receiving a lot of attention at the moment. The Minister for prisons in the other place, Lord Timpson, will be answering questions tomorrow in thorough detail and the hon. Member might wish to attend that meeting.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Shabana Mahmood
The independent sentencing review will be making recommendations to ensure that our sentencing legislation and framework is fit for purpose and that we always have prison places for those who need to be locked up, so that our prisons create better citizens out of criminals and we can expand the use of punishment outside prison. I will not get ahead of what that review might recommend but it will look at all those issues in the round.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The smuggling of illegal drugs into prisons has been a problem for many years. The last Government spent over £100 million trying to deal with the issue; what plans do the current Government have to try to comprehensively deal with it?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right: drugs are rife in too many of our prisons and that problem has been very difficult to challenge, both for the previous Government and no doubt for us as well. We have to crack down on the supply of drugs into our prisons, which is why we are expanding the use of no-fly zones. The hon. Gentleman will know that scanners have already been used, but hardened criminals are increasingly moving on to using drones instead. We will crack down on supply but we also need to look at demand and getting more of our prisoners off drugs while they are in prison.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
The current court backlog across England is an indictment of the previous Government, with almost 1,800 cases in Nottinghamshire alone. Rape victims are waiting on average over a year to have their case brought to trial, if it gets that far. What is the Department doing to prioritise these cases and restore faith in the criminal justice system for victims of rape and serious sexual offences?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
My hon. Friend is right that justice delayed is justice denied, and our hearts break for victims waiting too long for trials to come. That is why we must tackle the Crown court backlog, which we are doing by keeping open 16 Nightingale courts through the recruitment of more judges. As I said previously, we need fundamental reform, and that is what we will bring about.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
To boost public confidence in the criminal justice system, can the Minister confirm that the Government will not resort to increased dependency on community sentences, many of which are unserved?
Shabana Mahmood
As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say many times, we have brought forward an independent sentencing review to look at the issues of sentencing in the round to ensure that we are never again in the position where we are about to run out of prison places and cannot lock up those who must be locked up for reasons of public protection. The review will also make recommendations on how prisoner rehabilitation can help people turn their lives around and, more importantly, cut the number of victims that would result from reoffending.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Last month in Basingstoke, three women were victims of spiking while on nights out. That appalling crime robs individuals of their autonomy, puts lives at risk and leaves women feeling unsafe. Victims, including Skylar, Laura and Jade, have highlighted serious gaps in the awareness of and response to spiking, so I welcome the Government’s pledge to make spiking a specific criminal offence and to train thousands of night-time economy staff. Will the Minister update the House on how the proposed measures will be implemented to prevent further incidents in towns such as Basingstoke?
Alex Davies-Jones
This Government are committed to bringing forward a specific new offence of spiking. We are committed to modernising the existing legislation in this Session so that no other victims like Skylar, Laura and Jade suffer these abhorrent crimes.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Nearly 3,000 prisoners are still incarcerated under imprisonment for public protection sentences, which were abolished more than 12 years ago, many for offences not intended to be covered by such sentences. Will the Justice Secretary commit to expediting the Government plans to re-sentence all prisoners still stuck on indefinite IPP sentences to free up limited prison capacity?
Shabana Mahmood
First, the last Conservative Government were right to abolish the IPP sentencing regime, but that has left us with a cohort within our prison system who are still serving these sentences. I am determined to make more progress in ensuring that, when safe to do so, more of those individuals can come out of prison, but I will not do so in a way that compromises public protection, as some of these individuals pose a real risk to the public. I will not conduct a re-sentencing exercise, because that would have the effect of releasing everyone immediately, but we will make progress on getting more people properly rehabilitated and out of prison.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 bans prison officers from taking industrial action and limits trade unions’ ability to protect prison officers from attacks on their terms and conditions and wages. Thankfully, these fundamental trade union rights have been reinstated for prison officers in Scotland. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for section 127 to change so that workers’ rights are fully restored for prison officers in the rest of the UK?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I do not think now is the time to consider that.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Avon and Somerset police is doing an excellent job at Bath Christmas market, challenging any individual seen behaving inappropriately towards a woman or young female. What more can the Ministry of Justice do to tackle street harassment?
Alex Davies-Jones
We are working closely with our colleagues in the Home Office to tackle violence against women and girls. This Government were elected with a landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls over the course of a decade. That includes all crimes against women and girls, particularly harassment, and we are working together to ensure that that happens.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s approach in recognising that we cannot continue as we have done. She will know that county lines are having an impact in towns and cities across the country, with a particularly devastating impact on children. Can she outline the options that the sentencing review might explore to effectively disrupt the criminal networks and protect vulnerable young people?
Shabana Mahmood
The sentencing review will primarily look at the sentencing framework and how we treat different cohorts of offenders within that. It will consider drug crime, too, but on the specific issue of county lines, I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a response from the Home Office.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Only a couple of days ago, a prisoner was let out under the Government’s early release scheme. He was wanted for removing his GPS tag. What assessment has been made on the reoffending rates so far since the start of the scheme?
Shabana Mahmood
Anybody who breaches their licence conditions can be recalled immediately to prison. If somebody removes their tag, they can and will be recalled. We have not seen higher than normal rates of recall under the SDS40 scheme, and we have not changed our projections on prison capacity.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Last month, the Justice Committee visited central London county court, which is one of the busiest in England, and met the exceptional and resilient people who run it, both judicial and administrative. They need to be resilient as their work is contained in thousands of paper files that are stored, transported and updated in a way that Dickens would have recognised. When will we digitise civil justice?
Sarah Sackman
The modernisation of the courts and the digitisation programme is a priority. Clearly, that can increase efficiency in the progress of cases and improve the workings of case management. We are looking at that and working in close co-operation with our colleagues in the judiciary to ensure that we make progress in that area.
Storm Darragh
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to Storm Darragh.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Ms Abena Oppong-Asare)
I would like to say how sorry the Government were to hear that two people lost their lives during Storm Darragh. I extend my sympathy to their family and friends.
Late last week, the Met Office issued a red weather warning for wind covering England and Wales, with wider parts of the UK covered by amber and yellow warnings. The Government immediately took action to prepare for the arrival of Storm Darragh. Ahead of the storm, we issued an emergency alert to over 3 million people in affected regions under a red weather warning, urging them to stay indoors. That was the largest use of the early warning system outside of a test scenario. Impacts, although widespread, were managed effectively and local response mechanisms worked to mitigate impacts.
For the households and businesses affected by disruptions, it would have been a very distressing few days. Over 2.3 million customers have had their power restored since the storm made landfall. As of this morning, just under 24,000 customers remain without power. Reconnections are continuing at pace, and operators expect to have all remaining customers reconnected by tomorrow.
I am grateful for the response from colleagues in devolved Administrations and local resilience forums around the country. I praise our emergency responders and utility workers, who have worked, and indeed are continuing to work, so hard in difficult conditions to help the public manage the impacts of the storm.
Ben Lake
Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for her reply and join her in expressing my condolences to the families of those two individuals who have tragically lost their lives. The storm left hundreds of thousands of homes without power and disrupted critical infrastructure. We are all grateful to the engineers who are working tirelessly to restore power under challenging conditions. I pay tribute to the emergency services and local authorities who have also worked hard to clear roads and offer support to households where possible.
However, I am deeply concerned about the thousands of people still without electricity. The storm has brought into sharp relief just how dependent other key utilities are on electricity: from heating to water supply and mobile phone networks. The latter concern is compounded in rural areas by the fact that many have lost their copper landlines in the recent digital switchover and now use a system dependent on mains power. Villages such as Blaenffos, Pont-rhyd-y-groes and Ponterwyd in my constituency, to name just a few, have therefore not only been without power but had periods without water, heat and any means of communicating for help and support.
The increasing frequency of extreme weather events such as Storm Darragh due to climate change underscores the need for robust civil protection measures encompassing both our immediate response and long-term resilience planning. In that regard, our experiences with Storm Darragh highlight a need to review the adequacy of current arrangements. For example, if rural areas such as mine are without mobile signal and no longer have copper landlines, how can they receive important emergency information, let alone call for assistance?
Will the Minister therefore commit to reviewing arrangements in the light of the storm, including whether the priority services register is adequate to address the needs of vulnerable residents during widespread power outages? Will she ensure that key utilities are equipped to mitigate the impacts of future extreme weather events? Finally, will she outline the Government’s immediate action to work with the Welsh Government and local authorities in Wales to support communities who are still without power, and their longer-term strategy to strengthen national resilience in the face of extreme weather events?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his efforts over the weekend to provide advice and support to constituents. As he mentioned, many households across north and mid-Wales have been particularly affected by the damage and disruption caused by Storm Darragh. Again, I extend my sympathy to all those who have been affected by power cuts, flooding and other disruptions, which I know will have been distressing. Again, I pay tribute to the emergency services and utility workers in north and mid Wales who are continuing to work hard to support the households affected.
The UK Government have been working closely with our counterparts in the Welsh Government—the hon. Member raised concerns about that. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke to the First Minister on Friday, and we are continuing to work closely together. I hope that reassures the hon. Member on that aspect. In my response I set out how work is under way to resolve the situation of properties without power and affected by flooding, which the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out.
More broadly, we are continuing to work with partners to ensure that the disruption is addressed as soon as possible, and that support is provided to those affected. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels reassured that we are constantly monitoring the work that we have done to see how to improve for future floods and storms. The Government are taking this seriously, and I hope the whole House supports these efforts.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) about the people who lost their lives and all those who have been affected by flooding. Those of us in communities that have been flooded know how desperate the impact is, not just in the immediate aftermath but for months afterwards. Flood victims often say that they have received false warnings on so many occasions that when the warnings come, they often do not have faith in them. What are the Government doing to improve the reliability of those warnings, so that we are better informed? What are they doing to ensure that the public are better educated about the limitations of the warnings that we get from the Environment Agency?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point and talking about the impact on his constituents and those across the country. The Met Office warnings are based on judgments made by highly trained staff who have carefully collaborated to provide instructive advice to people, businesses, transport operators and emergency responders on a storm’s impact on customer disruption. In this particular situation, the emergency alert was sent to approximately 3 million people across Wales and the south-west on Friday 6 December. It reached the people who needed to be reached really effectively.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I applaud the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for asking this urgent question. He asked some very detailed questions about communication and connectivity that are vital for rural areas. Can the Minister commit to writing to him and to putting that letter in the Library? There is important information that needs to be put on the public record.
Storm Darragh has had and continues to have terrible impacts across the UK. Our thoughts are very much with the loved ones of those who tragically lost their lives in recent days, and with the people whose homes and businesses have been devastated and those who continue to feel the effects of the storm. We must not forget that for at-risk communities, the mental health consequences can remain long after the storms and floods have abated and the blue lights have left. The Opposition pay tribute to the emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities and volunteer groups for their efforts to help people in these challenging and dangerous circumstances.
In the coming hours and days, the Government need to focus on quickly reconnecting those without power and giving help to those who have been driven out of their homes, on the repair and reopening of buildings and schools and on the process for insurance claims so that residents can return home as soon as possible. What conversations are being had across Government to ensure that all that happens?
What discussions did the Minister have with ministerial colleagues across Government and with the Environment Agency and the Met Office before the latest storm hit? The Government’s flood resilience taskforce was set up to improve flood preparedness. It has met once, and its next meeting is next year. Should it not be stood up more frequently and meet more regularly?
The previous Conservative Government committed a record £5.2 billion from 2019 to 2027 to provide significantly improved flood defences across the country. Will the new Labour Government continue that investment? The farm recovery fund, initiated by the previous Conservative Government to support farmers, is vital. Will this Government provide new money now, after recent storms like Bert and Darragh? Finally, can the Government confirm their ongoing commitment to the communities hit by these increasingly common extreme weather events?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are working closely with devolved Administrations and organisations to address these issues. As I mentioned already, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke to the First Minister on Friday, and we continue to work together. Work is being done to strengthen the resilience review, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and the emergency alerts worked effectively to reach those who have been directly affected. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will respond to the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli on the issues he has raised to ensure that his questions are answered.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the statement, and express my sympathies for those affected and my thanks to emergency and utility workers for all their efforts over the weekend. The storm was of great significance in constituencies such as mine. I appreciate what the Minister has said on the efforts and conversations between the UK Government and the Welsh Government. Can she say any more on that, and assure us that the lessons to be learned from this storm—on resilience and dealing with any future storms—will be shared with all of us in this House, as well as our colleagues in Wales?
Ms Oppong-Asare
Like my hon. Friend, I recognise the impact the storm has had on individuals. We have been working closely with the Welsh Government on the civil contingencies response structures in response to Storm Darragh, and have convened an all-Wales civil contingencies committee. Officials in the UK Government regularly engage with the Welsh Government on this matter, and ensure that local responders are working effectively. We will be looking to see what else we can learn from this situation.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake), who asked an excellent question and raised this important issue today. My thoughts also are with those who tragically lost their lives this weekend and with their families, and with all the communities who have been so terribly affected by the storm. I have immense gratitude, as I am sure we all do, for our emergency services, utility companies staff and local communities, who have responded with such effectiveness and compassion.
We were affected in Westmorland, although not as badly as the constituents of many Welsh Members present. Last week was the ninth anniversary of Storm Desmond, which we remember and still bear the scars from, and we stand in solidarity with all those deeply affected right now.
The storm reminds us of our duty to protect homes, communities, farmland and businesses. In the Budget, the Government agreed to funding for flood defences up to March 2026, with the potential threat of reduced funding thereafter. Will the Minister take this opportunity to guarantee, as a minimum, the current level of funding for flood defences beyond March 2026?
So much farmland has been affected by the storm, yet farms are key to successful flood management, storing water and slowing the flow to protect villages and towns downstream, such as Appleby and Kendal in my constituency. Will the Minister now agree to increasing the environmental land management scheme budget to help our farmers be our first and best defence against flooding?
Finally, will the Minister confirm that the Government will expand eligibility for the farming recovery fund? Will they publish an up-to-date water management strategy to set out a plan for urgent maintenance and upgrades to flooding defences to protect homes, farmland and businesses at risk?
Ms Oppong-Asare
The Government are working at pace to step up further preparations for winter. We are investing £2.4 billion up to March 2026 to improve flood resilience and better protect communities across the country. We are also looking at lessons from the floods, which are being fed directly in to the floods resilience taskforce that was set up under this new Government. That will look at flood defences and bolstering the nation’s resilience to extreme weather. I had the opportunity to attend the floods resilience taskforce with a wide range of stakeholders, and it is a positive way to address future issues. We recognise the significant impact flooding has on farmers and rural communities, which is why we are providing up to £50 million for internal drainage boards and an additional £60 million through the farming recovery fund.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House to explain what has been going on in relation to Storm Darragh. Like everyone I thank the emergency services, and I also thank Monmouthshire county council for all the work it did this weekend. Over 2 million households lost power this weekend, including a group of constituents in Llangybi, one of whom was extremely vulnerable. Will the Minister share with us how many households have been reconnected?
Ms Oppong-Asare
As my hon. Friend mentions, up to 2.3 million customers lost power during the storm. As of this morning, as I mentioned, just under 24,000 customers are without power. The Government have been reassured that the operators are due to reconnect them all by tomorrow.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I join the House in paying tribute to the emergency services, including Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service and Dyfed-Powys police, as well as Powys county council in my constituency, which have been working tirelessly to keep people safe over the past few days. Communities across Wales, including in my constituency, have been battered by this storm only a few weeks after already taking significant damage from Storm Bert. Many of my constituents in the Swansea valley were left without power for over 48 hours and some may not have power restored until Thursday. Likewise, many water supplies have been disrupted and towns such as Builth Wells have experienced significant flooding. What support are the UK Government providing to Wales to ensure that power is restored as soon as possible to those households?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I send my sympathy to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who are still directly affected. Our priority is to ensure that everyone without power is reconnected as quickly as possible. Our colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero have been receiving regular updates from the Energy Networks Association on electricity outages. Work is being done swiftly to ensure that those who are directly affected get their power back as soon as possible.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
I thank my neighbour the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for asking the urgent question. Let me add my voice to the chorus of voices thanking the emergency services, and also pay tribute to communities and local businesses such as the Hand in Llanarmon Dyffryn Ceiriog, in my constituency. The storm brought out the best in society, which is what the worst weather sometimes does. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to local businesses and civic society for all their work in helping those most affected by the storm?
Ms Oppong-Asare
Local businesses, local resilience forums and emergency services have played a powerful role, and it has been great to see communities and businesses come together to address these problems, so I echo my hon. Friend’s thanks.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
These storms are becoming more frequent, and we in Scotland probably have more experience of them than most, but there is a prevailing sense that we are lurching from one storm to the next. In the case of Storm Bert, for example, it was felt that the Met Office did not issue enough warnings early enough. To what extent is the Minister bringing the four nations together to share what they have learned from the various storms so that we can respond to them better?
Ms Oppong-Asare
The Government have been working closely with devolved Administrations, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster organised a call on Friday to see what work could be done with them collaboratively. A meeting was held to establish which areas were directly affected and where there were threats to life, and an alert was issued as quickly as possible to those areas in particular. However, we recognise that there was some delay in the conveying of information, so we are working with operators to see how they can get the message out as speedily as possible in the event of another storm of this kind.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Will the Minister please give us an update om the extent of the floods that resulted from the storm? Rural constituencies such as mine experienced a double whammy: we were battered by the storm, and then we were deluged once again by flooding. That double problem is also much more sustained.
Ms Oppong-Asare
A lot of work has been done in this regard, but if my hon. Friend writes to me I shall be able to respond to her directly and adequately.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for securing the urgent question.
Electricity supplies have yet to be restored to some Gwynedd communities, more than 72 hours after the red weather warning. The switch from copper to digital technology means that all landline telephones will need electricity to work in the future, as do mobile phone masts. These matters are reserved to Westminster—they are not devolved—so will the Minister speak to her colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and commit to a Government assessment of the resilience of mobile and landline communication in Wales and the adequacy of the support given by BT and EE to elderly and vulnerable people during the switchover process?
Ms Oppong-Asare
Engineers have been working tirelessly with National Grid’s electricity distributors and with other networks to ensure that steps are taken to reconnect vulnerable customers in particular, but if the right hon. Member writes to me, we can look into this in more detail.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to our fantastic volunteers who worked around the clock in difficult circumstances, playing a critical role in protecting people and homes? Will she visit my constituency to meet some of those volunteers, including some from Lowdham, Rainworth and Hucknall, who continue to face the threat of flooding?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I too thank the volunteers who have worked so hard to provide support. I always try to visit areas around the country, and if my hon. Friend writes to me, I will see whether if I can visit her constituency with the floods Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), to see the hard work that those volunteers have been doing.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
This morning, 2,500 people in my constituency were still without power. That is down from 8,000 yesterday morning, and I am grateful to all the engineers who have worked so hard to get those people back online. Water booster pumps also lost power on Sunday, so those in a large area of the constituency experienced low water pressure. In the sizeable town of Wem, there were large areas with no water at all, despite there having been only a yellow weather warning. It seems that that the resilience of the utility companies is not where it needs to be to respond to an event of this nature. Can the Minister reassure me about what she is doing with those companies to ensure that we are more resilient in future, given that these events will be increasingly frequent as the impact of climate change worsens?
Ms Oppong-Asare
We and our colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are working closely together, and as I said earlier, they are receiving updates from the Energy Networks Association. If any of the hon. Member’s constituents are directly affected, I urge them to call the network operator directly by dialling 105, or to visit the Power Cut 105 website. However, she is right that we should be exploring the impact that this could have on us in the future.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
In Ironbridge gorge, a world heritage site in my constituency, the river fills up with water from Wales in the days after these storms. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that the Government pay attention to secondary areas such as mine, and will Government Departments ensure that the economic hammer blow that flooding causes in communities such as mine is considered in any future grant applications by the local authority?
Ms Oppong-Asare
We are currently reviewing the flooding formula, which will address some of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I am incredibly concerned about the news that funding for organisations that co-ordinate multi-agency responses in the event of emergency, such as the Sussex resilience forum, is set to end in April next year. Will the Minister commit to long-term statutory funding for crucial organisations that plan emergency responses?
Ms Oppong-Asare
There is already a long-standing relationship between central Government and responders, underpinned by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government already works with local resilience forums on preparing for, and acting during, responses to emergencies, and provides a direct line of communication for them to central Government. The Met Office is our statutory responder under the Civil Contingencies Act, which strengthens its role at the heart of UK resilience. I recognise the contribution of resilience forums, and in particular the role that they played during the storm.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Northumberland has been battered by storms in recent years, most dramatically and devastatingly by Storm Arwen. Can the Minister assure me that she and her colleagues are taking proactive steps to protect communities in some of the most isolated places in my constituency from the devastating impact of these storms?
Ms Oppong-Asare
The flood resilience taskforce set up by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is looking into exactly those issues.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Storm Darragh brought 96 mph winds, flooding and power outages, and it came hot on the heels of Storm Bert, which brought severe rainfall and terrible flooding. Given the strong evidence that links increasing frequency and severity of storms with climate change, may I ask for the Minister’s response to the comments of Emma Pinchbeck, the new chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, who said at the weekend that the UK was “not ready” for these increasingly severe impacts of climate change? What are the Government doing, and what will they do, to make adaptation an urgent national priority?
Ms Oppong-Asare
As the hon. Member knows, we have only just come into office, but we have already set up a flood resilience taskforce and are carrying out a resilience review, so we do recognise these issues. Just a few months in, we are already looking into them proactively.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
As the Minister and Members from across the House have done, I commend our local authorities and our emergency services for the hard work that they did to make people safe. The storm caused so much damage; communities in my constituency, such as Northop, were without power for several days. Sadly, many of us had to change our plan to go out on Small Business Saturday and support our local high streets, which are struggling. There is a palpable commitment in this Chamber to preparedness. What conversations were had with the Welsh Government prior to the storm to ensure that we were ready to tackle it?
Ms Oppong-Asare
The Government regularly meet officials to look at how we can work with the devolved Administrations. On preparedness, as I mentioned, we are doing work on the resilience review. I have had a huge amount of engagement with various stakeholders and the devolved Administrations, so that no one is left behind when it comes to making sure that we are prepared.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Let me thank the emergency services, Carmarthenshire county council, which is the local authority, and National Grid engineers for working tirelessly to help residents who were without power in Caerfyrddin. I also want to give a shout out to the farmers who helped clear the roads with their chainsaws.
Given that many areas are on their fourth day without electricity—most have not been promised a connection until Thursday, and some do not have water or connectivity either—it is clear that we need additional help. The 105 line is not working. It is not its fault; it is just overwhelmed by the number of calls. What advice does the Minister have for people living in rural communities such as Trelech, Brechfa, Blaenwaun and Llanarthne, who are in desperate need of generators for their village halls and community centres, so that they can provide hot water, hot meals and a place to charge a mobile phone? Can we do something about that?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I thank the hon. Member for her question, and express sympathy with what her constituents are going through. I am disappointed to hear that constituents face difficulty in connecting to networks. We are trying our best to work with networks on the wider lessons for the future. If she writes to me directly about these matters, we can certainly explore the issue further.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
In Harpenden and Berkhamsted, much of the impact of Storm Darragh was wholly preventable, such as Flamstead village being cut off because Trowley Bottom and Chequer Lane were flooded, as well as the flooding on Station Road in Harpenden, and in Puttenham. Next to the Hospice of St Francis is Shootersway, which has repeatedly flooded, and there are worries about ambulance access. What are the Government doing to work with local authorities, and what is the long-term strategy to prevent repeated damage from storms such as Darragh?
Ms Oppong-Asare
We are working with local resilience forums, and we are also carrying out a flood review. As I mentioned, a flood taskforce has been set up and is exploring the issues raised by the hon. Lady.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
While the damage from Storm Darragh was thankfully limited in North Norfolk, a number of properties in my constituency suffered power cuts, which lasted well into Monday. That has once again highlighted the problem caused by poor mobile phone signal in rural parts of North Norfolk. As hon. Members have mentioned, many people did not receive updates and cannot access real-time SMS information. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology about ensuring that we fix the notspots and keep my constituents safe and connected when the next big storm hits?
Ms Oppong-Asare
DSIT is looking into this matter to see how the issues that the hon. Member raises can be addressed. I recognise that there were issues, especially with access to mobile networks, which made it a real challenge to reach people, particularly vulnerable individuals. The situation is being reviewed by my colleagues in DSIT.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Storm damage in Holyhead has led to severe disruption to the second busiest roll-on, roll-off port in the UK, with ferries to Ireland being cancelled. This weekend also saw the closure of the Britannia bridge to all vehicles. The vulnerability of Ynys Môn’s connection to the mainland has been of concern for several years, with access to our main hospital at risk. What assurance can the Minister give me that island communities, such my constituency of Ynys Môn, will be safeguarded from extreme weather in the future?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I have been very concerned about this issue, particularly as part of our work on resilience looking at who may be affected, including vulnerable people and those who may become vulnerable as a result of extreme weather. Local resilience forums have also been looking into this issue. We are working closely with Welsh local authorities and the Welsh Government on how these issues can be addressed.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Storm Darragh is the second serious storm to hit my Thornbury and Yate constituency in recent weeks; it came soon after Storm Bert, which caused serious flooding disruption. I thank everyone involved in the response. These storms are not going away; owing to the impacts of climate change, they are likely to get worse. We need a clear framework for local authorities, so that they know when they will get support and what that support will be. Can the Minister please provide some clarity on that?
Ms Oppong-Asare
We work very closely with the devolved Administrations, local resilience authorities and emergency responders regularly on how we can address this issue. The UK Resilience Academy will be launched in April next year, and it will be a great way for us to look at the lessons learned and at how we can strengthen our responses to such issues.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My residents in Bersted, in Pagham and across my constituency of Chichester live in constant fear of storms such as Darragh. They cause severe localised flooding, which often isolates communities and closes businesses, often for months on end. Funding is available for local communities to improve their flood resilience, but West Sussex county council cut that funding by a third this year, even though the problem in my patch is only getting worse. How does the Minister expect communities to be resilient to flooding if local councils are eroding the funding?
Ms Oppong-Asare
We do not have authority over what West Sussex county council does, but we have been advising councils, which are under a lot of pressure, on how they could look at their flood resilience. This issue is really important, but it has not always been championed. Hopefully, we can have that conversation and encourage people to play a role.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Hurley and Cookham in my constituency have been hit time and again by storms. What work are the Government doing to protect villages along the Thames, which often get flooded several days after a storm has passed?
Ms Oppong-Asare
As I mentioned, we have set up a flood resilience taskforce, which looks at constituencies such as the hon. Member’s to make sure that they are not affected. The Government will invest £22.4 billion until March 2026 in improving flood resilience and better protecting communities across the country. DSIT is also looking at UK power networks to see what role they could play. On the emergency alerts that were issued on Friday, we are looking at the lessons learned to see how they could be used effectively if we roll them out in the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her positivity, and for her helpful answers; it is very clear that she is doing her best to make things better. I put on the record my thanks to all emergency service workers across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for their sterling efforts.
Storm Darragh saw the cancellation and delay of numerous trains and flights across Northern Ireland and, further afield, across the United Kingdom. Although that cannot be helped, thousands of people were at a financial loss due to the cancellations and delays. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that airlines and rail companies across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland do their bit to ensure that due compensation is paid to constituents, and that they do not lose out due to the weather conditions?
Ms Oppong-Asare
That is an issue on which we need to work collaboratively, particularly when it comes to the impact on the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. We need to see what the challenges are, and why these matters are not being addressed, particularly at local level.
Point of Order
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 1 August, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about the closure of Yeovil district hospital’s hyper-acute stroke unit. Despite following up several times, including with his senior staff, I have not received a response. On 2 December, I submitted a named-day parliamentary question for response on 6 December, but I have received only a holding answer. My understanding is that while Members can occasionally expect to receive a holding answer, we should usually receive a proper answer by the due date, or at least in a timely manner. From a previous parliamentary exchange, I understand that the decision to give a holding answer is determined by the terms of the question, how much information is sought and how difficult it is to obtain, but I do not believe that I am asking a question of great difficulty. What more can I do to ensure a response from the Department for my constituency of Yeovil?
Mr Speaker
The Chair is not responsible for the quality or timeliness of Ministers’ answers to correspondence or to questions, but it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has waited an awfully long time, both for a reply to his letter and for a substantive answer to his written question. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted his remarks, and I hope that somebody from the Department of Health and Social Care is already drafting a response. I am sure that they will be in touch with him very soon to explain what is going on. I do not want to have to keep repeating this, but Members have a right to expect timely answers to correspondence, and to expect that when a holding answer is issued, a substantive reply will be along very soon thereafter. This seems to be a trend; it is becoming more and more apparent that Ministers are not responding. I am still waiting for a Minister in the Lords to respond to me, so I know the frustration well.
Bills Presented
Breast Cancer Screening (Review) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Wera Hobhouse, supported by Clive Jones, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to review the current arrangements for breast cancer screening, including the potential merits of reducing the minimum age at which women are invited for regular breast cancer screening and of increasing the use of automated breast ultrasound; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 7 March 2025, and to be printed (Bill 144).
Carbon Emissions from Buildings (Net Zero) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Ellie Chowns presented a Bill to require new buildings to meet net zero standards for embodied and operational carbon emissions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 11 July 2025, and to be printed (Bill 148).
Building Regulations (Swift Bricks) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Ellie Chowns presented a Bill to require the installation of swift bricks on new buildings; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 11 July 2025, and to be printed (Bill 149).
Rivers, Streams and Lakes (Protected Status) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Victoria Collins, supported by Jess Brown-Fuller, Dr Danny Chambers, Edward Morello, Tom Gordon, Alex Brewer, Calum Miller, Tessa Munt and Manuela Perteghella
presented a Bill to make provision for the designation of rivers, streams and lakes as having protected status; to specify criteria for minimum standards that a site must meet where it has been designated as a river, stream or lake with protected status; to set minimum standards of water quality, safety, environmental management and provision of information in relation to such sites; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 17 January 2025, and to be printed (Bill 150).
Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill
Tuesday 10th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill 2024-26 View all Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the marriage of first cousins; and for connected purposes.
Members across the House may wonder why first-cousin marriage is not already illegal. In fact, many in this House and in the country may already believe that it is. That is understandable, because as early as the middle of the fifth century in England, the Church practised the Roman doctrine on first-cousin marriage, which was clarified by the first Archbishop of Canterbury in the early eighth century, after he received a letter from Pope Gregory I. The letter cited Leviticus 18:6, which states that sacred law forbids a man to uncover the nakedness of his near kin. Throughout the centuries that followed, this canon law forbidding first-cousin marriage remained the norm, and by the 11th century it extended to sixth cousins.
This 1,000-year tradition of first-cousin marriage being illegal was continued until 1540, when King Henry VIII broke with Rome and legalised marriage between first cousins so that he could marry Catherine Howard, his fifth wife and a cousin of his second wife, Anne Boleyn. Sadly, both Catherine and Anne ended up facing a swift end at the block. However, the law pertaining to first-cousin marriage has been more enduring, remaining unchanged ever since.
Today, according to the Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, cousin marriage is practised by about 10% of the world and is most prevalent in the middle east, west Asia and north Africa. However, the practice varies enormously within countries and by regional culture, reaching at its highest over 80% in parts of rural Pakistan. By contrast, in China and western countries it is less than 1%.
Patrick Nash, a visiting fellow at Oxford University’s faculty of theology and religion, describes how a region’s history of harsh conditions, such as resource-scarce rurality, proximity to conflict zones and industrial poverty, plays a major role in developing the cultures that practise first-cousin marriage. He argues that cousin marriage was at one time biologically beneficial for the survival of mankind, when times were especially hard and inhospitable. However, this does not carry forward into modern living conditions in our post-industrial age, where genetic and degenerative diseases are among the most severe threats to public health.
That brings us to the issue today. Certain diaspora communities have extremely high rates of first-cousin marriage, with a rate of 20% to 40% among Irish Travellers and higher rates still among the British Pakistani community. There is a worrying trend, as this rate has increased significantly from that of their grandparents’ age group. Although there have been some reports of the rate falling within the last decade as young people push back against the system, there remains an extraordinarily strong link.
I have already touched on why first-cousin marriage is problematic, but I will expand further, as there are three real issues at stake: health, freedom and our national values. The dangers of consanguineous relations have been appreciated throughout history. The consequences of extreme intergenerational cousin marriage within the Habsburg monarchy of Spain eventually led to the demise of the house itself and the war of the Spanish succession. That is very well documented. By the 19th century, the British Medical Journal had published many papers on ill health transmitted to children through first-cousin marriage. Indeed, Charles Darwin himself publicly expressed concerns based on his own experience of marrying his first cousin, with three of their 10 children sadly dying in childhood.
Today, the health risks are explicable in granular scientific detail. According to Alison Shaw, professor of social anthropology at Oxford University, the child of first cousins carries approximately double the risk of inheriting a serious disorder than the child of unrelated people. Health consequences can include: recessive disorders such as Tay-Sachs, cerebral palsy and cystic fibrosis, which require lifelong treatment and can lead to premature death; an increased susceptibility to cancer and infectious pathogens such as hepatitis; birth defects including facial clefts and cardiovascular conditions; an increased risk of many illnesses, including schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s; and higher infant mortality. Moreover, where the parents come from multigenerational cousin parents of their own, this risk is compounded and intensified with every subsequent generation. The science is clear. First-cousin marriages should be banned on the basis of health risk alone.
The second issue at stake relates to freedom, and particularly the freedom of women. In my work in the last Parliament to ban so-called virginity testing and hymenoplasty, I saw at first hand through speaking to people how reproductive mechanisms are used to coerce and control women and girls where actions and freedoms are heavily controlled. Women and girls living under a clan mentality often know the scientific risks of first-cousin marriage but make considered social and cultural calculations. Strict honour codes—where expressions of individuality can be subject to social isolation, violence and even death—dominate thinking. Notions of dishonour can also significantly hinder a family’s standing among clan institutions, risking the family’s standing in the social hierarchy and materially affecting issues such as shared access to clan wealth. It is vital that we ensure that freedoms that have been hard fought for by women over centuries are protected.
Finally, alongside the impact on women’s rights, cousin marriage has a broader societal impact. Joseph Henrich, professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University, has found that cousin marriage does not just affect individual rights, but reshapes society. His research shows that cousin marriage declined in medieval Europe as individualism grew. The weakening of blind family ties led to the growth of individualism, natured trust of outsiders and, in turn, helped to develop a deeper civic responsibility beyond clan to country, allowing people to break free from the chains of clan, class and caste in their society.
Anthropologist Sir Jack Goody attributes the Church’s ban on cousin marriage as the driving force behind the breakdown of barriers between Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Vikings in early English society. As people were enabled to marry outside their clan, sectarian affiliations were gradually dissolved, which paved the way for the modern nation state.
Britain is not unique in having had immigration in recent decades from some regions where first-cousin marriage is prevalent, and therefore there has been a revival in the practice that we moved away from centuries ago. Norway has already banned the practice, and Sweden and Denmark are looking to do the same. Much like so-called virginity testing and hymenoplasty, it is clear that the practice is not really conducive to modern British society.
As MPs, we are more than mere delegates but rather legislators for the mother of all Parliaments—our country. As MPs, we should be more than glorified social workers seeking to help constituents through the bureaucracy and the system. We have a role in changing things for the better too. Henry VIII changed the law on cousin marriage to suit his own personal interests and pursuits, but we should act in the national interest.
Of course, we should find a balance. I have outlined the risks to health, freedom—especially for women—and the cohesion of our society. For me, those risks tip the balance against personal freedoms. While there will be details to work through, I hope right hon. and hon. Members give me the chance to take the Bill forward to Second Reading, and that Government Front Benchers will look at the measures as a vehicle for positive change in our country. In the end, the legislation is about more than individual marriages; it is about the values and foundations of our society and our democracy.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
As the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) states, there are documented health risks with first-cousin marriage, and I agree that there is a need for greater awareness about that issue. Virginity testing and forced marriages must be prevented, and the freedom of women must be protected at all times.
However, the way to redress the issue is not to empower the state to ban adults from marrying each other, not least because I do not think such measures would be effective or enforceable. Instead, the matter needs to be approached as a health awareness issue and, where women are being forced against their will to undergo marriage, as a cultural awareness issue. In doing so, it is important to recognise that this is a highly sensitive issue for many people. In discussing it, we should try to step into the shoes of those who perhaps are not from the same culture as ours, to better understand why the practice continues to be so widespread.
An estimated 35% to 50% of all sub-Saharan African populations either prefer or accept cousin marriage, and it is extremely common in the middle east and south Asia. The reason the practice is so common is that ordinary people see family intermarriage as something that is very positive overall; as something that helps to build family bonds and puts families on a more secure financial foothold.
However, as is well documented, it is not without health risks for the children of those relationships, some of whom will be born out of wedlock. Instead of stigmatising those who are in cousin marriages, or those who are inclined to be, a much more positive approach would be to facilitate advanced genetic test screening for prospective married couples, as is the case in all Arab countries in the Persian gulf, and to run health education programmes targeting those communities where the practice is most common.
I therefore urge the House to vote against the motion and to find a more positive approach to addressing the issues that are caused by first-cousin marriage, including the health risks, and the consequences of modern conflicts and displacement of populations around the world.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Richard Holden, Robert Jenrick, Dan Carden, Claire Coutinho, David Smith, Neil O’Brien, Lee Anderson, Mr Andrew Snowden, John Lamont, Nick Timothy, Katie Lam and Laura Trott present the Bill.
Mr Richard Holden accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 17 January 2025, and to be printed (Bill 146).
Finance Bill
Tuesday 10th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Bill 2024-26 View all Finance Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 10 December 2024 - (10 Dec 2024)
14:17 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 340 - Question accordingly negatived.
15:56 - divided: - Ayes: 74 / Noes: 350 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 184 / Noes: 359 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker.” When addressing the Chair, please use our name. “Madam Chair” or “Chair” will also suffice.
Clause 7
Main rates of CGT for gains other than carried interest gains
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Schedule 1.
Clauses 8 to 11 stand part.
Schedule 2.
Clauses 12 stand part.
New clause 1—Impact assessment: capital gains tax—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a review of the impact of the measures contained in clauses 7 to 12 and schedules 1 and 2 of this Act, on—
(a) long-term investment;
(b) disposable income across different income deciles, and
(c) tax revenue.”
This new clause would require the Government to produce a report setting out the impact of changes to Capital Gains Tax made in this Act on investment and the disposable income of taxpayers across different income deciles.
New clause 4—Section 12: review—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act coming into force, publish a review of the expected impact of the measures in section 12 of this Act on—
(a) the timing of asset disposals or transactions;
(b) shifting between different assets;
(c) shifting between gains and income;
(d) tax planning;
(e) migration; and
(f) non-compliance by non-payment, misreporting or underreporting of chargeable assets, gains or income.”
New clause 5—Business asset disposal relief: review of increase in rate—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission and publish an assessment of the expected impact of the provisions of section 8 on the number of Business Asset Disposal Relief claims involving the sale of a business.
(2) The assessment must compare estimates for the number of claims involving the sale of a business in the tax year 2024-25 with the number of such claims in the tax year 2025-26.
(3) The assessment must compare the impact under the provisions of section 8 with what impact could have been expected had the rate remained unchanged”.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
Since 2010, the UK has experienced low productivity, rising debt levels and declining public services. Public sector net debt is at its highest since the early 1960s, at 98.5% of GDP. Per capita, GDP remains lower that before the covid-19 pandemic.
In July this year, the Government uncovered a challenging fiscal and spending inheritance, with a £22 billion in-year pressure in the public finances. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s review into March’s spending forecasts concluded that had the information that has since been shared by the Treasury been made available to it at the time of the March Budget, there would have been a materially higher departmental expenditure limits forecast for 2024 to 2025. This was the result of the previous Government not factoring in the impact of a series of new, challenging pressures on the public finances, not taking the difficult decisions needed to address these pressures, and instead making a series of commitments that they could not fund.
This Government are committed to fixing the foundations and delivering a decade of national renewal. To do so, we must turn the page and take a different approach. In the autumn Budget, the House will have heard the Chancellor set out the Government’s first steps to repair the public finances, by taking the tough decisions needed to address the £22 billion in-year pressures to avoid further damage to our public services, including securing £5.5 billion of savings.
We are also putting in place significant reforms to strengthen our fiscal and spending framework that will improve certainty, transparency and accountability, and ensure that the situation can never happen again. This Government are taking the tough decisions on tax, spending and welfare that are necessary to repair the public finances and restore economic and fiscal stability. Those choices are not easy, but they are transparent, they are responsible and, with such a difficult position, they will ensure that the Government can deliver on our commitments not to increase taxes on working people.
The changes to the main rates of capital gains tax in clauses 7 to 11 will help to address the gap in public finances while retaining the UK’s internationally competitive investment climate. The new rates are revenue-maximising in the current design of the tax system, generating an additional £8.9 billion over the forecast period. The UK’s headline CGT rates will remain lower than those of France, Germany and Italy, and the highest rate is still lower than it was between 2010 and 2016. The new rates will mostly affect people who earn income from selling financial assets. The Government are taking the difficult but responsible decision to ask that group to pay a little bit more tax in order to restore economic stability.
Clause 12 represents the first step in a package of reforms to the taxation of carried interest by increasing the applicable rates of capital gains tax to 32% for carried interest arising on or after 6 April 2025. The reforms will put the tax treatment of carried interest on a fairer and more stable footing for the long term, while preserving the UK’s competitive position as a global asset management hub.
I will begin with clauses 7 to 9, concerning the capital gains tax package. CGT is charged on individuals’ annual capital gains, net of losses and allowable costs. Less than 1% of adults pay CGT per year. There are lower rates available for reliefs, including business asset disposal relief and investors’ relief. CGT has an annual exempt amount of £3,000 for individuals, which keeps people with lower levels of capital gains out of the system.
To repair the public finances and help raise the revenue required to increase funding for public services, the Government are increasing the main rates of CGT. The clauses will increase the lower main rate of CGT from 10% to 18% and increase the higher rate from 20% to 24%. Those changes affect disposables made on or after 30 October 2024. The clauses also increase the CGT rate at which business asset disposal relief and investors’ relief are charged in a phased way from 10% to 14%, effective from 6 April 2025, and from 14% to 18%, effective from 6 April 2026. Phasing in the rate increases for those CGT reliefs demonstrates the Government’s commitment to a predictable tax system.
The Government accept that for some entrepreneurs, a lower CGT rate will be factored into their plans for exiting the business, which can be a once-in-a-lifetime event. Although it is right to increase CGT rates to raise revenue, it is also fair to give business owners some time to adjust. The changes will raise £2.5 billion per year by the end of the forecast period, while ensuring the UK’s headline CGT rates remain below those of France, Germany and Italy.
Turning to clause 10, investors’ relief offers access to the lower rates of CGT on the disposal of qualifying unlisted shares. Its objective is to provide the financial incentive for individuals to invest in unlisted trading companies over the long term and help companies in accessing other forms of investment. The lifetime limit for investors’ relief was previously £10 million, compared with business asset disposable relief’s lifetime limit of £1 million. We feel that that disparity in lifetime limits is unfair towards entrepreneurs and could encourage harmful tax planning strategies. The changes made by clause 10 will reduce the lifetime limit for investors’ relief to match that of business asset disposal relief at £1 million of qualifying gains per person. Investors’ relief has received little take-up since its introduction in 2016, and so the Government expect that the measure will affect a very small number of individuals.
Turning to clause 11 and schedule 2, which introduce transitional arrangements and anti-forestalling rules, the transitional arrangements are consistent with similar rules put in place when CGT rates were charged in-year in 2010. The anti-forestalling rules draw on the approach taken when changes were made to business asset disposal relief in 2020. Transitional arrangements are needed for a small group of taxpayers in some specific circumstances. Those taxpayers will have capital gains that are ascribed to the 2024-25 tax year in general and not to any particular point in the year, and because clause 7 makes in-year changes, the Government have a legal responsibility to clarify the capital gains tax liabilities of those taxpayers. To avoid taxing those individuals retrospectively, the legislation puts in place transitional arrangements. The relevant capital gains are treated as arising in the earlier part of the year and are therefore subject to the previous rate schedule. From April 2025, there will be no need for those arrangements to remain.
I now turn to anti-forestalling rules. Some taxpayers will have tried to lock in the old rate by entering into various artificial arrangements and specific anti-forestalling rules are needed to prevent abuse. The anti-forestalling rules target disposals entered into before 30 October 2024 but completed after that date for the main rate change and the investors’ relief lifetime limit reduction. They also target disposals entered into on or after 30 October 2024 for the phased rate changes applying to business asset disposal relief and investors’ relief. The provisions ensure that such people can still access the previous rates and the previous investors’ relief lifetime limit, but only where the disposal has not been artificially structured for the purpose of securing a tax advantage.
I now turn to clause 12, which concerns CGT on carried interest gains. Carried interest is a form of performance-related reward that is received by a small number of individuals who work as fund managers and, unlike other such rewards, carried interest can, where certain conditions are met, be subject to capital gains tax. Hon. Members will have heard the Chancellor announce at the Budget that the Government will reform the way carried interest is taxed, ensuring that that is fairer and in line with the economic characteristics of the reward. From 6 April 2026, a revised regime will tax all carried interest within the income tax framework with a 72.5% multiplier applied to the amount of qualifying carried interest that is brought into charge. The Government are also consulting on potential new conditions of access to the regime. Legislation to implement that revised regime will be included in a future finance Bill.
In advance of the implementation of the revised regime, the Government are acting now to increase the rates of capital gains tax that apply to carried interest. Clause 12 therefore increases the rates of capital gains tax for carried interest arising on or after 6 April 2025 from 18% and 28% to 32%, and from that date, the single CGT rate will apply to all relevant carried interest, subject to the same conditions as currently.
To conclude, the increases to the main rates of CGT to 18% and 24% represent a balanced and responsible approach to revenue raising, which will help the Government to improve the UK’s public finances and services while remaining competitive for investment. The clauses phase in the rate increase for business asset disposal relief over 18 months to mitigate impacts where the previous level of relief was factored into anyone’s plans to exit their business in the short term. That underlines the Government’s commitment to supporting entrepreneurs and recognising the vital role that small businesses play in our economy. In addition, the move to a single higher rate of CGT on carried interest at 32% demonstrates the Government’s commitment to decisive action now, while we rightly take the time to undertake technical consultation on the revised regime.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Just before I call the shadow Minister, I remind Members that, in Committee, I am Madam Chair or Madam Chairman.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is always a pleasure to see you in Committee and to serve under your chairmanship.
On behalf of the Opposition, I rise to speak to new clauses 4 and 5, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend, the shadow Chancellor. Before I do so, let me set the scene for clauses 7 to 12.
When announcing these changes in her Budget, the Chancellor said:
“We need to drive growth, promote entrepreneurship and support wealth creation”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 818.]
She said something similar to the BBC in 2023:
“We want Britain to be the best place to start and grow a business”
and that was why, she said
“I don’t have any plans to increase capital gains tax.”
This Bill corrects the record. Labour wants to increase capital gains tax, so clearly it does not have any plans for Britain to be the best place in which to start and grow a business. Is it any wonder that business confidence is now at the lowest level we have seen since the pandemic?
Clause 7 increases the main rates of capital gains tax from 10% and 20% to 18% and 24% respectively, with schedule 1 making consequential changes to reflect that these rates are now equal to those on residential property. The Office for Budget Responsibility rates the costings on this policy as “highly uncertain”. It says that
“these costings are among the most uncertain in the policy package, reflecting the range of potential behavioural responses.”
This Government are far too quick to ask others to explain how they would pay for Labour’s policies, when they are clearly failing to explain convincingly how their own policies would pay for themselves.
I wish to take this opportunity to highlight an issue raised with me by the Chartered Institute of Taxation. First, let me place on record my thanks to the organisation for its invaluable support. It has been informed by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs that it is too late to change the format of the relevant 2024-25 tax return pages to accommodate this in-year change. I would therefore be very grateful if the Minister could provide the following assurances to HMRC: first, that it will be properly equipped to implement this measure; secondly, that the changes will be published as widely as possible; and, thirdly, that an appropriate level of understanding will be shown to taxpayers contending with these complications.
Clauses 8 and 9 increase the rates for gains that qualify for business asset disposal relief and investors’ relief. From 6 April 2025, the 10% rate will increase to 14%. From 6 April 2026, it will rise again to 18%. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation has highlighted, because the increase to the main rates of capital gains tax is effective immediately, this leaves a window where people selling their business can save up to 14% in capital gains tax until April 2025. In other words, the tax changes in this Bill do not cultivate a start-up Britain; they incentivise British business owners to sell up and sell up soon. This could have been avoided—along with the administrative complications that I have already outlined—had measures in clause 7 been implemented from the start of the new financial year.
Will the Minister explain why the timings of these provisions appear to be so untidy, and, for that matter, how exactly they drive growth, promote entrepreneurship and support wealth creation? I simply say that if hon. Members are not satisfied with the Minister’s explanation, I encourage them to vote for new clause 5, which would require a proper assessment of the impact of this perverse incentive.
Clause 10 reduces the lifetime limit for investors’ relief from £10 million to £1 million, while clause 11 and schedule 2 bring in transitional rules and anti-forestalling provisions. On those anti-forestalling provisions, the Chartered Institute of Taxation notes that the anti-avoidance measures risk being “unfairly retrospective”, capturing those who entered into commercial contracts in good faith before the Budget, on the grounds that they do not satisfy the stringent requirement put down by the Treasury to be “wholly commercial”. Will the Minister tell the House why the wording is so tight? Widespread concern over being hit with “unfairly retrospective” taxation would have a chilling effect on parts of the economy. It would exacerbate uncertainty among those who already feel that they have been blindsided by this Government.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Madam Chair. I will talk mostly about new clause 5 on capital gains tax, but, given the remarks by the shadow Minister, I will make a few points on the broader matter and on incentives to start a new business.
My constituency of Earley and Woodley in the Thames Valley is one of the hottest destinations for business investment and for new start-ups in the tech and pharmaceutical sectors. I have met a number of those inspiring entrepreneurs to talk about their start of the business journey. As is widely known, when entrepreneurs start passionately with a project, they are thinking not about the disposal and taxation regime at the end of their journey, but about the infrastructure and the support that they will have around them that brings their idea to fruition. For the tech and pharmaceutical entrepreneurs in Earley and Woodley, that is about a transport infrastructure, a skills base, and schools, colleges and universities in the area that can produce the kinds of graduates who will then staff their company. It is about a regime that is welcoming to entrepreneurship and is welcoming for people to live in and to prosper in. For all those reasons, I very much support our Budget and the Budget that brings more investment to infrastructure across the UK.
First, I welcome the measures on capital gains tax introduced in new clause 5. Let me remind Conservative Members that it was Chancellor Nigel Lawson who, in a much more dramatic measure than that proposed today, equalised the rate of capital gains tax with income tax in 1988. That equalisation was proposed because of tax avoidance. To many people listening to the debate, capital gains tax will not be familiar because, like me, their main means of taxation will be income tax and they will not have come into contact with CGT.
For the purposes of understanding, let me illustrate what I mean by “tax avoidance”. The issue was raised with me by a retired consultant when I was canvassing in the summer in the north of my constituency. When I knocked on his door, he said, “What are you going to do about capital gains tax? I want you to ensure that this doesn’t happen any more.” He then proceeded to illustrate the means by which he had paid less income tax than he otherwise would have done through the capital gains tax system. It was a principled and honourable admission for him to make to his then parliamentary candidate on the doorstep.
Many of us pay income tax, and we are all familiar with the way that it is structured. Among those of us who do not receive income from payroll—that is, who do not work for a company—but have the ability to structure it as self-employed or consultancy income and funnel it into a business of our own creation, that is a channel by which many people avoid paying income tax on activities that are arguably income-like. That happens, as I said, for a minority of people in the UK. The vast majority do not have access to that route because they earn through working for other people through companies, and they are on the payroll and not able to structure their own companies. When those companies holding the—arguably—income revenues are disposed of, that is when capital gains tax comes into the picture. Of course, the rate of capital gains tax is much lower than the rate of income tax, and that is where the gap comes from that was illustrated by my retired constituent.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is important that the tax system is efficient in raising revenues, which is what our Budget sets out. The tax system must also be principled in ensuring that the tax purposes to which we have allocated certain measures raise the right taxes and are targeted towards the kinds of activities that are meant to be taxed. All of us in the Committee would probably agree that we should pay tax through a progressive system that distinguishes between different forms of revenue-raising activities, but that allocates people fairly and proportionately to those right and relevant activities.
I am reminded of the announcements that came out during the last Government regarding the tax affairs of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who paid 23% in average tax on his £2.2 million in earnings. That was of course possible because of the relatively low rate of capital gains tax that he was paying on the vast majority of his earnings, which came through capital and not through earned income.
Again, to the vast majority of people listening to the debate, I am sure that that is a reality far outside their understanding. The vast majority of people in the UK earn income through going out to work and working hard every day. It is for those people—the working people of this country—that this Budget has been made, so that we can lift livelihoods across the country by properly funding our public services and by closing the significant in-year overspend that the previous Government made of £22 billion. Through those measures, and by ensuring the financial stability of our tax system and the economic stability of our country, we will start to raise living standards across the UK. For those reasons, I very much support the measures.
The Chairman of Ways and Means
As colleagues will notice, the Speaker’s Chair is vacant, so I remind Members that the Chair should be addressed as Madam Chair or Madam Chairman. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I commend the Government for looking at capital gains tax as a potential source of revenue to get public services back on their feet, but we Liberal Democrats believe there was a better way of doing it. Right now, capital gains tax is unfair for everyone. Most people already pay too much capital gains tax when they sell a property or a few shares because the system does not account for inflation over the time they have owned them. At the same time, a tiny number of super-wealthy individuals—the top 0.1%—are able to exploit the capital gains system as effectively one giant loophole to avoid paying income tax like everyone else.
According to the latest HMRC statistics, 12,000 multimillionaires used the loophole to pay less than half the top rate of income tax on their combined £50 billion of income. Instead of raising capital gains tax across the board, we Liberal Democrats would have liked to see the Government properly reform CGT to make it much fairer. To provide a comparison, under the Labour Government’s proposals, the main rate of capital gains tax for basic rate taxpayers is being increased from 10% to 18% and, for higher and additional rate taxpayers, from 20% to 24%. According to the Government’s own statistics, the change will raise about £2.5 billion per year by 2029 to 2030. Under the Liberal Democrat proposal, we would have separated out capital gains tax from income, raised the tax-free allowance, provided a new allowance for inflation and had three different rates of capital gains tax. That would have raised £5.2 billion, more than twice the Government’s proposals.
As colleagues will hear, key to our proposal is the reintroduction of indexation—effectively, an allowance keeping people from paying tax on gains that are purely the result of inflation. That would be fair for ordinary people selling a family home or a few shares, but it would also incentivise long-term investment by ensuring that taxpayers are not penalised due to inflation if they hold their assets for a long period of time.
To summarise, the Liberal Democrat proposals for reforming capital gains tax would be fairer and would raise twice as much. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said our proposals would move CGT in a “sensible direction”. Our new clause 1 is incredibly simple. It would require the Government to produce a report setting out the impact of the changes to capital gains tax under the Bill on investment and on the disposable income of people in different income brackets. The objective behind the new clause is to illustrate to the Government that there is a fairer way to reform capital gains tax and to encourage the Government, in the spirit of constructive opposition, to look at our proposals in future years.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Madam Chair. I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in Committee of the whole House on a crucial Bill that underpins the new Government’s aim of fixing a tax system that has become less fair and less sustainable over 14 years of Conservative government. We will ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share, and we will increase funding for public services. I will not detain hon. Members long as we have debated the measures at length already, but I want to make a few brief comments on the portions of the Bill that relate to capital gains tax.
As other Members have pointed out, we need to remind ourselves of our starting point. As the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Paul Johnson, said in his response to the Budget:
“It does bear repeating that the fiscal inheritance”
—that this Government face—
“is truly dire.”
It is in that context that the Bill and the wider measures announced at the Budget should be seen. As the IFS has set out, and Members have mentioned, capital gains tax is paid by less than 1% of the adult population—about 350,000 people. If we break that down further, around 12,000 people—0.2% of the adult population—realise gains of more than £1 million, which account for two thirds of capital gains tax. That is 12,000 people—the main contributors to capital gains tax—paying a little bit more.
Clause 7 raises the headline rates of capital gains tax to 18% for gains within the basic income band for basic rate taxpayers and to 24% for those who pay higher rate income tax. Those levels have risen to match the unchanging residential property rates. The changes are welcome and perhaps not as substantial as was widely speculated in advance. It is important that we look at comparators with neighbouring countries. Those rates, even after the changes, compare well with our European neighbours. In France, as the Minister already said, capital gains tax sits at 30%, rising to 34% for high earners. Our closest neighbour Ireland—often seen as a haven for entrepreneurs who feel that the UK is not a good place to do business—charges 33%, and in Germany it is charged at 25%, plus a 5.5% solidarity surcharge on the tax paid.
Clause 12 includes a long-needed reform in the treatment of carried interest, and I am pleased that the Government are proceeding carefully with this long-overdue measure, moving us towards a tax regime where carried interest is within the income tax framework.
These measures will, I believe, contribute to the crucial revenue that must be raised to fix the foundations of our economy and repair our public services. We need to remind ourselves of the words of George Dibb, the associate director of economic policy at the Institute for Public Policy Research, who said of the changes in the Budget:
“After at least a decade of under-investment, there is now real hope that the government can start to fix the UK’s economic foundations.”
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
We in the SNP and the Scottish Government believe in progressive taxation. I think that is evident from the changes we have made to income tax since those matters were devolved. We would like a more progressive influence in the changes before us, rather than simply clawing at allowances and increasing the rate. Nothing in clauses 7 to 12 is designed to make matters better in Scotland, but at least the Labour party is consistent on that.
Inheritance tax and capital gains tax are increasingly out of step with modern activity in the UK economy. As the IPPR points out, since the 1980s, household wealth in the UK has risen from three times the national income to more than seven times, yet over the same timeframe wealth taxes have not risen at all as a share of that income. Taxing unearned wealth more fairly and efficiently is a legitimate long-term ambition in a state where the economy is on life support. Taxpayers are left wondering from this Budget whether more tax rises are on the way, after a substantial lack of clarity from the Chancellor, who said a week or so ago that the Government would not come back for more tax rises, or indeed more borrowing, but has since refused to echo those rather injudicious remarks. If she does not have the confidence to stand by her own statements, it is hard to imagine the effect on business and investor confidence across the UK.
The Chancellor should have worked with economic experts, such as those at the IFS, to create a fairer and more growth-friendly capital gains tax, but instead she has been captured by the same old Treasury dogma that has served the UK so badly over recent decades. Capital gains tax raises a growing amount of revenue—about £15 billion last year—partly reflecting the increased role of wealth accumulation in the UK, but it is still less than 2% of all tax take, and although CGT is paid by about 350,000 people each year, two thirds of receipts are from just 12,000 people with an average gain of £4 million.
CGT rates vary significantly across assets, and are almost always significantly lower than income tax rates. That rate differential is unfair and creates undesirable distortions, including to what people invest in and how long they choose to work. The IFS has criticised the Chancellor for choosing simply to increase CGT rates with no effort to carry out what it describes as much-needed reform. It also describes the whole design of CGT as “flawed”, adding:
“There are steps the government could and should take to make the tax fairer and less harmful to economic growth and well-being.”
Moreover, the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation proposes further changes to CGT, including aligning capital gains tax rates with income tax rates, introducing allowances to incentivise investment, taxing the increase in an asset’s value when it is inherited, and implementing an exit tax to prevent individuals from dodging UK taxes on gains made while residing in the UK. It estimates that that package would generate £14 billion, but none of those measures is in the Bill.
The IFS says that if the Chancellor chose to raise CGT rates while leaving the flawed tax base unchanged, she would be choosing to raise some limited revenue at the expense of weakening savings and investment incentives, and of further distorting which assets people buy and how long they hold on to them. The IFS says that that would not be the decision of a Chancellor who is serious about growth. Well, what a portent that turned out to be. She did not reform CGT, and look what happened to growth: forecasts were down immediately after first contact with this inverse Midas-touch Chancellor. It is clear that, in preparing for the Budget, she could have done with a full hour or more with the IFS, but I doubt that she would have listened.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We come to the final Back-Bench contribution, and have saved the best until last. I call Bobby Dean.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Before I address capital gains tax directly, I will make a few short remarks about the state of the national conversation about tax more generally, which I think is highly relevant. I note that tax is always something to be “hit by” in politics—it is violent; we are “hammered” by it—so the debate ends up focusing on who is deserving or undeserving of such punishment. As a result, few organisations are viewed as legitimate targets for taxation. Very rarely do we in politics have the bravery to talk about the virtue of paying tax—what it pays for, how it benefits us all, and why collectively contributing to schools, hospitals and physical infrastructure is sensible investment that we should be proud to make.
That is where the political conversation falls slightly out of step with the mood of the public. Believe it or not, I have had conversations about tax on the doorstep, and I mostly meet people who are proud to make that contribution. Let me be clear: this is not some special plea to talk about tax in a warmer, fuzzier way in order to improve the civility of public discourse. Nor should it be confused for advocacy of a high-tax based economy. I raise that point because our distorted public conversation means that we end up with a dysfunctional tax system that is neither efficient nor equitable. Where we are with capital gains tax is a good example of that.
Decades of wrangling over whether capital gains tax stifles entrepreneurship or is merely a ruse for the rich often results in a pretty reductive focus on rates. It seems that that happened again in the Budget, and I fear that we have missed an opportunity to make that tax better. As others have explained in putting capital gains tax into context, it is paid by around 350,000 people and raises around 2% of total tax revenue, and 12,000 people account for two thirds of that revenue. That tax does not necessarily affect a broad section of society, but it does play an important role in investment in the economy and in the overall sense of fairness in our system.
Let me start with the economy. It makes no sense to me for the Government to make changes to capital gains tax without sorting out the tax base. If we do not index capital gains for inflation, we are not really taxing the thing that we say we are taxing. We should be focused on the real gains—otherwise, we risk taxing those who simply hold on to an asset for a long time, and ultimately we end up discouraging long-term investment.
Secondly, we ought to be targeting capital gains tax at those making the larger gains—if large gains are to be had, those investments will be made anyway. Smaller gains, however—the stuff at the margins—are where investment decisions could be at risk. Raising the CGT allowance a bit would go a long way towards addressing that, as would designing better-targeted reliefs that more precisely encourage investment.
Finally, we come to capital gains tax rates, whose alignment with income tax rates is often called for. The Government have of course moved a bit on that, but a focus on rates alone means that an inherent unfairness remains. There would still be the sense that there is one rule for small businesses and another for the giants. When he appeared before the Treasury Committee, Paul Johnson of the IFS remarked on another unfairness: someone can simply leave the country for a few years and dispose of an assets overseas—somewhere like Monaco—and they are then no longer responsible for capital gains tax. That is another inherent unfairness.
Ultimately, with the proposed changes only, the system will continue to disproportionately benefit the very wealthiest. It is for that reason that I cannot support the measure. If it passes, I hope the Government will consider carefully the impact of the change in isolation, and whether further reforms are necessary in future. Our tax system needs to ensure that everybody pays their fair share, and I do not think the Government have quite got this one right yet.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We come to the Front-Bench wind-ups. Does the shadow Minister wish to speak?
Tulip Siddiq
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. I will take a few moments to respond to some of the points, and will then give the Government’s views on the proposed amendments. If there are questions that I do not answer, I will write to hon. Members.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) for his important speech and agree with his points about much-needed reform to our tax system. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for her powerful speech and wholeheartedly agree with her constituent, who seems very principled and knowledgeable.
To respond to the points made by the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), about the revenue impacts of the carried interest measure, the OBR-certified costings demonstrate that this measure raises revenue over the scorecard period. The Budget does deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitments on tax: estimated revenues for these policies have been adjusted for final policy decisions and to account for underlying changes in the OBR’s forecast, but overall, the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the tax measures raise over £1 billion more than was in the manifesto.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question about why the changes are being made in-year, the in-year rate changes were made to protect Exchequer revenues from the impacts of forestalling. It is common practice for tax changes to take effect from the date of the Budget. As for anti-forestalling, we would not expect the anti-forestalling provisions to apply to an ordinary commercial sale of an asset where the contract was entered into prior to 30 October. Those provisions target those who enter into artificial arrangements to lock in the pre-Budget tax treatments.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), talked about inflation indexation of CGT. Indexation previously existed when CGT rates were charged at income tax levels with a top rate of 40%. A rate schedule of 18% and 24% is significantly below those levels, so for the important reason of simplicity, indexation is not a part of the system.
New clause 1 would require the Government to present to Parliament a review of the capital gains tax package’s impacts on long-term investment, disposable income across the distribution, and tax revenue. In deciding on these changes to capital gains tax, the Government have already considered all three factors. On long-term investment, the OBR assessed the CGT package to have no measure-specific macroeconomic impact. On impacts across incomes, distributional analysis for all Budget measures combined is set out in the “Impact on households” publication. The Government do not normally publish the impacts of individual measures. Finally, the Government’s projection of the revenue raised by these CGT changes has been certified by the OBR and published in the Budget document. Every year, the Government publish the amount of CGT paid in the most recent tax year with available data, where table 3 breaks down gains by income. For those reasons, the proposed report is unnecessary, and I implore Members to reject the new clause.
New clause 4 would require the Government to publish a review within three months of the passing of this legislation covering various issues in connection with our reforms to the tax treatment of carried interest. As set out earlier, the CGT rates applicable to carried interest will increase to 32% from April 2025. This is a first step in advance of moving to a revised regime fully within the income tax framework from April 2026. The Government believe that their reforms will deliver increased fairness and place the tax rules on a more sustainable footing, while preserving our country’s position as a global fund management hub. We will also be undertaking extensive technical consultation ahead of legislating for the revised regime in a future finance Bill, which the House will of course have the opportunity to scrutinise. We therefore do not consider that new clause 4 is a necessary addition to the Bill that is before us today.
Gareth Davies
I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining all the things she has just set out, but I did not quite get an answer to the specific question of why it costs HMRC £4.5 million to execute this tax rise, which will not raise any money in the next year or the year after. Could she explain why this specific measure that only affects 3,100 people costs HMRC £4.5 million, but other tax increases cost hundreds of thousands of pounds?
Tulip Siddiq
If the shadow Minister looks carefully at the documents we have published, he will find all his answers written out very clearly there.
New clause 5 would require the Government to publish an impact assessment of the changes to business asset disposal relief, and to compare the impact of those changes with the number of claims that would have been expected if the rate had not been changed. Every year, the Government publish capital gains tax statistics, which include the number of business asset disposal relief claims for the most recent tax year with available data. The number of claims in 2024-25 compared with upcoming tax years will therefore become public information in time. Meanwhile, the fiscal impact of the changes are is out in the tax information and impacts note for this measure, which has been published online.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 16 to 18 stand part.
Schedule 3.
New clause 2—Report on fiscal effects: relief for investment expenditure—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report setting out the impact of the measures contained in clause 16 of this Act on tax revenue.”
This new clause would require the Government to produce a report setting out the fiscal impact of the Bill’s changes to the Energy Profits Levy investment expenditure relief.
New clause 3—Changes to energy (oil and gas) profits levy: review—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act coming into force, publish a review of the expected impact of the measures in sections 15 to 18 on—
(a) employment in the UK oil and gas industry;
(b) capital expenditure in the UK oil and gas industry;
(c) UK oil and gas production;
(d) UK oil and gas demand; and
(e) the Scottish economy and economic growth in Scotland.”
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
At the Budget in October, the Chancellor set out the decisions that we are taking to restore economic stability, put the public finances on a firm footing, and embed fiscal responsibility in the work of Government. Having wiped the slate clean of the mess we inherited, our Government can now focus on boosting the public and private investment that is essential for sustainable long-term growth. It is through sustainable economic growth across the UK that we will create wealth and provide security, making people across the country better off.
That goal of raising living standards in every part of the UK so that working people have more money in their pocket is at the heart of the Government’s plan for change that the Prime Minister set out last week. That plan also set out the Government’s commitment to securing home-grown energy, and to protecting bill payers by putting us on track to secure at least 95% clean power by 2030. Making the transition to home-grown energy has required us to take immediate action to unblock investment, including deciding to reverse the de facto ban on onshore wind. The Government have their part to play, alongside the private sector, in making sure that investment happens on the scale and at the pace that we need. That is why the clauses that we are debating are so important—they are a key mechanism for raising the funding that is needed for that investment to be delivered.
We are taking a responsible approach that recognises the role of businesses and their employees in the energy industries of today and tomorrow. Since we formed a Government, my colleagues and I have been working closely with the sector affected by the energy profits levy to make sure that the transition is managed in a way that supports jobs in existing and future industries. Our approach recognises that oil and gas will have a role to play in the energy mix for many years to come, during the transition, and it balances that with ensuring that oil and gas help to raise the revenue that we need to drive investment towards the energy transition. Our legislation delivers that approach, and I welcome the chance to set out the details of how it does so.
The clauses that we are debating concern the energy profits levy, a temporary additional tax on profits from oil and gas exploration and production in the UK and on the UK continental shelf. The levy was introduced by the previous Government in response to the extraordinary profits being made by oil and gas companies—and, it is fair to say, in response to substantial political pressure from Labour Members.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Does the Minister believe that oil and gas companies are still making extraordinary profits?
James Murray
I believe that it is fair that the oil and gas industry makes a reasonable contribution to the energy transition. We need to ensure that during the transition from oil and gas, which will play a key role in our energy mix for years to come, the industry contributes to the new, clean energy of the future. The way to have a responsible, managed transition is to work with the industry and make sure that it makes a fair contribution, but to not shy away from making that transition at the scale and pace needed.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Let me try to understand the Minister’s logic. First, he recognises that we will need oil and gas. Secondly, he is going to tax oil and gas companies. Thirdly, he is telling them that his Government are creating an environment in which there is no future for oil and gas, but he still expects them to invest. Where is the logic?
James Murray
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has given me a chance to set out why the Government plan is the right and balanced approach. We are ensuring that the oil and gas sector is supported in making the contribution that we know it will to our energy mix for many years to come, while asking it to contribute to the transition to clean energy. The oil and gas industry recognises that a transition to clean energy is under way. It wants to support investment and jobs in the industry but also to contribute to the transition. Taking a fair and balanced approach is the right way to protect the jobs and industries of today and tomorrow and, crucially, to protect bill payers, giving them permanently lower bills and greater energy independence. [Interruption.]
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
In the last financial year, the oil and gas industry made £6.1 billion in profit, despite the chuntering from Opposition Members. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives introduced the energy levy? We are simply ensuring that our oil and gas sector pays an equivalent sum, so that we can transition to a green energy future. This money is necessary for that transition to occur.
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are asking oil and gas companies to make a fair and reasonable contribution towards our transition to clean energy. That transition is under way, and it is important for oil and gas companies to make a contribution, but that should happen in a way that protects the jobs and industries of today and tomorrow.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The oil and gas giants were making eye-watering profits when the Conservative Government finally introduced a levy, although it had a loophole that let the oil and gas companies off the hook. The Government should support the Liberal Democrat amendment, which demonstrates how much of a missed opportunity that was, and how much money we could have raised, had the loophole been closed earlier.
James Murray
I am not entirely clear that that is what the Liberal Democrat amendment does. We have been clear that our intention is to end unjustifiably generous allowances. That is exactly what we are doing by abolishing the core investment allowance, which was unique to oil and gas taxation and is not available to any other sector in the economy.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
New research published in the last few days has found that fossil fuel companies reported profits of nearly $0.5 trillion during the 2022 energy crisis. By contrast, people struggled with fuel poverty and had to choose between heating and eating. One in seven households in my constituency is in fuel poverty. Does the Minister agree that the ability to extend and increase the energy profits levy is a key lever for addressing this imbalance and supporting households?
The Chairman
Order. That was neatly done, but interventions have to be very closely related to what we are debating here and now.
James Murray
I hope that my hon. Friend’s constituents will benefit from lower bills as a result of the investment that we are ensuring, by the public and private sectors, in the clean energy sources of the future.
We knew, when the Conservatives introduced the energy profits levy, that the extraordinary oil and gas profits were driven by global circumstances, including resurgent demand after covid-19, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Households in the UK, however, were particularly badly hit by higher oil and gas prices, as the Government at the time had failed to invest adequately in energy independence, or in measures such as home insulation. When the energy profits levy was introduced, an 80% investment allowance was also introduced, and this was later reduced to 29% when the levy rate increased from 25% to 35% in January 2023. An 80% decarbonisation investment allowance was later put in place for decarbonisation expenditure, which is money spent on the reduction of emissions from the production of oil and gas. The levy was initially set at 25%, but the previous Government increased it to 35% and extended it beyond 2025, first to 2028, and later to 2029.
As I mentioned, the Government recognise the continued role for oil and gas in the UK’s energy mix during the energy transition. We are committed to managing the transition in a way that supports jobs in existing and future industries, recognising that our offshore workers have the vital skills to unlock the clean industries of the future. I put on record my thanks to the offshore workers I met in Aberdeen in August for giving me some of their time and their views when I was there for a meeting with Offshore Energies UK and representatives of the sector. As I mentioned, it is essential that we drive both public and private investment in the transition to clean energy. Clause 15 therefore increases the energy profits levy by three percentage point—from 35% to 38%—from 1 November 2024. The clause also sets out the rules for apportioning profits for accounting periods that straddle the start date. As I have made clear, the money raised by these changes will help to support the transition to clean energy, enhancing our energy security and providing sustainable jobs for the future.
Clause 16 concerns allowances in the levy. The clause removes the 29% core investment allowance for general expenditure incurred on or after 1 November 2024, as I mentioned to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). The Government have been clear about our intention to end unjustifiably generous allowances, and that is exactly what we are doing by abolishing the core investment allowance. We are bringing the level of relief for investment in the sector broadly in line with the level of capital allowances available to other companies operating across the rest of the economy through full expensing, which we have committed to maintaining. The energy profit levy’s decarbonisation allowance will be retained to support the sector in reducing emissions.
Qualifying expenditure includes money spent on electrification of production, or on reducing venting and flaring. The retention of the decarbonisation allowance reflects the Government’s commitment to facilitating cleaner home-grown energy. However, in the light of the increase to the levy, clause 16 also reduces the rate of the decarbonisation allowance to 66% in order to maintain the same cash value of the tax relief per £100 of investment.
Clause 17 extends the sunset of the levy by one year from 31 March 2029 to 31 March 2030. To provide the oil and gas industry with long-term certainty and confidence in the fiscal regime, we are retaining the levy’s price floor, the energy security investment mechanism.
Dave Doogan
Certainty is only good if it relates to a positive outlook, not a negative outlook. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked a clear question about the duration. It was not about whether the sector pays fair taxes; we all believe that people should pay fair taxes. Does the Minister still believe that the industry is making extraordinary profits?
James Murray
I would like to explain to the hon. Gentleman how the energy security investment mechanism works, because that, to be fair, was put in place by the previous Government, and we are maintaining it. It says that if prices drop below a certain threshold for six months, the energy profits levy ceases early. That gives some certainty and predictability to the oil and gas sector. If prices go below that level, the sector can have confidence that the energy security investment mechanism will end the levy early. If that does not happen, the levy will continue, as we have said, until March 2030.
I am keen—I will set out a few more details later—to engage with the oil and gas sector on the regime post the energy profits levy, because it is important for oil and gas companies making decisions about investment to have certainty about what will happen up until March 2030, and to understand what the regime might be like thereafter. That is why I am looking forward to my conversations with the sector on what the post energy profits levy regime will look like.
Long-term certainty and confidence is being provided to the oil and gas sector by our retention of the levy’s price floor, the energy security investment mechanism, which I was explaining to the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan). It means that the levy will cease permanently if oil and gas prices fall below a set level for a sustained period. Furthermore, as I also just said, to provide stability for the long term, the Government will publish a consultation in early 2025 on how the tax regime will respond to price shocks once the energy profits levy comes to an end. That will give oil and gas producers and their investors predictability and certainty on the future of the fiscal regime, which will support their ability to continue investing, while also ensuring that the nation receives a fair return at a time of exceptional crisis.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Minister.
Gareth Davies
I rise to speak on behalf of the official Opposition on new clause 3, which stands in the name of the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride).
Clauses 15 to 18 concern the taxation of the oil and gas industry, which meets 75% of the UK’s household and industrial energy needs, with 50% of that need being met by the North sea. The sector supports more than 200,000 high-skilled jobs in this country, and that talent, along with the rest of the supply chain, will be crucial to our domestic energy transition. These realities underscore the imperative of a smooth and efficient transition and a fiscal regime that facilitates that, not least because the timeline for investment in the oil and gas industry is so long. If the fiscal regime is not calibrated correctly, the damage may be irreversible and the costs will be significant.
To recap the measures in the Bill, clause 15 increases the rate of the energy profits levy from 35% to 38%, bringing the headline tax rate on the sector up to 78%. Clause 16 removes the 29% investment allowance and reduces the rate of the decarbonisation investment allowance to 66%, so that the cash value of that allowance remains the same. Clause 17 extends the energy profits levy to 2030, at which point the Government are committing to implementing a successor regime to respond to price shocks once the levy expires. Clause 18 and schedule 3 legislate for certain payments into decommissioning funds to be treated as decommissioning expenditure so that they can attract tax relief.
The question that many are asking is this: do these measures add up to a fiscal regime that facilitates a smooth and efficient energy transition? Not according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, which concludes that on average over the forecast period, capital expenditure will be 26% lower, oil production 6.3% lower and gas production 9.2% lower compared with our March forecasts. Those are dramatic movements. The University of Aberdeen has warned:
“A rise in the EPL and loss of investment and capital allowances may have the unintended effect of accelerating decommissioning and decelerating the energy transition as companies face an additional cost burden.”
The Government have thankfully carried out a partial U-turn, retaining the decarbonisation allowance and the 100% first-year allowance introduced by the Conservative party, but if they were persuaded of the importance of those investment allowances and that removing them would do more harm than good, why persist with removing the main 29% investment allowance? What was it about that relief compared with the others that made them want to scrap it?
The Government talk about closing loopholes—we saw how well that went with carried interest—but these measures will contribute just 1% of the new revenue raised by the Budget across this Parliament. Does the Minister really think it is worth jeopardising some 50% of our domestic gas supply for that? The measures in the Budget essentially throw a massive spanner in the works for oil and gas, and it is unclear exactly what the Government’s rationale is for doing that.
When we brought in the levy, it was to tax extraordinary profits in extraordinary times. The revenue that we raised contributed to our efforts through policies such as the energy price guarantee and the energy bills support scheme to reduce energy bills for the British people. Today, as those extraordinary circumstances subside, Labour is ratcheting up the levy. That sends a mixed message to the industry ahead of the consultation on a successor regime. The terms of that regime will supposedly be set by the need to respond to price shocks, yet the Government’s justification for these measures has nothing to do with price shocks. Instead, they are all dressed up in language about the sector making a “fair contribution”, as the Minister said, to the Energy Secretary’s environmental ideological ambitions. What is the Government’s vision for the taxation of oil and gas in this United Kingdom—temporary windfall taxes or permanent climate levies? The Bill suggests the latter. I would be grateful for the Minister specifically commenting on that when he responds.
One way in which the Minister could give an indication and provide some long-term certainty would be to confirm further the future of the energy security investment mechanism, which he mentioned. As he kindly said, we introduced the ESIM so that when prices returned to normal levels, the energy profits levy would end; no more windfall profits would mean no more windfall tax. Will he confirm that the ESIM will remain in place up to 2030? I think he said so at the Dispatch Box, but I would be grateful for his reconfirming its end date. Will he go further and confirm that it will remain in the same condition as today? Will the price floor continue to be consumer prices index-adjusted?
The Treasury and the Minister have said that the ESIM will be retained, but the industry would like further confirmation, as I have set out. Will he also write to me with the Treasury’s latest modelling of future oil and gas prices to prove that the expected revenues are not at the expense of the ESIM? That modelling will be important for us to understand and get that reassurance and certainty on the ESIM. Having been in the Treasury, I know that that modelling is continually reviewed and produced; I would be grateful if he would write to me with that.
These are not purely academic questions. Our concern is for the hundreds of thousands of people employed by the UK oil and gas industry, for the UK’s energy security and for the efficient and smooth energy transition that we all care about. The Government should be not ideological but empirical in their approach, which is why we have tabled new clause 3, which would require a review of the impact of these measures on employment, investment, production, demand and the whole Scottish economy. If the Government have already made detailed assessments on those specific areas, we would be grateful for the Minister publishing them.
On every measure, the Budget has not survived contact with reality. Growth has been downgraded, real incomes depressed and business investment reduced, with broken promises and credibility completely shattered. It is not so much that the Labour Government take a different view on economic matters; it is that they take the wrong view. Labour is the party of the tax rise that loses money. We are the party of the tax cut that raises revenue. That is why Labour Governments always leave office with more unemployment, larger debt and higher taxes. They always run out of other people’s money, and this Government are set to do so in record time.
The Chairman of Ways and Means
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson once again.
Daisy Cooper
At the heart of the debate is a stark injustice, understood by every man, woman and child on the streets of Great Britain. In the last few years, oil and gas giants have made eye-watering profits—in many cases, they are profits that they did not expect to make—and they have made them off the back of Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine and global supply chain issues that caused energy prices to soar. At the same time, people have seen their living standards drop and their energy prices soar. In too many cases, people have had to choose between heating and eating.
We Liberal Democrats were the first party to call for a tax on oil and gas windfall profits back in October 2021, but it was not until May 2022 that the previous Government eventually introduced the energy profits levy. It was half-hearted and woefully late. If it had been brought in when we had called for it, there would have been additional revenue to reduce people’s energy bills and launch an emergency home insulation scheme, reducing energy consumption, which would have been good for the climate, and reducing people’s bills, which would have been good for their pockets.
The previous Government effectively let oil and gas giants off the hook, by initially setting the energy price levy at just 25% and putting in place a massive loophole in the form of the investment allowance. That allowed the oil and gas giants to get away with vast sums at taxpayers’ expense, with the excuse of investments that they would have made anyway. In essence, the Conservatives gave them tax relief on polluting activity when they should have been doing everything to raise funds to reduce people’s bills and urgently insulate homes.
Thanks to the investment allowance—the big loophole—in 2022, Shell admitted that it had paid zero windfall tax despite making the largest global profit in its 115-year history: a profit of £31 billion. As some colleagues in the Committee have referred to, energy prices have come down since those record levels of 2022, but the oil and gas producers have still seen huge profits. In 2023, Shell saw its profit come down from £31 billion, but it still made £22.3 billion.
Harriet Cross
How much of that profit was made in the UK versus globally?
Daisy Cooper
To be honest, I do not know what the distinction is between global profits and UK profits. The point is that the levy is put on UK profits made out of UK operations. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that when her constituents cannot afford to put their heating on, she should not miss the opportunity to raise taxes from the big oil and gas companies.
As I said, Shell made a profit of £22.3 billion in 2023, and BP saw profit of £11 billion, its second highest in a decade. I hope the Committee agrees that where those profits are made on UK operations, they should pay their fair share. We are glad that the current Government have listened to calls from Liberal Democrats and others and finally scrapped the unfair investment allowance loophole, but we would like the Minister to give the Committee some clarity on how much money will be raised, particularly through the abolition of the carve-out. By extension, we would be able to see how much money could have been raised under the previous Government but was gifted to the large gas giants. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like it, but their constituents are choosing between heating and eating. People should know just how much money could have been raised and how much will now be raised through this measure.
Harriet Cross
I will speak to clauses 15 to 18 briefly, but mainly to new clause 3 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). It would require the Chancellor to publish within three months a review of the expected changes introduced by the Bill on employment, capital expenditure, production, demand and the economy. It is inherently sensible, and considers the importance of the oil and gas sector to regional and national employment and economic growth in the UK.
On the need to review the impact on employment, 82% of direct jobs in the oil and gas sector are located in Scotland. My Gordon and Buchan constituency is at the heart of that. New clause 3 would review the impact of the changes to employment across the country, as it is not just direct jobs that are on the line but supply chain and other indirect jobs. Of those, 90,000 are in Scotland and 200,00 are across the UK.
Dave Doogan
The hon. Member highlights the economic consequences of this heading south on jobs in Scotland. Is she surprised and disappointed, as I am, that not a single Scottish Labour MP has turned up to take part in this vital debate?
Harriet Cross
We were saying a moment ago how extraordinary it is that they are not here to stand up for their main industry. That shows how much they value or care about jobs across Scotland.
We are seeing warning signs already of the impact of these measures. Just a week after the Budget, Apache confirmed that it would cease operations in the North sea, saying:
“The onerous financial impact of the EPL, combined with the substantial investment that will be necessary to comply with regulatory requirements, makes production of hydrocarbons beyond 2029 uneconomic.”
According to the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, 100,000 jobs may be at risk across the UK because of the changes. Offshore Energies UK says that 35,000 jobs directly related to projects that may not now go ahead are at risk. New clause 3, which would allow the Government the opportunity to assess and account for the impact of the Bill’s changes on jobs relating to the oil and gas sector, the supply chain and the wider economy, should be welcomed across the Committee.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
On the impact that increased tax on the industry will have on jobs, was my hon. Friend as disappointed as I was to hear the Liberal Democrats talking only about how much cash can be raised from an industry, without asking how many jobs would be affected across Scotland and the UK, or about the impact on the economy as a whole?
Harriet Cross
Absolutely; sometimes there is a complete disconnect in this place between how much we can tax and squeeze something dry and what that does to investment. These companies, especially the global ones, do not have to invest in the UK—they can invest across the world. They are choosing to invest here at the moment, and therefore we get jobs, opportunities and employment. That investment can go abroad, and if it does, it will take jobs with it, to the detriment of all of us, but particularly us in north-east Scotland.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Lady not recognise that we are in a transition period, which we need in order to get to net zero? Of course, we need to protect jobs, but the transition to net zero is essential.
Harriet Cross
I recognise that, which is why it is so important that we protect the jobs and the investment. The companies in our supply chain have the skills and expertise that will drive the transition, as will the investment that comes in, and that is why we need to keep them.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Lady makes a good point about the mobility of investment in the oil and gas industry. Is it not ironic that, since we will need oil and gas, if we tax companies on production in the United Kingdom, they will simply produce elsewhere, other Governments will get the revenue from the tax on that production and we will pay more for imports?
Harriet Cross
Exactly. There must be a balance between production and demand—I will come to demand later. There is no point reducing our domestic production while our demand stays the same, because we will only fill the gap with oil and gas from abroad, which is produced with a higher carbon intensity in poorer working environments, where overseas jobs and investment will take precedence over investment at home. It makes no sense that while we are using oil and gas—the Minister himself confirmed that we will be for a while—we do not prioritise taking it from our own North sea domestic basins.
New clause 3 also asks for a review on capital expenditure and investment in the UK. In Scotland alone, oil and gas contributed £19 billion of gross standard volume. In the UK, it contributed £27 billion. A 2022 report by Experian showed that for every £1 million of investment by the oil and gas industry, 14 jobs and £2.1 million of GVA are added. This industry is blatantly a net benefit to the UK and the Exchequer, and one in which we should encourage investment and capital expenditure, not an environment where the returns do not justify the risk of investment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) said, the OBR’s own figures show that capital expenditure will fall by 26%, and therefore production of oil by 6.3% and gas by 9.2%, because of these changes. We must ask, can the UK afford this? Maybe those were the parameters that the Exchequer and the Treasury are looking for, if they see them as allowable. But if that is the case, what assessment has been made of the impact on the economy and jobs across the UK?
The OEUK has put the projected drop in production down to a rapid decline due to underinvestment over the decade. Under new clause 3, we can assess the impact of the changes to the EPL and head this off to begin with because, as I said, it is important that while we have demand, we have production. It has been confirmed that we will need oil and gas in the UK for years to come, but through the changes to the EPL in the Bill, in particular clauses 15 and 16, which increase the EPL by 3% and remove the investment allowances, the Government are choosing to make our homegrown domestic energy sector so uncompetitive that current investment falls away and future investment is no longer on the cards.
We cannot afford to lose investment because, as I said, it will drive the transition. It is so important that it is protected now, to help us bring the transition forward quickly and efficiently into the future. Clauses 15 to 18 were introduced without adequate consultation on the impact assessment. New clause 3 simply asks for proper scrutiny of their impact. If the Government are confident in their approach, why resist a responsible request for transparency? My Gordon and Buchan constituents, and people in Scotland working in the oil and gas sector and across the UK, deserve to understand how these changes will impact their livelihoods.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Before I call Dave Doogan, I remind Members that if they wish to speak, they need to be bobbing consistently—I cannot read people’s minds to put together a speaking list.
Dave Doogan
The changes to the EPL, particularly those set out in clauses 15 and 17, will have a hugely damaging effect on jobs and the Scottish economy. This is also an inauspicious day for Scotland in this so-called United Kingdom as Norway’s sovereign wealth fund records a €1.7 trillion breakthrough, while Scotland’s oil wealth has been squandered by successive Westminster Governments. Norway gets financial security in perpetuity; Scotland gets Labour’s bedroom tax, cuts to winter fuel payments for our elderly and the highest energy prices in the G20—that is the Union dividend wrapped up and served on a plate right there. More than £400 billion has flowed from our waters to the Treasury over the years, with very little coming back in the other direction. Rather than reverse the train, the Labour Government have, with this increase to the EPL, chosen to accelerate it.
The cumulative effect of clauses 15 to 18 will sound the death knell for Scotland’s hydrocarbon production in advance, crucially, of the transition—economically illiterate, fiscally incompetent and with industrial suicide as the result. A windfall tax is supposed to be a tax on extraordinary profits, yet the extraordinarily high global oil and gas prices that preceded the introduction of the tax have long since abated. Through these changes, the Labour party jeopardises investment in Scotland’s offshore energies and risks the future of our skilled workforce and our ability to hit net zero while employing those workers. Analysis from Offshore Energies UK shows that the increase and extension of the EPL risks costing the economy £13 billion and putting 35,000 jobs at risk.
The analysis from OEUK also shows a collapse in viable capital investment offshore under these changes from £14.1 billion to £2.3 billion in the period ’25-29. It is increasingly apparent that the Government do not really understand how investment horizons work offshore. They are not on a month-to-month basis; they take years to work up. This loss of economic value impacts on not only the core sector, but domestic supply chain companies, many of whom exist in my constituency, which have an essential role to play in the just transition.
The Labour party promised that there would be no cliff edge, yet it has concocted one for the 35,000 workers whose jobs this EPL change puts at risk. Labour had claimed that these changes would keep the UK in line with Norway, but the regime after Labour’s changes cannot be compared to that of Norway, which allows companies a maximum £78 of relief per £100 expenditure —in the UK, this relief would be £46.25. After these past couple of weeks, I am given to wondering if those on the Treasury Front Bench can actually count.
Changes to the EPL will hinder the just transition. The Government argue that the reduction in the rate of the decarbonisation investment allowance to 66% will maintain the overall cumulative value of relief for investment expenditure following the rate increase, reflecting the fact that this relief will increase in value against a higher levy rate. However, the policy still reflects a political choice by Labour to deprioritise investment in decarbonisation. Rather than allowing more valuable decarbonisation relief as the solitary positive by-product of its tax hike, Labour has striven to ensure that there is absolutely no silver lining to this fiscal attack cloud on Scotland’s energy industry.
Mr Snowden
At the heart of this, when we have comparisons to Norway, is a sheer focus on trying to squeeze as much taxation out of the industry as possible, without a focus on how to become more competitive. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what we need for jobs and for energy security in the UK is to compare ourselves to the most competitive oil and gas economies in the world, and not those that squeeze and tax the most out of the industry and kill jobs?
Dave Doogan
Exactly. The hon. Gentleman raises the question of jobs, and the Government are playing fast and loose with jobs in the oil and gas sector. They are playing Russian roulette. They do not seem to understand that when what they have got wrong comes home to roost, they cannot just say, “Sorry, we got that wrong.” When it is gone, it is gone—they cannot bring it back. This is 2024, not 1972. We are already in the closing chapter of the sector; it will not be coming back. This Government seem to completely misunderstand that.
The simple truth is that the UK state cannot meet net zero or create green growth if Labour’s policies to hack away at investment in both the domestic workforce and the sector are allowed to progress. It is clear that the Labour party is abandoning Scotland’s existing energy sector, and putting at risk the just transition into the bargain. With these changes to the EPL, Labour will be creating the worst of all worlds: it will starve industry of investment, sacrifice the jobs of those who can deliver net zero, threaten energy security, keep energy bills high and harm the economy of Scotland, while at the very same time failing to invest the money required to truly deliver against a green transition.
Wera Hobhouse
I rise to speak briefly in support of new clause 2. I welcome the Government finally scrapping the unfair investment allowance loophole for the oil and gas giants, which the Liberal Democrats have advocated for and called for since the previous Government introduced the levy—too late, and half-heartedly—in May 2022. Oil and gas companies made eye-watering profits off the back of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and global supply chain problems that caused energy prices to soar. While the oil and gas giants saw record profits, my constituents in Bath and others across the country faced a cost of living crisis.
The previous Government have a lot to answer for. They sat and watched as the oil and gas giants lined their pockets off the back of people struggling with their bills. It did not have to be that way. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to hear it, but it did not have to be that way. Those were the political choices the previous Government made.
The measures announced by the Government in this Bill are welcome, in particular the removal of the 29% investment allowance except for investments on decarbonisation. This has been a Liberal Democrat policy, and I am pleased the Government have picked up on it and that it will now become a reality.
We Liberal Democrats were the first to call for a tax on oil and gas windfall profits back in October 2021. While the previous Government did eventually introduce the energy profits levy, they did so half-heartedly and woefully late in May 2022. It matters that we repeat that again and again: it is something that the previous Government failed to do. That Government let the oil and gas giants off the hook by putting in place a massive loophole in the form of the investment allowance. It was thanks to that allowance that in 2022, Shell admitted it had paid zero windfall tax, despite making the largest global profits in its 150-year history of £31 billion. That cannot be right while our constituents have been struggling to pay their bills.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) has tabled new clause 2, which would require the Government, as we have already heard, to produce a report about the fiscal impact of the Bill’s changes to the EPL and relief for investment expenditure. We cannot lose sight of the bigger picture. To avoid a repeat of the energy crisis, we must end our reliance on oil and gas. Investing in renewables would mean cheaper energy across the country. We would no longer be reliant on dictators such as Vladimir Putin who use natural gas as a weapon. As well as being more affordable, renewables are the best route to energy security. It is very disappointing to hear Conservative Members advocate for business as usual. We need to transition away from oil and gas.
Harriet Cross
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. At what point does she believe we will be fully reliant on renewables?
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is absolutely by putting in place the measures for transition that we will meet net zero. If we continue with business as usual and continue to listen to people who ultimately do not understand that unless we get to net zero our whole economy will suffer, then people will suffer. We will also have big, big problems with issues such as huge migration if climate change can rule unchallenged. This is why the Liberal Democrats believe the transition to net zero is important and why we need to put measures in place to make that happen. It is disappointing that the Conservatives, as the previous Government and now the Opposition, still do not understand how urgently we require climate action.
Dave Doogan
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. What is her understanding of what will happen to domestic consumption of oil and gas products in the United Kingdom if the domestic industry atrophies but domestic demand still exists? What will happen in that scenario? Where will the oil and gas come from, or will we just give it up overnight?
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The whole argument is that we will continue to rely on oil and gas for the time being, but unless we start to change something, on the current projection we will not get to net zero as urgently as we need to. Progress has been too slow, so the longer we hesitate the more difficult it will become. The new Government have understood that urgency, and the Liberal Democrats support them in dealing with this issue with more urgency than we saw from the previous Government. I therefore repeat that we support the measures, but we would like the Government to support our new clause 2. As I said, it will show what we can raise by closing the loophole. It would by extension, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans clarified, show what has been squandered by the previous Government—money that could have been invested.
Tristan Osborne
According to the New Economics Foundation, the previous Government’s levy raised £10.6 billion for the oil and gas industry, but the industry invested only £3.6 billion of that in new capital projects, taking the remainder as sheer profits. Does the hon. Lady agree with me that that is exactly why it was a foolhardy proposal? The profits made did not go into investing in new capital assets, but largely went into shareholders’ pockets.
Wera Hobhouse
Indeed. I could not agree more and I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the figures. That is why something needed to change and something needed to give. I repeat that I hope Government Members can support our new clause 2, because it matters. It will lay open what has been squandered and what difference we could make if we close the loophole.
Yuan Yang
Thank you, Ms Ghani. I apologise for my inconsistent bobbing. I am still learning when to stand up, but what has gone up and stayed up are the record profits of the oil and gas majors. I will start my speech on that topic, and will go on to speak about where those profits have come from and, finally, what the proceeds of our EPL will go to fund.
First, on those record profits, I think all Members of the Committee agree that the record profits in the oil and gas industry in 2022 were excessive. In 2023, however, the profits for Shell, the largest oil and gas major in Europe, barely decreased from the previous year. In fact, if we take its profits from the first half of this year, Shell looks likely to eclipse even those of last year. In the first half of this year, Shell has had profits of $14 billion. Half of that went to share buybacks, which do nothing to fund the decarbonisation that is so necessary to secure the future of energy production here in the UK and around the world. Those record profits, much of which have been handed back to shareholders, are going in the opposite direction of what ordinary families and working people need. Rather than reinvest in the transitions of the future, I would argue that the Conservative party is looking at the industries of the past and clinging on to a past that is quickly fading from reality.
Secondly, let us look at where those profits have come from. The House of Commons Library states that generally lower wholesale prices in the last year led suppliers to start offering fixed tariffs, as of summer 2023. However, they have been far more cautious in pricing those tariffs, with prices close to the level of the energy cap. Any return to competition in the market is expected to be slow. That reflects the state of affairs we face today. The wholesale prices of oil and gas—as an example, look at the price of Brent crude in the market today—are back below the levels they were pre the Russian invasion of Ukraine, yet the retail prices facing ordinary working families in the UK are still far above those levels. What happens in the middle? The profits are being taken by the oil and gas companies. Largely, they are not being reinvested in the productive sectors of the future, but being paid back to shareholders.
In any market where the return of competition is expected to be slow, there is a role for the Government to regulate the fair share of proceeds—who gets the surplus from that market. Here I pause and say that when we look across the Committee to who is arguing for the interests of working people and who is arguing for the interests of the oil and gas profit-making giants, the political divisions are clear. There are schools in my constituency that are fundraising to insulate themselves. The Maiden Erlegh school where I live is asking its parent association to provide better wooden frames for its windows, because they leak in winter. That is the public estate that our Government have been elected to fix and repair. We will set about doing so with the profits from the levies set out in the Bill we are discussing today.
Harriet Cross
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. She says it is clear who is on the side of working people versus the companies. My constituents are the people working in the oil and gas sector. They are the ones most at risk of losing their jobs if the changes brought in through the EPL go wrong. I am on the side of working people, and I am on the side of my constituents. No matter what MPs across the House say, I will always fight for my working people in Gordon and Buchan who just happen to be working people in the oil and gas sector.
Yuan Yang
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and, at this point, refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my support from the unionised voices of those who work in the sector to which she referred. I commend the Government’s green prosperity plan to initiate a skills transition, and provide funding for it, so that those workers can profit from the industries of the future rather than the industries of the present and the past.
As the Minister said, the energy profits levy will raise £2.3 billion over the current Parliament, which will go towards the funding of, for instance, Great British Energy. GB Energy, whose headquarters are in Aberdeen, will bring innovation in green technologies not only to Scotland but to the whole of the UK. I will forgive, for a moment, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) for perhaps not recognising my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker)—I know that an awful lot of new Scottish Members were elected in the last general election, and it must be difficult to learn all their faces. I ask the hon. Member to reflect on the possible reasons for the election of a record number of Scottish Labour Members while he sets about learning their names and faces.
The Government’s auction of 130 wind, solar and tidal energy projects in the latest round of the contracts for difference scheme points the way to the future. It points the way to the generation of 95% of the UK’s energy through green and decarbonised energy by 2030; to a transition that everyone in this Committee, and certainly everyone on the Government Benches, is looking forward to seeing in the next 10 years; and to the delivery of the local power plan, which will support local energy projects in communities such as mine. I welcome the funding of local projects such as Reading Hydro, which takes hydroelectric energy from the Thames, and the work of Reading Community Energy Society, which generates solar energy on the rooftops of the University of Reading and rooftops across my constituency. I look forward to all those projects and to the projects of the future, which is why I commend the measures that we are discussing today.
Sammy Wilson
The Government have set a number of objectives that they wish to achieve over the next five years. Central to those objectives are growth, highly paid jobs, energy security, and increased investment. However, when I look at clauses 15 to 17, I ask myself, “Have the Government gone mad?” They are undermining the very objectives that they are seeking to achieve through their policy of taxation, a policy that I believe is driven more by green ideology and by prejudice against some high-earning companies than by any economic logic. The economic logic of these proposals, and indeed the predictions made by those who have fed in the data and the information about them, indicate that, at least in our major oil and energy industry, investment will go down, production will go down, and highly paid jobs will go down.
The hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) said that hers was the party that was interested in ordinary workers. As has already been pointed out, no Scottish Labour Members are taking part in the debate. I suggest that the 100,000 workers in Scotland who depend on the oil and gas industry feel abandoned today because there is no one here to defend them—although I have to say that if I were a Scottish Member I might not want to stick my head over the parapet, defend measures such as these, and then have to go back to my constituents to explain. I suspect that they will go through the Lobby and vote for those measures, but—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) is opening her arms and saying that she is from Scotland. I look forward to hearing her speak later in the debate in defence of these measures, which will cost jobs.
We have heard that those jobs will be replaced by highly paid, skilled jobs in the renewables industry, but there is little evidence of that so far. Indeed, if we look at the sources of the materials and the providers of, for instance, wind turbines, we see that the skilled jobs are not in Britain. We are making ourselves dependent on countries such as China which have control of the earth metals and valuable metals that are required to provide the necessary equipment for the renewables industry.
Mr Snowden
The right hon. Member has touched on an important point. Meeting the Government’s 2030 target and creating the green jobs to which he has referred will require two technologies that have not yet been tried and tested at scale, carbon capture and battery storage. Why would we gamble such an important 100,000-job industry in favour of technologies that have not even been tried and tested at scale?
Sammy Wilson
It is not just that they have not been tried and tested. There is also an acceptance—indeed, it is the Government’s own stated position—that even with those technologies, we will be reliant on, and will need, oil and gas not until 2030 and not even until 2040, but beyond 2050. If we do not extract as much oil and gas from our own resources here in the United Kingdom, where will we get it from? We will get it from abroad, which brings us to the issue of energy security.
The places where energy is likely to be produced will not be stable countries, countries that will always be favourable towards us, or countries that are ruled by rational rulers. It will come from countries where rulers are irrational, and take political decisions about who they do or do not trade with on a whim. The idea that we will rely on fossil fuels until well beyond 2050 but not produce them ourselves—in fact, we are going to discourage companies from producing them in the United Kingdom, even though we know that we have the resources—and somehow or other we will still guarantee security of supply, and security of energy, for our constituents is just madness.
Wera Hobhouse
I have a very simple question to ask the right hon. Gentleman: does he believe that climate change is happening and that we need to get to net zero by 2050, or does he believe it is all a hoax?
Sammy Wilson
Only a fool would say that climate change is not happening. Climate change has occurred in all the time that the earth has been in existence. Of course it happens, and of course it is happening. The hon. Lady asks me a question to which I think anybody could give an easy answer. Yes, climate change is happening, but does that mean that we have identified all the sources of the change in our climate? Does it also mean that we should distort our economy, in such a way as she would suggest, to try to make changes to the world’s climate, especially given that other countries are not making any changes to their economy and are not following our lead? They are simply ignoring us and doing what they believe is best for their own economies.
The second point I want to make is that we are leaving ourselves open to a situation in which companies that we need to invest in energy production will not do so. The OBR has made that quite clear, but even if it had not made its predictions, economic logic should make us understand that if we take investment allowances away from people and tax them, they will have less money to invest.
The Minister makes a great point: by putting all these measures on the statute book, he creates certainty for the industry. He does create certainty, because anybody looking at the Bill knows for certain what the future entails: they are going to be taxed until the pips squeak, so they will look for other places to go and make their investment. He argues that putting out a tax plan somehow gives assurance to companies, but sometimes it confirms their prejudice that Britain will not be a place where they have a future, or where they wish to invest.
I turn to the third impact of these measures, building on a point made by the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley. The Government’s whole approach is to tax oil and gas companies, get money, and help working people by putting it into schools and so on. But the predictions are that we will not get more revenue, because if there is less production, there is less tax to be paid. If there is less tax to be paid, the Government have less revenue to invest in the things that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish them to invest in. Where does that tax go? It will go to foreign countries, because that is where production will take place and where the oil companies will be taxed. They will get taxed where they make their profits. If they are not making any profits in the United Kingdom, they will not pay any revenue in the United Kingdom. They will take their production and tax revenue elsewhere.
There does not appear to be any economic logic to this proposal, other than that the oil companies are seen as bad so the Government have to tax them, even though they are taxed heavily already, and that the Government want to ensure that we have this transition to net zero, even though we know that we will still need the product that the oil companies produce for many decades into the future and we will be turning our back on that production in the United Kingdom.
If the Government are so sure that this cunning plan is going to work—I think Baldrick would have been embarrassed by this cunning plan, I have to say—they should not fear any examination of it. They should welcome it. In fact, maybe once the assessment is done, they will be able to point to red faces on the Opposition side of the House. If I were as certain as the Minister is that his plan was going to work, I would be saying, “Right, we’ll do the assessment and we’ll make you eat your words.” I suspect that the reason that new clause 2 will be rejected today is that the red faces and the eating of words are going to be on the Government’s side of the House. Unfortunately, the people who will suffer will be the hundreds of thousands of people facing rising fuel bills, the 100,000 workers who will face redundancies and an industry that we very much need in this country going into decline.
Dave Doogan
On a point of order, Madam Chair. The last but one speaker, the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), called me out regarding my perfectly legitimate comment that there was not a single Scottish Labour MP in here. I chose my words carefully, taking part in this debate. I appreciate that there is a Labour Member here who, unless I am very much mistaken, is fulfilling the role of a Parliamentary Private Secretary and therefore will not be taking part in the debate. I ask your guidance, Madam Chair, on whether it is legitimate to call somebody out in a debate and not give them an opportunity to respond. I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley to correct the record, but she refused to give way. How can we correct the record to underline the fact that there is not a single Scottish Labour MP in here taking part in this debate on Scotland’s energy?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is not a matter for the Chair, and therefore I cannot provide advice as to how he can put that on the record. He will know as well as other hon. Members do that it is entirely at the discretion of the individual contributing at that time whether or not they take an intervention, but he has done good work in putting his point on the record via the mechanism of a point of order.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I would like to echo the arguments made by the hon. Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) . I rise to speak to whether clause 18 and schedule 3 should stand part of the Bill. I argue that both should be omitted, to remove the proposed new tax relief for carbon capture and storage installations as currently drafted. The tax regime for oil and gas is riddled with reliefs, exemptions and loopholes. The windfall tax introduced by the last Government was widely reported, but was slightly less reported was the increased tax relief that went along with it, which allowed oil and gas companies to deduct 91% of their capital investment costs from their tax bill.
We are now many years into an escalating climate crisis, and one that the oil companies have known they were causing since at least 1977. There is absolutely no excuse for public subsidies that incentivise fossil fuel companies to expand their operations. So while I welcome the increase in the rate of the energy profits levy and the reduction of the investment allowance, I want to highlight the fact that, because of other reliefs that still exist, North sea oil and gas companies will still be able to offset 84% of capital expenditure against tax in relation to their expansion of operations.
Mr Snowden
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that capital reliefs are about attracting investment that creates jobs and secures energy security for this country? If UK countries are to make such investments, we have to be competitive in the global market. If we do not make those investments, what does he think will happen to the industry and the 100,000 jobs that go with it?
Adrian Ramsay
As we heard earlier, it is vital that there is strong Government support and a dedicated plan to ensure transition to alternative job opportunities for anyone working in the oil and gas sector. Having a background in the renewable energy sector, I strongly support Government incentives and policies that will help that sector to expand, so that we create jobs and skills. My amendments would reverse the Government’s tax relief on the conversion of oil and gas infrastructure to carbon capture and storage installations. There are many other reliefs in the tax regime that should be addressed, but they are out of the scope of the Bill.
Carbon capture and storage is a complex area. There are different types of technology that use different techniques. I support further research and development in relation to the hard-to-abate sector, but CCS cannot be used as a fig leaf to hide the expansion of fossil fuel operations. In reality, after years of hype, the result is very little carbon—less than 0.1% of annual emissions—being captured globally. Most of the carbon dioxide that has been successfully captured has been used to extract more oil. The UK has also been criticised for targeting most of its CCS at so-called blue hydrogen, the use of which would increase our long-term reliance on gas and generate more carbon emissions.
The proposed tax relief is too blunt an instrument to make a useful contribution to decarbonisation. The role of CCS is still relatively untested, so it is vital that we do not bake in over-reliance on that technology. Public funding for CCS should be restricted to research and development, and to projects that would clearly help to decarbonise hard-to-abate sectors. It absolutely must not be a green light for fossil fuel companies to carry on with business as usual and an expansion of operations. Will the Minister explore the idea of reviewing the measures, in the light of what I have suggested?
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
In October 2021, we Liberal Democrats were the first to call for a tax on oil and gas windfall profits, so I am glad that the Bill is finally scrapping the unfair investment allowance loophole, after years of oil and gas companies not paying their fair share under the Conservatives. I urge the House to adopt our amendment, which calls on the Government to set out exactly how much money is being raised through the scrapping of the investment allowance loophole, and how much money was gifted by the last Government to the oil and gas giants. My constituents in Yeovil deserve full transparency.
I encourage the Government to use the money raised by closing the loophole to address energy and environmental issues impacting my constituents in Yeovil, such as fuel poverty, particularly among pensioners; the need to protect homes and businesses from flooding; the need to support farmers with green investments; and helping homeowners to install clean heating.
In conclusion, we must ensure that our constituencies get a fair deal out of the Bill. If the average taxpayer is expected to pay their fair share, then so must the wealthiest individuals and companies in this country. There cannot be one rule for them and another for the rest of us.
James Murray
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I will respond to some of the points raised, and set out the Government’s views on the new clauses. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), asked for confirmation of our decision to retain the energy security investment mechanism. I hope that he will take yes for an answer, because yes, I can confirm that the ESIM will remain in effect until 31 March 2030, when the energy profits levy is due to end. It will continue to be adjusted in line with consumer prices index inflation in future financial years. I hope that sets his mind at rest on that point.
The hon. Gentleman asked about modelling the impact of the energy profits levy. I am sure that he will remember from his time in the Treasury the role that the Office for Budget Responsibility plays. He will see that in the report that it published alongside the Budget, it forecast £12.6 billion being raised from the levy over the forecast period. Of course, the OBR will provide updated forecasts next year.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members kept raising the phrase “extraordinary profits” when talking about trying to understand the position that the oil and gas sector is in. That links directly to the energy security investment mechanism, because prices remain higher than the price floor that we set. The energy security investment mechanism means that if prices fall sufficiently and return to historically normal levels, the levy will be disapplied. The relationship between the levy, profits and the maintenance of the energy security investment mechanism is key to understanding the Government’s approach.
The Liberal Democrats spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), asked about our choosing a 78% rate, how we set the rate for the energy profits levy, and about other attributes of the system being set up by the clauses under debate. We seek to achieve a balanced approach. We are raising the rate to 78%, extending the levy for a further year and removing the investment allowance, which we deem to be unjustifiably generous; yet we are maintaining 100% first-year allowances, the decarbonisation allowance, and the energy security investment mechanism. That strikes the right balance between ensuring that oil and gas companies continue to invest in oil and gas for years to come, and ensuring that they contribute to and support the transition to clean energy.
The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) spoke about the need for long-term stability. I entirely agree that we need it. That is precisely what we seek to achieve by saying that the energy profits levy will come to an end in March 2030, by having a price floor in the ESIM—we have mentioned that several times—and by proceeding with our consultation on the post energy profits levy regime. That will give confidence to those thinking about investing in the oil and gas sector not just before the end of the energy profits levy, but post 2030.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) also mentioned long-term stability. He seems distracted right now, but I hope that will be of some reassurance to him. The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens said that a £78 investment relief is available in Norway, whereas the figure is £46 in the UK. I want to put on record that in the UK, while the energy profits levy remains in place, the sector continues to benefit from an £84.25 relief for every £100 of investment. I hope that gives him some reassurance on the points that he raised.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for her thoughtful and informed contribution, which explained that our approach strikes the right balance. I must say, however, that I was disappointed by the contribution from the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), because he seemed not to support our moves to ensure that tax is not a blocker to CCUS, which will play an essential role in our progress towards net zero. The UK has a chance to be a world leader in that sector; I hoped that he would support our efforts to ensure that it is.
Two new clauses were tabled, which hon. Members spoke about. They require reports to be published. I can remember tabling many such new clauses over the last few years. New clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for St Albans, would require the Government to produce a report setting out the fiscal impact of the removal of the energy profits levy investment allowance and the change to the decarbonisation investment allowance rate. New clause 3, tabled by the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), would require the Government to produce a report on the expected impact of the levy changes in a number of areas, including on capital expenditure in the UK oil and gas industry and on the Scottish economy.
The Government oppose new clauses 2 and 3 on the basis that they are unnecessary. We have already set out the impact of our measures in a tax information and impact note, which was published at the time of the Budget. That note states that the changes made to the energy profits levy will raise an additional £2.3 billion over the scorecard, and further data on the UK oil and gas industry is regularly published on gov.uk.
I hope that I have addressed some of the points raised by hon. Members, and have reassured them that the new clauses are not necessary. I urge the House to let clauses 15 to 18 and schedule 3 stand part of the Bill, and to reject new clauses 2 and 3.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 16 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
New Clause 2
Report on fiscal effects: relief for investment expenditure
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report setting out the impact of the measures contained in clause 16 of this Act on tax revenue.” —(Daisy Cooper.)
This new clause would require the Government to produce a report setting out the fiscal impact of the Bill’s changes to the Energy Profits Levy investment expenditure relief.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, the clause be read a Second time.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
16:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 424 / Noes: 106 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Pimping websites and paying for sex
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I rise on Human Rights Day, the final day of the UN’s 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, to present a petition on behalf of my constituents on commercial sexual exploitation. Demand from men who pay for sex is fuelling and funding a brutal sex trafficking trade, yet our laws allow them to exploit women with impunity. To stop the exploitation, we have to stop the demand. The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urges the Government to outlaw pimping websites and paying for sex, and provide support, not sanctions, to victims of sexual exploitation.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Monmouthshire,
Declares that demand from the minority of men who pay for sex is driving the prostitution and sex trafficking trade, and this sexual exploitation is being facilitated by pimping websites that operate with impunity.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to outlaw pimping websites and paying for sex, and provide support, not sanctions, to victims of sexual exploitation.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003028]
International Human Rights Day
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate to mark international Human Rights Day, which we remember annually across the world on 10 December.
I first declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary human rights group, whose purpose is
“to raise the profile of international human rights issues within Parliament and to investigate and publicise human rights abuses occurring”.
The group is one of Parliament’s most long-standing APPGs, set up in 1976 by the late human rights champion Lord Avebury, and one of its most active, with at least one event a month and often many more. I also declare an interest in what I am about to say, as I am chair of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
Last week, the all-party parliamentary human rights group held a reception organised jointly with Amnesty International UK to mark Human Rights Day. It was very well attended, showing that the protection of human rights across the world is an issue that transcends party politics and matters greatly to many of my parliamentary colleagues right across the political spectrum.
International Human Rights Day commemorates the adoption of the universal declaration of human rights by the United Nations General Assembly on this day in 1948.
The universal declaration, whose 75th anniversary the human rights APPG celebrated last year in Parliament, is founded on the principle that
“All human beings are born free and equal”.
It has set the standards by which states must treat their citizens and provides the basis on which Governments can be called out and held to account for not doing so. The universal declaration has had a profound impact since, having inspired and paved the way for the adoption of more than 60 human rights treaties at global and regional levels and having provided the basis for the 2030 UN sustainable development goals. At the individual and collective level, the declaration has protected millions and empowered many to stand up against abuse and tyranny, and for equality and justice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First of all, I commend the hon. Gentleman. In all my time in this House—he has been here longer than I have—I have always been impressed by his commitment to human rights issues. In every debate, he and I have been there together. I commend him for that, and put it on the record in Hansard. Does he agree that today we should not simply reflect on how far we have to go, but celebrate how far we have come? We should never grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap as we diligently sow. Those lovely words from the Holy Bible, which the hon. Gentleman and I both respect, must encourage us all to keep pressing, and keep winning the small human rights victories that literally save lives, grant education and preserve innocence for children.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank my friend, first for his generosity and secondly because he is an extraordinary performer in this House, not just on these green Benches but in Westminster Hall. I have sat around the table with him in many, many debates, and he always stands up for humanity and faith. I respect and thank him for that, and I agree with his quote from the Holy Bible. I thank him for quoting it.
In this year’s commemoration, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is focusing on the realisation of rights as a pathway to solutions to many real-world challenges, such as armed conflict, political and social exclusion, and economic inequality—and, goodness me, do we not need that in the world right now?
Let me highlight a key provision of the declaration, the right to life, which is of course fundamental to the enjoyment of every other right that we are here to protect. Categorical violations of the right to life include: extra-judicial killing; the misuse of the death penalty, or, I would argue, the use of it at all; life-threatening prison conditions, which we have seen in the footage from Syria in recent hours and days; the use of live ammunition by police forces against unarmed protestors; serious violations of humanitarian law; and environmental degradation and climate change, which give rise to serious threats to the existence of present and future generations. Tragically, the right to life is violated in many countries, by state and non-state actors, including China, North Korea, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Eritrea, Sudan, South Sudan, Colombia and Mexico to name just a few, I am sorry to say.
I would like to express the APPG’s deep concern about the killing of human rights defenders, brave people from all walks of life: community leaders, environmental activists, lawyers, journalists, trade unionists, academics and members of non-governmental organisations who are committed to promoting and protecting the human rights of their communities, in their country and the wider world. The APPG has been privileged to meet many inspiring human rights defenders over the years. Their work documenting violations, holding human rights violators to account and tackling cycles of impunity may result in serious threats, including harassment, smear campaigns, physical attacks, arbitrary detention, torture, and in the worst cases, murder.
Environmental and land rights defenders are at particular risk. The non-governmental organisation Global Witness estimates that in 2023, 196 land and environmental defenders were killed around the world. The highest number by far were in Colombia, followed by Brazil, Mexico, Honduras and Nicaragua. During my time as shadow Minister for Latin America, I visited Colombia and met trade unionists and human rights defenders who faced violent attacks every single day. Two weeks ago, I met representatives of the Wiwa indigenous people of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta in northern Colombia to hear their testimony at first hand, here in our Parliament.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I thank the hon. Gentleman—my hon. Friend—for securing this debate on such an important day. He is right to draw particular attention to the experiences of defenders of indigenous communities and environmental rights defenders in Colombia and elsewhere. Back in October, in my capacity as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary human rights group, I hosted a roundtable here in Parliament with speakers from the Colombia Caravana. It brought together lawyers from 24 countries who had recently conducted a fact-finding trip in Colombia. They highlighted the increasing power of illegal armed groups, particularly in areas with no or limited state presence, and the serious threat that those groups posed to human rights defenders. We heard powerful testimony from the leader of an indigenous people’s reserve, who spoke of the threats to which his community was subject and called for the UK Government to do everything possible to ensure that UK companies were held to account for the impact of their actions. Would the hon. Gentleman support his call?
Fabian Hamilton
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, for her work as an officer of the APPG, and for chairing that meeting. I was slightly late for it, but I was there for most of it, and I heard those testimonies. Of course I would support that call. I think it important for us to recognise the extraordinarily brave and courageous work of people like those who were there on that day, such as the human rights defenders from Peru from whom we heard very recently, and the representatives of the Wiwa people of Colombia, whom I mentioned. All over the world, human rights defenders are putting their lives, their safety and their freedom at risk to defend their lands and their rights against rapacious companies that are exploiting them because no one will protect them except themselves. I thank the hon. Lady for her support, and for all the work that she is doing. With President Gustavo Petro, we have renewed hope in Colombia, but sadly the attacks continue. Given that the UK is the penholder for Colombia at the United Nations, I should be grateful if the Minister reaffirmed our commitment to what the Colombians call paz total, or total peace.
As I have said, indigenous peoples continue to be disproportionately targeted, accounting for 49% of total murders. The UK and like-minded countries must help to support and protect human rights defenders. I understand that, to this end, the “UK Support for Human Rights Defenders” guidance, published in 2019, is being reviewed, and I should be interested to know whether the Minister has an update on when we can expect that review to be published. Given the crucial role that human rights defenders play in fostering peace, justice and inclusive development, I ask the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to consider elevating the guidance to a more comprehensive strategy, with benchmarks for officials and posts, which could then be adapted to specific country situations.
I cannot speak about the importance of the universal declaration without highlighting another of its central provisions: equality. Article 2 states:
“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
I believe that all parliamentarians are horrified by the treatment of women and girls in some parts of the world, particularly Afghanistan.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on an excellent speech, and on securing a debate on such an important day. He rightly mentions Afghanistan and the issues around the discrimination of women and girls in that great country. Should the UK consider joining the 30, I think, countries that are involved in an action at the International Court of Justice, because of their concerns about breaches of the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women?
Fabian Hamilton
Yes, and I would be interested to hear from our Minister whether we should join that action, because in some way or another, we really need to draw the world’s attention more clearly, and in a more focused way, to the shocking, appalling and totally unjustifiable treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan—and, indeed, other parts of the world. Until the sexes in this world are equal, we will not have the peace, justice and development that all humanity deserves.
Under this Government, we rightly have a relentless focus on tackling violence against women and girls in our country, but that focus should extend across the world, as I have said. It is simply incomprehensible—I stress this again—that in the 21st century, the Taliban can completely silence Afghan women and girls, almost erasing their very existence and barring them from education and public life. Extremely courageous women who protest against these violations face the most terrifying consequences, including enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and torture.
Just today, I heard an example of how this works on the ground in Afghanistan. I was told by somebody who knows the country well, and who is not an Afghan, that he recently spoke to Afghan doctors and midwives about the problems that many Afghan women experience when giving birth, especially in remote rural areas. Birth complications can lead to all sorts of other horrors, including the death of babies at birth. Under a special exception, the Taliban have allowed women to work as doctors and midwives, thank goodness, but a problem arises if a female midwife or doctor is stopped by, as he put it, a “bearded man” while she walks to work from where she lives. She will be stopped and questioned, and sometimes returned home. As women and girls can no longer get the training or education necessary to become gynaecologists, obstetricians, specialists, doctors, clinicians or midwives, there is a time-bomb ticking in this field of work, among others, in Afghanistan. It is extremely disturbing.
Our APPG is worried about democratic back-sliding globally, and the consequent erosion of political and civil rights, such as freedom of expression, assembly and association. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s democracy index, less than 8% of the world’s population lived in a full, proper democracy in 2023. Almost 40% lived under authoritarian rule—a share that has been creeping up in recent years. I do not need to remind hon. Members that this is happening, because we are all aware of it. Every single day, we hear stories of Parliaments and parliamentary democracy under attack.
Electoral autocracies are becoming more prevalent; sham elections are held, in a largely unsuccessful attempt to provide a veneer of political legitimacy. I will not name countries, but we all know who they are. The increase in violent conflict, as seen in Russia and the middle east, has stifled progress towards more meaningful political participation. It would be helpful to know more about how our Government will continue to promote and support democracy across the world and, closer to home, whether the defending democracy taskforce still has a role to play in protecting the UK’s democratic integrity from threats of foreign interference.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I really appreciate the hon. Member bringing this matter to the House today. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we do everything we can to stand up for human rights, whether at home or abroad. The need to stand up for democracy, not only in the world in which we live physically but online, is also a real concern for me and many across the House. Does he agree that we need to do everything we can to ensure that elections, not just here but across the world, and the tenets of democracy are protected as we struggle to deal with those who would love to erode the fundamental freedoms and human rights that we hold dear?
Fabian Hamilton
I thank the hon. Member for making such an important intervention. I would certainly agree that online interference is something we should be deeply concerned about. Indeed, we are deeply concerned about it. We have seen examples of that interference, that hacking and those bots, as they call them, creating posts for non-existent individuals on our social media, urging people to do something or to vote in a particular way, and quoting sham facts and figures that are made up or invented to persuade people to make a decision that would be against their interests or inclinations.
In connection with the latter, I note a growing worry about transnational repression when authoritarian Governments reach across their borders to silence dissent among diaspora communities and exiles, including through illegal deportation, abduction, digital threats, attacks and family intimidation. Indeed, we have heard examples in recent years of BBC World Service correspondents in London having their families intimidated, harassed or even arrested by the authorities in Iran. Those people have nothing whatever to do with the work that their family members are doing here in London, but they are none the less paying the price for that freedom to broadcast, that freedom of information and the brilliant work that the BBC World Service does.
The UK has not been immune to this, as I have just said, and I am pleased that our Government have recognised that. Individuals living here who have left Russia, Hong Kong, China or Iran have been subject to surveillance, attacks, confiscation of their properties and bank accounts in their countries of origin, and even assassination and attempted assassination.
UK parliamentarians have been targeted as well, with foreign Governments imposing sanctions against them for calling out human rights violations. This will need to be more effectively addressed. I am sure I am not alone in the House in finding out that all my assets and bank accounts in Russia, of which I have none whatsoever, have been confiscated or closed down. In recent years, members of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the last Parliament were refused visas to go to China because of what the Committee had said about Hong Kong and Taiwan. This is simply unacceptable, and we need to address it.
As I said earlier, I am the current chair of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and I would like to commend the human rights work of the IPU, particularly that of its committee on the human rights of parliamentarians—not the one I chair, but the international one—which is doing a lot of work to defend the rights of parliamentarians. The committee seeks to defend them when they are under attack. Every year, MPs around the world face abuse, mistreatment, disappearance and sometimes death. The human rights APPG and the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union work hand in hand in the belief that parliamentarians’ voices must be protected and allowed to be heard, free from the fear of violence or harassment. Parliamentarians are often the so-called canaries in the coal mine. If the human rights of parliamentarians are being violated, the situation of those in that country who do not have wider popular backing or the high profile of a local MP is likely to be far, far worse.
I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to make it clear that this Government will put human rights and peace building at the forefront of our foreign policy once again. That includes a relentless focus on securing the release of arbitrarily detained nationals such as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori. Anoosheh spoke extremely powerfully and beautifully at last week’s event about his imprisonment in Iran, and I am pleased to call him a friend. He is a delightful man and I am amazed that, after the ordeal he went through, he is still able to campaign in the open and democratic way that he has. He really is a remarkable man. I would like to gain more support for victims of gender-based violence in conflict and modern-day slavery, and to encourage support for the International Criminal Court and the importance of international law.
More specifically, parliamentarians have a key role to play in ensuring Governments’ compliance with human rights obligations, and holding those Governments to account for any violations; in incorporating human rights protections in national legislation; in helping to generate the necessary political will to bring about positive change domestically and internationally; and in engaging with, supporting and validating civil society, human rights defenders and inter-governmental and grassroots human rights organisations. I pay tribute to all Members of the House and the other place for their work on these issues, whether on Select Committees, with all-party parliamentary groups or in their individual engagement with human rights organisations and defenders.
I also pay tribute to my dear friend, Tony Lloyd, who died earlier this year, from whom I took over the responsibility of chairing the APPG on human rights. He was a spokesperson from his first election in 1983, through his time as Minister of State at the Foreign Office in Tony Blair’s Government of 1997, for human rights and for the prominence and importance of human rights worldwide. Not long before he died, he spoke to a friend of mine and said, “In the event of my death, I would like Fabian Hamilton to take over the role.” I found that deeply moving, so I undertake the role not just in the name of all those who are oppressed, whose human rights are not easy or clear, or whose human rights are taken away from them, but in the name of Tony Lloyd, to carry on the work he did.
Governments, of course, have the ultimate responsibility for ensuring their citizens benefit from their rights, and for promoting respect for human rights internationally. I know this Government take that responsibility seriously. Having worked closely with the Foreign Secretary and his excellent team for several years, I can say with the utmost certainty that this Government are committed to protecting the rule of law and the international rules-based order on which our security and prosperity rest.
I therefore welcome the Government’s unflinching approach to calling out serious and systematic human rights violations committed by state and non-state actors and, when appropriate, the imposition of sanctions. I believe it would be beneficial for the Government to consider bringing in legislation on mandatory human rights and environmental corporate due diligence.
Finally, the debate could not come at a more appropriate time. Democracy and freedoms hang by a thread across the world: in Putin’s Russia, there are forced conscriptions for the illegal war in Ukraine; the Iranian regime is clamping down on legitimate protests with the most brutal force; and China continues to lurch towards interference in our democracy, has all but destroyed any semblance of it in Hong Kong, and wishes to attack the democracy that is now evident in Taiwan. Members of the all-party parliamentary group on human rights and I hope to continue engaging on these issues with the FCDO, and I am looking forward to the Minister’s response on this 76th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
May I say how appropriate it is for you to be chairing the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have been such a champion for women since you came into the House, and when you were Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee? The theme of women and equalities has been raised again and again by Members during the debate.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for securing the debate, and for the fact he has secured it on Human Rights Day. We have just had a lovely occasion with Mr Speaker, where we celebrated the work of Parliamentarians for Peace, co-ordinated by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). I will attempt to answer the question she raised in her intervention later in my remarks.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East for his tireless work to promote the importance of international human rights, including as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human rights. I congratulate him on his recent election as chair of the British group at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, standing up for democracy, free from fear of violence, for every country. The magic of the IPU is that it brings together members from so many different countries, with their different versions of democracy, all straining towards that common goal.
I was struck by what the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said about the importance of online safety and democracy. Having taken her seat in this House, I am sure she is aware now of the erosion of our rights as Members, brought here on the wind of democracy, being attacked online, and how disgraceful that is. We must seek new and fresh ways of tackling online abuse.
I also appreciate the contributions of other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), who talked about the issues in Colombia, the indigenous groups and the illegal armed groups. Human rights defenders have put their lives at risk to defend their land and traditions, as other hon. Members who share her interest, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East, and have gone to Colombia and got to know the concerns there, have made us aware. The UK Government’s important work in Colombia on human rights—which goes back to before the peace process and includes supporting the country as it brought that process in and monitoring it, with its new Government—started in this House and continues to have its support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East also mentioned those who have gone before us, such as Lord Avebury and the former Member for Rochdale. I may not have known him as well as my hon. Friend, but he did a fantastic job of supporting the women of Belarus who did not start out as politicians or human rights defenders but whose husbands were locked up in the summer of 2022 and who ended up becoming public figures in their own right. Once again, they were attacked online and attacked for all they have done to stand up for their country.
As hon. Members are aware, today marks Human Rights Day, commemorating the adoption of the universal declaration of human rights in 1948. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East is aware of and was invited to the celebration in the Foreign Office this afternoon to mark Human Rights Day. We would all have liked to be there but we are doing this debate instead, so we are celebrating it in our own way. The team, who I must commend for their excellence, have put on an important event to listen to those who work in non-governmental organisations, human rights defenders and others who care passionately about human rights. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, celebrated how far we have come. Today is a celebration of that and the UK’s important role, but it is also a reminder that we must keep pushing forward where human rights have not yet been achieved.
As the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth spoke about women in Afghanistan, we continue to call for the human rights of all Afghans to be protected, including those of women and girls and religious and ethnic minorities. Officials at the Doha-based UK mission to Afghanistan regularly press the Taliban on human rights. We are still making very limited progress, so we must continue to speak out in this House. That way, if there is any online coverage in Afghanistan today for Human Rights Day, those women will know that we are talking about them, their education, their wanting to become midwives and nurses, which is being blocked by the Taliban, to be teachers, to work, or to have small businesses. Instead, we are seeing a terrible deterioration of women’s rights. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that is a concern that you hold dear.
As the Prime Minister said in his speech to the UN General Assembly this year, the declaration sets out
“The very essence of what it is to be human—of equal and inalienable rights based on a foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”
As one of its original drafters, the UK must continue championing its importance and building upon its foundation, given the challenges that we face today. The Government will act to protect and promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law around the world.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister’s powerful speech highlights the responsibility that we all have to protect human rights in the UK and around the world. Earlier today, I was with Councillor Amjid Wazir from Stoke-on-Trent and a group of Kashmiris who were presenting a petition to Downing Street to highlight the ongoing human rights abuses in Kashmir, the lack of self-determination, and the continuing violations following the suspension of article 370 of the Indian constitution, which guarantees the political autonomy of Kashmir and Jammu. All too often, Kashmir seems to be forgotten about; it is not talked about in this place nearly enough. May I ask what the Government’s current view is on the ongoing issues in Jammu and Kashmir? Can she take back to her Department our wish to discuss this matter fully in this House, because it has been a while since those people were given a voice here and I think that they would welcome it?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for his important point and for the work that he is doing to represent his constituents, such as, for example, going to Downing Street with a petition. Interestingly, the other Member who is very strong on Kashmir is my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East who, like other Members here, regularly brings groups of constituents to the House. I know that the cross-party work that is done to promote human rights and to ensure that we observe their importance in Kashmir is crucial. That situation is monitored by the FCDO, and I would be very happy to write to him in more detail about the exact way in which that is done, bearing in mind, of course, that India and Pakistan play a crucial role in maintaining the peace.
Debbie Abrahams
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for her kind words earlier. We know that human rights defenders have been detained without trial in many places—Khurram Parvez is just one example. The same is true of politicians and political activists, such as Yasin Malik, whose condition we are very concerned about. It would not be appropriate if, today of all days, we fail to mention the situation in the middle east, particularly given what is going on in Syria, Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to those points in her closing remarks.
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Yasin Malik, whose situation the FCDO is actively monitoring. I know that she is aware of that, because she is a regular correspondent with the Foreign Office and a very active member of the all-party group on human rights.
On Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, we are, of course, monitoring the humanitarian response there. On Syria, we all knew how terrible the situation was, but to see the unspeakable conditions in those prisons, to see the newspaper pictures of those nooses covered in human blood, and to understand that people, including women and children, have been buried six feet under in cells has been truly devastating. We do not know what the future holds for Syria, but it is a very fragile situation. What we do know is that this House, on Human Rights Day, has emphasised the importance of human rights being at the heart of the middle east on several different fronts. As these different situations develop, human rights must play a key role in any peace process and in how Syria is governed in the future.
I will shorten my speech a little, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I know that people are keen to get on to human rights and IPU events this evening. We want to maximise the impact of all the tools at our disposal, and our approach sees the agenda in five themes, which I will quickly outline. The first is on defending civic space and fundamental freedoms. Today, a third of the world’s population live in countries with a closed civic space, which is clearly unacceptable. We will defend those spaces by changing our fundamental relationship to enable grassroots actors in partner countries to advocate for people’s rights. We will protect media freedom, building on the call from Commonwealth leaders last month to implement the Commonwealth media principles across our diverse family of nations, to which I refer the hon. Member for Lagan Valley.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East set out so clearly, the Government must continue to promote and support democracy in this world, and we are doing so through the Defending Democracy Taskforce. The taskforce is an enduring function of Government, which seeks to secure the democratic integrity of the UK from the full range of threats, including foreign interference. It comprises Ministers, operational leaders and senior officials, and it brings together His Majesty’s Government’s work on defending democracy to ensure we have a whole-of-Government response to the threats we face. The taskforce is reviewing the UK’s response to transnational repression, which was eloquently laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East. With his permission, I will write to him and all members of his APPG once the review is finished to give him a sense of where we are going on this important work, and so it can marry up with his earlier request that we look in an organised and systematic way at how we organise our work on human rights not just across the Foreign Office, but across Government. We must have a robust and joined-up approach across Government and law enforcement, not only on the human rights agenda, but specifically on transnational repression.
My hon. Friend was right to highlight his concerns about the killing of human rights defenders. They do inspiring work, often putting themselves in harm’s way. We heard from the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about human rights defenders and peacebuilders who put their lives at risk to speak out. I confirm that our human rights defender guidance is being reviewed, and we expect it to be finalised and published in the new year. We will certainly take account of the wise recommendations from the debate about what a review should cover and of the examples used. Meanwhile, we continue to work with partners to address the shocking level of reprisals against human rights defenders, including women.
Our second theme focuses on upholding the rule of law. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East mentioned critical right-to-life violations, such as the misuse of the death penalty and the use of excessive force against unarmed protesters. We need to promote and demonstrate respect for the rule of law in addressing those and many other issues. We have levers within the multilateral system to promote and defend human rights, including at the United Nations and through regional bodies, such as the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. My hon. Friend made particular mention of attacks against human rights defenders in Colombia, which I covered earlier.
I am delighted that we have a renewed parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe, including a number of hon. Members of this House, and I look forward to them reporting back and bringing such matters to the House’s attention. I am glad to share that we are seeking election for another term on the Human Rights Council from 2026 to 2028, where the UK leads negotiations on resolutions that put in place accountability mechanisms for priority countries around the world, including Syria and Sudan.
As I said, in Syria, Assad with support from Russia and Iran has committed brutal atrocities. Our focus now is on working with the Syrian people and the international community to move quickly towards an inclusive political transition. We are committed to tackling impunity and supporting an effective and independent International Criminal Court as the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern.
Promoting compliance with international humanitarian law is the cornerstone of UK policy, and we call on all parties to conflicts to implement their obligations, reducing impacts on civilians and other non-combatants. This autumn, we published an updated voluntary report on our domestic implementation of international humanitarian law, and we are supporting other states to do the same. As ministerial colleagues have said in the House, we are clear about the unacceptable humanitarian situation in Gaza—a matter that many in this House have championed. We will continue to use all the diplomatic tools at our disposal to work with international partners to bring about a ceasefire and secure the release of hostages.
Accountability is not just about international processes, and that is why we work in partnership with the USA and the EU to ensure that Ukraine can fully and fairly investigate allegations of war crimes in its own judicial system. We have our best legal minds working on that. In other places, such as Nigeria, we are advising on dealing with vulnerable witnesses, including children and survivors of sexual violence. Our legal diplomacy is second to none.
The third of our five themes focuses on championing equal rights for all. I have already spoken about the Taliban’s disgraceful exclusion of women from all aspects of public life. We want to address the stalled progress and roll-back on the rights of women, girls, LGBT+ people, and those belonging to other marginalised groups globally. That is why we will continue to champion the rights and freedoms of women and girls, including in sexual and reproductive health and rights, and to support women’s rights organisations and challenge harmful disinformation. We will support the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, working with female parliamentarians globally to address barriers to their political empowerment.
We have announced a groundbreaking global programme to prevent technology-facilitated gender-based harassment and abuse, backed by over £27 million of funding. I hope that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley will be pleased about that development. That programme will pilot innovative work with partner countries to promote a safer online experience, counter extreme misogyny spread online, and support victims and survivors of online harassment and abuse.
Finally, we will defend the rights of people belonging to marginalised communities—for instance, by funding the Commonwealth Disabled People’s Forum to advocate for disability rights. By championing freedom of religion or belief for all—if the hon. Member for Strangford were in his place, he would be pleased to hear me say this—we are fighting back against the threats that so many people face for simply what they do or do not believe in.
The fourth theme focuses on supporting accountable, effective and inclusive institutions. Sadly, we are seeing a drop in the quality of institutional life internationally. We want to work with partners to protect democratic processes and strengthen Government legitimacy. In Moldova, for example, we have helped President Sandu’s Government to counter Russian disinformation through the UK’s Government Communication Service International. In Brazil, we are sharing UK expertise, as the Government there develop their own online safety Bill. In Nigeria, we are supporting Kaduna state to improve budget transparency. We are continuing long-term work with Nepal, supporting the transition from conflict to democracy.
The final theme focuses on responding to shared global challenges by prioritising human rights and governance principles. This debate further challenges the Department to get that right. We are living in a rapidly changing world that demands that we adapt, but we must do that while maintaining our principles. We are taking multiple steps to do that effectively. We are conducting a national assessment of our approach to tackling business-related human rights abuses, including in global supply, and ensuring that our actions are firmly based on the evidence of what does and does not work. We are actively engaging at the Council of Europe to address the impact of climate and nature emergencies on human rights. We are hosting the second democracy action partnership with Indonesia in Jakarta to support democratic resilience in the region. We are working with partners, such as the UK-based Centre for Information Resilience, to remotely verify and document digital content relating to the horrific violence in Sudan.
Those five themes lay a strong foundation for defending and promoting human rights around the world. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East will agree—based on what I have said, and indeed on the FCDO’s earlier event to mark Human Rights Day, which sadly we both missed—that the Government do indeed see human rights and peace building at the heart of our work. We recognise that many Members share that commitment, and I thank them for attending today. Ultimately, a freer, safer and more just world is in everyone’s interests, and this Government will work flat out with our partners to achieve that goal.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Environmental Permitting (Electricity Generating Stations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Permitting (Electricity Generating Stations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 30 October 2024. The Government believe that the answers to the challenges of energy security, affordability and sustainability point not in different directions but in the same direction: towards clean power. Investing in clean power at speed and scale can help to tackle the climate crisis and create good jobs. It is the only route to protect bill payers and ensure energy security. That is why making Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030 is one of this Government’s five central missions.
Although renewable energy is at the heart of our plan to deliver clean power, we also know that we must bring forward low-carbon generation sources, providing added security for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. This includes flexible supply sources that can scale up or down instantaneously to meet peak demand. Some flexibility can be provided by short-duration technologies such as batteries, which can help to balance the system within each day, but we will also need long-duration technologies, which can run for extended periods of low renewable production.
To meet the challenge, the Government are investing in low-carbon flexible technologies such as carbon capture and storage at existing power stations, hydrogen, and long-duration electricity storage. This flexibility is critical to maintaining a constant supply of electricity in the UK, keeping the lights on for millions of homes and businesses. However, as new low-carbon technologies scale up, we will continue to need reliable, mature technologies, including gas, to provide energy security.
Gas is expected to be used less in our future energy system, taking a backseat, and only to maintain security of supply. Although gas will continue to play an important role in the system, it is only right that we should expect any new or substantially refurbished combustion plants to be built net zero-ready. This is why we are updating the existing regime and introducing the new decarbonisation readiness requirements.
Before I turn in detail to the decarbonisation requirements, let me set out the current regime. Since 2009, all new-build combustion power plants in Great Britain with capacity over 300 MW have been subject to the carbon capture readiness requirements. Those regulations require plant operators to demonstrate that it is technically and economically feasible to retrofit carbon capture and storage technology. Due to the 300 MW threshold, the policy has seen limited application since 2009. It has also contributed to a costly market distortion by incentivising the building of smaller, less efficient plants, and inadvertently creating an unacceptable loophole that has resulted in a significant number being built at 299 MW to avoid the carbon capture readiness requirements.
The policy landscape has changed significantly since the carbon capture readiness requirements were introduced. Plant operators now have an alternative pathway to decarbonise through hydrogen-fired generation, and there has been the introduction of the UK’s legal obligation to meet carbon budgets and to reach net zero by 2050.
In March 2023, the previous Government published a final consultation on the decarbonisation readiness proposals, alongside the publication of two technical studies for hydrogen and for carbon capture and storage. The consultation received positive feedback from industry and we published a response in mid-October, giving the go-ahead to proposals set out in the consultation.
Let me turn to the detail of the regulations. This statutory instrument will amend the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 by inserting new schedule 25C. This will remove the 300 MW minimum capacity threshold, removing any existing market distortion and supporting rapid decarbonisation by setting out that nearly all new and substantially refurbished combustion power plants must have a credible plan to decarbonise.
The regulations will also move the requirements from the planning consent process, where they currently sit for carbon capture readiness, to environmental permitting. This will ensure that the responsibility for regulating the requirements falls to the Environment Agency rather than to local planning authorities and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Unlike local planning authorities, the Environment Agency is already involved in the assessment of carbon capture readiness and has the technical expertise to assess the requirements. As I mentioned a moment ago, this will also include hydrogen readiness.
The new requirements will now enable combustion plants to demonstrate decarbonisation readiness through conversion to hydrogen firing as well as carbon capture. In doing so, the instrument introduces hydrogen conversion readiness and carbon capture readiness assessments, which are proportionate to the developing nature of hydrogen to power and of carbon capture and storage. It will also expand the generation technologies in scope of the requirements to include biomass, energy from waste, and combined heat and power plants, ensuring that a higher number of carbon-intensive plants are now captured.
The updated requirements are intended to strike a balance, ensuring that new-build plants are ready to take full advantage of future decarbonisation opportunities —and that the refurbishment of old sites is conducted to take advantage of those opportunities too—while acknowledging the emerging state of hydrogen and carbon capture technologies and their enabling infrastructure. We expect that the requirements will be strengthened over time as the generation technology improves and clarity on enabling infrastructure availability increases.
To ensure that we continually assess the impact of the policy and the case for strengthening the requirements, we have included a statutory requirement for the Government to carry out a review of the policy in periods of not exceeding five years.
In summary, the regulations will ensure that the gas capacity that we need for the security of supply is future-proofed and that there is a credible plan to transition to low-carbon operation. In doing so, they will help towards our aim to become a clean energy superpower and deliver net zero by 2050. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be here and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, for yet another Delegated Legislation Committee; it seems like we spend every Tuesday morning in these Committee Rooms, doing yet another DL. I am pleased to be here. Indeed, the regulations are the result of a consultation that launched by the Conservatives when we were in government back in March. It was encouraging to see the response published in October and to see the regulations brought forward today.
As the Minister has set out, the instrument introduces requirements for new combustion plants and for those being refurbished, including regulatory requirements for a new decarbonisation readiness report as a prerequisite for environmental permitting approval. It also requires new combustion plants be built with regard to how they could be decarbonised in the future—for example, by converting to hydrogen firing or retrofit carbon capture technology, under environmental permitting regulations.
As I said, we are very supportive of the regulations. In fact, I think we are all supportive of the growth of new technologies like carbon capture, usage and storage, and their potential to cut carbon emissions. For combustion plants, where it is economically and technically viable, the implementation of such technology should be considered. I note that no impact assessment has been produced as the regulations are not expected to impose significant costs to businesses. However, it is noted in the explanatory memorandum today that they are expected to have an economic impact on small and micro businesses affected by the change to the 300 MW threshold. We all want a future where small businesses can thrive—the Chancellor herself has said that growth is her No. 1 priority —so will the Minister provide more detail of what support might be made available to the small and micro businesses that feel this new burden on them as they seek to decarbonise along with the rest of the country?
This instrument is a sensible move, although we worry and have some reservations about its impact on small and micro businesses, and would be keen to see more detail about what engagement the Department has had with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. As it says in the explanatory memorandum, this is a devolved area—but decarbonisation is a UK-wide effort.
We have no objection to the regulations, so I will draw my remarks to a close.
Sarah Jones
I thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, for his support. I think we are all on the same page on the regulations, but I will make a couple of comments in response to his questions.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the impact on businesses, particularly smaller ones; of course, we are all mindful of that. The regulations require four things, including that relevant businesses look at the kind of space they have and whether it is technically possible for the transition to be made. They also have to report whether they have considered hydrogen or carbon capture, and whether it is economically feasible. The latter two points are entirely self-reported, so the process should not be difficult.
The Environment Agency is looking at ways to roll up the different requirements and regulations to see whether businesses could fill in a single application rather than multiple ones. We can provide more information on that at a later point; I have had a meeting with officials to talk about the issue. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and it is one of which we are certainly mindful.
The regulations only apply in England. The Scottish and Welsh authorities have different rules and policies, although of course we have been talking to the nations about the change.
I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2024
(1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger, and it is very good to see the shadow Minister in his place. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for the very constructive tone he adopted in the Martyn’s law debate last night. I am very pleased that we have been able to make progress with that important piece of legislation and I am very grateful to him and to the Opposition for the support they have offered throughout the passage of the Bill.
The debate this morning relates to the commencement of a statutory instrument similar to one debated in Committee on 13 November. I will therefore not go into great detail on the context but will briefly remind the Committee that the order relates to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. The Act contained a wide range of reforms to reduce economic crime and increase transparency over corporate entities conducting business in the UK, which included reforms to enable targeted information sharing to tackle money laundering and remove reporting burdens on business. Additionally, the Act introduced new intelligence-gathering powers for law enforcement and reformed outdated criminal corporate liability laws. It also introduced reforms to keep pace with the use of emerging technologies used to launder money and commit economic crime, including cryptoassets.
The Act introduced new search, seizure, and detention powers when cryptoassets are being used illegally or for terrorist purposes. The legislation aims to remove criminal gains and disrupt criminals who use cryptoassets for illicit purposes. On 26 April, the cryptoassets measures to which the debate relates came into force in Northern Ireland, as well as in England and Wales. As of the end of November, more than 100 cases in the UK have involved the exercise of the new powers, including cryptoassets seizures or confiscation cases involving cryptoassets. The cases account for £18 million.
The Committee will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to cover the content of the powers as they were debated extensively by both Houses during the passage of the Act. I will instead outline briefly the purpose of the order. The code of practice being brought into operation by the statutory instrument is the search, seizure and detention of property code for Northern Ireland. The code is made by the Home Secretary to guide the exercise of search and seizure powers operated by immigration enforcement and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in Northern Ireland.
It is the responsibility of the relevant Ministers in each jurisdiction in the UK to publish their own codes of practice. The Northern Ireland Assembly’s code of practice for officers’ operating powers in Northern Ireland came into force in July. This is the final code of practice to be debated under the cryptoassets measures in the Act.
The codes of practice clarify the circumstances in which the powers may be exercised to ensure that they are applied consistently and proportionately across law enforcement, in order to safeguard against improper use of the powers, which is vital given the broad range of law enforcement agencies that can exercise them. For instance, the code of practice in the order contains guidance on what constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion when searching a premises and the prior authorisations required to exercise the powers. Those safeguards are necessary where more intrusive powers are used to investigate crime. To be clear, the code relates to guidance for officers using powers that are already introduced.
The draft order is required to complete commencement of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. That will ensure that all necessary legislation is in place and that law enforcement operates the powers proportionately and according to the aims of the legislation. I commend it to the Committee.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. A version of these changes was discussed in Committee last month, and we rightly support the measures made as a consequence of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act. It is critical that we update our legal regime to ensure we can seize the proceeds from all those who commit crimes, whether they are in cash or cryptocurrency, and a code should apply consistently wherever a criminal operates in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. As such, we support these changes to the proceeds of crime codes. Some things are beyond party politics, and it is heartening to see the new Government continue the legislative process stemming from the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, which was passed by the Conservatives.
Cryptocurrency has fundamentally and permanently changed the way criminals and terrorist groups launder, move and spend their money. It is right for the Government to move quickly to ensure that our police and enforcement agencies have the authority and means to respond to those changes. The ability to do so successfully will play a vital role in our national security.
Based on conversations in Grand Committee, I understand there is potential for the proceeds of crime to be recycled back into agencies under this system. The impact assessment for the Act estimated total benefits of £430.4 million over 10 years. Although I appreciate that it may be challenging to provide precise figures, has the Minister estimated what proportion might be allocated to Northern Ireland? Additionally, given the decentralised nature of cryptocurrencies, what discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in the Republic of Ireland and other partner countries to ensure cross-border co-operation in preventing the illicit use of such funds?
I want to take a moment to salute the work of the National Crime Agency on its recent investigation into a global cryptocurrency money laundering network based out of Moscow. Eighty-four people have been arrested—with the network stretching across 30 countries —including 71 here in the UK. That shows that our law enforcement agencies are getting ahead of crypto, despite its relative novelty. We in this place should continue to play our part to ensure that that remains the case.
Finally, given the recent discovery and exposure of and police action against Moscow-based crypto laundering, has the Minister considered and investigated the use of crypto in sanctions evasion by Russia? Although I understand that what he can share will be limited, I encourage him to prioritise tackling that.
As I said before, national security must always come above party politics. It is in that spirit that I reiterate our support for the changes today and assure the Minister of our continued collaboration on matters of national security.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I thank you for inviting me to speak on this statutory instrument. We will support the proposals, because any measure that puts more pressure on organised crime, criminal organisations and, indeed, paramilitary and terrorist organisations is a welcome step forward.
I want to ask the Minister two questions about the order. Paragraph 6.3 of the explanatory memorandum says that the code will apply only to Northern Ireland, but I seek the Minister’s reassurance that although the code is specific to Northern Ireland it still comes under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and that there will be similarities across all jurisdictions of the United Kingdom.
I join the shadow Minister in seeking reassurance that the Minister is working with his counterparts in the Republic of Ireland. What we have seen in Northern Ireland is how easy it is to move physical assets of crime across the border. I would not like to see cryptoassets being able to be easily transferred into the Republic of Ireland and hidden there in a safer form.
I also note that the explanatory memorandum states in paragraph 7.2 that
“one enforcement agency sought clarity on the definitions in a different code on property, cryptoassets and wallets and also suggested where additional guidance could be added on storage and searches.”
Can the Minister clarify whether that additional guidance has been provided to the agencies? It is vital that we get this right and tackle crime at its heart.
Dan Jarvis
I thank the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for South Antrim for their constructive and helpful comments. I will seek to address the points that they made and if I am not able to do so this morning, I will write to them both as I did previously. Let me see what I can do.
First, on the helpful remarks made by the hon. Member for South Antrim, I think he was seeking assurance that that the code is specific to crime in Northern Ireland. That is the case—I can give him that assurance—but he also, entirely reasonably, was seeking wider reassurances on the engagement that the UK has had with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in the Republic of Ireland. I can give him those assurances.
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for the constructive tone he struck. He asked an entirely reasonable question about the recycling of funds. As he was kind enough to accept that I would not be able to give him the precise figures at this particular moment, rather than giving him an inaccurate figure I will write to him, as I did previously, to make sure that he has the most up-to-date figures that the Department holds. I can also give him the same assurance that I gave the hon. Member for South Antrim about the UK Government’s engagement with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly and contact with the Republic of Ireland, too.
The shadow Minister also made a good point about the cryptocurrency and sanctions against Russia. I was at the National Crime Agency yesterday with the Foreign Secretary and our newly appointed anti-corruption champion, Baroness Hodge. These matters are a real priority for the Government and we are working at pace across the Government to look at the resources we have to tackle the issues the shadow Minister has raised. The appointment of Baroness Hodge, who brings long-standing experience in this area, will complement the work we are doing.
Having visited just yesterday, I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the extraordinary work being done by the National Crime Agency on behalf of the UK Government. It recently completed a very successful operation known as Destabilise, which involved targeted interventions against Russia, about which there has been quite significant media reporting. I can give the shadow Minister an absolute assurance that we are looking incredibly carefully at what more we can doto take action against the use of cryptocurrency and to ensure that our sanctions regime is as effective as it possibly can be.
I thank the Committee for considering the statutory instrument. As I have set out, it is necessary to complete the commencement of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
No. 84/85 bus service in South Gloucestershire
Employment Rights Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 10th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 December 2024 - (10 Dec 2024)
The Chair
Would everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on the declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.
Clause 10
Policy about allocating tips etc: consultation and review
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. As is customary, I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
As Members will be aware, clause 10 introduces new requirements on tipping, namely the requirements for employers to consult workers about the allocation of the tips they have earned, and to review their tipping policy. These new requirements will build on the measures introduced by the previous Government in the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023. The Act came fully into effect on 1 October this year and ensured that an estimated £200 million-worth of tips each year are no longer retained by employers.
The Act is accompanied by a statutory code of practice on the fair and transparent distribution of tips. Although the Act requires employers to allocate tips fairly to workers, the existing statutory code of practice only encourages consultation with workers in deciding that allocation. The Government were clear in their commitment to going further—indeed, I took part in a debate earlier this year in which I said that the legislation did not go far enough. We will therefore make it mandatory for employers to consult workers in developing or updating their tipping policies, including how tips are allocated.
The clause will support worker participation in the allocation and distribution of tips that they have earned, by mandating that employers consult workers during the development or revision of their written tipping policies. It will also mandate that employers review their tipping policy and maintain records of the consultation they have carried out, as well as giving workers the right to request and review records related to the tipping policy consultation. The consultation will be required to take place at the formative stage, before the policy is finalised or updated, and should be carried out, where possible, by engaging with representatives of recognised trade unions or other chosen representatives. If neither are available, the consultation will be required to be with workers likely to be affected.
We will continue to engage with unions and worker representatives in hospitality and other impacted industries to ensure that the measures in the Bill and in the statutory guidance deliver fully on our aims. Following Royal Assent, we will consult widely and properly with stakeholders to determine what changes should be made to the existing statutory code of practice. We are determined to ensure that guidance is as helpful as possible, ensuring that tips are allocated fairly and that worker consultation is carried out properly.
These measures will be enforced via the employment tribunal system. If an employer fails to consult their workers properly or to distribute tips in a fair and transparent manner, workers will be able to bring a claim to an employment tribunal. The tribunal will be able to order an employer to compensate workers up to £5,000 for financial loss. I think that Members can see what we are trying to achieve with the clause, and I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once more, Mr Mundell. The Minister mentioned that the clause builds on private Member’s legislation passed in the last Parliament, and it would be remiss of me not to put on record that the transformation in some employers’ attitudes to their employees and to the retention and fair distribution of tips was in large part down to the former Conservative Member for Watford, Dean Russell, who piloted the original legislation through the House. There were one or two little bumps along the road as he came into ministerial office and then out again in—what was the number?—43 days, but many Conservative colleagues really pushed for the legislation. It is one of those great unfairnesses that, for years, incredibly hard-working people in the hospitality sector and others had an expectation that they would receive the generosity of their customers’ tips at the end of the meal, the round of drinks or whatever but, for various reasons, did not get their fair share. The legislation the Minister referred to righted that historic wrong, and clause 10, which seeks to strengthen that, is very welcome.
Where I gently suggest to the Minister that there needs to be a little more thought and clarity is settings where there is no union to consult. That might be a small business such as a restaurant or pub, where the people who work there are not affiliated with any union or body that could be consulted on their behalf. Will he say something about how those smaller businesses—smaller restaurant or pub settings—will get dialogue going with their employees so that the business has a fair and equitable, and clear and unambiguous policy to ensure that the tips reach those workers?
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I just emphasise what the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire stated in respect of smaller settings. In my constituency there are lots of restaurants and small hotels without the network of support for workers that a trade union would offer. It would be useful if Ministers were alive to the circumstances of those smaller settings. I also wonder whether the Minister is reflecting on what guidance he might issue on the question of what is equitable that could be reflected if people end up going to a tribunal.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. I noticed last week that the Prime Minister made a James Bond joke, and I wondered whether he was following the Committee’s proceedings in real time. There is a valid question here: when James Bond buys a vodka martini, what happens to the tips? Hopefully, thanks to this Bill and the legislation passed last year, we will have a more equitable solution.
I want quickly to raise two issues. The “Make Work Pay” document published earlier this year stated:
“Labour will strengthen the law to ensure hospitality workers receive their tips in full and workers decide how tips are allocated.”
I would be interested in the Minister’s views on whether this measure meets that very welcome commitment. Whether tips that would have been received during shifts that are cancelled fall under the definition of reasonable compensation is presumably a question to be addressed in the future.
In respect of the points raised by the hon. Members for Torbay and for Mid Buckinghamshire about consultation with groups of workers who are not represented by a trade union, I suggest that the kinds of businesses they mentioned should have at least a degree of familiarity with the principles of that, since they are established and well understood in the context of redundancy situations and in other areas.
Justin Madders
First, I will acknowledge, as did the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, the work in this area by previous Members of this place, including the former Member for Ynys Môn. I think it was seven years after the announcement that there was to be legislation that we finally got action, but it is welcome. I note the shadow Minister’s comment that the legislation has transformed attitudes, and that is what we are trying to do with this Bill in general: transform the workplace so that workers have better security and a better voice.
The shadow Minister raised some important questions, as did the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, about what this measure means for smaller businesses where there may not be a trade union. Of course, that is an argument for greater organisation in the workplace so that employers can consult collectively with the workforce. Those smaller employers—the Great British café, for example—would not always have an easy route to consult with their workforce, but in that kind of informal setting, where there is only a handful of employees, it should be fairly straightforward. Everyone will know their role and what goes on, and the existing code of practice deals with the guidance for smaller employers in that sense.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield asked whether this measure meets our commitments under “Make Work Pay”, and I believe it does. It is a significant step in continuing the welcome, transformational moves that we have seen on tips, and it gives workers an absolute right to be consulted, which I think is important. There is evidence, such as the research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, that certain sections of the workforce, including agency workers and people working in certain parts of a business, feel that they do not have a voice. This provision will give them that voice and the real teeth they need to ensure that tips are fairly distributed. As the shadow Minister said, this is all about them. It is about ensuring that everyone who contributes to the service that we all enjoy gets those tips, which the customer clearly wants to ensure are spread among the workforce. On that note, I commend the clause to the Committee.
The Chair
It is good to hear the Great British café will be covered by these provisions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Parental leave: removal of qualifying period of employment
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 12 stand part.
New clause 16—Publication of information about parental leave policies: regulations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to require any employer with more than 250 employees to publish information on the internet about the employer’s policies on parental leave and pay for parental leave.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must be published within one year of this Act being passed.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative regulation procedure.”
This new clause would require companies with more than 250 employees to publish information about their parental leave and pay policies.
New clause 17—Entitlement to paternity leave—
“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 80A (entitlement to paternity leave: birth)—
(a) in subsection (3), for ‘two’ substitute ‘six’,
(b) in subsection (4), for ‘56 days’ substitute ‘52 weeks’.
(3) In section 80B (entitlement to paternity leave: adoption)—
(a) in subsection (3), for ‘two’ substitute ‘six’,
(b) in subsection (4), for ‘56 days’ substitute ‘52 weeks’.”
This new clause sets out an entitlement to paternity leave.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
Clauses 11 and 12 enable employed parents to give notice of their intention to take parental leave or paternity leave from their first day in a new job. Clause 11 does that for parental leave by amending section 76 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to remove the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to the duration for which an employee must be employed before being entitled to be absent from work on parental leave. Clause 12 works in a similar manner for paternity leave, amending sections 80A and 80B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to remove the power for the Secretary to make regulations relating to the duration for which an employee must be employed before being entitled to take paternity leave.
Currently, parents must complete one year of continuous service to qualify for parental leave, and 26 weeks of continuous service to qualify for paternity leave. Clause 11 will make an additional 1.5 million parents each year eligible for parental leave, while clause 12 will bring an additional 32,300 fathers and partners a year into scope for paternity leave. Clauses 11 and 12 will make it easier for employees to move jobs, which may enable them to secure wage increases without losing their ability to take parental leave or paternity leave. Removing deterrents to changing jobs is important, because research by the Office for National Statistics and the Resolution Foundation shows that people who move jobs are likely to get wage increases.
There is also a benefit from our changes to employers, who will gain access to a larger pool of applicants for vacancies, as parents will be more likely to apply for new jobs because they will not lose their access to those leave entitlements. We have engaged with stakeholders who represent the interests of parents, and they have said that they welcome the removal of continuity of service for parental and paternity leave. Making those entitlements available from day one also brings parental and paternity leave into line with other entitlements, such as maternity and adoption leave, creating a clearer and fairer system.
New clause 16 would commit the Government to introducing regulations that require organisations employing more than 250 people to publish information about their parental leave and pay policies. The hon. Member for Torbay is right to highlight the significance of publishing parental leave policies. It is certainly true that parental leave and pay policies are not perks on a par with gym memberships; they are critical policies that allow people to manage their lives. As well as being hugely important at a personal level, parental leave and pay policies are critical for addressing wider social and economic issues.
The Bill already does a lot to support working families. It reforms the right to request flexible working to make it the default. It puts in place legislation that makes it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave and mothers who return to work for a six-month period after they return, except in very specific circumstances. It also requires large employers to produce equality action plans. That is why at this point we believe that not requiring publication of parental policies in the Bill is the correct approach. It strikes the right balance between doing more to help working families and being manageable for employers to respond and adapt to.
New clause 17 would increase the length of paternity leave from two weeks to six weeks and also seeks to introduce the ability to take paternity leave at any time in the first year following birth or adoption. The Government value the vital role that fathers and partners play in caring for children and supporting their partners. We recognise that parental leave and pay entitlements, such as paternity leave and pay, play a key role in their ability to do that. That is why we are taking the first step of making paternity and parental leave day one rights.
Recent changes to paternity leave and pay, which took effect on 6 April 2024, allow parents to take their leave and pay in two non-consecutive weeks; to take their leave and pay at any point in the first year after the birth or adoption of their child, rather than only within the first eight weeks; and to give shorter notice for each period of leave. That means that parents are now able to take their paternity leave at any point in the first year following their child’s birth or adoption. While I very much support the intent behind this element of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay, it is already in place and so is not required.
If fathers or partners wish to take a longer period of leave and pay, shared parental leave and pay is an option they can consider. Up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of pay can be “created” for parents to share from maternity entitlements that the mother does not intend to use. Parents can use the scheme to take leave together for up to six months or to intersperse periods of leave with periods of work.
We know that more needs to be done to ensure that the parental leave system provides the best possible support for working families. That is why we have committed to a review of the parental leave system. The review will be conducted separately to the Bill and work is already under way across Government on planning for its delivery. I therefore commend clauses 11 and 12 to the Committee and invite the hon. Member for Torbay not to move new clauses 16 and 17.
The Chair
Before I call the shadow Minister, I should tell the Committee that there may be a fire alarm this morning. We will be advised on what to do if that happens.
Greg Smith
Planned fire alarms are always quite disturbing, but never mind. I will broadly address the subject we are debating, before making specific comments on the new clauses tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I do not have a direct interest to declare, but I have had paternity leave three times in my life. I value its provision and the importance of ensuring that fathers and partners are there to support mothers in the early days of a new child arriving in the world. Paternity leave is incredibly important, at any point when it arrives. For my second child, I had only been an MP for four weeks after the 2019 general election, when I disappeared for two weeks. That was vital to support my wife, who had valiantly gone through a general election with me while she was eight months pregnant. Of course, she was not pounding the streets in the way most of us were at that point, but I just wanted to give that personal reflection on how important paternity leave is.
Greg Smith
I will just finish this thought; the hon. Lady knows that I am not shy about taking interventions. Every business, even if it has only one or two employees, will know what the plan is if one of its employees comes to it and says that their wife, partner or whatever is pregnant and that they will require at some point in the near future two weeks of paternity leave. On the grounds that virtually every business that I know has that plan—has that understanding of what it will do in offering the statutory requirement for paternity leave and the way it will remunerate it or not, as the case may be—I am struggling to understand why it should be only those companies with more than 250 employees that are subject to the requirement.
Sarah Gibson
The reason for leaving it at 250 employees, despite a thought among Opposition Members that it should be extended to 500, is that, currently, small and medium-sized businesses are classified as having up to 249 employees. Larger businesses, which will undoubtedly have the infrastructure, should be able to publish the information. The new clause would prevent an onerous burden on very small businesses from having to publish the information. It does not imply that they would have lesser standards; it is merely that they would not be obliged to publish the information.
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes. I am the last person to want to put a greater burden or unnecessary burden on any form of business. All I gently suggest is that this probably is not that great a burden on a business, on the grounds that it will already know what it is going to do when an employee comes and asks for paternity leave, maternity leave or whatever. That is particularly the case given that much of the rules and regulations is already set in statute and, when this Bill undoubtedly achieves Royal Assent at some point, will be further enshrined in statute. There are many other regulations that businesses have to comply with when publishing on their website—I am thinking of privacy notices and various GDPR regulations and so on—just as all the members of this Committee and Members of this House have to do on our own websites. I do not think anyone would try to define any of us as large businesses or huge employers, and I do not think that there are any hon. or right hon. Members left who do not have a website. Perhaps one or two do not—
Greg Smith
He is a fine television superstar these days.
All of us will have published these statements on our websites, because that is straightforwardly set out in statute—straightforwardly set out in law. I am at a loss to understand why it would be a burden for a business of any size to do that, but I am mindful that we do not want to overburden businesses. I accept the explanation given by the hon. Member for Chippenham.
Turning to new clause 17, I would have loved to have six weeks of paternity leave when my three children were born. When my first child was born, I was still self-employed. It was before my election to this place, so the time I took off in 2016 was entirely unpaid because I just had to forgo client work, but it was important to do that.
I am slightly concerned that, as desirable as six weeks would be, it is too great a burden for businesses automatically to have to shoulder. Some good and generous employers may well find a way of offering it in one way or another, paid or otherwise. However, to go beyond the current entitlement of two weeks, which can be split up, as the Minister mentioned, seems to be too big an ask for some businesses, desirable though it may be for fathers to be able be there with their new child in the most precious early days of life to support the mother and the child. I gently invite Liberal Democrat Members to reflect on whether six weeks is realistic for every business.
Steve Darling
As a state, we need to reflect on what makes up our society. Often, it is family units. Whether that is the quintessential family of two parents and two children or something similar, supporting the family unit is absolutely essential. I suggest that the two new clauses are about supporting families. New clause 17 allows both partners to engage. Both my lads are now grown up. It is not just about the link with the child; it is about supporting the partnership of the couple—whatever form that couple happens to be—in bringing up the child. Extending leave entitlements would strengthen that bond. The impact of broken families on youngsters can be very profound, and we are strengthening families through these proposals. We will not push the new clauses to a vote, but we stand by them and believe in them wholeheartedly.
The Chair
Just for information, new clauses 16 and 17 would not be voted on at this point. That will come later in the consideration of the Bill.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I would like to ask the Minister if he could—
Sir Ashley Fox
Sorry. I ask her whether she could advise on what analysis the Government have done on the likely cost to small businesses of making maternity-paternity shared parental leave a day one right. Although I agree that these are important rights for parents, I wonder what analysis has been done. I am concerned for small businesses, such as those with only one or two employees. If they were to take on a new employee, they could immediately find that they have to grant leave and pay, as well as find a substitute worker. I fully accept the importance of these rights, but is the Minister satisfied that it is appropriate to impose those burdens on small businesses, particularly given the other burdens in the Bill, the national insurance charges in the Budget and all other manner of taxes and impositions that the Government are introducing?
Dame Nia Griffith
Let me address that last point first. We have had engagement with stakeholders who represent families, such as Pregnant Then Screwed and Maternity Action, which has shown that they welcome the removal of continuity of service for paternity leave. We can all understand the benefits that that brings in terms of people being able to apply for new jobs and move to better-paid jobs. While the change will have a cost to businesses, it is estimated to be relatively small, at £6.2 million a year, and we believe that the positive impact on families will be much larger. This clause will make 10,000 more fathers and partners eligible for paternity leave, including those with low job security, who are most likely not to meet the current qualifying requirements. I remind the Committee that it is often those people in the most transitory jobs who have the most precarious financial positions and the least opportunity to spend time with their families.
I will address the comments made by the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Torbay. We are making immediate changes to paternity leave through this Bill. We will make paternity leave available from day one in a new job and enable paternity leave to be taken after shared parental leave. The flexibility that this will give rise to will enable employees to move towards better-paid employment without the fear of losing their right to protected time away to be with their families. We have also committed to review the entire parental leave system to ensure that it best supports families. As I mentioned earlier, that is already in progress across the Government.
I will make a small technical point. The effect of new clause 17 is that fathers and partners who are eligible for paternity leave would be entitled to six weeks of leave, adding four weeks to the existing two weeks offered by the current paternity leave entitlement. The new clause would not affect the entitlement window in which fathers and partners need to take their paternity leave, as this was extended from 56 days to 52 weeks in April 2024. However, the change to enable paternity leave to be taken over 52 weeks was made in secondary legislation. The new clause would make this change in primary legislation, which would mean that it would not be possible to make any future changes to the period in which a parent could take parental leave in secondary legislation. On that note, I commend clauses 11 and 12 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Ability to take paternity leave following shared parental leave
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Nia Griffith
The point of clause 13 is to give employed fathers, partners and secondary adopters, including those who have their children through a surrogacy arrangement, the ability to take paternity leave and pay after taking shared parental leave and pay. The clause amends the Employment Rights Act 1996 by removing the limitation that prevents fathers and partners from taking paternity leave and pay after shared parental leave and pay. In April 2024, changes were made to paternity leave and pay, enabling it to be taken at any time in the first year following a child’s birth or adoption. Before then, parents had eight weeks to take their paternity leave and pay. That change means that parents are now more likely to take their paternity leave and pay after their shared parental leave and pay, as they now have more time to take their paternity leave and pay. Removing that restriction creates more flexibility for parents and means that parents who choose to take their shared parental leave and pay first will not then lose their ability to take their entitlement to paternity leave and pay.
Currently, if shared parental leave and pay is taken, parents lose any remaining paternity leave and pay entitlements they have not yet used. Removing that restriction creates a more supportive framework for families by allowing greater flexibility in how parents structure their leave, and ensures that they will not inadvertently lose access to the leave and pay they are entitled to.
Greg Smith
Certainly there is no objection from the Opposition to the principle of flexibility in ensuring people can have that choice and ability to dictate when leave is taken, particularly in the case of paternity leave. I can think of many examples, including colleagues from the previous Parliament. I acted as the proxy vote for one of them while they were on paternity leave. They pushed that back slightly—the obscurities of this place—to ensure that their paternity leave did not marry up with recess. However, there will be many other reasons and flexibilities that people require away from the eccentricities of working in this place.
I ask the Minister to reflect on whether, within that framework of flexibility, which in its own right is a good thing, there needs to be any secondary guidance or advice to businesses on what might turn out to be some very rare but foreseeable circumstances where employees or individuals push the boundaries a bit too far with their employers. and on what to do in those extreme cases. That is not to detract in any way, shape or form from the principle of flexibility, but I ask whether there is a requirement for guidance notes or Government advice, however it is formed, to give employers a bit of a safety net if, in one or two cases, those boundaries be pushed a bit too far.
Sarah Gibson
Given the Liberal Democrat new clauses we discussed earlier, it is clear that we welcome any flexibility that encourages paternity leave and allows parents to share the leave in an equal and welcoming way. Therefore, we welcome this clause.
Dame Nia Griffith
In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, there are clearly defined time limits, and I am sure that most employers and employees will manage to work this out. I just point out gently that the impact assessment on these provisions received a green rating, so some work has been done on this. I remind Members that we are undertaking a wider review as well in respect of paternity and parental leave.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Bereavement leave
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Nia Griffith
Clause 14 establishes a new day one right to bereavement leave. The loss of a loved one is a deeply personal experience, and a sad reality that almost all of us will experience. When that happens, the grief that comes with a loss will impact us all in different ways. Some individuals may need time and space away from other demands, including work, to begin to process their loss. Others may prefer to keep working to maintain a sense of familiarity while adjusting to a new normal. Thankfully, for those who need it, the majority of employers respond compassionately to requests for time away from work, and recognise the key role they can play in supporting their employees during this time. In the absence, however, of a statutory right, not all employees may be afforded the time off they need to grieve. We estimate that this would benefit at least 900,000 workers each year. That is a significant proportion of the working population who will be able to access bereavement leave from day one of employment.
Currently, the only bereavement entitlement in legislation is parental bereavement leave, which provides two weeks of leave for parents who experience the devastating loss of their child, from 24 completed weeks of pregnancy until the child reaches the age of 18. That is set out in sections 80EA to 80EE of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and in the Parental Bereavement Leave Regulations 2020. Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 14 amend those sections of the 1996 Act, so that the duty on the Secretary of State to lay regulations establishing parental bereavement leave is widened to require regulations providing for bereavement leave for other loved ones as well.
The amendments in subsection (3) ensure that the regulations, in the case of the new bereavement entitlement, must set out the following: first, the eligibility of the new entitlement by definition of the employee’s relationship to the deceased; secondly, the length of leave, which must be a minimum of one week; thirdly, when the leave must be taken, which must be before the end of at least 56 days after the person’s death; and finally, how the leave is to be taken, such as in one block or two blocks, or whatever is appropriate.
Should an employee suffer multiple bereavements, the clause sets out that they are entitled to leave in respect of each person who has passed away. The approach to regulations mirrors that taken when establishing parental bereavement leave and allows similar provisions to be included in the new regulations. Due to the sensitive and personal nature of bereavement, we will consult stakeholders on the details to be set out in regulations to ensure that the entitlement is constructed with the needs of employees and employers at the forefront.
Subsections (4) to (11) make amendments to other provisions of the 1996 Act to enable the regulations to provide important protections for employees who take bereavement leave, such as protection against detriment, protection of contractual rights, and protection for treating a dismissal that takes place for a reason relating to bereavement leave as unfair.
Subsections (12) to (13) make consequential amendments to His Majesty’s Treasury legislation to provide for how persons on bereavement leave are to be taken into account when assessing an employee’s “committed time” or the number of employees for the purpose of certain initiatives or schemes, in the same way as other family-related entitlements. Subsection (14) makes consequential amendments to the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 to remove provisions that no longer have any effect following the amendments made by clause 14 of this Bill.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation of clause 14. It is quite clear on a purely human level that bereavement can strike any family and any individual, often with zero notice or ability to plan, and it is therefore a basic tenet of humanity that we would all expect employers to be sensitive, generous and sympathetic to any employee who finds themselves in that position. For the record, it is certainly my experience that the vast majority of businesses and employers show compassion, sensitivity and generosity to ensure that anybody who is bereaved has the time, space and freedom to be able to grieve, plan for things such as funerals and start the very hard process of not just saying goodbye to that loved one, but putting various affairs in order, such as registering the death. People have to go through a high burden of bureaucracy when they find themselves in that position.
The core principle of the proposals is fundamentally a good one, and does not warrant opposition. However, there is an area that I think needs a little more debate and potentially some refinement. The Minister spoke about the need to consult and to get these regulations right, and it is important that we do that. I do not in any way oppose the principle of the proposals, but I gently suggest that perhaps it would have been better to do the consultation first, so that this could have been clearer in the legislation as it goes forward. I repeat, however, that I say that not to distract from the good principle that sits underneath these regulations.
I ask the Minister to reflect further on the point from the evidence session about bereavement leave being available to parents who have lost their child after 24 weeks of pregnancy. There are many people who suffer the loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks. That is one of the most heartbreaking things for mothers, fathers and wider families, and it happens every single day up and down the land. After all the joy, excitement and future planning that go into any mother’s, father’s and family’s life when they find out that they are expecting a child, the often very sudden news that that pregnancy has not made it comes as a huge shock, often with no notice.
There are things that a family, a mother, a father, will go through when they find out that that pregnancy has not been viable and has sadly ended under 24 weeks, including being taken to a small room and being asked the direct question—which, I assure the Committee makes the ears prick up and the reality of what has just happened come into sharp focus—about whether you wish to attend the burial of that failed pregnancy. That brings into sharp focus that you are actually being asked to say goodbye to your child. That can happen at any point in a pregnancy; it happened to my wife at about 14 weeks in 2018, and I remember vividly sitting in that room, having to fill out what seemed like the “Yellow Pages”-worth of forms, and reflecting that what should have been our second child was not going to be our second child. That takes some getting over, and it often involves surgery for the mother afterwards.
Although we have no formal amendment on this at this stage—I reserve the right to perhaps revisit it on Report—it is worth the Government reflecting on a genuine cross-party basis whether the 24-week period can be substantially reduced to give time to families who are saying goodbye. I do not want to get into the debates about when is a child a child, but it is devastating for families who go through that experience, and if the Government can find a way to ensure that families facing those circumstances can have some breathing space, so that we do not just have the “Back to work tomorrow, please” mentality that persists in this country, it would be a welcome and positive step. That might yet bring the whole House together and ensure that people have, as I say, space and time to reflect on what has just happened—to grieve, come back together again and then hopefully plan for the future.
Sarah Gibson
After that incredibly moving speech by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, I cannot help but share the absolute concerns of friends of mine who have also lost children in pregnancy quite early on. I appreciate that that causes devastation, and I would be very happy to support any amendments that are suggested on Report. Perhaps an earlier date for bereavement would be appropriate.
Dame Nia Griffith
I, too, thank the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire for sharing such a personal story with us today. As he says, the loss of a child or a baby at any stage is incredibly upsetting. Parents who suffer a stillbirth may be entitled to parental bereavement leave and pay. Although there is no statutory entitlement for miscarriage before 24 weeks, we expect employers to respond with compassion and understanding and encourage employees to discuss the support that they need with their employer. A woman is protected against discrimination in the workplace due to pregnancy, any illness related to pregnancy or absence of that illness. That includes any illness caused by miscarriage extending to two weeks after the end of the pregnancy. After that, the woman is still protected by the Equality Act 2010 sex discrimination protections if she is treated less favourably because she suffered a miscarriage.
Clause 20 will also allow for regulations to be made about dismissal during a protected period of pregnancy, and the enhanced dismissal protection policy will cover women during their pregnancy. I point out that at the moment the Women and Equalities Committee is looking into that and doing an inquiry. We will study the outcome of that very closely as we take our policies forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 130, in clause 16, page 30, line 24, at end insert—
“(1D) In exercising their duties under this section, an employer must have regard to protecting freedom of expression.
(1E) In subsection (1D), ‘freedom of expression’ is defined in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require employers to have regard to protecting freedom of expression when exercising the Bill’s duty not to permit harassment of their employees.
Amendment 131, in clause 16, page 30, line 24, at end insert—
“(1D) Subsection (1A) shall not apply to—
(a) higher education institutions, or
(b) providers of─
(i) hotels and similar accommodation;
(ii) holiday and other short-stay accommodation;
(iii) restaurants and mobile food service activities; and
(iv) beverage serving activities.”
This amendment would exclude higher education institutions and hospitality providers from the Bill’s duties for employers not to permit harassment of their employees.
Clauses 16 and 17 stand part.
New clause 29—Employer duties on harassment: impact assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of sections 15 to 18 of this Act on employers.
(2) The assessment must—
(a) report on the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for the measures in sections 15 to 18;
(b) include an assessment of the impact of sections 15 to 18 on free speech;
(c) include an assessment of the likely costs to employers of sections 15 to 18;
(d) include—
(i) an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and
(ii) proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clauses 15 to 18.
New clause 39—Duty to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace—
“(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—
‘(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from violence and harassment, including—
(i) gender-based violence;
(ii) sexual harassment;
(iii) psychological and emotional abuse;
(iv) physical and sexual abuse;
(v) stalking and harassment, including online harassment;
(vi) threats of violence.’
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) It shall be the duty of every employer to prepare, and as often as may be appropriate revise, an assessment to identify potential risks of violence and harassment in the workplace and implement policies and procedures to eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.
(3B) It shall be the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches.
(3C) In subsection (3B) a “gender-responsive approach” means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls, when designing and implementing policies and procedures.
(3D) In this section, “persons working in the workplace” includes—
(a) employees;
(b) full-time, part-time, and temporary workers; and
(c) interns and apprentices.
(3E) In subsection (2)(f) and subsections (3A) and (3B), a reference to the workplace includes remote and hybrid work environments.’”
This new clause will amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to place a duty on employers to protect all those working in their workplace from gender-based violence and harassment.
New clause 40—Expanded duties of the Health and Safety Executive—
“In the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, after section 11 (functions of the Executive) insert—
‘11ZA Duties of the Executive: health and safety framework on violence and harassment
(1) It shall be the duty of the Executive to develop, publish and as often as may be appropriate revise a health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace.
(2) This framework shall include specific provisions relating to—
(a) the prevention of gender-based violence and harassment of those in the workplace including the prevention of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse;
(b) the duty of employers to create safe and inclusive workplaces and the preventative measures they must adopt; and
(c) the use of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the duty of the employer in relation to violence and harassment (see section 2(2)(f)).
(3) The Executive shall work with other relevant bodies, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and law enforcement agencies, to develop and revise this framework.
11ZB Duties of the Executive: guidance for employers
The Executive shall, in consultation with such other persons as it considers to be relevant, issue guidance for employers about the protection of those facing violence and harassment on the basis of gender in the workplace by—
(a) implementing workplace policies to prevent violence and harassment;
(b) establishing confidential reporting mechanisms to allow victims to report incidents;
(c) conducting risk assessments and ensuring compliance with the health and safety framework (see section 11ZA);
(d) reporting and addressing incidents of violence and harassment; and
(e) supporting victims of violence and harassment, including making accommodations in the workplace to support such victims.’”
This new clause will create a duty on the Health and Safety Executive to develop a health and safety framework on violence and harassment and to issue guidance for employers about the protection of those facing violence and harassment on the basis of gender in the workplace.
Amendment 135, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force sections 15 to 18 of this Act until the findings set out in the report under section [employer duties on harassment: impact assessment] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment is linked to NC29.
Dame Nia Griffith
If I may just correct the record, there was not an impact assessment on clause 13—I inadvertently said that there was—because the impact is so small. But there was on clauses 11 and 12, and they received a rating of green.
Dame Nia Griffith
I will now speak to clauses 15 to 17, new clauses 29, 39 and 40, and amendments 130, 131 and 135. Clause 15 will strengthen the new duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees, which came into force on 26 October 2024 under the Equality Act 2010. Clause 15 requires that employers must take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. Including “all” emphasises the thorough approach that employers must take to prevent that. At the same time, the requirement remains limited to steps that are “reasonable”. The amended duty will mirror the existing statutory defence for an employer regarding vicarious liability, which requires them to show that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent harassment.
The concept of “all reasonable steps” has the advantage of being well established and familiar to employers and employment tribunals. This will therefore provide a consistent threshold and decrease uncertainty for all. The Government intend to provide businesses with clear guidance to ensure that they are fully supported in complying with the new legislation.
Clause 16 will introduce an obligation on employers not to permit the harassment of their employees by third parties under section 40 of the Equality Act. As well as employers taking action to prevent sexual harassment, workplaces and working conditions must be free from all forms of harassment. The clause therefore encompasses all three types of harassment set out under section 26 of the Equality Act. As well as sexual harassment, it covers harassment related to a protected characteristic that is covered by the existing harassment provision. It also covers treating someone less favourably because they have either submitted to or rejected sexual harassment, or harassment related to sex or to gender reassignment.
To avoid liability, employers will need to do what is reasonable. What constitutes “all reasonable steps” for third-party harassment will depend on the specific circumstances of the employer. Employers will need to consider the nature of any contact with third parties—for example, the type of third party, the frequency and the environment. In certain sectors, there may be more regular worker interaction with third-party contractors than in others. This amendment to the Equality Act will give much-needed clarity on the rights and responsibilities of employees and employers in these scenarios, and require employers to take action to prevent such harassment from occurring.
The burden of holding perpetrators and employers to account and of driving change is too great to be shouldered alone by employees who have experienced harassment. This measure therefore sends a clear signal to all employers that they must take steps against third-party harassment. That is the right thing to do because tackling misogyny and violence against women and girls is a societal issue in which employers can play a key role. This also means that victims can be confident that they are protected by the law if their employer has not taken all reasonable steps to protect them, and that they are able to take legal action if they so wish. This measure will therefore benefit all employees by making workplaces safer and ensuring that everyone has the same opportunity to succeed at work.
As I said earlier, oral evidence from the Fawcett Society shows that one in five women have been sexually assaulted in the workplace by third parties. These measures could have a positive effect on women, those with disabilities and ethnic minorities across the UK.
Clause 17 introduces a power to make regulations to specify steps that are reasonable for employers to take to prevent sexual harassment. That is to meet the requirements set out in the Equality Act 2010 that employers take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. Those are contained in section 40A, the general preventative duty; section 40, as amended by this Bill, to the extent it relates to sexual harassment by third parties; and section 109, employers’ vicarious liability, where that relates to a failure to prevent the sexual harassment. The provisions place broad requirements on employers, but it will be important to ensure that specific steps are taken where the evidence demonstrates that they are proportionate and needed to prevent sexual harassment. The regulations may also require an employer to have regard to specified matters when taking those steps.
The Government have already produced an extensive set of impact assessments, published on Second Reading and based on the best available evidence for the potential impact on business, workers and the wider economy. We intend to refine that analysis over time, working closely with businesses, trade unions, academics, think-tanks and the Regulatory Policy Committee. We will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill reaches Royal Assent, in line with the better regulation framework requirements. That will account for where primary legislation in the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament in such a way as to change significantly the impacts of the policy on business. That impact assessment will be published alongside the enacted legislation. In addition, we will publish further analysis alongside future consultations ahead of any secondary legislation, to meet our better regulation framework requirements.
No one should fear being sexually assaulted in the workplace, and the measures go further to protect employees. One in five women has been sexually assaulted in the workplace by someone outside their organisation. The measures could have a positive effect on women, those with disabilities, and ethnic minorities across the UK. The amendments and new clauses in this group would not add value, given the extensive impact assessment to which the Government have already committed.
On new clauses 39 and 40, I reassure the Committee that the Government entirely support the importance of ensuring that workers, including women and girls, are protected from workplace violence and harassment. We already have in place a strong and appropriate regulatory regime that provides protection to workers from violence and harassment. Through the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the statutory provisions made under it, employers already have a duty to protect their workers from health and safety risks, including workplace violence, and they must consider ways in which they can remove or reduce such risk. That legislation applies to everyone, irrespective of whether the victims have protected characteristics—it is a law to protect all workers.
The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, along with associated legislation, requires employers to reduce the risks of workplace violence. As part of that, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers first to assess the risks in the workplace, including the potential for violence, and then to take appropriate action to reduce those risks. The Health and Safety Executive and local authorities, which are responsible for enforcing the 1974 Act, carry out proactive and reactive work to ensure that employers are complying with their duties under the Act to assess the risks and are implementing appropriate control measures to protect their workers, and others affected by their work, from workplace violence.
The Health and Safety Executive has also published a range of readily available guidance on its website to assist employers in complying with their legal obligations. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) has tabled new clause 40, asking the HSE to publish a health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace, including violence against women and girls in the workplace, but employers already have such duties under the 1999 regulations, which require them to have suitable and sufficient arrangements in place to manage health and safety in the workplace, including violence and aggression.
Harassment in the workplace could be covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, but the HSE does not act where a more appropriate regulator has specific responsibility, or where there is more directly applicable legislation. Police already have powers to prosecute harassment offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission can take action under the Equality Act 2010.
Greg Smith
There is quite a lot in this grouping, and I will try to go through it in a sensible order. I will start with new clause 29 and amendment 135. The Regulatory Policy Committee has said that the Government have not managed to demonstrate sufficiently the need for the clauses in the Bill that require employers to prevent harassment of their employees by third parties, nor that the measures are sensible—those are the RPC’s words, not mine—and it has rated the impact assessment on this as red.
I want to be absolutely crystal clear from the outset, across all the clauses, amendments and new clauses that we are debating, that harassment is wrong; that the sort of sexual harassment that the Minister spoke about is absolutely, categorically unacceptable; and that whatever it takes in the law, and from an enforcement perspective, to stamp harassment out must happen. Such harassment is simply unacceptable in our country and society. The comments that I am about to make are not in any way, shape or form critical of action against harassment, therefore; they are about trying to best understand how the Bill and the amendments that have been tabled would work, and the difference they would realistically make to people’s lives, including by protecting them from harassment or other unacceptable behaviour.
With those ground rules set, if I may put it in that manner, the Opposition are concerned, and have doubts about, the need for and the operability of the provisions in clauses 15 to 18. I repeat that that is not about the principle of stopping harassment, but about the operability of the proposals that we are considering. We must question whether the benefits of these clauses will be outweighed by the burden on employers and, in certain respects, by the chilling impact on free speech.
New clause 29 would require the Secretary of State to
“report on the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for the measures in sections 15 to 18”.
Within that report, the Secretary of State must include
“an assessment of the impact of sections 15 to 18 on free speech…an assessment of the likely costs to employers…an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and…proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations.”
Amendment 135 quite reasonably provides that clauses 15 to 18 will not come into effect until—not never, but until—the House of Commons has approved the report required under new clause 29.
We then come to the two new clauses tabled by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, the leader of Plaid Cymru. I share the Minister’s concerns about the new clauses. I do not think they are necessary, I do not think that they particularly add to the spirit of what the Government are trying to achieve in the Bill and I do not think they pass the Opposition’s tests of operability. The official Opposition will therefore not be supporting them.
Amendment 130 would require employers to have regard to protecting freedom of expression when exercising the Bill’s duty not to permit harassment of their employees. I do not believe any business wants its employees to be harassed. No business owner that I know wants their staff, or any human being, to face harassment at all, in whatever setting. However, the amendment is designed to show the impossibility of the position in which the provisions on third-party harassment will put employers. It is a probing amendment, in the sense that we are not trying to create additional burdens for businesses by giving them another duty. It has been tabled so that we can talk about how unrealistic it is to expect employers to be able to enforce all the provisions in the Bill and, inherent to that, so that we can make the challenge that there may be more appropriate and operable pieces of legislation that already sit in statute or that may yet still need to be debated and passed through Parliament to prevent that.
The amendment is about how an employer can balance the right to free expression with the duties explicitly in the Bill. I do not believe that, in the moment, it will always be clear whether someone’s behaviour, say, in a pub falls on the right or wrong side of the line—it is a subjective test. Leaving that aside, there are situations where it will be frankly impossible for employers to abide by the law that the Government are seeking to make. I am interested in the Minister’s reflections on that.
Laurence Turner
The hon. Gentleman says that there will be situations where it is not just difficult, but impossible for an employer to abide by the Bill. Can he give some examples of the situations he has in mind?
Greg Smith
I am building up to my wider point. To skip ahead, there will be circumstances where, even within the reasonableness test—I understand that test—something so unexpected and unforeseeable happens that the employer could not in any way have planned a protection for their employees around that. Despite that, the employer might find themselves challenged in a tribunal or, worse, some form of criminal investigation about why they did not take reasonable steps against a totally unexpected and unplanned-for eventuality. I accept that, in most cases, there are practical steps that could be put in place to prevent harassment of any sort, but there will be times where that reasonableness test could fall over and someone could find themselves in a very tricky spot, unable to account for why they did not prepare for the totally unexpected.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB. The hon. Gentleman is making the point that it would be impossible for an employer to reasonably avoid something so extreme and out of the ordinary, but that would actually fall directly in the test, because the tribunal would look at whether it was reasonable for the employer to have put in arrangements, procedures or preparations to avoid a likely, foreseeable scenario. His concerns are completely misplaced, because no employer could reasonably avoid a situation that was impossible to avoid.
To go back to the fundamentals, as the hon. Gentleman said, we and employers should be taking all appropriate and reasonable steps, because 40% of women in the workplace suffer sexual harassment. These measures are reasonable in and of themselves, so I put it to him that he is worrying about something that is covered by the test.
Greg Smith
In many respects it is my job to be worried, to properly kick the tyres and to understand the operability of what the Government are trying to achieve. I certainly take the hon. Gentleman’s point on sexual harassment, and there is very clear criminal law in place that is probably more appropriate to bring perpetrators of such heinous crimes properly to justice. My concerns about the reasonableness test are less about that which can and should be pursued through criminal legislation; they are more about other forms of very subjectively tested harassment, as well as some points that I hope to make about freedom of speech. Hopefully, the hon. Gentleman will reflect on and understand those concerns when I get to that point.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of trade unions. It seems that my thoughts align with those of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak on the reasonableness of completely unforeseeable and unexpected things, but I would go a slight step further on what we are looking for from employers.
Even in circumstances in which something is so completely unexpected and unforeseeable that it might be reasonable for preparatory measures not to be in place, the duty would also address how employers respond. It is about having systems in place to react to incidents when they happen, rather than foreseeing every possible eventuality of the completely unexpected and unforeseeable. We can have supportive measures in place to prevent harassment from continuing or from happening again, and to support the individual.
Greg Smith
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I broadly agree, but my challenge to him is that reasonableness can be interpreted in many different ways. There will always been an appeals process or something similar, but I worry that unless the legislation is clearer, some good-willed employers who are entirely honest and decent in how they try to protect their staff could, in some circumstances, be on a very sticky wicket trying to defend themselves against something that they never foresaw or dreamed of. They may have been a little too innocent, but they will find themselves in a difficult spot. That is where safeguards need to be locked into the legislation in respect of what is a very subjective test.
I was about to come on to an example. I will preface it by saying that absolutely nobody should be abused in the workplace and absolutely nobody should face any form of harassment in the workplace. However, let us think for a moment about how some of the Bill’s provisions would operate in an NHS accident and emergency department. In any A&E up and down the land, our wonderful doctors and nurses sometimes put themselves in harm’s way, particularly late at night. Perhaps they have a patient who is clearly inebriated but has injured themselves. I am not excusing it for one second, but it can and does happen. Let us say that an incredibly drunk patient, who may have fallen and broken their hand, verbally abuses—not sexually harasses—the doctor or nurse treating them. The doctor or nurse does not deserve that, and that behaviour should not be happening, but I would wager that it happens most Friday or Saturday nights somewhere. It is unacceptable, but it does happen. What should happen in that circumstance?
Greg Smith
Let me just finish this point. I am trying to deal with a real-life scenario that should not be happening, but does. What does the doctor or nurse do, under the Bill? Do they refuse to treat the patient? Some would argue that perhaps they should, but the reality is that that is not what they are there for. They are there to heal, treat and support that patient who has got into a stupid predicament.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Greg Smith
I will just finish this point. Both hon. Ladies know that I will give way.
Where would the test come? What should the NHS, as the employer, have done to prevent that situation? What is the overall outcome in that scenario? Where does the reasonableness test fall? I repeat that I am not excusing the behaviour; I am putting it forward as a test to the provisions in the Bill, as a situation in which the employer—ultimately the national health service or perhaps the Health Secretary—would find themselves.
Sarah Gibson
I appreciate the shadow Minister’s giving way. I will make an effort not to intervene every time he stands up.
There is a very serious point here that anyone who has ever been in a situation in which they have felt intimidated will understand. An employee in higher education may be intimidated by students who are irritated, angry or frustrated about their results. In my case, they came to my office because they felt that they should not have failed. I have found myself in a small room—the kind of room in which this House would not allow MPs to hold a surgery—with no external access and no security guards on the door to intervene.
Such situations can be hugely difficult. Although the employer is not always in a position to pre-empt the situation, taking reasonable steps surely means providing an option for everybody to have an emergency phone number—that is what was available to me in my university job—or, at A&E, to have security staff intervene when somebody arrives quite clearly inebriated, in the same way that our security staff do at our surgeries. They will immediately foresee the problem and will make sure that the person is accompanied and is not left alone with a member of staff. Those are the sort of reasonable preparations that we would expect; I would be surprised if any employer were not happy to carry them out. I therefore see no reason why that should not be made clear in the legislation.
Greg Smith
I hope that the hon. Lady is right, but part of the test that the amendment sets for the Government is whether it will work. Is it clear? Will it put the protections in place that everybody wants to see? There is a question mark over whether they will work.
The NHS A&E environment is an example with which we are probably all familiar from our postbags. Constituents write to us about situations that they have witnessed or been in themselves, particularly on a busy Friday or Saturday night or in the Christmas season when there are lots of parties and lots of people probably having far too much to drink and sometimes getting themselves into unacceptable situations. There might not be the staff to double up; the patient might be abusive to all of them. It is unacceptable, horrible and wrong, but it is sometimes the reality. Where does that leave the senior doctor or nurse on duty, the chief executive of the trust, and ultimately the Secretary of State or the permanent secretary to the Department of Health and Social Care? Where does the test actually leave them, and what more can be done to make the legislation work?
The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby has been waiting patiently to come in.
Alison Hume
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I refer the Committee to my declaration of interests and my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.
The NHS has zero-tolerance policies, in common with the police service and any other service that deals with these difficult situations. They are good employers that have things in place. The shadow Minister spoke about employers not thinking about situations and being innocent. I draw his attention to their responsibility to employees who were innocent, but have lost their innocence as a result of unwanted sexual harassment or worse.
Greg Smith
I do not disagree with a word that the hon. Lady says. The NHS, like every employer, is right to take a zero-tolerance attitude to any form of harassment against its employees, customers, patients or whoever else happens to be on its premises at any time.
I accept the hon. Lady’s point about innocence. My A&E example was not so much about sexual harassment or worse criminality; it is all horrendous criminality, in my view, but there are other criminal laws that can and should be used to bring perpetrators to justice in that space. My example was more about abusive behaviour in the form of verbal harassment from a patient who is drunk or high on drugs. It is still horrible, it is still wrong and it still needs action, but what happens? The zero-tolerance policy, all of a sudden, becomes a poster on the wall rather than real, live action there and then, as that drunk patient makes unacceptable remarks of whatever nature to the nurse or doctor. The test is whether the words in the Bill before us—as opposed to other, potentially even more stringent or stronger legislation that is already on the statute book or that may yet need to be passed—will have a better effect.
Alison Hume
I think the Bill will do that, because it will strengthen the employers’ responsibility to take all reasonable steps.
Greg Smith
I hope that the hon. Lady is right. What my colleagues and I seek, through our amendment, is to test that. I do not think that anyone will criticise any Member of this House, on either side, for trying to properly road-test any legislation that comes before us and check whether it will have the effect that the Government seek.
Amendment 131 is topical, given the intervention that the hon. Member for Chippenham made about higher education. It would exclude higher education institutions and hospitality providers from some of the duties in the Bill, not around criminal behaviour—it would not exclude them from legislation that should rightly be used to challenge sexual harassment, for example—but around free speech. Employers may end up being overly cautious with respect to protecting free speech, as they will be worried about claims being brought under this legislation. That would lead to free speech debate and challenge being eroded. In the case of higher education, those are the very institutions at which free speech, challenge and rigorous and robust debate should frankly be taking place, and where wrong and unacceptable ideas can be knocked down robustly and firmly through the medium of intellectual debate.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. On the point about the hospitality and pubs sector, on which I held a debate in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago, there is real concern about this part of legislation, in particular about freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Does my hon. Friend agree that one consequence of the legislation might be that industry take actions beyond those intended? For example, people might self-censor beyond what could be seen as an off-colour or offensive joke, because they are scared that they could be held liable later for not protecting their employees. My hon. Friend gave an example, but another one is a comedy club, which would be conscious of and concerned about who they invite to entertain because of the perception that some of their staff could be offended, and the reasonableness of how that could be interpreted in the context of harassment. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a concerning unintended consequence of the legislation?
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend is right that there needs to be greater clarity about that which is already covered in criminal law—sexual harassment, direct racial abuse or abuse to someone on the basis of their sexuality, which clearly has to be actioned under criminal law and it must be ensured that the perpetrators are brought to justice—compared with satire or cutting jokes. Those are things that do not stray into the criminal, but perhaps some people might be offended by them, for whatever reason.
There are quite a lot of comedians openly talking about whether comedy is in fact becoming a thing of the past in this country. They are finding themselves unable to tell jokes that, while not going into the criminal, do risk offending some people. If that ends up shutting down comedy clubs or open-mic nights in pubs, it would be an unintended consequence that I cannot imagine the Government would want to bring about.
Alex McIntyre
I refer to my membership of the GMB union and the Community trade union. I shall come on to some of the nonsense we are hearing around free speech. I ask a direct question, seeing as we seem to be equating jokes with harassment: does the shadow Minister know the definition of harassment under the Equality Act and would he share that with the Committee so that we may understand what we are talking about here?
Greg Smith
What I am trying to test is the point at which the reasonability point would trigger. Is this the right Bill—the right set of clauses—to deal with the problems the hon. Member has outlined? There is a clear difference between that which should be treated under criminal law—and rightly stamped down on hard and forcibly—and the unintended consequence that will force sectors such as higher education or hospitality to become so risk averse that they shut down some of their activities. Yes, those activities, whether some form of comedy or whatever, could potentially be offensive to some people, but they are not criminal.
Alex McIntyre
I am afraid the shadow Minister does not know the definition under the Equality Act. If he did, he would know that the conduct is required to either violate someone’s dignity or create
“an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”.
That conduct has to be related to someone’s protected characteristic: sex, race, gender or their sexuality. We are talking about very serious circumstances. They fall short of the criminal definition of harassment, but they are within the Equality Act definition.
There is already a test within the current law to avoid some of the free speech arguments the shadow Minister is making. He is seeking to trivialise the experience of many people in those industries who face unacceptable harassment in the workplace.
Greg Smith
I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman. I am not trying to trivialise anything. I have been clear from the outset about how seriously we should take sexual harassment, racial abuse and abuse on the basis of someone’s sexuality, and that I believe the full force of the right laws should be used against any perpetrator of that hideous, evil and unacceptable behaviour. I take issue with his comment that I am trying to trivialise anything. I am trying to ensure that the provisions in the Bill will actually work, and will not have unintended consequences that some might call trivial—which some might be offended by but which do not cross what most people in society would deem some of those lines.
In the definition he just gave, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of undermining someone’s dignity. I am reminded of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders dinner a couple of weeks ago. I cannot remember whether the Minister was there, but the Secretary of State for Business and Trade was. Quite a famous comedian was on stage after the speeches, and their act was essentially to pick on people on various tables to find out which motor manufacturer they worked for and then, I would suggest, be quite brutal with them. He did perhaps undermine their dignity. It was not on the basis of sexuality, race or anything like that, but it was quite a brutal act. Everybody was laughing away, but what if someone in the audience was offended by that and took issue with it? Does that then put the organisers of the dinner—the chief executive of the SMMT—in the spotlight, under the provisions of the Bill? That is the point I think all members of this Committee and, ultimately, all Members of the House, have to be satisfied with before anybody allows this to become statute.
Alex McIntyre
I think the shadow Minister has already answered this question. What protected characteristic were any of those jokes related to? This is the point. It is not to stop people being comedians. If someone sits in the front row of a Ross Noble gig, they are bound to get picked on. If the joke relates to a protected characteristic, that is where it crosses the line into harassment. The example that the shadow Minister has just given is a good example of where this would not be triggered, because none of the jokes related to a protected characteristic.
Greg Smith
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right, but that is not how the Bill is worded. The Bill allows the reasonability test to be applied over the top of the Equality Act definition he has brought to the attention of the Committee. I gently ask him to reflect on that point and just check, because I do not think he would want this unintended consequence to be followed through into legislation. It would undermine the very serious things we spoke about earlier and, dare I say, trivialise them.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I refer Members to my declaration of interests, and remind them that I am a member of the GMB. It is timely that we are discussing this, as today is Human Rights Day. In 1998, the Labour Government brought the Human Rights Act into domestic law. Freedom of speech is indeed a human right, but that does not mean someone has the freedom to incite hatred, discriminate or attack people with a protected characteristic. In this fictional comedy club we are talking about, what are the things that people are mentioning? Can the shadow Minister give us a specific example of a joke that he thinks the Bill would put in jeopardy of undermining or putting at risk the CEO of said organisation?
Greg Smith
I think I have been clear that every law available should be used—potentially, more could be passed—to properly prosecute, challenge, shut down and stop anyone inciting hatred on the basis of race, religion, sexuality or whatever it might be. I cannot find any better set of words to make my revulsion at those crimes clearer, and I show my absolute support for any enforcement agency or Government of any political persuasion that brings forward workable laws to clamp down on those unacceptable criminal behaviours, full stop.
Greg Smith
I will just finish this point, then I will be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend.
The point I am trying to make is that bits of legislation that we are asked to consider sometimes have unintended consequences, and that there is a risk of someone being offended by something that does not pass the reasonability test in this Bill. Outside the well-defined areas that go into the criminal, part of free speech is the right to offend on certain levels.
Greg Smith
I will give way in a second.
Many comedians—Jimmy Carr is an example—talk frequently at the moment about comedy being shut down. It is not criminal; it is not racial hatred or hatred on the basis of religion, sexuality or anything like that. It is beyond those points.
Uma Kumaran
We all enjoy comedy in this House, but this is a very serious subject. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, on the exercise of the freedoms that the shadow Minister is talking about, carries with it duties and responsibilities. It states that the freedoms
“may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of”
a number of things. In this fictional comedy club or this fictional speech, all the things that you are saying may—
Uma Kumaran
I apologise, Mr Mundell. All the things that the shadow Minister has referred to are already enshrined in various laws in this country, so what is the fictional scenario that he thinks this Bill jeopardises?
Greg Smith
The hon. Lady is right to bring the Committee’s attention to that which is already laid down in statute. I think that perhaps where the misunderstanding is coming in—the Opposition are trying to test this—is whether the new reasonability test will deliver perverse results in a tribunal. Probably nobody sitting in this room would expect that to happen, but it could supersede that which is already set down and create a new precedent.
Nick Timothy
I should probably make reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an unpaid trustee at the Index on Censorship, which may be relevant to this debate.
I do not think anybody here is a free speech absolutist. My hon. Friend is trying to test scenarios, but he is in no way talking about issues such as incitement of hatred, which are already criminal matters. We are talking about the codification of things that may be subjective in the light of the law of unintended consequences.
To bring some colour to the conversation, I thought I would make reference to a recent Independent Press Standards Organisation ruling. I cannot imagine that that was ever the kind of ruling that was intended at the time that IPSO was created. Gareth Roberts, who sometimes writes for The Spectator, was writing about a third party who had, in turn, written about issues relating to gender, and referred to them as
“a man who claims to be a woman”.
That person then complained to IPSO, which ruled that it was not wrong as a statement of fact, but still upheld the complaint on account of its being a prejudicial or pejorative reference to that person. I do not think that that is the kind of thing that was ever intended when IPSO was created, but it is the type of example that we may be talking about right now. I would love to know what my hon. Friend thinks about that.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend highlights an issue that would come down to a subjective test, so “reasonableness” could mean something very different in different tribunal settings and to different individuals casting judgment on any such complaint. That goes to the absolute nub of what we are asking the Government to reflect on. Is the test strong enough? Is it workable? Is it operable? Will it actually produce perverse outcomes?
Alex McIntyre
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the example that the hon. Member for West Suffolk just cited, IPSO found that there was no harassment, and therefore there was a finding under clause 12(i) of the editors’ code of practice, rather than clause 3?
Greg Smith
I am not certain that is quite the point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk was making. However, in the interest of fairness, I will commit to properly looking up that case, which I had not come across until my hon. Friend mentioned it a couple of moments ago.
Laurence Turner
We are back to talking about perverse outcomes and unintended consequences, which are important things to consider. However, is that not what we are looking at in amendment 131? In in my view, it confuses sectors with functions. The hon. Gentleman says that he and his colleagues have selected these particular cases or sectors because they relate to freedom of speech. However, if we take the example of universities and higher education, a higher education institution contracts services of all sorts, many of them not relating to freedom of speech—for example, security and refuse services—but if the amendment were made and if it failed to conduct even basic vetting on a contractor, it would be exempt from these provisions if an incident of sexual harassment occurred. However, if exactly the same circumstances were to be repeated by a community hall or a church that would fall under the scope of the legislation. Is there not a problem in the drafting of the amendment? On that basis alone, it should not be accepted.
Greg Smith
I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making. However, in the examples he gave he has shown exactly why there is a need to ask the Government to doubly rethink the way in which the original Bill is drafted to ensure that some of those areas are covered off so that the reasonability test is clearer and people do not find themselves on that proverbial sticky wicket for innocent reasons. We tabled the amendment—we fully accept it does not cover everything and every eventuality—because it is our job as the Opposition to highlight cases which in turn highlight areas where the Bill may be deficient and where it needs a little surgery to ensure that it achieves what the Government are trying to achieve, rather than creating many loopholes and perverse outcomes. I have probably spoken for long enough on this group of amendments.
Nick Timothy
Will my hon. Friend give way just one more time? I have an excellent example that I would like to share.
Greg Smith
How can I say no to the offer of an excellent example from my hon. Friend?
Nick Timothy
It has just been drawn to my attention that the Health Secretary is the subject of an official complaint to the Labour party for his jokes about the former Transport Secretary at The Spectator party last week because his comments were considered “bullying and uncomradely” according to the complaint. That may be another example of this kind of subjective test.
Greg Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for that. It may well be such an example. I must admit I resisted the urge to attend The Spectator awards last week. I am told the Health Secretary did make what many considered a very funny speech. However, it is clear that some deem it uncomradely. Who knows? Had this legislation already been enacted the Labour party itself might have found itself on that sticky wicket. On that note, I ask the Minister to reflect on the provisions in this Bill in that regard and check that the Government really do have this right.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Anna McMorrin.)
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 10th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 December 2024 - (10 Dec 2024)
The Chair
We will first consider the programme motion as on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions for the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take these matters formally, without debate. Date Time Witness Tuesday 10 December Until no later than 9.55 am Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces Tuesday 10 December Until no later than 10.40 am Royal British Legion; Help for Heroes Tuesday 10 December Until no later than 11.25 am SSAFA, the Armed Forces Charity; COBSEO, the Confederation of Service Charities Tuesday 10 December Until no later than 2.20 pm Defence Medical Welfare Service Tuesday 10 December Until no later than 3.10 pm Army Benevolent Fund; Royal Navy and Royal Marines Charity; Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund Tuesday 10 December Until no later than 4 pm Army Families Federation; Naval Families Association; RAF Families Federation Tuesday 10 December Until no later than 4.20 pm Ministry of Defence
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday10 December meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 December;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 12 December;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 December;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clause 1; Schedule 1; Clauses 2 to 5; Schedule 2; Clauses 6 to 8; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 17 December.—(Luke Pollard.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Luke Pollard.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Luke Pollard.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Members by email. We will now go into private session to discuss lines of questioning.
The Committee deliberated in private.
Examination of Witness
Mariette Hughes gave evidence.
The Chair
Good morning. We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start to hear from our witnesses, do any Members wish to make declarations of interest in connection with the Bill?
The Chair
I think we can forgive you for that; thank you. We will now hear oral evidence from Mariette Hughes, the Service Complaints Ombudsman. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind the Committee that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings of the programme order that we agreed. For this panel, we have until 9.55 am. Will the witness introduce herself for the record and say a few words?
Mariette Hughes: Good morning; thank you for having me here. I am Mariette Hughes, the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the armed forces. I am pleased to be here to talk about the Bill, which is a positive and important piece of legislation. I am happy to answer any and all questions.
The Chair
A lot of Members are unused to Bill Committees, so if you want to speak, put up your hand in good time, the Clerk will let me know and we will get everyone in. I call Mark Francois.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Q
Mariette Hughes: My remit is extremely narrow. It does what it needs to do in providing oversight of the service complaints system, but it restricts me and those who work in my office to looking only at issues related to service complaints—those complaints that have been through the system and applications that have been made directly to my office.
We know that one issue is that not enough people complain. Between the number of people who report that they experience poor behaviours or unacceptable things in the workplace and the number of people who complain and come through to my office is a huge delta. We are not able to look into the reasons why. The ability to look behind those issues raised as pure service complaints is incredibly advantageous.
For me, there is also an element of being able to look at the further level of “So what?” Too many times when we look at a service complaint, we are considering whether the individual has been wronged because of whether or not a policy has been applied correctly to them, and that is as far as our analysis can go. What the Bill will provide is the ability to go behind that to say, “Does this policy provide the best for our service personnel in terms of their welfare?” Those are the key issues for me.
Mr Francois
Q
Mariette Hughes: Yes, absolutely. When I last spoke in front of the Defence Committee, we mentioned that we would like those powers, and my predecessor had asked for them as well. We were told previously that until we got our backlog and performance sorted, they would not be able to be extended to us, but that is the direction we have been pushing in. We have been asking for them for years, and we would be very excited about it.
Mr Francois
Q
Mariette Hughes: I say this with a pinch of salt because I have not logged on this morning to check whether we have had any new applications, but the backlog is zero. We have around 30 cases in active investigation. Any new cases coming into my office are instantly allocated out. We have brought the backlog down to nothing, and we are at 100% timeliness.
Mr Francois
Q
Mariette Hughes: Thank you. It has been very important to us. When I took on the role, the wait time for individuals to have their cases looked at by me was around nine months. When we are the organisation holding the services to account for how swiftly they deal with complaints, that does not fly very well. If we are going to be the champion of what good looks like, we have to be able to demonstrate that we can apply those lessons to ourselves to make the services trust us, so I am pleased that we have been able to do that over the last three years.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Q
Mariette Hughes: One of my main concerns is ensuring a smooth transition. My staff are quite excited for the new remit. Again, we as an organisation have been pushing for it for a while, but naturally there is consternation and a bit of anxiety about what it means for them. Broadly under the scope of the legislation, if the powers and functions of the ombudsman are simply lifting and shifting to the commissioner role, I anticipate that the majority of my staff will continue operating as usual.
It is key for us that we do not disrupt the good work that has been happening. A lot of my staff have been at the organisation longer than I have, and they remember when the backlog was even worse. They are the ones who have done the work and delivered that performance. It would be absolutely devastating for them to see it disrupted, so ensuring that they have somewhere to operate from, have clear legislation, understand what they are able to do and can just continue as usual will be key.
The other element to be considered is the other side of our business—those who look after our finance, IT and stats. Their roles will potentially need to expand to cover more under the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office, and that is what needs to be established through a transitionary period.
Graeme Downie
Q
Mariette Hughes: That depends on the speed at which the legislation goes through and the plans—I noticed that there is an amendment on setting a proposed timeframe. Depending on when you want the office to go live, there needs to be a significant scoping period to determine how many staff will be required and what the budget will look like. Certain roles will be needed ahead of others, and for certain roles, current staff at SCOAF will simply be able to pick up some of the work. We have staff in our organisation who were working for us at the point of transitioning from the commissioner to the Service Complaints Ombudsman, so they have done this process and will be able to guide it through.
Graeme Downie
Q
Mariette Hughes: Absolutely. It is all about collaborative working. There will certainly be areas where the commissioner cannot reach in and touch—or have control over—the provisions for service personnel, but it is about maintaining those good relationships. We are all trying to do the best for people, so it is about ensuring that we have those sensible conversations and everyone understands one another’s remits, and that we are able to bring issues to the fore and talk about them as we go. We are already doing some really good work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission on uniformed protective services and behaviours. That is the sort of work I see expanding with this, and with the devolved Administrations we just sit round the table and talk about whose job it is to take this forward, because we can all agree that this is what needs to happen for people.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Q
Mariette Hughes: I am not entirely sure I can answer that one for you. We have approached it from two different paths that have converged at a very convenient time. I am aware that the new Government have been pushing this very hard and that it is something they feel very strongly about. I am certainly in favour of it. Separately to that, within the ombudsman community there is a lot of talk about own motion powers and thematic investigations. I think there are only one or two other schemes in the UK that currently have those powers. This is game-changing for everyone. We have been talking about this since I came into role.
When we set up our new five-year strategic objectives, one was around changing our performance, one was around changing the relationship with the services, and the third one was around looking at the strategic and political landscape and how we need to be fixed. What powers do we need to be able to effect real change for service personnel? This has been part of our ongoing conversations for around five years.
Amanda Martin
Q
Mariette Hughes: Trust and confidence in the service complaints system is something that we have been driving hard as SCOAF, and that work would continue. This is what I think is interesting about the commissioner role. When we do outreach visits, I sit down and do focus groups with service personnel, where I kick all the chain of command out of the room and get them to tell me what they actually feel and experience. What is really interesting for me is that in those conversations, a number of issues, frustrations, grumbles and gripes are raised, and they are not the sorts of things that normally become service complaints, because to the individual they do not feel big enough or they do not feel that they have been personally wronged—it is just part and parcel of their service life—or they do not think that raising a service complaint will change it. We have those conversations because it relates to service complaints. It talks about that mental resilience, the things they are putting up with that chip away and then lead them to situations where they feel they have to complain.
Under the commissioner’s powers, you would be able to raise those issues and put those into reports that can be laid in the House and brought into the light—all the issues that people are telling us about, such as their accommodation or concerns around food or policies that affect their families. At the moment, I am gathering that information as good background for service complaints, but the commissioner role would be able to take that forward and say, “This is affecting all three services” or “Actually, it is affecting this service more than the other.” So this really rich information will help promote those welfare things that currently do not have enough light shining on them.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Can I ask for your views on the German armed forces commissioner? Obviously, this measure has been modelled on that.
Mariette Hughes: You can, of course. I know Dr Eva Högl quite well. We are both members of the International Conference of Ombuds Institutions for the Armed Forces, which is a mouthful, so I will say ICOAF. We have a conference every year. She is an absolutely incredible person and has done really good things with that office. It is an interesting model for this to be based on. There are some differences that we have to be alive to. The key one for me—apologies if this comes up later—is around the terminology. Dr Högl is the Commissioner for the Armed Forces. Germany does not have a fully established ombudsman scheme in the same way that the UK does. We have 22 established schemes under the Ombudsman Association. On Eva’s website, she describes herself as “the ombudsman for the armed forces”. It is simply that the title “parliamentary commissioner” fits with their legal framework.
There are also some interesting differences. Eva has had these powers for a long time and uses them very well. However, she does not have the oversight of service complaints that I have, so this would be an extended remit compared with the German model. It is brilliant to draw inspiration from it. Being members of those communities together, we are always looking at best practice in other countries. There are necessarily some differences in this country, but it is certainly a good starting point.
Michelle Scrogham
Q
Mariette Hughes: I think we have to build our own model; we have to look at what our key issues are. Germany is a different landscape and a different framework and has been operating for a huge number of years. We cannot just pick it up and start doing things the way they do. We need to start with what our key focuses are and how we think we can have the most impact and scale up operations, and go from that.
We might end up looking at things slightly differently. A lot of Dr Högl’s focus is on investment in defence and pushing for bigger budgets. Does that necessarily tie in with what we are seeing about the welfare of service personnel? There may be issues that cross over into that, but we would have a slightly different focus from the German parliamentary commissioner.
Michelle Scrogham
Q
Mariette Hughes: For me, the best thing from the German model that I would like us to learn from and take forward is the voice that Dr Högl has within the German Parliament. She has a permanent seat; she sits in all the sessions. I am not saying that the commissioner should have that, but they should certainly have the ability to lay reports directly or have them laid in the House so that more focus is placed on this. There is absolutely no point having all this access and information and creating the reports if they do not go anywhere and nobody talks about them. That level of parliamentary oversight and visibility is what we should mirror from the German system.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Q
Mariette Hughes: I am also a board member of the Ombudsman Association. You will not be surprised to know that my views align very closely with those of the chair of the Ombudsman Association. I understand why we are using the word “commissioner”, based on the fact that we were mirroring the German system, but as set out in the letter from the chair, the Cabinet guidance is very clear that “ombudsman” is the gold standard.
As I have mentioned, we have 22 established schemes; we have a very wide network of ombudsmen. Within my office, we have spent a lot of time trying to get people to understand the value of an ombudsman, what it is and what it does. Having been the service complaints commissioner previously, I worry that going back towards “commissioner”—going from service complaints commissioner to service complaints ombudsman to armed forces commissioner—is a step back. It feels like if we are doing that, is the next step not armed forces ombudsman? Do we not just go there straightaway?
Pam Cox
Q
Mariette Hughes: The Cabinet Office guidance simply says that if you do not meet the standards for independence, impartiality, integrity and fairness, you cannot use the term “ombudsman”. There is an inherent elevation to “ombudsman”. There are no real prescriptive powers for what an ombudsman can or cannot do compared with a commissioner; it is all broadly set out in the legislation or the rules that govern. Each ombudsman scheme in the UK, whether they are statutory or voluntary ombudsman schemes, have different powers and remits. It is broadly what you make of it. It is about the gravitas of that term and the understanding in the wider landscape of what “ombudsman” means. We as the UK have accepted that an ombudsman is the top tier of fairness and oversight. Unless there are overriding reasons, I simply do not understand why we would use the term “commissioner” instead of “ombudsman”.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Q
Mariette Hughes: Under the Bill as drafted, the remit is very wide. The key thing will be the secondary legislation—the regulations and schedules that cover exactly what the work looks like. It is also key that the individual sets out what their focus is and where they want to focus the work. There is a danger of thinking this is a magic silver bullet that will fix everything. You simply cannot fix everything, and even with the power to go where you like and look at what you like, you must have that focus on what is key to welfare.
The initial first year would involve a lot of scoping around, “What do we already know, what do we think we can fix, and what do we wish we knew?” We would focus on that within the broad categories set out in the Bill, but this is about welfare, not about going into all the back rooms and looking at all the sneaky files and exciting buttons just because we can. We must always ask the questions, “Why am I looking at this, what do I think I am going to achieve, and how will this make life better for service personnel?” It is very wide, and it will need to be set out in regulations how that is to be directed, but I would not want to constrain the individual in deciding what they need to look at, based on their experience.
Lincoln Jopp
Q
Mariette Hughes: If I am allowed to apply. As the ombudsman, I can do only one term, but obviously this is a new role. If it is decided that I am allowed to put myself forward for the job, I would love to be considered for it. I love what I do, I feel very passionate about it, and these are the powers we have been asking for. It would also provide the opportunity to ensure that the work of SCOAF, which we have got to a really good standard, can continue uninterrupted, while then focusing on, “What does this look like, how can we take it forward, and how can we make this work?”
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
Q
One of the key provisions for the Armed Forces Commissioner is their independence. In my mind, if they are not regarded as independent, it will not work in enabling people to raise concerns and issues with them. Could you talk us through how independence works in your current role, and how you feel an Armed Forces Commissioner independent from Government, Ministers and the chain of command might operate on a day-to-day basis?
Mariette Hughes: Absolutely. The key point is that independence does not mean you are completely isolated, or that you cannot talk to Ministers and work collaboratively. It is about having an unfettered ability to decide how your work is shaped. When I took on the role of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, a key thing we always got asked, particularly on social media or in questions and queries about our services, was, “How are you maintaining independence? You are funded by the Ministry of Defence. You must therefore be in MOD’s pocket and none of your decisions is actually independent.” All ombudsmen face this, because we have to be funded from somewhere and it is usually the sector that we are overseeing. It is not an unusual thing.
One of our key priorities was setting out to the public, in a way that people could understand, how we maintain that independence. We designed a governance framework, which, to be honest, I was quite shocked that we did not have already when I took on the role. That has now been laid out to the House, and it sets out publicly that although the Ministry of Defence will provide my funding, it is not allowed to touch my cases, design my business plan, or tell me what I can and cannot do in pursuing the aims set out within the remit of my role. I would expect something similar with the commissioner, setting out who has the power to do what. It will need to be set out that although they report to the Secretary of State and are funded by Defence, they are entirely independent in the decision making.
Luke Pollard
Q
Mariette Hughes: Currently, we do not assess national security. We are overseeing just the service complaints system, which is about personnel issues—the issues service personnel face in the workplace. We naturally have a few cases where information is redacted because it is sensitive, because of the nature of where that individual works, and we work very well with the services on deciding what should and can be redacted. In a report where we are just talking about someone’s workplace experience, they should probably not be putting in information that needs to be redacted.
Going forward with the commissioner role, if the focus remains on welfare, I do not think it is as much of an issue as it might be. I understand the concern, because the Bill is so wide and gives those powers, but again, I cannot really see a situation in which the commissioner would need to get that involved in those issues, if that makes sense.
Luke Pollard
Q
Mariette Hughes: The framework proposed in this Bill is significantly stronger than what is currently in existence with my office. I have similar provisions in my terms and conditions that if for any reason I am unable to fulfil my functions, the Secretary of State can terminate my employment; equally, I can give notice. What is not in the current legislation or in my terms and conditions is the ability to appoint a deputy or an acting person to fill that role. That is a very real risk and it is a gap.
When I took on the role, there was actually a gap between myself and my predecessor during which nobody in the office could do any work, because there is no power unless it is delegated directly from the ombudsman and there is no power for the Secretary of State to put in an interim. There was a small period when nothing could happen. That is a real risk. At the moment, if I get hit by a bus—touch wood—and cannot come into work, there is nothing in the legislation that allows my staff to continue working unless I am there to delegate that power. The Bill allows for the commissioner to appoint a deputy, to delegate specific functions, and, in the event of incapacity or their being unfit to do the job, to be removed from post and an acting commissioner to be put in place. That gives us a lot more security than what we have currently, and I am in favour of it.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
Q
Mariette Hughes: I think it will allow people who are experiencing an issue that affects a wider group or a demographic to bring forward that complaint as a whole. There is a lot of onus in service complaints on the resolution of individual grievances. You cannot bring a group complaint; it has to be an individual’s complaint with a named respondent. We are doing as much as we can to make sure that that system does not feel onerous, combative or scary, but some people are simply not comfortable putting their name down and saying, “I want to complain about my employer because of this.”
This new role has a wider focus on welfare, so you could form really good links with some of the networks to say, “Okay, when people come to you for advice, what are the things they are worried about? What are the things they are scared about? What policies are affecting them?” If those people are still not comfortable raising individual complaints, we need to ask what issues they are facing and whether we can cast a light on them. I want everyone to feel safe to come forward, but equally, if we know there are problems, it should not take the individual coming forward. If we know there are problems, we should be able to go and shine the light on it for them, so that they do not need to do that.
Juliet Campbell
Q
Mariette Hughes: I think it is key to look at the front end of complaints. By the time things come to us, they have been all the way through the process, they are still unhappy with it and they are asking us to fix it. It is really important that we can fulfil that function, but the thing that went wrong for that individual happened maybe 12 months ago, so we have to see what people are coming to welfare for, what people are coming to the networks for, and what people are using “Speak Out” and the “Call it Out” hub for. When people are saying, “I am seeing certain behaviours and I’m having an issue,” where can we get the sources of data to look into it? It will be really important for the commissioner to try to get ahead of some of those issues. It is really important that, when things go wrong, people can use the formal system, but ideally I would like to stop them going wrong, to be able to look at where the hotspots are and to really focus welfare work on them.
The Chair
We have to finish at 9.55 am, but do you want to ask a very quick question, Amanda Martin? You have one minute.
Amanda Martin
Q
Mariette Hughes: I think it absolutely will be a good thing. The Bill pitches it right: such individuals will be able to raise concerns but, as I understand it, the intention is to form a secondary service complaints system for them all to go through. Essentially, those relevant family members are people we expect to live in certain conditions; there are various aspects of service life that apply to them, that they simply have to live by and that affect everything they do, but they are not subject to service law so they cannot come into the system. Understanding how that affects them and how we are providing for the family members of those who serve us and protect us is really important. It also gets around that problem where individuals might not want to raise a complaint because it will go on their record; their spouse might be able to put it forward for them, and say, “They would never say this to you, but this is really affecting our family and I am worried.”
We also have the issue where we know that people still do not like to talk about their emotions or about what is affecting them. It is their family members and the people around them who see clearer than anyone what is happening and when there is a concern. Giving them an avenue to put their hand up and say, “Look, I think we need a bit of help here,” or, “I think you need to look at this issue,” is absolutely brilliant.
The Chair
Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of the time for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witness on behalf of the Committee. We will now move to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Angela Kitching and Ted Arnold gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Ted Arnold, senior public affairs and policy manager for Help for Heroes, and Angela Kitching, director of campaigns, policy and research for the Royal British Legion. For this panel we have until 10.40 am. Could the panel introduce themselves?
Angela Kitching: Thank you for inviting us to give evidence. I am Angela Kitching, the campaigns, policy and research director for the Royal British Legion. We have been holding focus groups on the Bill with members of the armed forces community and their families—those who are currently serving—to see what their views are. Some of the interesting points that we would like to draw out today are around how we can measure the impact of the role, and what the proper balance is between thematic and individual complaints, given the new scope of the role. We would also like to explore the question of relevant family members and who will be able to raise complaints.
Ted Arnold: Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence this morning. My name is Ted Arnold, and I am the senior policy and public affairs manager at Help for Heroes. We are a veterans’ charity, supporting veterans and their families and I will very much be making comments from that perspective. We very much welcome the Bill and we see the key underlying principle as calling for a more transparent culture to make it harder for Defence to hide embedded problems. That is a conversation that we want very much to be a part of. We believe the veteran community has substantial insights to offer to that conversation, as we seek to improve the lives of serving personnel who one day will become veterans themselves.
Mr Francois
Q
Angela Kitching: As colleagues will know, the covenant is the promise that the Government make on behalf of the nation to those who serve and who have served, their families and the bereaved. I think the role of the commissioner can help to give that some teeth. Hopefully, the way that the welfare remit is written will go beyond the current legal duties under the covenant and will allow the commissioner to consider thematic issues where service personnel and their families face significant problems.
I hope that in places where the covenant does not have legal force, such as Northern Ireland, the commissioner will be able to bring parties together and co-ordinate a proper response from local authorities or national Governments to improve the experience of service personnel and their families.
I particularly want us to think about the position of the bereaved, who are often not well considered in terms of the covenant. They are one of the groups of people who are supposed to be given special consideration under the covenant, yet they are often missed out when local authorities and others plan their services related to the covenant. I hope that, through the definition of “relevant family members”, the commissioner will be able to bring to the fore some of the experiences of the bereaved community.
Mr Francois
Q
Angela Kitching: If the powers transfer as they are at the moment, veterans who have experienced a problem in service and raised that through the service complaints system will, we hope, be able to continue to pursue their individual cases. We would like clarity on that point, because I feel it was not well explained on Second Reading.
In terms of the commissioner’s relationships, it is really important that they think about their relationships with the veterans commissioners and the veterans advisory and pensions groups that exist around the country. If Haythornthwaite is to be properly implemented, it is going to be a spectrum of service where people pass from serving into reserve and into veteran, and back again, so it will be really important to spot the themes to make sure that we have a group of people in the armed forces community who can rely on the knowledge that they will be well treated when they are in a serving scenario.
Mr Francois
Q
Angela Kitching: Yes. You will be aware that that was an open advert and people were being invited to apply just prior to the election. We have not yet heard an update on what will happen to that role. We think it is really important that there is a national veterans commissioner, as described. Clearly, the Armed Forces Commissioner will have a wider, deeper and better resourced role than any of the other commissioners. I think a lot could be learned, particularly from the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, because they report directly to Parliament. The Armed Forces Commissioner can look to that community of commissioners regularly to make sure that they pick up issues as people are leaving service.
Mr Francois
Q
What is Help for Heroes’ perspective on some of the veterans’ issues that I have just put to the RBL, please?
Ted Arnold: To build on what Angela said, in our experience, and from what we are told, the military works well and looks after its own until there is a problem in service, be it injury or illness, when it often closes ranks, withholds vital information, or provides inconsistent or varied support.
The last part of the mantra, “Join well, serve well, leave well”, is often an afterthought, particularly for the wounded, injured and sick. Very much a key message from our beneficiaries relates to that variability, inconsistency and uncertainty during their service, and particularly at the point of discharge and building up to transition. For instance, the German model has looked at the issues of transition out of service, and how those policies and procedures would impact personnel post service. Veterans can probably talk with greater openness about their experiences with their service, with the benefit of distance and hindsight, to really crack some of those issues open. The Minister was right to point out on Second Reading that the agencies and services in place are very different for veterans, and it is important to make that distinction, but a lot of these issues stem from the point of discharge or transition.
One issue on which we have been working closely with the Veterans Minister is the call for an independent review into the medical discharge process. We believe that the policies and processes are very much there but are followed inconsistently across the three services, or not followed properly by the chain of command. Building on the other thematic reviews, in regard to issues such as welfare more broadly, leadership style or elements of training, kit or housing, we believe that we hold a wealth of experience, and a wealth of data and evidence, from that community that we would very much like to build into those thematic reviews.
Mr Francois
Q
Ted Arnold: I think we would broadly say something similar. It is a postcode lottery in terms of support and how the covenant is applied, and there are inconsistencies with the armed forces champions. Some areas are very good—they have some density of serving personnel or veterans, and they are very aligned with some of those issues—and others less so. That seeps into the whole culture, and it touches on a previous point made by the ombudsman about having someone else to advocate on your behalf on those issues, be it getting the right welfare support or getting the right healthcare support. For many, the armed forces champion is seen as that point, but others have to draw on family and the charity sector to get access to the support that they need.
Graeme Downie
Q
In subsection (3) of that new section, do we feel that a “relevant family member” is correctly drawn? Further down, subsection (7) of the new section states that the Secretary of State will give the commissioner “reasonable assistance”. From the focus groups and the work you have done with your members, is there a feeling that that is the correct terminology? Will that capture everything that they feel the commissioner needs to be involved in, or is there any work that can be done to broaden or tighten some of those definitions?
Angela Kitching: I will do my best with that technical question. I think welfare is a well understood term in the armed forces community. Calling out particular experiences of discrimination, bullying and harassment is useful, because that is not held to be a welfare issue; it is held to be an employment and discrimination issue. On that one, that feels appropriate.
The second part that you raised was about a relevant family member. That really does need significant further exploration in Committee, and further definition. I understand that the Government intend to publish regulations when the Bill passes from the Commons to the Lords, but understanding what a “relevant family member” is has been a really disputed point in the armed forces community. For example, the bereaved parents of people who have lost their service person often feel that they are not included in the world of the armed forces community, and it is the same for the siblings of those who are bereaved. The families of non-UK personnel who are not resident in the UK also often feel outside the environment. The issue is about understanding who a relevant family member is, and being open to the fact that that person could raise relevant information.
Establishing really clearly whether somebody can raise a complaint or a concern—three terms are being used, “complaint”, “concern” and “issue”—and getting clarity over who is allowed to do what is extremely important, because otherwise it will unduly raise people’s expectations that they will be able to follow something through in a formal process, when what they are being invited to do is offer additional information for a thematic review. We need absolute clarity in the way that is communicated to the armed forces community—who has right to a complaint versus who is able to raise a concern or issue more broadly.
The only other thing I would mention is that the process will be everything. I was surprised by the focus groups: we thought that we would collect information about issues that people were likely to want to raise with the commissioner if their scope were broadened, but what people wanted to talk about was how safe they would feel in the process—would they be prepared to raise something, would they be able to do it jointly as the commissioner just raised, would family members feel that they were able to raise concerns and would it affect their person’s career progression or ability to continue to make progress?
There is a high level of distrust in certain areas of current service complaints, for example service-to-type complaints, where people are making accommodation complaints. At the moment, there is already a three-stage process that has to be closed before someone is able to approach the ombudsman. The middle section of that process is so overwhelmed at the moment that people are getting standard messages to say, “We are not able to progress your complaint on the current timelines.” That in itself would be a reason for somebody to be allowed to go to the ombudsman, but they will already have been through an extensive paperwork process to try to pursue their individual complaint before they get to the stage where the commissioner is reviewing the process.
It is getting the balance of expectation right for individuals who are serving and their family members of whether this is likely to be effective and get faster, or whether thematic reviews would be a better place to put their efforts if they have a broader based complaint such as an accommodation issue.
Graeme Downie
Q
“in the Commissioner’s opinion…may materially affect the welfare”.
Is the concern that that word choice creates the possibility almost of a bottleneck being artificially created?
Angela Kitching: There is a very broad invitation in new section 340IA in clause 4(3), which states:
“The Commissioner must consider any request made by a person subject to service law or a relevant family member to carry out an investigation under this section.”
That is a very broad funnel, which is helpful, but the question of how material the impact is on the individual could be the point at which it narrows. It is the question of the clarity of the process. If yours is not the issue that is taken forward from an individual complaint into a thematic review, how will you feel about that? Will you feel that your concerns are being dismissed or that you need to get together many more people to make a similar complaint? There will need to be a high degree of transparency about the decision-making in order for that to feel appropriate.
Graeme Downie
Q
Ted Arnold: To build on the RBL’s point in its briefing, it is vital that the commissioner is seen as independent. There is certainly a lot they can draw on from the experience of those independent veterans commissioners throughout Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and, it is hoped, soon in England too. They bring valuable knowledge and insight and act as a voice for veterans in the entire armed forces community throughout the UK.
We would certainly encourage that co-ordination between the two agencies, particularly around data and evidence sharing—not just with the veterans commissioners, but other agencies such as the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, the defence transition services and organisations in the charitable sector. It is important that the work of commissioners is communicated and integrated as clearly as possible with other veterans agencies. That builds on the ombudsman’s point that those key relationships should be built and the right thematic reviews carried out.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Q
Angela Kitching: Obviously, there are family members—and, from our point of view as a charity, we have a definition of beneficiary that would mean that there was a degree of dependency between the family member and the person who had served, or the serving person, or somebody who is bereaved of somebody who was in service.
In the real world, though, there is often a much wider group of people who feel most relevant to the person who was serving. That could well be the household that they came into service from; it could be the family that they left behind when they came from another country to serve on our behalf; it could be their grown-up children; or it could be the group of people who immediately surround them and offer them support.
The issue is about trying to make sure that, as you are peeling back the layers of the onion, it is the people who are closest to the person who are serving, but not just their immediate household. If you think about the person who they live with, it might be much more relevant to also think about their parents. At the moment, a large number of non-ranking people in service are typically passing through service between the ages of 18 and 30, so they often do not have other immediate spousal relationships. It is their parents or grandparents, whose household they have come out of, who are closest to them.
Helen Maguire
Q
Angela Kitching: Yes; and it is about where somebody can offer relevant information to the matter under consideration. It is about how much relevant information they could have. However, it is worth thinking about how to challenge the commissioner’s outreach into countries that a person has come from—where that information might be held, for example. Unless there is an active outreach into those immediate relationships, I think people naturally think, “Well, I am not in country and therefore I won’t be able to offer my views on this process.”
Helen Maguire
Q
Angela Kitching: Some of the issues that Ted has raised about discharge are massively important throughout somebody’s career. How somebody leaves the armed forces is crucial to their ongoing experience in life.
In terms of what people raised during our focus group sessions, housing issues are key. Good transition around housing makes a huge difference. Healthcare and education access for family members is a hugely important issue. If you look at the families continuous attitudes survey and the armed forces continuous attitudes survey, the two main opinion-based surveys, issues around family and the extent to which family have access to outside services are key concerns of serving personnel. I understand that those issues will not directly be in the purview of the commissioner but, as part of building relationships, decent healthcare access at discharge, support for family members in accessing local services, and housing are the three things that I would really focus on.
Helen Maguire
Q
Angela Kitching: Independence is really key. It is really important for personnel to able to see that the chain of command are listening and taking action as a result of the commissioner’s report. To be honest, the key thing is that the reports are seen to have impact—they should be reporting not just on the flow of cases and the themes that have come out but on what has happened as a result. That is really the issue at the moment, I feel: people can see that their individual complaints have got so far but cannot see whether there was a wider impact on the system or whether anything was changed as a result. I am hoping that the parliamentary element will add that additional layer of transparency and trust.
One other thing: people talked about being able to raise concerns anonymously, understanding that that meant they would not then personally get feedback on what had happened. But they were very keen on a system that would allow them to raise those concerns, in the manner of Crimestoppers—when you can give information in detail but that does not come directly come back to you as the person who raised it.
Helen Maguire
Q
Angela Kitching: I have not considered that directly. I understand that there is consideration of the extension of the covenant in law. It is really important that we do not tie ourselves to the current legal definition, which is much more limited in the policy areas that it looks at. But anything that demonstrates that the covenant is the promise that the nation makes would be really useful. Among employers, in the healthcare system and in local authorities, it is beginning to be the golden thread that runs through the promise that is made. Anything we can do to strengthen that will be helpful, but I would not want it to be too limited by the current narrow definition of the covenant in law.
David Reed
I thank Angela and Ted for being here today. The title of the role is changing from “ombudsman” to “commissioner”. We previously heard that different perceptions come with those different titles. Do you think that moving to “commissioner” is a good change? If not, where are the limitations?
Angela Kitching: I think it is helpful because it indicates a move from a system that reviews the administration of an appropriate action in relation to individual complaints into a wider and more thematic system. For me, that signals that we are not in a situation where the system is only going to be following through individual complaints and that wider representations can be made. It sounds more like the action of the Children’s Commissioner, for example.
I completely understand concerns that the ombudsman groups would have about the fact that, outside the courts, “ombudsman” is the highest way of considering individual complaints. But as long as it is well communicated within the community that the new role and office are capable of doing both, I do not have particular concerns about the change in title.
Ted Arnold: To build on that, the change is to set expectations and make very clear to the community what the new role is and the new powers will be. Angela spoke about trying to influence a cultural shift to make people feel comfortable about going to the new commissioner and take forward not just grievances but other issues up and down the chain of command—best practice, for example.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Q
Angela Kitching: At the moment, if you look at evidence from the armed forces continuous attitude survey, they say that the impact of service life on their families, the opportunities that they have outside of service and the amount of pay they have are the things that are currently undermining morale. For family members, it is their experiences of living a service life, so you can see that there is an obvious potential for this role to try to improve that experience.
It is helpful to think about not just the individual complaints, but those wider welfare issues that chip away at people’s experiences of their time in service. The No. 1 reason given by service people for leaving is the impact on family and personal life, so anything we can do to improve that has got to help with the broader morale issue.
Ted Arnold: To build on that, persistent issues with the current complaints system have deepened that dissatisfaction with service life. If we look at the various reviews—Haythornthwaite, Etherton, Atherton, Lyons and those that the Defence Committee has carried out over the years—attempts have been made to address concerns with morale or certain groups. The commissioner could bring a much more robust approach to addressing some of those problems. We envisage, as does the Bill, trying to involve the commissioner in day-to-day military life so that there is a real granular understanding of what those issues are.
Andrew Ranger
Q
Ted Arnold: Again, I think that will be difficult to measure. Having an annual review that reports to Parliament, and perhaps the community making observations—not just on thematic reviews, but in the annual report as well, in a similar way as we do as a sector to the covenant—would be an appropriate way of measuring progress.
Angela Kitching: How you measure the impact of the thematic reports is crucial to that. After that annual report, you would then need to think, “Okay, what did we see that changed as a result?”. At that point, I suspect that you will see an impact on morale, with people feeling the difference because there will be something to point to. It is also about the mechanism for the commissioner to follow up on recommendations from previous reports and look at change over time.
There needs to be an adequate capacity in the office for them to have access to data that allows them to track the change over time as a result of it—I note that an amendment has been tabled on this today—particularly for groups whose experience might otherwise be invisible. Those groups are very small percentages of people, such as LGBT personnel, women in particular branches of the armed forces, and the experience of non-UK personnel, but otherwise they would end up being subsumed into the whole. It is important, as in the German reports, that some of those experiences are drawn out in the annual report and we track change over time for particular groups, who otherwise end up being lost in the wider picture.
Luke Pollard
Q
Angela Kitching: What people mentioned to us when we spoke to them in groups was that they needed to understand who the commissioner was. They needed to understand their relationship with the existing welfare services in the individual branches, but also with the wider service complaints process. Knowing exactly what to expect from them was really important, as was their office being seen to be open, both for serving personnel and their family members, so that they could make a direct approach and not feel as though they had to chase through another system to be allowed to approach that person. Also important was that the person was prepared to visit, which obviously is the case for the current Service Complaints Ombudsman.
The digital access is a real issue currently, as you will be aware, on areas of our Defence estate, but also where people are operationally deployed or are struggling to get access to enough technology to allow them to engage with complex digital systems. What they did not want was something where they would have to log in to understand the ongoing process of what was happening. They needed somebody who could be reached via a variety of different sources and, as I have previously mentioned, something that would allow for transparency and a degree of anonymity, if they wanted it, in relation to thematic information, so that they were able to offer what evidence they had, even if they did not want to pursue it as an individual complaint themselves.
Particular attention needs to be given to experiences of bullying, harassment and discrimination. In any other service that we look at that deals with those complaints, people have a significant amount of protection when those are being considered. If, for example, a thematic review were to be opened into an issue that touched on bullying, intimidation or harassment, particular consideration would need to be given to how that evidence was collected, because people understandably feel very vulnerable about offering that evidence. The armed forces is a unique employer in that way, because it is not just a job, it is a life, and the life of your family, and it can potentially control your future career. The level of trust needs to be built because the level of exposure and risk is so high if somebody chooses to step out of line and raise something.
Ted Arnold: To build on that, I think an effort must be made to change the current culture to encourage individuals and people on their behalf to know that they can come to a commissioner. Building on the German model, that is not just to raise issues of grievance, but maybe the spectrum of duty-related issues, and not just those problems, but personal and social problems as well.
Luke Pollard
Q
Angela Kitching: When we have gathered evidence before, particularly on sensitive issues, often we have allowed people to speak openly to us with a very clear and ethical statement about how we are going to use that information, which they previously agreed to. There is certainly the potential for us to be able to pass on that information on behalf of armed forces groups. We did that in relation to the Etherton report when people did not want to give individual evidence and did not want to step forward themselves. We gathered those views and submitted them to the review team on behalf of people who did not want to identify themselves. There is potentially a role for organisations—not just us, but many others—to do that. Thinking about the location of those conversations is really important. They cannot be on bases; they need to be in an environment where people feel comfortable to express themselves.
Overall it is the assurance that the office of the commissioner has a degree of separation from chain of command that is the most important thing. Ensuring that the office has adequate resources to be able to do the kind of work that I have just described will be important, and trying to make sure that that person is able to demonstrate that they are sufficiently independent of the current chain of command, and are really able to bring forward views that will very difficult for chain of command to hear, is important.
Ted Arnold: Also, it is important for chain of command to feel that they are comfortable raising those issues as well, knowing that it is going to the Secretary of State and being considered by Parliament.
That also builds on and adds to the importance of the commissioner drawing upon data and evidence from the veterans’ community, particularly those who have been recently discharged. For some, it takes many years for them to get help and to reach that crisis point—to have those reflections and be able to say what could have been done better during their service. The removal over time—being away from your service and not fearing repercussions, particularly in terms of your career, can add to that. As Angela said, the Etherton review was a great example.
Pam Cox
Q
Angela Kitching: I think it is really important to lay out from the start what the intended change is. When we are asking the commissioner to report, it needs to be a report that looks at the intended impact and then tries to measure against that. It cannot just be a report of activity.
I also think that, as the commissioner opens thematic reviews, they need to make sure that they invite evidence from organisations, academics and others who have depth of experience in some of the best ways to address some of those issues, and looking at the change that could be achieved over time. Many of them are well-trodden paths as research issues either in this country or internationally. They need to be looking at what works and addressing some of the concerns—that evidence is readily available, and we need to make sure that the commissioner is on the front foot in drawing that in.
In terms of Parliament, as soon as reports are laid in Parliament, we obviously do our best to try to make sure that they are well communicated in the community, but it is very difficult to reach into somebody’s service life. They are in the middle of their job, as you will have experienced, and their head is on the job. It is about making sure that they are well networked in the armed forces community. The armed forces champions who were mentioned would be one way of making sure that the wider system understands the changes that are necessary. Armed forces liaison officers, who are Government-appointed in Wales, are a good model for people whose role it is to reach into communities and are additionally resourced to do that, unlike the armed forces roles in local authorities and the NHS, which are usually voluntary. It is about being well networked in the existing armed forces communications structures.
There is also something about the in-service welfare system, which, as Ted mentioned, can be incredibly patchy in the way that it delivers outcomes for people. I think there is probably a duty there that thinks about how better we can require the in-service welfare system to consider changes that come out of the commissioner’s office, perhaps requiring them to write back to say, “This is the impact and this is what has changed as a result of it.”
I am afraid that the way to do it is probably all of those methods at once.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the session. Thank you very much to our witnesses. We will go on to our next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Lieutenant General Sir Andrew Gregory KBE CB DL and Lieutenant General Sir Nicholas Pope KCB CBE gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Lieutenant General Sir Andrew Gregory, controller of SSAFA, the Armed Forces charity, and Lieutenant General Sir Nicholas Pope, chair of the Confederation of Service Charities. We have until 11.25 am for this panel. Could our witnesses introduce themselves, perhaps saying a bit about themselves and what they do?
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: Good morning, sirs and ma’ams. I am Andrew Gregory. I spent 35 years in the Royal Artillery in the British Army. My last three years were as Chief of Defence People in the Ministry of Defence—very much looking at these sorts of areas —during which the Service Complaints Commissioner became the Service Complaints Ombudsman, so I have seen some of the transition. I left the military in 2016 and have been the controller and chief executive of SSAFA, the Armed Forces charity since then. I am also a trustee of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, which runs the armed forces parliamentary scheme.
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am Nick Pope. I know some members of the Committee. I was an Army officer for 39 years—I am struck by this witness panel’s age compared with the previous panel’s. I finished in my job as effectively the Army’s second in command, so I dealt with the likes of Mariette and Nicola from the Service Complaints Ombudsman from a single-service perspective. As the Army’s 2IC, I was the principal personnel officer for the Army. I left the Army in 2019 and am now chair of the Confederation of Service Charities, Cobseo. A couple of years ago, I also helped Rick Haythornthwaite to produce the Haythornthwaite review of the armed forces community, which was probably the first time in a generation that we had had a systemic look at the people function for the armed forces. So I sit here in three guises to answer your questions.
Mr Francois
Q
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I must start by commending you for the “Filling the Ranks” report, which I have mentioned here before, and which was one of our opportunities to look at the way we carry out armed forces recruitment. I still go back to that report and read it by my bedside table.
We believe there are currently around 1,735 military service charities. Some people would say, “Golly, that’s an awful lot,” but we are the one percenters—there are 160,000 charities in the UK and about 1,700 military service charities. The first thing to say is that whether that is too much or too little is irrelevant, because each charity is answerable through its board and trustees to the Charity Commission. We are not stuck with the number, because it changes, but that is the number of charities.
All charities are not the same. Of that number, a vast swathe is focused on heritage, museums and monuments, or service funds—ship stations and aircraft stations. About 500 really cover welfare and benevolence—the kinds of military charity organisations you would typically think of. Of the 500, about 25 raise about 90% of the money. If you are going to focus on money and impact at the national level, the likes of Andrew in SSAFA, the Royal British Legion or Help for Heroes are the typical charities you would think of.
That is not to decry the enormous contribution made by smaller charities. At local level, a fantastic amount of work is done, if you are thinking of a drop-in centre or breakfast club—a means of bringing together veterans, particularly for comradeship and belonging—but my point is that the word “charity” covers a smorgasbord of activities.
In the sector, we tend to slice and dice in how we bring our charities together through what are known as clusters or communities of interest, where like-minded charities come together to talk about, for example, mental health, housing or employment or issues affecting non-UK or female personnel, so we use the charity sector to think thematically about issues. Sectorally, we have an executive committee that Andrew sits on, alongside 16 other chief executives—it is like a United Nations council—where we try to garner the systemic issues across the sector. It is right to say that there is not a sector view, but what the sector can do is bring together information to say, “These are the kinds of views that exist across the military charity sector.”
It is probably also fair to say that the sector focuses not exclusively but predominantly on the veterans community, albeit some charities also link back into serving personnel. We tend not to think about either veterans or serving personnel; we try to use the nomenclature of “the armed forces community”, because it picks up the bereaved, spouses, dependants—the entire gamut of those who exist in that community. At the broadest, you might say that around 6 million or 7 million people, so gusting 10% of the UK population, have some relationship with the armed forces. That is a large number.
Mr Francois
Q
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I am well aware, having read the Second Reading Hansard scripts, that most of the issues I cover will not be unfamiliar to you all. The sector welcomes the Bill and it welcomes the creation of an Armed Forces Commissioner. As we approach the selection of the commissioner and further determination of the scope, we will be looking to pick up on some of the issues you have talked about with regard to independence and the boundary between the armed forces serving community and those who have served. We are interested in the ambit and the responsibilities of the commissioner function. From a selfish, sectoral perspective, we are also interested in the way in which we as a stakeholder will engage with the commissioner. Those are the kinds of activities that we are looking at.
Mr Francois
Q
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: First, for those who do not know, I will highlight that SSAFA is just coming up to 140 years old. It was formed in 1885 as the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Families Association. Although Nick says that military charities have mainly focused on the veterans community, we actually do a lot of work in the serving community in many different ways. I will not expand on that now.
Like Nick, I have read the Hansard report. Initially, I was concerned that the commissioner would potentially undermine the chain of command, but I am not concerned any more. I have had a good session with the Minister for the Armed Forces—we both have—and I am reassured on that. The challenge, as Nick has talked about, is that there is a continuum running from before people join the armed forces to when they are thinking about it, to their first day of service, through their service, to their departure and to their subsequent life. Trying to state that the commissioner will look at only the time when people are subject to military law, regular and reservist, will be quite difficult. You cannot divorce some of the consequences of military service from welfare issues within and during military service.
I want to go back to Haythornthwaite and some of the propositions being considered as part of the defence review, particularly the people proposition. The review is quite rightly looking at what we are choosing to call one defence—people in uniform, full and part time, people not in uniform, full and part time, or people delivering to defence outputs. That is absolutely right. That is exactly the model that should be used, but potentially the commissioners will look at only a part of that ability to deliver defence outputs. My only concern is that the commissioner should be looking at how best to sustain defence outputs. The person is tasked to look at welfare issues. I worry that there are some artificial divides that may not help the person do their work.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Q
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: Thank you very much.
Terry Jermy
Prior to my current role, I was a local councillor for a number of years. I worked with SSAFA to encourage people to come forward, first of all to raise an issue, but more often to formalise the issue. Encouraging people to go through that process was quite a barrier. Do you think these proposals will encourage people to be prepared to raise and formalise issues?
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: That is a great question. Your previous session discussed how to generate trust. I thought that was a good question too because this person must be trusted. They have to be sufficiently trusted by the chain of command, but equally trusted by the community, to fairly champion their views without, when appropriate, revealing their identity. The challenge we find with many service personnel, particularly veterans, is that they are often too proud to admit they are finding life difficult, perhaps while they are serving and often once they have left the military. They do not want to admit they are a charity case.
Going back to the question of trust, this commissioner is going to have to work hard to say, “I really am here for you. I am here to champion your issues in whatever way we feel is collectively appropriate.” They will also have to work hard to ensure that the chain of command does not get defensive, but instead sees this as an opportunity. I was not serving when Mariette Hughes was the Service Complaints Ombudsman, but when Nicola Williams was doing the job we talked regularly. I was effectively on one side as the policy lead in the Ministry of Defence and she was on the other side. Success to me would have been more complaints. For those of you who have not met Nicola, she is a very approachable person, but trying to get people to have the confidence to step forward, to go to her and say, “This ain’t fair,” was really difficult. The intent is good and I support it, but I think building confidence will continue to be a challenge.
Terry Jermy
Q
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I heard the answers given by the previous panel. I am relaxed about this. What is in a word? We use “veteran” to pick up smorgasbord of individuals. We use “service” for the sector indivisibly. Moving from ombudsman to commissioner does, I suppose, demonstrate a shift in a position. If we use a word from a communications perspective, to get people to think differently, there is utility in that. Having spoken to Mariette about this, although I do not want to put words into her mouth, I suspect she feels she is prescribed in some of her activities by the way that her job has been set up. In moving to “commissioner” we have a chance to think about seeing the new post through a different prism and communicating that well, both to the current armed forces serving community and to those who are to come.
If I may go slightly off-piste, the average tenure of somebody who is serving is about seven years. In that time, most individuals will graze through without ever coming across the ombudsman. Looking forward, one of our challenges—probably a challenge both for the commissioner’s post and for the wraparound of the Department—is to ensure that young men and women who join in the future recognise that function and the idea of a champion who sits outwith the chain of command and gives them a chance to have their voice heard. Thinking about generation Z and beyond, in an area in which agency at the individual level is increasingly important, that matters.
David Reed
Q
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: What we have to be very careful about, in relation to the commissioner’s role, is ensuring that we do not chase demons unnecessarily. I love the phrase, the bumper sticker, that underpins the armed forces covenant:
“a thriving Armed Forces community that is valued and supported within our society.”
It has five key points: thriving, armed forces community, value, support and society. Some 97% or 98% of the young men and women who go through service have a fantastic time and come out with additional skills, valued by the individual, valued by organisations that employ them, and valued by society for having served. As for support, in my territory, in the charity sector and in some of the statutory service provision, it is about catching those who need support and getting them back to being thriving members of society.
There is a danger that by concentrating on the areas of damage, harm and complaint, we will not have the context in which we see people thrive. Why is that important? It is because we want young men and women to join the armed forces in the future. They have to recognise that there is value in so doing and that service benefits not only the nation but also themselves as individuals. That is the area in which we need to capture the context, I suppose.
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: I completely agree. We need as a nation to better promote the narrative that service in the armed forces is good for people, it makes great people; that it does not damage the majority, and there are systems to pick up those who are damaged.
I do not see the commissioner as a threat. As I said earlier, that did worry me previously. Nick and I have both been commanding officers. When I was a commanding officer, who could the soldiers and officers go to if they wanted to talk to somebody outside the chain of command? They could go to the padre, the doctor, and perhaps the welfare officer, but particularly the padre and the doctor because they were independent. The padre or doctor would have to get the trust of those individuals because often the solution was within the remit of the chain of command. They had to get those individuals’ trust so that they could say, “I would like to go back to the commanding officer with this, and then we can see how we can work through it.” For some, that was a tricky hurdle to overcome.
What the Service Complaints Ombudsman has provided, and what the commissioner will provide, is something at a higher level. I know it is simplistic, but it is not dissimilar to those people who can pick up individual and systemic themes that are affecting people. The chain of command has got to get used to it. The role is not that of a federation or a union, which would have been very different and very dangerous in my view. I do not see it as that. It is an opportunity to improve life and to improve trust on both sides. I really mean that.
David Reed
Q
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: Service people are intelligent people and they will make an appropriate judgment. The commissioner will need quite a lot of support to manage two quite different things: the individual issues that will percolate up to that person, and the systemic themes they want to investigate, such as poor-quality housing or whatever issues it happens to be. The commissioner and his or her office will challenge Ministers in Parliament with their reports.
As goes communicating to young servicepeople, you now have a separate opportunity. You have someone who will pick up your issues and run with them for you. I think people will get that actually, I really do. I understand that there is a fine balance here, but if intelligent commanders at various levels see issues that really are to the detriment of their people, they will start to have a conversation. People will have to judge it very carefully with this commissioner, but I can see that happening.
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I would like to tier the answer to this question into political ambition, policy formulation, service delivery and lived experience. You will be looking to the Armed Forces Commissioner to tap into all those areas. On the point that Andrew brings up about lived experience, one of the aspects of the commissioner’s work will be direct interventions with individuals who raise issues that concern them. That is fine and necessary. Part of the commissioner’s function is about dealing with individuals at their individual level.
The next issue, to bring it to the service delivery level, is about whether the system that the Ministry of Defence has set up is sufficient to deal systemically with some of the issues that individuals bring to the commissioner’s attention. That takes you back into policy formulation. To what extent are the current policies—the service complaints system, for example—designed to be efficient, effective and fair? Do we need to look at the policies as well?
The final level becomes a political choice, I suspect. Thinking about the accommodation, we know the answer to this already. We know that service families accommodation and single-living accommodation is not where we would like it to be, but within a finite budget are there political choices to start to address these issues more systemically? The commissioner’s function will tap into each of those four tiers of activity.
I suspect that we will look these things with the commissioner when the commissioner’s report is laid before Parliament. Having the report laid before Parliament and having the opportunity at parliamentary level to debate the report feeds back into the MOD. To what extent will the recommendations that the commissioner makes be manifested in demonstrable changes in the way that the Department thinks? I think about the last eight Service Complaints Commissioner and Service Complaints Ombudsman reports: all of them have said that the system is not effective, efficient and fair, QED, so is the report driving the change in the Department that we seek?
Amanda Martin
Q
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: In terms of resources, the honest answer is, how long is a piece of string? Would one always like more? Possibly. Assuming the Bill is approved by Parliament, the Government will want to see the first commissioner given a fair chance to succeed. Once that person is in situ and has looked at the scale of the job, they will challenge the Secretary of State for Defence in particular. Given the ability of the commissioner to go back to Parliament, he or she could then say, “I can’t do my job.” I think there will be an appropriate balance struck.
In terms of this business of gaining trust, once again— I agree with the earlier answers from Mariette and others—it is down to the person to really project themselves, to get out, to be seen on the ground and to talk to the various parts of the community. That is how it is going to work. So in the first year, this person will spend an awful lot of time doing that.
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I would add that I think the figures in the paper are based on analysis from compatriots in Germany and build on the current SCOAF function, so there is a logic to them. Whether we in the Department choose to expand or contract is probably an issue for three or four years hence.
I really buy the idea of trust. The word I would use is “culture”. I will be interested to see how the commissioner starts to pick at some of the issues we have regularly seen through the Wigston report, the Lyons report, the Atherton report and so on, to start to get at the cultural issues and move towards a more inclusive armed forces.
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: If I could come back for a second bite at the cherry, the other challenge is seeing through recommendations, which does worry me. I have been part of the armed forces covenant reference group almost since it was established in 2010. As part of that, the Secretary of State is tasked to put a report before Parliament each year. Some of the themes are consistent in all those reports—I think that is the polite way of putting it.
How do we make sure that recommendations made by the commissioner are either addressed or properly answered? It goes back to the question of resources for service family accommodation and single living accommodation. We cannot do it at the moment, but we will go on a journey to improve life for families in that way. That is one of the things that worries me, because these things have their moment in court—their moment in Parliament—and then we move on and forget them.
Helen Maguire
Q
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: You are absolutely right. We are all part of the armed forces but we are quite different as tribes, and then within the Army we have sub-tribes called regiments, and they are pretty different too, each with its own traditions and culture, and things like that. Then you have the Brigade of Gurkhas, with which Nick has served very closely, and which has a wonderful tradition and history. How do you capture all that? We do it within SSAFA. We support the whole community. How do we do it? We take the case of each person and each family on its merits. We support 2,000 Gurkha families each year. The support we provide to them is quite different from the support we provide to some of our other beneficiaries.
I am flannelling a bit but, to answer your question, I think the commissioner will need to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the armed forces so that he or she understands the various components of how they live their lives. As I am sure many of you know, Navy personnel have traditionally lived their lives—this is a generalisation—in different ways from the Army. The Navy serviceperson goes to sea and their family stays static, perhaps around Portsmouth, Faslane, Devonport or near their own family. The Army has traditionally had more camp followers, and families have moved as the regiment has moved. That means it is very different, and it puts different pressures on both the serviceperson and their family. The commissioner will have to get his or her head around that.
Helen Maguire
Q
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: The needs of people who come to us are absolutely changing. I have been the chief exec of SSAFA for eight-and-a-bit years, and we have seen a significant change even during that time. The people coming to us are younger, and not just because the world war two and national service generation are slowly passing on, sadly. More working-age veterans are coming to us, and there are more complicated, multifaceted issues. I say that one or more of the d’s has gone wrong in their lives: drink, debt, drugs, divorce, depression, domestic violence, a dependency culture, digs or housing, disease, death, or disability. It will not be all of them—I will test you on them later—but it will be more than one.
To take it back to your first question, our people are taking each case on its merits and looking at it. The commissioner will need to understand that, in terms of service families and service personnel, the cases will be different, and he or she will have to pick that up.
Helen Maguire
Q
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: If the commissioner is going to be shining a light on the current welfare conditions of the armed forces community, in a way that enables Parliament to have the evidence for a sensible discussion about the way in which the Ministry conducts its business and makes its choices—about resource allocation, policy formulation and service delivery—then, to have proper teeth, I would want to see, within three, four or five years, some tangible changes in either resource allocations or the metrics that are coming back through the commissioner to Parliament. Unless we see that, there will be no real impact or effect out of creating the post. To get real teeth, we have to have the feedback loop that Andrew talked about, in a way that matters.
Graeme Downie
Q
To pick up on something you mentioned earlier, SSAFA has been around for a very long time, so what do you see as some of the thematic issues that have existed with forces personnel over the years? Where do you think the commissioner should be looking first? Are there two or three things from those thematic areas that they could look at?
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: I will come to your question. There is an interesting discussion going on. The Minister for Veterans and People, Al Carns, has commissioned Operation Valour, which is great—both Nick and I have engaged with that—to look at how better we can support veterans. I do worry that we have bits looking at veterans and bits looking at servicepeople and their families, working slightly in isolation. I come back to the point about the continuum: for veterans, setting the conditions in service for success outside is absolutely critical.
In terms of themes and areas that the commissioner might wish to focus on, there are some obvious ones, such as the issue of service accommodation. In defence, during my time, we started off with something called the future accommodation model, which then became the new accommodation model. What is the current term?
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: Accommodation offer.
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: Trying to get something that meets the aspirations of modern servicemen and women and their families has proven quite difficult. So I think that will be an area.
I am very proud of my service. People say, “What would have made you leave early?” I would answer, “Had the services ever compromised on their values and standards.” But I do think there are some cultural areas of shame in the armed forces, and how better we can tackle some of those issues would be another area that the commissioner would certainly wish to look at relatively early in their tenure.
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I will go back to Haythornthwaite to answer the question. One of the pieces of evidence that we put in the report was about how over time the role of the family has changed, and how family conditions drive individual aspects. I was struck when I took Rick down to visit some of the Blades in Poole. We had a table like this one, with 25 members of the Special Boat Service sitting around it, and the question I posed to them was, “Who is going to be here in five years?” Not one hand went up, so I said, “That’s shocking. Why?” The reasons were family-based: time away from Christmases, accommodation standards and the inability to get spousal employment. The issues that matter are focused on spouses. If we have a commissioner who focuses on one area to make a difference, that should be spousal employment.
I remember, about 10 years ago, taking the decision to bring the Army out of Germany, and selling it to the then Secretary of State, Phil Hammond, as a savings measure, because it was a lot cheaper to have the UK Army based in the UK—for the first time in 300 years. The reason we took the decision as an army was predominantly around the lack of spousal employment opportunities in Germany, to be brutally frank. Yes, there was a change in the geostrategic landscape, but we could not get enough young men—particularly men—to want to serve in Germany because it was going to impact on dual-income families. Spousal employment and opportunities and looking at family conditions would be an area I hope we could unpack in a big way.
Graeme Downie
Q
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: That is a great question. I hope the commissioner would, in that space, want to work to support the chain of command. I think the chain of command is trying desperately to get it right— I would say that of when I served. Nobody likes the awful headlines we have had over suicides. Obviously the biggest issue ever was Deepcut, but there have been plenty of examples where those of us who are part of the military community have hung our heads in shame, as we should have, because that is not how young people should be treated.
The chain of command is not complacent; it is doing its best. You need someone who is there to say, “Right, I am going to challenge you,” which the commissioner must do, but equally to say, “I am going to support you, because we are all collectively on a journey to make this part of society and employment better.”
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: Can I add a little codicil to that?
Graeme Downie
Q
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I will start with the codicil, if I may, which goes back to my beaten record about context. The suicide report is a good example. The report on suicide in the Armed Forces community said that in every sector with young men aged 18 to 24, the Armed Forces were better than UK society. The headline in the paper at the weekend said that young men in the Army aged 18 to 24 are at equal risk as the population to suicide or damage. The commissioner needs the ability to say what it is about the service that is a prophylactic activity. One is too many, but by golly we are doing well.
The Chair
May I interrupt you? We are running out of time, so will the Minister ask his questions?
Luke Pollard
Q
Wearing the hats from your previous roles, can I ask you to think about the unannounced visits power in the Bill? One of the bits that I feel strongly about is the ability of the commissioner to visit any base in the UK unannounced to look at general service-welfare matters. First, could you talk us through the effect that the commissioner having that power would have on how our military would address general service welfare matters in the broadest sense? Whether used or not, it would be a power that the commissioner had in their toolbox.
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: There are probably two aspects to that. First, if this works well, units should embrace the perception of challenge that comes with an unannounced visit. If you are a unit that is functioning effectively, you should have no worries about it. If you are a unit that is hiding cultural issues, good—you are going to be found out.
If it is an issue about systemic stuff like housing or accommodation, it will be well known. Your ability in the chain of command to address some of these issues is rather circumscribed, but I hope you would welcome the chance to give evidence to the commissioner and say, “Look at the mould on the walls. Look at the living accommodation. It is provided by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, which is outwith my control. Please help me to try to make improvements for the young men and women under my command.” I hope people would start to welcome it. The optics of the commissioner coming out to do his or her job are fantastic and will act as a real catalyst for change.
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: I would support that entirely. If you have something to hide, you should be worried. If you do not have something to hide, you should be proud of your unit, garrison or base and welcome the commissioner coming to look at some of the wider issues.
Luke Pollard
Q
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: In SSAFA, we have deliberately chosen not to be a lobbying organisation. We work with officials in the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, in the Ministry of Defence. We feel that is our best role. Other charities do a great job in that space—in particular, I commend the Royal British Legion and Fighting With Pride, of which I am proud to be the patron. There is a debate on Thursday about some of these issues.
We will not change. Thank you for the compliments about SSAFA. We will continue to work to support serving personnel, veterans and their families. We will not change our position.
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: We in the sector have two or three ways of interacting with the commissioner. First, during the generation of a report, I suspect that we as a community will build up a relationship with the commissioner, particularly through the serving UK personnel cluster, so charities with an interest in the serving communities will engage in that fashion.
When a report is laid before Parliament, and when we have looked at the annual covenant report, the Committees tend to come back to the charities for a session such as this to ask our opinions. I suspect that that kind of opportunity will again be of use, particularly with charities that have skin in the game and focus on the serving community.
The Chair
I think we have to stop it there; otherwise, we will not finish on time. Thank you very much for your evidence, gentlemen.
Employment Rights Bill (Tenth sitting)
Tuesday 10th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 December 2024 - (10 Dec 2024)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:
Amendment 130, in clause 16, page 30, line 24, at end insert—
“(1D) In exercising their duties under this section, an employer must have regard to protecting freedom of expression.
(1E) In subsection (1D), ‘freedom of expression’ is defined in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require employers to have regard to protecting freedom of expression when exercising the Bill’s duty not to permit harassment of their employees.
Amendment 131, in clause 16, page 30, line 24, at end insert—
“(1D) Subsection (1A) shall not apply to—
(a) higher education institutions, or
(b) providers of─
(i) hotels and similar accommodation;
(ii) holiday and other short-stay accommodation;
(iii) restaurants and mobile food service activities; and
(iv) beverage serving activities.”
This amendment would exclude higher education institutions and hospitality providers from the Bill’s duties for employers not to permit harassment of their employees.
Clauses 16 and 17 stand part.
New clause 29—Employer duties on harassment: impact assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of sections 15 to 18 of this Act on employers.
(2) The assessment must—
(a) report on the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for the measures in sections 15 to 18;
(b) include an assessment of the impact of sections 15 to 18 on free speech;
(c) include an assessment of the likely costs to employers of sections 15 to 18;
(d) include—
(i) an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and
(ii) proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clauses 15 to 18.
New clause 39—Duty to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace—
“(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—
‘(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from violence and harassment, including—
(i) gender-based violence;
(ii) sexual harassment;
(iii) psychological and emotional abuse;
(iv) physical and sexual abuse;
(v) stalking and harassment, including online harassment;
(vi) threats of violence.’
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) It shall be the duty of every employer to prepare, and as often as may be appropriate revise, an assessment to identify potential risks of violence and harassment in the workplace and implement policies and procedures to eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.
(3B) It shall be the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches.
(3C) In subsection (3B) a “gender-responsive approach” means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls, when designing and implementing policies and procedures.
(3D) In this section, “persons working in the workplace” includes—
(a) employees;
(b) full-time, part-time, and temporary workers; and
(c) interns and apprentices.
(3E) In subsection (2)(f) and subsections (3A) and (3B), a reference to the workplace includes remote and hybrid work environments.’”
This new clause will amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to place a duty on employers to protect all those working in their workplace from gender-based violence and harassment.
New clause 40—Expanded duties of the Health and Safety Executive—
“In the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, after section 11 (functions of the Executive) insert—
‘11ZA Duties of the Executive: health and safety framework on violence and harassment
(1) It shall be the duty of the Executive to develop, publish and as often as may be appropriate revise a health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace.
(2) This framework shall include specific provisions relating to—
(a) the prevention of gender-based violence and harassment of those in the workplace including the prevention of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse;
(b) the duty of employers to create safe and inclusive workplaces and the preventative measures they must adopt; and
(c) the use of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the duty of the employer in relation to violence and harassment (see section 2(2)(f)).
(3) The Executive shall work with other relevant bodies, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and law enforcement agencies, to develop and revise this framework.
11ZB Duties of the Executive: guidance for employers
The Executive shall, in consultation with such other persons as it considers to be relevant, issue guidance for employers about the protection of those facing violence and harassment on the basis of gender in the workplace by—
(a) implementing workplace policies to prevent violence and harassment;
(b) establishing confidential reporting mechanisms to allow victims to report incidents;
(c) conducting risk assessments and ensuring compliance with the health and safety framework (see section 11ZA);
(d) reporting and addressing incidents of violence and harassment; and
(e) supporting victims of violence and harassment, including making accommodations in the workplace to support such victims.’”
This new clause will create a duty on the Health and Safety Executive to develop a health and safety framework on violence and harassment and to issue guidance for employers about the protection of those facing violence and harassment on the basis of gender in the workplace.
Amendment 135, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force sections 15 to 18 of this Act until the findings set out in the report under section [employer duties on harassment: impact assessment] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment is linked to NC29.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Stringer. I welcome the Bill, and this clause is a really important part of it. We are introducing the clause to improve the workplace treatment of individuals who suffer harassment. Before the lunch break, we heard an interesting interpretation of the legislation, but sadly, it was not correct in all places, and I would like to go through some points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire. As part of that, I will reflect from the beginning that the Fawcett Society has found that 40% of women have experienced workplace harassment, and women who are marginalised for other reasons, such as race or disability, face an increased risk of and different forms of harassment, including sexual harassment in the workplace.
This clause is a vital part of the legislation, because we know—we heard this in evidence a few weeks ago—that harassment does not always come from a fellow employee or an employer. Quite often, it can come from third parties, particularly in some of the sectors that the Opposition seek to exclude with their amendment. We heard particularly from UKHospitality about the impact of third-party harassment in the hospitality sector, and I have shared my experience of being harassed in the workplace while working in the hospitality sector as a 15-year-old. This is really important. My example was only one—frankly, there will be thousands of examples—and I know that my experience as a young man will be very different from the experiences of women working in hospitality up and down the country.
As we enter the Christmas party season, we will see a massive increase in workplace harassment—not just sexual harassment, but other forms of harassment. This is perhaps where we got into some confusion this morning. There are different types of harassment, and the type that we talked about in particular this morning was harassment under the Equality Act 2010. That has a very specific definition, which will not be changed by the proposed legislation, despite what the shadow Minister said. A different test will be applied to that definition in terms of when it might come into play, but the definition of harassment will not change. Therefore, for something to be harassment, it must be unwanted conduct relating to somebody’s protected characteristic and create an offensive environment, or one that degrades, humiliates or embarrasses individuals.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk tried to introduce a few examples around the free speech argument, but those did not support the argument that he tried to make. The Independent Press Standards Organisation found that there was no harassment in the Gareth Roberts case. It found that there was a lower form of conduct in relation to clause 12(i) of the IPSO code of practice, but there was no harassment.
Nick Timothy
I have absolutely no intention of correcting the record, because the record will be correct. I think the hon. Member misunderstands my point, which was not to say that in that case the conduct was an example of harassment; I am fully aware that the IPSO ruling said that it was not harassment. My point was about the laws of unintended consequences. When IPSO was established, I do not think anybody thought that there would be cases such as this, where a journalist would be penalised by IPSO for saying something that IPSO acknowledges was a statement of fact on the grounds that it may be offensive.
Alex McIntyre
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but the fact is that in these circumstances, the definition in the Equality Act is clear. There is already an abundance of case law on what constitutes harassment, particularly in relation to the Equality Act, the different types of protected characteristics and the actions required to reach that threshold. The threshold is not just that there is unwanted conduct or that it relates to a protected characteristic; it is about the environment that is created. There is an abundance of case law on that point.
The second example was about my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, but again it missed the point entirely. We all enjoy comedy, which is a staple of our culture. Jokes are fine unless they start to become unwanted and are aimed at protected characteristics, such as someone’s gender, gender identity or sexual orientation. The other point that that example missed—we spoke at length about comedy clubs, and I hate to raise them again—is that the Bill is not about punters at a comedy club being offended by what they hear on stage; it is about protecting the employees. For somebody to trigger this legislation, the comedian would have to make a joke directed at one of the employee’s protected characteristics. If the club employs a member of bar staff who has a protected characteristic and the comedian on stage consistently and absolutely humiliates them because of it, one might expect the employer to take some reasonable steps, such as not booking that comedian again, so that the individual is not consistently humiliated on a regular basis because of one of their protected characteristics. That is what the Bill is intended to do.
We are not saying that employers are required to stop all harassment in the workplace; that would not be possible. As the shadow Minister rightly said, there will be cases when somebody comes into a bar during a Christmas party, inebriated, having enjoyed far too much free wine, and says something that is offensive and horrifically wrong, and with which we all across this House would disagree. The Bill requires employers to have policies in place to deal with that. We cannot legislate for the unknown. We cannot legislate for serious circumstances that we cannot predict or for every individual who walks into a bar, but we can have policies in place to deal with those things.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Surely one of the unintended consequences of this proposal is that small businesses risk lawsuits from employees who perceive that they have been harassed, perhaps by a third party. The inevitable lawsuit then follows, and it is not so much the offence for the employer that is the problem; it is the legal fees, the time, the effort and the distraction. What I find most concerning about this proposal is that the Minister says that the impact assessment will follow. Our amendment says that this provision should not be introduced before an impact assessment has been carried out. Does the hon. Member for Gloucester not think, given the doubt and uncertainties about the effect of this Bill, that it would be more sensible to have the impact assessment first before exposing small businesses to unintended consequences?
Alex McIntyre
If the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to agree that there should be a two-tier system, whereby employees at small businesses are entitled to be harassed by third parties but employees at larger businesses are not, I have to disagree.
Alex McIntyre
Well, a great deal of things are protected under law. Employees who work for businesses of all sizes are entitled to protection from harassment under the law, and I do not think that we in this House disagree with that principle.
I come back to the reasonableness test. A small business can have a claim brought against it for a whole host of reasons under employment legislation. Claims can be brought for discrimination or for whistleblowing, and that comes at a cost to employers. There is a separate discussion to be had about how to ensure that employment tribunals work for businesses of all sizes, but the point that we are debating is about harassment in the workplace under the Equality Act.
One of the key points that we must keep coming back to is that it does not really matter to the victim whether they are harassed by a third party, a fellow employee or their employer; the impact on them is exactly the same. Disregarding people who work for small businesses and not giving them the protections that are afforded to everybody else is just not acceptable.
Sir Ashley Fox
It clearly does make a great deal of difference to both the employee and the employer where the harassment comes from. If an employer is harassing an employee, they are directly responsible for those actions and they should rightly be held accountable. If the harassment comes from a third party—the drunk person who comes into the pub or into A&E—there is surely a complete difference. The hon. Member is asking for the employer to be responsible for that unless they take all reasonable steps. This clause then exposes that businessman—that small employer—to legal action on something he cannot control.
Alex McIntyre
I thank the hon. Member for setting out the difference. The difference is the “all reasonable steps” test. If an employer harasses someone in the workplace, there is no “all reasonable steps” test that they can take; for a third party, there is.
In tribunals, “reasonable” takes into account, for example, the circumstances of the case, the size of the business, the sector it operates in, the policies it has in place and the training it provides for employees. These points of reasonableness are taken into consideration in tribunals every single day in other areas. For example, there is already a test in section 109 of the Equality Act that deals with a defence that employers have. They cannot be held liable for the actions of their employees if they have taken all reasonable steps to train their employees to avoid issues such as discrimination in the workplace.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The hon. Member mentions reasonable steps being taken by small businesses. Does he accept that an impact assessment on the consequences of bringing in this kind of legislation for these businesses should be conducted up front, so that businesses can at least understand how much time and money it will cost them and how much additional bureaucracy it will create for them?
Alex McIntyre
The Minister will answer about what the Government are doing on impact assessments, but the impact on small businesses is that they have to think a little bit about harassment in their industry. That will vary from business to business. Some small businesses are not public facing. The impact in a small café will be different from that in a small office, because of interactions with the general public, but I do not think it is unreasonable to ask a small café or a small bar to think about what they can put in place to deal with someone coming in and abusing or harassing staff.
Again, if somebody comes in and is abusive, these provisions will not necessarily be triggered, because the abuse and unwanted conduct has to be related to their protected characteristic. I know from closing up a number of Christmas parties when I worked in hospitality that people get a bit out of hand. That was not harassment under the Equality Act; it was because people were drunk and disorderly, which is a separate antisocial behaviour issue. There are different channels to deal with that. We are talking here about specific cases where there is abuse of people because of a protected characteristic. Those are very narrow circumstances where people have to think about what kind of policies they have in place.
The hon. Member for Chippenham spoke about how MPs would not operate in similar circumstances. We would not, for example, be alone with individuals in a private room. It is appropriate to have policies in place where we try to think about some of the circumstances.
This proposal does not use the word “requires”, and it does not say that every single step has to be taken—it mentions “all reasonable steps”. That is part of the tribunal, and there will be guidance to set out some examples of things that employers can do to take reasonable steps. It is really important that we do not create a two-tier system where we say that small employers do not have to deal with these issues, because actually it is often in small and medium-sized enterprises that some of this bad behaviour takes place.
I gave an example last week. I went to my boss and said, “I have just been groped by a midwife and was told, ‘I’m going to show you a thing or two’”. When I said that I was only 15 years old, my boss said I should enjoy it: “You are a bloke. Go back in there. Toughen up.” That is not acceptable. Actually, a reasonable step in those circumstances would be the manager saying, “Alex, why don’t you go and work in another part of the business for the rest of the week? Work on the bar this evening, rather than in the function.” It is about having a policy that deals with those kinds of incidents in the workplace. There are different steps that businesses can take.
Let me move on to the argument around free speech, which the Minister talked about at great length. I have set out how some of his arguments do not apply in this instance as this provision is about specific incidents of harassment under the Equality Act. A point that the shadow Minister might have raised that would perhaps have been more legitimate is cases where two protected characteristics are in play. A lot of the free speech cases that have made the press have engaged with two. For example, in some cases someone has expressed their religion, but that might be opposed to someone expressing their sexual orientation; or people have expressed protected views on gender-critical theory, but others have a protected characteristic of a different gender identity.
Those are difficult cases, which can go all the way to the Supreme Court. What is important to note, however—this is where the shadow Minister could have gone, to give us a stronger discussion—is that if we are at the stage where the Supreme Court has to give an opinion on these things, no tribunal in the land will say, “Well, an employer should reasonably have seen that and therefore taken reasonable steps to avoid such scenarios happening.” No, this is the exact example of where tribunals will take “reasonable steps” and say, “What is reasonable in these circumstances for these employers?”
Having represented the NHS for a number of years as an employment lawyer, I should point out that the A&E example that was given unfortunately did not make any sense. First, the NHS operates a zero-tolerance approach. In several instances, policies are in place where individuals can withdraw their support for someone if they are being abused in the workplace. Scenarios and planning are in place to make sure that everyone is looked after, without people being subjected to harassment in the workplace.
To sum up, “all reasonable steps” does not mean that an employer has a duty to stop something altogether. We have to be sensible. There is no point scaremongering so that individuals think this will have a broader impact, closing all comedy clubs and stopping people making jokes in the workplace. That is not the case. This is about specific examples of harassment under the Equality Act—that has to be unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic, creating an offensive, hostile, degrading or humiliating environment. These are specific examples. It is important that we extend this to third parties, given all the evidence we have heard, and I encourage everyone in the Committee to support the legislation.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a privilege to serve under you, Mr Stringer. Broadly, I welcome—[Interruption.]
Steve Darling
My reflection on the Opposition amendments is that on this occasion my colleagues may be in danger of throwing the champagne out with the cork. The reality is that the challenges for people who face harassment in the workplace are very serious. As Government Members have highlighted, the comedy club example is relatively bogus, as the Bill would actually affect protection for employees rather than for punters.
On Friday, I am due to visit Torquay Girls’ grammar school in my constituency. I invite the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire to join me and hear directly from young women there about their experiences in the workplace. Strangely enough, apart from universities, the sectors that Opposition amendment 131 would exclude from clause 16 are almost all in the hospitality industry, in which those young women would be working. When I visited the school some time ago, one student shared with me how they dreaded a certain day of the week because they knew that a certain individual would be in, who would make them feel physically sick because of their approach to them, and the sexual harassment that occurred within the workplace.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
As much as I would love to join the hon. Gentleman in Torbay and it sounds like a delightful day out, I have a pretty full diary. I was not making a point against trying to stop sexual harassment; I was very clear that we need to use every power, every law and every mechanism available to clamp down hard on anybody who engages in the sexual harassment of anybody. My point was about the unintended consequences, including to free speech. By no definition, in my world, does sexual harassment count as free speech; that is something totally different. I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect on my arguments, which were not in any way, shape or form about trying to remove powers to deal with sexual harassment.
Steve Darling
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to differ on that point. I am sure that the Government’s proposals will support those who are facing sexual harassment from third parties. As colleagues on the Committee have highlighted, the reality is that the legislation is about taking all reasonable steps. It is not saying that when somebody walks in and abuses an employee it is an immediate red line. The reality is that the employer needs to have taken all reasonable steps. I am very comfortable with the proposals. The Liberal Democrats will vote against the amendment.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I promise to keep my comments brief. Clause 15 will amend section 40A of the Equality Act 2010 to provide that an employer must take all reasonable steps to prevent the sexual harassment of employees in the course of their employment.
The concept of “all reasonable steps” has been part of the Equality Act 2010 since its inception, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester referred to. Section 109 of the Act provides a defence for the employer in respect of the discriminatory acts of the employee. It is about vicarious liability: in effect, if the employer can show that it has taken all reasonable steps, it will not be liable for the acts of the employee.
Exactly the same “all reasonable steps” test is being applied here. In my experience as an employment lawyer, employment tribunals are very well-versed in it and have a huge amount of experience with it. It would be a matter of fact for them to determine. It is important to understand that it will be, and always has been, a proportionate test that looks at the size and resources of the employer and the context of the employment situation.
There will inevitably be guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission on how employers should take all reasonable steps and what those steps might be, but it will be fact-specific. It may well include steps to mitigate, such as some form of risk assessment, policies, training or means by which an employee who is at risk of or has suffered third-party harassment can report it and action can be taken. All those things are fairly standard. They happen already as a result of the vicarious liability element of the Equality Act; the clause would just extend them to third parties.
All third-party harassment cases and issues arise from a case called Burton v. De Vere Hotels, in which Bernard Manning made racist comments to a waitress at a De Vere hotel and the waitress brought a claim. Both the original employment tribunal and the employment appeal tribunal held that it was harassment, but it was overturned on appeal because the right did not extend to protection from third-party harassment. That was the start of the process of trying to protect employees in such circumstances.
The employment tribunal and the employment appeal tribunal said that the employer knew what was likely to be in Bernard Manning’s act—we can all imagine what might be in Bernard Manning’s act—but did not take the necessary steps to protect the employee in the circumstances. These are exactly the scenarios that the shadow Minister raised, in which we would expect the employer to consider very carefully who was staffing the event, what policies should be in place and how any issues should be managed—including, for example, by warning Bernard Manning that he might not wish to make racist remarks to members of staff.
When we talk about risk assessments, we must remember that the biggest risk is that third-party harassment will continue. That is the most fundamental issue. I emphasise a point that the shadow Minister will find relevant: a 2023 Buckinghamshire healthcare NHS trust staff survey showed that there had been nearly 400 incidents of sexual harassment by third parties. Many of those incidents will have affected his constituents. It is vital that we make this legislation, because employee representatives at the trust have said that one thing that would help is a protection against third-party harassment. If we do not include this provision in the Bill, we will continue to leave his constituents exposed. I encourage the shadow Minister, who I genuinely believe cares about harassment, seriously to reconsider his opposition to the clause.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I rise to speak in support of new clauses 39 and 40, which stand in the name of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts).
The new clauses follow the publication of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Amendment) Bill, a presentation Bill that the right hon. Member introduced in co-operation with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and Rights of Women. They would address a critical gap in workplace safety by mandating proactive employer responsibilities to prevent all forms of violence and harassment, including gender-based violence.
The Health and Safety Executive does not currently accept domestic abuse within its remit. That might come as a surprise to some Members, but the reason is that domestic abuse and other forms of gender-based violence are not explicitly covered in the 1974 Act, even though the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 underlines the fact that employers owe their employees a duty of care that covers protection from domestic abuse.
Discrimination law inadequately protects workers from gender-based violence beyond sexual harassment, especially when such violence is not physical. The UK’s ratification in 2022 of the International Labour Organisation’s convention 190 means that the UK should take a comprehensive approach that addresses all forms and threats of gender-based violence in the workplace, psychological and emotional abuse, physical abuse and stalking, including with respect to people commuting to and from the workplace.
New clauses 39 and 40 would address those issues. They would go further than the Bill’s provisions on protection from harassment, because new clause 39 would introduce clear, actionable duties for employers to safeguard employees from gender-based harm through risk assessments, policy development and training. New clause 40 would mandate that the Health and Safety Executive create an enforceable framework that holds employers accountable and fosters inclusive, violence-free work environments for workers.
I understand that this may have been the Minister’s first opportunity to hear these points. I hope he will consider them, perhaps on Report.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Prior to entering this place, I spent 25 years working in the television production industry, both as a writer and as a producer. I co-own an independent production company—I refer the Committee to my declaration of interests—that has made children’s drama for the BBC, including the hit science fiction series “The Sparticle Mystery”, in which a cut-price British version of the large hadron collider at CERN sends all the adults into a parallel universe, a situation with which I have had some sympathy since arriving as a new Member. I mention that not to burnish my CV in the hope of a writing credit on the next James Bond film, but to make a point about clause 15.
The television industry is full of creative, inventive and hard-working people who wish to make the most of their talents and contribute to making the programmes with which the UK is a world leader and for which it is rightly admired. Unfortunately, the nature of a fast-moving and pressurised industry based on freelancers is that it is left open to abusive practices. Freelancers move between productions, often with no HR departments, with no formal recruitment processes and with a lack of the checks and balances that we all want to see in good workplaces. It is also an industry in which the talent is protected, which has led to a culture of exceptionalism in which appalling behaviour has been allowed to continue for years.
This is not just about sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour. It is also about power, or rather the imbalance of it. When I was in the green room at the start of a production, someone came up to me—I was on my own with him—and put his arm around me. He said, “Make me a cup of coffee, love.” I said, “Make your own, and then start looking for a new job,” because I was the executive producer on the show. Unfortunately, far too many women endure sexually explicit comments, inappropriate touching and offensive jokes as part of their everyday experience at work.
A few years ago, a survey found that 39% of women working in film and television had been subjected to sexual harassment at work; freelancers, members of the LGBTQ+ community and disabled people are also most at risk. Women are too scared to speak out: they fear that if they do, they will simply not work in the industry again. It is hardly surprising that last year two thirds of women aged between 25 and 59 thought about leaving the industry.
I say to the shadow Minister that clauses 15 to 17 will mean that companies have to proactively take all reasonable steps to close the vacuum of responsibility that currently exists between senior and middle management. They will need to ensure that staff have the training to call out challenging behaviour, support colleagues and prevent future abuse rather than focusing solely on damage limitation, as sadly we have seen time and again.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite.
I want to bring this debate into reality—after all, the Bill seeks to affect real people’s lives and make their life at work better—and talk about my personal experience as a young woman. I was working a couple of jobs to get by, one of them as a silver service waitress on a zero-hours contract and minimum wage. The employer hired only young women, and we worked mostly at high-profile sporting events. To be sexually harassed was seen as normal. We were told to expect it, and we were told that we were expected to accept it—it was part of the job. The employer would also over-hire, so too many of us would turn up and many of us would be sent away, because it was decided that our face or figure did not fit the event that day. Those of us who got to the service were groped, propositioned, reprimanded if we talked back, and threatened with the sack. Travelling home from work together, we would feel completely humiliated and degraded, and we would exchange tales of what had happened to us that day. We took solace in the fact that we were not alone.
That behaviour is not something we should accept, but we know it still happens. That is why this part of the Bill is so important. No one should go to work dreading being harassed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester pointed out, the Fawcett Society has said that
“40% of women experience sexual harassment throughout their career.”
The Bill is intended to prevent workers from being subject to that vile behaviour, and it will ensure that people can get on with their jobs without being filled with fear, dread or humiliation, or feeling unsafe and degraded.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I did so this morning, but I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, as it pertains to some what I will say.
First, I want to take us right back to the beginning of the debate, if we can remember that long ago. The shadow Minister referenced the Regulatory Policy Committee’s assessment, in particular on the need for clauses 15 and 16. I strongly welcome what the Bill is doing in this space, in particular on third-party harassment. I do not profess to be an expert in the procedures and mechanisms of the RPC, but if we look broadly at society and at surveys and analysis of the state of work and what workers go through in this country, I think there is ample proper evidence of the need for these clauses.
I draw the Committee’s attention to this year’s “Freedom from Fear” survey released by USDAW, which surveyed retail workers in this country. It is an annual survey and the figures were released as part of Respect for Shopworkers Week in November. It featured responses from 4,000 participants, and the interim results showed that 69% of respondents—69% of a sample of 4,000 retail workers—had been verbally abused while at work, not by colleagues but by customers: a third party. Forty-five per cent had been threatened at work while simply going about their job. That is just one survey of one sample of one sector in our country that demonstrates the need for clauses 15 and 16.
On Opposition amendment 131, I must admit that I was slightly confused, but I was listening closely and I gathered that its thrust was primarily around free speech. We have talked a lot about unintended consequences in this Committee. I suggest that, whether it is intended or unintended, the consequence of the amendment, which would remove two entire sectors from the scope of the Bill, would be far too broad given the protections that are needed. That is particularly the case in the hospitality sector, and we have heard my hon Friends’ experiences of that sector. I question whether the amendment is at all proportionate, considering the overall aims of the Bill, as well as the experiences and evidence that we have heard from my hon. Friends and witnesses.
Sir Ashley Fox
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the Government have not undertaken an impact assessment on these measures makes it very difficult to know whether the amendment is proportionate, and that in fact our amendment 135, which states that these provisions should not take effect until after the impact assessment has taken place, is an entirely sensible proposition?
If I may make a second point, Mr Stringer, on the issue of harassment at higher and further education colleges, one can quite imagine a situation where students put forward a point of view—perhaps on gender critical subjects, on which a lecturer or employee has particular strong views and students have other strong views—that could easily result in a charge of harassment by a third party. That is not what should be happening at our higher education establishments. We should encourage free speech. We should encourage students to express themselves forcefully but respectfully, and we should not see that resulting in what I would regard as spurious legal cases.
Michael Wheeler
As I said, I listened closely to the points that Opposition Members made. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, I will allow the Minister to come back on the specifics of impact assessments. The point I am trying to make is that we are all looking at the same Bill and the same information. We might desire more information at this point, but we are exercising our judgment. Regardless of the specifics of any impact assessment, I think it is patently obvious that it is a disproportionate response to the concerns raised by Opposition Members to exclude entire sectors from the protections that we are discussing.
On hospitality, we heard in oral evidence from the trade union Unite—of which I am not a member—that it had surveyed its hospitality workers and found that 56% of them had considered leaving the sector entirely as a result of the sexual harassment they were experiencing. We have heard throughout the debate about the desire to support businesses. We heard from UKHospitality about struggles with retention and how measures in the Bill, outside of this one, will aid with that. I hope we can all agree that, beyond edge cases that might raise concerns, the significant protections for workers that we are discussing would be not only good for those workers, but fundamentally good for business.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
We have had a full and thorough debate, and I thank my hon. Friends—in particular my learned hon. Friends the Members for High Peak and for Gloucester—for making many valuable arguments, and everybody for contributing their personal experiences.
I remind the Committee that clause 15 requires employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. Including “all” emphasises the thorough approach that employers must take; at the same time, the requirement remains limited to steps that are “reasonable”. The concept of “all reasonable steps” has the advantage of being well established and familiar to employers and employment tribunals. That is a really important point, because the clause clarifies and makes things easier and more straightforward, rather than complicated and burdensome, which is the implication of some of the amendments.
I thank the hon. Member for Dundee Central for speaking to new clauses 39 and 40 tabled by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for her work on violence against women and on stalking, and indeed to the work of her predecessor on stalking. I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady that the Government entirely support the importance of ensuring that workers, including women and girls, are protected from workplace violence and harassment. There is already in place a strong and appropriate regulatory regime that provides protection to workers from violence and harassment. If the hon. Gentleman so desires, I will ask the Health and Safety Executive to write to him on that point.
Dame Nia Griffith
I will ensure that that happens.
The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire questioned the necessity of this new legislation, so let me explain again. Often, harassment legislation, including the criminal law, allows an individual to take legal action against a perpetrator. However, that does not go far enough in tackling the wider issues and root causes. The burden of holding perpetrators to account and driving change is too great to be shouldered purely by employees who have experienced harassment. This measure therefore sends a clear signal to all employers that they must take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment.
I think the hon. Member is also concerned that the clauses that we are discussing risk being unworkable or burdensome. It is important to remember that they simply require employers to do what is reasonable for their specific circumstances. That means that employers will not be penalised for failing to take unworkable or impractical steps. The clauses will not require employers to foresee the wholly unforeseeable or to police all customers’ private conversations. On one hand, the hon. Member acknowledges that good businesses already accept the need to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment, but on the other, he wants to make exceptions for a large number of businesses.
Greg Smith
I would be very happy to discuss with the Minister and her colleagues in Government the specific points I made about sectors such as higher education and concerns about the no-platforming of perfectly moderate speakers such as Tony Blair. Would she be willing to engage in that dialogue on safeguards in higher education around no-platforming, so that free speech can be protected?
Dame Nia Griffith
Free speech is absolutely a cornerstone of British values, but I remind the hon. Member that harassment is not free speech. They are two different things. The Bill concerns employer liability for workplace harassment, which is a serious issue, not to be underplayed. As with all cases of harassment under the Equality Act 2010, courts and tribunals will continue to be required to balance rights on the facts of a particular case, including the right to freedom of expression. Harassment is a serious matter that involves being subjected to unwanted conduct of various types that, as set out in the Equality Act,
“has the purpose or effect of violating”
the employee’s
“dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”
for the employee. Those who seek to harass people at work will not be tolerated.
The hon. Member raised a number of potential scenarios relating to potentially offensive or upsetting speech. It is important to note that in employment tribunal claims for harassment, if certain conduct has a humiliating or degrading effect on the recipient but that was not its intended purpose, the tribunal must consider whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have had that effect. It is not a purely subjective test based on the view of the recipient. The reasonableness and the facts of the individual situation must be considered. On that note, I ask the Committee to accept the clauses unamended.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Harassment by third parties
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 163, in clause 18, page 31, line 24, at end insert—
“(4) In section 14K, in subsection (1), after paragraph (cb) insert—
‘(cc) works or worked as a self-employed contractor;
(cd) works or worked as a sub-postmaster;
(ce) is member of the judiciary, non-executive director or a trustee, including a pension trustee;
(cf) is a trade union representatives;
(cg) has applied for a vacant role as an external applicant and makes a protected disclosure about information obtained during the application process;’”.
This amendment extends protections for whistleblowers to other categories.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 41—Whistleblowers: protected disclosures—
“In Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996, for section 103A, substitute―
‘Protected disclosure.
An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or one of the reasons) for the dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure.’”
This new clause would slightly extend the circumstances in which an employee is considered as unfairly dismissed after making a protected disclosure.
Sarah Gibson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Before I make my case, I must make a small correction: the reference to section 14K in the text of amendment 163 should be to section 43K. My apologies for the error.
The Liberal Democrats tabled amendment 163 because although we strongly welcome the Bill’s proposals on whistleblowing, we do not feel that it goes far enough to support all workers: it is not extended to additional workers. We feel that whistleblowing protections should be extended to all those in the workplace who may see wrongdoing and may suffer for raising public interests and concerns. After our long debate about harassment, we must all agree that harassment can often be brought to light only by whistleblowers, so this part of the legislation is incredibly important. As the definition of “worker” in section 43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is already slightly different for whistleblowers than for other areas of employment law, there is a sound public policy reason to extend it even further.
In our diverse and complex labour market, many people who wish to blow the whistle do not necessarily qualify as a worker and are therefore not protected either by the existing legislation or under the Bill. The Secretary of State already has the power to make these changes through secondary legislation, but until the Government act on that, we are pushing for Parliament to extend protections to workers such as contractors.
In the modern economy, the boundaries between a self-employed contractor and a worker have never been more blurred. Many people classified as self-employed workers are inside a company, yet do not enjoy whistleblowing rights. That is true in my constituency of Chippenham, where a large number of people working in the care industry are technically subcontracted to the employer for whom they are working. In a large part of Corsham, many people work for the Government in one form or another, through the military or Ministry of Defence, but they are often either self-employed or subcontracted and therefore not entitled to these protections.
This issue is part of a wider problem with our modern economy, particularly the gig economy. It is welcome that the Government have made fighting the insecurities created by bogus self-employment a core plank of their employment reforms, but adopting this amendment would immediately plug the gap in workplace rights and protections for those who are self-employed.
I want to highlight a few cases. If the sub-postmasters, who were effectively contractors, had been afforded whistleblower rights, they might have been able to raise their concerns about the Horizon IT system much faster, and some of the issues would have been resolved faster.
Non-executives and trustees are subject to duties and liabilities under laws such as the Companies Act 2006 and the Trustee Act 2000, but they are not covered by whistleblower legal protections. Not only is blowing the whistle without protection a risk to someone’s employment, but for trustees of charities it could cause reputational damage, yet the law on that is currently unclear.
I do not need to remind Labour Members that the role of trade unions in the workplace is recognised in the Bill. A whistleblower is likely to go to their trade union representative for advice on whistleblowing, but if I have understood correctly, when representatives raise that concern to the employer on behalf of a colleague, there is currently no protection. The amendment would be an important extension to the clause.
If someone is rejected for a job because they blew the whistle in a previous role, they are unlikely to have a remedy in an employment tribunal against a prospective employer for the loss of that job opportunity. That puts them at a significant disadvantage. It leads to whistleblowers being blacklisted and unable to work in the sector in which they have raised concerns. The law is inconsistent; job applicants must not be discriminated against under equality law, and job applicants in the NHS do have whistleblowing protections.
The amendment would ensure that job applicants receive the whistleblowing protections that they deserve, and that extend whistleblowing rights to people working in various other forms who are not strictly considered to be workers. I ask the Committee to support our amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. As always, I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham for raising these important issues, which we need to explore. She is coming from a good place. We all know that whistleblowers play an important role in shining a light on wrongdoing. The fear, and often the reality, of retaliation is a barrier to people coming forward with concerns.
Before I turn to the substance of amendment 163, I will recap the existing protections for whistleblowers. Workers have the right not to be subject to detriment on the grounds of making a protected disclosure and not to be dismissed for making a protected disclosure: that would be treated as an automatically unfair reason for dismissal. These are day one rights for workers and employees who have recourse to an employment tribunal. The standard employment law definition of “worker” has been extended in recent years to whistleblowing protections. It includes a range of employment relationships, such as agency workers, individuals undertaking training or work experience, certain self-employed staff in the NHS, police officers and student nurses and midwives.
Amendment 163, as the hon. Lady says, would extend the scope of whistleblowing protections to a huge range of other groups, including the self-employed, contractors, office holders including members of the judiciary, non-executive directors, trustees—including personal trustees—and trade union representatives and job applicants, as well as those who acquire information during a recruitment process.
I can see the hon. Lady’s intentions and what she is trying to achieve. However, there are questions that the amendment does not address, particularly given how our current employment law framework is structured, because a lot of the people it covers are not in an employment relationship or a worker relationship. The remedies are based on detrimental treatment and on dismissal, but a lot of those to whom she seeks to extend protection are people who by definition cannot be dismissed, because they are not employees or workers.
It is quite a job to understand exactly where to take the issue of people who acquire information during a recruitment process, which is the final limb of the amendment, paragraph (cg). That is potentially extremely broad in application. In legislation like this, it would be difficult to pin down exactly who it would apply to. Would it apply to someone casually undertaking a job search on the internet? Where do we draw the line?
On the point about job applicants, I take the point that blowing the whistle can have a huge impact on a person’s career prospects. I have represented many people who have found that to be an issue, and there are already blacklisting laws for certain types of protection. However, the tribunal can award compensation and take into account the difficulty that an individual might have in finding suitable employment at a similar level as a result of having blown the whistle. There is a wider question about how we treat people who blow the whistle, which is not necessarily going to be resolved by the amendment.
I agree that we should protect those who speak up and that we should ensure that our legal framework takes account of modern working relationships. I recognise that, particularly for trade unions, there is a benefit to having these groups within scope, and there are issues here that I think bear further scrutiny. Because of the plethora of unintended consequences and knock-on effects, some of which I have touched on, we cannot accept the amendment as drafted, but I assure the hon. Lady that I intend to meet Protect next month to discuss the issues on which it is campaigning. We are aware of the long-overdue requirement to look at whistleblowing law. The previous Government undertook a small exercise and we need to understand its findings, but we will be taking into account some of the issues that the hon. Lady has raised.
We cannot pretend that such an amendment would not bring very large numbers of additional people into scope, so we would want to work with stakeholders to understand what that would mean for them. It is also possible to imagine people becoming professional whistleblowers by having something that they could rely on in perpetuity; again, we have to balance that against the need to ensure that people are properly protected. I am happy to work with colleagues across the House to ensure that if we introduce any legislation in this area, we get it right and recognise modern relationships. The hon. Lady is also right to refer to worker status: we are keen to look at that in our “Next Steps” document, because we know that a whole range of issues arise.
Sarah Gibson
We are happy not to press either amendment 163 or new clause 41, but I ask the Minister to meet us before Report so that we can introduce some, if not all, of the measures in them, and particularly those in amendment 163. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Nia Griffith
Clause 18 will strengthen the protections for whistleblowers by making it explicit that sexual harassment can be the basis for a protected whistleblowing disclosure. It will do so by amending part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, adding sexual harassment to the list of relevant failures about which a worker can blow the whistle.
For context, to qualify for whistleblowing protection, a worker needs to have a reasonable belief that their disclosure tends to show one of the relevant failures and that the disclosure is in the public interest. A worker who blows the whistle by making a protected disclosure has the right not to suffer a detriment or, if they are an employee, not to be unfairly dismissed.
This measure will provide welcome clarity that sexual harassment can form the subject of a qualifying disclosure. This is because, as a result of the measure, a worker will not need to identify an existing legal obligation, criminal offence or breach of health and safety in order to make a qualifying disclosure about sexual harassment.
We anticipate that the measure will have wider benefits, including enabling more workers to use whistleblowing routes to speak up about sexual harassment, and sending a clear signal to employers that workers who make disclosures must be treated fairly. Workers will have legal recourse if their employer subjects them to detriment for speaking up.
This is one of the steps that we are taking to tackle sexual harassment at work. According to data from the Office for National Statistics, more than a quarter of those who have experienced sexual harassment in England and Wales said they had experienced it at their place of work. That must change. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Right not to be unfairly dismissed: removal of qualifying period, etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
I will not speak for long on clause 19, because it is a fairly straightforward clause and there are more detailed clauses and amendments that may generate further debate. Clause 19 introduces schedule 2, which will repeal section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, thereby removing the two-year qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal.
An estimated 9 million employees have been working for their employer for less than two years and therefore have very limited protection against unfair dismissal. By removing the qualifying period, the Government will make basic protection against unfair dismissal a day one right for all employees, ensuring a baseline of security and predictability. It is about tackling insecurity. Unless there are automatically unfair grounds, an employer can lawfully sack a worker just by giving them their statutory or contractual notice pay and telling them not to come back to work. There is no entitlement to a fair process, nor even a right to a written statement explaining why they have been sacked.
Think about what you can do with two years in your life, Mr Stringer—well, maybe we should not think too much about it. Someone can make an awful lot of commitments, including financial commitments. They can get married, buy a house, start a family and take out loans of all descriptions, but they have no protection at work and nothing to stop them being arbitrarily dismissed in that two-year period. We think that that is wrong: it creates a great deal of insecurity in the workplace, and it has to change.
Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. We will ensure that businesses can hire with confidence. We will ensure that employers can operate contractual probation periods, which are separate from the new statutory probationary periods. During the statutory probationary periods, employers will have a lighter-touch standard to meet when they need to dismiss an employee who is not suitable for the job.
Our changes will ensure that newly hired workers are not arbitrarily dismissed. We believe that that will help to drive up standards in the workplace. It will ensure that there is greater fairness and greater understanding between employees and businesses. It will drive up standards, quality and security—all things that we believe will improve our economy. We do not intend to bring in these measures in until autumn 2026 at the earliest. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I accept the Minister’s point that clause 19 essentially just introduces schedule 2. Several amendments in my name and in the name of my hon. Friends will explore schedule 2 in detail over the coming days and potentially even weeks.
However, as we discuss clause 19, I think it is important gently to challenge what is actually quite a big leap, from two years down to day one. It is incumbent on the Government to come up with a rationale and a reason for such a considerable change. This is not a taper or a gradual decrease from two years to a year or six months; we can have a debate about what the right number is.
It is clear that the Government wish to move down from two years, but what we heard in our public evidence sessions shows the very real risk that introducing these day one rights for all employees will mean that employers are reticent, are more risk-averse and do not hire as readily, freely or easily as we might want in order to create jobs in our economy. I remind the Minister what Jane Gratton of the British Chambers of Commerce said about her members:
“Members say that there would be a reduced hiring appetite were this legislation to come in, and that they would be less likely to recruit new employees due to the risk and difficulty, particularly under the day one rights”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 8, Q2.]
She went on to argue for a nine-month probationary period—a period to which it would potentially be feasible to reduce this timeframe.
Whenever a new law comes in and makes a significant change, be it to business, regulation or whatever sector, I gently ask the Minister to reflect on the time period. Is it really necessary to make such a giant leap in one go? Even if in years to come the Government get what they want in terms of day one rights, would it not be better to face this now, listen to industry, listen to the evidence that this very Committee heard a couple of weeks ago and be more measured, proportionate and risk-averse as to what these measures might end up doing to the overall jobs market in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? If the Government did that, it would help with some of the stark and staggering business confidence numbers in the economy at the moment. Businesses are worried about where the future lies, and real people out there looking for work are worried that jobs might not be as readily available after the Bill comes into effect.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of a trade union. We have seen a change in the labour market over recent decades. Previously, people used to stay in work for much longer; currently, the average tenure is 4.5 years—there has been a slight increase, because it has been bang on four years for the past five or six years. That means that people nowadays spend half their time in a job without any rights, because of the two-year threshold. The proposals in this legislation are updating the labour market to the realities of today’s jobs. People spending half their time without rights leads to a lack of confidence and security. The way to address business confidence and worker security is by bringing these rights in from day one, as this legislation proposes; sticking with the status quo is what leaves people more insecure.
The Chair
Order. I remind hon. Members that they can catch my eye to make significant points in the debate. Interventions should be short and to the point.
Greg Smith
Thank you, Mr. Stringer. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his points. He is right that the labour market has changed significantly in recent decades. In fact, it is constantly evolving and has been since time immemorial, and certainly since the industrial revolution, although I suspect I will be trying the Committee’s patience if we go through all that history—the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield might be keen to do so, but that is perhaps one for the bar some time, rather than the Committee.
Michael Wheeler
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and I will keep my intervention short, Mr Stringer. We are hearing a lot of grandiose threats when it comes to the economy, and I would like to drag us back to the specifics. This measure is not a ban on dismissal; it is not even a protection from dismissal. It is a protection from unfair dismissal, so it is quite narrow. It still allows for dismissal, disciplinary procedures and all of that. Does the shadow Minister have a timeframe in which he thinks it would be acceptable for workers to be unfairly dismissed?
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman is right about the unfair dismissal point. Nobody wants to see anybody unfairly dismissed, but it is impossible to see each measure in the Bill in its own silo or its own column; each is part of the cumulative impact of many measures reverting to day one rights. So, too, is the measure before us, and the Committee has heard direct evidence from representatives of real businesses out there that it could have a damaging effect.
I am not arguing against the principle of what the Government are trying to do here—to protect workers against unfair dismissal. I am trying to test the waters on the operability of the Bill, and on the unintended consequence that it may have in terms of overall numbers in the job market and the rate at which companies out there make new hires, or indeed choose not to. It is a worthwhile exercise for the Committee to really test these things to see how this measure will work out in practice.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Throughout these proceedings, we have talked a lot about evidence bases and the likely impact of particular measures on business. The clause might be short and to the point—I do take the points made by the shadow Minister that we will come on to more detailed discussions, and it is right to debate the general principles here—but it does have precedents. In terms of the dilemma or decision over whether the qualifying period should be two years, one year or, as in the Bill, day one—but with that important provision for a probationary period—the issue has been road-tested.
The period was set at two years for many years. Then it was reduced to one year in the late 1990s, and economic growth continued. When the qualifying period was raised from one year to two years in 2012, the impact analysis that the then Government produced said that one year was easily sufficient in the overwhelming number of cases. On this aspect of the Bill, the businesses I have spoken to in my constituency and in the general Birmingham area have told me that, in almost all roles, employers are not still talking about whether someone is suitable for the job 12 months in; it is usually apparent within weeks. That circumstance is still covered by the initial period of employment provided for in the Bill.
According to the impact assessment, the estimated saving to business across the entire the economy, after the familiarisation cost period, was relatively small—I believe it was around £2 million to £3 million in 2011 prices, so probably somewhere around double that today. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles used the word “grandiose”. We are really not talking about that, but about a relatively small number of cases that could fall under that initial period of employment provision.
Let me return to an argument that has been made previously in the Committee, but that is relevant here. One undesirable effect of that change in the qualifying period was that because a worker who faced detriment and unfair treatment in the workplace had no recourse to an unfair dismissal claim through the employment tribunal system until they reached their two years, they found themselves relying on equalities arguments instead—a day one right in law as it stands. The effect—another perverse outcome—has been to overload that part of the employment tribunal system.
This change is sensible. It will help with the undesirable effects in the court system as it stands. The Chartered Management Institute, which we heard evidence from, surveyed its members and found that 83% of managers agreed that improvements in family-friendly policies and day one rights, including in respect of unfair dismissal, would positively impact workplace productivity.
In some of the related provisions in the Bill, particularly around the initial period of employment, there is promise that we will see a light-touch regime, and we are all looking to see what the details will be. I know that the Government are due to come back on that.
Chris Murray
I promise that I will make a short intervention this time, Mr Stringer. The statistics show that one in 10 workers never spend more than a year in a job, so they are particularly affected by the lack of provision on day one. At any one time, one in five workers are within the first two years of their employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are talking about a group of people who need the security of these rights to improve their productivity, but who are currently completely excluded from them?
Laurence Turner
My hon. Friend makes an important and relevant point. The people who are most adversely affected are those who have the least and who are on the lowest incomes in the economy, and the social care sector is a good example of that. In the city of Birmingham, the average turnover rate for care workers is around 30% every year. An enormous number of people are concentrated in particular sectors. One of the difficulties in Committee is that we use overall, aggregate numbers when weighing the impact of policies, but they are felt particularly in certain sectors—that is a common point of agreement among Members on both sides. If we get this change right, the benefits will be felt most keenly in the parts of the economy, and by the people, that need these protections most.
Again, it is worth reflecting on what we heard in the evidence sessions. We heard from Professor Bogg, from the University of Bristol, that
“if you look at the OECD countries, we are the fifth least regulated on dismissal protection out of 38 countries, and we are the third least regulated on hiring on temporary contracts”,
and that the change
“just pushes the UK back into the mainstream of other…OECD countries with employment regulation that works effectively.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 143, Q147.]
There can be a lot of sound and fury about the individual measures that we are debating, but I want to reinforce the point that all the evidence we have had, whether that is written evidence from interested parties, evidence the Committee has heard or historical evidence—maybe not going quite back to the industrial revolution, but at least over the past 30 years of changes in the qualifying period—shows that the effect on the overall economy will be sensible and limited. However, it will be the lowest-income workers, whose living standards, rights and dignity of work we all want to improve, who will benefit most. The clause is extremely welcome, and I commend it to the Committee.
Sir Ashley Fox
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I do not believe that unfair dismissal should be a day one right. I think this is a fundamental error by the Government. It is interesting that during the previous Labour Governments, under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the qualifying period was one year. There was a reason for that: by reducing it—by making it a day one right—we introduce an aspect of procedural unfairness to all small businesses. Small businesses might decide after a week that they do not want to keep someone in employment. They might not follow the letter of the law, and it might be procedurally unfair because not every t was crossed and not every i was dotted, and that will lead to an unfair dismissal case.
Sir Ashley Fox
Let me just make this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked what the rationale was behind the day one qualifying period. I think the answer is that it is a demand from the trade unions; it is one of a long list of demands from the trade unions. This Bill is payback for the trade unions’ support for the Labour party. Those demands continue to come in, and we know that because the Bill is not even properly written. It is half-written—
Sir Ashley Fox
No. It is half-written and, with each week that goes by, we have more amendments as more demands come in.
My concern is that small businesses are less likely to employ people, because of these costs. Take a look at the Government’s impact assessment: table A7 says that these day one unfair dismissal rights will cost businesses £372 million. That will fall disproportionately on small businesses. They will be afraid of legal action; they will be wary of the costs. It will make them less likely to take people on—to employ that marginal employee. The cumulative effect of this proposal, taken with the many other proposals in the Bill, is to make our labour market less flexible, which is precisely what the trade unions want. They do not want a flexible labour market. This measure will make our economy more like France’s and will, in the long term, lead to higher unemployment. I think that is a great pity.
We are told that there will be a probationary period, but that it will be set out in regulations. This is another reason to think that the Bill is half-baked: the Government have not decided what should be a reasonable period. I suggest that two years is reasonable; if not, then the one year under Blair and Brown certainly seemed to work. However, the Government will find that introducing more and more day one rights will lead to higher unemployment. We all know that every period of Labour government ends with unemployment higher than when it began, and I suspect that this Bill will help to maintain that record.
Jon Pearce
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Protection from unfair dismissal is already a day one right in respect of certain carve-outs from the two-year qualifying period, including for dismissal relating to a protected disclosure—whistleblowing—refusal to allow somebody to undertake jury service, or refusal to allow somebody to take family leave. That protection, and the principle of unfair dismissal, is already in statute as a day one right.
Let us look at other day one rights, which are worth exploring a bit further. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, employees have a whole raft of day one rights, including most of the discrimination acts under the Equality Act and protections for whistleblowing. I want to continue my hon. Friend’s argument in order to try to give employees reassurance, which I think will come with guidance and the statutory probation period.
Certainty on this issue would help many employers. What I found in practice was that there would be a probation period in the contractual relationship, but smaller employers that I advised often did not have a policy; they just had a shortened notice period—often a month, rather than the three months after the probation period. There would be no structure in place. All too often, I found that many of those employers got themselves into difficulty because they believed that they did not have to follow any process whatsoever, due to the two-year qualifying period.
More often than not, those employers were dismissing people for reasons of capability: the employee had not got up to the necessary standard, and there was an issue with their work. In those circumstances, the employer often did not have much of a structure or procedure in place, and would eventually get to the point at which it would, in effect, give up and decide that the employee was never going to get to the standard that it wanted within the probationary period. The employer would dismiss people without any process or meeting—even without speaking to the employee at all—and without taking any evidence.
All too often in the cases that I dealt with, it would come to light that there was a reason for an employee’s lack of capability, which related to an impairment. Many of those impairments were protected under the Equality Act, and those employees had protections against discrimination on the basis of disability. They had a right to reasonable adjustments that the employer had not considered because it did not ask the question, and which had not been implemented. In those circumstances, the employer is exposed to uncapped discrimination claims, which are very serious and very difficult to respond to, because no process has been followed.
It is really important that we seek to reassure small, medium and large employers that having a light-touch, clear structure will mean that no employer falls into that trap again, and that we will save a lot of employers unnecessary litigation.
Laurence Turner
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in those cases where someone has ended up taking the equalities route because that is the only route available to them, it can be particularly reputationally damaging to the employer? Does he also agree that, because by the nature of those claims—particularly where they relate to disability discrimination—the system requires the claimants to stress an impairment of some kind, that process is also distressing for the claimant in a way that is wholly unnecessary? Making these changes would at least avoid those circumstances for both employer and employee.
Jon Pearce
I absolutely agree. Often, in those circumstances, it is extremely distressing for the employee, who, had the reasonable adjustment been in place to assist them with disability or to enable them to get to the required standard, would still be employed. They have to face the extra hurdle of declaring their particular impairment to the world.
Reputationally, these claims can often be hugely damaging for employers that had never intended to discriminate and would never have discriminated against an employee, but for the lack of process. As I say, there is nothing new in day one rights—protection from unfair dismissal is already, in certain circumstances, a day one right; Equality Act claims are a day one right; whistleblowing is a day one right—but the Bill will help employers not to fall foul of those day one rights that already exist and give a far clearer structure to the employment sphere. With those reassurances and with guidance, there is nothing for employers to fear from this legislation.
Anneliese Midgley
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. About a year ago, one of my constituents in Knowsley was told that she needed IVF. She went to her employer to let them know that she was going to start treatment, and a few days later she was sacked. She was a few weeks short of having worked two years for her employer. She had previously passed probation and had no previous complaints or warnings on her work. Hon. Members will be happy to know that she did get pregnant and she had that baby a month ago, but while trying to get pregnant and in the early stages of her pregnancy she could not find another steady job. No employer wanted to take her on and being unemployed obviously caused immense stress.
My constituent did not qualify for maternity pay. She has worked hard all her life; she has studied and has a doctorate. She is now with a small baby on a statutory maternity allowance of £184 and is still not in a job. One in nine women are forced out of the labour market every year due to pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The two-year period in which someone can be dismissed was used unfairly against my constituent. The Bill will protect women across the UK, allowing them the right to a secure job and a family. I am sure we can all agree that the current situation for workers is unacceptable.
Alex McIntyre
I start by aligning myself with the very good arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak made from his professional experience. I saw many of the same circumstances in my professional career.
There are a couple of points that I want to add. To the extent that there are people who want to bring claims in bad faith, there are already avenues for them to do so. If they wanted to bring a claim against their employer vexatiously they could, as my hon. Friend said, bring a claim under the Equality Act or on the basis of whistleblowing. Part of the concern here is some of the—quite frankly—scaremongering going on about what some of these processes might entail. If the hon. Member for Bridgwater would like to intervene and say exactly which part of the capability process he thinks small businesses will be concerned by, and would be disproportionate for a small business to undertake, I will happily take that intervention.
Most employers—and nearly every MP in this room is a new employer, although there are some returning colleagues—get an idea pretty quickly whether someone is going to be a fit or not. If there are concerns about their performance, there is a very straightforward process that can be followed. It is not particularly onerous. There is often a disproportionate concern about what that process might look like. Part of the issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak said, is that, by not following a simple process, employers end up tying themselves in more knots and potentially discriminating against individuals because they have not followed what could have been a fair process from the start. That is the point that the Bill seeks to address.
The Bill will not prevent individuals from being dismissed for fair reasons, which include capability, performance and redundancy. We are saying that a fair process should be followed. We have already made provision for the fact that there will be a slightly different process, and rightly so, for individuals in their probation period. It is important that we recognise that and do not scaremonger, because that will put businesses off employing, when there is a simple procedure that they can follow.
Justin Madders
We seem to have lost a few colleagues during the votes; hopefully, they are coming back. It seems a while since they were made, but I will pick up on comments and questions of—[Interruption.]
Justin Madders
Let me sum up the debate. The shadow Minister asked some questions, and there were other contributions to the debate, which I hope to come on to. I think that the shadow Minister’s general position was that he accepted that there should be a reduction in the qualifying period. I am not entirely clear whether that was the case, but certainly his colleague, the hon. Member for Bridgwater, threw out a number of proposals. The question that the shadow Minister asked was, “Why day one?” I will come to that shortly, but I think the other main thrust of his argument was that we are not listening to businesses. Of course we are, and that is why we came up with the concept of a statutory probationary period.
For the information of the Committee, about 140 stakeholders have engaged with us about the Bill since we came into office in July. One of the many issues that have come up is the question of day one rights, and how we balance the risk for employers—giving them the confidence to hire but ensuring that we deliver our policy aim of giving people more certainty and security at work. That is where the statutory probationary period comes in. We believe that that will help businesses focus on their hiring practices, but it should also increase the dialogue between employer and employee in those early days of the employment relationship.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said that an employer can work out pretty quickly whether someone will be suitable for the workplace. At this point, I quote Professor Dominic Regan, an eminent professor of employment law, who used to quip somewhat tongue in cheek that he could decide whether he liked someone within 10 minutes of meeting them on a train. That was his way of arguing that the two-year time limit for unfair dismissal was set far too high. It is certainly a sentiment that I agree with, although we will not be going as far as to introduce a 10-minutes-on-a-train test.
We are seeking to give employees the security of knowing that they will not be arbitrarily dismissed in the early days of their employment, but to give employers the confidence to hire and the opportunity to use a light-touch process to deal with issues of performance and capability. We believe that will be a positive for employees. Research quoted in the impact assessment suggests that having a job is significant to physical health and personal relationships, as a determinant of one’s wellbeing. The quality of that job and how secure it is are clearly a key part of that.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, and by my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak and for Gloucester, about employees who get dismissed before the qualifying period sometimes looking for a protected characteristic to base a claim on is an interesting one. I do not think that is something that we can model, because we do not know exactly how many claims would have continued anyway, but it is a fair point that when people are dismissed before two years, without any discussion or explanation, they seek answers, and sometimes they might seek those answers by hanging their hat on a statutory peg that may not always fit the case. My hon. Friends all spoke eloquently about how that can be counterproductive not just for the businesses, but for the employees’ general wellbeing.
Business in the Community surveyed 4,000 employees, of whom 66% said that their mental health and wellbeing was affected by their personal job insecurity. In written evidence presented to the Committee, USDAW noted that
“Being dismissed on spurious…grounds, without a fair investigation can have devastating consequences for an employee”
in terms of morale, confidence and living standards. Having worked for employers that had quite a gung-ho approach to employment rights, I welcomed the security of a qualifying period for unfair dismissal. Before that, it really did feel that you were one wrong conversation away from seeing your job go.
Of course, there is significant evidence to suggest that there are advantages for the wider economy. I think there is an acceptance that job insecurity can have a cooling effect on job mobility. The Resolution Foundation noted that the job mobility rate in 2019 was 25% lower than in 2000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, there is an international context to this: the UK is the fifth least regulated of the 38 OECD countries in terms of the dismissal of individual workers. We should look to correct that, and the Bill will go a long way towards doing so.
The shadow Minister asked about the risk to jobs. The impact assessment states:
“There is limited evidence to suggest that protecting employees from unfair dismissal is associated with lower employment rates.”
Evidence from our OECD counterparts across Europe supports that. The Resolution Foundation gave evidence to the effect that the measure is unlikely to have an impact on employment rates. Professor Deakin’s historical context was important. He said that, over the sweep of history in the past 50 years, increased employment protections have not led to increased unemployment. Of course, all Members will be aware of the messages of doom that we heard during the national minimum wage debate about what implementing that measure would mean for employment rates.
History demonstrates that there is nothing to fear in this legislation, and nothing to fear in giving people greater job security from day one. By providing for a statutory probationary period, we are getting the balance right between security at work and giving employers the opportunity to take a chance on new hires. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 10th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 December 2024 - (10 Dec 2024)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. We will now hear oral evidence from Abby Dryden, CEO of the Defence Medical Welfare Service. We have until 2.20 pm for this panel. Before I ask Abby to introduce herself, are there any declarations of interest?
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Apologies, Mr Efford, for not announcing it this morning, but I am a trustee of the armed forces parliamentary scheme.
Examination of Witness
Abby Dryden gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Abby Dryden: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Abby Dryden. I am the chief executive of the Defence Medical Welfare Service.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Q
Abby Dryden: I have had time to consider the Library paper and look at the Bill, and the position of my organisation, DMWS, is that if there is anything the commissioner could add to the positive experience individuals have of military service, we are supportive of that. We do not really maintain a position on existing service provision; we are quite neutral in our view in general. Our main interest is welfare delivery for service personnel in secondary care settings. If the commissioner was able to support some of the issues we identify and create a situation where armed forces personnel felt better supported, or there was increased or enhanced support for them in those settings, we would be supportive. Beyond that, I do not think we have a particular view one way or the other on the Bill itself.
Mr Francois
Q
Abby Dryden: Since 2018, we have collected detailed evidence on the experience that armed forces personnel have while they are in secondary care settings. We normally monitor the themes and trends that are identified by the people we work closely with. We identify about 10 trends each year, and we look at how we, as an organisation, and our funders can better understand how military personnel can be supported. In terms of the trends that we have identified, we usually find topics such as receiving care that is understanding of the unique position that armed forces personnel can find themselves in, the settings in which they receive care, and understanding that it is a highly mobile population.
We often deal with people who have complex family arrangements or children with special educational needs, for example, and military personnel who are quite badly injured. In those circumstances, it is important to understand that service life is a hugely positive experience for many people, but there are certain times when an enhanced service provision would be beneficial. That could be when admissions to hospital take place or when there is an increased pressure on the family as a whole. In terms of understanding how armed forces personnel could be better supported, that would be very useful. What would also be useful for armed forces personnel is an understanding that creating a positive narrative—or mentioning some of the positives of service life—is important, as much as it is important to identify the negatives.
Mr Francois
Q
We are all constituency MPs here, so we all know how difficult it can be. It is not a partisan point at all. Has there been any progress on that issue at all over the past couple of years, and if not, is it an issue that we should raise on Thursday?
Abby Dryden: I think progress has been made, but there is a need for awareness of the fact that we are dealing with a highly mobile population, which is restricted by procedural requirements. Again, it is probably similar to some of the issues that we deal with in relation to care and treatment for certain medical conditions, which might be at the top of lists, then fall down to the bottom again when families change location. I would say that yes, generally, progress has been made in a moderate fashion. However, a lot of the time, there is nothing that helps people dealing with different bodies, such as NHS trusts or local authorities, which should be talking to one another in a meaningful way and identifying that progress has been made in one area—for example, that an achievement of a special educational needs status has been identified—and porting it over to another area. There is progress to be made.
In our organisation, the welfare officers work predominantly with serving personnel, and a big part of what they do is maintaining the momentum for the family and their progress through systems and processes, in both NHS and educational settings.
Mr Francois
One of the fundamental principles of the armed forces covenant is that there should be no disadvantage as a result of service.
Abby Dryden: Yes, absolutely.
Mr Francois
If you are saying that the situation has got a bit better, that is encouraging, but I think you are also implying that there is more work to be done. We might want to explore that on Thursday under the “General service welfare” part of the Bill.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Q
Abby Dryden: I do not have any specific concerns about that. I would generally have concerns about any change in process, as the shortcomings of a process can sometimes be identified quite easily, but it can be quite difficult to create something in its place that functions effectively from the start. I would just be concerned about the transition, but I would not have any specific concerns.
Michelle Scrogham
Q
Abby Dryden: Numerous things are probably needed to ensure success. I cannot comment on those things directly, as I do not have enough experience to comment reasonably.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Q
Abby Dryden: Any process we have to support the raising of complaints would usually occur, and usually quite effectively occur, through the existing chain of command. In the 12 years that I have worked for the Defence Medical Welfare Service, I have not been involved in an issue where we have been required to go to the ombudsman. In that sense, you could say that the current system is working reasonably effectively. Equally, you could say that there are probably issues that require further identification or require the system to be more easily accessible, but usually the kinds of issues we deal with are things that can be resolved by the chain of command, which has a vested interest in resolving issues presented to us for its personnel and is keen to do so.
David Reed
Q
Abby Dryden: Part of our contract with the Ministry of Defence states that we work closely with the chain of command but are independent of the chain of command. I would not say that we are specialists in guiding a family through potentially making a complaint, but we are specialists in understanding the delicate and conflicting interests that might be at work in some of the situations that we deal with. If we feel there is a need to refer beyond the chain of command, or outside it, we have a process for that. Our internal management structure scrutinises that on a monthly and six-monthly basis.
David Reed
Q
Abby Dryden: I think it will be a different process, and we will obviously have to consider revising it, but I do not think our viewpoint and our purpose in very many of the issues we deal with will change significantly.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Q
Abby Dryden: I would hope so. The arrangements in the devolved nations, particularly in my experience of healthcare, are different, and it is about being conversant and fully aware of how it works in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is a call for a nuanced and different understanding that supports some of the issues that present when personnel move to another devolved nation or another area of the United Kingdom.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Q
Abby Dryden: I can only speak about my organisation’s experience of working with the pre-existing welfare structures. The vast majority of the time those structures work very well, and they work well because of the people who are involved; they care about personnel. In my experience, I have only ever encountered a positive approach from military processes, structures and the chain of command side of things in terms of addressing the issues that we present to them. They are very much interested in the quality of life that personnel enjoy.
In terms of how I see the commissioner supporting that, how it could be different and where there might be gaps, there is always room for improvement. For example, younger people joining the military may have a different expectation of what that structure should represent to them, how they should be able to access services and the proximity that that institution has to their quality of life and the quality of their family’s life. I would say that the commissioner should focus on the changing expectation of new recruits and young people. That might be a positive addition.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
Q
Abby Dryden: Lots of services are very much centred around the serving person. That is not a failing of those services, but I think families can sometimes, but not always, feel peripheral to proceedings. I think—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Q
Abby Dryden: Just to say that with families and the commissioner, putting families of all kinds at the centre of everything that goes on is key. The notion of family has changed significantly, so it is about making sure that there is an inclusive understanding of what a family might constitute. For non-UK serving personnel it is important as well.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Q
Abby Dryden: We do that on a regular basis. As for referrals to other charities, there is the Army Families Federation, the Naval Families Federation—that type of organisation—as well as specialist organisations for health conditions or for things that are specific to the individual that we have assessed might be of benefit to them. We also refer to legal advice if we feel that that is something they are asking us to provide them with. That is a regular thing that we undertake organisationally.
David Reed
I have a close family member who works for one of the charities here today.
The Chair
Okay. I am sure that has covered you. For the record, could all the witnesses please introduce themselves?
Col. Darren Doherty: I am Darren Doherty. I am the director of grants and welfare at the Army Benevolent Fund and am representing the Army Benevolent Fund here today. I am a former—well, I have to keep checking myself. I am not a former Army officer; I am still an Army officer. I have just completed 38 years of regular service with the Army and I was reminded just last Friday that I have a reserve liability for the next few years, so I am still part of that organisation as well. I have been in this role with the Army Benevolent Fund since 1 November.
Mandy Harding: Good afternoon. My name is Mandy Harding, and I am head of commissioned grants at the Royal Navy and Royal Marines Charity.
Air Commodore Simon Harper: Good afternoon, everyone. I am Simon Harper. I am director of grants, services and programmes for the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund and have been since March 2023; I am effectively responsible for the charitable output of the benevolent fund. Prior to that, I served for 34 years in the Royal Air Force and for two years before that in the Royal Navy.
Mr Francois
Q
Col. Darren Doherty: We have rebranded now. The old terminology of ABF The Soldiers’ Charity was what we used for a number of years until last year. We have rebranded again, at a very low cost. It did not cost us very much. We did not go through any hugely expensive marketing routine to do it, but we are now the Army Benevolent Fund.
Mr Francois
Q
Col. Darren Doherty: That is correct.
Mr Francois
Q
Col. Darren Doherty: It is not an area of expertise for me. I think the provision of pensions and advice on pensions—this is from my personal experience of having just gone through it—is adequate, with the support of great institutions such as the Forces Pension Society as an additional advising actor. I am not sure that it is something that would require specifically laying out in the Bill. That is my own opinion.
Mr Francois
Q
Can we switch to the Royal Air Force, please? Air Commodore Harper, you are probably too young to remember, sir, but in the cold war there was what was called the tactical evaluation process, or TACEVAL. It was a bit like a military Ofsted, and a team could turn up at an airbase—for example, RAF Brüggen in West Germany—say that world war three had just broken out and basically put the station through its paces for several days, and they would get an Ofsted-like score at the end.
It is not quite as severe as that, but the Armed Forces Commissioner has an Ofsted-like capability under the Bill to turn up unannounced, certainly within the UK; it is more complicated if it is abroad. Do you think that that power will be valuable in holding people to account and concentrating minds, and how often do you think the commissioner should use it?
Air Commodore Simon Harper: I am old enough to recall TACEVAL, sir, and was part of that way back in the late 1980s.
Mr Francois
I was trying to be nice.
Air Commodore Simon Harper: You are very kind, but I remember it as Ofsted-like. When I was a commanding officer, I remember Ofsted visiting my unit, which was a training unit as well. I will phrase my answer in that respect. I found those inspections to the chain of command hugely beneficial on two grounds: they provided an independent view of the operational output of a given unit, and they allowed me to ensure, with confidence, that I had the appropriate processes and policies in place to deliver my output.
I have not been close to the Air Force in a regular sense for 18 months, but I guess the challenge would be how that is defined either in the Bill or in the roles and responsibilities of the commissioner—what output are you looking for from a particular unit, and what is it you are checking? The Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund will not have a particular view, but my personal view is that, if properly configured, it would be of value to commanding officers. I have no specific view on timescale, but once every 18 months would be the absolute maximum for me, based on my own personal experience in a training establishment.
Mr Francois
Q
We will move to the Royal Navy—apologies for leaving the senior service until last, Ms Harding. On the housing side, in my experience all three services tend to treat service housing slightly differently. From memory, quite a lot of service personnel live off base and tend to commute to their place of work. Quite a few of them actually buy a property rather than live in a quarter. Obviously, housing is one issue that the commissioner will look at. Are you happy that the powers in the Bill are sufficient for the commissioner to investigate that issue? I am thinking particularly about the ability to produce thematic reports, and housing is an obvious issue for an early report. Do you have a particular view on that?
Mandy Harding: From what I have read of the Bill, my understanding is that the Armed Forces Commissioner will have the power to investigate and look at issues that are arising. In our charity’s line of work, we come into contact with beneficiaries and we get reports in through the partners and organisations that we fund. In direct work with the people we have been supporting, particularly on neurodiversity and special educational needs and disabilities, housing does crop up.
That is the exciting part of having an Armed Forces Commissioner—somebody who can hear from different areas and connect the dots to realise what is happening in different places. There is an oversight role there. That is incredibly useful to us as grant funders. We do our grant funding based on need, so if need is identified, that is where we can bring that wraparound support to families.
Mr Francois
Q
Mandy Harding: We realise that a lot of our families have “plus, plus, plus” issues. We know that across the country there are issues with SEND. Getting assessments is very difficult and transferring across local authorities is particularly tricky. The issues were laid out quite well in the “Living in our Shoes” report by Professor Jan Walker, which was commissioned in 2019. She laid out some recommendations, most of which—over 100—were accepted by the Government at the time. We have built on that report. We have continued to investigate need; we have gone out to beneficiaries to find out what is going on and what they need. That is the power of using commissioning principles in our grant-making, which is quite unique. We can then commission with the use of grants, having seen who the best provider is.
One of the big pieces of work we are doing is around neurodiversity. It is a big area of work, and I have already booked to speak to both my colleagues either side of me, because we would like to make this a tri-service piece of work going forward. I think that is what will be required to enable the changes that we can see might need to happen.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Q
The provision in clause 3 provides that service complaints can be made from people who are not necessarily service personnel, which is different from what happens with the ombudsman now. First, what are your thoughts on that? Secondly, one of the themes that has come through is the need for trust and transparency about the impact from anything that the new role does. How could that change enhance that?
Mandy Harding: I can take the first part of the question. I referred to the “Living in our Shoes” report by Professor Jan Walker. That report was very significant because it identified that when one person serves, the whole family serves. Having access for families is a welcome addition and my colleagues at the Naval Families Federation will be able to speak more effectively on that. It is not my area of expertise, because I am a grant maker, but I am sure that they would have more to say.
Air Commodore Simon Harper: I agree completely. We have a phrase in the Air Force: “Support the family”. You retain the service person by supporting the family. In respect to the question you ask, I would be supportive of the service family having that access. As a charity, it is important that we recognise the offer to the serving person. That offer is effectively a psychological contract that covers many different aspects, whether it be pay, pensions, housing, accommodation, food, or ability to get access to medical and dental care— and, indeed, the charities, too, play a role in that offer. It affects the serving families in different points at different times. It is very difficult to say there is a single issue or a few issues that are causing the level of dissatisfaction reported through the armed forces continuous attitude surveys and the like and through the families continuous attitude survey.
We are a families federation, and provide more detail on certain families. It is a multi-faceted issue, though, and difficult to pinpoint one particular place. It is important to understand that that offer is multifaceted and is a psychological contract at its very heart. It could take a number of things, which begin over time, to wear away the good will of that family, which then leads to dissatisfaction and, ultimately, people leaving the services.
Col. Darren Doherty: I do not think I can add much more to that, or comment on access to the service complaints system from beyond the serving person. I can speak about the wider family context and put it against what we provide.
As the Army Benevolent Fund, we provide a lifetime of support to serving and former soldiers and their immediate families, including the bereaved, when they are in need. That has built up since the Army Benevolent Fund was formed, 80 years ago. Even then, we understood the importance of the family unit and the importance of supporting the continuum of service, not just of the service person but of the whole family as they continue through the journey: joining, leaving and then serving, whether as a reservist, or a regular reservist, as in my case, and as a veteran, with the family that serves alongside them. That person, family or service person might be bereaved as well. It is about that total inclusivity.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Q
Air Commodore Simon Harper: I am happy to take the question. Yes, I suppose there is that potential. The chain of command still has a vital role. Where I could see the benefit is that, having gone through and made my point about the offer being multifaceted, the response for the serving person and their family is multifaceted as well. The Armed Forces Commissioner can play a key role in that.
There will be times, I suspect, when the legislation will come into conflict—perhaps that is the wrong term—with the chain of command. I still think the chain of command must be the overarching way in which military effect and operational output is delivered. That is the success of how it is done. But I think that, appropriately placed, the Armed Forces Commissioner can support, augment and, in co-operation with the chain of command, improve the lives of the serving person and the family. There is a risk, of course, but I think it can work.
Col. Darren Doherty: I agree with all that. There is potential for the Bill to undermine the chain of command and potential for it to work against the chain of command; much depends on the selection of the right individual to do the role and on the role being developed and there being a framework for operating how the office goes about its business beyond what is laid out in the Bill. This is about building trust and confidence with those it supports, including individuals who might bring things to the attention of the commissioner, and also about the confidence of the wider organisation as well.
To answer your question, there is that potential, but everything that I have read in the Bill, heard in the debates and read in Hansard is in people’s minds. I listened to some of the earlier speakers today comparing it the outwith-the-chain-of-command ways that we have with dealing with issues now. You will well remember dealing with the padre and medical officers as something outside the chain of command.
All those things do not happen overnight. Those need to be built up as individual relationships in terms of trust within organisations. This is something new—a step beyond what the ombudsman provides. It will take time and careful implementation, from a practical perspective, for it to work. But I do see that there is huge benefit in having such an office there for the individual and the organisation and in support of the chain of command as well. They can potentially all work together.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Q
Col. Darren Doherty: The legislation is certainly strong enough to put them in that position. Again, it goes back to the type of individual selected for the role and the trust and the confidence that they build with the community. I can speak only on behalf of the Army.
It will take a period of time to educate people on what the role is. That is why it is absolutely critical that the Bill is fit for purpose and, more importantly, that the policy and framework that sit beyond it, in terms of implementation, are right as well, and that we are absolutely clear where the boundaries and responsibilities for the office lie, and also the gearing between it and other offices.
That goes back to one of the issues raised a few times in the debate, which is the scope of the role—looking predominantly at the community subject to service law and how that relates to the wider military community, going back to that continuum of service. How that all interlocks with what is currently provided by the Minister for Veterans and People and veterans commissioners, where they exist, is all very important in the messaging and communicating with the community.
It is a wide remit. It is summed up in a few small sentences, but dealing with welfare issues could be incredibly complex and wide-ranging. There are very few welfare issues that do not straddle the serving family and go into the veteran space in a sort of time continuum. Those are all important parts of the messaging of what the role is going to be about.
Helen Maguire
Q
Col. Darren Doherty: The legislation is clear where access is permitted and enabled. It will be a challenge where matters of operational security come into it, but I think all those are manageable. Again, it is about the framework of how the office will operate—it will need to be right where it is needed.
My experience of operations, going back to my previous experience, but close to my heart, is that welfare is a chain-of-command business. It is what officers, senior non-commissioned officers and junior non-commissioned officers get paid to do. I am always minded that they often do that best on operations. I would hope that the commissioner’s role would be less needed in operations, but that is yet to be proved by evidence or experience. I would hope that we get on with that better there than perhaps we do in some of the quieter, peacetime locations.
Helen Maguire
Q
Mandy Harding: It is difficult to know how distinct our challenges are, because I do not know the challenges that the communities of my colleagues face. Somebody told me that the Army tend to work within family groupings and units, whereas the Navy take a village to sea. I thought that was an interesting analogy of the difference. That brings different issues. Lengths of deployment are different. Beyond that, I am not sure I can offer you more because I am not sighted on my colleagues’ areas of expertise.
Helen Maguire
Q
Air Commodore Simon Harper: I would make two points. There is a community and a family around a particular RAF station, of which there are 24 or 26 in the UK and others elsewhere, but there is increasingly a diaspora of families who live elsewhere, separated from that base. You have individuals who are weekend commuting to a different location where there is not the localised support for a family. It varies.
Generally speaking, historically, the support has always been focused around a serving base for the Royal Air Force. Increasingly, we need to reach out into other areas of the UK, where families have now settled for other reasons. That diaspora is UK-wide, in the UK context. It is a different challenge and there are different needs associated with both.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
Q
Could you give us a flavour of the issues coming forward in the cohort that we are talking about in the Bill to your organisations and how you think shining a spotlight on some of those structural issues might be able to address some of the underlying causes? The purpose of the commissioner is, ideally, to assist in removing some of the barriers, obstacles and challenges that our service people and their families face. I would be interested to get your sense as to whether those structural issues have always been here or whether you have seen changes in recent years that need to be addressed by the commissioner.
Col. Darren Doherty: I would start by saying that much of our work is currently done and our support is currently provided to the veteran and family community. Only about 12% of our grants go to the serving community. That is because we base them on need and, thankfully, many in the serving community do not feel that need until they have left. Of that 12%, much is made up of family support in terms of bereavement and those sorts of things.
I think the situation is changing. In the future, I think we are going to look much more towards causation and prevention, which will be more within the serving community. I would highlight a project that we have recently become involved with, which is funding a training and education mechanism that will look at domestic abuse. That is not just treating or helping to support the victims of domestic abuse through a helpline, although that is part of it. The main part, through a charity called SafeLives, is looking at training and education. Much of that is aimed towards our serving community, through their own welfare officers. That initiative was prompted by the work of our trustees identifying that they thought this might be an issue. We cross-checked that with the Army and they believed it was.
That is an example where a thematic study carried out, or a report by the commissioner, could help identify other areas of need in the serving community where the third sector and in the Army’s case, the Army Benevolent Fund, could intervene and try to get at some of the root causes of these issues. That is where we intend to go in the future, while still providing the same degree of support to meet the need that we do now.
Mandy Harding: We are a commissioning charity in the sense that our grant-making uses commissioning principles based on need. We commission through grants to partners to deliver the outcomes. We do that by identifying need. We are very interested in needs, and any identified needs, because where we can identify the need, that is where we can appropriate the right resources and the right investment. From our point of view, anything that helps with that is very useful.
In terms of what is coming up, we have just commissioned some new work around mental health and wellbeing because of the changes we are seeing. Deployments now are to hostile areas, families have less information and the anxiety is harder for them. You cannot shield children so easily from social media and the news. Families have explained to us that they have tried to shield their children from the news in the home, but that changes the moment they go to school—I think HMS Diamond was probably a very good example of what happened, and the distress that those families felt at seeing that on the news and trying to shield their children from what was going on. There is a change and a shift.
From our charity’s position, we are currently looking at need again. We did a piece of need research of our own in 2019. Professor Walker’s work came in, which was incredibly helpful. With colleagues at Greenwich Hospital and at the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, we are all looking at need. We are working with the RAF and with the RAND research project to try to see what need is there. If a commissioner came in, it follows that we would be supportive of a commissioner who might be able to pull themes together for us, and then we can make the appropriate investments.
The only thought that I would offer from our experience of working with beneficiaries and organisations—particularly when I have done research into need and talked with beneficiaries—is to manage expectations. I think managing families’ expectations of this will be a challenge.
Air Commodore Simon Harper: I just have a few points to add. From a Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund perspective, we augment what the service already provides. Much of what we see in the serving community in particular is what the air force has asked us to provide or, indeed, where we have found a specific need that is not being provided for either by the Royal Air Force locally on station or by partner charities.
I would pick up two areas in which we have seen an increase or growth over the last couple of years. The first is in emotional wellbeing support and sub-clinical mental wellbeing. We have a listening and counselling service that is accessed by over 2,000 people a year, of whom 80% are from the serving community. It was originally set up as a veterans’ programme, and it is now dominated by the serving community.
The second area is around children and young people. Increasingly, we have picked up a requirement to support children and young people, not just through after-school clubs or our youth club provision on stations, but through holiday provision as well. Increasingly, we are seeing the need to support serving children. Particularly where both parents are serving—that is increasing—we have picked that up as a requirement, and colleagues from the Royal Air Force Families Federation will be able to help with that.
As far as addressing underlying causes and needs goes, if the commissioner can be part of that solution, as I mentioned earlier, that would be fantastic. Already, it is a multifaceted response, but if the commissioner can come and say, “Here is an issue. This is what we have picked up. Is it being picked up by any other organisations?”—that includes, by the way, local authorities, the NHS and local education authorities—I think that would be of huge benefit.
David Reed
Q
Col. Darren Doherty: I do not know.
Mandy Harding: I am firmly in grants, so I am not the right person to answer that question, I am afraid.
Air Commodore Simon Harper: From what I have seen, it is not clear how that would happen.
David Reed
Q
Air Commodore Simon Harper: Yes, it would.
The Chair
No further questions, so I thank the three of you for giving evidence this afternoon. We will move on to our next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Collette Musgrave, Sarah Clewes and Maria Lyle gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome: will each of you introduce yourself for the record?
Collette Musgrave: I am Collette Musgrave, the chief executive of the Army Families Federation.
Sarah Clewes: I am Sarah Clewes, the chief executive of the Naval Families Federation.
Maria Lyle: I am Maria Lyle, director of the RAF Families Federation.
Mr Francois
Q
You represent the families of service personnel and, as at the heart of the Bill are issues of general service welfare, may I give each of you an opportunity to raise your top two or three issues under that heading that you would like to see the commissioner produce early thematic reports on and to give us some idea why you picked those? This time, let us start with the senior service.
Sarah Clewes: “Welfare” is an interesting term. We are not in the welfare space. The Navy is looked after by the Royal Navy families and personnel service—they deal with welfare. However, under what “welfare” might mean to families, at the Naval Families Federation, our top two issues are housing and support to non-UK serving personnel and their families, with visa and immigration, the processes and the ongoing need for support from our qualified caseworkers.
Collette Musgrave: To be frank, I will be boring and raise the same two issues—but I will expand a little on “non-UK”. We have had multiple investigations and reports on the state of housing and accommodation—SLA and SFA—but there has been little investigation into the nature of the challenges that non-UK serving personnel, or family members who might be non-UK, also face in service family life.
Mr Francois
Q
Collette Musgrave: Non-UK serving personnel have been increasing year on year and form a much greater proportion of our armed forces than they once did.
Mr Francois
The Royal Air Force, what about you? It will be interesting to see whether we have a hat trick. Will you give us your top one or two?
Maria Lyle: You nearly have a hat trick. You say that we represent families, which we absolutely do. We represent serving personnel as well, which is why I will mention housing in terms of houses, but also single-living accommodation. We had 650 people who came to us this year on that issue, before we get going on housing itself.
My second one—we have a much smaller non-UK population in the RAF because we recruit differently—would be education and childcare. That is what people come to us about in its various forms and facets.
Mr Francois
Q
Maria Lyle: It does. That is the very sharpest end of the wedge when it comes to challenges for military families. If they are moving, picking up that provision and replicating it in a new area is not always possible. I would say that they are the most vulnerable—the ones who have the biggest challenges to overcome in our systems.
Mr Francois
Q
Collette Musgrave: I would merely echo Maria’s comments. It is very much at the sharp end of things in education provision for service children. SEN is a real concern for us, and significant numbers of people articulate to us that they are going to either leave or serve in separated service, because of the frustrations felt through many years of moving from location to location and having to start the SEN process over again. The transferability of many things that affect service personnel and their families, both for those inside the UK and those moving to and from the UK, is a real challenge and can often be the final tipping point for them making that decision to either leave or serve unaccompanied.
Mr Francois
Q
Collette Musgrave: Indeed you did.
Mr Francois
The pressure on family life, as we have already heard today, is the single biggest reason why people leave, but when we went round a number of military bases, we found it was often an amalgam of reasons. Sometimes there would be a pressure cooker effect over several years, and then one thing might become, in colloquial English, the straw that broke the camel’s back. Sometimes it is that cocktail that just becomes a bit too much. Is that a fair characterisation? [Interruption.] I can see some heads nodding, so that still holds good five years on. Thank you very much. You have been generous with your time, Mr Efford—thank you.
Helen Maguire
Q
Collette Musgrave: The challenges that we see with families getting the support they need can be articulated as both internal and external. Internal services and processes are the ones that Defence offers to families in order to maintain service family life, and then there are those provided by what one might characterise as external agencies—whether that is local authorities, the NHS, educational provision or whatever. The nature of the challenge can be different depending on with whom families are seeking to engage.
The challenges within the internal system can be largely about not being able to access the right information, not being given the right information when asking for it, consistency of the information and guidance that is given, and consistency of the provision. As we have spoken about, Army families in particular are very mobile, and what they are provided with in one location might be very different to what they are provided with in another, both in extent and quality of provision. We would really like to see the Armed Forces Commissioner do something on that in their role.
As the Army Families Federation, we absolutely welcome the introduction of an Armed Forces Commissioner with, as the Secretary of State said, a laser-like focus on the serving experience, which is often lost when talking about the armed forces community—those who are actually serving at the moment. We believe the Armed Forces Commissioner can play a key role in looking at the consistency of provision of both policy and processes within defence. Many of the concerns that come to us are a result of mixed information and mixed messages, and families not being able to access the provision that is there because they simply do not know how to access it or are being blocked in some way.
Externally, the issue is subtly different. There is not an unwillingness from the general UK population to support service personnel and their families. What there is sometimes is a lack of knowledge and understanding. In many of the large organisations that they are interfacing with, whether that is the NHS, a local authority or the Department for Work and Pensions, there is often a lack of understanding of the unique circumstances of service personnel and their families. It is difficult sometimes for those families in particular, who are to an extent slightly outside society—I am not articulating that well, because that is not what I want to say, particularly as a former service family and veteran myself. Often with housing, as well as sometimes healthcare and education—particularly if they are overseas or move back from overseas—their interfaces with external statutory authorities are not always straightforward and can vary hugely as they move around the country. Your experience in Scotland might be very different to your experience in England. Their ability to interface effectively with those services can sometimes be compromised.
Many of these organisations have signed up to the armed forces covenant. The people at the top are very happy to sign up to the armed forces covenant and say, “Yes, we made a great commitment.” The people on the frontline, who are actually dealing with our service personnel and their families, are often not so well-informed and do not necessarily fully understand some of the additional or different provision that has been made under the terms of the armed forces covenant. Those are the big handfuls, and to finally answer your question, those two key areas are where the Armed Forces Commissioner could help.
Helen Maguire
Q
Sarah Clewes: It is about just being mindful that not all naval families live around the base port areas. You would expect that some do, and that is absolutely fine, but others choose to live wherever their support network or employment is. Actually, dispersed families are much more common than you would perhaps think, because there is that assumption that everyone lives in service family accommodation around a base port area, but they absolutely do not.
It is about trying to reach those people who are very happy and thriving in their community of choice, who may not need any support from the Navy. Actually, when they do, hopefully they have a life-changing event or do not know about the free swimming and sailing that is available to them. It is about spreading the net really wide and saying, “If you ever need that support, we are here for you, in whatever guise that may be.” Welfare is absolutely not our part of ship, but it is about actually giving that little nugget of information to take away a little bit of pain. They may be juggling a very successful career and childcare while their partner or spouse is at sea or—worse still—under the water for six months, with absolutely no contact or very limited contact.
When appreciating service life, it is all very well to think that we know what it means, but we really have to understand what it means across a huge range of issues, and family dynamics are huge. We really need to be mindful of who we are talking about when we talk about families, and let’s not just pigeonhole folk and think we know.
Therefore, it is important that the commissioner does what we do on a daily basis. They have to ask, “What does that look like for naval families? VAT on school fees, what does that look like for naval families? Have you given them the information they need to make those informed choices or will they have to half-guess and hope that a hardship fund will become available so that they can get through Christmas?” It could be really impactful, and like Colette, I am absolutely interested to see how this could develop.
Helen Maguire
Q
Maria Lyle: I will not replay what my colleagues have said. Collette articulated a lot of the challenges that RAF families would also face in terms of their mobility. We very much see that. The thing that sums it up for me is the line that says that part of the role is improving public awareness of the welfare issues that serving families and personnel face, which I would wholeheartedly support. My only slight qualm about that is that it works two ways. Having a role that coalesces that understanding and helps us amplify people’s voices could be really powerful.
I would like to put on the record that I think it would be helpful if it is done in a way that supports the role in general, rather than put people off joining our military. Part of the challenge the military has at the moment is the impact of gapping and poor retention. This needs to be a part of bolstering the offer and talking about some of the benefits and challenges of military life. Otherwise we run the risk of making life worse for people because retention falls even lower. I recognise that is straying into a different area, but I would not want an opportunity to become a threat.
Luke Pollard
Q
I am interested to get your perspective on how you think an Armed Forces Commissioner’s office would deal with and seek to build trust with the families, because it is much easier for the commissioner to visit a base. If there is accommodation on site, that might be the case. But we know that not everyone who serves and their families live on bases. We explicitly exclude the commissioner from having a right to inspect someone’s home without notice, for very good and obvious reasons. But how do you think the commissioner should access and seek to get views from and be responsive to the needs of families? I know that will change depending on service and location and the barriers to get there. It is important that we have an understanding about what they are so we can seek to overcome them. Can you expand on that kind of challenge? Shall we go to the Navy first?
Sarah Clewes: That will be the tricky bit—building the trust and giving prompt responses. Doing what the commissioner says he or she is going to do will be really important to build that trust. We know from the covenant, for example, that has been around for 12 years, that if you ask serving personnel and their families, a large percentage of them still do not know what the covenant is, what it does, or how it changes their lives, and that has been around for a long time.
That is just an example of how education is absolutely key, as is building trust and rapport and having really slick processes so that if somebody has been invited to ask a question they get a swift response in plain language. Again, that will be really important when you respond to a serving personnel. You might send them a link to a joint service publication or whatever, but that will not wash with families who probably cannot access the JSP because of the firewall. What good is that? So having those tailored responses and being mindful of the audience that will be new will be absolutely key, and that will be the tricky bit.
Collette Musgrave: I would echo Sarah’s comments. Something that we have grappled with for a long time is how you engage with families. It is really important to understand, as Sarah says, how important trust in the system is. If expectations are not met fairly swiftly, families, on past experience, will simply not engage. But there is a more practical element, which Sarah touched on: access, accessibility and understandability. Too many of the responses that come out of Defence and too much of the communication is in language that is simply not accessible to people who are not wearing uniform. As somebody who used to wear uniform and was an MOD civil servant, I would argue that at times it is not even accessible to me, so it is about making it clear and really easy to access and offering a range of access.
Yes, we are all shifting to digital, and yes, we have seen in our organisations a distinct switch to people wanting to engage with us via email or other digital means, but there is still a large section of families who are not really able or willing to engage with that process. They will need to be able to pick up the phone and speak to somebody, and to have somebody at the other end who understands what they are saying. If I may refer back to the housing issue, the roll-out of the new housing contract and the Pinnacle help desk, one of the biggest issues with that was not having somebody who picked up the phone. When someone did, they had no empathy or sympathy with the issues being raised, let alone an understanding of them. In terms of the physical process of access, that will be absolutely key in ensuring that that works for families, is consistent and delivers what they expect.
Maria Lyle: The only thing I would add is that there is an opportunity to get it right at the beginning. Yes, no one gets everything nailed on the first time—the person in that role needs to develop it—but if the offer is clear at the beginning, it makes it a lot easier. By that, I mean: is this office more strategic or tactical? That is part of the process that we are working out now. By that, I mean that if people are making a series of phone calls to that office, it will have to be staffed to deal with multiple thousands of calls a year. If that is not what the office is set up to do, and if it is more about dealing with and amplifying strategic messaging about what is going wrong, the communications could be based on that. But if families are led to believe, “This is somewhere I can ring and they will get my house sorted,” it is about managing those expectations and nailing those comms.
Therefore, upstream of that, it is about being very clear and coherent about what the office is setting out to do. Is it individual case management for any family who rings up with a problem? That is very different from an office that views the evidence and goes, “The key issues for military families are these three. Here is what my team is going to do about them.” In terms of what you communicate to families, those are quite different beasts. It is really important to get that right.
Pam Cox
Q
“the welfare of persons subject to service law and”—
this is a key phrase—“relevant family members”. That is left deliberately broad. What is your view on how a relevant family member might be defined?
Collette Musgrave: Where to start? This is a problem that we have grappled with for many years. The Army Families Federation is 42 years old, and what a family member looked like back then is very different from what a family member looks like now.
Maintaining that flexibility about what a family member is has been absolutely key for us in being able to properly support families. It may very well be a spouse or civil partner, or it may be a child. It may be a grandparent, if they were involved in caring for or supporting the family in any way. It may be an aunt or uncle. Quite frankly, with many of the people we deal with, some of whom have had quite challenging and difficult upbringings, it may be that they regard their wider friendship network as their family and their support network. It is a real challenge sometimes for us as an organisation to delineate and work this out so that we can best support the individual or the family in question.
Clearly, when it comes to the provision of defence processes and services, there are quite clear rules and regulations about who is in scope. My organisation and I personally might take issue with some of those, but none the less they are quite clearly laid out. One of the key difficulties that families face is often navigating that alongside their expectations, and alongside how wider society and some of the statutory external bodies I referred to earlier regard a family. It is that level of confusion that this process will have to work through quite quickly, referring back to Maria’s point about expectation management.
I note that in the debate and the questions in the House there were quite a lot of comments about bereaved families. There has been a significant amount of work over the last couple of years on identifying and supporting bereaved families, and meeting their actual needs rather than their perceived needs. We would certainly like to see bereaved families being addressed in some way within the scope of the Armed Forces Commissioner’s activities.
That would probably be something of a challenge, because the needs and requirements of a family when they are initially bereaved can be quite different from those of a bereaved family 10 or 20 years down the line. That would most definitely be something of a challenge for the Armed Forces Commissioner to work through. Nevertheless, we feel quite strongly that bereaved families should be included in the scope of the definition of families. Beyond that, it is not straightforward. We would like to see the broadest possible definition, because that is what service personnel and their families need, and it should be responsive to their needs and not to what happens to be in the relevant JSP.
Maria Lyle: I recognise that in the legislation, there may need to be—I do not know; I am not responsible for passing this Bill—a clause about what is applicable overseas and in the UK regarding families, for example, and how they are defined and dealt with.
I will give a live example of why it is important to keep the definition as broad as possible. At the moment, adult children are no longer defined as “dependents”, but many families talk to us about the needs of their young adult children who cannot access bases because they can no longer get a dependent’s pass, perhaps because they are at university or have left university. These days, of course, it is really hard for a young person to get accommodation, so they often stay at home sharing married quarters in a way that they would not have done 10 or 20 years ago. It is that sort of thing—the changing shape of family—and this Bill is an opportunity to allow some of those issues to be voiced and made relevant to an Armed Forces Commissioner.
Sarah Clewes: A family may also constitute a couple who have chosen not to have children or who cannot have children. We may think of them as a couple, but actually they are a family, because they are a couple. Are they within or without scope? It is important to consider every single differing family dynamic so that people are not excluded.
Michelle Scrogham
Q
Maria Lyle: I was thinking about that element beforehand. It depends on how the process pans out, in terms of how strategic or how tactical the role of the commissioner’s office is. We want this Bill to be a really helpful change in how military families and personnel are supported, so we want there to be as useful a working relationship with the Armed Forces Commissioner as possible.
For example, we would be really keen to share with the commissioner on a regular basis the information and evidence that we receive all year. There is a rich pattern of data across the sector—the third sector that deals with families—that could be brought to bear in terms of identifying exactly where the big issues are that the Armed Forces Commissioner could shine a light on, perhaps leaning in with Government Departments.
The change in this Bill is the report to Parliament. The armed forces covenant also provides for a report to Parliament every year. That is not necessarily independent; it is Government reporting on themselves. The legislation gives a layer of independence. If we can use this mechanism and get behind it to help the commissioner to have the evidence they need to enact change, that is certainly how we see our role and work with the commissioner’s office.
Sarah Clewes: Just to add to that, I think evidence is absolutely key. If we were to go for a scattergun approach and ask several charities, they would have an opinion. However, is that helpful? The families federations work very hard to provide evidence so that we can find the themes and find out what matters most. That is not to say that we discount other things that may be in the margin, but I think it is so important to have an evidence base on which to make decisions. Otherwise we could just go for a scattergun approach, tie ourselves up in knots and jump on things that perhaps are important to some, but are they as important for others? We need a certain amount of prioritisation, and that is exactly what we have been doing for a number of years. The opportunity to build on that and funnel some of the information upwards for decision making is most welcome.
Collette Musgrave: Just to build on my colleagues’ comments, I think many—not all, but many—of the issues that face service personnel and their families, and that impact positively or negatively on their decisions about whether to join and stay in the armed forces, are fairly well known and have been looked at in the past from a number of angles. As Sarah and Maria say, there is a rich level of evidence already in place. It is a question of using that, but really trying to understand the scale and depth of the issues.
The issues are all well known, and there are many of us who will get behind a certain one at a certain time, or there will be an external event that prompts examination. But it is a question of understanding, across that broad range, which ones are really impacting rather than being an irritation. What is making a real difference, and what is the depth and scale? Getting in behind those issues is where the Armed Forces Commissioner could bring real value. Galvanising all the various bodies externally, and across defence and across Government, to co-ordinate and co-operate to do that could be quite a significant and positive change.
David Reed
Q
Sarah Clewes: That is a really good question. It is a case of dealing with the frustration. As I mentioned, the issue is the inability to make an informed choice. If people are given the information that they need, they can decide which way to go, but when they do not have that information or it comes late, they feel let down again. It is an erosion of the offer; they are not feeling looked after.
This is in the context of busy serving personnel who are not at home for long periods of time to do admin. That is often left to the spouse, who cannot make the decisions because they, too, do not have the information that they require. Again, this is all about feeling valued and feeling as though, if it is part of the offer, there should be a slick process whereby armed forces personnel have been considered and can get the information that they need to look after their children and give them the continuity of education that they deserve.
It is about the package and making people feel valued. It is also about being mindful that people are very busy when deployed on a ship or a submarine, which is the case for the people that we are looking after. Of course, the Royal Marines’ operational tempo is just constant, so there is not time. If there is time to be at home and do things such as admin for the CEA or whatever, the processes need to be really slick.
We have had instances of people coming to us and saying, “This is just too tricky; it’s too difficult. I’ve tried this, and I’ve tried to speak to that person, and in the end it’s too difficult. Do you know what? I’m going to leave because I’ve had enough. It’s too difficult.” That is where we will come in and say, “Surely you must be able to speak to a human being who understands your frustration and who can get this over the line, so that you can go and deploy without being distracted.” A lot of the time, it falls back to the charity sector to help in those ways. Is that right? I do not know, but it is becoming more prevalent that the charities will pick things up, just to take away a bit of the pain. It really should not be that painful. I am not sure if that answers the question, but slick processes, information and feeling valued are key.
David Reed
Q
Maria Lyle: I do not believe that I have a specific concern that the ombudsman being rolled into the Armed Forces Commissioner will make things more complex, or worse. Any machinery of government change will potentially add some time to a system—I get that. I do think there is an opportunity to look at the complaints system itself, and whether it is fully fit for purpose in that change, but I recognise that that is not what the Bill is focused on. My main concern is about whether the actual ombudsman processes are as effective as they can be when they are moved over, so they do not cause problems.
Collette Musgrave: I echo my colleague’s comments; there is nothing substantive that I can add.
The Chair
If there are no more questions, let us thank our witnesses for coming and giving evidence this afternoon. Thank you very much. The star of the show is now going to take the floor.
Examination of Witnesses
Luke Pollard MP gave evidence.
The Chair
Minister, if you could give us your name, rank and serial number, we will get on.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard): Hello, my name is Luke Pollard. I am the Minister for the Armed Forces.
Mr Francois
Q
I have a couple of other questions on the Bill. You said something on Second Reading that was not entirely clear—I do not mean that critically; it is just the way that it came out. Is the commissioner still going to take up individual cases that have exhausted the service complaints process, in the way that the Service Complaints Ombudsman currently does, or is the commissioner going to concentrate generally on more thematic issues? If it is the latter and not the former, that is a big change. Could you clarify that?
Luke Pollard: Yes, certainly. On the point about SEND, we have not specified an exhaustive list of precisely what the commissioner should be looking at because the independence of the commissioner allows them to choose which issues they want to address, based on the feedback that they are receiving from armed forces personnel and their families, or that they have identified on their visits. It is not an exhaustive list, and we are happy to look at particular circumstances—thank you for the notice.
When it comes to the role of the commissioner, we are effectively rolling the Service Complaints Ombudsman functions into the commissioner. The additional own initiative powers that will be added to this role, forming the commissioner’s office, will be for them to undertake thematic inquiries. Again, we have not overly specified the process that will happen when someone gets in touch with the commissioner, precisely because we want the commissioner to define what their processes should be and to have the independence to establish the processes, the structures and the ability to listen and feed into their thematic reports.
To the same extent, we have not specified how many thematic reports a commissioner should make. We are working on the assumption that, if they are looking at a range of issues, an annual report would contain a summary of their work throughout the year, as well as the usual annual reporting details about staff levels, volumes and other bits like that.
The Bill also includes the power for the commissioner to publish a separate report on a thematic issue if they choose to. It will be down to the commissioner to decide not only where that comes from, but where the issues are taken up. The commissioner has the ability to look at the service complaints system and the issues coming through that as one measure for deciding what thematic areas to investigate. It will be for the commissioner to decide what recommendations to make to Government via Parliament.
Mr Francois
Q
Luke Pollard: Exactly right—all the SCOAF functions move in their entirety. The only change we are making to the SCOAF functions is a very slight and minor one: at the moment, you need an officer to decide validity or eligibility, but that is being changed to an official. Apart from that, the entire SCOAF system is deliberately unchanged, because the place for any revisions to the functioning of the service complaints system would be the armed forces Bill, which will come in about two years’ time. The Bill gives the commissioner the ability to be informed by the service complaints system, as well as anything else they may receive, when deciding on thematic investigations or areas they want to look at.
Mr Francois
That is pretty clear, so thank you for clarifying. I will stop there because I know you have only limited time for your panel and others will want to ask questions.
Michelle Scrogham
Q
Luke Pollard: The Minister for Veterans and People has been looking at the system and will be taking steps to see what the most appropriate representation or system to put in place is. We inherited a system that has national veterans commissioners in some locations, but not all. Al Carns will look at that in due course.
We have deliberately not specified the interaction between any established commissioner for veterans or veterans group and the commissioner in the Bill, because we want the Armed Forces Commissioner to make an independent judgment. My expectation, however, is that there would be regular meetings between the commissioner and the variety of stakeholder groups that operate in the wider armed forces community, partly to check in on issues, but also, importantly, to check in on the progress of their recommendations and how they are being implemented.
A key part of this process is shining a spotlight on an issue, and in my mind it is not sufficient to say, “Here is an issue,” and just present it to Parliament. There needs to be an understanding of what happens next with it, and that is where that interaction would probably be most found.
Michelle Scrogham
Q
Luke Pollard: When the commissioner’s office is stood up, there will be a ways of working agreement between the commissioner and the single services about how things work. I am not expecting the Armed Forces Commissioner to use their unannounced powers frequently. If you look at the German model, the armed forces commissioner in Germany spends about a third of her year undertaking visits, of which nearly all are planned. The ability to make an unannounced visit in the commissioner’s toolbox makes those powers even more prominent, because if an issue is reaching a certain threshold, they can decide to make an unannounced visit.
The powers on national security that we have included in the Bill come from the importance of making sure that in the proper exercising of their duties, the commissioner is focusing on general service welfare matters. What we do not want to see the commissioner doing, as you heard when the current SCOAF presented earlier, is looking at the secret squirrel elements. I do not want them looking into the intelligence services or secret squirrel locations, such as the operational design of missions. That all sits outside their remit; their remit is solely focused on general service welfare. The ability to define that via secondary legislation is a prudent and proportionate power that we have in the Bill. I suspect what will actually happen in most cases is, once the secondary legislation that details that has been published, a ways of working approach will be established.
I cannot really imagine any Armed Forces Commissioner having a remit or operations that step outside that clearly defined general service welfare lane, but if there are concerns, there is also a power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to exercise that caution on visits, especially if there is a national security consideration. We would not expect that, given the welfare focus, but it is a proportionate safeguarding power, just in case.
Lincoln Jopp
Q
“This Bill will establish an independent Commissioner to serve as a direct point of contact for Armed Forces personnel and their families.”
However, I read the Bill and it does not do that. It takes on the ombudsman’s powers—that is chunk one—but only for service complaints. If someone has a housing problem, it is rarely going to be subject to a service complaint; it will go up the housing route. The second chunk is about more general thematic investigations. The Bill does those two things, but I do not think it provides a place for people to go day to day when they have a problem, because that gets into the jurisdictions of local authorities and local education authorities—there is a series of routes. If you are telling us that we are going to change the service complaints procedure so that—[Interruption.]
Lincoln Jopp
Q
Luke Pollard: Thank you. I do not think that it is necessary to legislate for the ability of the commissioner to have an email address, a website or a postal address. We gave a commitment on Second Reading that the commissioner should be accessible by a range of means. It is up to the commissioner to determine what that range of means is and to flex their resourcing to deliver that. The intent behind the establishment of the three functions as you described them, however, will be to provide a way for people who are serving to contact the commissioner. It might be for the commissioner to decide that, with thematic investigations, they operate a consultation function or a direct stakeholder function, in addition to some of the means of direct contact, but that is not necessary to have in primary legislation, which is the reason why it is not in primary legislation, but in the explanatory note, to explain the different roles that the commissioner will have.
Lincoln Jopp
Q
Luke Pollard: The important thing is to look at the outcome and the focus. The commissioner’s job is not to countermand orders or instructions given by the chain of command. That is not in their remit and they would not be able to undertake that activity. Where they will be support for the chain of command is in delivering a better output for their people.
In recent years, certainly—the situation that the new Government have inherited—we have had morale falling in all our services every year for the past 10 years. For every 100 people who join the armed forces, at the moment 130 leave, and that is not good enough. When we talk about renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve and about the Armed Forces Commissioner being the first legislative pillar to do that—the largest pay rises for 20 years and increasing recruits’ pay by 35% are part of that, fellow travellers on the journey—we are trying to support people to join the armed forces and to stay in them longer.
We are aware that for some of the chain of command, the issues that their people are raising with them are not within their remit. For example, over many years and certainly in the past decade or so, we have contractualised housing out of the responsibility of a base commander. Therefore, the ability of commanding officers to respond to some of the welfare needs of their people has been diminished by changes in contractualisation and operating procedures. We hope to make inroads into looking at what we can do to support that by trusting our people more. As part of that, we want to have a commissioner who can shine a spotlight on the thematic issues—in effect, issues that affect our people and their families.
I do not see that as in any way challenging the chain of command. I see it as an ability for the chain of command to deliver their functions in a more efficient manner by having a greater focus on the welfare needs of their people. That is a complementary function to the many welfare needs already undertaken by the chain of command, but especially in those areas where they otherwise might not have any levers. That is why we suggest that the commissioner report to Parliament—via a necessary sifting of national security scrubbing of reports by the MOD—so we can shine a spotlight on that.
In opposition and in government, I have spoken to many people who are in the chain of command, and they have an absolute focus on improving the welfare of their people, but they do not always have the ability to improve all aspects of it. We therefore hope that the commissioner will assist. That is not the only area, but it is an important area—to ensure that parliamentarians of all parties may scrutinise where there is a deficiency in the welfare provision for our people and their families. That is what we hope to do with the commissioner.
Graeme Downie
Q
Luke Pollard: It is quite normal in legislation of this type for there not to be provision in primary legislation. It is certainly the intent of the Secretary of State and me to ensure that provision is given to that coming back, but I am aware of an amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats in a similar way. I am happy taking that issue and having a discussion about what we can do to ensure that sufficient attention is given to any recommendations.
When we were drafting the legislation, we tried to ensure that where a Secretary of State who has not been involved with the origin of the Armed Forces Commissioner may be in post, they cannot put in place any obstacles to the proper scrutiny of the welfare needs of armed forces personnel and their people. The expectation is that the Ministry of Defence would respond to those recommendations; what we would need to establish informally, which does not require primary legislation, are the methods for tracking the recommendations.
Certainly, as a new Government, we are very aware that many of the recommendations made by the Defence Committee, for instance, to Government over the past decade sometimes have not even been responded to or had information provided back. As part of renewing the relationship between Parliament and the Ministry of Defence, we believe that enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of what the Ministry of Defence does will produce better outcomes both strategically and for our people, so that we will be able to respond to those recommendations from the Armed Forces Commissioner, HCDC and other bodies that report on the welfare needs of our people.
Graeme Downie
Q
Luke Pollard: The legislation has been drawn so that the decisions on what issues to take up—effectively which priority to look at and which sequencing issue will be looked at, certainly on the thematic side—are decisions for the commissioner to be informed by. Certainly, for a commissioner of this type, the challenge procedure would be via judicial review, which would be similar for other commissioners of this style if there was a serious challenge.
We are not trying to set an expectation that the commissioner will be able to undertake a thematic investigation immediately into every major topic. We have seen from the German model that the annual report may contain a large number of items or areas where they have received a form of representation—the German model calls it a petition, which does not quite work in the English translation—or where someone has written to the commissioner to raise a concern that is then used as a way of inputting feedback for the commissioner to make a decision on what to analyse. Clearly, given the quite considerable breadth of issues that fall under a general service welfare matter, quite a lot could be in there.
I am grateful to colleagues for raising particular concerns, such as housing and SEND. There is a lot that could feature. We have drawn the legislation purposefully so that that decision is made by the commissioner; it is not made by Government Ministers directing where it should be. It is for the commissioner to establish those procedures, and I would expect the first commissioner to do that.
Graeme Downie
Q
Luke Pollard: Defence is a reserved matter. It is appropriate that this legislation legislates for all the United Kingdom, but we are aware that some of the welfare matters are devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Indeed, across the overseas territories—with the exception of Gibraltar, which has a different legislative set-up from the other OTs—they might be the responsibility of a non-Westminster Administration. In those circumstances, we have chosen not to require those devolved Administrations to report or respond in the same way as we do for the Ministry of Defence to be able to lay the report, but we are using the same kind of principles that SCOAF, who spoke earlier, has, which is effectively an agreement that there will be a conversation with the devolved Administrations on those matters. I expect a constructive relationship, as similar roles have with devolved Administrations, but we have not specified a requirement for them to report back or to respond to the commissioner’s report.
What we are aware of, for instance, are issues around service housing at RAF Lossiemouth. That would be the responsibility of the local council in Scotland, as well as the Scottish Government. In those circumstances, if the commissioner was looking at housing in a Scottish context, you would expect them to make recommendations to the Scottish Government. I would expect them to have a dialogue with the Scottish Government to be able to deliver understanding, but the legislation grips on the Westminster Government, because defence is a reserved matter in that respect.
David Reed
Q
Luke Pollard: When we were in opposition, we were looking at the areas where our people in the armed forces and their families were experiencing difficulties. It fed into the broad question: why are so many people leaving our armed forces? Why is there a challenge on recruitment? Why is morale falling, and why has it been falling for the last decade? Although there is not one single reason for those—in many cases it is an aggregation of lots of different reasons—there was a general sense from the Secretary of State, me and other Members of the then shadow Defence team that there was a problem with the offer, or effectively the contract, between the nation and those who served.
We thought that having an independent person with the ability to articulate and advocate those issues to Government would be beneficial. I think that that reflects a concern that in some cases the issues, which we heard in the evidence today, are quite well known. The ability to shine a spotlight more clearly on those issues to prompt action was something that we were quite keen on.
We worked closely in opposition, along with officials in the Ministry of Defence since forming a Government, with the German Armed Forces Commissioner’s office. Dr Eva Högl has been exceptionally helpful in providing not just advice on the legislative underpinnings—she describes her version of this Bill as “perfect”, so it is quite a high bar for us to hit in scrutinising this—but the implementation of how the Bill works. That has given us an idea of how to ensure, when we are looking at a service welfare matter, that there is adequate scrutiny.
Also, by having those reports ultimately given to Parliament, we can avoid the situation that can sometimes happen in this place—where reports are given to Government and then sat on. That is what we are hoping to avoid by routeing it via the Ministry of Defence through a national security scrub, which I think everyone in this room would expect, then having it laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State within a defined time period. I am pretty confident about that.
We also looked at the SCOAF reports from the past that effectively asked for the own-initiative powers. I think it is quite hard for an independent role like SCOAF, albeit within the Government orbit, to engage directly with the Opposition in that respect, but I have been grateful for Mariette’s engagement since the introduction of this Bill, looking at where it can reflect the objectives that she may have for own-initiative powers and how that would work.
That is effectively the origin of how we got here. We wanted this Bill to be one of the first pieces of legislation that the new Government proposed to Parliament, because we wanted it to be a signpost, signal and statement of intent to our people who serve that we recognise that there has been an erosion of the contract between them and the nation, and we want to do something about it. It will take some time to mobilise this office, assuming a standard journey through parliamentary scrutiny. We are hoping that the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office will be stood up at the start of 2026, which gives some time for procedures and policies to be put in place, as well as a decent appointment process that includes a proper opportunity for the House of Commons Defence Committee to scrutinise anyone who may be selected at the end of that.
On your second question, I am happy to have a chat with you about how complaints would be made. When we held stakeholder events with service charities and veterans organisations around the time of First Reading, when the Bill was published for the first time, there was a question about whether there should be a super-complaint function; that is, charities being able to raise an issue. In legislation, you normally have to define who is able to do that. We did not want to create an insider group of charities and an outsider group of charities, where some would be able to do so and others would not. That did not feel like the right idea here.
However, we would expect the commissioner to have regular dialogue—structured, formal, informal; however they see fit—with the wider armed forces community to listen to their concerns to make sure that it works. The first commissioner will establish those processes and procedures. It is up to them to define what those are, including complaints procedures and the other normal running of an office like this. We have not specified them in legislation, partly because it is unnecessary to do so in primary legislation, but also because they are the minimum requirements for a proper, functioning office, very similarly to how SCOAF, the Information Commissioner, the Children’s Commissioner and other similar roles across Government work now.
Pam Cox
Q
Luke Pollard: You could argue that we are doing both. The SCOAF function has wanted own-initiative powers for quite some time, but there was a sense that simply giving additional powers to the Service Complaints Ombudsman, a system that scrutinises a formalised and legislated-for complaints system, was not quite the way to exercise the own-initiative powers—the thematic investigations. That is why we have created a new office, effectively rolling in the SCOAF, but being clear that there is a change that improves the scrutiny function and provides a massive expansion of the opportunities for service personnel and, for the first time, their families. As a result, it needed to be named accordingly to demonstrate that change. In theory, we have delivered a better SCOAF as part of this function and a broader Armed Forces Commissioner opportunity.
We have not amended the SCOAF legislation at this stage. As I mentioned, if amendments are required there will be an opportunity to make them in the armed forces Bill that will follow. This sets the broad parameter that there should be own-initiative powers and independent persons to advocate on behalf of servicepeople. That is why the legislation has been drawn up as it is.
Pam Cox
Q
Luke Pollard: I think I picked that up in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar. I am happy to have a look at what that could be like. It is not normal for it to be in every piece of legislation that we would respond to reports. The normal process within Government is that there would be a response. But I am happy to include my hon. Friend in the conversations I am having to try to work out whether it is a requirement to add that to primary legislation, or whether a commitment to respond, as would normally be the case, would be sufficient to address those concerns. I am happy to have a conversation.
Helen Maguire
Q
Luke Pollard: We have deliberately drawn the powers to be quite limited. The Secretary of State can restrict access only on national security grounds or where there would be a danger to a person. The example that might work there is visiting the frontline during combat operations. There would clearly be a danger to our people if there were to be a formal visit, and there would probably be a danger to the commissioner in that situation. That gives a prudent safeguard power.
We have deliberately tried to separate the powers that might normally exist for the Secretary of State from this role so that there is more independence for the commissioner. By establishing a novel route to Parliament, we have also provided Parliament with greater ability to raise any concerns. If the commissioner encounters any difficulties with interactions with the Ministry of Defence or other providers of services for our people, they are able to raise that in their reports. Those are then given to Parliament to be able to independently scrutinise, separate from the MOD.
What we have tried to do is to separate those functions out. I think we have succeeded in doing that in the Bill. The style of how that will happen in practice will depend on the person appointed to the office and how that office is established. However the principle of impartiality and independence from the Ministry of Defence—and, importantly, from the single services—is at the heart of this legislation. The legislation is designed to build trust, so that people can go to the commissioner if they want to raise a concern.
Helen Maguire
Q
Luke Pollard: The hon. Lady is a relatively new Member in this House. If she had been here over the last seven years, she would have seen this massive gay over here—me—speaking loudly about equality matters. I feel incredibly strongly about this. From an armed forces point of view, we should value all our people. That is the intent of this Bill: to provide an opportunity for all our service people and their families—a cohort of people absolutely essential for the delivery of our national security who have often been forgotten in legislative and some MOD approaches in the past.
There is already a public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 that would apply to the commissioner. When the commissioner was undertaking their reports, they would be bound by that duty to have due regard to the different minority groups that form the armed forces and families. I would expect that to be present. If looking at some of the equivalent reports we have seen, there would be an opportunity for the commissioner to look at the experience not only of the whole armed forces but groups within it—however those may be defined. There would be an opportunity for the commissioner to make that distinction in experience, not just in determining what issue to raise but also how they investigate it. I would expect that to be front and centre. If it is not included, I would expect Parliament to be able to scrutinise and ask questions of the commissioner in due course.
Helen Maguire
Q
The Chair
Briefly, please.
Luke Pollard: I would expect them to have regular meetings with the chain of command—senior officers, base commanders, and people who form the rank and file of all our services. I think it is important the commissioner has the ability to decide who to interact with, and the ability to not only have interactions but—as set out in the legislation—to request information from the Ministry of Defence. It is not only about the ability to hold conversations, dialogue and engagement but to actually get the information required to inform their recommendations.
Amanda Martin
Q
Luke Pollard: With the exception of the Atherton review, which was a House of Commons Defence Committee report—a very good one—most of those reports have been externally commissioned: often commissioned by the Government to report on an issue they had chosen. The point of the commissioner is that they would not be informed by ministerial priorities or by looking at the areas the Government of the day wanted to look at; they would be informed by the representation that they received from armed forces personnel and their families. I think that is a really important distinction.
In many cases, reports have been commissioned but things have not necessarily been done. This legislation provides a route for parliamentarians to receive the report and to be able to raise questions and concerns. I would expect the commissioner to be a regular attendee of the House of Commons Defence Committee. It would be for that Committee to determine how, when and in what format that would take place, but I would expect there to be a brighter spotlight on those issues, precisely to stop these reports and recommendations being long-grassed, as we might have seen over the last decade.
Terry Jermy
Q
Luke Pollard: I am. The reason we have drafted the legislation as we have is to be absolutely clear about a separation of this commissioner’s office from the Ministry of Defence. I think the point that Mariette was making in her evidence is that the funding has to come from somewhere. However, I think it is the way that the commissioner is appointed, how they operate and how they build trust and confidence with our people that will build the independence in the role.
We can legislate for independence and separation, as we have done, but it is the operation of the role that will build trust with the people. That is why I will expect the commissioner to be on the road, visiting our forces and having those conversations, in order to build the trust. I will expect them to have a robust scrutiny process in terms of their appointment, and to be able to give Ministers a tough ride on the delivery of the issues that matter.
That is the reason we are doing this. If this role did not have any teeth, there would be no point in legislating for it. I want this role to be able to carry a really bright spotlight, to shine on the issues that are affecting our people—because ultimately, if we do that, we recruit more people, we retain more people and more people want to rejoin our armed forces, improving morale and service life. That ultimately improves our operational effectiveness as a military.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
Q
Luke Pollard: The Bill itself is not a stand-alone piece of legislation. It might be useful for hon. Members to understand that, effectively, it inserts legislation into the already existing Armed Forces Act 2021, which includes a section—I think it is section 340—that already includes the armed forces covenant. However, we did not want to specify the relevant family member in primary legislation; we wanted to be able to take more time to have conversations with stakeholders and define that through secondary legislation.
If the definitions were to change in the future, that could change. We have seen that the question of what a family is has changed. For me, a family is the most important unit of society, but what and how it is will be different for every different family. We are trying to find the right definition. I imagine the commissioner will have a view on that, and they can then make recommendations on that basis. That is why there is the option of being able to revise the definition via secondary legislation, which is an easier process than undertaking primary legislation—and the Armed Forces Bill comes round only once every five years.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Q
Luke Pollard: There is an obligation in the Bill for the Secretary of State to co-operate with the commissioner to provide information. “Secretary of State” means that the whole organisation under the Secretary of State also has that obligation placed on them. I expect that, on appointment, the processes and functions will be established, just as they are with the current SCOAF function, in terms of being able to request information—who that goes to, how that should happen, and what the processes and procedures are to enable that to happen.
If there are any obstacles or failure to deliver, which I think is what my hon. Friend is getting at, the Bill allows the commissioner to report that to Parliament in their annual report: effectively to say, “There is a problem here”. That would provide the parliamentary scrutiny, which, for any future Secretary of State, would be a deterrent against failing to provide the necessary information. Equally, we put a power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to have to report to Parliament if they dismiss or remove the Armed Forces Commissioner, to enable that scrutiny function of Parliament as an oversight for the work of the Executive.
Andrew Ranger
Q
Luke Pollard: I would expect the Bill to complete early next year. I would expect the appointment process to take roughly a year, and the office to be stood up as a commissioner’s office at the start of 2026, taking cases and, importantly, ensuring that all SCOAF cases are smoothly transitioned without any detriment to the individuals in that process—from the SCOAF function into the Armed Forces Commissioner function—to make sure there is no loss of any of that provision.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rare Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases
(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I have done so many times, and it is always a pleasure to be here and to see you fully in control. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. I was hoping that it would be this Minister, so when he walked through the door, I was especially pleased to see him in person. By the way, I would have been pleased to see any Minister—I do not want to offend anybody. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), is in his place as well. He and I talked last night about this issue.
This debate is, by its very nature, a niche debate. Dr Huq, if you have a constituent who has an autoimmune rheumatic disease or you know somebody with one, you will be here to represent them, but not everybody has, because only a small number of people across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have one of these diseases. However, I look forward very much to having the debate.
I was chatting beforehand to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), and she was telling me—she will refer to this herself when the time comes—of the important case of her constituent, a good friend. I will leave it to the hon. Lady to put forward that case.
I have always had a deep interest in any health issues. I am my party’s health spokesperson, and if there are any health debates anywhere, in Westminster Hall or in the main Chamber, I make it my business to attend those debates and to contribute to them, whether by speeches or questions. That is really important. I have a particular interest in rare diseases, and that came through a constituent who lives down the Ards peninsula. I have probably known him all his life. When you get to my age, Dr Huq, there are many people you have known all their lives; that is just a fact. The point is that he married a young girl from the area. She had a rare disease, and my interest came through contact between her and the family and me across the Ards peninsula. Across Strangford, this became a massive issue, and that lady and that family today fly the flag for rare diseases in the Ards peninsula and in Strangford.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I think we start from the NHS point of view. I am an advocate for the NHS—always have been and always will be—as we all are in this House. I am one who believes in the foundation of our NHS and the people who hold it together—the people whom we may not meet, but who are the glue and the gel that keeps it going and keeps it together. I am aware of the stress and strain on the NHS, and give my full support as the Government attempt to make the changes that are necessary for the NHS to survive. I very much welcome the Government’s commitment. I think they have committed £26.3 billion to the NHS, and that is a massive contribution. It shows confidence on the part of the Government; we welcome that. My starting position is praise for the people behind those three little letters, N-H-S.
We are beginning to look at NHS restructuring—the Secretary of State has confirmed that, and the Ministers are all committed to it. There are lots of priorities that the Government have to get to, but amongst that is the restructuring. A vital component is that the NHS provides high-quality, equitable care for all people, regardless of how rare or complex their condition is. If you—when I say “you”, Dr Huq, I really mean me or anyone else across the United Kingdom—do not have a rare disease, you may not understand what it means to have one, and how rare or complex a particular condition is, but that tells me that we need to be aware of this issue. We need to reach out and we need to help. The Government have a commitment to rare diseases as well. Although they may not be mathematically or statistically numerous, they represent individuals, families—relatives—and friends, who all understand the issue very well.
I have been interested in rare diseases since I was in the Northern Ireland Assembly, before I came here. We had contact with ladies down the Ards peninsula who were very much aware of rare diseases and the issues, so we started a rare diseases group in the Assembly, which we have continued here over the years. I will use this opportunity to speak on their behalf about some complex, rare diseases—rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that because so few people are impacted by rare diseases, raising awareness among health professionals is a key aspect of helping those people, who may often feel overlooked simply because of the very small number who come into the ambit of the subject matter we are discussing?
Jim Shannon
As my hon. Friend often does in these debates, he brings forward a reminder of why this debate is important and why we need to raise awareness. It is about giving confidence to people out there who may have these diseases and may think that they are fighting this battle all on their own, but are not. We need to raise awareness among NHS staff. It is impossible to know about every rare disease, but it is good to recognise the symptoms and to be able to point people in the right direction.
Rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases are a range of chronic, currently incurable conditions in which the body’s immune system damages its own tissues, often in multiple organs throughout the body simultaneously. That is a lot of words but, to use a phrase that we would say back home, it means that they come at a person from all sides. They can lead to tissue or organ damage that, in some cases, can be fatal. We cannot ignore the fact that that can be fatal and the importance of responding in a positive fashion.
At present, the outcomes are not good enough for people living with rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases: they wait too long for a diagnosis, have variable access to specialist care and cannot always access help and support when they need it. In any debate that we have about ill health, we often say that early diagnosis is important, but so is having access to specialist care. It is important that NHS workers are able to notice something that may be unusual and not something that they see every day. It is also important that the care, help and support that people need is available when they need it. Preliminary data from the Rare Autoimmune Rheumatic Disease Alliance’s soon-to-be-released 2024 patient survey found that the average time to diagnose from symptom onset was two and a half years—it is that long before anything happens. In those two and a half years, people suffer, worry themselves sick and wonder, “Am I going to get out the other side?” The data shows that 30% of patients waited five years for a diagnosis from symptom onset.
Rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases impact on around 170,000 people in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Hon. Members may not recognise some of the diseases, but they include Behçet's disease, lupus, myositis, scleroderma, Sjögren’s syndrome and vasculitis. They can affect many parts of the body—the joints, the skin, the lungs, the kidneys or the heart—and often require cross-medical expertise. That is just a small number of the things that come the way of 170,000 people across the United Kingdom. Unlike the vast majority of rare diseases, the conditions occur predominantly in adult life and are predominantly non-genetic. That means that people do not need to have a history of them: they can come out of the blue.
The Rare Autoimmune Rheumatic Disease Alliance, a group made up of clinicians and charities, such as Lupus UK, Vasculitis UK, Scleroderma & Raynaud’s UK and Sjögren’s UK, has set out a number of key solutions to improve care for RAIRDs. They include strengthening existing specialised networks and setting out what good care looks like through a rare disease equality standard. It has also stressed that it is vital that rare disease is not forgotten in upcoming policies such as the NHS’s 10-year plan, which I will refer to later. In that plan, it is really important that we—by which I mean the Government and the Minister—can give hope to people who suffer from those diseases, and it is really important that they do not think they are on their own. The evidential base response from the Minister would give them that assurance, and it is important that the progress made to date by the UK rare diseases framework is built on. That is my first question: is the rare diseases framework part of the NHS 10-year plan?
I want to share an example that has been highlighted to me of someone who has felt the personal impact of rare autoimmune rheumatic disease. Zoi lives with a life-threatening RAIRD, granulomatosis with polyangiitis vasculitis. In her words, she is “lucky” because she had a relatively short journey to diagnosis. When she looks at others, she thinks she is lucky. I would like everybody who suffers from these diseases to have the same luck—if luck is the word. I do not believe in luck; my personal opinion is that everything is predestined. I am interested in how we make it better.
The quick diagnosis came only because Zoi’s GP recognised her symptoms and knew to refer her right away. Does every doctor have that knowledge? I hope they have, but they might not have the personal observation of that doctor. The difference was that he had had a friend who had died of the disease, so he knew what to look out for and red-lighted those symptoms.
Despite Zoi’s positive experience of diagnosis, however, her experience of care since has been variable—that is the second stage. Following diagnosis of the disease, the care system works its way out. She has faced long waits for appointments and poor communication between teams responsible for her care. In one instance, she received a letter from a consultant four months after the date of the appointment. Was that the fault of the Royal Mail? I do not know. It was not Zoi’s fault that she did not know about the appointment until it was too late. It meant that she had been taking a medication unnecessarily for months longer than needed.
It is about early diagnosis, treatment going forward and speed and urgency in the process to make it happen. Zoi works for a charity that supports other people living with vasculitis. She describes it as “heartbreaking” that hers is one of the best diagnostic journeys one will hear of. She has been diagnosed and gone through the NHS process to get out the other side and try to be better. As she says, hers is one of the best diagnostic journeys, but how can the rest be improved?
How do we improve care? Speedy diagnosis should not be down to Zoi’s word “luck”. People such as Zoi living with serious rare diseases should be able to access vital care when they need it. That is why I am calling on the Minister to consider the following recommendations advocated by RAIRDA. It is important to be aware of the issues.
The first recommendation is to ensure that rare diseases are a focus of the NHS 10-year plan. I am always pleased to see the Minister in his place. I mean that genuinely, not to give the Minister a big head. He comes with an understanding that we all greatly appreciate— I do and am sure everybody else does. Will there be a focus in the 10-year plan on rare diseases? I am pretty sure the answer will be yes, but we need confirmation of that in Hansard today. We need to reassure our constituents who are struggling with disease and are unsure what the future means for them.
The UK rare diseases framework, introduced just three years ago in 2021, has been a significant step forward in securing equity of treatment for rare diseases. I welcome that, but sometimes the system does not work as well as it should. It is crucial that the Government do not lose sight of the work done to date to drive change for people living with rare conditions. Good work has been done, and I always like to recognise good work. It is important that we give encouragement to those who are working hard, and it is important sometimes to think, when we are ploughing away, what we are getting for it. Many of us—all of us in this room, for instance—appreciate what our NHS does. The good work that has happened for those with rare conditions needs to continue with the same zest, enthusiasm and fervour as it has done in the past.
It is particularly important that the working groups on the NHS 10-year health plan consider how improvements in rare disease care will be championed in that plan. In addition, it is important that the plan considers how the work plan of the UK rare diseases framework will be continued past the framework’s end point in 2026. That is my second ask. I am sure that within the 10-year plan the Government are committed to that continuation, but I need to personally reassure my constituents and we need to reassure the nation. We need to reassure those 170,000 individuals and their families and friends.
The framework has been an important tool in co-ordinating methods to improve care for rare diseases, and not just in England. I understand that health is a devolved matter, but this is how it works: whatever happens here, health-wise, is the next stage for us back in Northern Ireland, through the Health Minister. I was talking to another Health Minister on the tube coming here, and we were saying how important that co-ordination across all four regions is. It is good to push for that here, and to see it received back home.
The framework has been an important tool in co-ordinating methods to improve care for rare diseases, not just in England but across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The numbers of people suffering in Northern Ireland may seem small numerically, because we are a region of 1.9 million people, but the impact is huge. I am overtly aware that health is a devolved matter, but I am also aware that the standard can and should be UK-wide. The Minister always gives me and those from other parts of this great United Kingdom reassurance on the co-ordination between here and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I know he has met the Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt, and I am sure they will meet again in the foreseeable future.
How do we develop a standard of care? The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality standards consist of defined, measurable statements that can be audited to reduce variations in cases throughout the country. A rare disease quality standard would help to incentivise an increased focus on delivering high-quality care and treatment for rare conditions in the NHS, including rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases. That is my third ask: to develop the standard of care we need to have a quality standard, which would help to incentivise all the regions—all the parts of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland collectively; better together.
Work in this area is already well under way. RAIRDA has been working hard with organisations across the rare disease community to understand what good care looks like for people living with rare disease, and how that should be reflected in quality statements. Has the Minister had the opportunity to talk to the alliance? I am sure he has; I do not doubt that for a second. It would be good to have that liaison to help to bring together the ideas from the alliance and the Government. It is important that the current work to develop quality statements is built on in a timely way, with the swift development of a rare disease quality standard.
On my fourth request, it is clear that we need development in IT capacity in the fight for diagnosis, to ensure that more people can experience a quick diagnosis, like Zoi did. We need to increase funding for research into the diagnostic journey for rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases, to aid the development of diagnostic technology. It is really important that we look towards the next stage on research and development. How do we do that?
To sidestep slightly, today’s paper—I think it was the Express—said that the Government should be doing something to look at dementia as the numbers rise. Although we are talking about rare diseases that will be well down the Government’s to-do list, early diagnosis is important, as is research and development to improve the capacity to find a cure, to lessen the pain and to lengthen the time that people have in this world. Again, any indication of what is happening with research and development would be greatly appreciated.
Investment in research would help to identify blockers to rapid diagnosis, as well as supporting the development of digital tools for faster and more accurate diagnoses. Some months ago my colleague, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care a question in the Chamber about the report on the way forward for the NHS. He mentioned the need for digital data tools, and the Secretary of State replied very positively, so I think the Government are looking into this, but it is important that we have the digital tools in place. With better data and more accuracy, we can help to speed up the process and find a better way forward.
Because of their rarity, it is unrealistic to expect every hospital to have clinicians with expert knowledge of rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases. I understand that, as we cannot know everything. Clinicians may have a small portion of knowledge, but this subject requires expert knowledge, so we need another way of doing it. A 2024 survey found that 29% of respondents were not very, or not at all, confident that the specialist healthcare professionals providing their care understood their condition. How do we improve that? I understand that we are in difficult, financially straitened times, and the Government have rightly committed a large sum of money to the NHS and health services—as they should, and I support that entirely—but we need improvement. My fifth ask of the Minister is: how can we do better? If 29% of respondents are not very confident, or not at all confident, we need to address that.
I believe that improvement can be achieved by developing specialised networks for rare autoimmune rheumatic conditions. Such networks would allow health professionals to access the knowledge and expertise of tertiary specialists, while also developing the capability and capacity to provide more care and treatment locally. I feel that would be the answer to my fifth question, and I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts.
Networks already exist, with an excellent example being the Eastern Network for Rare Autoimmune Disease, established in 2016. We have a system in place, so let us look at it—not in a judgmental way—to see what it is doing and where improvements can be made. The network was formed to maximise patient access to relevant expertise while keeping their care as close to home as possible. This has been achieved by setting up excellent communication and cascading training to enable much better co-ordination, digital data sharing and contact between specialised centres and local trusts.
The network lead has calculated that the network’s creation has saved the NHS money, so it has to be considered. The network runs at a cost of between £70,000 and £100,000, but it has generated annual savings estimated at between £150,000 and £200,000. That means that for every £1 spent, the NHS has saved £2, over a seven-year period, through a reduction in the use of inappropriate high-cost drugs.
On my sixth ask, networks throughout the country, like ENRAD, are run on the good will of clinicians. That is not sustainable, and it never can be. I respectfully ask the Minister to perhaps look at the ENRAD scheme, which is run on the good will of clinicians and has been very effective in how it responds, to see how such networks can be better helped to expand. If it saves money—if every £1 saves the NHS £2—then the financial equation is clear, and it should be pursued across all of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
To address this issue, the Government must provide the necessary financial support for networks to be developed and maintained. That funding would enable the creation of vital posts, such as meeting co-ordinators, and allow clinicians to be reimbursed for their time. Again, I feel that would be the right incentive. Good will is good to have, and there is much of it across this great nation, but, at the same time, there may be better ways of doing things. Such support would ensure that benefits for patients, and the NHS’s budget, could be realised throughout the country. With the £25.3 billion committed to the NHS—I think that is the figure, but the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—this is another way to save money in the NHS, and it really should be done.
My last request is about specialist nurses, who can play a crucial role in supporting people living with rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases. The preliminary results from the 2024 survey show that respondents with access to a specialist nurse were more likely to report that they had access to enough information and support about their condition, compared with those who did not have any access to a specialist nurse. But less than three in 10 respondents—some 28%—had accessed information from a specialist nurse, and this varied widely by condition group. Wow: how important is the role of specialist nurses? I would be reassured if the Minister came back to me in respect of the critical role they play, perhaps exclusively. If only 28% of people have access to information from a specialist nurse and it should be more, what can be done to improve that?
Finally, when developing the NHS workforce plans, will the Minister consider what more can be done to recruit more specialist nurses to support people with rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases? We must always consider the fact that although the chances of getting a rare disease may be one in 10,000, the reality is that the patient deserves all the help we can offer, from diagnosis to treatment and support. I ask the Minister—very kindly, sincerely and humbly—to clarify whether that is this Government’s goal. I believe that it is, but it is not about me today; it is about the people we represent in this House, collectively, together, across this great nation. I believe we have an important role to play.
RAIRDA, with all the clinicians and all the charities, has brought together some positive ideas that can help us together. This is not about blame—it is is never, ever about blame; it is about how we do it better. On behalf of my constituents who have contacted me, and others who will speak shortly, and for the shadow Minister and the Minister, we put forward our case and look forward to support from Government.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they want to be called in the debate.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing this issue before us today, because it is one of those subjects that does not get the attention that it needs. It is really important to tease out some of the issues, because there is a danger that they could be forgotten if we do not. The hon. Gentleman pushes this matter time and again.
The whole question of rare autoimmune rheumatic disease needs to be set in the context of the wider issue of rare diseases, which are conditions that affect less than one in 2,000 people. There are 7,000 rare diseases, affecting one in 17 people, which is 3.5 million people. They can be of a genetic or non-genetic origin and they affect adults and children. Some 75% of rare diseases affect children and more than 30% of children with a rare disease die before their fifth birthday. That is a sobering statistic.
We have to put the issue into that context: it affects the lives of so many people, not just those who are directly affected by the particular disease, but their family members and friends. A disease can also have an impact on someone’s work-life balance and their job, as well as more broadly. There are challenges, but I thank the Rare Autoimmune Rheumatic Disease Alliance for bringing those groups together to push for this issue. It believes, as we all do, that getting together gives us more strength. I support that, and I have no doubt that the Minister supports that too.
We do not want rare diseases, particularly this type of disease, to be left at the back of the queue. The Government acknowledge that, so I am not pointing the finger at them, or at health professionals. Many people with this type of disease say that they do not get the support they need, but they do not blame individual clinicians, practitioners or healthcare workers; they blame the system in so far as it does not bring those professionals together in, for example, the clinical networks that the hon. Member for Strangford referred to. This is not a finger-pointing exercise, but it is important that where we can identify, and have identified, problems in the system, it is our responsibility to try to fix those problems.
The hon. Gentleman also touched on the need for defined, measurable and identified standards to reduce inequalities in healthcare provision. RAIRDA is working with others to set out key statements that it believes will form the quality standards for the future. It has set out the challenges, such as the challenge of focusing on this issue and the points that the hon. Gentleman raised that the time from symptoms to diagnosis can be from two and a half years to as much as five years, and potentially beyond.
There is also a challenge with access to specialist knowledge and expertise, and the hon. Gentleman’s valid point, which I repeat, about the need for those specialist networks. There is the challenge of getting support out to the people—the professionals—dealing with our constituents in one way fashion or another. I know the UK rare diseases framework, and the England rare diseases action plan in my case, has been trying to help patients to get a diagnosis faster but we need to do more.
There has been a push to raise awareness among professionals, but we need to do more there. We need better co-ordination of care and improved access to specialist care, treatment and drugs. We also need to focus on the needs of the various nations. Although they all face similar problems, it is important to have a focus at a national and potentially regional level.
I support the hon. Gentleman, who made important points. We will no doubt come back to this issue. I know that the Minister will respond, as he always does, constructively and positively, so I look forward to hearing what he and Members from other parties have to say. I will finish by saying to the hon. Gentleman that at no point during my contribution did I mention either Shakespeare or Sophocles.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing forward this debate on a subject that all too often does not get enough attention, but that is important and affects millions of people. I also thank the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for his contribution.
More than 160,000 people in the UK live with rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Identifying, treating and caring for those people is complex. Yesterday, my constituent Carrie told me about her experience. She suffers from a number of conditions and has done since she was diagnosed 30 years ago. Interestingly, for someone who has carried those conditions for 30 years, she considers herself fortunate to have been diagnosed with Raynaud’s and lupus at a young age, because it allowed her to start treatment early and receive consistent care. She knows from experience that early diagnosis and treatment makes a real difference, a point that has already been made by hon. Members.
While Carrie believes that she has been lucky and has received good care, she stressed that many people face years of misdiagnosis or dismissal, and poor or almost non-existent care. Those failures only exacerbate their symptoms further down the line. Sadly, one of those less fortunate than Carrie is her own mother, who lives not in Sussex but in Yorkshire, and also has multiple autoimmune conditions. Contrastingly, however, she has always been made to feel like a hypochondriac—not an unusual experience for those seeking help with rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases.
Carrie’s mother was eventually diagnosed after many unnecessary years of suffering. She suffered for longer and to a greater degree simply because no one believed her or was able to diagnose her. Carrie told me that a postcode lottery exists in the quality of care for those with these conditions. It really is down to the specific medics and practitioners who an individual meets as to how well their condition is identified and whether treatment can begin.
Carrie’s Raynaud’s is particularly debilitating in winter. She told me that more awareness of the issues around the conditions and how symptoms can be alleviated is vital. Often, solutions can be as simple as helping with buying things such as thermal gloves or socks.
Another major challenge has been the impact of her autoimmune conditions on her teeth, particularly with the Sjögren’s that she suffers from. Carrie has spent thousands and thousands of pounds on private dental care over the years—the only option as NHS treatment was not available. Despite that money, Carrie now thinks that it is not long until she will have very few teeth left.
Carrie thinks that the current system is disjointed, with her dentist not understanding the issues surrounding her conditions, and her rheumatologist likewise not understanding the impact her conditions have on her dental health. She believes that a more co-ordinated, multidisciplinary approach to treating the conditions would help. It is clear from my conversation with Carrie that we simply must do better on this issue.
We must tackle the postcode lottery, exemplified by Carrie and her mother at opposite ends of the country; build a more joined-up system; and take rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases seriously so that we can start diagnosing earlier and more consistently. While the problems seem daunting, I believe that by collaborating—for example, with organisations such as RAIRDA—we can find solutions to the problems that Carrie told me about.
It is already Liberal Democrat policy to ensure that everyone with long-term health conditions has access to a named GP. We must also do better on dentistry, both generally, by sorting out the NHS contract and ensuring that we have a proper workforce plan for dentistry, and specifically, for people with those rare diseases that have a massive impact on dental health. As well as having access to a named GP, the Liberal Democrats are campaigning for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to have greater capacity, which would help to speed up the process by which new treatments reach patients—a potential game changer for those suffering with such conditions.
We need change so that we can help the people living with those complex, long-term and debilitating conditions. The diseases may be complex, but I believe the solutions need not be. I am encouraged by the words of hon. Members today, and together, we can effect the change that Carrie, her mother and so many others need and deserve.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I call the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), to speak for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Dr Huq, and thank you for the introduction.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his detailed canter through a subject that needs to be highlighted. He hit the nail on the head in relation to improving clinical pathways. We, as a House, need to think about the best way to do that, and to help the NHS to do that. He exemplified that by telling Zoi’s story.
As the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) rightly highlighted, the impact on patients is the crux of the matter, which was also personified by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) with her story about Carrie—what she and her mother have to go through, and the difficulties they are living and breathing every single day. The co-ordination of care is so important. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is no longer in his place, made a timely and pointed intervention about clinicians, awareness and training.
Being a clinician, and bringing that experience to the House, I believe it is difficult to identify the issues because they are often masked by other conditions. A random screening test may conclude rheumatoid factor, anti-CCP antibodies, ESR, CRP, ANA, ANCA, and even anti-ro and anti-la. All those may be positive or negative, and can be indicative of, but not definitive about, some of those conditions. That is part of the problem we have with those rare diseases. With 170,000 people affected, they are uncommon but common enough for us to see them. I certainly have treated several patients with conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s or Raynaud’s.
When we think about these conditions, we need to break them into two distinct groups: the connective tissue disorders, such as lupus, scleroderma, myositis and Sjögren’s, and vasculitis disorders, such as ANCA-associated vasculitis, giant cell arteritis and Behçet’s. By their nature, because they are rare, they are hard to diagnose. I hope that in the future, we may well have artificial intelligence to help clinicians to identify, or at least to think about, the differential diagnosis when it comes to dealing with those patients.
It is a broad and difficult topic to break down, so it will be helpful to look in turn at the framework to address rare diseases, the research behind it, the diagnosis, the workforce, and, finally, the treatment. A framework to help the approach is important, so under the previous Government, the UK rare diseases framework was published in 2021 to set out a vision to improve the care for people with rare diseases. It set out four priorities: delivering early diagnosis, increasing awareness among health professionals, improving access to a specialist team and providing co-ordinated care. In essence, that is the care pathway.
The framework was designed to improve the speed of diagnosis, the co-ordination of care and the access to treatment. As RAIRDA said:
“The UK rare disease framework (2021) has been a significant step in securing equity of treatment for rare diseases, and going forwards, it is crucial that the Government does not lose sight of the work done to date to drive changes for people living with rare conditions.”
Therefore, I ask the Minister my first question: how do the Government intend to build on the UK rare diseases framework to ensure that it remains adequately funded and relevant?
Next, we need the research, and that is the hardest part. As I mentioned, some of the tests cannot even diagnose conditions such as Behçet’s syndrome; it is often a clinical diagnosis. The establishment of the Genomics England project, further mapping the genetic codes of individuals with rare conditions, was a move hailed by researchers worldwide. The programme, although ostensibly broad, directly benefits patients with rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases by identifying genetic markers and enabling targeted treatments. My second question to the Minister is: what progress has been made in expanding genetic research to uncover new treatment options for such diseases?
Earlier this year, the Government published an action plan that includes significant new commitments against each of those four framework priorities, including the health inequalities that we have heard so expertly talked about today. The action plan highlighted the significant investment in driving research on the diseases, including £14 million to the Rare Disease Research UK platform. That facilitates greater collaboration between academics, clinical and industry research, as well as people living with rare diseases, research charities and other stakeholders to try to accelerate the understanding, diagnosis and therapy of these diseases. I was pleased to stand on a manifesto commitment to take forward the rare disease action plan.
I fully accept that more needs to be done, and the new Government must work closely with their delivery partners on the matter. I was pleased that in a recent written response, the Government reiterated their support for research into rare diseases. They further highlighted that the Department for Health and Social Care has invested £2.2 million to enable the National Institute of Health and Care Research to carry out research programmes related to rare genetic diseases, and of course the £340 million to Genomics England.
I did my medical training at the University of Birmingham medical school, which has the University of Birmingham Centre for Rare Disease Studies, a collaboration to try to pull together all the academic research. That is translational research. As we keep saying, these diseases are rare so, by definition, to do the trials, we need to have a wide pool to pull people together to try to work things out. I hope the hon. Member for Strangford will be interested in the fact that that university has joined with the Queen’s University Belfast to research and collaborate across the four nations, including with Newcastle University. In 2015, I had the privilege of visiting that centre, and this is a note for him to look into that. Will the Government continue to increase funding specifically for rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases, especially within the Medical Research Council’s care for rare disease programme?
Then we need to look at workforce and testing capacity. Over the last few years, the Government have allocated £2.3 billion to community diagnostic centres, of which there are almost 170 across the country. Those are really important for doing blood tests, ultrasounds, MRI scans and CT scans. In my constituency, I am lucky enough to have had £24 million invested; one is being built as we speak. That is revolutionary for our area, because for too long people had to travel to the likes of the George Eliot Medical Centre or to Leicester. Now they can have these tests in their community, providing swifter access. I hope that that will help people like Zoi, about whom we have heard, by making sure that she is one of the lucky ones who gets swift access.
Within that, we also need the people who can do the tests and understand the specialisms, so will the Minister tell us whether the Government will be expanding the network of CDCs any further? On staffing, the last Government brought forward the NHS workforce plan. How are this Government looking at addressing rheumatology and radiology in that plan to make sure there are no gaps?
Treatment is the one thing we are looking for. We have the diagnosis, but we need the treatment. Innovative drugs are coming, including immunotherapies, but they often come with high price tags. NICE is looking at how to speed things up, but will the Government commit to accelerating the processes so that we can make sure people get these innovative drugs as quickly as possible? We should not forget that standard drugs are used as well, including methotrexate. They can be quite dangerous, so I ask the Government what they are doing to ensure safe use of such drugs. Disease-modifying medications are important, but they can have high toxicity if not used properly, so they can cause harm. Safety is really important.
The previous Government’s legacy is one of frameworks being established, investment being made and a road to improve lives. For the 2024 general election, RAIRDA published a manifesto that called on the Government to ensure that rare diseases remain a priority, to develop a quality standard for rare diseases and to develop better support for specialist networks. How will the Government work to consider and address those points? I hope this debate has highlighted exactly those calls, because we unanimously agree that this is what we need: research, networks, support and treatments for the individuals who are suffering.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I want to call him an hon. Friend because he is a friend, but convention dictates that I must call him an hon. Member—and I welcome the fact that he cares so much about health-related issues. I now see him more than I see my wife, because he is always in debates about a whole range of health conditions, and he brings so much passion to those debates. Importantly, he highlights rare diseases. I thank him for the way he made his case this morning, and for speaking about Zoi’s experience. When we humanise these things, we make them all the more impactful.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for his contributions, and I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), for humanising the issue through Carrie’s story; that is crucial. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), brings his professional experience to this debate, and that cannot be underestimated. I confess that I am not a medical professional, but in health debates it is important to listen to the expertise of those who work in the sector and on the frontline. I thank him genuinely for the way he has approached the debate. This is not a party political, knockabout debate; it is something on which we all want to see progress. The beauty of Westminster Hall is that we can leave the knockabout to the main Chamber, and in this room we can get into the detail of important subjects that are often overlooked. I pay tribute to those who are affected by rare disease, including rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases, and to their families.
The work of patient organisations such as RAIRDA is vital in raising awareness and campaigning to improve the lives of people who are living with rare diseases, and I thank those who dedicate their lives to this community. It is important to make the point that although rare diseases are individually rare, they are collectively common. One in 17 people will be affected by a rare condition over their lifetime. People living with rare diseases may face additional challenges in accessing health and social care. As the hon. Member for Mid Sussex said, this applies to a whole range of health services, including dentistry, and I hope that the Minister responsible for dentistry will pick that up. I will ensure that he receives her comments, because dentistry is often overlooked when it comes to people with rare conditions.
We are committed to improving the lives of people who are living with rare conditions. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentions, the UK rare diseases framework outlines four priorities to achieve this aim: helping patients to get a final diagnosis faster; increasing awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals; bettering co-ordination of care; and improving access to specialist care, treatments and drugs. Rare diseases are a priority for the Government. In England, we publish a rare diseases action plan annually, which details the specific steps we are taking to meet the shared priorities of the framework. Each action has an owner, desired outcomes and detail about how we will measure and report on progress. This Government are committed to delivering on the priorities framework, and we are working to publish the next England action plan in early 2025.
The UK rare diseases framework comes to an end in 2026, and I know that the rare disease community would like the policy to continue, to maintain the momentum and progress made over the lifetime of the previous framework. It is UK-wide and agreed across the devolved nations, and I am more than happy to discuss it further with colleagues in Wales and Scotland and, for the hon. Member for Strangford, with Mike Nesbitt, the Health Minister in Northern Ireland. I am the UK Health Minister with responsibility for engagement with the devolved Administrations when it comes to health and social care; indeed, we have a meeting with them and with the Secretary of State tomorrow to discuss a whole range of subjects. I am more than happy to discuss this issue further with colleagues to see if we can maintain four-nation co-ordination in this area. I believe that if we can do so, we should. I give the hon. Member for Strangford my commitment that I will take the matter up with the devolved Health Ministers to see if we can continue the four-nation approach.
In England, I am committed to working towards the four priorities of the framework, which were identified through the 2019 national conversation on rare diseases. Alongside the evaluation of England’s rare disease action plans commissioned through NIHR, the Department will undertake engagement next year to inform future policy decisions. The Government are committed to providing the best diagnosis and care for rare diseases, as set out in the UK rare diseases framework. Good diagnosis should be timely and accurate, and I know that people living with rare diseases often face journeys that are years long—diagnostic odysseys—before they receive an answer.
As the shadow Minister set out, many health professionals are involved in a patient’s journey, from those in specialist testing and genetic screening to GPs and primary care professionals. Raising awareness of rare conditions among those professionals is one way in which we can help to speed up diagnosis. I know that every experience of living with a rare disease is unique, and, with more than 7,000 identified rare diseases, we focus on addressing shared challenges across all rare diseases.
Although the increasing use of genetic testing is an groundbreaking tool in diagnosis, many conditions, including rare rheumatic autoimmune diseases, do not have an identified genetic component, so it is important that overall awareness, diagnostics and quality of care continue to serve all people living with rare conditions. NHS England is working to improve awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals, including those in primary care, through the NHS England genomics education programme, which includes non-genetic rare diseases. The GEP provides education and training to support the specialist and wider workforce to diagnose rare conditions early and to know how to deliver the best possible care for patients and families—the shadow Minister mentioned that. Working with partners such as Medics 4 Rare Diseases, the GEP has created genomic notes for clinicians, GeNotes, an innovative digital educational resource for healthcare professionals. The GEP works to provide information to GPs where and when they need it—for example, by presenting at primary care educational events, producing blended learning modules for GP trainees or ensuring regular reviews of the curriculum of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
The shadow Minister rightly mentioned research. I reassure him that the Department of Health and Social Care—this started on the previous Government’s watch, and we rightly are continuing the progress—supports research into rare diseases through the NIHR. The NIHR is the nation’s largest funder of health and care research, and it welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including rare diseases. The usual practice of the NIHR and other research funders is not to ringfence funds for expenditure on particular topics. The “Rare Diseases Research Landscape Project Report” described investment of almost £630 million from MRC and NIHR programmes in rare disease research over five years. We are now working with the rare diseases community to further understand the gaps and the priorities, and to get them into those research pathways so that we can, we hope, fill the gaps.
As many rare diseases are chronic and affect multiple body systems, those living with rare disease face complex condition management, and interact with many specialists and providers of health and social care. That can include travelling across the country to access highly specialised care from experts. All of that can add up to a significant emotional and physical burden, and deepens existing inequalities. Co-ordination of care is essential to ensure that care is effectively managed, that the burden on patients and their carers is minimised and that healthcare professionals are working together to provide the best possible joined-up and high-quality care.
Last year, we hosted a workshop with RAIRDA to explore how best to support people living with “non-genetic” rare diseases. That highlighted the importance of specialised networks of care in delivering high-quality care at value for money. As we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford, networks, such as the Eastern Network for Rare Autoimmune Disease, are an example of best practice. I encourage integrated care boards to consider similar models across the whole country for types of rare diseases. I am more than happy to look closely at how we can seek to spread that best practice across the country, across different rare disease types and across ICBs, because patients with rare conditions deserve the same quality, safety and efficacy in medicines as other patients with more common conditions.
NICE, the MHRA and NHS England are working to understand and to address challenges preventing treatments for rare conditions from reaching patients who need them. I take on board precisely the points that the shadow Minister raises about the new drugs, how we ensure faster access and how we create the environment whereby clinical trials are more readily available in the United Kingdom. I want to assure Members that that is a central part not just of our health mission but of the Government’s economic mission, because we want the United Kingdom to be a base for investment in life sciences, in medtech and in access to clinical trials, so that our patients win as well as our economy. We have to ensure that safety is foremost in our deliberations. Safety is paramount, and we must ensure, in whatever regulatory regime that we have to encourage the life sciences, medtech and data industries into the UK, that safety is never compromised. I take on board fully the comments made by the shadow Minister.
NICE has also been working with RAIRDA to create a quality standard for rare diseases. That will find commonalities across the more than 7,000 identified rare diseases to develop standards that will drive quality improvement across multiple rare disease groups. Although the majority of rare diseases are genetic, others, such as rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases, do not yet have an identified genetic cause, as I said. A study by Genetic Alliance UK suggests that such conditions often have higher prevalence, impacting on a significant number of people, so it is important that both genetic and non-genetic conditions are considered.
Approximately 3.5 million people in the UK live with a rare condition, and addressing shared challenges across all conditions will be central to this Government’s approach. In addition, shared challenges across the health and social care system are often exacerbated for people living with rare diseases, such as access to mental health support—something else that the hon. Member for Mid Sussex mentioned. A central mission of this Government is to build a health and care system fit for the future.
The hon. Member for Strangford referred to our 10-year health plan. I reassure the House that that is intended to focus on the three shifts needed to deliver a modern NHS—not just fixing our NHS, but making it fit for the future, for the next 10, 20 or 30 years, putting it on a modernised footing as well as fixing the fundamentals. The three shifts are moving from hospital to community, from analogue to digital and from sickness to prevention. Those shifts offer opportunities to improve time to diagnosis and care for people living with rare diseases. Many highly specialised services for rare diseases must be delivered in hospitals to ensure the high standards of expert care that we want to see, but we can improve co-ordination of care to deliver better treatments closer to where people live, where possible. While many rare diseases are not preventable, early diagnosis can lead to interventions that improve health outcomes.
On the point made by the shadow Minister about community diagnostic centres, the Government’s commitment is to continue that programme. Indeed, I have seen the benefits of it myself—I got to open the new CDC at Crownpoint in Denton in my constituency in July. It is already having a game-changing impact on the local community, giving faster diagnosis and getting people into treatment more quickly, with better outcomes and better patient experiences for those who access the facilities.
The 10-year plan will ensure a better health service for everyone, regardless of condition or service area. On 21 October, we launched a national conversation on the future of the NHS, inviting views from across the country on how to deliver a health service fit for the future. Patients, staff and organisations can make themselves heard by logging on to the online portal, change.nhs.uk. I encourage hon. Members to do the same and to encourage their constituents to do likewise, if they have not done so already.
Unmet need remains, however, for people living with rare diseases, including rare autoimmune rheumatic conditions. I reaffirm that I am deeply committed, as is this Government, to working across the health and care system and with the rare disease community to address that need.
Finally, on workforce, the hon. Member for Strangford and other Members asked if the goal of the Government is to ensure that a patient gets the treatment, and that we get that treatment with the workforce we have. Getting that right workforce will be key. I reassure Members that the goal of the Government is to ensure that the patient, as they deserve, gets all the help that the NHS can offer in treatment, care and support.
The 10-year health plan will deliver those three big shifts on hospitals to community, analogue to digital, and sickness to prevention. To support delivery of the plan, the Secretary of State has confirmed that next summer we will refresh the NHS long-term workforce plan. That will help to ensure that the NHS has the right people in the right places with the right skills to deliver the care that patients need when they need it, not just today but in the future. The shifts we want to see in the delivery of healthcare will require us to rethink the kind of workforce we need in 10 years’ time.
Dr Luke Evans
I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging the workforce, and for looking at the workforce plan. I was aware of the Health Secretary’s plan to revisit this, and the Minister talks about it being done next year. Does he have a timescale for how long the review will take? The danger, especially in healthcare, is that modernisation happens so quickly that, by the time we review something, it is already out of date and needs another review. This is always a chicken-and-egg situation. I would be grateful for a timescale.
Andrew Gwynne
We will refresh it next summer, and the Department is already beginning to think about whether this is what the shifts are intended to bring about, and whether these are the outcomes we want to see as a result of those shifts. If we are to have a neighbourhood health service that delivers much more in a community setting, how do we ensure we have the right skills and the right workforce to deliver that?
Particularly with the shift from analogue to digital, we will need a lot more tech-savvy clinicians, too. How do we build in some of the massive advances in artificial intelligence into medical devices and medical technology? We will be doing that concurrently with the 10-year plan to make sure that the workforce plan refresh is ready to go. This will allow us to embed the future, not just today’s practices, into the training and recruitment processes for the immediate future. The refresh will begin next summer, but it is a chicken-and-egg situation. We need to work out what the future of the NHS will look like, and then we have to ensure that we have the skills to meet that ambition—not just for today, but for the future.
In closing, I again thank my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford, for raising such an important matter, and I thank the rare diseases community for their continued and constructive engagement with the Government to help bring about meaningful change. I hope I have reassured the hon. Gentleman both on cross-UK working—and I take up his challenge to try to get colleagues across the devolved Administrations to agree to continue a UK-wide approach—and on my specific responsibility here in England. We will take forward the four areas identified in the UK plan. We will have a new plan for England, and we will seek to make the significant progress that I believe all Members of this House want to see happen.
I am more than happy to work collegiately with Members across the House, whose role is to scrutinise the Government, to hold our feet to the coals and to make sure we do what is in the plan at the best speed and pace for people living with these conditions. I also accept that I am not the sole fount of all wisdom in this area.
Andrew Gwynne
I know the shadow Minister is surprised by that. Genuinely, whatever people bring to the table, whether it is personal experience, professional expertise or their constituents’ stories, we need to share that knowledge so that we can improve how we deliver the outcomes we want to see for people living with rare diseases. I stand willing and ready to work with hon. Members across the House, and indeed with organisations that champion this area, so we can get the best outcomes that people deserve.
Jim Shannon
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I refer first of all to the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd). It is always a pleasure to hear him make his contribution. Even when there are things that are said in other debates which I may challenge, he always delivers his contribution in a lovely way and not many people can do that. Today he delivered something that we all agree with. I thank him for that and I mean that sincerely, but he knows that. He referred to the effect upon the family. He is right, and also right that those who want to work are not able to. He said he did not want to see these diseases at the back of the queue and he is right on that as well. All those things are pertinent to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred to awareness and training. Again, a very salient intervention for which I thank him. The Minister is right that there is no better way of telling a story than giving an example, and the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) told of her good friend, Carrie, and the effect upon her and upon her mummy as well. Sometimes they were wondering what it was all about when the condition worsened, and how the health service responds is critically important.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), brings to any debate his wealth of knowledge—from his own personal experience and from his vocation as well—and he does so sincerely. He referred to the two groups: those with tissue and those with vasculitis. He referred to the vision for the rare disease framework and the new action plan. I did not previously know about the tie-up between Birmingham, Newcastle and Queen’s University Belfast for research and development and I was really interested to hear about it. I know about some of the things Queen’s University do but I did not know about that specifically and so I thank him for that, and for the wee reminder of how to get onto that as well. That has really been helpful.
I am encouraged by what I have heard today. I referred to research networks and support, and working collectively to make this situation better. Disease modification drugs need to be regulated. This is a wee reminder of some of the things to be done—it is not always straightforward by the way, either.
This debate was never about me or about any of us here. It is about patients and our constituents; about those who we serve in this place. Today I think the Minister has developed a very positive response. All of those out there—my constituents, and those of the hon. Member for Mid Sussex and of the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth—will be encouraged, because they will be listening to this debate and they will want to know what the Government are going to do. They will be encouraged by the things the Minister referred to: highlighting the rare diseases, the personal stories, to raise awareness. That the diseases are rare but collectively they are common was a salient and poignant comment. On measuring and reporting progress, he referred to the 2026 end of the framework but the Minister gave us assurance—he referred to a mission and to contacting the four nations so they can approach it together and commit together. I think that is also an answer to one of the questions I asked. That is what the Minister has committed himself to doing and we should be reassured by that.
Diagnosis should be timely and accurate, and the Minister referred to GeNotes and the digital improvements. That is really important as well. He also referred to NICE, to encourage research and development for rare diseases because we have to look forward to someday hopefully finding a solution. He also referred to the ENRAD, which is a good model for all to follow. Government will put this idea to the fore, where there has been a good example. The Minister is right about the economic and health commitment for clinical trials, so that our patients win each time. He also made encouraging comments about training and workforce—early prevention, faster diagnosis, better outcomes. I think those who have rare diseases—170,000 across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and all the families of those people—will today be encouraged by this debate and the contributions from all sides. Most importantly, I say a sincere thank you to the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases.
Cleve Hill Solar Park
(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I will call Helen Whately to move the motion, and then I will call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention with these 30-minute wonders.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of Cleve Hill Solar Park on communities in Faversham and Mid Kent constituency.
For centuries, the view from Graveney church tower has been spectacular, looking across miles of marshland to the Swale beyond. In the summer, there are wide-open blue skies and sheep grazing in the sunshine among the rushes going down to the sparkling water of the estuary. In the winter, still beautiful if bleak, there are clouds scudding across a grey horizon, down to the froth of white horses on galloping waves, accompanied by the cries of seabirds, calling as they circle overhead, buffeted by wind and rain.
This epic landscape inspired great British writers such as Charles Dickens and Daniel Defoe. Since then, it has continued to inspire countless visitors and locals alike—the backdrop for walkers travelling the ancient Saxon Shore way, a haven for birdwatchers and the seabirds they have travelled to see, or just a place to find peace and tranquillity in our otherwise busy lives. But no more.
In 2020, planning permission was granted to build Cleve Hill solar park. In 2021, the park was acquired by Quinbrook Infrastructure Partners, a US investment fund based in Texas. In 2023, construction began. Now, as we near the end of 2024, the work is nearly done. Soon, the village of Graveney in my constituency will host the UK’s largest solar power plant, generating 373 MW of electricity. Alongside the solar array, the developers have permission for a large-scale battery installation, with up to 700 MWh of capacity. The concrete base for the batteries is being constructed, and the batteries themselves are now in the country, soon to be installed. The plant is set to become operational early next year.
As I speak about this huge solar installation in my constituency, hon. Members should make no mistake: I recognise climate change as one of the greatest threats to our planet and way of life. I want us to continue our shift to renewable energy, reduce our carbon footprint and improve our energy security, and that includes solar. I welcome solar on factory and warehouse roofs, housing developments, brownfield sites and even out-of-the-way pockets of poor-quality land. But Cleve Hill is altogether different. When complete, the solar park will cover more than 700 acres—an area larger than the town of Faversham itself. It will have not far off 1 million solar panels, each the height of a double-decker bus. No amount of natural screening can prevent this huge installation from dominating the landscape.
It is not just about the views. The marshes were home to rare species, including Brent geese, golden plover, marsh harriers and the red-listed lapwing. The humble dormouse and water voles also thrived in the dykes and field margins. Before the Cleve Hill solar team arrived, there was a totally different vision for this spot. The Environment Agency planned to restore the marshes to a wetland, which would have provided a haven for the wildlife, sequestered carbon and acted as a natural flood defence.
As someone who has stood knee-high in flood water in my own home, I do not take the risk of flooding lightly. As many as 17,000 homes are at risk from rising sea levels along the north Kent coast. Unfortunately, the planning inspector considered the solar development only against the agriculture land use at the time. Instead of Graveney’s marshland being transformed into a haven for nature and a release for rising sea water, it has been transformed into an industrial zone.
Over the years since the solar scheme was announced, I have received hundreds of letters and emails from people asking me to stop it. I have worked with Graveney’s excellent parish council, the Save Graveney Marshes campaign group and the GREAT campaign. All have worked hard to give the community a voice in the planning system, but to no avail. As a nationally significant infrastructure project, the final decision was taken away from local residents and our local council. I am told that when planning inspectors recommended that the development go ahead, there was little room for the Secretary of State to go against their recommendation, even though only 15 out of 867 public representations supported the project. Like many people, I was gutted when it was approved but we are where we are.
Since then, my focus, like the campaign groups, has switched to trying to reduce the harm and risks to the local community, and trying to claw back some benefit. That is why I have secured this debate. I am here to raise the three main areas of concern expressed by my constituents: safety, disruption and damage, and compensation for the community, who now have an industrial site on their rural doorstep. This is important to my constituents, but important to communities around the country facing large-scale solar developments; they, too, will want to hear what reassurances the Minister can offer.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. The issue of disruption is incredibly important. I have a number of quarries in my constituency, and I know only too well the damage and enhanced wear and tear that such sites can cause on smaller countryside roads—I do not know the hon. Lady’s constituency, but I presume that that issue will affect it as well. Does she agree that the road safety implications of heavy goods vehicle traffic using these roads over a number of years must be a priority for the construction company? The only way to address that is to have open communication with the local community and a point person to deal with issues as they arise. Has the hon. Lady been able to persuade the construction company to do that?
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I will address in a moment. First, I want to talk about safety, because the safety of the large-scale battery installation is the biggest worry for my community.
To give a sense of the scale, Cleve Hill’s battery capacity will be equivalent to half the output of a small gas-fired power station. Large-scale battery storage systems carry risks including overheating and fire, which can produce toxic fumes and water contamination. To date, more than 65 fires and explosions have been reported in similar battery storage systems across the world.
In March, I hosted a public meeting about battery safety, which was attended by Matthew Deadman, an assistant director at Kent Fire and Rescue Service and the National Fire Chiefs Council lead officer for alternative fuel and energy systems. Almost 50 Graveney residents attended the meeting, which demonstrates the considerable local concern. Matthew Deadman provided some reassurance by outlining the steps that the developer is taking to put in place the safety features set out in the project’s battery safety management plan, but that has not allayed residents’ fears.
Battery fires are notoriously difficult to extinguish, and people at the meeting found it hard to believe that the fire and rescue team at Faversham fire station—fabulous though they are—or even teams across east Kent more widely, would have the specialist equipment required. There is also the question of the contamination of land and water in the event of a fire.
Another outstanding concern was the lack of an evacuation plan in the event of a fire. The rationale we heard was that no evacuation would be needed, because toxic fumes and smoke would dissipate and it would be sufficient to close windows. However, residents and parents whose children attend the local school remain unconvinced.
Added to that is the potential for a fivefold expansion of the battery proposal found in the site’s battery safety management plan. Although that may or may not happen in practice, physicist and former vice-chair of the Faversham Society, Professor Sir David Melville CBE, warns that the site does not have adequate space for such an increase in battery capacity while maintaining the 6-metre spacing between battery units that is advised by the National Fire Chiefs Council. In fact, the Kent Fire and Rescue Service was only satisfied with the site’s battery safety management plan on the basis of the 6-metre gap being adhered to.
I am not alone in raising these concerns formally. Swale borough council scrutinised and rejected the battery safety management plan earlier this year, but its rejection has been overturned by the Planning Inspectorate, leaving the community with unanswered questions and a feeling that they have no say in the matter.
I am not the first Member to raise these concerns. Just over a year ago, a former Energy Minister said the Government intended to consult on including battery storage systems in the environmental permitting regulations at the earliest opportunity. I take that to be an acknowledgment that the current system is not up to the job. In a written question in September, I asked Ministers for an update on the timetable for the consultation, and I received the following response:
“The Government agrees with the need to have robust measures in place to manage the risks associated with facilities that use large numbers of lithium-ion batteries. Defra is considering further options, including environmental permitting, for managing the environmental and public health risks from fires at BESS sites.”
When she sums up, will the Minister advise me whether the Government will be adding battery storage systems to the environmental permitting regulations? If so, when will the consultation take place? If not, what approach to ensuring the safety of large-scale batteries do the Government intend to take? In the meantime, could the Minister tell me what agency is responsible for ensuring the safety of this development? Who will be inspecting it before it is switched on, and how will she ensure that these batteries are safe? I have been in her shoes, albeit in a different brief, and that is a question I would have been asking myself.
This issue is important not just for Graveney, but for the whole country. Large-scale batteries look likely to be an important part of our future energy infrastructure, which means we need to do this properly. Residents’ concerns cannot be brushed aside as an inconvenience. We need a proper process that takes these worries seriously and ensures that large-scale battery installations are safe.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
My neighbouring constituency of Ashford has a big solar farm planned for it. I have recently listened to experts who have highlighted the risk of fire and toxic fumes from large batteries. Some of these farms are planned for rural areas that fire engines may not be able to access. These are genuine concerns. Does the hon. Lady agree that local concerns need to be addressed before planning permission is approved?
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The issue is clearly of great concern to my constituents in the village of Graveney and the nearby town of Faversham, who are living close to the solar plant and the battery installation. We need to get it right in Graveney, and then we can use the same approach to get it right in other places, because this is not the one and only large-scale battery installation we expect to see. As I have said, these installations are likely to be part of our future energy infrastructure, so we must get it right in Graveney and across the country.
The second area of concern, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), is the impact of construction on local residents and, in my constituency, on the village of Graveney itself. Residents and schools have put up with many months of heavy construction traffic. It is down to the hard work of the community and people such as Mike Newman, the parish council chair, sitting down with the developer, that we now have an effective traffic management plan. That has mitigated the impact, and I recognise that the developer has played its part—for instance, by restricting lorry movements at certain times to accommodate the school—but even when construction ends, residents will be left with the consequences. Some houses have cracks in their walls thanks to the huge lorries thundering past day after day, and the lane through the village will need resurfacing. The community is looking to the developer and hoping that it will stick to its word and make good any damage, but the worry hangs over the village all the same, not least because no such requirement was part of the planning process, and nor is it set out in law.
That brings me to the final outstanding concern. When an unpopular planning decision is made locally, there is at least the silver lining of a section 106, or a community infrastructure levy contribution, which can go towards a new school, a GP surgery or a similar community facility, but not so with a nationally significant infrastructure project. I know that one of our challenges as a country is the time and cost required to build any new infrastructure, and I have no appetite to make that worse, but it is hard to stomach the fact that a small village such as Graveney could find itself hosting a power station, in effect, and have nothing by way of compensation.
I am grateful to the developer for indicating that it will make a significant community contribution, and I know there is a discussion about the potential for a longer-lasting approach that could support the community over the lifetime of the project, as an alternative to a one-off. However, that begs the question of why the community is left relying on the good will of the developer. The Minister’s Government intend a big overhaul of the planning process, with the objective, rightly, of ensuring that we get better at building infrastructure. I suggest that one way to do that is to ensure that there is something in it for the local community, especially when, as is the case here, it bears the brunt, with no discernible local benefit.
I will sum up to give the Minister time to reply. With regret, I accept the reality of Cleve Hill solar, the UK’s largest solar installation, and the large-scale battery storage that comes with it. What I do not accept is the failure to address residents’ concerns about safety, the failure to give residents certainty about repairing the damage from construction, and the feeling that the community is on its own, negotiating compensation from the developer for the industrialisation of the marshland it holds so dear.
On all three counts, I seek the Minister’s assurance and action. To be clear, I am not advocating more red tape. This is about doing something better, not making it harder. If we get this right, we can improve how we build energy infrastructure in this country. That is important because we need more renewable energy generation capacity to meet our future energy needs, in a world where economic growth is likely to be dependent on energy-intensive computing power. All our futures depend on that, so let us ensure that we get it right, starting right here, right now, with Cleve Hill solar.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) on securing the debate and giving us a chance to discuss an important topic, not just for her constituents. I hope she will understand, however, that due to the quasi-judicial role that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plays in taking decisions on applications for development consent for energy infrastructure proposals, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on matters related to any specific proposals.
Although the development consent order for Cleve Hill solar park was granted by the previous Government in 2020, as she said, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero may still be involved in any proceedings relating to the implementation of that order. As a result, I cannot comment today on the details of that project. The reasons for the decision and details of supporting plans are available on the Planning Inspectorate’s website, as the hon. Lady knows. I am afraid I cannot elaborate or speculate on that published material.
The hon. Member spoke eloquently about the importance of the site to her constituents—the views, the biodiversity and the birds, and the importance of wetlands. My colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I are working closely on nature-based solutions to climate change, and wetlands play an important role. I am also glad that the hon. Member acknowledged the importance of reaching our net zero objectives, with that mission for clean power, by 2030.
As I said, I cannot speak specifically about Cleve Hill, but I hope I can reassure her by speaking in general terms about Government policy. First, it ensures that all local impacts are considered in the planning process. Secondly, it makes a steadfast commitment that those who host clean-energy infrastructure should benefit from it. In order to achieve our goal of clean power by 2030, we will need to deploy various renewable energy sources. According to the recent National Energy System Operator clean power pathway report, we need to increase solar deployment from 15 GW to 47 GW. Along with onshore wind, solar is the cheapest clean power option available to us right now, making it an essential part of the UK’s energy mix. Without a substantial increase in solar deployment, the clean power mission becomes very difficult.
That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State relaunched the solar taskforce earlier this year. It is also the reason that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who has this portfolio, cannot reply to the debate, because he is at a meeting of the solar taskforce. The taskforce brings together the industry and Government to discuss the actions needed to rapidly increase the deployment of solar panels on rooftops and in solar farms, and it will publish its recommendations in a solar road map very soon.
We should never lose sight of the core motivation behind our clean energy mission. Clean power generated here in Britain will reduce our dependence on volatile imported fossil fuels. It will provide lower bills in the long term and create thousands of highly skilled future-proofed jobs across the country. Delivering those benefits for the British people requires the development of new infrastructure. We accept that a top priority should be the deployment of solar on rooftops. That is why we are bringing forward new standards to ensure that all newly built houses and commercial buildings are fit for a net zero future. We will encourage the installation of solar panels on those buildings where appropriate.
But we know that our mission will require more ground-mounted solar too, and decisive reform to the planning system is urgently needed to support that. As the Prime Minister said last week, we will streamline the approval process in the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill. As part of the new plan for change, in which the Prime Minister set out the milestones in how the Government will deliver on our national missions, we will work towards the new target of 150 major infrastructure projects, including energy projects. That will mean tripling the number of decisions on national infrastructure, compared with the previous Parliament. We recognise the impact that such new energy projects can have on local communities and the environment. The Government are committed to striking the right balance between those considerations when delivering the clean power mission.
All proposed solar projects are subject to a robust planning process. Most projects are assessed by local planning authorities themselves, and those assessments are governed by the national planning policy framework, which encourages developers to engage with local communities before submitting an application. Local planning authorities will continue to seek representations from local communities and will continue to weigh local considerations against the need for renewable energy.
As the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent said, larger projects such as the Cleve Hill solar park are decided centrally through the nationally significant infrastructure regime. That is a rigorous process. Developers whose projects qualify for the assessment must complete considerable community engagement before any decision is taken, and decision makers take into account its level and quality.
We recognise that new infrastructure can have an impact on the local community, and the planning system is designed to take account of the social, cultural, economic and environmental effects. Indeed, all large-scale solar developers are legally obliged to complete an environmental statement as part of any application for development consent. The hon. Members for Faversham and Mid Kent and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised disruption, which will be considered as part of the environmental statement.
The statement requires the developer to consider the potential environmental impact of a project, not just during the construction phase but during its life. It spans pre-development, construction and operation, all the way to decommissioning. The statement is a helpful tool that allows planning authorities to review any significant effects on biodiversity or the environment. I know the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent is committed to improving the natural environment, and she spoke eloquently about her vision for that part of her constituency. There is some evidence to suggest that solar can improve biodiversity when installed and managed appropriately. The environmental management plan for Cleve Hill includes commitments to build a habitat management area of 56 hectares, which is predicted to increase on-site biodiversity by 65%.
I want to touch briefly on the use of agricultural land for solar. I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady that the Government recognise that food security is linked to national security, and that we will always back British farming. In previous years, we worked together on the all-party parliamentary group for fruit and vegetable farmers, which she chaired, so I gained some knowledge of the importance she attaches to standing up for farmers in her constituency.
Planning guidance makes it clear that developers should situate their projects on brownfield or industrial sites whenever possible. Where the development of agricultural land is shown to be necessary, developers are steered away from using the best and most versatile land, and we have no plans to change that. We do not believe, however, that the accelerated deployment of solar power poses a threat to food security. The total area of land devoted to solar farms nationally is very small. Even in the most ambitious scenarios, less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land would be occupied by solar farms. My colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are developing a land use framework, which will consider issues such as food security and how we can expand nature-rich habitats. The framework will work hand in hand with the strategic spatial energy plan.
May I just ask, Dr Huq, will the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent be given a minute to respond?
Kerry McCarthy
Okay.
I come on to the issue of battery safety. I note that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent said that members were given some reassurance at the community meeting she held but still have significant concerns about fire safety. As she knows, batteries are regulated by the Health and Safety Executive. The framework requires battery designers, installers and operators to take the necessary measures to ensure health and safety through all stages of the system’s construction, operation and decommissioning.
The Government have updated the planning practice guidance to encourage battery storage developers to engage with local fire and rescue services and for local planning authorities to refer to guidance published by the National Fire Chiefs Council, which I note the hon. Lady said was represented at the meeting she held. The health and safety framework for batteries is kept under review to respond to changing circumstances. In 2018, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy set up an industry-led electricity storage health and safety governance group, whose members include the National Fire Chiefs Council, the Environment Agency and DEFRA. That group is responsible for ensuring that an appropriate, robust and future-proofed health and safety framework is sustained. My Department worked with it to develop and publish health and safety guidance for grid-scale batteries that aims to improve the understanding of existing health and safety standards, which the battery storage industry should apply to its own processes.
The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent mentioned DEFRA. As I understand, DEFRA is considering further options, including environmental permitting, for managing the environmental and public health risks from fire at grid-scale sites. I am happy to speak to my colleague in DEFRA who is responsible for that and get back to the hon. Lady on her specific question—she will appreciate that I cannot answer on their behalf today. If her constituents require any further reassurances on the safety issue, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) will be happy to follow up on that in writing.
In the few minutes I have left, I turn to community benefits. We absolutely understand that we need to fully engage with communities and bring them along with us on our clean power mission, which includes public engagement and consultation. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent asked specifically about community benefits. We know that communities are providing a service to the country as a whole when they host clean energy infrastructure, so there need to be benefits for them. Sometimes there is a direct benefit where the infrastructure is owned by the community—the benefit goes straight back into the community, whether it is through solar panels on a village hall or one of many other examples—but we are considering how best to deliver those community benefits to host communities. That includes looking at existing examples in Europe and further afield to see what has worked well.
A wide variety of community benefits can be delivered, including funding for local projects, investment in the local area, direct benefits to individuals and, as I said, opportunities for community ownership. Great British Energy will build on existing community energy schemes, helping communities to unlock opportunities through the local power plan. In the hon. Lady’s constituency, up to 1,400 homes are powered by Orchard Community Energy, which is a community-owned solar farm near Sittingbourne that provides power to Swale and Medway. That puts communities at the heart of the energy transition and gives them a stake in the transition to net zero as owners and partners in clean energy projects.
As I said, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North, is today at the meeting of the solar taskforce, which brings together industry and Government. It is considering the question of how a community can benefit from the infrastructure that is hosted on their patch, and its recommendations will be published in the solar road map.
To conclude, the Government are committed to considering the interests of local communities affected by proposed energy infrastructure. I thank the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent for securing the debate and for giving me the opportunity to set out the Government’s vision. We will work to balance the local impact of new projects with the delivery of our clean power mission. The renewable energy transition will always be done through co-operation rather than coercion, ensuring that all parties benefit on our journey to net zero.
Question put and agreed to.
Lobular Breast Cancer
(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the treatment of lobular breast cancer.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I secured this debate in memory of my constituent, who was also my close friend, Heather Cripps. I welcome Heather’s husband David and her sister Jenny to the Public Gallery. I will come to Heather’s story shortly, but I also want to welcome to the Public Gallery my mother-in-law Cressida, who survived lobular breast cancer 22 years ago, as well as several others whose lives have been touched by lobular breast cancer. Many of them have provided me with briefings in preparation for the debate, for which I am grateful.
I met Heather in 2016 when, as someone who had pretty much never run for a bus before, I was roped into a free 5 km parkrun at 9 am on Saturday mornings in Dulwich park. Heather was a serious runner, and running was a huge part of her life. She took pity on me and decided that her inexperienced local MP needed a friend to run with, and she became that friend. We worked out that we lived close to each other, and it was not long before I was picking her up to go to the parkrun, and we would run together most weeks.
Heather was a dedicated public servant, spending her whole life working in the Home Office. It is a testament to her professionalism that she never spoke with me about the content of her work. What she did speak about as we ran was her family, her husband David and two precious daughters. Heather was an amazing mum. She spent so much of her time thinking about what her girls would enjoy, planning birthday parties and holidays and, earlier this year, plotting a trip to Wales to culminate in the surprise collection of a new puppy.
In 2020, at the height of the covid-19 pandemic, Heather started to get terrible back pain. For several months this was treated as a musculoskeletal issue. She was given pain medication, but it got worse and worse. Eventually, she was diagnosed with stage 4 invasive lobular breast cancer. The back pain was the result of the cancer having spread to her spine. For three years, chemotherapy held the cancer at bay but, when Heather came to Parliament almost exactly a year ago to campaign on lobular breast cancer, she mentioned to me that she once again had back pain, which she thought could be the cancer recurring.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady brings forward a very personal story. In this House, we know that personal stories are always the hardest to tell, but the ones that have more impact. I commend the hon. Lady for what she is doing today. We would all say that, but we mean it.
Helen Hayes
I thank the hon. Gentleman—who is my hon. Friend—very much indeed for that intervention.
Heather died in St Christopher’s hospice near her home on 30 August. She was 48 years old. Shortly before she died, Heather’s daughter, who was due to start secondary school in September, visited her mummy in the hospice, so that she could see her in her school uniform. In that unbearable heartbreaking detail is why we must do better on lobular breast cancer: better on awareness of symptoms and better at research into treatments.
The heartbreak of Heather’s story and the impact on her family and friends is sadly replicated for too many women and their loved ones throughout the UK. Lobular breast cancer is the second most common type of breast cancer, accounting for 15% of all breast cancers, and 22 women a day are diagnosed with lobular breast cancer in the UK. It behaves differently from other forms of the disease, mostly strikingly because it does not cause lumps, and it is often completely invisible on a mammogram.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on such an important topic, and for so movingly sharing the story of her friend Heather. I want to raise the case of my constituent from Dalgety Bay. Just days before her surgery for lobular breast cancer, a mammogram was still unable to pick it up, exactly as my hon. Friend describes. It could not pick up the existence of her cancer at all. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a perfect example of why we so badly need more research and better diagnosis and treatment of lobular breast cancer for women across the UK?
Helen Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the story of her constituent to this debate. This is exactly the reason why we need to find better means of diagnosis and treatment for lobular breast cancer. I will come talk about some of those means shortly.
Currently, there are no treatments specific to lobular breast cancer. This must change. The issues have been well documented by Dr Susan Michaelis, founder of the Lobular Moon Shot Project. Susan was 50 when she noticed a small, pale, 1 mm mark on her left breast in 2012. She had no lump and both a mammogram and an ultrasound were reassuring. Six months later, the small mark had become redder and Susan had a biopsy that confirmed she had invasive lobular breast cancer. Susan’s cancer had spread to her neck, the back of her head, the eye area and her ribs. She is now on her sixth line of treatment.
Dr Michaelis is a qualified air accident investigator. She focuses on how accidents can be prevented by learning from past mistakes, and has used these skills to look at how treatments have failed her. In doing so, she has identified the need for a new approach.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this really important debate. Does she agree that specific forms of cancer like lobular breast cancer require specific funding, research and treatment, and that a one-size-fits-all approach is going to fail millions of women? I declare an interest in asking this question in that last year I was diagnosed with lobular breast cancer. I am cancer-free now, thank God, as a result of the help of the Royal Marsden hospital. Tragically, that is not the case for many, many women in this country.
Helen Hayes
I thank the hon. Lady very much for that intervention and for sharing her personal story.
I pay tribute to Dr Michaelis for her research and campaigning on lobular cancer. I hope that all Members have received their Dr Susan Michaelis rose this week, named in her honour, and will plant it as a reminder of the urgency of her work.
There are so many other stories. Katie Swinburne was 47 when she was diagnosed with invasive lobular cancer in her left breast, leading to a double mastectomy, radiotherapy and 10 years of targeted chemotherapy. She writes:
“It is very hard to accept that none of my treatment is specific to lobular breast cancer and no one can tell me if it is working or has been effective…I find myself living in fear of recurrence. I deserved to have an early diagnosis. I did not get this. I deserve a specific treatment; I do not have this. I have three young children; they deserve to have a mum. I deserve effective follow up; I do not get this. I need you to change this for me, my husband, my family, all the women with a lobular diagnosis and all the women who will be diagnosed in the future.”
Emma Hunwick writes:
“I was a happy, healthy and relatively fit 49-year-old professional woman when I noticed a tiny pull in my right nipple. No lump, no other obvious external changes. An annual medical and referral just 12 days later resulted in a clear mammogram and a clear second 3D mammogram. An ultrasound then reported an area of 2 cm of concern. I rapidly went from ‘caught early’ to borderline stage 2 breast cancer. After my mastectomy I was informed that I was in fact stage 3c invasive lobular breast cancer…I am now at high risk with predicted survival outcomes at 10 and 15 years of approximately 45% and 30% respectively...I need to know that the vital scientific research into lobular breast cancer is being done now. Not next year or in 10 years but starting now, so that I might survive longer and continue to work with less worry about whether the standard monitoring tests that missed my first cancer, will miss a recurrence.”
Kirstin Spencer’s story is also typical. Diagnosed in 2018, she and had a double mastectomy, but was warned that, especially in the first two years afterwards, the disease could recur in areas such as the scar tissue, chest wall and surrounding skin. She was told that vigilance and well-managed medical follow-up were everything. Within a year of her diagnosis, she developed red-flag symptoms that were repeatedly dismissed by her breast specialist. She was refused follow-up treatment and sent for psychological counselling. By the time that a new GP listened to her concerns, substantial recurrence was confirmed, with extensive metastatic disease.
My mother-in-law Cressida’s story is very different from Heather’s, and we are all so grateful to the doctors who treated her and for the subsequent 22 years of health that she has had and continues to enjoy. Cressida did not have any grandchildren when she was diagnosed, but a prompt diagnosis meant that she has been able to be closely involved in the lives of eight subsequent grandchildren, as a much-loved granny. But Cressida’s outcome was about luck rather than design, so much so that it was only very recently, when reviewing her medical notes, that she found out that the type of cancer she had was lobular.
Breast cancer survival rates are directly impacted by the stage of diagnosis. Late diagnosis, which is all too common for lobular breast cancer, leads to far worse outcomes. To improve this situation, we need much better awareness of the full range of breast cancer symptoms, including the very small skin changes that are typical of lobular cancer. Not all cancers cause lumps. A clear mammogram does not provide absolute reassurance, because lobular cancer typically does not show on a mammogram. We need lobular-specific research and treatments.
Staff at Manchester Breast Centre have stated that they are able to do the research to understand the complete pathology of lobular breast cancer—research that has never been done—to pave the way for bespoke treatments to be developed. This will take five years and cost £20 million—moonshot funding that will be recouped many times over in the tax revenue paid by women like Heather, who would be able to continue working, and in the NHS costs that will be saved.
Hundreds of MPs in the last Parliament and this one have listened to the stories of constituents affected by lobular breast cancer and pledged their support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project. Lobular cancer is the sixth most common cancer in women. It is more common than ovarian, brain, central nervous system, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, pancreatic and kidney cancers. I know that the Minister cares deeply about women’s health equality and I put it to her that lobular cancer is a women’s health equality issue.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue. I was diagnosed with, treated for and cured of breast cancer this year, in a very timely way. I was very grateful to be told that it was one of the best cancers to have, because there is so much research into it and treatment for it. It is unimaginable that someone could be treated for a different type of breast cancer for which the research and treatment are not available. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that this situation needs to be addressed immediately, because we cannot have these inequalities. Lobular cancer should be on a par with other breast cancers in terms of treatment.
Helen Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She makes the point extremely well. How can it be that there are so few targeted programmes to improve the diagnosis and treatment of a cancer that affects 15% of breast cancer patients? How can it be that such poor information is provided to women that does not empower them to seek help when the symptoms of lobular cancer recur? How can it be that women are lured into a false sense of security when they receive a clear mammogram, or are fobbed off when they raise concerns?
We need to do better for women affected by lobular breast cancer, in memory of Heather and many more women like her who will not live to see their children grow up. We need to do better for women like Dr Susan Michaelis, who are living today with their lobular cancer being held just about at bay by generic breast cancer treatments, but who live with the constant anxiety that one day the treatment will stop working. We need to do better for the 22 women today and the 22 women tomorrow—the 22 women every single day—who are diagnosed with lobular cancer.
I have a number of asks to make of the Minister. Will she commit to investigate why there are so few targeted programmes to improve diagnosis, research and treatment of a cancer that affects 15% of breast cancer patients? Will she confirm that lobular cancer will remain a priority in the Government’s women’s health strategy? Will she take steps to address the lack of information given to women about mammograms, so that every woman is reminded to remain vigilant for non-lump changes in their breasts, including very small changes? Will she take steps to improve the education of primary care doctors on the symptoms of lobular breast cancer, so that women are not provided with false reassurance, but promptly referred for diagnostic tests?
For patients treated for ductal breast cancer, the first five years are critical, but for lobular breast cancer the risk will remain for 10 years and sometimes beyond, yet lobular patients are typically released from surveillance care after only five years. Will the Minister take steps to ensure that there is a specific follow-up pathway for lobular breast cancer? Will she support Manchester Breast Centre’s call for Lobular Moon Shot funding—£20 million over five years—to enable the basic pathology of lobular cancer to be fully understood as the foundation for developing bespoke treatments? Will she look at the fairness of the distribution of research funding to ensure that this funding can be identified without further delay?
I know the heartbreak that Heather's death has caused for all who knew and loved her, and most especially for her family. We can act to ensure that, in future, women like Heather who are diagnosed with lobular cancer can live to see their children grow up, and it is imperative that we do so.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing this debate, and for her very moving speech. I have to make a declaration of interest: I am a governor at the Royal Berkshire hospital in Reading and I have a family member who has shares in a medical company.
I would like to start by giving my sincerest thanks to Dr Susan Michaelis: first, for her rose, which I have to say I first thought was a delivery of parliamentary stationery to my office—but it was not; and for her passion and diligence in running the Lobular Moon Shot Project. I am proud to have pledged my support to the campaign, which will hopefully change the lives of millions. I will relentlessly champion the need for improving cancer research in this House, because cancer research is so important for securing earlier diagnosis and delivering more effective treatment. However, the existing system has numerous challenges that need to be overcome.
Funding is certainly one of the research barriers, but there are wider concerns that the existing pressures on our cancer and wider health service are acting as a barrier to research. The Government have committed to developing a national cancer plan. This could be a real turning point, because cancer services are simply not delivering for their patients. The Government are determining what the cancer plan will look like, and they are fortunate that Cancer Research UK has already produced a comprehensive report titled “Leading on Cancer”, which sets out some of the key recommendations that they should consider on all matters of a cancer plan. I will highlight some of their points regarding research, which I suspect would significantly improve the chances of making the Lobular Moon Shot Project a reality.
Cancer Research UK makes it clear that the Government’s cancer plan needs to cover workforce planning, and physical and digital infrastructure. That would give NHS services the capacity to carry out clinical research and would reverse the current trend whereby clinical research is seen as a “nice to have”, rather than as something that is deeply integrated into cancer outcomes. Cancer Research UK’s report also makes it clear that long-term planning is important in giving healthcare systems notice of innovations coming down the track so that the adoption and implementation of those new treatments can be planned for appropriately.
The Government will need to support staff with the right kind of training, and provide the right equipment to deliver innovations. They must not fall into the trap of talking only to themselves. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology needs to work as one to ensure that cancer research is given the priority it needs. The Cancer Research UK report addresses those points in far more detail. I urge the Minister to read it if she has not done so already, and I would be incredibly grateful if she would meet me and Cancer Research UK to discuss its findings.
I pay tribute to the cancer centre at my local hospital, the Royal Berkshire. The King Edward ward provides constituents with chemotherapy, and the Adelaide ward provides care for oncology patients. Its staff are among the very best in the NHS. Can the Government assure me that when they publish their plans for the rebuild of the Royal Berkshire hospital—following the new hospital building programme review, which I fear is already dragging on quite a bit—they will include appropriate digital and physical infrastructure to fully realise and implement new technologies in future years?
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing this debate, and I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) about health outcomes for those diagnosed with cancer.
One of my most difficult days was when my wife was diagnosed with cancer. She has now thankfully recovered but, looking back at her cancer and her diagnosis, the fact that it was caught early and was seen as a cancer with greater success outcomes shows the disparity of outcomes—particularly for those with lobular breast cancer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood described.
I pay tribute to the Lobular Moon Shot Project, which aims to give lobular cancer the attention and funding it needs, so that it can be better understood. Lobular breast cancer is the second most common form of breast cancer and, as has been said, accounts for about 15% of all breast cancers, yet there is still not enough research being undertaken.
My hon. Friend mentioned my constituent Emma, who is in the Public Gallery. Emma recently attended my constituency surgery and told me of her experiences with lobular breast cancer. Because of the way it presents, it was not picked up by a mammogram, and it took an MRI—facilitated through a routine private healthcare check—for it to be diagnosed. As has been said, it was initially thought to be a stage 2 cancer, but it was in fact stage 3. Following her diagnosis, she underwent a double mastectomy, followed by chemotherapy for six months, and then 15 sessions of radiotherapy. In Emma’s case, her cancer is likely to return, which leaves her with a very uncertain future for years ahead.
On the current data collection framework on lobular breast cancer, there is a lack of documented research about outcomes for and recurrences of lobular breast cancer. Indeed, there is currently just one trial available in the UK for lobular breast cancer patients. This leaves women like Emma unprepared for the potential impacts that the cancer will have on them further down the line. Given this position, I would be grateful if the Minister could address not only the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood in her asks, but her comments on what can be done to secure more regular MRIs—as was shown in Emma’s case, having more regular MRIs is the only thing that will pick this up—and to ensure that there is greater data collection and transparency on the effects of lobular breast cancer.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for her story on behalf of her dear friend and for leading the debate. We have been very privileged to hear contributions from courageous hon. Ladies to my right and to my left, who have told their own personal stories, which contribute to this debate. It probably also humbles us to have those contributions. Every person who has come here today to make a contribution will have an example of someone they love who has been affected.
Westminster Hall is a great place, as the Chamber would be, to raise awareness and to discuss these matters. I am sure that many will not be fully aware of this insidious brand of cancer, or of its specifics. I am personally grateful to be able to give one example, but also to discuss these issues.
As my party’s health spokesperson, these issues are incredibly important to me. Indeed, they are important to us all; we are all here for the same purpose and it is vital for us all to be here. I know that we will all have had some journey experiencing cancer within our family or close to home. Not long ago, I met in my office a constituent of mine who was diagnosed with lobular breast cancer. I think that, whenever we meet someone who has come through that journey and thankfully is on the other side and alive today, we thank God, as the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) did. Ultimately—I say this respectfully to everyone here —that is where the power lies for healing: with our God.
The hon. Lady explained that there is not enough research into the specifics of this cancer, let alone more access to medication that lessens the impacts of the suffering. Perhaps the Minister will have an opportunity, through civil servants, to check what research and development there is on this specific lobular cancer to help save more lives, make lives better and give people hope for the future. Ultimately, in this House, we are tasked to give hope—not because of our words, because our words are not important—to those out there who face this reality of what the future will hold for them.
Invasive lobular breast cancer is the second most common type of breast cancer. It is also known as invasive lobular carcinoma. Around 15 in every 100 breast cancers are invasive lobular breast cancer. The most recent figures show that, in 2016, 6,765 people were diagnosed with lobular breast cancer in England, including 6,754 women and 11 men. There may be those who think that it is not a disease that can affect men; but although it is a very low number, it still does. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) is one of those survivors. I think we should thank God that he is here today as well. It is important to note that, although it is less common for men to get this form of cancer, they are still able to get it and it can impact them just the same.
There were 7,566 cases of female breast cancer diagnosed during 2018 and 2022 in Northern Ireland. On average, there were 1,513 cases per year. I want to put the figures and stats on record because they illustrate clearly how critical, dangerous and invasive this cancer can be. In Northern Ireland, the breast cancer incidence rate was 156.7 cases per 100,000 females. The odds of developing female breast cancer before the age of 85 was one in eight. It is clear that there is a major concern in Northern Ireland and throughout this great United Kingdom.
This specific type of cancer often goes undetected, as it spreads in straight lines, as opposed to lumps. Furthermore, although the cancer grows slowly compared with other cancers, the tumours can be large by the time they are detected. In addition, some 3.75 million people will be diagnosed with this cancer in the next 10 years, which is why it is important to discuss it, so I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood for securing this debate.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I associate myself with what we have heard in this very powerful debate. I commend the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), and I commend the family who are sitting in the Gallery. Cancer is a thief in many homes, and I commend them for their bravery.
Does my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) agree that, across the UK, we need more investment, more research and more clinical trials, and that it is for this Government to step into the breach and do just that?
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is right. We are fortunate that Labour has set aside £26.3 billion for the NHS. We have to recognise that commitment, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that money will be set aside for the very invasive disease to which my hon. Friend refers.
ILC currently has no specific treatment and, for those who have been diagnosed, it behaves very differently from the more common type of breast cancer. As we look ahead to the next 10 years, it has been great to learn more about the Lobular Moon Shot Project, which has been supported by this Government, the last Government and hundreds of Members. Everyone in this room supports it, everyone in the Gallery supports it, and everyone outside this room supports it too.
The project was set up in 2023, which is fairly recent. At my age, the years go incredibly fast, but 2023 feels like yesterday. The project seeks to lobby the Government to secure the research funding needed to understand the biology of lobular breast cancer. The project has stated that a major research package is estimated to cost some £20 million over five years, but it has not been prioritised as it should have been. I reiterate what the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said, and I ask that the research is prioritised. The Minister may not be able to tell us about everything that is happening, but we need to hear that commitment.
Some fantastic charities undertake amazing work to support those living with breast cancer, and I have met them both in Westminster and at home in my office, and their work is instrumental in helping people to cope with the physical, mental and emotional side of dealing with a cancer diagnosis. One person will have the cancer, but their family and friends are also affected, as the hon. Lady said.
With this type of cancer, there is a risk of recurrence or spread. Up to 30% of early-stage primary patients will experience spread to their organs, which can be a number of years after the initial diagnosis. This highlights again the need for greater research and funding to ensure early detection and to prevent the cancer’s spread.
The shadow Minister spoke in a debate this morning about research undertaken between Birmingham University, Newcastle University and Queen’s University Belfast. He was talking about rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases, but Queen’s University Belfast has partnerships with other organisations to try to find cures for cancer. Many universities across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are carrying out research, and the Government’s approach to that is vital.
I have gone on a bit longer than I had hoped, but there is more work to be done on researching most cancers. Breast cancer, and specifically lobular breast cancer, impacts the lives of thousands of people every year. It is time to do more as a collective. Today, collectively, Members on both sides of the Chamber are committed to trying to find a cure and trying to find hope for those who have cancer, and who will hopefully survive it, and for their families as well, by undertaking the important research into this awful disease. We are also committed to making men and women across the country aware of the warning signs.
I look to the Minister and her Labour Government, which is my Government—whether you are a Labour person or not, it is our Government and they are trying to do the best they can, and I think they deserve support for their commitment to do so—with sincerity and honesty, perhaps beseechingly, to ensure that the devolved nations are not left behind in terms of a strategy. I look forward to action from the Minister and to her replying to all the requests.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for raising this vital issue. Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for women worldwide, and many, if not all, Members will know somebody who has faced the frightening prospect of breast cancer treatment, which is unfortunately all too common and impacts the lives of millions, whether directly or indirectly. What is fortunate is the progress in detection and treatment, which has provided many patients with positive outlooks and a healthy future life with their loved ones.
Sadly, this prospect is often not afforded to the 15% of breast cancer sufferers diagnosed with invasive lobular cancer. Survival prospects for those with ILC can be relatively good, but only for those who are diagnosed early, before the cancer has spread. I repeat the calls of other Members and Breast Cancer Now to publish the findings of the UK national cancer screening review into breast cancer risk stratification. If improvements are made so that we can detect more elusive forms of breast cancer, tens of thousands of lives could be saved. However, improved detection is not enough by itself. Women diagnosed with ILC face another issue: the treatments they are provided are not tailored or specific to their cancer. In short, they are treated for a disease they do not have.
One of those women, as has been mentioned, is Dr Susan Michaelis, who lives in my constituency of Horsham, where I met her earlier this year. Susan is an incredible woman who has campaigned tirelessly on invasive lobular cancer treatment and research. She was diagnosed with lobular cancer in 2013, but the treatment she then received was designed for ductal cancer, which is the most common form of breast cancer. As a result, Susan’s condition evolved and became resistant to the treatments now available.
Someone less determined might have given up looking for answers, but instead Susan went out and started the Lobular Moon Shot Project and, yes, I have already planted my Susan Michaelis rose. She met research experts to build an idea of the cost of research into the basic biology of invasive lobular cancer in the hope of improving outcomes for those yet to be diagnosed. The Institute of Cancer Research has deemed that £20 million is enough to make significant progress, and Rob Clarke of the Manchester Breast Centre will head up that work in conjunction with world leading experts. That is all agreed.
Since then, Susan and the Lobular Moon Shot Project have lobbied MPs and Government Departments. Hundreds of MPs have supported the application for funding. In the last Parliament, the number was 247; there have already been almost 200 in the current term, and I am sure that many more will join the call. The team at the project should be commended for all their hard work and amazing, ceaseless energy.
Given the Government’s recent announcements about taking a firm business approach to funding within Departments, research into lobular cancer makes for a strong business case as well. Breast Cancer Now research shows that the cost of breast cancer to the UK economy is £2.6 billion. That is set to rise to £3.6 billion by 2034. Ongoing cancer treatment is expensive, with each patient requiring approximately £10,000 a year, whereas the £20 million research request equates to £240 per lobular cancer patient over the next 10 years.
Early detection and better treatment can reduce the overall time the NHS needs to support patients. Put simply, research into lobular cancer saves both lives and money. If the human arguments are not enough for the Government to commit to this vital research, then let us talk about the money. The previous Government included lobular cancer research in their women’s health strategy for England 2024 and acknowledged that there was an urgent, unmet clinical need. I ask the new Secretary of State to renew that commitment and to fund the Lobular Moon Shot Project’s call for research, which will enable the NHS to offer specific treatment to lobular cancer patients and end the one-size-fits-all approach. Dr Susan Michaelis and the lobular ladies hope that they will be the last generation to go through the experience of insufficient treatment and poor outcomes, and I hope that this Government can make that a reality.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for bringing this really important debate to the Chamber and for her excellent speech, which told the story of her friend Heather and the stories of Katy, Emma, Kirstin and Cressida, who have suffered a pernicious type of disease that we are currently unable to treat effectively 100% of the time.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) for their speeches, which were all excellent. I also thank the hon. Members for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for sharing their own stories, which were very helpful to the discussion. I thank Dr Susan Michaelis for the bare-root rose—when we received it in the MPs’ offices, we were all a bit stumped by what the enormous box might be for—and, more importantly, for her tireless campaigning to secure funding for research into lobular breast cancer.
The speeches today have been excellent and detailed, and I wish to avoid repetition. As we have heard, 22 people a day in the UK—mostly women—and 1,000 women globally are diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer. It is the second most common type of breast cancer, so it is really important that we support the Lobular Moon Shot Project. Liberal Democrats will fully support that project, which is run with the Manchester Breast Centre. Some £20 million over five years to better understand the diagnosis and treatment of this disease is not really a significant investment for the Government, but it would have an enormous and meaningful impact for those people—mostly women, but, as I said, there are some men—who are affected by it every single day.
Research funding is such an important part of investment in the early detection and treatment of cancer—particularly for lobular breast cancer—which is better for everyone, including the patients who have been diagnosed. Receiving a diagnosis of any type of cancer is a really difficult moment for any individual and their family, but receiving a diagnosis of a cancer for which there is not a clear treatment pathway is even more concerning. It is really important that we try to address the problem that these women face. It is better for them and for the NHS, because, as we all know, early treatment tends to be more successful and quicker. Because of that, it is also better for the taxpayer. It is entirely consistent with the recently announced Government strategy of rewiring the NHS to focus resources on early prevention, detection and treatment to ensure that people are kept healthy, rather than treated when they are sick.
As other speakers have pointed out, this disease is the sixth most common cancer in women, and it needs to be treated as a distinct disease. We must ensure that women who face this diagnosis are given the treatment for the disease that they have, not for one that they do not have. It is really important that that is built into the Government’s new cancer strategy, which they have committed to work on. The last Government did not have a 10-year cancer plan, although they did include lobular breast cancer in their women’s health strategy, so I was really pleased to see that in a debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, this Government committed to a national cancer strategy. That is a really important step forward, and we are really pleased that the Government felt able to make that step. I hope that for people who have been diagnosed with lobular breast cancer and, indeed, any other type of cancer that the Government are able to deliver on the strategy as soon as possible.
One of my key concerns is the dreadful waiting times for scans and for results from MRI scans, which are the best way of detecting lobular breast cancer, and other types of CT scan. In my constituency of North Shropshire, which is part of the Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin integrated care board, we have some of the worst records in the country for scan interpretation. As a result, I have been contacted by constituents who have had devastating outcomes, where scan results have been delivered to them, only for them to find out that they have been on the wrong type of treatment in the meantime, sometimes for many months. We need to avoid that happening in the future. The leadership team has shown that it can address the problem, and I am pleased to report that it is beginning to do so in Shropshire.
I hope that the cancer strategy will identify where there are shortages of radiologists and of the machinery needed to carry out those scans and to ensure that we hit the 62-day waiting-time target for people who need to start urgent cancer treatment. Part of the capital expenditure plan announced by the Government is critical to that, and I look forward to hearing the details from the Minister.
The Liberal Democrats also want the Government to pass a cancer survival research Act that requires the Government to co-ordinate and ensure funding for less survivable and less common types of cancer, and for types of cancer that are not currently treated as distinct or treated appropriately. We want the time it takes for new treatments to reach patients to be halved, which would mean expanding the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. That would ensure that patients with cancers that do not respond to current standard treatments can access new treatments much more quickly as they come online.
I echo the request of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood and the other hon. Members who have spoken so powerfully today. The Lobular Moon Shot Project would change the lives of 8,500 women in the UK every year. In developing the national cancer strategy, I hope the Minister will consider some of the proposals that we have put forward collectively today, which are aimed at improving detection, treatment and survival rates for people with invasive lobular cancer and all other types of cancer.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure and an honour to serve under your stewardship, Ms Vaz, and even more of an honour to be part of this debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). Not only was her speech emotional, but it was powerful. Cressida, I am sure, is incredibly proud and Heather would be even more proud. That is because the hon. Lady has really done the subject justice today, not only by securing this debate but by bringing the whole room together and highlighting the most salient points. Often in these debates, there is a lot to cover, and the hon. Lady has done it with aplomb.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for speaking up about their personal experiences. That is tough to do, and it is a testament to their constituents that they have put on record, in public, the trials and tribulations they have been through. It is important that people feel they can advocate in this space and lead by example in doing so.
That leads me on to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), who talked about his wife. He is an example of how important it is to have a powerful advocate. Partners and families do exactly that: they advocate for patients who are going through treatment. The fact that he is doing that here as well is incredibly powerful.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I are starting to have regular conversations about health in Westminster Hall debates, with an hour and a half this morning and another hour and a half this afternoon. His passion for health topics is probably only superseded by the volumes of Hansard content he accounts for. He talked about networks, and in research it is important to make sure that we are bringing together the best brains from across the field for the biggest possible research pools. That is much needed.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on highlighting hope. The danger is that we spend too much time talking about difficulties, when over the past couple of decades, breast cancer actually provides a good story of how far advances have been made and survival rates improved. It is important that we point that out, so that not all is doom and gloom. There are fantastic survival rates for breast cancer, for example.
The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to Dr Susan Michaelis, as did the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones). As MPs, we are lobbied a lot, so to have got so many MPs signed up and to have secured debates here repeatedly, month on month and year on year, is an incredible testament to the character of Dr Michaelis.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), rightly highlighted access. When it comes to making sure we get diagnoses, access is key. The last Government rolled out community diagnostic centres—almost 170 of them. When it comes to diseases such as breast cancer, I hope that new MRI and CT scanners will become available, allowing us to have better screening pathways, because that is what often limits a screening programme. That access is now being widened so dramatically, with the Government confirming this morning that they are continuing with it, is a sign of great cross-party working, which we all know the NHS needs.
Much has been said about lobular breast cancer in this debate, and for me it matters because of the way it presents. One can take the doctor out of medicine but not the medicine out of the doctor, so I will use this opportunity to ensure that people are aware that they should regularly check their breasts. They should look for lumps but also for skin changes, or what we call peau d’orange—it looks a little like orange peel—on the breast. They should also look for slight changes, a little bit of discharge or blood. Lumps, bumps and discharge do not mean an individual has cancer; it simply means they need to be assessed.
One of the great things about the set-up in this country is that it is quick and accessible—a good success story—but we need to ensure that people feel comfortable and able to come forward. Cases have been highlighted where clinicians did not seem to trust women. It is important that clinicians trust women’s instincts. Women know their own breasts, and when they are aware of changes, they must be taken seriously. We have a chance through clinical pathways to do that, which is important.
We heard that 22 women a day in the UK are diagnosed with lobular breast cancer. As someone who has given that diagnosis, my next piece of advice for anyone unfortunate enough to receive a diagnosis of breast cancer is to ask whether it is lobular or ductal. That is often forgotten. As a clinician, I have never been asked that question, but it would help to change the narrative of expectations about what treatments may be available, and promote understanding. If a patient speaks to someone else with breast cancer, they might wonder why their treatment is different. It is important to educate people, not in a condescending way, but to appreciate the general difference. Treatments are becoming so specialised and nuanced that all will not be the same, and that can be quite disconcerting.
I pay tribute to those who are battling lobular cancer, the cancer survivors and the campaigners from Lobular Breast Cancer UK for their tireless work in raising the issue. Of course, the ultimate goal is to have a cure for lobular breast cancer. Advances in medical research and treatment options are moving us closer to that goal. In 2022, the Government invested £29 million into the Institute for Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden biomedical research centre to support research into cancer, including lobular breast cancer. That included a £1.3 million project to determine whether abbreviated forms of breast MRI can detect breast cancers missed in screening. That links to the point about having more MRI scanners, which might well enable better research to determine the way to pick these things up and improve the ability to deliver.
I am pleased the previous Government supported, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research clinical research network, 10 further lobular breast cancer-related studies. I am also reassured by the Lobular Moon Shot Project, which we have heard a lot about. I pay tribute to the former Member for Horsham, Sir Jeremy Quin, who did a lot to raise that issue. I am pleased to see the new hon. Member for Horsham standing in his shoes to raise it now. It would be useful to know if the £20 million for the five-year study is being looked at by the Government. It was raised several times with the previous Government, but an election got in the way and power changed hands. It would be interesting to see if the proposals have been reviewed and merit the Government taking them forward.
A key measure that has been missed to some extent is guidelines. Lobular Breast Cancer UK is to launch a campaign calling for national breast cancer guidelines to be updated to recognise lobular breast cancer. Will the Minister commit to reviewing and updating the guidelines with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence? We have also heard about devolved powers. Scotland, for instance, has the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. It would be useful to know whether the Minister will raise this issue with the devolved nations to ensure we have a joined-up approach, without any cross-boundary difficulties.
I do not want to turn this into a political battle because this is not the place, but I put it gently to the Minister that we have heard about the need for support, a lot of which comes from charities. The changes in national insurance contributions for employers have hit charities, including the likes of Breast Cancer Now, Macmillan and Marie Curie. They are not shielded from the rises. I will be grateful if the Minister considers raising with Treasury what can be done to help support those crucial nurses, advice lines and workers, so as to make sure that when people are going through these difficulties—we have heard how complex the scene can be, particularly in breast cancer—advice is accessible to all.
I thank all those who took part in this debate, and I remind people to regularly examine their breasts. If there is a change, seek help. If a diagnosis of cancer is given, ask if it is lobular or ductal. Finally, remember that no one is alone. As we have heard today, many people suffer from cancer and there is support out there—from the NHS, charities, family and friends—so do not be fearful. Speak out and get that support.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I add my thanks to all hon. Members for their contributions and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). First let me say how sorry I am to hear about her friend. Those are very precious friendships and I think my hon. Friend articulated that well today. My deepest sympathies to Heather’s loved ones who are with us today and to her wider family group. It is a really difficult time and this is a very recent bereavement to be talking about. My hon. Friend has used her voice as a parliamentarian to good effect, as she always does, and I congratulate her on doing that. I hope I can go some way to answering the questions she raised at the end of her speech. If I do not and she is not satisfied, I will make sure officials get back to her on the specifics.
I also echo the words of the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) about hon. Members raising their personal experiences and the importance of support from partners and wider family members for people who are going through diagnosis, treatment and sadly, often, death.
We know that too many cancer patients are being failed. They are waiting too long for life-saving treatments and receiving a diagnosis too late. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister reiterated last week, we have inherited a broken NHS but it is not beyond repair. We know it needs to be fixed and there is not a single solution. To ensure that more people survive cancer, including lobular breast cancer, we have to take a multi-pronged approach—catching it earlier so more treatments are available, raising awareness of its specific symptoms, and investing in equipment and research, as many hon. Members have raised today. All those actions are part of our plan to put the NHS on the road to recovery.
As we have heard today, according to Cancer Research UK lobular breast cancer is the second most common type of breast cancer. Also known as lobular carcinoma, it impacts the lives of many—around 15 in every 100 breast cancers are invasive lobular. Treatments for lobular breast cancer are broadly similar to those for other breast cancers. Surgery and radiotherapy are effective for most patients with primary invasive types, meaning those which have not spread to other parts of the body. Systemic therapy such as chemotherapy, hormonal treatment, targeted therapy or immunotherapy are usually offered based on the stage at which the NHS catches that cancer.
Another factor which can determine clinicians’ decisions on the best treatment option is how the cancer has spread or developed in each patient’s case and we understand that is different for different patients. Sadly my understanding is that when cancer is growing in more than one location, as is more common in lobular breast cancer, treatment is more challenging. The same is true when a cancer has spread to other parts of the body. To improve outcomes in such challenging cases, NHS England funded an audit into both primary and metastatic breast cancer that has spread. The scoping for this audit began in October 2022 and the results were published in September this year. NHS England are hopeful that the results will help to improve the consistency of treatments offered, as well as stimulate improvements.
We know that for far too many women, lobular breast cancer is diagnosed at a later stage, which means that treatment options are more limited. The key to improving survival must lie in raising awareness, and early detection and diagnosis. I am not sure I can do it as well as the shadow Minister, but I want to use this opportunity to raise awareness of the fact that not all breast cancers form a firm lump. I think he articulated really well what women should be looking for. Lobular breast cancer patients are more likely to have thickened areas of breast tissue. Possible symptoms include an area of swelling, a change in the nipple or a change in the skin, such as dimpling. I encourage everyone to check their breasts regularly and to consult their GP straightaway if they have any concerns. While more people are surviving breast cancer than ever before, we know that lobular breast cancers can be particularly hard to detect.
Another measure to support earlier diagnosis of breast cancer is screening before people notice symptoms. Our screening programme sends women their first invitation at the age of 50. To support detection, the NHS carries out approximately 2.1 million breast cancer screens each year in hospitals and mobile screening vans, usually in convenient community locations, but—this is a really shocking figure that I learned recently in another debate in Westminster Hall, which shows how important it is that Members raise these issues—take-up of breast cancer screening is currently below 70%. That is worryingly low, and we are determined to improve it. Every effort that hon. Members here and people listening to this debate can make to improve that take-up rate will help save lives. If someone is eligible for screening, they should come forward and take up that important offer.
Unfortunately, even for those women who come forward for a mammogram, we know that lobular breast cancer can be more difficult to catch than other types of breast cancer. We have heard some shocking stories and examples today. To ensure that women survive, we need to be relentless in researching every possible avenue of treatment and diagnosis. Examples of innovation supported by my Department include £1.3 million invested in a Bristol-based FAST MRI project, which will determine whether different types of scans can help detect cancer in a cost-effective manner. The FAST MRI project focuses on an abbreviated MRI, which is a shortened version of a breast MRI. This type of imaging can help to detect the most aggressive forms of breast cancer sometimes missed by screening through mammography, including lobular breast cancer.
My Department is also working closely with UK Research and Innovation and the Medical Research Council. These bodies are responsible for studies that look to understand the basic mechanisms of disease. Combined, they spend £125 million on cancer research each year. My officials also meet regularly with partners to discuss a wide range of our research investments and ways to stimulate new proposals. These include those for lobular breast cancers.
Through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, my Department will continue to encourage and welcome applications for new research in this area. I hope this addresses the shadow Minister’s point, but funds for research are still available through the NIHR. Funds are awarded through open competition informed by expert peer review, with active involvement of patients and the public. The Department and NIHR also advise the campaign on the Lobular Moon Shot Project. It has already contracted £29 million, which I think is the figure the shadow Minister referred to, to the Institute of Cancer Research and its partner at the Royal Marsden. This proposal included work on lobular breast cancer. I hope I have addressed that point, but if I have not, then please let me know.
We know that we must do more to rise to the growing challenge that cancers including lobular breast cancer represent, but for our efforts in detecting and understanding this complicated disease to be effective, we need to back fundamental reform in the health service. That is why we have launched the biggest national conversation about the future of the NHS since its birth to shape the 10-year plan. We need suggestions from hon. Members on how to go further in preventing cancer where we can. I urge everyone to visit the website change.nhs.uk to do so.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The risk of all breast cancers in women is reduced by 4.3% for every 12 months of breastfeeding, but the UK has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the western world: only 1% of children are still exclusively breastfed at six months. Does the Minister agree that community initiatives to encourage women to breastfeed for longer support the Government’s mission to reduce the risk of breast cancers and improve health outcomes overall?
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Lady for that really important point. She highlights another important issue affecting the health of women and children, and I agree with her.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood spoke about women’s health overall, which is an important priority for this Government, as are these forms of cancer and the wider preventive agenda. That is another point that can be made on the change.nhs.uk website, which I will keep plugging. The issues that have been raised on it by the public and staff are really interesting and informative.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been clear that there should be a national cancer plan. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) made helpful points about that opportunity. I will not take up his invitation for a meeting; his point would be better made by being inputted into the process with the organisations he is in touch with. That would help to shape the national cancer plan, which we can all buy into as a country. The plan will include more details about how to improve outcomes for all tumour types, including lobular breast cancer, and ensure that patients have access to the latest treatments and technology. We are now in discussions about what form that plan should take and what its relationship with the 10-year health plan and the Government’s wider health missions should be. We will provide updates on that in due course.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood for bringing this important matter to the House.
Karin Smyth
I was going to come to that. I am not fully au fait with the change in guidelines that the hon. Gentleman referred to, so I will happily take that point away. He made a wider point about aligning across the devolved regions. Obviously, some of these issues are devolved and we have to respect the devolution arrangements. On the wider research, we should learn from each other, understanding that we have similar patient cohorts. There is lots of good medical work going on, and the Government are determined to work respectfully across the devolved nations. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a written answer on the specifics of his question.
Heartbreaking stories such as Heather’s remind us that diseases such as lobular breast cancer are complex. They are hard to catch, and therefore treat. Such tragic losses are a wake-up call for us all, and I commend all hon. Members for raising those stories. For people listening in, as well as those who have attended the debate, they are an important way to raise awareness. We are grateful to those who have shared their personal stories, which help us get the NHS back on its feet so that we can better serve the people who need it.
Improving cancer survival requires a multi-pronged approach to ensure that patients have timely access to effective treatments, built on the foundations of world-class research. We have already taken immediate steps to allow cancer patients to benefit from the most up-to-date technology. Through the recent Budget, we committed to surgical hubs and scanners to allow for 30,000 more procedures each year, and we are increasing capacity for tests. We have also committed another £70 million for radiotherapy machines. Lots of hon. Members have raised those points. I have outlined several measures today, and I assure Members that improving outcomes for cancer patients, including those with lobular breast cancer, remains a top priority for this Government.
Helen Hayes
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed. They have brought their constituents’ stories and their own personal experiences to the debate. We have many issues to work on in this House, but there is a particular responsibility when an issue presents itself in a personal way through a devastating story, whether that is through a constituent, somebody we know or our own personal experience. When we see an opportunity for things to be done, it is imperative for us all to bring that to this place. I am grateful to hon. Members for the spirit in which the debate has been conducted, the high level of consensus and the high level of commitment to see change for patients with lobular cancer.
I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement with the debate. I know she is committed to this area. In closing, I ask that she looks in further detail at two issues. The first is the proportional allocation of the funding available through the NIHR for research into breast cancer. We have heard again and again today that lobular cancer accounts for 15% of all breast cancers, yet currently attracts only a tiny fraction of dedicated research. We know that the improvements we have seen in treatments and outcomes for different types of cancer diagnosis always hinge on the investment put into research to find the cures. There is a disproportionality there that can and must be changed.
The second area I ask the Minister to look at in a little more detail is the advice and guidance given to clinicians in primary care, to make sure that there is a consistent understanding of the symptoms of lobular cancer and its distinctiveness as a disease compared with ductal cancer, and to make sure that every woman presenting to her GP is able to access accurate advice and swift onward referral. It is important across the whole range of women’s health conditions that women are trusted and listened to when they present with symptoms to their GP, and this is an area where I believe primary care can do better, be more consistent and deliver better outcomes as a consequence.
I pay tribute once again to Dr Susan Michaelis and all those who campaign on this issue on the basis of their deeply difficult personal experiences. I give my commitment that for as long as I have a voice in this place, I will continue to work on this issue until we see the changes that are needed.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I thank everyone who took part in and attended this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the treatment of lobular breast cancer.
Telegraph Poles: Birmingham
(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered telegraph poles in Birmingham.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and I welcome the Minister to his place. I want to thank him, as I know he has been working extremely hard on the issue by meeting MPs and working with the industry and regulators. The installation of telegraph poles is an issue that has been landing in the inboxes of MPs across the House and from across the country. In view of that, I hope he does not mind my summoning him to Westminster Hall to take more questions.
I pay tribute to the many constituents I have worked with on the issue over the past two years, including the residents of Vernon Road, Montague Road in Edgbaston, Chad Road, Clarendon Road, Gravel Bank in Bartley Green, and Perrott’s Folly near the Waterworks tower. In particular, I pay tribute to the campaigning of my constituent Lizzy Jordan, who has left no stone unturned in trying to engage with the provider, Brsk, about which I will say more in a moment. Lizzy and our local residents have been a powerhouse. Last year, we managed to convince Brsk to move a pole in front of Perrott’s Folly and the Waterworks tower. This has a huge significance to our heritage, as the towers inspired JRR Tolkien in “The Lord of the Rings”.
We have been pushing Brsk to do right by the residents in our area, but it is exhausting work. Over the past two years, I have engaged with, sent numerous emails to and met Brsk’s west midlands representatives. I joined a resident-led protest against Brsk installing poles outside Perrott’s Folly in my North Edgbaston ward. I have convened and attended a meeting between residents and Brsk about Vernon Road, Clarendon Road and Montague Road. I have written to the last Government and this on several occasions, and submitted evidence ahead of MPs’ roundtables on the issue. I have raised my concerns with Ofcom through letters, and I continue to support my constituents with casework. I think we all agree that it should not take a well-organised community campaign and an active local MP to get a provider to meet its statutory duties, and that is why I have called today’s debate.
I want to say that I and the vast majority of my constituents support the roll-out of new broadband infrastructure. The importance of improving broadband speeds and access to the internet should not be underestimated. Nearly all aspects of our everyday lives —education, work, communication, entertainment—are made possible by the continuous expansion and upgrading of telecoms networks. There are significant digital dark spots in my constituency, such as in North Edgbaston and parts of Harborne, Quinton, Edgbaston and Bartley Green especially. In several areas, superfast broadband coverage is among the worst 10% of areas in the UK. According to recently published House of Commons Library data, 3.8% of lines across my constituency do not even have 10 megabits per second download speeds, with notable clusters of poor coverage in the most deprived areas, such as Bartley Green, and I have asked Brsk to focus on that area.
I am not quick to forget how damaging the pandemic was for many of our children. Particularly in deprived areas with poor connections, we were unable to access remote learning. I and the vast majority of my constituents understand that the roll-out will provide a boost to our economy and set Britain up for the rest of this digital century. This infrastructure will provide opportunities and lower prices, and it can improve people’s lives, but there are ways of going about it. First, we should focus on areas that do not have coverage, not those that do.
As the Minister has himself acknowledged, while the majority of providers are trying to do right by local people by making efforts to consult and not put up poles, some providers in my constituency such as Brsk have occasionally behaved like cowboys by not using existing infrastructure, failing to consult residents with the adequate 28 days’ notice, failing to observe the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requirements to ensure that pathways are clear and accessible until they are told to do so, failing to secure the right council permits for works, and putting up poles everywhere as the only means to address coverage. Given that Brsk’s business is communications, it is ironic how poor it has been at communicating with its stakeholders. The crux of the issue is that such companies are not exploring alternatives to poles or using existing infrastructure when they can. To give some of many examples—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. The debate may now continue until 5.08 pm.
Preet Kaur Gill
The crux of the issue is that these companies are not exploring alternatives to poles or using existing infrastructure when they can. I will give some of many examples. Freedom of information requests to our local council revealed that Brsk did not need to put up poles on Clarendon Road in my constituency, because it could have utilised existing ducts—but it did so anyway, ignoring that fact. Vernon Road is another example; BT installed full-fibre to St Paul’s school for girls at that location without any requirement for poles, yet a constituent came to my surgery on Friday to tell me that another pole had gone up, with a notice on the council’s planning portal appearing only after the pole had been erected. That is even after the Minister’s meeting with Brsk.
I have met Brsk and exchanged exhaustive correspondence on these issues. What has struck me in my dealings with the firm is the lack of policy or strategy for work in my constituency. Poles are supposed to be a last resort, but even where they are not needed, like on Vernon Road, several go up anyway. There are now four on that road. Frequently, when issues are raised, they are not listened to. I asked Brsk for a map of where it is planning to roll out poles in my constituency, and it could not give me one. There is either a plan that it will not share or there really is no strategic focus on where the infrastructure is needed.
My constituents have had similar experiences. An elderly constituent wrote to me earlier this year, deeply worried that a Brsk telegraph pole on an adjoining road, installed less than a metre from her back garden fence, was so close that it could easily provide burglars with access to her property. She told me she lives in perpetual fear that her house could be broken into. More importantly, that was avoidable. Had Brsk simply made an effort to engage first with residents about changes in their community, she would not have been left in that situation.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene. She makes a powerful point on behalf of her constituents. In my constituency, we have a similar situation in Stourport-on-Severn, where firms are using permitted development rights in areas where residents are not even allowed to put up a garden fence because of planning approvals. Does she agree that it is a cynical attempt by many of these providers to build an infrastructure that provides capital value that can be sold on? That is less to do with delivering full-fibre broadband than with making money in the short term for those operators.
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the hon. Member for that important point about the business model. There are alternative ways to implement the infrastructure. In areas like his, this activity does not respect the environment, heritage or planning laws, and we end up with poles erected. Some of them do not even have any lines going through them, which just goes to show that the existing infrastructure meant there was no need for that, but, as he says, it is clearly quite a lucrative business model to sell on the new infrastructure.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. We had similar issues with Brsk when it went on to an unadopted road in a conservation area and started erecting poles. My constituents, Dr Carole McKeown —the secretary for Reddings and Amesbury Road residents association—and her neighbour came to see me. Following the intervention of the Minister, Brsk has agreed to remove the poles, but the point remains that the consultation with and notification of the residents did not happen. These are not isolated incidents. Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be tougher action against companies that go about their business without any adherence to the code of conduct?
Preet Kaur Gill
I know that the Minister, in summing up, will address that point, because he has been proactive in meeting the regulator and the companies tasked with installing this infrastructure. He has already given them a clear indication of where the Government will go next if they do not adhere to the code. I also know that he has met Brsk since the previous debate on the issue; I thank him for that.
I was interested to read confirmation that Brsk now has guaranteed access to BT Openreach infrastructure to install broadband lines underground, so why is it not doing so? It is not its business model—that is why it is not doing it. I would be interested to learn from the Minister when that was agreed, because Brsk has not been taking advantage of that in my constituency to date.
Some providers are much better at this. I want to ensure that not everybody is painted with the same brush. There are some very good providers. Last year, broadband infrastructure carried out by Pipeline Utilities on behalf of Grain Connect left Willow Avenue in my constituency with some dreadful retarmacking, as well as broken and cracked paving slabs. When I wrote to the organisation about this, it confirmed that the site was inspected, and agreed to replace and relay the broken paving slabs and tarmac. That is exactly how we should be proceeding.
My experience with Brsk has been very different. Repeatedly, it will arrive in an area to erect new broadband infrastructure poles without properly consulting residents or me. We have seen that behaviour on Vernon Road, Clarendon Road, Chad Road and Stirling Road. The company’s idea of consultation appears to be to put up a notice stating its intention to put up another pole—in some cases, with little to no consultation period. Sometimes, I am told, a notice has not gone up at all, despite my best efforts and those of my constituents to raise concerns about the siting of the poles. We have been ignored. This means that the infrastructure ends up causing issues that could have been foreseen or avoided if there were proper consultation.
Poles have been erected in the middle of pavements, obstructing prams, wheelchairs and people with mobility issues. There have been attempts to erect unsightly poles in front of listed buildings, instead of exploring other options. Some roads are being peppered with poles, even when we are told they are a last resort. It is time for stronger action. Clearly, Brsk is not heeding Government advice.
As we all know, since the rules were changed by the previous Government in 2016, there is no requirement for planning permission for poles up to 15 metres in height, and there is no legal requirement for consultation with local residents and businesses. Good practice asks telecoms communications operators to notify the council of their intention to install a pole, as well as to advertise their development proposal within the vicinity of the site, usually via a site notice, but in reality there is no real opportunity to object to an installation. There needs to be a strategy that targets areas of need and uses existing infrastructure.
We are all familiar with the fact that the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003 require that, among other things, operators must share apparatus where possible, and use underground rather than overground lines where they can—yet that is not happening in practice. I know roads where as many as five or six poles have been erected. It is ugly, disruptive and excessive, and it impacts on house prices.
As these issues are a matter for the regulator, Ofcom, I seek the Minister’s clarification on what monitoring of these requirements is being carried out to ensure that network providers collaborate and share network infrastructure, and what action Ofcom has been taking against providers who have been found to not comply. When I wrote to Ofcom, it said its role is
“limited to enforcement of the Regulations”
and that, under those,
“operators have significant flexibility…to put up their own poles.”
I know that the Minister has been looking at a revision of the code of practice. We would be grateful if he could say more on that. I also welcome that he has stated that he reserves the right to change the law in this area.
It strikes me that stronger adherence to the regulations on sharing infrastructure is one of those rare examples where stronger regulation will actually save companies and consumers money. Surely it is cheaper for companies to co-ordinate with one another over the sharing of infrastructure than to erect new poles every time they need a new node for their network. It is baffling and frustrating that providers such as Brsk have not been more proactive in anticipating the concerns of the public before Ofcom has had to get involved. Fundamentally, my constituents of Birmingham Edgbaston are asking for respect: respect to influence decisions, and to ensure that broadband infrastructure is implemented in a way that respects their local environment, heritage and public interest.
I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on work to amend and strengthen the code of practice, so that operators respond to and engage in good faith with residents. I would also be keen to hear the outcome of his recent engagement with Brsk, having shared with him my experience of dealing with it, and to understand what more we can do to ensure that providers work together to share infrastructure, and that the requirements under the 2003 regulations are adhered to and enforced. I thank the Minister for his attention and look forward to working with him.
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
It is a great delight to sit under your chairpersonship, Ms Vaz. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) on securing this debate. I think she knows that she is one of my favourite MPs; we have canvassed together often in variety of places, so it is a great delight to hear from her.
My hon. Friend speaks of being an active constituency MP, and that is precisely what she has evidenced. She is not alone on this issue. The list of MPs who want to talk to me about ducts and poles is quite long, because a lot of people are concerned. They fully understand, as she has laid out, that we want to roll out better infrastructure. If we are going to have the digital economy that we want for the future and if we are to compete with other countries around the world, we certainly have to get digital infrastructure rolled out. Obviously, the Government are not going to pay for all of that—that would be a very big ticket item—so we want as much of this as possible to happen on a commercial basis, and I will refer in a moment to the comments of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) about the business model that people may be adopting.
We also do not want to have a single operator delivering for the whole country, which is why it is important to have a degree of competition. When I was in opposition, I was very opposed to the idea of monopoly in provision through Openreach or, for that matter, any other player simply because monopoly does not tend to be good for consumers. It tends also to make an incumbent lazy, and it can lead to anti-competitive practices.
For all those reasons, we have ended up with the system that we have, and we want to roll out gigabit-capable broadband to as much of the country as possible. The Government will intervene in the areas where that will not happen commercially, but I say to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston that we have to be a bit careful about saying, “It’s disgraceful that these people are making money”, because if they did not make money, they would not be rolling it out on a commercial basis and then we might have to intervene a great deal more in the market. But there is a countervailing argument: if operators behave in a way that lacks compassion or sensitivity to the local situation, it is extremely unlikely that anybody in that local community is going to buy their products, so it could destroy their commercial agendas and business strategies if they are so high-handed in their approaches to local communities when it comes to the siting of poles and so on.
Mark Garnier
I thank the Minister for his letter, which was incredibly helpful; I am grateful to him for engaging on this. The point I was making was not that the business model is about a cash flow revenue coming from the delivery of broadband, but that some of these businesses are cynically creating a capital asset that they then want to sell off. It is the infrastructure asset, not the cash flow, that they are after. That is where we get this competition of people building out the poles to create a capital value asset, not a cash flow value asset.
Chris Bryant
I do not know whether that is right or not, so I will reserve judgment, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. It is certainly true that there may be some consolidation in the market in the next 18 months to two years. Some people have been expecting that before now. Whether that would apply to Brsk or not, I have not the faintest idea, but the point remains that, if these organisations are to have a successful business model, in the end they do need to be able to sell take-up.
One thing that is missing from this whole conversation is an explanation to the public of why on earth anybody might need fibre. Notwithstanding the areas in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston where they do not even have 10 megabits per second, which I hope we might be able to do something about in the near future, lots of people say, “Well, I’ve already got 100 megabits per second, so why on earth would I need a gigabit per second? Incidentally, I don’t know what a megabit per second is anyway.” In that world, we have to do a great deal more education about what the future is going to look like. It is certainly true that all the apps and the IT that the country and the Government are increasingly relying on are increasingly hungry for bandwidth; there is no way of avoiding that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that we need to develop this infrastructure.
This Government have been very clear, and the previous Government were relatively clear, that we wanted this infrastructure to progress in a way that was sensitive to local communities. That meant that we had to have proper consultation and to be careful about the siting of poles. We wanted to encourage co-operation and collaboration between different players in the market, so that roads were not dug up two years in a row or three months after the last company dug it up, for example. All that was laid out in the original guidance in 2016. Incidentally, that guidance was provided not by the Government but by the industry. This is an important point: the industry is currently looking at revising that code. It is very close to a revised version. I do not think that that is quite ready yet, but I anticipate that it might come in the new year.
The simple point that I have made repeatedly to all the operators in this field is that if they want people to take up their service and buy their product, they have to take people with them. At our meeting with Brsk last week, Brsk made it clear that if all the members of a community, especially one cut off from everywhere else and not on the way to another place, said, “Look, we don’t want this,” it would work out that there was no point putting in poles, digging up the road or whatever, because there would not be any take-up of its services from that community in future. It would simply say, “All right, fine. We’re not going there.”
As I say, the difficulty lies where one road leads—as is often the case—to another, and the people on the next bit of road still want the roll-out even if the people on the first bit do not.
Tahir Ali
I thank the Minister for his intervention with Brsk and for getting the officers in for a chat with MPs last week, and I welcome what has happened since in my constituency. Does he agree that where existing underground infrastructure is already available, companies should be forced to use that rather than erecting poles that no one really wants or likes?
Chris Bryant
Let me be 100% clear: where there is existing infrastructure—ducts under the road or whatever —that can be used. In fact, it should be used and different companies should collaborate to make that happen. I am 100% clear that existing infrastructure should and must be used.
There are a few caveats, as the companies themselves would advance. Sometimes people think there is a duct when there is only a cable that has been laid straight into the mud underneath. Alternatively, the pavement might now be so full of different things, including gas connections, water connections, electricity connections and so on, that there is no space for anything else to be ducted through, or the duct sleeve is so full that nothing else can be put in and another sleeve cannot be put in either. I know that is quite a long set of caveats, but those are the realities of the situation.
The commercial reality is that inserting a new duct—that is, digging up the road and putting everything underground —might be very attractive to everybody in the community, but it is nine or 10 times more expensive than putting things on poles. If we want commercial operators to roll things out, there are certain situations where there are going to be poles. I cannot hide that from anybody; it is a simple reality.
As I was saying earlier, the cabinet siting and pole siting code of practice was issued in November 2016. It sets out guidance on best practice relating to deployment, encouraging operators to site apparatus responsibly and to engage proactively with local authorities and the local community. However, some of the things that I have seen being put in—including by Brsk; not often by many other operators—are clearly in the middle of a pathway or driveway, or in other places that are completely inappropriate.
As I understood it in our meeting last week, and indeed in the exchange of letters after that meeting, Brsk committed to change its policy in such situations. At that meeting, Brsk also undertook to engage in far more proper consultation with people. It will not just put up a sign saying, “We are about to put a pole here,” and then put a pole up the next day; it will engage in proper consultation, which means going door to door and explaining things to people. In many areas, Brsk will bring the local community together for a public meeting.
One Member who came to that meeting with Brsk last week said that there had been such a public meeting in their constituency. It had been very effective and people understood the quid pro quo, which was that if there was no means of doing something by ducting, there would have to be poles; if people did not want poles, they would not get the roll-out of fibre; and other operators were not operating in that field. People said, “Okay, well in that set of circumstances, we still want this roll-out to happen, so we will live with poles.” I think most people can live with that model, but even when that is agreed, we still have to make sure that we do not put poles in the middle of someone’s driveway or where they will obstruct people and not meet the requirements of the disability measures in the Equality Act 2010.
As I said earlier, I know the industry has been working together closely. It is not easy or simple to get commercial operators that have their own investors and shareholders in competition with one another to sit down to agree a new guide and a new code of practice, so I pay tribute to everybody at the Independent Networks Co-operative Association for engaging in that way. The vast majority of the altnet companies engaged in that activity are absolutely determined. They want to take the community with them because they want to be able to sell their product, and because they are responsible players in the market. I pay tribute to them where they have managed to do that.
As Brsk knows, we will hold its feet to the fire on all the commitments that it has made in private meetings with me, in the meetings with MPs that we held last week, and in writing. Before it starts rolling out in a particular area, it needs to explore far more thoroughly what ducting might be available, which might be through BT Openreach or Virgin. It will consult properly in a local area where people lobby and argue that the siting of a pole is particularly inappropriate. It will look at moving it in so far as it possibly can.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that the siting of poles is particularly important when we consider national landscapes? It needs to take into account the broader context. Does he also agree that, where local communities are willing to engage with operators and local authorities to fund undergrounding, that would be a good approach?
Chris Bryant
That is the first time that anybody has come to me and said that a local community would fund the ducting, which is an expensive business. All sorts of competition issues might then arise. I am hesitant to advance a yes or a no to that, because one would have to explore whether that was in effect a state subsidy, how that would be provided and what kind of contract there would be for maintenance of the duct—I can foresee all sorts of problems. I am not trying to be a part of the blob, but simply to be as clear as I can about what is possible and what is not.
The hon. Member makes an important point about the desirability of poles in areas of natural beauty and whether we can or cannot have poles. I have seen many different instances—I have tried to go through as many of them as possible as a Minister—such as where people thought the issue was about a duct that somebody was refusing to use, and it turns out it is not a duct at all but a cable laid in sand, so I am quite hesitant about holding forth on where we can or absolutely cannot have a pole.
In case anybody thinks I am being nimbyish, I have poles in my street, and I am about to have another set of poles in my street. I am relatively chilled about that, but I fully understand the issue where someone has never had a pole in their street. Part of the area’s beauty is that it looks remarkably like it did in the 18th or 19th century, and people want to preserve it that way. The downside is that commercially they will probably not get gigabit-capable and fibre-based broadband, which might be more of a problem for the community than having the poles.
I think I have exhausted the subject, unless anybody else wants to have a go at me. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston. I am sure that we will return to the issue as many times as necessary if Brsk refuses to fulfil its promises. I believe that when we sat down with the senior management, they were sincere and honest in the commitment that they were making, and that they did not have as full an understanding of people’s feelings in some communities as they needed to have. As I promised my favourite MP—I cannot say that too often—I will hold the company’s feet to the fire throughout.
Question put and agreed to.
Rural Cycling Infrastructure
(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered cycling infrastructure in rural areas.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the Minister for being here to listen to this important debate, and I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of Oxfordshire county council.
During my time living in the Netherlands as a young student, not so many years ago, I experienced at first hand the ease of cycling. Villages and towns are interconnected by safe cycle routes, which make taking a bike the obvious choice. I fondly remember cycling from my university in Leiden to the beach in Katwijk. Never once did I feel concerned about the quality of roads or any danger; never once did I feel the need to take a car.
Later, living in Brussels, I saw the stark differences between the traditionally cycle-friendly Flemish region and the car-dominated capital city. However, conscious policy decisions are changing cities. Brussels, like many capital cities across Europe, including our own, is now reclaiming road space from private motor vehicles and giving it over to active travel.
I am proud to be part of the administration in Oxfordshire that pedestrianised the famous Broad Street, much to the criticism of local Conservatives, and is rolling out further measures across the city. These policy decisions in cities demonstrate that there is no natural order to transport infrastructure. Transport choices are made consciously and by design. Although much more needs to be done in cities and towns, rural areas risk being left behind, and the consequences are paid in lives lost and lives ruined.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. He talked about connecting villages. In Oxford West and Abingdon we have Botley and Eynsham, which are both growing in population, but whenever designs are put forward, they are often missing the pots of money. Even though we tried to get a design linked to the expansion of the A40, we were told that we could not, because if we did, that bid would fail. That is entirely the opposite of what we would expect from a modal shift. Does my hon. Friend agree that the funding pots available and how they connect are at odds with what the Government say they want to do, particularly regarding a modal shift towards biking and other forms of active travel?
Freddie van Mierlo
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that funding is key to resolving these issues. In particular, slashing the active travel fund from £200 million to £50 million, as the Conservatives did in 2023, was shameful.
While much more needs to be done in towns and cities, more also needs to be done in rural areas. Mortality rates on rural roads are 2.7 times higher per mile cycled than on urban roads. If the Government continue to ignore rural areas in policy development, it could have devastating consequences.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. I am very lucky that my constituency is interconnected by a series of rivers and canals, the Mid Cheshire waterways ring. When I am among council officers, I refer to it as “the fellowship of the ring”, just so they remember. It runs 26 miles around my constituency and is crying out to be used as a cycleway. It is far safer to use canal towpaths than traditional cycleways. They are already traffic-free, and it is much cheaper to develop the infrastructure and implement it. That potential no doubt exists nationwide. Does he agree that there is significant untapped potential for rolling out a cycle network across our canal towpath network?
Freddie van Mierlo
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I agree that we could make better use of the significant infrastructure that is already in place, whether that is canal towpaths or former railways and other such infrastructure.
I am calling on the Government today to commit to investing in safe, off-road cycling routes and segregated cycle lanes in rural areas. In Oxfordshire, I am pleased to share with this Chamber that the Liberal Democrat-led administration is taking steps to link up towns and villages that are characteristic of the stunning Chilterns national landscape, Oxford green belt and wider open countryside. The county has adopted Vision Zero, the ambition to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on our roads by 2030. It has already developed a strategic active travel network that draws lines on the map of prioritised cycle routes that would connect towns and villages to one another and to Oxford and cities of the surrounding counties. Yet for now, they remain just lines on a map, unfunded. The county adopted a new model to replace the old car-centric “predict and provide” methodology for deciding infrastructure and replaced it with “decide and provide”. Oxfordshire has decided, but it lacks the central Government funding needed to provide.
Even getting a simple project off the ground is a challenge. The Thame to Haddenham greenway is a project that has been mooted for more than 20 years. It would connect the market town of Thame, the largest settlement in the Henley and Thame constituency, to the nearby village of Haddenham in Buckinghamshire, just two miles away. Crucially, Haddenham is host to the Thame and Haddenham Parkway rail station that links the town to London. Cycling from Thame to Haddenham currently requires a high degree of confidence and a tolerance for risk to mix in alongside the heavy traffic of the A418.
The wildly popular Phoenix trail from Thame to Princes Risborough already proves high demand for off-road rural cycle infrastructure, but it is not just funding that is stifling the rural cycling revolution. Compulsory purchase powers are often wielded to make progress on road projects but are not used to deliver cycle infrastructure. This means that most projects barely get beyond the idea phase.
A cycleway that links Chinnor to Watlington via the village of Lewknor in my constituency, which sits just next to the M40, would transform the lives of thousands of people by providing an active travel link to London and Oxford via the Oxford tube. However, ideas never make it beyond a general agreement that it would be quite nice, because local landowners oppose it. I urge the Government to break free from the visionless Conservative legacy and take on these barriers to change. The Government must stop the lip service of the past.
In 2017, a walking and cycling strategy aimed to make active travel a natural choice. The Department for Transport active travel fund was set up to reallocate road space to cyclists and pedestrians and create an environment that is safer for walking and cycling. But words are cheap and here we are, seven years later. In rural areas, active travel is far from the natural choice.
In 2023, the Conservative Government, in a fit of reactionary culture wars, slashed the already paltry active travel budget from £200 million to just £50 million. Under this Government, I therefore welcome the increase in that budget to £150 million. However, let us not pretend that that will create a step change. The Conservatives had the budget at £200 million just three years ago. The Government should deliver on their promise to invest at unprecedented levels in active travel.
I hope that as a result of this debate, the Minister will consider increasing funding levels further for the 2025-26 period during the Department’s current planning discussion. I ask that because cycling in rural areas as a mode of transport will deliver concrete benefits for the economy, the environment, health and wellbeing. For every pound spent on cycling and walking schemes, £5.62-worth of wider benefits is achieved. In 2022, active travel contributed £36 billion to the economy. Cycling networks give rise to tourism and flourishing local businesses, encouraging institutions and services to set up in or return to areas.
It is a privilege and a joy to live surrounded by nature in the villages and towns of my constituency, but it can also be isolating. Many villages lack places to exercise and few have regular buses to the places that do. The latest data for Oxfordshire shows that 58% of people in the county are overweight, and one in three year 6 children are overweight or abuse. Cycling is an obvious means to increase physical activity in areas where small populations can make commercial or council-supported leisure centres unviable.
If we truly believe that there is a climate emergency, and I do, rural Britain must be part of the transformation, too. Reduced motor traffic limits carbon dioxide emissions and reduces nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter, with both gases linked to respiratory failure, stroke, heart disease, dementia and premature death. Do not think that just because rural areas are surrounded by fields that the risk is not present in the countryside, too. Historic towns can create choke points, quite literally, as vehicles move through them. Watlington’s Couching Street has been an air quality management area since 2009, as traffic passes through in search of the M40. Again, cycling must be part of the picture, and that is before we talk about the mental health benefits, which I will perhaps leave others to touch on.
We have a golden opportunity over the next five years to see the transformation needed. I am willing to work cross-party with anyone in Government, and MPs and councillors across Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire, to seize it. I hope others will join me.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I expect to call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson at 5.46 pm, so given the number of Members wishing to speak, there will be an informal time limit of between four and five minutes.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. Cycling infrastructure in rural areas across my constituency is poor and, in most cases, non-existent. Too many of our towns and villages lack the connectivity required to make them easily reachable by bike, often including roads that cannot be cycled on and no feasible alternative routes. Even as a keen and confident sports cyclist, there are a number of routes in Huntingdon that I avoid using because they are objectively too dangerous to cycle on. That is evident when considering the impracticality of travelling into Huntingdon and St Ives by bicycle from many of our surrounding villages, which makes commuting by bike for work or school too difficult for too many.
St Ives is a town that desperately needs people to work and shop within it, yet it is largely reliant upon people driving into it. There are persistent traffic problems approaching the town from the east, with the Harrison Way roundabout a constant issue during peak times. Yet the Needingworth Road, which connects Colne, Bluntisham, Earith and Needingworth itself to St Ives, is the A1123—fast and arrow-straight, not well lit, and a road I would not advise anyone to cycle on.
Approaching St Ives from the north, we have the Somersham Road. Although only a B road, it is again arrow-straight and very fast, with significant use by lorries. It also includes the Wheatsheaf crossroads, which has seen a number of road traffic accidents. The county council is yet to spend the money that it has allocated to upgrade the junction and make it safer.
Huntingdon is particularly poorly served. In theory, the town has a cycle path around the ring road, but it is a shared cycle path with pedestrians that, in places, is no wider than a single individual. The tragic death of cyclist Celia Ward in 2020, who fell into the road after an altercation with a pedestrian on the cycle path, illustrates its unsuitability.
Approaching Huntingdon from villages to the north, towards the Wyton roundabout on the A141 into Hertford, is again a journey fraught with danger, and not one I would expect any cyclist to undertake as part of their daily commute. The A141 is one of the busiest and fastest roads in the constituency. In response to the recent consultation, I made it clear that cycling infrastructure must be considered in any new plans.
Meanwhile, there is only one current cycling infrastructure project under discussion in the constituency. As part of its plans to improve the national cycle network, Sustrans has proposed a quietway, closing the Grafham Road to motor vehicles between the villages of Grafham and Brampton. I regularly use that road as a cyclist, but it is also a vital lifeline between the two villages, and it reduces the need to take the more circuitous routes to the north and south that involve dual carriageways.
Opposition to the scheme from local residents, including those who are cyclists, has been significant, with many well-attended local parish meetings held to discuss it. The road is not busy, so a more sensible decision would be to reduce the speed limit from the current national speed limit to a more realistic 20 mph, thereby making the route far friendlier to pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians alike, without the need to ban motor vehicles and cut the village off.
In Tilbrook, the parish council is working hard to establish a feasibility assessment for the proposed “Kim Valley Way” cycle path, linking the villages of Tilbrook and Kimbolton and eliminating the need to cycle on a fast and sweeping country road with poor visibility on bends for those wishing to travel between the two villages by bike. It is schemes such as these—designed by locals, for locals—that we should invest our time and effort into delivering, rather than top-down diktats that lack local buy-in.
We must ensure that when cycling infrastructure is proposed, it is done so sympathetically and with the needs of local communities in mind. Attempting to railroad through a proposal because it looks good on paper is where schemes such as the Grafham quietway have gone wrong. A lack of engagement, a lack of understanding of rural needs and a lack of strategic planning are the reasons that we have reached the point where, in a constituency like Huntingdon, cycling is not considered to be viable for so many in rural communities.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. Please accept my apologies, because I am likely to have to leave before the conclusion of the debate as I am hosting an event elsewhere on the estate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) on securing this debate. It is a privilege to speak on a matter that is of great relevance to communities like those in my Lewes constituency.
While cycling is often associated with urban transport solutions, it holds untapped potential to transform rural areas, if we address the challenges that prevent it from being a viable option for many. Two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending the Cycle Lewes annual general meeting. That dedicated group has been advocating for safer, more accessible cycling in Lewes and surrounding villages since 1998. Their work, from installing new cycle racks to critiquing transport plans that prioritise cars over active travel, is a testament to the power of local campaigning. However, as was made clear at the AGM, piecemeal progress cannot overcome the systemic barriers to cycling that rural communities face.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I thank you for your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I am from Stroud and for the past six years, even before I became a politician, I have been trying to get a greenway established in the village of Dursley that would run for about six miles to the train station. I found that there was not even funding for a feasibility study, so at the moment, we cannot get it off the ground. So I want to ask the Minister whether there will be a fund to make feasibility studies of new routes.
James MacCleary
Not being the Minister, I do not know, but I am sure that he will respond accordingly, and I hope that the answer will be yes, because that would be a fantastic thing to do. I know that county councils and other authorities have really struggled to find the funding for active travel undertakings across the country. We have certainly seen that in East Sussex, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) has in his area.
Cycling is more than a recreational activity. It is an essential mode of transport that can improve public health, reduce carbon emissions and ease the financial burden of transport for households. Nationally, cycling directly contributes an estimated £5.4 billion annually to the economy, including £4.1 billion from reduced mortality, air pollution, and congestion. Every pound invested in walking and cycling infrastructure generates more than £5 in benefits. Cycling also promotes land-use efficiency, requiring far less space than roads or car parks—a critical consideration for creating greener, more liveable communities. For predominantly rural areas like mine, that represents an opportunity to create healthier, greener and more connected communities. Without serious investment, rural residents will continue to face unsafe roads, insufficient cycling facilities and limited transport options.
In communities like mine, the reality is stark. Public transport options are patchy and many depend on cars for short journeys. Safe and accessible cycling infrastructure could provide an alternative that is not only affordable, but sustainable. Where we have dedicated cycle routes, such as the outstanding separated cycling routes alongside the A27 between Lewes and Polegate in my constituency, they are often unconnected to any ongoing routes, which limits the number of people that can use them.
Better road maintenance is required. We need to create conditions in which cycling is a realistic option for commuting, shopping and even leisure—not just for the young, pale and male but for everybody. Inclusivity must be central to our approach. Whether it is for children cycling to school, older residents using e-bikes or families making short trips, cycling infrastructure should cater to a diverse range of needs. It is about ensuring that everybody can benefit from the independence, affordability and health benefits that cycling offers.
The Liberal Democrats have been clear in our commitment to reverse funding cuts and in pushing for a nationwide active travel strategy. In rural areas, that includes prioritising safe cycling routes, linking active travel to public transport and ensuring that local councils have the resources to tackle potholes and maintain pavements and cycleways, as well as to invest in active travel infrastructure. I urge the Government to recognise that cycling is not just a solution for urban areas, but a vital tool for rural communities. By investing in cycling infrastructure, we can reduce transport poverty, improve public health and build a greener future for areas like Sussex. Let us not miss this opportunity to make cycling safe, accessible and inclusive for all.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
It is customary to wait to hear what the Minister says—you might be delighted.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) for securing the debate.
Wokingham is a semi-rural constituency where it is possible to cycle between villages and towns, and to railway stations, schools and shops. National and local surveys tell us that the majority of people would be willing to do this, but they do not consider it to be safe. It is a difficult issue to resolve on narrow and busy country roads. Reducing speed limits can help, and the council is looking at some of them, but ultimately we need to invest in cycle routes away from the roads. The previous Government were funding such schemes, up until they decided that their electoral interest demanded otherwise, but since 2022 the funding available to local authorities has been wholly inadequate, and it remains so.
Shifting just a small proportion of local rural traffic from car to bike will help to solve many problems, including congestion, parking and air-quality issues in towns. There are mental and physical health benefits for those who cycle. The House of Commons Library has been helpful in pointing out a University of Oxford study that demonstrates the environmental benefits of active travel. Published in 2021, it found that switching just one trip a day from driving a car to cycling can reduce a person’s carbon footprint by 0.5 tonnes a year. As demonstrated by the Elizabeth line, if the infrastructure is there, people will use it. Across Europe, the benefits are being embraced, while the UK fails to recognise the return on investment that is waiting to be realised.
The former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), stated that her Department would deliver “unprecedented levels of funding” for active travel; will the new Secretary of State commit to the same promise? Wokingham borough council has previously bid for an off-road route between Charvil and Twyford station; will the Minister commit to review the business case for investment in such cycling schemes?
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) for securing this important debate on rural cycling infrastructure.
Members present appreciate the unique challenges faced by cyclists in rural areas, and the need to ensure their safety if we are to promote greater accessibility for cycling as a mode of transport. Rural roads present unique risks: they are typically narrower, less well maintained, and shared with fast-moving vehicles. In places in my West Dorset constituency roads are also shared with horse riders, who are similarly desperately in need of safety infrastructure.
The road conditions make cycling on roads disproportionately dangerous. Statistics show that cyclists are almost twice as likely to be killed on a rural road as on an urban one. For my constituency the challenge is clear: only 1.7% of people cycle to work, and that figure is well below the already appallingly low national average of 2.1%. Both figures reflect the deterrent effect of unsafe rural roads and the lack of cycling infrastructure, but also the wider picture of cycling in this country.
Cycling can provide an affordable, sustainable and accessible alternative for shorter journeys, not to mention the benefits to the environment and to physical and mental wellbeing. In West Dorset, 50% of people drive to work, 14% of households do not own a car and 30% of residents travel less than 10 km to work. That distance is more than achievable by bicycle for most individuals. Between Bridport and West Bay, the old railway has been repurposed as a cycling and walking path, with many residents hoping that it can be extended all along the old line to Maiden Newton to avoid their having to use country lanes. Similarly, an alternative cycle route between Bridport and Chideock would mean that residents and tourists alike could avoid the main coast artery of the A35, with its heavy goods vehicles.
Public transport in West Dorset is limited and irregular. Congestion on our few A roads and many country lanes causes delays and disruption in our villages. Cycling would reduce congestion, provide people with greater freedom to travel independently, reduce the environmental impact and support healthier lifestyles. I urge the Government to take immediate steps to address these issues and support rural constituencies such as West Dorset by making cycling a safer and more viable option.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) for securing what is an important debate for rural constituencies such as his and mine. Too often, only urban areas attract the focus for funding and infrastructure when it comes to active travel, yet the benefits to physical and mental health and wellbeing and in reducing carbon dioxide emissions and improving air quality are just as applicable, if not more so, in rural areas such as my North Cornwall constituency.
Cornwall is a region with very poor transport infrastructure and high car dependence. The Cornwall local transport plan sets out an ambition for at least 50% of journeys under 5 miles to be completed via active travel by 2030, which is only five years from now. A road network sufficiently free from harm and fear of harm supports wider environmental and public health ambitions and encourages and sustains the adoption of healthier, active modes of travel.
We have in my constituency one of the most popular off-road multi-use trails in the country—the Camel trail. Recent data shows that each year the existing trail attracts more than 400,000 users, of whom more than 50% are residents of Cornwall, and two thirds of these users are cyclists. Currently, only 1% of these trips are used to commute to work. However, with the growing popularity of e-bikes, this use has huge potential to grow.
Early feasibility work by Sustrans shows that there are two ways that the current trail could be significantly expanded to deliver cycling networks that are sufficiently free from risk or fear of harm to make the option of active travel, and especially cycling, an attractive alternative to using the car. I discussed the first expansion option with the Minister recently, so I hope he will bear with me as I set it out once again. The trail, which utilises a redundant railway line that follows the River Camel, could be extended inland to make its final destination the old market town of Camelford—providing much-needed regeneration and giving the residents who live there greater access to the countryside and a viable non-car commuter route to the larger towns of Bodmin and Wadebridge and elsewhere. That not only would help to meet Cornwall’s active travel ambitions, but could provide the Government with an opportunity to meet one of their manifesto promises—to improve responsible access to nature and create nine new national river walks.
The second option would be to introduce a network of quiet lanes across the wider rural area, which would provide connectivity between outlying villages and the Camel trail, offering local people viable options for active travel for their day-to-day living needs. A feasibility study for that has already been conducted by local councillor Dominic Fairman.
The key design principles for rural quiet lanes are as follows. There is the introduction of 30-mph speed limits on roads that already have low motor vehicle flows. People walking, running, cycling and, where appropriate, horse riding should feel safe and comfortable to use the routes, and all users should be aware of those with whom they are sharing the surface of the lane or road, with signage and markings where appropriate. Quiet lanes are a key solution to connect people in rural areas. On many routes, there is insufficient space to build cycle tracks and other infrastructure next to roads. Quiet lanes can also help facilitate a rural modal shift by making people feel safer when using what are already light-traffic lanes for walking and cycling.
We need greater investment to start addressing rural transport poverty. We should make schemes such as those I have outlined a reality and deliver transport infrastructure fit for the carbon-neutral world to which we are aspiring. If the Government really are serious about their claim that they will cut GP appointments by millions by delivering unprecedented investment in our cycling and walking infrastructure, they must consider schemes such as the Camel trail connect project. We do not have a single main line train station in my North Cornwall constituency, but we already have a world-class cycle trail. Now is the time to expand it and fund that shovel-ready plan.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) for securing this debate, and the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) for his excellent pun.
My home constituency of Tewkesbury is a patchwork of rural towns and villages. Public transport is either scarce or entirely absent, so cycling is an oft relied-upon mode of transport. Safe, managed cycle routes are vital for many of my constituents as a means to connect with our cathedral city of Gloucester to our south, the cultural centre of Cheltenham to our east, and the medieval town of Tewkesbury to our west. Only in those larger population centres can many of my constituents access their hospitals, schools, stores or social clubs.
Cycling in our rural communities comes at significant risk. As has already been stated, according to at least one study, cyclists involved in collisions on rural roads are more than twice as likely to suffer mortality than those on urban roads. There are several factors for that, including the time it takes for emergency services to arrive from major hospitals to our rural villages. Another factor seems to be that cycling infrastructure and roads in rural areas are poorly funded or neglected. Apparently, cycling routes are rarely considered alongside major highways infrastructure projects. There must be joined-up thinking to such projects to improve the viability of cycling as an environmentally friendly and healthy alternative to driving.
The Gloucestershire cycle spine is an ambitious plan to link Gloucestershire’s major population centres with some of our emerging population centres. The plan was initially met with significant public support, but several shortcomings with it have since caused outcry. Issues cited by residents in Longlevens including the fact that the camber of the cycleway draws water away from drainage and floods their properties with rainwater. In Churchdown, the road has been so narrowed to accommodate the cycleway that larger vehicles can now barely pass each other in places. A clear opportunity to link a cycleway to our heritage railway was missed.
This is not a pitch against such schemes; it is a call to keep the public engaged and ensure the projects are implemented not piecemeal but as a joined-up infrastructure plan so that the “so whats” are asked and answered ahead of the works. I am disappointed to learn that a shortfall in the central Government funding for Gloucestershire county council could mean a significant drop in the allocation for the Gloucestershire cycle spine. Consequently, the 14,000 residents of Bishop’s Cleeve will remain cut off from it.
Like other transport networks, cycling needs to be treated as a vital part of our infrastructure. It must be planned strategically and funded sustainably for the long term.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
If no other Members wish to speak, I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, Steff Aquarone.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) on securing this debate on such an important issue. He is a great champion of this cause. I know that he and his Liberal Democrat colleagues across Oxfordshire will continue to push for progress in their area.
I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Norfolk county council, but I must declare an even more important interest, which is that I am a rural cyclist. It is for that reason that I am so pleased to respond to today’s debate for the Liberal Democrats.
In my area, we have some fantastic cycling routes. In Wells and Holkham, people can join national cycle network route 1 and travel through the north of the constituency as part of the Norfolk-wide rebellion way. Towards North Walsham, we have the Weavers way, which takes in much of the track bed of the former Midland and Great Northern joint railway.
The Liberal Democrats and I are ambitious for the future of rural cycling across the country. We want to see new cycle networks, and locally Liberal Democrats are working with communities to deliver on new cycling schemes in their local areas. It is a great shame that the previous Conservative Government did not match our ambition or enthusiasm for the future of cycling. They ruthlessly cut £200 million from the active transport budget, just after so many of us rediscovered our love for walking and cycling during lockdown.
That neglect for walking and cycling seems endemic within the Conservatives. Our Conservative-led county council has sunk £50 million into the white elephant that is the 6 km western link road. The legal and exploratory costs alone could have instead funded high-quality cycle super-highways six times the eventual proposed distance of that road. With attitudes like that, it is easy to see how our rural cycling infrastructure has deteriorated so badly over the previous decade, with Norfolk losing many of its routes from the national cycle network in 2020 after years of neglect and lack of upkeep.
Cycling will play a key part in the rural transport revolution, which so many parts of our country desperately need. We must make sure that cycling routes join up with public transport networks, so that people can safely and easily cycle to their nearest train or bus station. In my rural area, we have one of the highest levels of road per person in the country, and we cannot afford to maintain them all. Is it not time that we looked to convert underused and under-classified roads into access-only roads that prioritise walking and cycling? I am sure that many people would far rather hear the dinging of bike bells nearby than large lorries clattering through small country lanes.
I am passionate about seeing an improvement in rural cycling infrastructure across Norfolk and the rest of the country. Making cycling more accessible and attractive has only benefits. It keeps us healthier, it reduces carbon emissions and it gives us greater opportunity to explore and enjoy our natural environment. I very much hope that we hear from the Minister that the Government will match the passion and ambition of Liberal Democrats across the country to deliver better cycling infrastructure for us all.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) on securing the debate. We have heard from many of the speakers today about the enormous benefits of cycling, and let us start with the most important one: it is enjoyable. It is healthy, and it gives people cardiovascular exercise, which leads to a better quality of life. Then there are the public sector aspects of it, which are reduced traffic congestion, reduced public transport crowding and reduced emissions in our hunt for net zero. However, it is not all positive, as there are a couple of negatives. One is the examples of road entitlement that we get from some aspects of the cycling community. I am a member of that community, and I hope I am not too entitled when I am on my saddle. The worst one, of course, is that we are exposed to MAMILs around our constituencies. I threatened my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) that I would namecheck him in that regard, because I saw him just this morning in his Lycra.
However, on balance, it is a huge net positive to us as individuals and to us as a society that we encourage cycling. That is exactly what the last Conservative Administration did, despite the brickbats thrown at them in a number of the speeches we have heard this afternoon. For example, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, my neighbour the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), said that there were ruthless cuts to the active travel budget. However, he did not give credit to the previous Government for creating the fund in the first place, back in 2017. Yes, as the current Administration are beginning to find out, there is a need to take difficult decisions—I have heard that phrase more than once in the past few weeks—about how to spend public money, because it can only be spent once, but the previous Government invested £6.6 billion from central Government funding into active travel from 2016 to March 2025. That helped to create the national cycle network, which is some 12,000 miles of specialist cycle routes, but there is more to do. In my constituency, we have great cycle routes such as Marriott’s way, the Weavers’ way and the Peddars way—which was not mentioned earlier, but also links into our local community—but there are also frustrations. At the moment, we are dualling the section of the A47 in my constituency. A cycle route has been planned beside the dual carriageway, but with just a few hundred yards from North Burlingham, it could be linked into Acle and a much wider network. There is definitely more work to be done, because that was not part of the original scheme.
I welcome the Budget announcement that £100 million will go into cycling and walking infrastructure, but I am slightly concerned that that will happen only if the funding is confirmed in the Department for Transport’s business planning process. The same goes for any funding over the two years after that. What will happen as a result of the spending review? I should be very grateful if the Minister would expand on his commitment to be a strong advocate for active travel with His Majesty’s Treasury when it comes to the spending review. Can he confirm that that is one of his Department’s key objectives?
It is not just cycle routes, though; we also use roads in the rural community. In fact, the vast majority of us who cycle regularly in the countryside use our roads—typically our B roads—as the mechanism for doing so. Because of changing weather patterns, potholes are an ever-increasing scourge. The last Administration spent £8.3 billion on road repairs, but I am the first to admit that there is plenty more work to be done. Potholes have a particular impact on cyclists, who typically ride towards the edge of the carriageway; that can be a real challenge for us as riders. Can the Minister also give reassurance that he will continue to advocate for increased investment in road infrastructure to support active travel and safer, well-maintained roads for all users, including cyclists?
I again congratulate the hon. Member for Henley and Thame. He is right to highlight the benefits and challenges of cycling in the rural community, and I look forward to the Minister’s response, in which he will no doubt tell us all the things he will do to support that important activity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) on raising this important issue. He represents a constituency in a very beautiful part of rural England that, despite its proximity to the capital, is largely rural in nature. I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) for their interventions, and I thank the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), for Lewes (James MacCleary), for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for West Dorset (Edward Morello), for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for their contributions. In my speech, I will try to cover the points they have raised.
The hon. Member for Henley and Thame is right to highlight the fact that there can be particular challenges in designing safe routes for cyclists in rural areas. There are many country lanes and B roads where the national speed limit applies and where there is clearly no room for a separate cycle lane. Such roads can be intimidating places for all but the most experienced of cyclists, with the constant risk of being close-passed at high speeds by inconsiderate drivers. By definition, narrow country roads also tend to have far less room on them than wide urban streets, where a segregated cycle lane can offer cyclists protection from other road users.
There has also perhaps been a perception, rightly or wrongly, that successive Governments of whatever colour have only really been interested in promoting active travel in urban areas, and have tended to ignore the very different needs of rural areas. I can assure the hon. Member for Henley and Thame, however, that this Government are determined to ensure that active travel—whether walking, wheeling or cycling—can address the transport needs of people in both urban and rural communities. I will come on to the different ways in which we intend to do so in a few moments, but let me first set out the broader context.
As we all know, active travel is a great way of improving people’s health that can in turn ease pressure on our NHS. It has other benefits, including supporting economic growth, reducing congestion and helping to decarbonise transport. All of this matters just as much in rural areas as it does in our towns and cities.
Funding for decent infrastructure is critical. In the Budget, the Government underlined our commitment to active travel by announcing an additional £100 million of capital funding for active travel infrastructure in the financial year 2025-26. That reversed the previous Government’s funding reduction.
In the very near future, Active Travel England will announce further details of the Government’s investment plans for this year and next. I am confident that some of that investment will enable the delivery of high-quality active travel infrastructure in rural areas. However, I am afraid that the hon. Member for Henley and Thame will have to wait just a little bit longer to hear further details on that.
The Government will then set out what further funding for active travel will be available in future years, following the spending review. We will do so alongside producing a new cycling and walking investment strategy, which we anticipate will be published next year.
Wherever cycling infrastructure is built, it must be delivered to the right standard. In particular, it should comply with the Department’s cycling infrastructure design guidance. Active Travel England provides training to local authority officers across the country on how best to design safe and accessible cycling and walking infrastructure, and it is developing specific guidance for the application of good practice in rural areas.
Layla Moran
The Minister has moved on to the “how”, but I wonder whether it is worth reflecting for slightly longer on the “why”. With my Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee hat on, I wonder whether he noted that the chief medical officer’s annual report last year on an ageing society mentioned cycling 13 times, in the context of meeting the needs of an ageing population. He might also have noted that rural areas age faster than urban areas because of demographic shifts. And he might also have noted that in the 2022 annual report, cycling was mentioned 88 times in the context of air pollution.
I note that the Government’s life mission is for people to live “well for longer.” To what extent is the Minister’s Department planning to be part of the delivery of that mission, and how is he making that happen?
Simon Lightwood
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I can assure her that the Department for Transport is working closely with Departments across Government; we want to break down the silos of Departments and work on our collective missions. I have already had discussions with the Department of Health and Social Care and Sir Chris Whitty regarding our contribution, and I will continue to have such discussions. I absolutely recognise that active travel can be fundamental when it comes to tackling people’s health issues and to removing barriers to opportunity and economic growth.
Ensuring that infrastructure is safe must be our overriding concern. Over 60% of respondents to the Department for Transport’s national travel attitudes survey said that safer roads would encourage them to cycle more. As I have said, rural roads can be more dangerous for cyclists, because there is faster-moving traffic and no space for segregated cycle lanes. That is why supporting local authorities to design and deliver high-quality active travel infrastructure that is safe and compliant with the relevant design standards is a key part of Active Travel England’s remit. It is also why funding provided by the Department for Transport for walking and cycling schemes comes with the clear requirement to comply with relevant design standards.
As the hon. Member for Henley and Thame may be aware, Oxfordshire county council has been successful in securing funding for active travel schemes in a number of rural areas. That includes nearly £1.5 million for a scheme in Abingdon and nearly £2 million for a scheme in Witney. The scheme in Abingdon will create a safe walking, wheeling and cycling route, providing new crossings and other improvements to overcome a significant barrier to active travel between Oxford and Abingdon, and onwards to Didcot and beyond.
Another example of a new scheme, which opened in the last few weeks, is in Wycombe, just across the county border from the constituency of the hon. Member. Buckinghamshire council completed an Active Travel England-funded improved pathway to support walking, wheeling, cycling and horse riding in Keep Hill wood, near High Wycombe.
The money for all these schemes has come from various dedicated pots of funding for active travel that have been announced by Active Travel England in recent years. In total, almost £650 million of funding has been provided for local authority infrastructure since covid. In addition, Active Travel England has worked with National Parks England to provide £1 million funding to allow the 10 national park authorities in England to develop inclusive active travel plans, as well as supporting activities, such as scheme planning and design, and how best to make sure local stakeholders are engaged. All 10 projects are due to be completed by next summer. I gather, too, that there was a petition last year concerning a proposed off-road cycle route in the hon. Member’s constituency. If they have not already done so already, I encourage representatives from Oxfordshire county council to contact Active Travel England about that scheme if it is a viable possibility.
I will try to address some points made by hon. Members. As I said, Active Travel England provided £1 million grant funding to national parks, and is currently working on guidance for authorities on how to design and build safe infrastructure for walking, wheeling and cycling in rural areas, including villages and market towns. We expect publication in late 2025. Active Travel England is currently engaging with stakeholder groups to support that work, including both potential route users such as Disabled Ramblers, Cycling UK, the British Horse Society and so on, and guidance users including local authorities, Highways England and bodies such as the National Trust and national parks.
I will conclude by saying a big thank you again to all Members who contributed and to the hon. Member for Henley and Thame for raising this important issue. I look forward to continuing to work with him—I thank him for his offer to work on a cross-party basis towards achieving our active travel ambitions—and all other hon. Members to enable more people to choose to walk, wheel and cycle, irrespective of where they live.
Freddie van Mierlo
Thank you, Ms Vaz, for calling me again. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
A number of issues were touched on, but I would like to zoom in on speed limits. My constituency has done an excellent job of embracing lower speed limits. Villages had the opportunity, under an innovative scheme run by the county council, to reduce speeds to 20 mph on many rural roads. That has had a really positive impact, with Oxfordshire seeing the largest reduction in collisions in the whole country. Research shows that a 1 mph reduction leads to a 6% reduction in collisions. Not everybody drives to the speed limit. As I tell my residents, if we set the expectation that everyone drives at 19.9 mph then we will see the scheme as a failure, but for the most part residents are law-abiding and respect the speed limit, and that has had tremendous benefits.
Several hon. Members spoke on the importance of bottom-up planning and not having a one-size-fits-all approach. Rural areas are unique and different—they are not all the same. Off-road infrastructure along canal paths and former railways, or the introduction of quiet lanes using existing road infrastructure, is all extremely valuable.
Some Members spoke about the importance of maintaining roads for all road users, whether vehicular or active travel. The previous Government left a £16 billion backlog in road maintenance. In my county, officers inform me that they receive only £15 million a year for highway maintenance, but that it costs the county upwards of £45 million to keep roads safe and that residents would only see meaningful benefit if there was an increase to £80 million. The Minister spoke about investment in active travel in terms of millions; I would like to see him shift his vernacular from “m” to “b” and see billions of pounds invested over a number of years.
Members spoke about the importance of inclusivity. That is particularly important to me, having learned how communities approach cycling in the Netherlands. There, you will see people cycling in a leisurely way and carting all sorts of things. An approach where we have more children, more women, more vulnerable people and even disabled people taking part in cycling would be a fantastic culture shift in the UK. When I was living in the Netherlands, I would even cycle 50 metres to the nearest post box from my house. That is the kind of culture shift I hope we can achieve, in both urban and rural settings.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered cycling infrastructure in rural areas
Written Correction
Ministerial Correction
Education
(1 month ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helena Dollimore
Parents, teachers and students in my constituency were horrified to find out that the University of Brighton Academies Trust has been taking a whopping 20% of the Government grant meant for our local schools and education. What is the Minister doing to resolve these issues and make sure that every child in Hastings and Rye gets the best quality education?
Catherine McKinnell
I agree with my hon. Friend. Outcomes in some schools in Hastings are just not good enough. We are all determined to drive up standards. Department officials continue to work with the University of Brighton Academies Trust on that. We are committed to ending its current financial model and to collaborating with school leaders on future budget setting to ensure we can drive high and rising standards in every school, including in Hastings.
[Official Report, 9 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 667.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell):
Catherine McKinnell
I agree with my hon. Friend. Outcomes in some schools in Hastings are just not good enough. We are all determined to drive up standards. Department officials continue to work with the University of Brighton Academies Trust on that. The trust is now committed to ending its current financial model and to collaborating with school leaders on future budget setting to ensure we can drive high and rising standards in every school, including in Hastings.
Written Statements
Early Years Funding 2025-26
(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
This Government are clear that whoever you are, wherever you come from, ours should be a country where hard work means you can get on in life. Ensuring that every child has the best start in life is crucial to breaking down barriers to opportunity from the earliest point in our lives.
Early years educators, providers and local authorities are already doing incredible work to meet this mission and expand their provision so that more families can benefit from affordable, accessible and high-quality early education and childcare.
As announced in the 2024 autumn Budget, we expect to provide over £8 billion for the early years entitlements in 2025-26—an increase of more than 30% compared with 2024-25—as we work towards the expansion of the entitlements.
Today we have also published the new early years local authority core funding rates for 2025-26. The national average three and four-year-old hourly funding rates of local authorities is increasing by 4.1%, the two-year-old hourly funding rates is increasing by 3.3%, and the nine months to two-year-old hourly funding rate is increasing by 3.4%. As usual, the hourly funding rates will vary between local authorities, reflecting the relative needs of the children and different costs of delivering provision across the country.
To ensure that providers are set up to deliver 30 funded hours of childcare and early education for children aged nine months to when they start school, and that parents are able to access this across our communities from September 2025, on top of over £8 billion through the core funding rates we will be investing an additional £75 million of revenue funding in 2025-26 through an expansion grant, recognising the significant effort and planning to prepare for the final phase of the expansion. This grant is on top of over £8 billion provided through the core funding rates.
It is essential that high-quality early education and childcare are accessible for all children and families, given the importance of the early years of life. However, currently there are gaps in both provision and quality, especially for disadvantaged children. That is why we are delivering the largest ever uplift to the early years pupil premium, increasing EYPP rates by over 45% per hour in 2024-25 to £1 per hour in 2025-26, equivalent to up to £570 per eligible child per year.
This unprecedented increase is an investment in quality early education for those children who need it most, providing additional support for disadvantaged children to meet development goals at age five.
Eligible children can also receive £938 per child per year through the disability access fund to support reasonable adjustments for children with a disability. We also expect to spend £92.6 million on maintained nursery school (MNS) supplementary funding in 2025-26, in recognition of the additional costs that MNSs face.
It is important that providers can plan ahead. Therefore, we have set the expectation that local authorities communicate their rates to providers by 28 February 2025 at the latest, and we will be working with local authorities to support them to do this. This will become mandatory from 2026-27.
From April 2025, we are increasing the minimum pass-through requirement, meaning that local authorities must pass on at least 96% of funding to providers, as part of a phased approach to a 97% pass-through in the future.
Full details on the 2025-26 local authority hourly funding rates, including step-by-step tables, have been published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS292]
Calais Group
(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
Today I, jointly with German Interior Minister Faeser, convened Calais Group partners Belgium, France and the Netherlands in London, in the presence of the European Commission and its agencies, Frontex and Europol, to deliver real and tangible results on the fight against the dangerous people smuggling networks that threaten our collective border security.
At this important forum, all Calais Group partners agreed to jointly deliver the Calais Group priority plan in 2025. This plan is testament to our shared commitment to dismantling the people smuggling networks. It builds on our excellent joint working through existing structures and refocuses shared priorities to bring to justice those who undermine our border security.
The priority plan contains actions which will deliver enhanced co-operation in 2025, taking a whole-of-route approach to tackle the end-to-end criminality of migrant smuggling networks, who continue to deploy more dangerous tactics, putting lives at risk.
The key areas of collaboration include:
Co-ordinating preventative communications to deter irregular migrants from paying organised crime groups to facilitate dangerous journeys.
Strengthening our ability to work together, via Europol, to enhance targeting and disruption of prominent OCGs and their criminal supply chains. We will do so through deepening intelligence and information sharing, and ensuring there are effective and robust legislative frameworks criminalising the small boat supply chain, with a focus on evolving tactics and targeting the end-to-end criminality of the Kurdish-Iraqi OCGs involved in smuggling migrants into and across Europe.
Tackling the use of social media by OCGs to recruit and advertise dangerous journeys across Europe and the channel to migrants.
Targeting the illicit finance models of migrant smuggling networks to better target preventative, investigation and disruption efforts in order to take action on criminal finances and ensure that migrant smuggling is not a viable or profitable business.
Enabling reciprocal exchange of the most pertinent information relating to migration flows and border security issues to better understand and respond to emerging trends and migrant flows.
That demonstrates the commitment of near-neighbour partners to breaking the business model of migrant smuggling networks, and reaffirms our resolve to use every tool available to ensure that these criminals are brought to justice.
Alongside this crucial meeting, the Government are also today publishing a statement on delivering border security, setting out our approach to establishing the border security command, tackling organised immigration crime and improving the UK’s border security. The new border security command will lead and drive forward the required step-change in the UK’s approach to border security, including our international response.
Organised immigration crime is a global threat, with no respect for national boundaries. Tackling it requires working closely with international partners. The border security command is scaling up efforts with key near-neighbour partners and the EU, through the Calais Group, to disrupt the people smuggling trade and the criminal gangs that profit from it.
Copies of the Calais Group priority plan and the delivering border security statement will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will also be published on www.gov.uk later this afternoon.
[HCWS293]
Irregular Migration: UK-Germany Joint Action Plan
(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
Organised immigration crime is an international problem that requires international solutions. That is why we are substantially scaling up collaboration with international partners to disrupt the people smuggling trade and the criminal gangs that profit from it.
Yesterday, I signed a landmark agreement with the German Federal Minister of the Interior and Community, Nancy Faeser. The UK-Germany joint action plan to tackle irregular migration will deliver strengthened investigative and prosecutorial responses to organised immigration crime, alongside enhanced intelligence sharing between our respective law enforcement agencies, and greater co-ordination of our efforts in source and transit countries to tackle irregular migration at source.
Many of the same criminal smuggler gangs that organise small boats in the channel are also operating in Germany and across Europe, with an impact on the security of all our countries, and therefore stronger law enforcement across borders is essential to tackle the dangerous gangs, illicit finance and supply chains involved.
There is recognition on both sides that activities on German soil that facilitate migrant smuggling towards the UK require a clarified legislative approach. Once enacted, this legal change will make it easier to disrupt and prosecute organised crime, including making it easier to significantly increase the number of arrests and prosecutions made in relation to the supply of small boats equipment—ensuring that those driving this trade are brought to justice.
Germany is a key international partner in our efforts to tackle people smuggling and the organised criminal groups that profit from this trade. The joint action builds on our existing co-operation with Germany and will deliver a new framework for enhancing our joint efforts to tackle organised immigration crime.
Minister Faeser’s visit to London yesterday included a visit to the National Crime Agency’s headquarters for a briefing on the scale of the small boats supply chain, existing operational co-operation between our respective law enforcement agencies, and the further co-operation that UK and German law enforcement agencies can undertake together through the joint action plan.
A copy of the UK-Germany joint action plan will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will also be published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS291]
Grand Committee
Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 10th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 40-II(a) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (9 Dec 2024)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bells.
Clause 67: Meaning of research and statistical purposes
Amendment 59
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents misuse of the scientific research exceptions for data reuse by ensuring that the only purpose for which the reuse is permissible is for the scientific research—with no additional purposes.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I have tabled Amendments 59, 62, 63 and 65, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, my noble friend Lady Kidron and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for adding their names to them. I am sure that the Committee will agree that these amendments have some pretty heavyweight support. I also support Amendment 64, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which is an alternative to my Amendment 63. Amendments 68 and 69 in this group also warrant attention.
I very much support the Government’s aim in Clause 67 to ensure that valuable research does not get discarded due to a lack of clarity around its use or because of an overly narrow distinction between the original and new purposes of the use of the data. The Government’s position is that this clause clarifies the law by incorporating into the Bill recitals to the original GDPR. However, while the effect is to encourage scientific research and development, it has to be seen in the context of the fast-evolving world of developments in AI and the way that AI developers, given the need for huge amounts of data to train their large language models, are reusing data.
My concern is that the scraping of vast amounts of data by these AI companies is often positioned as scientific research and in some cases is even supported by the production of academic papers. I ask the Minister to understand my concerns and those of many in the data community and beyond. The fact is that the lines between scientific research, as set out in Clause 67, and AI product development are blurred. This might not be the concern of the original recitals, but I beg to suggest to the Minister that, in the new world of AI, there should be concern about the definition presented in the Bill.
Like other noble Lords, I very much hope to make this country a centre of AI development, but I do not want this to happen at the expense of data subjects’ privacy and data protection. It costs at least £1 billion—even more, sometimes—to develop a large language model and, although the cost will soon go down, there is a huge financial incentive to scrape data that pushes the boundaries of what is legitimate. In this climate, it is important that the Bill closes any loopholes that allow AI developers to claim the protections offered by Clause 67. My Amendments 59, 62, 63 and 65 go some way to ensuring that this will not happen.
The definition of scientific research in proposed new paragraph 2, in Clause 67(1)(b), is drawn broadly. My concern is that many commercial developments of digital products, particularly those involving AI, could still claim to be, in the words of the clause, “reasonably … described as scientific”. AI model development usually involves a mix of purposes—not just developing its capabilities but also commercialising as it develops services. The exemption allowed for “purposes of technological development” makes me concerned that this vague area creates a threat whereby AI developers will misuse the provisions of the Bill to reuse personal data for any AI developments, provided that one of their goals is technological advancement.
Amendments 59 and 62, by inserting the word “solely” into proposed new paragraphs 2 and 3 in Clause 67, would disaggregate reuse of data for scientific research purposes from other purposes, ensuring that the only goal of reuse is scientific research.
An example of the threat under the present definition is shown by Meta’s recently allowing the reuse of Instagram users’ data to train its new generation of Llama models. When the news got out, it created a huge backlash, with more than half a million people reposting a viral hoax image that claimed to deny Meta the right to reuse their data to train AI. This caused the ICO to say that it was pleased that Meta had paused its data processing in response to users’ concerns, adding:
“It is crucial that the public can trust that their privacy rights will be respected from the outset”.
However, Meta could well claim under this clause that it is creating technological advancement which would allow it to reuse any data collected by users under the legitimate interest grounds for training the model. The Bill as it stands would not require the company to conduct its research in accordance with any of the features of genuine scientific research. These amendments go some way to rectify that.
Amendment 63 increases the test for what is deemed to be scientific interest. At the moment, the public interest test is applied only to public health. I am pleased that NHS researchers will have to recognise this threshold, but why should all researchers doing scientific work not have to adhere to this threshold? Why should that test not be applied to all data reuse for scientific research? By deleting the public health exception, the public interest test would apply to all data reuse for scientific purposes.
The original intention of the RAS purpose of the GDPR supports public health for scientific interests. This is complemented by Amendment 65, which uses the tests for consent already laid out in Clause 68. The inclusion of ethical thresholds in the reuse of data should meet the highest levels of academic rigour and oversight envisaged in the original GDPR. It will demand not just ethical standards in research but for it to be supervised by an independent research ethics committee that meets UKRI guidance. These requirements will ensure that the high standards of ethics that we expect from scientific research will be applied in evaluating the exemption in Clause 67.
I do not want noble Lords to think that these amendments are thwarting the development of AI. There is plenty of AI research that is clearly scientific. Look at DeepMind AlphaFold, which uses AI to analyse the shape of proteins so that they can be incorporated in future drug treatment and will move pharmaceutical development. It is an AI model developed in accordance with the ethical standards expected from modern scientific research.
The Minister will argue that the definition has been taken straight from EU recitals. I therefore ask her to consider very seriously what has been said about this definition by the EU’s premier data body, the European Data Protection Supervisor, in its preliminary opinion on data protection and scientific research. In its executive summary, it states:
“The boundary between private sector research and traditional academic research is blurrier than ever, and it is ever harder to distinguish research with generalisable benefits for society from that which primarily serves private interests. Corporate secrecy, particularly in the tech sector, which controls the most valuable data for understanding the impact of digitisation and specific phenomena like the dissimilation of misinformation, is a major barrier to social science research … there have been few guidelines or comprehensive studies on the application of data protection rules to research”.
It suggests that the rules should be interpreted in such a way that permits reuse only for genuine scientific research.
For the purpose of this preliminary opinion by the EDPS, the special data protection regime for scientific research is understood to apply if each of three criteria are met: first, personal data is processed; secondly, relevant sectorial standards of methodology and ethics apply, including the notion of informed consent, accountability and oversight; and, thirdly, the research is carried out with the aim of growing society’s collective knowledge and well-being as opposed to serving primarily one or several private interests. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that these are features that the amendments before the Committee would incorporate into Clause 67.
In the circumstances, I hope that the Minister, who I know has thought deeply about these issues, will recognise that the EU’s institutions are worried about the definition of scientific research that has been incorporated into the Bill. If they are worried, I suggest that we should be worried. I hope that these amendments will allay those fears and ensure that true scientific research is encouraged by Clause 67 and that it is not abused by AI companies. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendments from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, which I have signed, and will put forward my Amendments 64, 68, 69, 130 and 132 and my Clause 85 stand part debate.
This part of the GDPR is a core component of how data protection law functions. It makes sure that organisations use personal data only for the reason that it was collected. One of the exceptional circumstances is scientific research. Focus on the definitions and uses of data in research increased in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, when some came to the view that legal uncertainty and related risk aversion were a barrier to clinical research.
There is a legitimate government desire to ensure that valuable research does not have to be discarded because of a lack of clarity around reuse or very narrow distinctions between the original and new purpose. The Government’s position seems to be that the Bill will only clarify the law, incorporating recitals to the original GDPR in the legislation. While this may be the policy intention, the Bill must be read in the context of recent developments in artificial intelligence and the practice of AI developers.
The Government need to provide reassurance that the intention and impact of the research provisions are not to enable the reuse of personal data, as the noble Viscount said, scraped from the internet or collected by tech companies under legitimate interest for training AI. Large tech companies could abuse the provisions to legitimise mass data scraping of personal data from the internet or to collect via legitimate interest—for example, by a social media platform, about its users. This could be legally reused for training AI systems under the new provisions if developers can claim that it constitutes scientific research. That is why we very much support what the noble Viscount said.
In our view, the definition of scientific research adopted in the Bill is too broad and will permit abuse by commercial interests outside the policy intention. The Bill must recognise the reality that companies will likely position any AI development as “reasonably described as scientific”. Combined with the inclusion of commercial activities in the Bill, that opens the door to data reuse for any data-driven product development under the auspices that it represents scientific research, even where the relationship to real scientific progress is unclear or tenuous. That is not excluded in these provisions.
I turn to Amendments 64, 68, 69, 130 and 132 and the Clause 85 stand part debate. The definition of scientific research in proposed new paragraph 2 under Clause 67(1)(b) is drawn so broadly that most commercial development of digital products and services, particularly those involving machine learning, could ostensibly be claimed by controllers to be “reasonably described as scientific”. Amendment 64, taken together with those tabled by the noble Viscount that I have signed, would radically reduce the scope for misuse of data reuse provisions by ensuring that controllers cannot mix their commercial purposes with scientific research and that such research must be in the public interest and conducted in line with established academic practice for genuine scientific research, such as ethics approval.
Since the Data Protection Act was introduced in 2018, based on the 2016 GDPR, the education sector has seen enormous expansion of state and commercial data collection, partly normalised in the pandemic, of increased volume, sensitivity, intrusiveness and high risk. Children need particular care in view of the special environment of educational settings, where pupils and families are disempowered and have no choice over the products procured, which they are obliged to use for school administrative purposes, for learning in the classroom, for homework and for digital behavioural monitoring.
The implications of broadening the definition of research activities conducted within the state education sector include questions of the appropriateness of applying the same rules where children are in a compulsory environment without agency or routine practice for research ethics oversight, particularly if the definition is expanded to commercial activity.
Parental and family personal data is often inextricably linked to the data of a child in education, such as home address, heritable health conditions or young carer status. The Responsible Technology Adoption Unit within DSIT commissioned research in the Department for Education to understand how parents and pupils feel about the use of AI tools in education and found that, while parents and pupils did not expect to make specific decisions about AI optimisation, they did expect to be consulted on whether and by whom pupil work and data can be used. There was widespread consensus that work and data should not be used without parents’ and/or pupils’ explicit agreement.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 59, 62, 63 and 65 in the name of my noble friend Lord Colville, and Amendment 64 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to which I added my name. I am also very much in sympathy with the other amendments in this group more broadly.
My noble friend Lord Colville set out how he is seeking to understand what the Government intend by “scientific research” and to make sure that the Bill does not offer a loophole so big that any commercial company can avoid data protections of UK citizens in the name of science.
At Second Reading, I read out a dictionary definition of science:
“The systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained”—
i.e. everything. I also ask the Minister if the following scenarios could reasonably be considered scientific. Is updating or improving a new tracking app for fitness, or a bot for an airline, scientific? Is the behavioural science of testing children’s response to persuasive design strategies in order to extend the stickiness of commercial products scientific? These are practical scenarios, and I would be grateful for an answer in order to understand what is in and out of the scope of the Bill.
When I raised Clause 67 at a briefing meeting, it was said that it was, as my noble friend Lord Colville suggested, just housekeeping. The law firm Taylor Wessing suggests that what can
“‘reasonably be described as scientific’ is arguably very wide and fairly vague, so it will be interesting to see how this is interpreted, but the assumption is that it is intended to be a very broad definition”.
Each of the 14 law firm blogs and briefings that I read over the weekend described it variously as loosening, expanding or broadening. Not one suggested that it was a tightening and not one said that it was a no-change change. As we have heard, the European Data Protection Supervisor published an opinion stating that
“scientific research is understood to apply where … the research is carried out with the aim of growing society’s collective knowledge and wellbeing, as opposed to serving primarily one or several private interests”.
When the Minister responds, perhaps she could say whether the particular scenarios I have set out fall within the definition of scientific and why the Government have failed to reflect the critical clarification of the European Data Protection Supervisor in transferring the recital into the Bill.
I turn briefly to Amendment 64, which would limit the use of children’s personal data for the purposes of research and education by making it subject to a public interest requirement and opt-in from the child or a parent. I will speak in our debate on a later grouping to amendments that would enshrine children’s right to higher protection and propose a comprehensive code of practice on the use of children’s data in education, which is an issue of increasing scandal and concern. For now, it would be good to understand whether the Government agree that education is an area of research where a public interest requirement is necessary and appropriate and that children’s data should always be used to support their right to learn, rather than to commoditise them.
During debate on the DPDI Bill, a code of practice on children’s data and scientific research was proposed; the Minister added her name to it. It is by accident rather than by design that I have failed to lay it here, but I will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply to see whether children need additional protections from scientific research as the Government now define it.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I have in subsequent groups a number of amendments that touch on many of the issues that are raised here, so I will not detain the Committee by going through them at this stage and repeating them later. However, I feel that, although the Government have had the best intentions in bringing forward a set of proposals in this area that were to update and to bring together rather conflicting and difficult pieces of legislation that have been left because of the Brexit arrangements, they have managed to open up a gap between where we want to be and where we will be if the Bill goes forward in its present form. I say that in relation to AI, which is a subject requiring a lot more attention and a lot more detail than we have before us. I doubt very much whether the Government will have the appetite for dealing with that in time for this Bill, but I hope that at the very least—it would be a minor concession at this stage—they will commit at the Dispatch Box to seeking to resolve these issues in the legislation within a very short period because, as we have heard from the arguments made today, it is desperately needed.
More importantly, if, by bringing together documentation that is thought to represent the current situation, either inadvertently or otherwise, the Government have managed to open up a loophole that will devalue the way in which we currently treat personal data—I will come on to this when I get to my groups in relation to the NHS in particular—that would be a grievous situation. I hope that, going forward, the points that have been made here can be accommodated in a statement that will resolve them, because they need to be resolved.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in today’s Committee proceedings. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register, not least as adviser to Socially Recruited, an AI business.
I support the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in his amendments and all the other amendments in this group. They were understandably popular, to the extent that when I got my pen out, there was no space left for me to co-sign them, so I was left with the oral tradition in which to reflect my support for them. Before going into the detail, I just say that we have had three data Bills in just over three years: DPDI, DISD and this Bill. Over that period, though the names have changed, much of the meat remains the same in the legislation. Yet, in that period, everything and nothing haschanged —everything in terms of what has happened with generative AI.
Considering that seismic shift that has occurred over these three Bills, could the Minister say what in this Bill specifically has changed, not least in this part, to reflect that seismic change? Regarding “nothing has changed”, nothing has changed in terms of the incredibly powerful potential of AI for positive or negative outcomes, ably demonstrated with this set of amendments.
If you went on to Main Street and polled the public, I believe that you would get a pretty clear understanding of what they considered scientific research to be. You know it. You understand why we would want to have a specified definition of scientific research and what that would mean for the researchers and for the country.
However, if we are to draw that definition as broadly as it currently is in the Bill, why would we bother to have such a definition at all? If the Government’s intention is to enable so much to come within the perimeter, let us not have the definition at all and let us allow to continue what is happening right now, not least in the reuse of scrape data or in how data is being treated in these generative AI models.
We have seen what has happened in terms of the training, but when you look at what could be called development and improvement, as the noble Viscount has rightly pointed out, all this and more could easily fit within the scientific research definition. It could even more easily fit in when lawyers are deployed to ensure that that is so. I know we are going to come on to rehearsing a number of these subjects in the next group but, for this group, I support all the amendments as set out.
I ask the Minister these two questions. First, what has changed in all the provisions that have gone through all these three iterations of the data Bill? Secondly, what is the Government’s intention when it comes to scientific research, if it is not truly to mean scientific research, if it is not to have ethics committee involvement and if it is not to feel sound and be defined as what most people on Main Street would recognise as scientific research?
Lord Markham (Con)
I start by apologising because, due to a prior commitment, I am not able to stay for many of the proceedings today, but I see these groupings and others as critical. In the few words that I will say, I hope to bring to bear to this area some of my experience as a Health Minister, particularly in charge of technology and development of AI.
I can see a lot of good intent behind these clauses, to make sure that we do not stop a lot of the research that we need. I was recently very much involved in the negotiation of the pandemic accord regarding the next pandemic and how you make sure that any vaccines that you develop on a worldwide basis can be distributed on a worldwide basis as well. One of the main stumbling blocks was that the so-called poorer countries were trying to demand, as part of that, the intellectual property to be able to develop the vaccines in their own countries.
The point we were trying to make was that, although we could see the good intentions behind that, it would have a real chilling effect on pharmaceutical companies investing the hundreds of millions or even billions of pounds, which you often need with vaccines, to find a cure, because if they felt that they were going to lose their intellectual property and rights at the end, it would be much harder for them to justify the investment up front.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I start by thanking all noble Lords who spoke for their comments and fascinating contributions. We on these Benches share the concern of many noble Lords about the Bill allowing the use of data for research purposes, especially scientific research purposes.
Amendment 59 has, to my mind, the entirely right and important intention of preventing misuse of the scientific research exemption for data reuse by ensuring that the only purpose for which the reuse is permissible is scientific research. Clearly, there is merit in this idea, and I look forward to hearing the Minister give it due consideration.
However, there are two problems with the concept and definition of scientific research in the Bill overall, and, again, I very much look forward to hearing the Government’s view. First, I echo the important points raised by my noble friend Lord Markham. Almost nothing in research or, frankly, life more broadly, is done with only one intention. Even the most high-minded, curiosity-driven researcher will have at the back of their mind the possibility of commercialisation. Alongside protecting ourselves from the cynical misuse of science as a cover story for commercial pursuit, we have to be equally wary of creating law that pushes for the complete absence of the profit motive in research, because to the extent that we succeed in doing that, we will see less research. Secondly—the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made this point very powerfully—I am concerned that the broad definition of scientific research in the Bill might muddy the waters further. I worry that, if the terminology itself is not tightened, restricting the exemption might serve little purpose.
On Amendment 62, to which I have put my name, the same arguments very much apply. I accept that it is very challenging to find a form of words that both encourages research and innovation and does not do so at the expense of data protection. Again, I look forward to hearing the Government’s view. I am also pleased to have signed Amendment 63, which seeks to ensure that personal data can be reused only if doing so is in the public interest. Having listened carefully to some of the arguments, I feel that the public interest test may be more fertile ground than a kind of research motivation purity test to achieve that very difficult balance.
On Amendment 64, I share the curiosity to hear how the Minister defines research and statistical processes —again, not easy but I look forward to her response.
Amendment 65 aims to ensure that research seeking to use the scientific research exemption to obtaining consent meets the minimum levels of scientific rigour. The aim of the amendment is, needless to say, excellent. We should seek to avoid creating opportunities which would allow companies—especially but not uniquely AI labs—to cloak their commercial research as scientific, thus reducing the hoops they must jump through to reuse data in their research without explicit consent. However, Amendment 66, tabled in my name, which inserts the words:
“Research considered scientific research that is carried out as a commercial activity must be subject to the approval of an independent ethics committee”,
may be a more adaptive solution.
Many of these amendments show that we are all quite aligned in what we want but that it is really challenging to codify that in writing. Therefore, the use of an ethics committee to conduct these judgments may be the more agile, adaptive solution.
I confess that I am not sure I have fully understood the mechanism behind Amendments 68 and 69, but I of course look forward to the Minister’s response. I understand that they would essentially mean consent by failing to opt out. If so, I am not sure I could get behind that.
Amendment 130 would prevent the processing of personal data for research, archiving and statistical purposes if it permits the identification of a living individual. This is a sensible precaution. It would prevent the sharing of unnecessary or irrelevant information and protect people’s privacy in the event of a data breach.
Amendment 132 appears to uphold existing patient consent for the use of their data for research, archiving and statistical purposes. I just wonder whether this is necessary. Is that not already the case?
Finally, I turn to the Clause 85 stand part notice. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but I am not, I am afraid, at a point where I can support this. There need to be safeguards on the use of data for this purpose; I feel that Clause 85 is our way of having them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be here this afternoon. I look forward to what I am sure will be some excellent debates.
We have a number of debates on scientific research; it is just the way the groupings have fallen. This is just one of several groupings that will, in different ways and from different directions, probe some of these issues. I look forward to drilling down into all the implications of scientific research in the round. I should say at the beginning—the noble Lord, Lord Markham, is absolutely right about this—that we have a fantastic history of and reputation for doing R&D and scientific research in this country. We are hugely respected throughout the world. We must be careful that we do not somehow begin to demonise some of those people by casting aspersions on a lot of the very good research that is taking place.
A number of noble Lords said that they are struggling to know what the definition of “scientific research” is. A lot of scientific research is curiosity driven; it does not necessarily have an obvious outcome. People start a piece of research, either in a university or on a commercial basis, and they do not quite know where it will lead them. Then—it may be 10 or 20 years later—we begin to realise that the outcome of their research has more applications than we had ever considered in the past. That is the wonderful thing about human knowledge: as we build and we learn, we find new applications for it. So I hope that whatever we decide and agree on in this Bill does not put a dampener on that great aspect of human knowledge and the drive for further exploration, which we have seen in the UK in life sciences in particular but also in other areas such as space exploration and quantum. Noble Lords could probably identify many more areas where we are increasingly getting a reputation for being at the global forefront of this thinking. We have to take the public with us, of course, and get the balance right, but I hope we do not lose sight of the prize we could have if we get the regulations and legislation right.
Let me turn to the specifics that have been raised today. Amendments 59 and 62 to 65 relate to scientific provisions, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and others have commented on them. I should make it clear that this Bill is not expanding the meaning of “scientific research”. If anything, it is restricting it, because the reasonableness test that has been added to the legislation—along with clarification of the requirement for research to have a lawful basis—will constrain the misuse of the existing definition. The definition is tighter, and we have attempted to do that in order to make sure that some of the new developments and technologies coming on stream will fall clearly within the constraints we are putting forward in the Bill today.
Amendments 59 and 62 seek to prevent misuse of the exceptions for data reuse. I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that the existing provisions for research purposes already prevent the controller taking advantage of them for any other purpose they may have in mind. That is controlled.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I thank the Minister very much, but is she not concerned by the preliminary opinion from the EDPS, particularly that traditional academic research is blurrier than ever and that it is even harder to distinguish research which generally benefits society from that which primarily serves private interest? People in the street would be worried about that and the Bill ought to be responding to that concern.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I have not seen that observation, but we will look at it. It goes back to my point that the provisions in this Bill are designed to be future facing as well as for the current day. The strength of those provisions will apply regardless of the technology, which may well include AI. Noble Lords may know that we will bring forward a separate piece of legislation on AI, when we will be able to debate this in more detail.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, this has been a very important debate about one of the most controversial areas of this Bill. My amendments are supported across the House and by respected civic institutions such as the Ada Lovelace Institute. I understand that the Minister thinks they will stifle scientific research, particularly by nascent AI companies, but the rights of the data subject must be borne in mind. As it stands, under Clause 67, millions of data subjects could find their information mined by AI companies, to be reused without consent.
The concerns about this definition being too broad were illustrated very well across the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that it was too broad and must recognise that AI development will be open to using data research for any AI purposes and talked about his amendment on protecting children’s data, which is very important and worthy of consideration. This was supported by my noble friend Lady Kidron, who pointed out that the definition of scientific research could cover everything and warned that Clause 67 is not just housekeeping. She quoted the EDPS and talked about its critical clarification not being included in the transfer of the scientific definition into the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked what in the Bill has changed when you consider how much has changed in AI. I was very pleased to have the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, who warned against the abuse and misuse of data and the broad definition in this Bill, which could muddy the waters. He supported the public interest test, which would be fertile ground for helping define scientific data.
Surely this Bill should walk the line in encouraging the AI rollout to boost research and development in our science sector. I ask the Minister to meet me and other concerned noble Lords to tighten up Clauses 67 and 68. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Freyberg
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Bill does not extend the meaning of “research purposes” to include privately funded or commercial activity, to avert the possibility that such ventures might benefit from exemptions in copyright law relating to data mining.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 60 to add to our discussion and establish some further clarity from the Minister on the impact of widening the scope of the interpretation of scientific research to include commercial and private activities. I thank her for her letter of 27 November to all noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading, a copy of which was placed in the Lords Library; it provides some reassurance that scientific research activities must still pass a reasonableness test. However, I move this probing amendment out of concern that the change in definition may have unintended consequences for copyright law. It is vital that we do not just look at this Bill in isolation but consider the wider impact that changing definitions and interpretations will have on other aspects of legislation.
Research activities are identified under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Some researchers require access to and reproduction of data and copyright-protected material for research purposes. Under Section 29A, researchers can avail themselves of an exemption from copyright which allows data mining and analysis of copyright-protected works for non-commercial research only, without permission from the copyright holder. The UK copyright framework is popularly known as the “gold standard” internationally, as it carefully balances the rights of copyright holders with the need for certain uses to take place, such as non-commercial research, educational uses and those that protect free speech. That balance is fragile, and we must be very careful not to disrupt it unintentionally.
The previous Government sought to widen Section 29A of the Act by allowing text and data mining of copyright-protected works for commercial purposes, but this recommendation was quickly reversed when the Government considered that the decision was made without appropriate evidence. That was a sensible move. The current Government are still due to consult with stakeholders on the exemption to the law, against the backdrop of AI companies using copyright-protected works for training large language models without permission or fair pay. Given the global presence of AI, it is expected that this consultation will consider how the UK policy on copyright works within an international context. Therefore, while the Government are carefully considering this, we must ensure that we do not fast forward to a conclusion before that important work has taken place.
If the Minister can confirm that this definition has no impact on existing copyright law, I will happily withdraw this amendment. However, if there are potential implications on the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, I would urge the Minister to table her own amendment to explicitly preserve the current definition of “scientific research” within that Act. This would ensure that we maintain legal clarity while the broader international considerations are fully examined. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I advise the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 61 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on these amendments. I very much support Amendment 60 as introduced. I was delighted to hear the Minister tell the Grand Committee that the Government are coming forward with an AI Bill. I wonder if I might tempt her into sharing a bit more detail with your Lordships on when we might see that Bill or indeed the consultation. Will it be before Santa or sometime after his welcome appearance later this month?
We touched on a number of areas related to Amendment 65A in the previous group. This demonstrates the importance of and concern about Clause 67, as so many amendments pertain to it. I ask the Minister whether a large language model that comes up with medically significant conclusions but, prior to that, gained a considerable amount of that data from scraping, would be fine within Clause 67 as drafted.
Similarly, there are overriding and broader reuse possibilities from the drafting as set out. Again, as has already been debated, scientific research has a clear meaning in many respects. That clarity very much comes when you add public interest and ethics. Could a model that has taken vast quantities of others’ data without consent and—nodding more towards Amendment 60 —without remuneration and consent still potentially fit within the definition of “scientific research”?
In many ways, we are debating these points around data in the context of scientific research, but we could go to the very nub or essence of the issue. All that noble Lords are asking, in their many eloquent and excellent ways, is whose data is it, to what purpose is it being put and have those data owners been consented, respected and, where appropriate—particularly when it comes to IP and copyrighted data—remunerated? This is an excellent opportunity to expand on the earlier debate on Clause 67. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I checked yesterday and Copilot has clearly scraped data from behind the paywall on the Good Schools Guide. It very kindly does not publish the whole of the review, but it publishes a summary of it. It concerns me how we police copyright and how we get things right in this Bill.
However, I do not think that trying to draw a boundary around “scientific” is the right way to do it. Looking at all the evidence on engineering biology that we have just taken for the Science and Technology Committee, they are all doing science, but they all want to make money out of it at the end, if things go right. There is no sensible boundary between science and commerce. We should expect that, with anything that is done for science, even if it is done in the social sciences, someone at the end of the day will want to build a consultancy on it. There is no defendable boundary between the two.
As my noble friend Lord Camrose said, getting a working definition of public interest is key, as is, in the context of this amendment, recognising the importance of the concepts of intellectual property, copyright, trademark, patents and so on. They are international concepts, and we should seek to hold the line in the face of technological challenges because the concepts as they are have shown their worth. We may have to adapt them in one way or another, but this should be an international thing, and we should not support local infringement, because we would then make the UK a much less worthwhile place to hold intellectual property. My intellectual property is not mobile but a lot of it is, and it wants to be held in a place where it can be defended. If we do not offer that in our legal system, we will lose a great deal by it.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I have to admit that I am slightly confused by the groupings at this point. It is very easy to have this debate in the medical space, to talk about the future of disease, fixing diseases and longevity, but my rather mundane questions have now gone unanswered twice. Perhaps the Minister will write to me about where the Government see scientific research on product development in some of these other spaces.
We will come back to the question of scraping and intellectual copyright, but I want to add my support to my noble friend Lord Freyberg’s amendment. I also want to add my voice to the question of the AI Bill that is coming. Data is fundamental to the AI infra- structure; data is infrastructure. I do not understand how we can have a data Bill that does not have one eye on AI, looking towards it, or how we are supposed to understand the intersection between the AI Bill and the data Bill if the Government are not more forthcoming about their intentions. At the moment, we are seeing a reduction in data protection that looks as though it is anticipating, or creating a runway for, certain sorts of companies.
Finally, I am sorry that the noble Lord is no longer in his place, but later amendments look at creating sovereign data assets around the NHS and so on, and I do not think that those of us who are arguing to make sure that it is not a free-for-all are unwilling to create, or are not interested in creating, ways in which the huge investment in the NHS and other datasets can be realised for UK plc. I do not want that to appear to be where we are starting just because we are unhappy about the roadway that Clause 67 appears to create.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Many thanks to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for his Amendment 60. Before I start, let me endorse and add my name to the request for something of a briefing about the AI Bill. I am concerned that we will put a lot of weight of expectation on that Bill. When it comes, if I understand this right, it will focus on the very largest AI labs and may not necessarily get to all the risks that we are talking about here.
Amendment 60 seeks to ensure that the Bill does not allow privately funded or commercial activities to be considered scientific research in order
“to avert the possibility that such ventures might benefit from exemptions in copyright law relating to data mining”.
This is a sensible, proportionate measure to achieve an important end, but I have some concerns about the underlying assumption, as it strikes me. There is a filtering criterion of whether or not the research is taxpayer funded; that feels like a slightly crude means of predicting the propensity to infringe copyright. I do not know where to take that so I shall leave it there for the moment.
Amendment 61 in my name would ensure that data companies cannot justify data scraping for AI training as scientific research. As many of us said in our debate on the previous group, as well as in our debate on this group, the definition of “scientific research” in the Bill is extremely broad. I very much take on board the Minister’s helpful response on that but, I must say, I continue to have some concerns about the breadth of the definition. The development of AI programs, funded privately and as part of a commercial enterprise, could be considered scientific, so I believe that this definition is far too broad, given that Article 8A(3), to be inserted by Clause 71(5), states:
“Processing of personal data for a new purpose is to be treated as processing in a manner compatible with the original purpose where … the processing is carried out … for the purposes of scientific research”.
By tightening up the definition of “scientific research” to exclude activities that are primarily commercial, it prevents companies from creating a scientific pretence for research that is wholly driven by commercial gain rather than furthering our collective knowledge. I would argue that, if we wish to allow these companies to build and train AI—we must, or others will—we must put in proper safeguards for people’s data. Data subjects should have the right to consent to their data being used in such a manner.
Amendment 65A in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes would also take steps to remedy this concern. I believe that this amendment would work well in tangent with Amendment 61. It makes it absolutely clear that we expect AI developers to obtain consent from data subjects before they use or reuse their data for training purposes. For now, though, I shall not press my amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I share the confusion of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, about the groupings. If we are not careful, we are going to keep returning to this issue again and again over four or five groups.
With the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I think that we are all very much on the same page here. On the suggestion from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that we meet to discuss the precise issue of the definition of “scientific research”, this would be extremely helpful; the noble Baroness and I do not need to repeat the concerns.
I should declare an interest in two respects: first, my interests as regards AI, which are set out on the register; and, secondly—I very much took account of what the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, had to say—I chair the council of a university that has a strong health faculty. It does a great deal of health research and a lot of that research relies on NHS datasets.
This is not some sort of Luddism we are displaying here. This is caution about the expansion of the definition of scientific research, so that it does not turn into something else: that it does not deprive copyright holders of compensation, and that it does not allow personal data to be scraped off the internet without consent. There are very legitimate issues being addressed here, despite the fact that many of us believe that this valuable data should of course be used for the public benefit.
One of the key themes—this is perhaps where we come back on to the same page as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—may be public benefit, which we need to reintroduce so that we really understand that scientific research for public benefit is the purpose we want this data used for.
I do not think I need to say much more: this issue is already permeating our discussions. It is interesting that we did not get on to it in a major way during the DPDI Bill, yet this time we have focused much more heavily on it. Clearly, in opposition, the noble Viscount has seen the light. What is not to like about that? Further discussion, not least of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, further down the track will be extremely useful.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I feel we are getting slightly repetitive, but before I, too, repeat myself, I should like to say something that I did not get the chance to say the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others: I will write, we will meet—all the things that you have asked for, you can take it for granted that they will happen, because we want to get this right.
I say briefly to the noble Baroness: we are in danger of thinking that the only good research is health research. If you go to any university up and down the country, you find that the most fantastic research is taking place in the most obscure subjects, be it physics, mechanical engineering, fabrics or, as I mentioned earlier, quantum. A lot of great research is going on. We are in danger of thinking that life sciences are the only thing that we do well. We need to open our minds a bit to create the space for those original thinkers in other sectors.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was saying that the defence always goes to space or to medicine, and we are trying to ascertain the product development that is not textiles, and so on. I have two positions in two different universities; they are marvellous places; research is very important.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am glad we are on the same page on all that.
I now turn to the specifics of the amendments. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Holmes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for their amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his contribution. As I said in the previous debate, I can reassure all noble Lords that if an area of research does not count as scientific research at the moment, it will not under the Bill. These provisions do not expand the meaning of scientific research. If noble Lords still feel unsure about that, I am happy to offer a technical briefing to those who are interested in this issue to clarify that as far as possible.
Moreover, the Bill’s requirement for a reasonableness test will help limit the misuse of this definition more than the current UK GDPR, which says that scientific research should be interpreted broadly. We are tightening up the regulations. This is best assessed on a case-by- case basis, along with the ICO guidance, rather than automatically disqualifying or passing into our activity sectors by approval.
Scientific research that is privately funded or conducted by commercial organisations can also have a life-changing impact. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, was talking earlier about health; issues such as the development of Covid vaccines are just one example of this. It was commercial research that was absolutely life-saving, at the end of the day.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Can the Minister say whether this will be a Bill, a draft Bill or a consultation?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
We will announce this in the usual way—in due course. I refer the noble Lord to the King’s Speech on that issue. I feel that noble Lords want more information, but they will just have to go with what I am able to say at the moment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Perhaps another aspect the Minister could speak to is whether this will be coming very shortly, shortly or imminently.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Let me put it this way: other things may be coming before it. I think I promised at the last debate that we would have something on copyright in the very, very, very near future. This may not be as very, very, very near future as that. We will tie ourselves in knots if we carry on pursuing this discussion.
On that basis, I hope that this provides noble Lords with sufficient reassurance not to press their amendments.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
I thank your Lordships for this interesting debate. I apologise to the Committee for degrouping the amendment on copyright, but I thought it was important to establish from the Minister that there really was no effect on the copyright Act. I am very reassured that she has said that. It is also reassuring to hear that there will be more of an opportunity to look at this issue in greater detail. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Camrose
“3A. Research considered scientific research that is carried out as a commercial activity must be subject to the approval of an independent ethics committee.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures personal data is not used for commercial purposes, which is subject to fewer ethical safeguards; preventing data being used in a matter data subjects may not consider an appropriate, such as training Large Language Models.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 66, 67 and 80 in this group are all tabled in my name. Amendment 66 requires scientific research carried out for commercial purposes to
“be subject to the approval of an independent ethics committee”.
Commercial research is, perhaps counterintuitively, generally subjected to fewer ethical safeguards than research carried out purely for scientific endeavour by educational institutions. Given the current broad definition of scientific research in the Bill—I am sorry to repeat this—which includes research for commercial purposes, and the lower bar for obtaining consent for data reuse should the research be considered scientific, I think it would be fair to require more substantial ethical safeguards on such activities.
We do not want to create a scenario where unscrupulous tech developers use the Bill to harvest significant quantities of personal data under the guise of scientific endeavour to develop their products, without having to obtain consent from data subjects or even without them knowing. An independent ethics committee would be an excellent way to monitor scientific research that would be part of commercial activities, without capping data access for scientific research, which aims more purely to expand the horizon of our knowledge and benefit society. Let us be clear: commercial research makes a huge and critically important contribution to scientific research, but it is also surely fair to subject it to the same safeguards and scrutiny required of non-commercial scientific research.
Amendment 67 would ensure that data controllers cannot gain consent for research purposes that cannot be defined at the time of data collection. As the Bill stands, consent will be considered obtained for the purposes of scientific research if, at the time consent is sought, it is not possible to identify fully the purposes for which the personal data is to be processed. I fully understand that there needs to be some scope to take advantage of research opportunities that are not always foreseeable at the start of studies, particularly multi-year longitudinal studies, but which emerge as such studies continue. I am concerned, however, that the current provisions are a little too broad. In other words: is consent not actually being given at the start of the process for, effectively, any future purpose?
Amendment 80 would prevent the data reuse test being automatically passed if the reuse is for scientific purposes. Again, I have tabled this amendment due to my concerns that research which is part of commercial activities could be artificially classed as scientific, and that other clauses in the Bill would therefore allow too broad a scope for data harvesting. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, it seems very strange indeed that Amendment 66 is in a different group from group 1, which we have already discussed. Of course, I support Amendment 66 from the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, but in response to my suggestion for a similar ethical threshold, the Minister said she was concerned that scientific research would find this to be too bureaucratic a hurdle. She and many of us here sat through debates on the Online Safety Bill, now an Act. I was also on the Communications Committee when it looked at digital regulations and came forward with one of the original reports on this. The dynamic and impetus which drove us to worry about this was the lack of ethics within the tech companies and social media. Why on earth would we want to unleash some of the most powerful companies in the world on reusing people’s data for scientific purposes if we were not going to have an ethical threshold involved in such an Act? It is important that we consider that extremely seriously.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Viscount to the sceptics’ club because he has clearly had a damascene conversion. It may be that this goes too far. I am slightly concerned, like him, about the bureaucracy involved in this, which slightly gives the game away. It could be seen as a way of legitimising commercial research, whereas we want to make it absolutely certain that that research is for the public benefit, rather than imposing an ethical board on every single aspect of research which has any commercial content.
We keep coming back to this, but we seem to be degrouping all over the place. Even the Government Whips Office seems to have given up trying to give titles for each of the groups; they are just called “degrouped” nowadays, which I think is a sign of deep depression in that office. It does not tell us anything about what the different groups contain, for some reason. Anyway, it is good to see the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, kicking the tyres on the definition of the research aspect.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am not quite sure about the groupings, either, but let us go with what we have. I thank noble Lords who have spoken, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for his amendments. I hope I am able to provide some reassurance for him on the points he raised.
As I said when considering the previous group, the Bill does not expand the definition of scientific research. The reasonableness test, along with clarifying the requirement for researchers to have a lawful basis, will significantly reduce the misuse of the existing definition. The amendment seeks to reduce the potential for misuse of the definition of scientific research by commercial companies using AI by requiring scientific researchers for a commercial company to submit their research to an ethics committee. As I said on the previous group, making it a mandatory requirement for all research may impede studies in areas that might have their own bespoke ethical procedures. This may well be the case in a whole range of different research areas, particularly in the university sector, and in sectors more widely. Some of this research may be very small to begin with but might grow in size. The idea that a small piece of start-up research has to be cleared for ethical research at an early stage is expecting too much and will put off a lot of the new innovations that might otherwise come forward.
Amendment 80 relates to Clause 71 and the reuse of personal data. This would put at risk valuable research that relies on data originally generated from diverse contexts, since the difference between the purposes may not always be compatible.
Turning to Amendment 67, I can reassure noble Lords that the concept of broad consent is not new. Clause 68 reproduces the text from the current UK GDPR recitals because the precise definition of scientific research may become clear only during later analysis of the data. Obtaining broad consent for an area of research from the outset allows scientists to focus on potentially life-saving research. Clause 68 has important limitations. It cannot be used if the researcher already knows the specific purpose—an important safeguard that should not be removed. It also includes a requirement to give the data subject the choice to consent to only part of the research processing, if possible. Most importantly, the data subject can revoke their consent at any point. I hope this reassures the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and he feels content to withdraw his amendment on this basis.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their remarks and support, and the Minister for her helpful response. Just over 70% of scientific research in the UK is privately funded, 28% is taxpayer funded and around 1% comes through the charity sector. Perhaps the two most consequential scientific breakthroughs of the last five years, Covid vaccines and large language models, have come principally from private funding.
“7. For the avoidance of doubt, consent as defined here is not sufficient for the purposes of Article 6(1)(a) (lawful processing) and Article 9(2)(a) (processing of special categories of personal data).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would mitigate the lowering of the threshold for a data subject to be deemed to have given consent.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name and to speak to my other amendments in this group. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for signing a number of those amendments, and I am also very grateful to Foxglove Legal and other bodies that have briefed me in preparation for this.
My amendments are in a separate group, and I make no apology for that because although some of these points have indeed been covered in other amendments, my focus is entirely on NHS patient data, partly because it is the subject of a wider debate going on elsewhere about whether value can be obtained for it to help finance the National Health Service and our health in future years. This changes the nature of the relationship between research and the data it is using, and I think it is important that we focus hard on this and get some of the points that have already been made into a form where we can get reasonable answers to the questions that it leaves.
If my amendments are accepted or agreed—a faint hope—they would make it clear beyond peradventure that the consent protections in the Bill apply to the processing of data for scientific research, that a consistent definition of consent is applied and that that consistent definition is the one with which researchers and the public are already familiar and can trust going forward.
The Minister said at the end of Second Reading, in response to concerns I and others raised about research data in general and NHS data in particular, that the provisions in this Bill
“do not alter the legal obligations that apply in relation to decisions about whether to share data”.—[Official Report, 19/11/24; col. 196.]
I accept that that may be the intention, and I have discussed this with officials, who make the same point very strongly. However, Clause 68 introduces a novel and, I suggest, significantly watered-down definition of consent in the case of scientific research. Clause 71 deploys this watered-down definition of consent to winnow down the “purpose limitation” where the processing is for the purposes of scientific research in the public interest. Taken together, this means that there has been a change in the legal obligations that apply to the need to obtain consent before data is shared.
Clause 68 amends the pivotal definition of consent in Article 4(11). Instead of consent requiring something express—freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous through clear affirmative action—consent can now be imputed. A data subject’s consent is deemed to meet these strict requirements even when it does not, as long as the consent is given to the processing of personal data for the purposes of an area of scientific research; at the time the consent is sought, it is not possible to identify fully the purposes for which the personal data is to be processed; seeking consent in relation to the area of scientific research is consistent with generally recognised ethical standards relevant to the area of research; and, so far as the intended purposes of the processing allow, the data subject is given the opportunity to consent to processing for only part of the research. These all sound very laudable, but I believe they cut down the very strict existing standards of consent.
Proposed new paragraph 7, in Clause 68, then extends the application of this definition across the regulation:
“References in this Regulation to consent given for a specific purpose (however expressed) include consent described in paragraph 6.”
Thus, wherever you read “consent” in the regulation you can also have imputed consent as set out in proposed new paragraph 6 of Article 4. This means that “consent” within the meaning of proposed new paragraph 6(a)—i.e. the basis for lawful processing—can be imputed consent in the new way introduced by the Bill, so there is a new type of lawful basis for processing.
The Minister is entitled to disagree, of course; I expect him to say that when he comes to respond. I hope that, when he does, he will agree that we share a concern on the importance of giving researchers a clear framework, as it is this uncertainty about the legal framework that could inadvertently act as a barrier to the good research we all need. So my first argument today is that, as drafted, the Bill leaves too much room for different interpretations, which will lead to exactly the kind of uncertainty that the Minister—indeed, all of us—wish to avoid.
As we have heard already, as well as the risk of uncertainty among researchers, there is also the risk of distrust among the general public. The public rightly want and expect to have a say in what uses their data is put to. Past efforts to modernise how the NHS uses data, such as care.data, have been expensive failures, in part because they have failed to win the public’s trust. More than 3.3 million people have already opted out of NHS data sharing under the national data opt-out; that is nearly 8% of the adults who could have been part of surveys. We have talked about the value of our data and being the gold standard or gold attractor for researchers but, if we do not have all the people who could contribute, we are definitely devaluing and debasing that research. Although we want to respect people’s choice as to whether to participate, of course, this enormous vote against research reflects a pretty spectacular failure to win public trust—one that undermines the value and quality of the data, as I said.
So my second point is that watering down the rights of those whose data is held by the NHS will not put that data for research purposes on a sustainable, long-term footing. Surely, we want a different outcome this time. We cannot afford more opt-outs; we want people opting back in. I argue that this requires a different approach—one that wins the public’s trust and gains public consent. The Secretary of State for Health is correct to say that most of the public want to see the better use of health data to help the NHS and to improve the health of the nation. I agree, but he must accept that the figures show that the general public also have concerns about privacy and about private companies exploiting their data without them having a say in the matter. The way forward must be to build trust by genuinely addressing those concerns. There must not be even a whiff of watering down legal protections, so that those concerns can instead be turned into support.
This is also important because NHS healthcare includes some of the most intimate personal data. It cannot make sense for that data to have a lower standard of consent protection going forward if it is being used for research. Having a different definition of consent and a lower standard of consent will inevitably lead to confusion, uncertainty and mistrust. Taken together, these amendments seek to avoid uncertainty and distrust, as well as the risk of backlash, by making it abundantly clear that Article 4 GDPR consent protections apply despite the new wording introduced by this Bill. Further, these are the same protections that apply to other uses of data; they are identical to the protections already understood by researchers and by the public.
I turn now to a couple of the amendments in this group. Amendment 71 seeks to address the question of consent, but in a rather narrow way. I have argued that Clause 68 introduces a novel and significantly watered-down definition of consent in the case of scientific research; proposed new paragraph 7 deploys this watered-down definition to winnow down the purpose limitation. There are broader questions about the wisdom of this, which Amendments 70, 79 and 81 seek to address, but Amendment 71 focuses on the important case of NHS health data.
If the public are worried that their health data might be shared with private companies without their consent, we need an answer to that. We see from the large number of opt-outs that there is already a problem; we have also seen it recently in NHS England’s research on public attitudes to health data. This amendment would ensure that the Bill does not increase uncertainty or fuel patient distrust of plans for NHS data. It would help to build the trust that data-enabled transformation of the NHS requires.
The Government may well retort that they are not planning to share NHS patient data with commercial bodies without patient consent. That is fine, but it would be helpful if, when he comes to respond, the Minister could say that clearly and unambiguously at the Dispatch Box. However, I put it to him that, if he could accept these amendments, the law would in fact reflect that assurance and ensure that any future Government would need to come back to Parliament if they wanted to take a different approach.
It is becoming obvious that whether research is in the public interest will be the key issue that we need to resolve in this Bill, and Amendment 72 provides a proposal. The Bill makes welcome references to health research being in the public interest, but it does not explain how on earth we decide or how that requirement would actually bite. Who makes the assessment? Do we trust a rogue operator to make its own assessment of how its research is in the public interest? What would be examples of the kind of research that the Government expect this requirement to prevent? I look forward to hearing the answer to that, but perhaps it would be more helpful if the Minister responded in a letter. In the interim, this amendment seeks to introduce some procedural clarity about how research will be certified as being in the public interest. This would provide clarity and reassurance, and I commend it to the Minister.
Finally, Amendment 131 seeks to improve the appropriate safeguards that would apply to processing for research, archiving and scientific purposes, including a requirement that the data subject has given consent. This has already been touched on in another amendment, but it is a way of seeking to address the issues that Amendments 70, 79 and 81 are also trying to address. Perhaps the Government will continue to insist that this is addressing a non-existent problem because nothing in Clauses 69 or 71 waters down the consent or purpose limitation protections and therefore the safeguards themselves add nothing. However, as I have said, informed readers of the Bill are interpreting it differently, so spelling out this safeguard would add clarity and avoid uncertainty. Surely such clarity on such an important matter is worth a couple of lines of additional length in a 250-page Bill. If the Government are going to argue that our Amendment 131 adds something objectionable, let them explain what is objectionable about consent protections applying to data processing for these purposes. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 70 to 72, which I signed, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I absolutely share his view about the impact of Clause 68 on the definition of consent and the potential and actual mistrust among the public about sharing of their data, particularly in the health service. It is highly significant that 3.3 million people have opted out of sharing their patient data.
I also very much share the noble Lord’s views about the need for public interest. In a sense, this takes us back to the discussion that we had on previous groups about whether we should add that in a broader sense so not purely for health data or whatever but for scientific research more broadly, as he specifies. I very much support what he had to say.
Broadly speaking, the common factor between my clause stand part and what he said is health data. Data subjects cannot make use of their data rights if they do not even know that their data is being processed. Clause 77 allows a controller reusing data under the auspices of scientific research to not notify a data subject in accordance with Article 13 and 14 rights if doing so
“is impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort”.
We on these Benches believe that Clause 77 should be removed from the Bill. The safeguards are easily circumvented. The newly articulated compatibility test in new Article 8A inserted by Clause 71 that specifies how related the new and existing purposes for data use need to be to permit reuse is essentially automatically passed if it is conducted
“for the purposes of scientific research or historical research”.
This makes it even more necessary for the definition of scientific research to be tightened to prevent abuse.
Currently, data controllers must provide individuals with information about the collection and use of their personal data. These transparency obligations generally do not require the controller to contact each data subject. Such obligations can usually be satisfied by providing privacy information using different techniques that can reach large numbers of individuals, such as relevant websites, social media, local newspapers and so on.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made a very persuasive speech; I shall be rereading it and thinking about it more carefully.
In many ways, purpose limitation is the jewel in the crown of GDPR. It does what it says on the tin: data should be used for the original purpose, and if the purpose is then extended, we should go back to the person and ask whether it can be used again. While I agree with and associate myself with the technical arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that is the fundamental point.
The issue here is, what are the Government trying to do? What are we clearing a pathway for? In a later group, we will speak to a proposal to create a UK data sovereign fund to make sure that the value of UK publicly held data is realised. The value is not simply economic or financial, but societal. There are ways of arranging all this that would satisfy everyone.
I have been sitting here wondering whether to say it, but here I go: I am one of the 3.3 million.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
So is the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I withdrew my consent because I did not trust the system. I think that what both noble Lords have said about trust could be spread across the Bill as a whole.
We want to use our data well. We want it to benefit our public services. We want it to benefit UK plc and we want to make the world a better place, but not at the cost of individual data subjects and not at too great a cost. I add my voice to that. On the whole, I prefer systems that offer protections by design and default, as consent is a somewhat difficult concept. But, in as much as consent is a fundamental part of the current regulatory system and nothing in the Bill gets rid of it wholesale for some better system, it must be applied meaningfully. Amendments 79, 81 and 131 make clear what we mean by the term, ensure that the definition is consistent and clarify that it is not the intention of the Government to lessen the opportunity for meaningful consent. I, too, ask the Minister to confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to downgrade the concept of meaningful consent in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has set out.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 71 and others in this group from the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson. I apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will remember that we took a deep interest in this issue when I was a Health Minister and the conversations that we had.
I had a concern at the time. We all know that the NHS needs to be digitised and that relevant health professionals need to be able to access relevant data when they need to, so that there is no need to be stuck with one doctor when you go to another part of the country. There are so many efficiencies that we could have in the system, as long as they are accessed by relevant and appropriate health professionals at the right time. But it is also important that patients have confidence in the system and that their personal data cannot be shared with commercial organisations without them knowing. As other noble Lords have said, this is an issue of trust.
For that reason, when I was in that position, I reached out to civil liberties organisations to understand their concerns. For example, medConfidential was very helpful and had conversations with DHSC and NHS officials. In fact, after those conversations, officials told me that its demands were reasonable and that some of the things being asked for were not that difficult to give and common sense.
I asked a Written Question of the noble Baroness’s ministerial colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, about whether patients will be informed of who has had access to their patient record, because that is important for confidence. The Answer I got back was that the Government were proposing a single unified health record. We all know that. She said that:
“Ensuring that patients’ confidential information remains protected and is seen only by those who need to see it will be a priority. Public engagement next month will help us understand what safeguards patients would want to see”.
Surely the fact that patients have opted out shows that they already have concerns and have raised them.
The NHS can build the best data system—or the federated data platform, as it is called—but without patient confidence it is simply a castle made of sand. As one of my heroes, Jimi Hendrix, once said, castles made of sand fall into the sea eventually. We do not want to see that with the federated data platform. We want to see a modernised system of healthcare digital records, allowing joined-up thinking on health and care right across a patient’s life. We should be able to use machine learning to analyse those valuable datasets to improve preventive care. But, for that to happen, the key has to be trust and patients being confident that their data is secure and used in the appropriate way. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones. It is a pleasure to follow the second ex-Health Minister this afternoon. In many ways, the arguments are just the same for health data as they are for all data. It is just that, understandably, it is at the sharpest end of this debate. Probably the most important point for everybody to realise, although it is espoused so often, is that there is no such thing as NHS data. It is a collection of the data of every citizen in this country, and it matters. Public trust matters significantly for all data but for health data in particular, because it goes so close to our identity—our very being.
Yet we know how to do public trust in this country. We know how to engage and have had significant success in public engagement decades ago. What we could do now with human-led technology-supported public engagement could be on such a positive and transformational scale. But, so far, there has been so little on this front. Let us not talk of NHS data; let us always come back to the fundamental principle encapsulated in this group of amendments and across so many of our discussions on the Bill. Does the Minister agree that it is about not NHS data but our data—our decisions—and, through that, if we get it right, our human-led digital futures?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Many thanks to all noble Lords who have proposed and supported these amendments. I will speak to just a few of them.
Amendment 70 looks to mitigate the lowering of the consent threshold for scientific research. As I have set out on previous groups, I too have concerns about that consent threshold. However, for me the issue is more with the definition of scientific research than with the consent threshold, so I am not yet confident that the amendment is the right way to achieve those desirable aims.
Amendment 71 would require that no NHS personal data can be made available for scientific research without the explicit consent of the patient. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Clement-Jones, for raising this because it is such an important matter. While we will discuss this under other levels, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, points out, it is such an important thing and we need to get it right.
I regret to advise my noble friend Lord Holmes that I was going to start my next sentence with the words “Our NHS data”, but I will not. The data previously referred to is a very significant and globally unique national asset, comprising many decades of population-wide, cradle-to-grave medical data. No equivalent at anything like the same scale or richness exists anywhere, which makes it incredibly valuable. I thank my noble friend Lord Kamall for stressing this point with, as ever, the help of Jimi Hendrix.
However, that data is valuable only to the extent that it can be safely exploited for research and development purposes. The data can collectively help us develop new medicines or improve the administration and productivity of the NHS, but we need to allow it to do so properly. I am concerned that this amendment, if enacted, would create too high an operational and administrative barrier to the safe exploitation of this data. I have no interest in compromising on the safety, but we have to find a more efficient and effective way of doing it.
Amendments 79, 81 and 131 all look to clarify that the definition of consent to be used is in line with the definition in Article 4.11 of the UK GDPR:
“‘consent’ of the data subject means any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes by which he or she, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her”.
This amendment would continue the use of a definition that is well understood. However, paragraph 3(a) of new Article 8A appears sufficient, in that the purpose for which a data subject consents is “specified, explicit and legitimate”.
Finally, with respect to Clause 77 stand part, I take the point and believe that we will be spending a lot of time on these matters going forward. But, on balance and for the time being, I feel that this clause needs to remain, as there must be clear rules on what information should be provided to data subjects. We should leave it in for now, although we will no doubt be looking to polish it considerably.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for another thought-provoking debate on consent in scientific research. First, let me set out my staunch agreement with all noble Lords that a data subject’s consent should be respected.
Regarding Amendment 70, Clause 68 reproduces the text from the current UK GDPR recitals, enabling scientists to obtain “broad consent” for an area of research from the outset and to focus on potentially life-saving research. This has the same important limitations, including that it cannot be used if the researcher already knows its specific purpose and that consent can be revoked at any point.
I turn to Amendments 71 and 72, in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson, on assessments for research. Requiring all research projects to be submitted for assessments could discourage or delay researchers in their important work, as various noble Lords mentioned. However, I understand that my noble friend’s main concern is around NHS data. I assure him that, if NHS data is used for research, individual patients cannot be identified unless either a patient has specifically agreed for that data to be shared or the Health Research Authority has approved an application for this information to be used, informed by advice from the independent and expert Confidentiality Advisory Group. Research projects using confidential patient data are always subject to rigorous governance, including the approval of an ethics committee; the Minister, my noble friend Lady Jones, mentioned this earlier. There are also strict controls around who can see the data and how it is used and stored. Nothing in this clause will change that approach.
I turn to Amendments 81 and 131 on consent. I understand the motivations behind adding consent as a safeguard. However, organisations such as the Health Research Authority have advised researchers against relying on consent under the UK GDPR; for instance, an imbalance of power may mean that consent cannot truly be “freely given”.
On Amendment 79, I am happy to reassure my noble friend Lord Stevenson that references to “consent” in Clause 71 do indeed fall under the definition in Article 4.11.
Lastly, I turn to Clause 77, which covers the notification exemption; we will discuss this in our debates on upcoming groups. The Government have identified a gap in the UK GDPR that may disproportionately affect researchers. Where data is not collected from the data subject, there is an exemption from notifying them if getting in contact would mean a disproportionate amount of effort. This does not apply to data collected from the data subject. However, in certain studies, such as those of degenerative neurological conditions, it can be impossible or involve a disproportionate effort to recontact data subjects to inform them of any change in the study. The Bill will therefore provide a limited exemption with strong safeguards for data subjects.
Numerous noble Lords asked various questions. They touched on matters that we care about very much: trust in the organisation asking for data; the transparency rules; public interest; societal value; the various definitions of “consent”; and, obviously, whether we can have confidence in what is collected. I will not do noble Lords’ important questions justice if I stand here and try to give answers on the fly, so I will do more than just write a letter to them: I will also ask officials to organise a technical briefing and meeting so that we can go into everyone’s concerns in detail.
With that, I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that there are strong protections in place for data subjects, including patients; and that, as such, noble Lords will feel content to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I thank those who participated in this debate very much indeed. It went a little further than I had intended in drafting these amendments, but it has raised really important issues which I think we will probably come back to, if not later in Committee, certainly at Report.
At the heart of what we discussed, we recognise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, put it, that our data held by the NHS—if that is a better way of saying it—is valuable both in financial terms and because it should and could bring better health in future. Therefore, we value it specifically among some of the other datasets that we are talking about, because it has a returning loop in it. It is of benefit not just to the individual but to the UK as a whole, and we must respect that.
However, the worry that underlies framing it in that way is that, at some point, a tempting offer will be made by a commercial body—perhaps one is already on the table—which would generate new funding for the NHS and our health more generally, but the price obtained for that will not reflect the value that we have put into it over the years and the individual data that is being collected. That lack of trust is at the heart of what we have been talking about. In a sense, these amendments are about trust, but they are also bigger. They are also about the whole question of what it is that the Government as a whole do on our behalf in holding our data and what value they will obtain for that—something which I think we will come back to on a later amendment.
I agree with much of what was said from all sides. I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Holmes, from the Opposition for joining in the debate and discussion, and their points also need to be considered. The Minister replied in a very sensible and coherent way; I will read very carefully what he said in Hansard and we accept his kind offer of a technical briefing on the Bill—that would be most valuable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and another amendment in Lord Clement-Jones’s name to clause 70 omits paragraphs 70(2)(b)-(c), (4), (5) and (6) which make amendments to UK GDPR to define certain data processing activities as “recognised legitimate interests”.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I start with an apology, because almost every amendment in this group is one of mine and I am afraid I have quite a long speech to make about the different amendments, which include Amendments 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 78A, 83, 84, 85, 86, 89 and 90, and stand part debates on Schedules 4, 5 and 7 and Clause 74. But I know that the Members of this Committee are made of strong stuff.
Clause 70 and Schedule 4 introduce a new ground of recognised legitimate interest, which in essence counts as a lawful basis for processing if it meets any of the descriptions in the new Annexe 1 to the UK GDPR, which is at Schedule 4 to the Bill—for example, processing necessary for the purposes of responding to an emergency or detecting crime. These have been taken from the previous Government’s Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. This is supposed to reduce the burden on data controllers and the cost of legal advice when they have to assess whether it is okay to use or share data or not. Crucially, while the new ground shares its name with “legitimate interest”, it does not require the controller to make any balancing test taking the data subject’s interests into account. It just needs to meet the grounds in the list. The Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to define additional recognised legitimate interests beyond those in Annexe 1—a power heavily criticised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report on the Bill.
Currently where a private body shares personal data with a public body in reliance on Article 6(1)(e) of the GDPR, it can rely on the condition that the processing is
“necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest”.
New conditions in Annexe 1, as inserted by Schedule 4, would enable data sharing between the private and public sectors to occur without any reference to a public interest test. In the list of recognised legitimate interests, the most important is the ability of any public body to ask another controller, usually in the private sector, for the disclosure of personal data it needs to deliver its functions. This applies to all public bodies. The new recognised legitimate interest legal basis in Clause 70 and Schedule 4 should be dropped.
Stephen Cragg KC, giving his legal opinion on the DPDI Bill, which, as I mentioned, has the same provision, stated that this list of recognised legitimate interests
“has been elevated to a position where the fundamental rights of data subjects (including children) can effectively be ignored where the processing of personal data is concerned”.
The ICO has also flagged concerns about recognised legitimate interests. In its technical drafting comments on the Bill, it said:
“We think it would be helpful if the explanatory notes could explicitly state that, in all the proposed new recognised legitimate interests, an assessment of necessity involves consideration of the proportionality of the processing activity”.
An assessment of proportionality is precisely what the balancing test is there to achieve. Recognised legitimate interests undermine the fundamental rights and interests of individuals, including children, in specific circumstances.
When companies are processing data without consent, it is essential that they do the work to balance the interests of the people who are affected by that processing against their own interests. Removing recognised legitimate interests from the Bill will not stop organisations from sharing data with the public sector or using data to advance national security, detect crime or safeguard children and vulnerable people. The existing legitimate interest lawful basis is more than flexible enough for these purposes. It just requires controllers to consider and respect people’s rights as they do so.
During the scrutiny of recognised legitimate interests in the DPDI Bill—I am afraid to have to mention this—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who is now leading on this Bill as the Minister, raised concerns about the broad nature of the objectives. She rightly said:
“There is no strong reason for needing that extra power, so, to push back a little on the Minister, why, specifically, is it felt necessary? If it were a public safety interest, or one of the other examples he gave, it seems to me that that would come under the existing list of public interests”.—[Official Report, 25/3/24; col. GC 106.]
She never spoke a truer word.
However, this Government have reintroduced the same extra power with no new articulation of any strong reason for needing it. The constraints placed on the Secretary of State are slightly higher in this Bill than they were in the DPDI Bill, as new paragraph (9), inserted by Clause 70(4), means that they able to add new recognised legitimate interests only if they consider processing the case to be necessary to safeguard an objective listed in UK GDPR Article 23(1)(c) to (j). However, this list includes catch-alls, such as
“other important objectives of general public interest”.
To give an example of what this power would allow, the DPDI Bill included a recognised legitimate interest relating to the ability of political parties to use data about citizens during election campaigns on the basis that democratic participation is an objective of general public interest. I am glad to say that this is no longer included. Another example is that a future Secretary of State could designate workplace productivity as a recognised legitimate interest—which, without a balancing test, would open the floodgates to intrusive workplace surveillance and unsustainable data-driven work intensification. That does not seem to be in line with the Government’s objectives.
Amendment 74 is rather more limited. Alongside the BMA, we are unclear about the extent of the impact of Clause 70 on the processing of health data. It is noted that the recognised legitimate interest avenue appears to be available only to data controllers that are not public authorities. Therefore, NHS organisations appear to be excluded. We would welcome confirmation that health data held by an NHS data controller is excluded from the scope of Clause 70 now and in the future, regardless of the lawful basis that is being relied on to process health data.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I cannot compete with that tour de force. I shall speak to Amendments 73 and 75 in the name of noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to which I have added my name, Amendments 76, 83 and 90 on the Secretary of State’s powers and Amendments 85 and 86 to which I wish I had added my name, but it is hard to keep up with the noble Lord. I am in sympathy with the other amendments in the group.
The issue of recognised legitimate interest has made a frequent appearance in the many briefings I have received and despite reading the Explanatory Notes for the Bill several times, I have struggled to understand in plain English the Government’s intent and purpose. I went to the ICO website to remind myself of the definition of legitimate interest to try to understand why recognised legitimate interest was necessary. It states:
“Legitimate interests is the most flexible lawful basis for processing, but you cannot assume it will always be the most appropriate.”
and then goes on:
“If you choose to rely on legitimate interests, you are taking on extra responsibility for considering and protecting people’s rights and interests.”
That seems to strike a balance between compelling justifications for processing and the need to consider and protect individual data rights and interests. I would be very interested to hear from Minister why the new category of “recognised legitimate interest” is necessary. Specifically, why do the Government believe that when processing may have far-reaching consequences, such as national security, crime prevention and safeguarding, there is no need to undertake a legitimate interest assessment? What is the justification for the ability of any public body to demand that data from private companies for any purpose? I ask those questions to be precise about the context and purpose.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I am not suggesting that there is no legitimate interest for processing personal data without consent, but the legitimate interest assessment is a check and balance that ensures oversight and reduces the risk of overreach. It is a test, not a blocker, and does not in itself prevent processing if the balancing test determines that processing should go ahead. Amendment 85 illustrates this point in relation to vulnerable users. Given that a determination that a person is at risk would have far-reaching consequences for that person, the principles of fairness and accountability demand that those making the decision must follow a due process and that those subject to the decision are aware—if not in an emergency, certainly at some point in the proceedings.
In laying Amendment 86, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raises an important question that I am keen to hear from Ministers on, namely, what is the Government’s plan for ensuring that a designation that an individual is vulnerable is monitored and removed when it is no longer appropriate? If a company or organisation has a legitimate interest in processing someone’s data considering the balancing interests of data subjects, it is free to do so. I ask the Minister again to give concrete examples of circumstances in which the current legitimate interest basis is insufficient, so that we understand the problem the Government are trying to solve.
At Second Reading, the Government’s curious defence of this new measure was the idea that organisations had concerns about whether they were doing the balancing test correctly, so the new measure is there to help, but perhaps the Minister can explain what benefits accrue from introducing the new measure that could not have been better achieved by the ICO providing more concrete guidance on the balancing test. Given that the measure is focused on the provision of public interest areas, such as national security and the detection of crime, how does the creation of the recognised legitimate interest help the majority of data controllers, rather than simply serving the interests of incumbents and/or government departments by removing an important check or balance?
Amendments 76, 83 and 90 seek to curb the power of the Secretary of State to override primary legislation and to modify key aspects of UK data protection law via statutory instrument. The proposed provisions in Clauses 70, 71 and 74 put one person in control, rather than Parliament. Elon Musk’s new role in the upcoming US Administration gives him legitimacy as an incoming officeholder in the Executive, but his new role is complicated by the fact that he is also CEO and majority shareholder of X. Like OpenAI, Google, Amazon, Palantir or any other tech behemoth, tech execs are not elected or bound to fulfil social goods or commitments, other than making a profit for their shareholders. They also fund many of the think tanks, reports and events in the political ecosystem, and there is a well-worn path of employment between industry, government and regulators.
No single person should be the carrier of that incredible burden. For now, Parliament is the only barrier in the increasingly confused picture of regulatory and political capture by the tech sector. We should fight to keep it that way.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 74 from the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Clement-Jones, on excluding personal health data from being a recognised legitimate interest. I also support Amendment 78 on having a statement by the Secretary of State to recognise that legitimate interest and Amendments 83 and 90, which would remove powers from the Secretary of State to override primary legislation to modify data protection via an SI. There is not much to add to what I said on the previous group, so I will not repeat all the arguments made then. In simple terms, I repeat the necessity for trust—in health, particularly for patient trust. You do not gain trust simply by defining personal health data as a legitimate interest or by overriding primary legislation on the say-so of a Secretary of State, even if it is laid as a statutory instrument.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I want to ask the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in very general terms for their views on retrospectivity. Do they believe that the changes to data protection law in the Bill are intended to be applied to data already held at this time or will the new regime apply only to personal data collected going forwards from this point? I ask that specifically of data pertaining to children, from whom sensitive data has already been collected. Will the forthcoming changes to data protection law apply to such data that controllers and processors already hold, or will it apply only to data held going forward?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who has clearly had his Weetabix this morning. I will comment on some of the many amendments tabled.
On Amendments 73, 75, 76, 77, 83 and 90, I agree it is concerning that the Secretary of State can amend such important legislation via secondary legislation. However, these amendments are subject to the affirmative procedure and, therefore, to parliamentary scrutiny. Since the DPDI Bill proposed the same, I have not changed my views; I remain content that this is the right level of oversight and that these changes do not need to be made via primary legislation.
As for Amendment 74, preventing personal health data from being considered a legitimate interest seems wise. It is best to err on the side of caution when it comes to sharing personal health data.
Amendment 77 poses an interesting suggestion, allowing businesses affiliated by contract to be treated in the same way as large businesses that handle data from multiple companies in a group. This would certainly be beneficial for SMEs collaborating on a larger project. However, each such business may have different data protection structures and terms of use. Therefore, while this idea certainly has merit, I am a little concerned that it may benefit from some refining to ensure that the data flows between businesses in a way to which the data subject has consented.
On Amendment 78A and Schedule 4 standing part, there are many good, legitimate interest reasons why data must be quickly shared and processed, many of which are set out in Schedule 4: for example, national security, emergencies, crimes and safeguarding. This schedule should therefore be included in the Bill to set out the details on these important areas of legitimate interest processing. Amendment 84 feels rather like the central theme of all our deliberations thus far today, so I will listen with great interest, as ever, to the Minister’s response.
I have some concerns about Amendment 85, especially the use of the word “publicly”. The information that may be processed for the purposes of safeguarding vulnerable individuals is likely to be deeply sensitive and should not be publicly available. Following on from this point, I am curious to hear the Minister’s response to Amendment 86. It certainly seems logical that provisions should be in place so that individuals can regain control of their personal data should the reason for their vulnerability be resolved. As for the remaining stand part notices in this group, I do not feel that these schedules should be removed because they set out important detail on which we will come to rely.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, opened his speech he said that he hoped that noble Lords would be made of strong stuff while he worked his way through it. I have a similar request regarding my response: please bear with me. I will address these amendments slightly out of order to ensure that related issues are grouped together.
The Schedule 4 stand part notice, and Amendments 73 and 75, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would remove the new lawful ground of “recognised legitimate interests” created by Clause 70 and Schedule 4 to the Bill. The aim of these provisions is to give data controllers greater confidence about processing personal data for specified and limited public interest objectives. Processing that is necessary and proportionate to achieve one of these objectives can take place without a person’s consent and without undertaking the legitimate interests balancing test. However, they would still have to comply with the wider requirements of data protection legislation, where relevant, ensuring that the data is processed in compliance with the other data protection principles.
I say in response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that the new lawful ground of recognised legitimate interest will apply from the date of commencement and will not apply retrospectively.
The activities listed include processing of data where necessary to prevent crime, safeguarding national security, protecting children or responding to emergencies. They also include situations where a public body requests that a non-public body share personal data with it to help deliver a public task that is sanctioned by law. In these circumstances, it is very important that data is shared without delay, and removal of these provisions from the Bill, as proposed by the amendment, could make that harder.
Amendment 74, tabled by noble Lord, Lord Scriven, would prevent health data being processed as part of this new lawful ground, but this could have some unwelcome effects. For example, the new lawful ground is designed to give controllers greater confidence about reporting safeguarding concerns, but if these concerns relate to a vulnerable person’s health, they would not be able to rely on the new lawful ground to process the data and would have to identify an alternative lawful ground.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about which data controllers can rely on the new lawful ground, it would not be available to public bodies such as the NHS; it is aimed at non-public bodies.
I reassure noble Lords that there are still sufficient safeguards in the wider framework. Any processing that involves special category data, such as health data, would also need to comply with the conditions and safeguards in Article 9 of the UK GDPR and Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 2018.
Amendment 78A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would remove the new lawful ground for non-public bodies or individuals to disclose personal data at the request of public bodies, where necessary, to help those bodies deliver their public interest tasks without carrying out a legitimate interest balance test. We would argue that, without it, controllers may lack certainty about the correct lawful ground to rely on when responding to such requests.
Amendment 76, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would remove the powers of regulations in Clause 70 that would allow the Secretary of State to keep the list of recognised legitimate interests up to date. Alternatively, the noble Lord’s Amendment 78 would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement every time he added a new processing activity to the list, setting out its purpose, which controllers it was aimed at and for how long they can use it. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government have already taken steps to tighten up these powers since the previous Bill was considered by this House.
Any new processing activities added would now also have to serve
“important objectives of … public interest”
as described in Article 23.1 of the UK GDPR and, as before, new activities could be added to the list only following consultation with the ICO and other interested parties. The Secretary of State would also have to consider the impact of any changes on people’s rights and have regard to the specific needs of children. Although these powers are likely to be used sparingly, the Government think it important that they be retained. I reassure the Committee that we will be responding to the report from the Delegated Powers Committee within the usual timeframes and we welcome its scrutiny of the Bill.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 77 seeks to make it clear that organisations should also be able to rely on Article 6.1(f) to make transfers between separate businesses affiliated by contract. The list of activities mentioned in Clause 70 is intended to be illustrative only and is drawn from the recitals to the UK GDPR. This avoids providing a very lengthy list that might be viewed as prescriptive. Article 6.1(f) of the UK GDPR is flexible. The transmission of personal data between businesses affiliated by contract may constitute a legitimate interest, like many other commercial interests. It is for the controller to determine this on a case-by-case basis.
I will now address the group of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, concerning the purpose limitation principle, specifically Amendments 83 to 86. This principle limits the ways that personal data collected for one purpose can be used for another, but Clause 71 aims to provide more clarity and certainty around how it operates, including how certain exemptions apply.
Amendment 84 seeks to clarify whether the first exemption in proposed new Annexe 2 to the UK GDPR would allow personal data to be reused for commercial purposes. The conditions for using this exemption are that the requesting controller has a public task or official authority laid down in law that meets a public interest objective in Article 23.1 of the UK GDPR. As a result, I and the Government are satisfied that these situations would be for limited public interest objectives only, as set out in law.
Amendments 85 and 86 seek to introduce greater transparency around the use of safeguarding exemptions in paragraph 8 of new Annexe 2. These conditions are drawn from the Care Act 2014 and replicated in the existing condition for sensitive data processing for safeguarding purposes in the Data Protection Act 2018. I can reassure the Committee that processing cannot occur if it does not meet these conditions, including if the vulnerability of the individual no longer exists. In addition, requiring that an assessment be made and given to the data subject before the processing begins could result in safeguarding delays and would defeat the purpose of this exemption.
Amendment 83 would remove the regulation-making powers associated with this clause so that new exceptions could not be added in future. I remind noble Lords that there is already a power to create exemptions from the purpose limitation principle in the DPA 2018. This Bill simply moves the existing exemptions to a new annexe to the UK GDPR. The power is strictly limited to the public objectives listed in Article 23.1 of the UK GDPR.
I now turn to the noble Lord’s Amendment 89, which seeks to set conditions under which pseudonymised data should be treated as personal data. This is not necessary as pseudonymised data already falls within the definition of personal data under Article 4.1 of the UK GDPR. This amendment also seeks to ensure that a determination by the ICO that data is personal data applies
“at all points in that processing”.
However, the moment at which data is or becomes personal should be a determination of fact based on its identifiability to a living individual.
I turn now to Clause 74 stand part, together with Amendment 90. Noble Lords are aware that special categories of data require additional protection. Article 9 of the UK GDPR sets out an exhaustive list of what is sensitive data and outlines processing conditions. Currently, this list cannot be amended without primary legislation, which may not always be available. This leaves the Government unable to respond swiftly when new types of sensitive data are identified, including as a result of emerging technologies. The powers in Clause 74 enable the Government to respond more quickly and add new special categories of data, tailor the conditions applicable to their use and add new definitions if necessary.
Finally, I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that would remove Schedule 7 from the Bill. This schedule contains measures to create a clearer and more outcomes-focused UK international data transfers regime. As part of these reforms, this schedule includes a power for the Secretary of State to recognise new transfer mechanisms for protecting international personal data transfers. Without this, the UK would be unable to respond swiftly to emerging developments and global trends in personal data transfers. In addition, the ICO will be consulted on any new mechanisms, and they will be subject to debate in Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure.
I hope this helps explain the Government’s intention with these clauses and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. She covered quite a lot of ground and all of us will have to read Hansard quite carefully. However, it is somewhat horrifying that, for a Bill of this size, we had about 30 seconds from the Minister on Schedule 7, which could have such a huge influence on our data adequacy when that is assessed next year. I do not think anybody has talked about international transfers at this point, least of all me in introducing these amendments. Even though it may appear that we are taking our time over this Bill, we are not fundamentally covering all its points. The importance of this Bill, which obviously escapes most Members of this House—there are just a few aficionados—is considerable and could have a far-reaching impact.
I still get Viscount Camrose vibes coming from the Minister.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Perhaps I should stay that this kind of enthusiasm clearly conquers all. I should thank a former Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her thoughtful speech, particularly in questioning the whole recognised legitimate interest issue, especially in relation to vulnerable individuals.
It all seems to be a need for speed, whether it is the Secretary of State who has to make snappy decisions or a data controller. We are going to conquer uncertainty. We have to keep bustling along. In a way, to hell with individual data rights; needs must. I feel somewhat Canute-like holding up the barrier of data that will be flowing across us. I feel quite uncomfortable with that. I think the DPRRC is likewise going to feel pretty cheesed off.
Lord Clement-Jones
“4A. Where the controller collected the personal data based on Article 6(1)(a) (data subject’s consent), processing for a new purpose is not compatible with the original purpose if—(a) the data subject is a child,(b) the processing is based on consent given or authorised by the holder of parental responsibility over the child,(c) the data subject is an adult to whom either (a) or (b) applied at the time of the consent collection, or(d) the data subject is a deceased child.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to exclude children from the new provisions on purpose limitation for further processing under Article 8A.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thought I had no speech; that would have been terrible. In moving my amendment, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding of Winscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for their support. I shall speak also to Amendments 94, 135 and 196.
Additional safeguards are required for the protection of children’s data. This amendment
“seeks to exclude children from the new provisions on purpose limitation for further processing under Article 8A”.
The change to the purpose limitation in Clause 71 raises questions about the lifelong implications of the proposed change for children, given the expectation that they are less aware of the risks of data processing and may not have made their own preferences or choices known at the time of data collection.
For most children’s data processing, adults give permission on their behalf. The extension of this for additional purposes may be incompatible with what a data subject later wishes as an adult. The only protection they may have is purpose limitation to ensure that they are reconsented or informed of changes to processing. Data reuse and access must not mean abandoning the first principles of data protection. Purpose limitation rests on the essential principles of “specified” and “explicit” at the time of collection, which this change does away with.
There are some questions that I would like to put to the Minister. If further reuses, such as more research, are compatible, they are already permitted under current law. If further reuses are not permitted under current law, why should data subjects’ current rights be undermined as a child and, through this change, never be able to be reclaimed at any time in the future? How does the new provision align with the principle of acting in the best interests of the child, as outlined in the UK GDPR, the UNCRC in Scotland and the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011? What are the specific risks to children’s data privacy and security under the revised rules for purpose limitation that may have an unforeseeable lifelong effect? In summary, a blanket exclusion for children’s data processing conforms more with the status quo of data protection principles. Children should be asked again about data processing once they reach maturity and should not find that data rights have been given away by their parents on their behalf.
Amendment 196 is more of a probing amendment. Ofcom has set out its approach to the categorisation of category 1 services under the Online Safety Act. Ofcom’s advice and research, submitted to the Secretary of State, outlines the criteria for determining whether a service falls into category 1. These services are characterised by having the highest reach and risk functionalities among user-to-user services. The categorisation is based on certain threshold conditions, which include user numbers and functionalities such as content recommender systems and the ability for users to forward or reshare content. Ofcom has recommended that category 1 services should meet either of two sets of conditions: having more than 34 million UK users with a content recommender system or having more than 7 million UK users with a content recommender system and the ability for users to forward or reshare user-generated content. The categorisation process is part of Ofcom’s phased approach to implementing codes and guidance for online safety, with additional obligations for category 1 services due to their potential as sources of harm.
The Secretary of State recently issued the Draft Statement of Strategic Priorities for Online Safety, under Section 172 of the Online Safety Act. It says:
“Large technology companies have a key role in helping the UK to achieve this potential, but any company afforded the privilege of access to the UK’s vibrant technology and skills ecosystem must also accept their responsibility to keep people safe on their platforms and foster a safer online world … The government appreciates that Ofcom has set out to government its approach to tackling small but risky services. The government would like to see Ofcom keep this approach under continual review and to keep abreast of new and emerging small but risky services, which are posing harm to users online.
As the online safety regulator, we expect Ofcom to continue focusing its efforts on safety improvements among services that pose the highest risk of harm to users, including small but risky services. All search services in scope of the Act have duties to minimise the presentation of search results which include or lead directly to illegal content or content that is harmful to children. This should lead to a significant reduction in these services being accessible via search results”.
During the parliamentary debates on the Online Safety Bill and in Joint Committee, there was significant concern about the categorisation of services, particularly about the emphasis on size over risk. Initially, the categorisation was based largely on user numbers and functionalities, which led to concerns that smaller platforms with high-risk content might not be adequately addressed. In the Commons, Labour’s Alex Davies-Jones MP, now a Minister in the Ministry of Justice, argued that focusing on size rather than risk could fail to address extreme harms present on smaller sites.
The debates also revealed a push for a more risk-based approach to categorisation. The then Government eventually accepted an amendment allowing the Secretary of State discretion in setting thresholds based on user numbers, functionalities or both. This change aimed to provide flexibility in addressing high-risk smaller platforms. However, concerns remain, despite the strategy statement and the amendment to the original Online Safety Bill, that smaller platforms with significant potential for harm might not be sufficiently covered under the category 1 designation. Overall, while the final approach allows some flexibility, there is quite some debate about whether enough emphasis will be placed by Ofcom in its categorisation on the risks posed by smaller players. My colleagues on these Benches and in the Commons have emphasised to me that we should be rigorously addressing these issues. I beg to move.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to all the amendments in this group, and I thank noble Lords who have added their names to Amendments 88 and 135 in my name.
Amendment 88 creates a duty for data controllers and processors to consider children’s needs and rights. Proposed new subsection (1) simply sets out children’s existing rights and acknowledges that children of different ages have different capacities and therefore may require different responses. Proposed new subsection (2) addresses the concern expressed during the passage of the Bill and its predecessor that children should be shielded from the reduction in privacy protections that adults will experience under the proposals. Proposed new subsection (3) simply confirms that a child is anyone under the age 18.
This amendment leans on a bit of history. Section 123 of the Data Protection Act 2018 enshrined the age-appropriate design code into our data regime. The AADC’s journey from amendment to fully articulated code, since mirrored and copied around the world, has provided two useful lessons.
First, if the intent of Parliament is clear in the Bill, it is fixed. After Royal Assent to the Data Protection Act 2018, the tech lobby came calling to both the Government and the regulator arguing that the proposed age of adulthood in the AADC be reduced from 18 to 13, where it had been for more than two decades. Both the department and the regulator held up their hands and pointed at the text, which cited the UNCRC that defines a child as a person under 18. That age remains, not only in the UK but in all the other jurisdictions that have since copied the legislation.
In contrast, on several other issues both in the AADC and, more recently, in the Online Safety Act, the intentions of Parliament were not spelled out and have been reinterpreted. Happily, the promised coroner provisions are now enshrined in this Bill, but promises from the Dispatch Box about the scope and form of the coroner provisions were initially diluted and had to be refought for a second time by bereaved parents. Other examples, such as promises of a mixed economy, age-assurance requirements and a focus on contact harm, features and functionalities as well as content are some of the ministerial promises that reflected Parliament’s intention but do not form part of the final regulatory standards, in large part because they were not sufficiently spelled out in the Bill. What is on in the Bill really matters.
Secondly, our legislation over the past decade is guilty of solving the problems of yesterday. There is departmental resistance to having outcomes rather than processes enshrined in legislation. Overarching principles, such as a duty of care, or rights, such as children’s rights to privacy, are abandoned in favour of process measures, tools that even the tech companies admit are seldom used and narrow definitions of what must and may not be taken down.
Tech is various, its contexts infinite, its rate of change giddy and the skills of government and regulator are necessarily limited. At some point we are going to have to start saying what the outcome should be, what the principles are, and not what the process is. My argument for this amendment is that we need to fix our intention that in the Bill children have an established set of needs according to their evolving capacity. Similarly, they have a right to a higher bar of privacy, so that both these principles become unavoidable.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I put my name to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and will briefly support them. I state my interest as a governor of Coram, the children’s charity. One gets a strong sense of déjà vu with this Bill. It takes me back to the Online Safety Bill and the Victims and Prisoners Bill, where we spent an inordinate amount of time trying to persuade the Government that children are children and need to be treated as children, not as adults. That was hard work. They have an absolute right to be protected and to be treated differently.
I ask the Minister to spend some time, particularly when her cold is better, with some of her colleagues whom we worked alongside during the passage of those Bills in trying to persuade the then Government of the importance of children being specifically recognised and having specific safeguards. If she has time to talk to the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby, Lord Stevenson and Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton —when she comes out of hospital, which I hope will be soon—she will have chapter, book and verse about the arguments we used, which I hope we will not have to rehearse yet again in the passage of this Bill. I ask her please to take the time to learn from that.
As the noble Baroness said, what is fundamental is not what is hinted at or implied at the Dispatch Box, but what is actually in the Bill. When it is in the Bill, you cannot wriggle out of it—it is clearly there, stating what it is there for, and it is not open to clever legal interpretation. In a sense, we are trying to future-proof the Bill by, importantly, as she said, focusing on outcomes. If you do so, you are much nearer to future-proofing than if you focus on processes, which by their very nature will be out of date by the time you have managed to understand what they are there to do.
Amendment 135 is important because the current so-called safeguard for the Information Commissioner to look after the interests of children is woefully inadequate. One proposed new section in Clause 90 talks of
“the fact that children may be less aware of the risks and consequences associated with processing of personal data and of their rights in relation to such processing”.
It is not just children; most adults do not have a clue about any of that, so to expect children to have even the remotest idea is just a non-starter. To add insult to injury, that new section begins
“the Commissioner must have regard to such of the following”—
of which the part about children is one—
“as appear to the Commissioner to be relevant in the circumstances”.
That is about as vague and weaselly as it is possible to imagine. It is not adequate in any way, shape or form.
In all conscience, I hope that will be looked at very carefully. The idea that the commissioner might in certain circumstances deem that the status and importance of children is not relevant is staggering. I cannot imagine a circumstance in which that would be the case. Again, what is in the Bill really matters.
On Amendment 94, not exempting the provision of information regarding the processing of children’s data is self-evidently extremely important. On Amendment 82, ring-fencing children’s data from being used by a controller for a different purpose again seems a no-brainer.
Amendment 196, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, says, is a probing amendment. It seems eminently sensible when creating Acts of Parliament that in some senses overlap, particularly in the digital and online world, that the left hand should know what the right hand is doing and how two Acts may be having an effect on one another, perhaps not in ways that had been understood or foreseen when the legislation was put forward. We are looking for consistency, clarity, future-proofing and a concentration on outputs, not processes. First and foremost, we are looking for the recognition, which we fought for so hard and finally got, that children are children and need to be recognised and treated as children.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I think we sometimes forget, because the results are often so spectacular, the hard work that has had to happen over the years to get us to where we are, particularly in relation to the Online Safety Act. It is well exemplified by the previous speaker. He put his finger on the right spot in saying that we all owe considerable respect for the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others. I helped a little along the way. It is extraordinary to feel that so much of this could be washed away if the Bill goes forward in its present form. I give notice that I intend to work with my colleagues on this issue because this Bill is in serious need of revision. These amendments are part of that and may need to be amplified in later stages.
I managed to sign only two of the amendments in this group. I am sorry that I did not sign the others, because they are also important. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for not spotting them early enough to be able to do so. I will speak to the ones I have signed, Amendments 88 and 135. I hope that the Minister will give us some hope that we will be able to see some movement on this.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned the way in which the wording on page 113 seems not only to miss the point but to devalue the possibility of seeing protections for children well placed in the legislation. New Clause 120B(e), which talks of
“the fact that children may be less aware of the risks and consequences associated with processing of personal data and of their rights in relation to such processing”,
almost says it all for me. I do not understand how that could possibly have got through the process by which this came forward, but it seems to speak to a lack of communication between parts of government that I hoped this new Government, with their energy, would have been able to overcome. It speaks to the fact that we need to keep an eye on both sides of the equation: what is happening in the online safety world and how data that is under the control of others, not necessarily those same companies, will be processed in support or otherwise of those who might wish to behave in an improper or illegal way towards children.
At the very least, what is in these amendments needs to be brought into the Bill. In fact, other additions may need to be made. I shall certainly keep my eye on it.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for bringing forward amendments in what is a profoundly important group. For all that data is a cornerstone of innovation and development, as we have often argued in this Committee, we cannot lose sight of our responsibility to safeguard the rights and welfare of our children.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have raised this important topic. I say at the outset that I appreciate and pay tribute to those who have worked on this for many years—in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has been a fantastic champion of these issues.
I also reassure noble Lords that these provisions are intended to build upon, and certainly not to undermine, the rights of children as they have previously been defined. We share noble Lords’ commitment to ensuring high standards of protection for children. That is why I am glad that the Bill, together with existing data protection principles, already provides robust protections for children. I hope that my response to these amendments shows that we take these issues seriously. The ICO also recognises in its guidance, after the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, that the duties and responsibilities to respect the rights of children extend in practice to private actors and business enterprises.
Amendment 82, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would exclude children’s personal data from the exemptions to the purpose limitation principles in Schedule 5 to the Bill. The new purposes are for important public interests only, such as safeguarding vulnerable individuals or children. Broader existing safeguards in the data protection framework, such as the fairness and lawfulness principles, also apply. Prohibiting a change of purpose in processing could impede important activities, such as the safeguarding issues to which I have referred.
Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would introduce a new duty requiring all data controllers to consider that children are entitled to higher protection than adults. We understand the noble Baroness’s intentions and, in many ways, share her aims, but we would prefer to focus on improving compliance with the current legislation, including through the way the ICO discharges its regulatory functions.
In addition, the proposed duty could have some unwelcome and unintended effects. For example, it could lead to questions about why other vulnerable people are not entitled to enhanced protections. It would also apply to organisations of all sizes, including micro-businesses and voluntary sector organisations, even if they process children’s data on only a small scale. It could also cause confusion about what they would need to do to verify age to comply with the new duty.
Amendment 94, also tabled by the noble Baroness, would ensure that the new notification exemptions under Article 13 would not apply to children. However, removing children’s data from this exemption could mean that some important research—for example, on the causes of childhood diseases—could not be undertaken if the data controller were unable to contact the individuals about the intended processing activity.
Amendment 135 would place new duties on the ICO to uphold the rights of children. The ICO’s new strategic framework, introduced by the Bill, has been carefully structured to achieve a similar effect. Its principal objective requires the regulator to
“secure an appropriate level of protection for personal data”.
This gives flexibility and nuance in the appropriateness of the level of protections; they are not always the same for all data subjects, all the time.
Going beyond this, though, the strategic framework includes the new duty relating to children. This acknowledges that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, children may be less aware of the risks and consequences associated with the processing of their data, as well of as their rights. As she pointed out, this is drawn from recital 38 to the UK GDPR, but the Government’s view is that the Bill’s language gives sufficient effect to the recital. We recognise the importance of clarity on this issue and hope that we have achieved it but, obviously, we are happy to talk further to the noble Baroness on this matter.
This duty will also be a consideration for the ICO and one to which the commissioner must have regard across all data protection activities, where relevant. It will inform the regulator’s thinking on everything from enforcement to guidance, including how work might need to be tailored to suit children at all stages of childhood in order to ensure that the levels of protection are appropriate.
Finally, regarding Amendment 196—
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I would like her to explain why only half of the recital is in the Bill and why the fact that children merit special attention is in the Bill. How can it possibly be that, in this Bill, we are giving children adequate protection? I can disagree with some of the other things that she said, but I would like her to answer that specific question.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
To be on the safe side, I will write to the noble Baroness. We feel that other bits in the provisions of the Bill cover the other aspects but, just to be clear on it, I will write to her. On Amendment 196 and the Online Safety Act—
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt but I am slightly puzzled by the way in which that exchange just happened. I take it from what the Minister is saying that there is no dissent, in her and the Bill team’s thinking, about children’s rights having to be given the correct priority, but she feels that the current drafting is better than what is now proposed because it does not deflect from the broader issues that she has adhered to. She has fallen into the trap, which I thought she never would do, of blaming unintended consequences; I am sure that she will want to rethink that before she comes back to the Dispatch Box.
Surely the point being made here is about the absolute need to make sure that children’s rights never get taken down because of the consideration of other requirements. They are on their own, separate and not to be mixed up with those considerations that are truly right for the commissioner—and the ICO, in its new form—to take but which should never deflect from the way children are protected. If the Minister agrees with that, could she not see some way of reaching out to be a bit closer to where the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I absolutely recognise the importance of the issues being raised here, which is why I think I really should write: I want to make sure that whatever I say is properly recorded and that we can all go on to debate it further. I am not trying to duck the issue; this issue is just too important for me to give an off-the-cuff response on it. I am sure that we will have further discussions on this. As I say, let me put it in writing, and we can pick that up. Certainly, as I said at the beginning, our intention was to enhance children’s protection rather than deflect from it.
Moving on to Amendment 196, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and other noble Lords for raising this important issue and seeking clarity on how the provision relates to the categorisation of services in the Online Safety Act. These categories are, however, not directly related to Clause 122 of this Bill as a data preservation notice can be issued to any service provider regulated in the Online Safety Act, regardless of categorisation. A list of the relevant persons is provided in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Section 100(5) of the Act; it includes any user-to-user service, search service and ancillary service.
I absolutely understand noble Lords saying that these things should cross-reference in some way but, as far we are concerned, they complement each other, and that protection is currently in the Online Safety Act. As I said, I will write to noble Lords and am happy to meet if that would be helpful. In the meantime, I hope that the explanations I have given are sufficient grounds for noble Lords not to press their amendments at this stage.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response. I should say at the outset that, although I may have led the group, it is clear that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, leads the pack as far as this is concerned. I know that she wants me to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, wished to say that she was extremely sorry not to be able to attend as she wanted to associate herself wholeheartedly with these amendments. She said, “It’s so disappointing still to be fighting for children’s data to have higher protection but it seems that that’s our lot!” I think she anticipated the response, sadly. I very much thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Stevenson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, in particular for his thoughtful response to Amendment 196.
I was very interested in the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and wrote down “Not invented here” to sum up the Government’s response to some of these amendments, which has been consistently underwhelming throughout the debates on the DPDI Bill and this Bill. They have brought out such things as “the unintended effects” and said, “We don’t want to interfere with the ICO”, and so on. This campaign will continue; it is really important. Obviously, we will read carefully what the Minister said but, given the troops behind me, I think the campaign will only get stronger.
The Minister did not really deal with the substance of Amendment 196, which was not just a cunning ploy to connect the Bill with the Online Safety Act; it was about current intentions on categorisation. There is considerable concern that the current category 1 is overconservative and that we are not covering the smaller, unsafe social media platforms. When we discussed the Online Safety Bill, both in the Joint Committee and in the debates on subsequent stages of the Bill, it was clear that this was about risk, not just size, and we wanted to cover those risky, smaller platforms as well. While I appreciate the Government’s strategic statement, which made it pretty clear, and without wishing to overly terrorise Ofcom, we should make our view on categorisation pretty clear, and the Government should do likewise.
This argument and debate will no doubt continue. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
“Application of the European Convention on Human Rights to the processing of personal data by private bodies(1) Where personal data is processed by any private body not subject to the obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights as enacted by the Human Rights Act 1998, that private body is to be treated as subject to the obligations under the Convention as if it were a public authority and must ensure that such processing is not incompatible with a Convention right. (2) If a private body fails to ensure that the processing of personal data is in accordance with subsection (1), the private body is liable to any person whose rights under the Convention are infringed as if it were a public authority,”Member's explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to ensure for the purpose of equivalence that the processing of personal data by private bodies is subject to the ECHR on the same basis as public bodies.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, although it is a late hour, I want to make two or three points. I hope that I will be able to finish what I wish to say relatively quickly. It is important that in looking at the whole of this Bill we keep in mind two things. One is equivalence, and the other is the importance of the rights in the Bill and its protections being anchored in something ordinary people can understand. Unfortunately, I could not be here on the first day but having sat through most of today, I deeply worry about the unintelligibility of this whole legislative package. We are stuck with it for now, but I sincerely hope that this is the last Civil Service-produced Bill of this kind. We need radical new thinking, and I shall try to explore that when we look at automated decision-making—again, a bit that is far too complicated.
Amendment 87 specifically relates to equivalence, and I want to touch on Amendment 125. There is in what I intend to suggest a fix to the problem, if it really exists, that will also have the benefit of underpinning this legislation by rights that people understand and that are applicable not merely to the state but to private companies. The problem that seems to have arisen—there are byproducts of Brexit that from time to time surface—is the whole history of the way in which we left the European Community. We left initially under the withdrawal Act, leaving retained EU law. No doubt many of us remember the debates that took place. The then Government were wholly opposed to keeping the charter. In respect of the protection of people’s data being processed, that is probably acceptable on the basis that the rights of the charter had merged into ordinary retained EU law through the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union. All was relatively well until the retained Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act, which deleted most general EU retained law principles, including fundamental rights, from the UK statute book. What then happened, as I understand it, was that a fix to this problem was attempted by the Data Protection (Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which tidied up the UK GDPR by making clear that any references to fundamental rights and freedoms were regarded as reference to convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act.
For good and understandable reasons, the Human Rights Act applies to public authorities and in very limited circumstances to private bodies but not as a whole. That is accepted generally and certainly is accepted in the human rights memorandum in respect of this Bill. The difficulty with the Bill, therefore, is that the protections under the Human Rights Act apply only to public authorities but not to private authorities. Whereas, generally speaking, the way in which the Charter of Fundamental Rights operated was to protect, also on a horizontal basis, the processing or use of data by private companies.
This seems to cause two problems. First, it is critical that there is no doubt about this, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say as to the view of the Government’s legal advisers as to whether there is a doubt. Secondly, the amendment goes to the second of the two objectives which we are trying to achieve, which is to instil an understanding of the principles so that the ordinary member of the public can have trust. I defy anyone, even the experts who drafted this, to think that this is intelligible to any ordinary human being. It is simply not. I am sorry to be so rude about it, but this is the epitome of legislation that is, because of its sheer complexity, impossible to understand.
Of course, it could be made a lot better by a short series of principles introduced in the Bill, the kind of thing we have been talking about at times today, with a short, introductory summary of what the rights are under the Bill. I hope consideration can be given to that, but that is not the purpose of my amendment. One purpose that I suggest as a fix to this—to both the point of dealing with rights in a way that people can understand and the point on equivalence—is a very simple application, for the purposes of data processing, of the rights and remedies under the Human Rights Act, extending it to private bodies. One could therefore properly point, in going through the way that the Bill operates, to fundamental rights that people understand which are applicable, not merely if a public authority is processing the data but to the processing of data by private bodies. That is what I wanted to say about Amendment 87.
I wanted to add a word of support, because it is closely allied to this on the equivalence point, to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for whose support I am grateful in respect of Amendment 87. That relates to the need to have a thorough review of equivalence. Obviously, negotiations will take place, but it really is important that thorough attention is given to the adequacy of our legislation to ensure that there is no incompatibility with the EU regime so we do not get adequacy. Those are the two amendments to which I wished to speak in this group. There are two reasons why I feel it would be wrong for me to go on and deal with the others. Some are very narrow and some very broad, and it is probably easiest to listen to those who are speaking to those amendments in due course. On that basis, therefore, I beg to move.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 139, 140 and 109A—which was a bit of a late entry this morning—in my name. I express my thanks to those who have co-signed them.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I start by speaking to two amendments tabled in my name.
Amendment 91 seeks to change
“the definition of request by data subjects to data controllers”
that can be declined or
“for which a fee can be charged from ‘manifestly unfounded or excessive’ to ‘vexatious or excessive’”.
I am sure that many of us will remember, without a great deal of fondness, our debates on these terms in the DPDI Bill. When we debated this issue at that time, it was, rather to my regret, often presented as a way to reduce protections and make it easier to decline or charge a fee for a subject access request. In fact, the purpose was to try to filter out cynical or time-wasting requests, such as attempts to bypass legal due process or to bombard organisations with vast quantities of essentially meaningless access requests. Such requests are not unfounded but they are harmful; by reducing them, we would give organisations more time and capacity to respond to well-founded requests. I realise that I am probably on a loser on this one but let me encourage noble Lords one last time to reconsider their objections and take a walk on the vexatious side.
Amendment 97 would ensure that
“AI companies who process data not directly obtained from data subjects are required to provide information to data subjects where possible. Without this amendment, data subjects may not know their data is being held”.
If a subject does not even know that their data is being held, they cannot enforce their data rights.
Amendment 99 follows on from that point, seeking to ensure that AI companies using large datasets cannot avoid providing information to data subjects on the basis that their datasets are too large. Again, if a subject does not know that their data is being held, they cannot enforce their rights. Therefore, it is really important that companies cannot avoid telling individuals about their personal data and the way in which it is being used because of sheer weight of information. These organisations are specialists in such processing of huge volumes of data, of course, so I struggle to accept that this would be too technically demanding for them.
Let me make just a few comments on other amendments tabled by noble Lords. Under Amendment 107, the Secretary of State would have
“to publish guidance within six months of the Act’s passing to clarify what constitutes ‘reasonable and proportionate’ in protection of personal data”.
I feel that this information should be published at the same time as this Bill comes into effect. It serves no purpose to have six months of uncertainty.
I do not believe that Amendment 125 is necessary. The degree to which the Government wish to align—or not—with the EU is surely a matter for the Government and their priorities.
Finally, I was struck by the interesting point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made when he deplored the Bill’s incomprehensibility. I have extremely high levels of personal sympathy with that view. To me, the Bill is the source code. There is a challenge in making it comprehensible and communicating it in a much more accessible way once it goes live. Perhaps the Minister can give some thought to how that implementation phase could include strong elements of communication. While that does not make the Bill any easier to understand for us, it might help the public at large.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the problem is that I have a 10-minute speech and there are five minutes left before Hansard leaves us, so is it sensible to draw stumps at this point? I have not counted how many amendments I have, but I also wish to speak to the amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. I would have thought it sensible to break at this point.
House of Lords
National Youth Strategy
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in developing a National Youth Strategy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
We have started our engagement with young people in the sector. Yesterday the Secretary of State met young people in Bristol to discuss the role of young people in the strategy and how we as a Government can support them. We are in the process of establishing a youth advisory board and an expert advisory board. Over the coming months, we will hold further face-to-face engagements and seek the views of experts in our sectors and as many young people as possible, to put young people back in charge of their own destiny.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer and support the Government’s initiative. Does she agree that all young people need access to positive out-of-school activities with trusted adults, to develop confidence and resilience and to reach their own potential? For so many, such opportunities are limited through disadvantage, disability, poor circumstances and the severe cuts we have seen in youth services over the last 14 years. How will the Government ensure that this strategy levels up that inequality of opportunity among young people and reaches those most in need?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend. The national youth strategy will allow us to better target funding and services where they are most needed and to reduce geographical disparities in choices and chances. We will continue to deliver additional hours of positive activities and adventures away from home for disadvantaged and vulnerable young people. In addition to better youth spaces, we will complete youth investment fund projects in disadvantaged areas, providing safe spaces and equality of access for young people from all backgrounds.
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that more than 1 million young people took part in the National Citizen Service, with an approval rate of over 90%, making it probably the most successful youth programme in the last few decades? Given that, and given that it was good for social cohesion, mixing young people from different backgrounds together, good for the social soft skills that young people need such as confidence, leadership and teamwork, and good to get young people out from behind their screens and into the great outdoors, can she explain why—apart from short-term, political “not-invented-here-itis”—the Government decided to scrap it?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I do not recognise the portrayal of the decision-making process that the noble Lord outlines. I remind him that when we came into power there was no youth strategy. This is part of our process of ensuring that every young person has a youth service that works for them. It is not to take away from what the NCS provided, but the world is very different now from the world in 2010. The youth strategy that we will deliver as a Labour Government will provide opportunities for all.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that any youth strategy has to look at how it integrates into the voluntary sector of the general adult world? We assume that most young people will get slightly older. Will the Government make sure they have somewhere to go after they finish the youth strategy schemes?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a really interesting point, and I would be very happy to discuss it further with him next time we meet.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I too very much welcome the Government’s plan to develop a national youth strategy. Does the Minister agree that a major element of such a strategy should be a holistic and consistent approach to citizenship, with a standard curriculum that focuses on interactive and immersive learning? Furthermore, given that the National Citizen Service no longer exists, does she agree that citizenship education would be best located in all primary and secondary schools?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a really valuable point about the role of citizenship. It is essential that pupils develop an understanding of their place in a democratic society so that they can become responsible citizens in modern Britain. As noble Lords will be aware, the DfE has launched an independent curriculum and assessment review, which will look at exactly the type of issues the noble Baroness raises.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, a range of youth services were cut by the last Government. Policies were axed directly in Whitehall or because of severe cuts to local authority budgets. It will not be possible to reverse the damage overnight, but does my noble friend have any timescales relating to the strategy she outlined earlier?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We intend to develop the strategy over the next year and to publish it in 2025. The key issue around how we are developing it is coproduction; it will be a coproduced strategy that is cocreated with young people in the youth sector who know best what young people now require.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, given that the uniformed cadet service has more than 139,000 members and provides some of the best social mobility available to young people, exposing them to some of the most highly trained and highly dedicated people in the world, can the Minister guarantee that it will take part in the formation of this national youth strategy?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We encourage all young people involved in existing schemes to take part and get engaged with the formation of the strategy. I will take the noble Lord’s point back to the department and write to him to ensure that happens.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, further to the point just raised about the cadet forces, they are amazingly successful. As our military is getting smaller and smaller, and the world is getting more and more dangerous, there is a lot of merit in ensuring we can get youngsters into these forces. Will the CCF element of that now have increased funding? It has been shrinking, and therefore fewer schools have CCF units.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We are really keen to see the Combined Cadet Force grow, and the MoD funding in this academic year supports the ambition to grow to 60,000 cadets in 500 school cadet units across the UK. That is in addition to the annual cost to the MoD of the Combined Cadet Force, which is estimated at more than £42 million a year.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the decision by the noble Baroness’s department three weeks ago to close the National Citizen Service dismayed a generation of young people and the many brilliant organisations that work with them. As my noble friend Lord Cameron says, it transformed the lives of more than 1 million young people. The organisation UK Youth has pointed out that the Government’s decision, as well as their failure to renew the youth investment fund, will take hundreds of millions of pounds out of the sector, including funding for around 250 youth organisations that were expecting to work with NCS from April. Why did the Government take this decision to announce the closure of NCS rather than looking at ways to repurpose it, and without announcing what might replace it and plug the gap it leaves behind?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As the noble Lord will be aware, there is a whole host of other programmes delivered by the department in addition to the National Citizen Service. We did not want to do what the previous Government did with vinspired and let the organisation wither on the vine.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, what is the national youth strategy doing, if anything, about the issues surrounding county lines?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
One of the things about not having a youth strategy that goes across government is that we have not necessarily had joined-up work. I am happy to get a response to the noble and learned Baroness on that, but my understanding is that this is one of the issues that the Young Futures hubs will work on. They are committed to intervening early to stop young people being drawn into crime and other poor outcomes.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister say how many youth clubs were closed during the Conservative Government’s time in office, and how many will be reopened within the next year or two?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I do not have a specific answer on how many were closed, but I think it was a lot. Local authorities’ youth funding in England fell by 73% under the previous Government and, between 2011-12 and 2022-23, the number of local authority-run youth centres—actually, I do have the figure—fell by 53% in England, from 917 to just 425. If you are looking at legacies of the previous Government, that is quite a damning indictment.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, if the Government are so keen to expand the role of cadets in a national youth strategy, why have they just pulled the Department for Education’s funding for the cadet expansion programme?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I might look to the previous Government’s record and the £22 billion black hole that they left in this country’s finances.
Europe: Arts and Creative Industries
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to facilitate touring in, and trading with, Europe for the arts and creative industries.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, the Government fully recognise the scale of the challenges facing creative and cultural professionals wishing to tour in and trade with Europe. We are working to address these while resetting relationships and deepening ties with our European friends. In line with our manifesto, Ministers have raised touring with European counterparts on multiple occasions, and officials are collaborating across Whitehall with stakeholders and meeting their European counterparts to advocate for pragmatic solutions. This is a priority for the Government.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to her new role and thank her for the meeting we had with her. I hope that it was helpful in understanding that this affects not just music touring, important though that is, but the visual arts, craft, fashion and film. Without a commitment to rejoining the single market, how will the Government deal effectively with these pressing concerns and secure the place of our arts and creative industries in Europe?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl. We had a very interesting conversation. There tends to be an assumption that we are talking about music when we talk about touring, but it covers the broadest range of elements, including fashion, gaming and so many things. We make it clear that we are looking to reset the relationship with Europe. We are not talking about returning to where we were. There has already been high-level engagement with the Prime Minister on several occasions and with other Ministers, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer met Finance Ministers for the first time just yesterday. These are the conversations we are having with great urgency on how we can address some of the problems.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for the way he has stuck to this agenda, and for the service he has given to the arts in so doing. In the review that the Minister is undertaking, will she understand that many aspects of the arts and culture are devolved, whereas trade is not? Therefore, can she set up a mechanism for co-ordinating with the devolved regimes to help advise the Government on the course they may take?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I also add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and all other Members of this House for raising these matters repeatedly; it is important to focus on what is happening. I note very carefully the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and, obviously, we shall be having an interesting debate later today about Welsh opera, for example. These relationships are critical, and I will take back the noble Lord’s comments.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, last week the Prime Minister launched the Plan for Change—a great statement of support for our creative industries, because it was launched at Pinewood Studios. However, those industries are crying out for us to rebuild ties with Europe. Our young people are being cut off from European culture, and vice versa, yet the relatively narrow youth mobility scheme suggested by the EU has been rejected by the Prime Minister. Can the Minister explain why?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
To reiterate my earlier comments, the negotiations are ongoing, and it would not be appropriate to go into the detail of where we are. Let us be honest: this is incredibly complicated. I do not think anyone really understood the level of complexity involved in leaving the EU and all its greater implications. I hear the noble Baroness’s comments; they will be fed in. I am very heartened by the change in relationships, the willingness to embrace and have discussions, and, most importantly, collaboration with the wider sector, which will absolutely direct the course of travel.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
No, it is Labour. To hell with the Bishop.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend the Minister’s comments about resetting relations with Europe. As someone who for many years accompanied my own children, who were members of youth orchestras, around all the major countries of Europe, I ask whether in the discussions the Government are now having with partner countries in Europe special emphasis will be given to making it easier for youth orchestras to travel in the summer, both to and from Europe, to enrich the musical, cultural and educational needs of our young people.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
One of the enormous benefits of taking part in these debates is that one always learns something new. For instance, I have now learned all about the issue of cabotage—I do not know whether other noble Lords are fully apprised of it—and the sheer difficulty of physically moving across Europe when you have all the individual countries to deal with. Of course, these matters are close to our hearts; we all value young people travelling across Europe as our closest partner, and these areas are being fully discussed.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I know many people in the creative sector who are worried about the generational impact of this issue. We have already heard the phrase “plan for change”, but this generation is losing the vital experience not only of performing abroad or doing whatever they do but of the business of getting there in the first place. We are hearing that the Government are working hard and that it is a priority, but is there a timeline? For many of those people, that matters.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments. The backdrop to what we are dealing with is a failing apprenticeship levy for creative industries. The number of students studying music at A-level is down by 45%, which indicates clearly the urgency of this issue. I cannot give him a specific timeline at the moment. Also coming from the great city of Leeds, I know his great commitment in this area and the joint work that has been done across partners in this space. We understand that this issue is urgent, and we are addressing it accordingly.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, many musicians play musical instruments containing materials now covered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—or CITES—but, as the noble Earl said, this issue affects artists in other disciplines too. The convention obliges musicians to obtain a musical instrument certificate when travelling internationally and to travel through a CITES-designated port. St Pancras station is not so designated, meaning they cannot take the Eurostar, which adds extra cost and hassle and is of course worse for the environment. What progress have the Government made in discussions with Defra about making St Pancras a CITES-designated port so that musicians can use it?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Lord highlights another area I have learned about from this debate. CITES is clearly a critical factor, as is the whole issue around St Pancras and how we can move forward. I do not have the detail that he asks for. I will take it back and report back on progress.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, reduced opportunities for exchange between EU and UK artists impact not only on touring but on career development and the innovations that come through collaboration. I remain optimistic that this Government will deliver on their manifesto promise about touring artists. In the meantime, will they consider rejoining Creative Europe, which enables the network building and audience development that would come through touring but is not currently possible? Why are the Government not pursuing that as an opportunity?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises important issues. At this moment in time, there are no plans for rejoining Creative Europe, but that does not mean that conversations are not ongoing or that we are not having a pragmatic look at how we can replace the work done through that so that we can come up with a bespoke way forward. It is critical that we encourage our young people by enabling them to pursue their dreams and to perform in Europe, because that opens up the world stage as well. It is not just a question of problems in Europe; not performing in Europe has a knock-on impact on their ability to move to other parts of the world.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that when this matter was discussed during the trade and co-operation agreement negotiations both sides made mistakes? The European Union side asked us to do some things that went beyond what the then Government were prepared to do and the then Government rejected them out of hand. We need to start from a better basis than that. As was said, and my noble friend Lord Clancarty has been a remorseless pusher for this, we need to set some kind of target for getting this done. Would it not be a good idea if it was done by the time the Prime Minister meets his colleagues in the European Council on 3 February?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am sure that the noble Lord is correct and that many of us recognise that mistakes were made on both sides, but we are expressing what we are doing as a “reset” of relationships. We cannot just turn the corner and rebuild relationships; it has to be worked on and done in an environment of trust. It would not be appropriate for us to go ahead without making sure that we have our partners with us. That is what the Government are committed to do, and I very much look forward to the progress made over the next few months.
Guns Manufactured by 3D Printers
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of guns manufactured by 3D printers circulating in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am pleased to tell my noble friend that no viable fully 3D-printed firearms have been found by law enforcement in the United Kingdom. In 2023, there were 25 instances where police seized 3D-printed component parts or other items associated with 3D printing of firearms.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He will have seen the reports this morning that the person who supposedly shot the insurance executive in New York was carrying a 3D-printed weapon. He will be aware that the firearm of choice for young men in Australia and New Zealand is now a 3D-printed weapon. He will be aware that it is possible, by searching for FGC-9 on the internet—I apologise for offending the sensibilities of anyone in the House, but FGC stands for “Fuck Gun Control”—to get detailed manuals of how to make a 3D-printed firearm. What is being done to stop the circulation of such manuals? Is it an offence to download such a manual, as it would be in other circumstances?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can tell my noble friend that it is an offence to manufacture and distribute a prohibited weapon, such as a handgun or semi-automatic rifle, however it is manufactured. That carries a sentence of life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for possessing such a prohibited weapon, including any 3D-printed prohibited weapon, is 10 years’ imprisonment with a minimum penalty of five years. We will keep legislation under review and there will be opportunities during the course of this Session to review that legislation in relation to any issues that might need to be brought forward.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, raises a serious point. Although, as the Minister said, there have not been too many instances, there have been quite a few where guns have been produced. One big thing that has changed over the past few years is that, apart from producing plastic-based guns, people are now able to produce metallic guns, which means they have more than one use. Of course, we do our best to control that production. We have very strict gun controls in this country. You cannot own a prohibited weapon—a handgun or an automatic weapon—so we are left with rifles and shotguns. If we lose this control point, which 3D printers allow, we will be in a serious situation. Would it be wise to consider banning the software, and the importing of the software, for these 3D printers? Finally, should there be some follow-up investigations on the list of people who have had these 3D printers delivered to find out what they are using them for and whether any of these guns have been produced on those particular printers?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his helpful intervention. I say quite simply again that 3D-printed firearms are captured by existing firearms legislation. If a 3D-printed firearm is made, it is treated in exactly the same way as any other type of illegal firearm. So they are covered by the legislation, but the suggestions he made are worthy of consideration. We keep those matters under review. Again, there will be opportunities in this Session to look at those issues as a potential police and crime Bill goes through this House.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the barrier for acquiring these weapons has been lowered by advancing technology, with criminals, extremists and everyone else being capable of making these guns in a shed or in their own home. Does the Minister accept that it is not good enough to rely on a Private Member’s Bill to tighten the law in this area, and that the Government really need to act as a matter of urgency on this?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am not aware that the Government are relying on a Private Member’s Bill. There is a Private Member’s Bill coming forward, but it is not a Government-sponsored Bill; it is being undertaken by a Back-Bencher in the House of Commons. We will reflect on that legislation, look at what is needed and make sure that, if there are loopholes, we tie them up. Ultimately, legislation is there to say that firearms are illegal, and there are severe penalties for the ownership and distribution of those illegal firearms. If there are gaps in the legislation along the lines that noble Lords have mentioned, we will review that in due course next year.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords have heard the strong view of the House, from the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Hogan-Howe, among others, that there is a gap in the criminal canon for the downloading of software to make 3D-printed firearms. Clearly, it would be appropriate for the Home Office immediately to launch a consultation on making it an offence to download the software to create 3D-printed firearms. Will the Minister commit to initiating such a consultation immediately?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will take that as a representation to the Government about their proposals for next year. The Government are exploring all legislative options to criminalise the possession and supply of 3D-printed firearms templates. We are looking at that now; I hope the noble Lord will have patience in this matter.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, as well as 3D-printed firearms, there has been a significant increase in 3D-printed components used to convert blank firing guns into operable firearms—so much so that the head of the NCA has called for legislation to deal with this issue. Is my noble friend in a position to commit to ensuring that any legislation deals with the illicit manufacture of the components that can turn innocuous blank-firing pistols—which are available for purchase without any licence—into lethal weapons, and not just 3D-printed firearms?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The question of hybrid weapons, again, is covered by existing legislation, in the sense that it is an offence carrying a penalty of life imprisonment to distribute them, and an offence carrying a penalty of between five and 10 years’ imprisonment to hold and own them. If the hybrid nature of firearms is being developed, that again is an issue that we are currently looking at, currently examining. There is a Private Member’s Bill in the House of Commons for consideration in January. The Government will respond to that Private Member’s Bill and will reflect on the points made in both this House and the House of Commons.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I had the pleasure of doing a Private Member’s Bill with the late Sir David Amess, which dealt with the supply of machinery that could manufacture, for instance, counterfeit passports. Building on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, when we look at this matter, could we make sure that we look also at any 3D printing of bullets—which is apparently at the cusp of being possible —as well as handguns?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Absolutely. Again, I am in danger of repeating myself to the House. Those matters are under consideration. The Government will review all legislation. Again, the Government’s main aim is to strengthen what we already have: a penalty of life imprisonment for the illegal manufacture and distribution of weapons, and a penalty of five to 10 years for the holding of an illegal weapon. We are keeping these matters under review. I hope the House can hear what I say and understand the consideration that we are making.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, as a design and technology teacher with four 3D printers in his department, I am fully aware of the advantages and limitations of 3D printing. Does the Minister agree with me that, rather than concentrating on a tiny number of potential weapons, it would be better to look at hunting knives on the streets as a far more dangerous thing?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
In proposed legislation in the King’s Speech, the Government are looking at how we can tackle the whole issue of knife crime. Again, there is a range of options for potential action by government there, which will be outlined by the Government in the coming months. I will take what the noble Lord has said as another representation on that, but I hope the House will understand that knife crime is central to the Government’s plans for the reduction of crime and of young, innocent deaths.
It is also important that we reflect on matters that have been raised about the potential manifestation of different types of firearm. I have said that it is illegal currently, that we will reflect on legislation in the House of Commons and that there will be opportunities in legislation later this year, in this Session, to examine those matters accordingly. I hope that noble Lords can hear what I have said.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will remember that, when we were in the Home Office, I put huge pressure on identifying and stopping the production of bullets, and bullets became the real focus—because without the bullets, of course, the guns are pretty useless. Could I add my concern that, if they start printing bullets, it will become rather different and we will need to look at this in a very different way, because that would be extremely serious?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
How could I forget my years in the Home Office with my noble friend? We spent 2009-10 in the Home Office sharing opposite offices; it was a fascinating and enjoyable experience. My noble friend makes some very valid points. Again, I am in danger of repeating myself. The issues that the House is bringing to my attention about the potential manufacture of bullets, guns and hybrid guns are currently, potentially, covered by existing legislation. If they are not, we will review that in the light of Private Members’ Bills, discussions and representations. There are opportunities to continue that discussion further.
Health: Quad-demic
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the impact of a potential “quad-demic”, involving high prevalence of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, COVID-19 and norovirus, following the warning of Professor Sir Stephen Powis, the NHS national medical director.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, levels of hospital admissions due to flu and norovirus are higher, while Covid hospitalisation rates are lower and RSV hospitalisation rates are about the same as the same time last year. The impact of these infectious diseases can be reduced through our annual vaccination programmes for flu and Covid-19, as well as the new year-round vaccination programme for RSV, and by observing good hygiene measures. Some 16.6 million flu vaccinations, 9.3 million Covid-19 vaccinations and 1.2 million RSV vaccinations have been delivered so far this winter.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that comprehensive Answer. I have to say that “quad-demic” was a new phrase for me and so I was very keen to understand what the Minister made of the announcements from the NHS national medical director, Sir Stephen Powis. From my point of view, it is vital that we learn the lessons of the last pandemic and I know a huge amount of work is being done to understand the implications of the recommendations from Module 1 of the inquiry. But, as I understand it from Sir Stephen’s announcement, the uptake of NHS vaccine programmes is much lower than last year, so I am concerned for us to be reassured that if uptake does not improve in the run-up to Christmas, we are ready and we have learned the lessons from last time and we will not panic and start making foolish decisions about PPE acquisition, for example.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We are absolutely committed to learning the lessons from Covid in order to build resilience. The recommendations of the independent review of procurement by Nigel Boardman have already been implemented and a Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner has already been appointed to scrutinise contracts to learn the lessons and recover money for taxpayers. Professor Sir Stephen Powis, who I have spoken to about this, was not suggesting that there is a pandemic but more that four infectious diseases are coalescing to create a situation and that vaccination is crucial. His comments were a call to the public to get vaccinated, which I also endorse.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, currently the RSV vaccination is available to the older age group of 75 to 79 year-olds—of course, it is available to a younger age group for vulnerable people—unlike in the CDC advice, which is that over-75s should get the immunisation. Older people are more susceptible to RSV and end up with more severe disease and hospitalisation, so why is the advice in the United Kingdom that the over-80s should not get immunisation? It has been suggested that the trials had insufficient evidence. The two trials for Moderna and Pfizer showed that efficacy was maintained in the older age group and therefore the JCVI’s interpretation is rather narrow in scientific terms —or is it to save money?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I listened carefully to the noble Lord. The JCVI considered that there was less certainty about how well the RSV vaccine works in people aged 80 and over when the programme was introduced in 2023, and that is because, as the noble Lord said, there were insufficient people aged 80 and older in the clinical trials. The JCVI continues to keep this under review, including looking at data from clinical trials and evidence in other countries, and there will shortly be an update to your Lordships’ House in respect of research and clinical trials.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The Minister says that we are determined to learn the lessons of Covid. During Covid we had vaccination rates of 90% but, as she said, only 16 million—just 25%—of our citizens have had the flu jab and vaccination rates among children are also deteriorating at a rate. I say this with some personal interest because there was an outbreak of the quad-demic in my own household at 2 am today. There are three times as many people in hospital today with flu than in this week last year. Can the Minister please explain what she is doing to increase vaccination rates, particularly among children?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We are aiming communications —I know the noble Lord will be familiar with this from his previous role—particularly at groups that are less represented in terms of vaccinations. From my discussions with the national medical director, I do not recognise the reference that the noble Lord made to hospitalisations; they are as I set out in the Answer to my noble friend. However, we are far from complacent and continue to push vaccination. We will get vaccination rates up because they are the best line of defence against infectious diseases.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the chief medical officer at the UK Health Security Agency stated last week that NHS staff should get the flu vaccination. The Government’s own statistics show that last week, in the largest trust in the country, only 7.9% of those eligible had had flu jabs, and on average the number is in the lower 20%. Why has this happened? What are the Government doing urgently to improve the take-up of the flu vaccine by NHS staff?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I must be honest: I cannot explain here the exact reasons why NHS staff are not taking it up, but I assure the noble Lord, as I have assured other noble Lords, that our focus is on getting vaccination rates up. That is why the national medical director made the comments that he did, as well as assuring me that we are not nearing a pandemic.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, undoubtedly the vaccination programme has had an important influence and impact on our National Health Service as well as our economy. What further vaccines and vaccination programmes will be accelerated on to the national immunisation programme this year and in further financial years?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend has campaigned tirelessly for the vaccine rollout in respect of RSV, for which I thank her, and I know that many others would wish to thank her for that too. With regard to the other vaccines about which my noble friend asked, we will continue to work with the JCVI and, as there are further developments, I will update your Lordships’ House.
Lord Kamall (Con)
If the spread of any of the four viruses listed by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, were to turn into a pandemic, hospital capacity would be an issue of concern. Hospital capacity is already an issue in most winters. With that in mind, figures released last week show that NHS hospitals are operating at 95% capacity. Therefore, what discussions are the Government and the NHS having with the independent healthcare sector to utilise its spare capacity to help to alleviate the pressures, both this coming winter and in the face of future pandemics?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware that being prepared for winter is crucial. It has felt for too long as though winter crises have almost become normalised. Certainly, our move towards a 10-year plan will ensure that we have an NHS that can provide all year round. To give one statistic on Covid, in the week beginning 1 December there were 1,390 hospital beds occupied by confirmed Covid-19 patients per day, which was 41% lower than in the same week last winter. However, we are absolutely aware of this issue and we are not expecting a difficulty in respect of beds.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, in her original Answer the Minister spoke about hygiene measures. I wonder whether she could expand on the advice that will be given to the public about considering washable face masks that can be recycled; about improving handwashing because of norovirus; and, particularly as we go into the Christmas season, about not washing poultry, which causes the droplet spread of campylobacter in kitchens and can lead to severe gastrointestinal infections. These will all increase the workload on the NHS if combined with the other infections that we have spoken about.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Prevention is key, rather than just focusing on cure. Communications thus far are focusing on handwashing; I will discuss the other points the noble Baroness raises with the department.
Personal Statement
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, during the second Oral Question I made a comment from a sedentary position regarding giving priority to Bishops at Question Time. I sincerely apologise for any offence or upset that has caused, particularly to the Bishops.
Police Officers: Recruitment
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth
To ask His Majesty’s Government (1) what steps they are taking to recruit 13,000 additional police officers, and (2) what assessment they have made of the impact of a proposed reduction of Metropolitan Police officer numbers on this commitment.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
As part of our safer streets mission, the Government will restore neighbourhood policing by putting police back on the beat, with 13,000 additional police officers, police community support officers and special constables in neighbourhood policing roles across England and Wales, including in London. Last week, the Prime Minister announced a £100 million fund which will be made available in 2025-26 to support the initial delivery of the 13,000 additional neighbourhood police and details of delivery for the coming year will be confirmed at the provisional police funding settlement later this month.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, the media report that the Metropolitan Police is going to cut 2,300 officers and 400 staff next year because of a £450 million funding shortfall. This clearly will be devastating for the service. Does the Minister agree that the Government will therefore struggle to hit their target of 13,000 new police officers? Does this news put the Government’s mission-led strategy at risk?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government’s target of 13,000 police, police and community support officers and special constables will be met to ensure an increase in neighbourhood policing by the end of this Parliament. We have put the funding of £100 million in place next year to ensure that resource is in place to meet that initial mission which we will complete and be judged on by the end of this Parliament. The police settlement has not yet been determined. It will be announced next week, before Christmas. It will be consulted on between Christmas and January and it will be a matter for approval by Parliament by February. As yet, much of the discussion is speculation. I simply say to the noble Lord that his record still needs scrutiny and he needs to remember that his Government reduced police officer numbers by 20,000, reduced the number of PCSOs from over 16,000 to 8,000 and reduced the number of special constables from 20,000 to 8,500 in the course of their term of office. We will meet our targets. We will meet our mission statement and he will judge us on that.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the previous Government slashed neighbourhood policing and saw a massive increase in anti-social crime, knife crime and street crime. Does the Minister think the Opposition need to reflect on their past record before they come up with suggestions of how we fix the problems they created?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Opposition’s record is one of the reasons they are the Opposition now. The reason they lost the election is because confidence in policing dropped; confidence in the results and outcomes of policing dropped; shoplifting went up 29% in the last year, when the noble Lord was in office. There was also a 40% rise in shop theft over that period in office, and a reduction in the number of police officers. What we are trying to do—this is a difficult task, which I hope the House will bear with us on—is to increase the number of neighbourhood police, put in place respect orders, improve the quality of policing through confidence measures, invest in our policing and ensure that we secure the things the previous Government did not.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the Met is not the only police force that is struggling; most police forces are struggling. This is a legacy of a decade of expecting the police to cover the work of other public services, which are underfunded and overwhelmed by demand—for example, mental health, child protection and youth services—because there is nobody else to pick this up. The previous Government knew the pressure the police were under but failed to fund them to deal with it. Does the Minister agree that only full-scale police reform will deliver the type of neighbourhood policing that local communities are crying out for?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness from the Liberal Democrat Benches for raising that. One of the key aspects of the Government’s police reform programme is the question of police reform. It is about improving standards. It is about giving extra responsibility to the College of Policing and working with chief constables to look at how we raise standards in policing. However, it is also about making sure we have those 13,000 neighbourhood police. They can pick up on a range of intelligence, help raise confidence in policing and, as the noble Baroness has mentioned, liaise better with hospitals, social services and probation on how to deal with areas and hotspots of crime that are currently avoided because neighbourhood policing is not as efficient as it should be on the ground. We intend to review all of that. If the noble Baroness and the House will bear with us, plans will be brought forward to strengthen that in legislation over the next 12 months.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, people might expect me to automatically assume that the Met is right in this argument; I do not. Having taken over in 2011, when we lost around £600 million, and when 20,000 police were reduced nationally, we had to maintain our 32,000 by making sensible savings. I am always a bit sceptical, as many of us are, when public services make that argument. But will the Government consider two things when making their announcement next week? First, a disproportionate amount of the Met’s budget is spent on national duties, for example, counter- terrorism, protection of the Government, diplomatic and royal protection, and other things on behalf of the country. Secondly, the amount of population growth we have seen in this country has disproportionately affected London. The population is now well over 9 million and around 2 million people visit this city each day. Where they need policing, of course, the Met has to provide it. Those two arguments need to be considered carefully when the Government are making their decisions on where to allocate resources.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has far more experience than even I could bring to this issue. His words carry a very strong resonance. I am pleased that he reminded the Opposition of the challenges they put into policing in 2011-12, with funding reductions and real challenge in that system. He is right that the population of London faces not just its own challenges but the challenges of tourism and major events, and it has national responsibilities. Those are matters that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is reflecting on as part of the £100 million settlement for next year, and the £500 million she has announced for wider policing issues next year. She is cognisant of that fact. I hope the noble Lord will understand that I cannot go further, because I would be pre-empting statements that will be made before Christmas on the settlement not just for London but the whole of the England and Wales policing family.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I congratulate His Majesty’s Government on the laudable aim of increasing the number of police and others in front-line services. As I travel around Beds and Herts, I hear that there are plans for cuts in policing. This is at a time when in rural areas there is a fear of rural crime, which I do not think will be addressed by what will predominantly be allocation in urban areas. It is very real; there is a lot of fear and huge costs, particularly to our farming community. What can His Majesty’s Government do to build on the success of initiatives such as Operation Ragwort, which worked across counties? It made a significant improvement without huge additional cost.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
One of the important issues that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced last week was on the College of Policing and others looking at good practice and how we can drive efficiency and crime reduction at the same time. One of the areas where that is being looked at is how we can roll out co-operation between different forces, efficiencies in procurement and making sure that we learn the lessons of good practice, such as the scheme that the right reverend Prelate mentioned. Those are on the agenda. Rural policing is equally important, but again—I hope the House will bear with me—I am not at liberty to talk about the settlement, as that will be announced next week. It is right and proper that it is done in that format.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear next from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, please.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register and apologise for not doing so the last time I spoke. The current Metropolitan Police Commissioner says that the force has survived over the last decade or so only by selling property and running down reserves, of which there are next to nothing left. What is the Government's response to what he has said?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, there is a range of resources that the Government are trying to put into policing, which we will be announcing next week. There is a range of initiatives the Government are bringing forward, and I hope the noble Lord will bear with me and reflect on what is said in due course.
I want to give time for the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, to get in his question.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to tell the House what is the exact cost to the police forces in England and Wales of the increase in national insurance contributions? How much are the Government going to contribute in cash terms to meeting those additional costs?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Home Office is looking at police support staff as neighbourhood police, because they do not get moved every two years?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is important that we have stability. Very often, when I was a Member of Parliament, the police chief in the local area would be in post for two years and he or she would either retire or would be promoted and go up the ladder. We need to have some stability. Part of the purpose of neighbourhood policing is to try to get stability and local intelligence, including from police support staff on the ground.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I was on the police authority when Boris Johnson took an axe to police numbers. I remember it very clearly and it damaged the Met because it took out a swathe of officers, and then other officers had to go and do backroom jobs. I remember it clearly, so I think it is a bit hypocritical of this side of the Chamber to start complaining to the Government. My question is: will all those new officers have really good training in dealing with domestic assault against, mainly, women, and in understanding that it can lead to much worse crimes?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government have a strong commitment to halve the level of violence against women and girls over a 10-year period. We had a Statement last week on some aspects of that in this House, and we will be looking at developing further policies to reduce the level of violence against women and girls. Key to that is police understanding of the sensitivities and potential escalation of that violence, and probation and monitoring the effect on individuals who commit—in inverted commas—low-level crime initially, which can then escalate into sometimes tragic events. The point that the noble Baroness makes is extremely valid, but it is on the Government’s agenda, and I hope she continues to press me on that as time goes on.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that, back in the first Blair Administration, we inherited a recruitment crisis in the police service. Back then, Jack Straw very sensibly ring-fenced additional funding for our police service. Is it the Government’s intention to do that this time round? Perhaps we could take heart from the efforts made by those areas where there are Labour police commissioners and their efforts to maintain recruitment. Can we ensure that those who are not Labour commissioners carry out the Government’s will in recruiting extra police?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend makes some important points. The police landscape has changed dramatically since 1997, in that we now have police and crime commissioners, who have a responsibility for setting the precept and setting budget priorities in their areas. That is a matter for them, but the Government are clear that, on top of that—over and above what the police and crime commissioners have scope for—we will look at how we can encourage the greater use of those 13,000 officers. Again, those matters will be reflected on as part of the police and crime settlement that will be announced in due course, because the Government are committed to 13,000 officers and they will be judged on that. Therefore, they need to have some levers to make sure that those 13,000 officers are in place.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, given that we have seen a steady rise in crime over the last eight years under a Labour mayor, we are the only part of the country—the Met, that is—that did not hit its recruitment target. What support will the noble Lord give the Mayor of London to make sure he hits that target when he issues him with extra police officers that he will have to find? He did not find any last time, so where are they hiding this time?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If I recall, the Mayor of London found the confidence of the people of London—not everybody did in that election. The Mayor of London had the confidence of the people of London, and he had the resources from previous Governments. It ill behoves the noble Lord to talk about underfunding in London over the past eight years when he stood as the candidate in that election and when his party was responsible for that underfunding. Let us look at where we are now: from 4 July, this Government are committed to increasing police numbers and increasing neighbourhood police officers by 13,000, and they have put £100 million into resources and £500 million into overall policing. Next week, we will make a police statement announcement for London and elsewhere. Let us be judged on that.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Tuesday 10th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 December 2024 - (9 Dec 2024)
Migration and Border Security
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the opportunity to respond to this Statement, although it will not surprise him that I do not agree with the picture painted in it by the Home Secretary. Labour’s historic record on immigration and border policy has been one of consistent failure, and its sudden conversion to the rhetoric of border security and reduced migration will fool no one.
Let us not forget that Labour presided over one of the most chaotic periods of migration in British history during its previous time in government. Between 1997 and 2010, it oversaw huge levels of immigration and failed to predict or manage the pressures of EU expansion. It created a system that was riddled with inefficiency. Its lax approach undermined public confidence, overwhelmed local communities and laid the groundwork for many of the issues we are grappling with today.
The Home Secretary’s Statement on small boat crossings is a striking example of Labour’s penchant for opportunism. Although it now expresses outrage at the rise in dangerous crossings, it offers no credible solutions. Labour’s record shows a consistent reluctance to back measures that tackle the problems at their root. It opposed the Nationality and Borders Act to such a degree that it set the record for the most defeats to be inflicted on a Bill since 1999—34, to be precise. Labour has resisted stronger enforcement measures and remains vague about what it would actually do to stop the criminal gangs exploiting vulnerable people.
I can put it little better than the shadow Home Secretary, whose question the Home Secretary left unanswered when this Statement was made in the other place. He said:
“Yesterday marked 150 days since 4 July, and in that time a staggering 20,110 people have made the dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossing—over 20,000 since this Government were elected. That is an 18% increase on the same 150 days last year, and a staggering 64% increase on the 150 days immediately prior to the election”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/12/24; col. 44.]
Perhaps the Minister can inform us why those numbers have gone up so much. No doubt he will confirm that it is right that the approach of simply seeking to “smash the gangs” alone will not prevent or reduce crossings in small boats. Let us also remember that Labour’s alternative to the Rwanda plan has been little more than empty words. It has no credible plan to deter illegal crossings, no clear commitment to returns agreements and no strategy to address the root causes of migration.
Finally, since the Statement was debated in the other place, we were told in media reports on Sunday that the Prime Minister has decided to scrap the scheme to help refugees integrate, learn English and find jobs. My right honourable friends Rishi Sunak and Robert Jenrick launched the scheme last year to help to overcome barriers faced by refugees to integrate into local communities and society. The refugee employability programme was backed by a funding deal from the Home Office of £52 million until June 2025. Could the Minister tell us why this decision was taken? Does he not want to see refugees integrate into their local communities? It seems that the Government are too keen to scrap useful schemes just on the basis of destroying our legacy in government.
In sum, we have seen time after time that a Labour Government fail on migration. With their empty words on small boats and an asylum crisis of their own making, it is unsurprising that they have taken these baffling decisions, such as scrapping the refugee employability programme and providing no viable deterrent. It is a sad day when we have hit such a high level of illegal channel crossings, with the risk to life that they pose, and, I regret to say, the higher level of deaths in the channel.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, first, I declare my interests, as I am supported by the RAMP organisation.
I start by reflecting on the issues of the past few days, particularly those around the Saydnaya military prison in Syria, where we can see tables with 20 nooses on top of them and a crematorium where people’s bodies are disposed of. That was what people were fleeing from in their numbers when they came from Syria, yet the previous Government refused even to listen. They put a cloth over their ears and said that they would not hear people’s case for leaving.
There is an issue for those Syrians who are in this country, seeking refuge. I know that the Minister will tell me that the Government have paused the scheme whereby their cases will be assessed, and I understand why that is the case. However, the longer that they have to wait in limbo, the worse is going to be the sense of personal deprivation and loss of dignity that comes with the system that they find themselves in. I would be grateful if the Minister could start by telling us how quickly the Government intend to deal with this matter in order that they can process those people who are waiting in the queue for their case to be heard.
The previous Government left an immigration system which was not working for business, universities, families or migrants themselves. In the legal migration methodology that the last Government used, they did not want to deal with it, and they left huge gaps in what was happening within our social care and university sectors. Despite the expansion in the numbers of people arriving on the health and social care visa, we still see huge challenges, with labour shortages in social care, alongside deeply worrying levels of exploitation of migrants on this visa. As the number of people entering the UK on a health and care worker visa has reduced, what steps are the Government taking to address the labour shortages in the care sector and the reported exploitation of those on that visa where the employer has had a licence removed?
In the previous Government’s efforts to reduce net migration, little consideration was given to the impact of these changes and whether the correct balance was being met. One area of concern is the increase in the salary threshold for British citizens to bring their spouse or partner to the UK. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of this policy on British citizens, including children, who are unable to live as a family unit in the UK?
We welcome the international co-operation being sought to tackle the criminal gangs involved in channel crossings. However, we urge the Government to address the demand side as well as the supply side. Safe routes have to be part of the solution for those fleeing persecution and using dangerous routes to reach the UK. Will the Government consider a pilot of the humanitarian travel visa system for tiering the high grant-rate countries, and hear how they have to make their cases, just as the people of Syria are still waiting to hear their cases in this country?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lords. I do not know where the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has been for the past 14 years, but I do not think he has been in the same place that I have been. His solution to the question of small boats and migration, illegal or otherwise, was to establish a £700 million fantasy Rwanda scheme, which removed resources from legitimate areas of tackling illegal migration and focused on trying to stop people crossing the channel in small boats. When that deterrent passed this House, 84,000 people still crossed the channel with it in place. It was not a deterrent: it did not work, and it wasted money on a scheme that stopped us from focusing on the things that this Government are focusing on.
We have ramped up the number of returns of people who are not allowed here legally; we have removed 9,400 people since 5 July, including 1,500 foreign national offenders; and we have put additional resources into the Border Force scheme and created a Border Security Command. Only this day, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has met her German and French counterparts to put in place new action on tackling criminal gangs downstream. As we speak now, there is a meeting between Home Secretaries from across Europe to ensure that we tackle this collectively across this area. Talking to European colleagues was something that the noble Lord and his party did not really take to.
We have put £150 million into a Border Security Command and have led a new international effort. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been to Iraq to secure an agreement with the Iraqi Government on criminal gangs for both sides of that fence. We have funded an extra 100 specialist NCA officers, increased the number of asylum claims dealt with, and increased the speed of those asylum claims. I remind the House that in 2019 there were no hotels in use for asylum seekers. Because of the failure of the noble Lord’s Government’s policy, there were over 200 hotels used over that five-year period, and we are committed to ending that practice. In short, I will not take lessons from him on migration. He has a record to defend; he cannot defend it. He needs to look at what this Government will do to unpick the mess that his Government left of this asylum system.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord German, that the Syria situation is extremely serious. We need to monitor it on the ground. We are very much aware of the atrocities of the Assad regime, and of the further atrocities being unearthed as we speak. We need a political resolution and to look at having stability restored. To be open and honest with the noble Lord, I say that we need time to reflect on how we deal with the asylum issue and claims made—or counter-made—from individuals who were in Syria or who are now in this country accordingly. We need to do that because there are potentially still individuals who might use this circumstance to travel in a way that will damage the interests of the United Kingdom. I hope that he will reflect on the fact that we will certainly need to look at that in time.
The other questions that the noble Lord asked are equally valid. He put a number of suggestions forward, which I will consider, as representations on the position as a whole. We have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to look at the question of skills and the need for future skills, and to report back to the Home Office and the Prime Minister in due course. We have also looked at establishing further work on a White Paper on net migration and other aspects of migration, outlining the needs and where the challenges arise. Both will take time, and although the noble Lord is entitled to scrutinise, to press and to suggest, I hope that he will bear with us. When the new year comes, he can contribute, in a very positive way, to the two challenges of commissioning the Migration Advisory Committee and establishing the route for a White Paper, which will lead to wider discussion.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, a report in Sunday’s Observer indicated that the quality of decision-making on asylum claims suffered significantly in the interests of speed under the previous Government, leading to an increase in appeals, nearly half of which were successful. What steps are being taken now to improve the quality of decision-making?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend makes an extremely important point on which the Government are not only reflecting but taking action. The slowness of asylum appeals, the poor quality of some decision-making and the level of appeals taking place all added to the pressures on the asylum system and therefore on accommodation, hotels and the other aspects of providing for people who had an asylum claim that was not yet finalised. We are focused on that area. We are trying to speed up asylum claims, and to ensure that we reach earlier decisions and that the quality of decision-making is improved. They are hard challenges, as she will understand, but they are certainly on the Government’s agenda.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that instability in Syria is likely to give rise to a surge in migration? He will be aware that, when the Soviet Union collapsed, we put in place a Know-How Fund to assist the transition to better governance and a better economy. Does he agree that, with the risk of increased migration from Syria, we should consider, in concert with the European Union and perhaps other willing states from the Middle East, something approaching a Know-How Fund to improve governance and the economy of Syria?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Viscount makes an extremely important point. The Government have put in place an £11 million fund to support humanitarian aid. The Foreign Secretary has met his Turkish and Emirati counterparts and the UN special envoy, and he will look at those issues in due course. With due respect to the noble Viscount and others, if we were talking this time last week we would not have expected to be where we are now. Things are moving very speedily, but the Government are cognisant of the fact that they need to help secure the stability of a new regime and, at the same time, examine the consequences of that regime change in a way that encourages peace in the region.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I will pursue the point about casework. Does the Minister agree that there is a balance between speed, accuracy and the application of all the humanitarian factors that one needs to keep in mind? Thinking about what it must be like to deal with the applications, I have only admiration for those who work on them. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer this, but I wonder whether the Home Office is providing enough support for supervision, as well as general support for those faced with the applications.
I also want to mention asylum hotels, which the Minister mentioned. I hear an increasing call for support for people living in asylum hotels—more than just accommodation. Perhaps the Home Office can bear this in mind in its contracting of accommodation, because asylum seekers need more than just a roof over their head.
Finally, I will no doubt be showing my ignorance, but perhaps I could ask a question on the Statement. We are told that illegal working visits are up 34%. What are illegal working visits?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
First, on that point, legislation was passed in 2014 by the then Conservative Government, which the then Labour Opposition supported. I was the shadow Minister. It was to ensure that we crack down on illegal working in a range of establishments, for two reasons. First, individuals who are here illegally should not be exploited by unscrupulous employers. Secondly, in employing people illegally, those unscrupulous employers are undercutting the ability to pay decent wages and give decent conditions of service to people who work legally, while undercutting the costs of other businesses. Therefore, it is not appropriate. The Government are trying to up that, building on the legislation that was passed. I hope that I have noble Lords’ support in this. We are also looking at building on that legislation to ensure that we can take further steps accordingly.
The noble Baroness also mentions two aspects. One is asylum hotels. This is difficult, but it is the Government’s intention to end the use of asylum hotels at an early opportunity. We will be progressing that. At the moment, give or take one or two hotels, we are at the same number that the Government had in July, but we are aiming to reduce that significantly, because it is a cost to the taxpayer and, as the noble Baroness says, it is not conducive to the good health and well-being of those people who are in our care for that period of time. Again, that is a long-term objective. On her first point, we are trying to speed up the asylum system in an accurate way to ensure that asylum claims are assessed quickly. Then, where they are approved, individuals can have asylum, and, where they are not approved and people have no right of abode, they can be removed. At the moment, that system has no energy in it, to the extent that we want it to have. We are trying to put some energy into that system.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The Minister mentioned the work of the Migration Advisory Committee, looking at skills. It rather sounded as though we would be allowing additional people into the UK on its recommendations, whereas I believe the focus should be on upskilling UK young people and UK unemployed so that they can fill the skills gaps that we have. The shadow Minister made a point about the winding down of the scheme to encourage integration in the UK and to encourage people to learn proper English, as you see in other countries. Could the Minister kindly answer the question that was asked?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the first point, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that the purpose of the Government discussing this aspect with the Migration Advisory Committee is to look at the question of skills shortages and where individuals potentially can add to the gross domestic product and contribute to society as a whole. There may well be some skills shortages, but we are reviewing that in relation to the potential for a range of matters. This will be allied with the White Paper, which looks at the level of net migration and how the net migration target that was set previously is managed by the new Government.
The noble Baroness’s point about integration is extremely important. Let me take away the points that she and the noble Lord made and give them both a fuller answer as to the outcome of that discussion.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord German raised the question of Syrian refugees, and the Minister was right to point out the situation that prevails at the moment in that country. There is ample evidence, photographic and otherwise, of large numbers of refugees from neighbouring countries making their way back into Syria to go back to their homeland. What are the Government doing to give help and assistance to refugees who want to return to Syria? What assistance is being given to those who may wish to withdraw their application for asylum?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I hope I can help the noble Lord, but this is a very fast-moving situation; we were not here this time last week. There are challenges in Syria, with people moving back there from neighbouring countries and the United Kingdom, and people, potentially, still seeking asylum from a new Syrian regime that they do not support. These issues are all on the table. I hope the noble Lord will understand, but I do not wish to commit now to definitive policy solutions to those issues, because the Government are reflecting on them. So I will simply say that the £11 million of humanitarian aid that the Foreign Secretary announced this week is a start. If the noble Lord and the House will allow us, those are matters that we can maybe discuss in slower time, when the Government have assessed the position fully and determined what best we can do with our partners to assist that position.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, much has been made of the Syrian situation by many noble Lords this afternoon. Does this not open up a question as to what the asylum rules are really there for? We do not know quite where Syria will end up—it is early days, as the Minister very correctly said—but many Syrians will be looking to go back home. During the years of civil war in Syria, Lebanon warmly accepted many Syrians, but it was quite bizarre that, during the height of Lebanon’s recent problems, many Syrians went home from Lebanon saying that Syria was safer than Lebanon at the time.
Are we not in a situation, if Syria does settle down, where we can consider whether temporary asylum is probably a better way forward for the world? Ultimately, is it not the case that the brightest, best, fittest and strongest people, having left their country at a time of conflict, would actually wish and want to return home to rebuild that country for the future? Is that something the Government would support: a temporary asylum basis rather than a permanent one?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Individuals can always choose to return if the situation in their home country that they were fleeing and seeking asylum from changes. In this circumstance, we have temporarily paused decisions on Syrian asylum claims while we assess the current situation and we are keeping country guidance under review. With due respect to all noble Lords, we do not yet know how this will pan out; we do not know who the good guys and the bad guys are going to be; and we do not know ultimately what will happen in the new Syria that might emerge from the collapse of the Assad regime.
The same is true for Ukrainian citizens and others who flee and seek temporary asylum or relief from a particular war situation or from poverty and hunger. We judge those on an individual basis: asylum is given, or it is not; people are returned, or they are not. I would like to keep to that system, but recognise that circumstances change, as has been shown in the last week in Syria.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I might revert to Syria. The question of war crime trials will arise. Does the Minister agree that the Government should give earnest consideration to going to the Security Council to try to get a resolution remitting war crimes to the International Criminal Court? Or, if that is not possible, for obvious reasons, should the Government consider invoking the Rome statute to achieve that purpose?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If the noble Viscount will allow me, those matters are slightly beyond my remit. I would not wish to commit the Government to any particular course of action on that, but I will certainly pass his comments to the Foreign Secretary who, along with the Prime Minister, will be considering these matters. It is not within my direct gift; I could comment on it and give him a view, but it may not subsequently prove to be the Government’s one—so I wish to retain the right to silence, if the noble Viscount understands what I mean.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
The noble Lord, in response to an earlier question, referenced the ambition to close asylum hotels. There has been much discussion recently about the impact of net migration on housing stock, et cetera. Has he evaluated the impact of that policy on the availability of social and affordable housing, and how does he expect to be able to house the net migration figures?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has already committed in the House of Commons, in a Statement repeated in this House, to increase dramatically the number of social houses, affordable houses and housebuilding sites generally across the United Kingdom, as a matter of some urgency, to meet the housing need.
The question of hotel accommodation, and of what happens to individuals post that, is a significant issue. With the Migration Advisory Committee and the future White Paper, we are trying to look at how we deal with those issues. The immediate government objective is to reduce and ultimately close the number of hotels being used, because they are an expensive way of providing that level of housing for individuals. There were no hotels in 2019; there are now more than 200 in use. It is not good, for a range of reasons, to continue that mechanism of policy, so we are trying to exit it. That takes time, and the evaluation of the consequences of that withdrawal also takes time, but I hope that the noble Earl, along with this House, will bear with us while we wrestle and grapple with those issues.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister shares the world’s horror at the recent announcement from the Taliban of the latest repressive measure against women in Afghanistan, which has banned women from medical training, including banning the training of female midwives. This serves as a reminder of the vulnerability of the entire Afghan population, but particularly those many Afghans who served both the UK military and UK-linked institutions who remain in the region in extremely endangered circumstances. I note that the International Rescue Committee applauded the small initial step that the Government took on family reunion for families separated during Operation Pitting, but what more are the Government doing to assist those Afghans, to whom we have a real responsibility, to find a safe, orderly route to seek asylum in the UK?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is extremely important that we have a responsibility to those individuals who served and supported what I would call coalition forces in Afghanistan. It is particularly important that we uphold the rights of women to lead their lives in their own way in Afghanistan and to have opportunities to do so. The points that the noble Baroness has made are worthy of reflection. If she will let me, I will report her comments today back to my colleague Minister, who is directly responsible in the Home Office for those matters, and respond to her in due course.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, in response to questions from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, the Minister gave the impression that not much progress had been made in negotiations and actual action on the ground in dealing with the small boats. I was wondering whether he could acknowledge that a huge amount of work was done in negotiating with France. Can he spell out what action he is taking that is different from what we were doing? Secondly, the individual now heading up the small boats border force said when he was appointed that part of the strategy should be deterrence. Where is that deterrent?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think there is a different type of deterrent from that which the noble Viscount would wish to exercise, and which I am guessing he supported when the noble Lord, Lord Murray, brought the proposals forward. The Rwandan scheme, in my view, was not a deterrent: it was a costly, £700 million fantasy that would have secured even more resource in due course. We have scrapped that scheme, saved that £700 million, reallocated that resource to Border Force with £150 million as an initial starter, and appointed Martin Hewitt to co-ordinate not just Home Office activity but policing and international efforts. The results of that are the type of thing happening this very day here in London, with agreements being signed by the French, the Belgians, the Dutch and the Germans to secure co-operation on criminal gangs. I hope the noble Viscount will note that the numbers of prosecutions and returns, and the speed of asylum applications, are starting to pick up. That is because the resource we saved from being wasted—it was a legitimate choice for the Government to make, but one I did not support—is now being put to good use.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I go back to the questions asked by my noble friend on the Front Bench and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe about the integration and English fund, which was put in place by the former Government and which the current Government have scrapped. I do not expect the Minister to answer this now because he has already said he will write, but was some assessment made on the likely impact that the scrapping of that fund would have on community cohesion? Will he commit to write to the House on this?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Of course. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contribution. He held the office that I hold now, and he knows how difficult it is and how slow things can be. I will try to answer him as fairly as I possibly can. A good grasp of English and a good level of integration are critical, even when asylum claims are granted, because they make individuals less open to exploitation and abuse. They help with an individual’s general integration into society post any formal asylum application being approved. I will put the correspondence the noble Lord has requested in the Library of the House, and I look forward to him reading it in due course—perhaps even between Christmas and the new year.
Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the draft Order laid before the House on 28 October be approved.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this order, which is a result of collaborative working between the UK and Scottish Governments. This order comes following agreement by the previous Government to transfer to Scottish Ministers the function of making environmental outcomes report regulations, replacing environmental impact assessments in respect of electricity works consenting in Scotland and the Scottish part of the renewable energy zone, so that the power will be held concurrently with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. This transfer of functions reinstates powers lost by Scottish Ministers upon repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. The order before us today will be made under Section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998, which provides
“for any functions, so far as they are exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in or as regards Scotland, to be exercisable … by the Scottish Ministers concurrently with the Minister of the Crown”.
This Scotland Act order is a demonstration of devolution in action.
The UK operated a system of environmental impact assessments in reliance on powers conferred by the European Communities Act 1972. The function of making environmental impact assessment regulations in respect of electricity works consenting in Scotland had been transferred to the Scottish Ministers concurrently with the Secretary of State in 1999. Following the designation of the Scottish part of the renewable energy zone, the extent of the Scottish Ministers’ electricity consent functions was extended to the Scottish part of the renewable energy zone. Subsequently, the Scottish Ministers’ associated EIA regulation-making powers were also extended to the Scottish part of the REZ.
The power to make environmental impact assessment regulations was lost upon repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. In 2023 the then UK Government took powers in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act to make environmental outcomes report regulations intended to replace environmental impact assessment regulations. This instrument transfers functions to Scottish Ministers to make regulations under Chapter 1 of Part 3, “Planning data”, and Part 6, “Environmental outcomes reports”, of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and related ancillary functions.
In relation to the assessment of the effects on the environment in connection with applications for consent, approval or variation of consent for electricity generating stations under Sections 36 and 36C of the Electricity Act 1989, and associated overhead line infrastructure under Section 37 of that Act, these functions will be exercisable concurrently with the Secretary of State. Before the Scottish Ministers seek to exercise functions by virtue of this order, they will be required to consult with the Secretary of State.
This order reflects a commitment made to the Scottish Government during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. I am pleased that the UK Government are working to address this matter, and I hope noble Lords across the House will support this SI.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the SI. Obviously, timing is significant as the Government are committed to ramping up the drive to net zero. We have to acknowledge that these powers are also necessary. Plans for large onshore facilities to receive electricity from offshore wind farms are already proving controversial on the ground in Scotland. Similarly, requirements for major new pylon routes to deliver the electricity south are also attracting objections. These are issues that people are engaged with, and they need to how they can be resolved and where the responsibility lies.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for setting out the background to this statutory instrument. We will not be opposing it. As she set out, its purpose is to enable the exercise of concurrent powers in relation to assessing the environmental impact of, and granting planning consent for, generating stations and overhead lines in Scotland; in essence, devolving powers to make certain regulations in these areas to the Scottish Government.
In the light of the fact that Scottish Ministers are not currently able to amend or replace the procedures in the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, which are devolved to the Scottish Government, it makes eminent sense to transfer the relevant functions in this order. That work began under the previous UK Government, as the noble Baroness will be aware.
However, there are several concerns about the UK Government’s broader policy direction in this area. First, across many parts of Scotland there is concern that the onward march of overland grid infrastructure, including the imposition of pylons, risks spoiling the countryside and may also restrict agricultural land use. As we set out in our manifesto, our clear preference is for undergrounding where it is cost competitive. What is the UK Government’s position on under- grounding cables?
Related to that, the noble Baroness may be aware that several noble Lords tabled amendments to the Government’s Great British Energy Bill that aim to protect both the beauty of our countryside and our agricultural output as we progress to a clean energy future. Can she confirm that the UK Government are committed to protecting the beauty of our countryside and improving the UK’s agricultural output?
Further—and this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce—the draft order provides that Scottish Ministers would have to consult the Secretary of State before exercising their powers. However, what happens in cases where the Scottish and UK Governments disagree and views diverge?
Finally, and related to the above, does the noble Baroness share our concerns that, whatever the substantive merits of the order, there is a risk that the procedures involved will add further complexity to an area of planning that is already highly complicated and diverges hugely across the nations of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords for their contributions and for the short, sharp nature of our debate in your Lordships’ House. I have been asked a series of questions. I hope to answer all of them. If I do not, I am sure my civil servants will make sure that I respond appropriately and will write to noble Lords.
On the specifics raised, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for his recognition that we are attempting to reset the relationship between the Westminster Government and Holyrood. We will do everything we can to make sure that this works and is effective.
There were several questions pertaining to how this would work in reality and the impact on divergence, so I hope noble Lords will bear with me. Both noble Lords raised the question of what would happen if we were to diverge significantly. The requirement to consult is to provide an opportunity for the UK Government to give views on the exercise of these powers, noting the UK Government’s wider responsibility for international matters that may influence the use of these powers. The nature of the powers allows for divergence between nations—in fact, that is devolution in action. However, there are specific provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act—which we all lived through, during many days of debate in this House—that would allow Governments to ensure interoperability between regimes, even if there were to be divergence.
On how consultation between Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State will work in practice, this will mirror the standard approach to consultation with Scottish Ministers, providing information about the use of these powers in advance of the powers being used. This would allow UK Ministers to provide any feedback on the proposed use of the powers, which is especially important given the UK Government’s role in international matters that may influence the use of these powers.
Both noble Lords touched on reforming the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland, which is a key part of current discussions and of public interest. The UK and Scottish Governments agree that modernising and removing inefficiencies in the Electricity Act 1989 is the best route to speeding up low-carbon energy infrastructure deployment in Scotland, which will be vital to achieving cheaper, clean power by 2030 and onwards. The UK and Scottish Governments have been working together closely to develop a set of reform proposals. A public consultation seeking views on the reform proposals closed on 29 November.
With regard to divergence, before Scottish Ministers seek to exercise functions by virtue of this order they will be required to consult with the Secretary of State. The issue of divergence on this matter is built into the regulatory framework. As I said earlier, this is devolution in action and it will be a pragmatic tool for managing divergence in the making of regulations on this matter.
On the substantive subject matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for England and Wales, the policy on undergrounding is set out in the energy national policy statements. Overhead lines are usually the starting presumption for large electricity network projects, as they were under the last Government, except in nationally designated landscapes, where the usual starting presumption is that large electricity network projects should be undergrounded. The design and development of energy transmission infrastructure, including which technology will be used, is a matter for the developer, with the design considered through the planning process and approval needed by Ofgem. While the underpinning legislation of electricity networks is reserved to the UK Government, planning and consenting decisions about electricity infrastructure in Scotland are devolved to Scottish Government Ministers, which is why this SI is so important.
Before I move on, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for starting the work on this SI when he was in government. We are now delivering on commitments made by the previous Government. Committee stage of the Great British Energy Bill continues next week, and I am sure that will be a fundamental part of the conversation. I want to assure the noble Lord that this Government consider protecting the beauty of our countryside, and protecting our country, as foremost responsibilities.
In closing, this instrument demonstrates the continued commitment of the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for Scotland and the people of Scotland. On that basis, I commend the SI to the House.
Home Detention Curfew and Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods (Amendment) Order 2024
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
That the draft Order laid before the House on 13 November be approved.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this order, I thank members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for the scrutiny of this statutory instrument. The Government laid this draft order on 13 November. I hope that has given noble Lords an opportunity to scrutinise the order and its accompanying explanatory documents. I welcome this further opportunity today to be clear about what the order will do and the Government’s reasons for taking these measures.
The draft order is a key part of our continuing efforts to resolve the capacity crisis in our prisons. After inheriting from the previous Government a prison system on the verge of collapse, on 12 July the Lord Chancellor was forced to announce a measure to address the immediate risk of running out of prison places. This was a change to modify the automatic release point for those serving standard determinate sentences from 50% to 40%. Specified offences were excluded from this modification. The draft order before us now makes further important changes to that original measure by excluding further offences from this modification.
As part of our continuing efforts to avoid running out of prison spaces, the order amends the provisions relating to the home detention curfew—HDC—by extending the maximum time that an offender can spend on HDC in the community. HDC enables eligible, risk-assessed offenders to be released from prison six months early, subject to an electronically monitored curfew. We are proposing to extend the maximum time that an offender can spend on HDC from six months to 12 months. To be clear, the eligibility and suitability criteria remain the same—for example, sex offenders are still excluded in statute and those serving sentences linked to domestic abuse are presumed unsuitable under the policy.
It is right that the sentencing review is given time to do its work, but the capacity crisis in our prisons has not gone away. When we introduced emergency measures in July, we believed that they had bought us about a year. However, after the summer of disorder, the next crisis could be just nine months away. For that reason, we must implement further measures urgently to ensure that we do not face running out of places again. This change to HDC will help to ensure that the criminal justice system is able to function as it should, helping to prevent further acute capacity pressures and avoid running out of prison places, which would cause criminal justice gridlock.
As to the purpose of this draft order, it relates to release measures within the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The first part of the draft order deals with HDC. HDC has been in operation since 1999. The scheme enables certain prisoners to be released from prison early while remaining subject to significant restrictions on their liberty. Offenders who are released from custody on this basis are tagged and placed on a curfew. This curfew must be for at least nine hours per day, by law, but is generally around 12 hours per day as a matter of policy. The curfew requirement must remain in force until they reach their conditional or automatic release date. Those released on HDC are subject to probation supervision and other restrictions as necessary. These may include GPS location and alcohol monitoring, exclusion zones, non-contact conditions and travel restrictions. If offenders breach the terms of their conditions, they can be recalled to custody to serve the remainder of their custodial sentence.
The rules on eligibility will not change as a result of this draft order. Offenders must complete half of the custodial part of their sentence before they can be considered eligible for HDC. Release on HDC is also entirely discretionary. There are a number of offences that are excluded from its scope by statute—for example, serious violent offences and all sexual offences. Other types of offending are presumed unsuitable as a matter of policy, including those often associated with domestic abuse, such as stalking, harassment and coercive control. Offenders serving sentences for any of the presumed unsuitable offences will not be considered for release unless the prison governor is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying this. Any offenders who meet this test will still be subject to a rigorous risk- assessment process before release on HDC is approved.
We are proposing to change the maximum period that an eligible prisoner may spend on HDC. We plan to extend it to 12 months from the current maximum of six months. Offenders eligible for HDC will continue to be risk-assessed and will still be subject to strict licence conditions and an electronically monitored curfew. As the previous Prisons Minister stated in February, the reoffending rate for prisoners released directly from custody was close to 50%, but for the types of offenders released on to HDC it was 23%.
The previous Administration committed to doing a review when HDC was extended from four and a half months to six months. That review did not take place, and the growing crisis in our prisons has meant that we need to take further action. HDC is closely monitored by HMPPS and the MoJ, and data on releases and recalls is regularly published. That will continue. I must be clear that this measure is urgently needed to reduce the pressure on the prison system. The challenges facing us across the prison estate are such that we must take urgent action to allow the sentencing review to take place. By extending HDC, we are using a long-standing mechanism that has robust safeguards built into it.
The order will also amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods) Order 2024, which established the SDS40 early release measure by modifying the automatic release point for those serving standard determinate sentences for eligible offences from 50% to 40%. The SI seeks to exclude six further offences from the early release measure.
SDS40 was delivered extremely effectively, but there was a problem with 37 prisoners who were released in error. Those offenders had been prosecuted under a repealed law that we had not excluded from SDS40. The Court of Appeal had ruled that we should treat the offenders who had been prosecuted under this offence after it had been repealed as if they had been prosecuted under the new offence, which was already excluded from SDS40. That ultimately meant that those prisoners were not identified as being ineligible for early release under SDS40. All the offenders released in error were returned to custody.
Subsequently, a thorough search uncovered similar anomalies where legislation creating criminal offences has been repealed and replaced. We had already taken the decision to exclude such offending, which relates to stalking, harassment, sexual harm and so-called revenge pornography, from the scope of emergency early release.
We are therefore acting quickly to exclude five further offences from SDS40 to ensure that the spirit of the original exclusions is delivered. This will ensure that anyone convicted of any of these offences cannot be released early under SDS40.
The draft order also excludes murder from SDS40. Anyone convicted of murder in the UK would have received a mandatory life sentence so would not be eligible for release under SDS40. However, some jurisdictions do not have life sentences so it is possible that in a small number of cases a UK national convicted of murder in a foreign jurisdiction may be given a determinate sentence for murder by that foreign court and may then be repatriated to the UK to serve that sentence in a prison in England and Wales. We want to ensure that no offender in this position could be released under SDS40.
Shortly after coming to power, the Government took decisive action to stop our prisons from collapsing. SDS40 was an emergency response to the crisis that we were faced with. We worked at pace to ensure that the scheme was as effective as possible while protecting the public by excluding the most serious offenders and providing specific protections for victims of certain domestic abuse offences.
We have kept SDS40 under constant review and are now acting quickly to address a small number of anomalies in the original legislation. The draft order extends to England and Wales only, and there should be no direct effect on the devolved Administrations. I beg to move.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, both as Victims’ Commissioner and a victim going through the criminal justice system, I was horrified to read the NAO report published week which assessed government plans to expand the prison population. The report told us that on current forecasts the population would exceed prison capacity by 12,400 by the end of 2027. It is impossible to see how this can be absorbed by any building programme, let alone one that can be completed in just three years. It leaves the Government in an impossible position of having to explore all alternatives and it is against this backdrop that we find ourselves here today.
I am told that the home detention curfew scheme is hugely effective. Other than in the context of reducing the prison population, I am not sure how this statement can be made. As far as I am aware, there has been no recent evaluation of the scheme, but I would be interested to hear on this point from the Minister. Prison governors are responsible for selecting offenders who are suitable for the scheme. It is to their credit that compliance levels are relatively high. However, can we really be confident that current compliance levels will remain if the scheme is, in effect, doubled in length? Again, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view.
It will come as no surprise when I say I come to this debate from the perspective of the victim. As I have said before, most victims seek justice, not vengeance. On hearing a sentence being delivered, the victims expect the sentence handed down to be served in full. This is not unreasonable; surely it is what we mean by justice. Victims listen to the remand time that has been deducted from the sentence; they know that part of the sentence will be served on licence, but they struggle to accept a prison sentence being reduced—by up to 12 months—through one or other early release scheme simply to reduce prison population pressures.
I fear that retrospective pruning of sentences by all successive Governments over the years has had a corrosive effect on public confidence in our justice system. How can you trust a justice system if all Governments keep moving the goal posts? It also adds an extra layer of complexity on sentencing and, heaven knows, sentencing is already complicated in the first place.
I make a plea to this Government and future Governments: let this be the very last time we have to extend an early release scheme to bail us out of another prison crisis. We need a sustainable sentencing regime where the sentence handed down is the same as that victims hear and the same as that the offender will serve, and we need a prison system that has the resilience and the means to meet the challenge.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we support the principle of this order and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his helpful introduction and explanation of it. He acknowledged, indeed asserted, that the background to the measure is the capacity crisis of which we have spoken over a number of years under the previous Government. This order is, in essence, the amendment of an emergency measure taken in the face of extreme pressure on the Government as the space in prisons simply ran out.
We recognise the need to extend the time, in the face of the continuing crisis, that may be spent on home detention curfew or HDC. It is significant that the reoffending rates among HDC prisoners are lower than those among the prison population at large on release. We also recognise that, for the technical reasons that the noble Lord has outlined, there need to be changes to the range of offences where eligibility for release under SDS40 is established.
As prisoner numbers have risen, with longer sentences resulting from sentence inflation, from legislation introducing longer sentences and legislation imposing longer periods which have to be served in custody as a proportion of the whole sentence, we have to look at how we deal with this crisis in the future.
While we support the principle of this order and the orders that have preceded it, I will ask the Minister for assurances in two specific areas before making a number of general points. First, it is an essential part of the early release scheme that offenders be tagged and that, when tagged, they are properly monitored within the community. Many were alarmed by the number of reports at the beginning of this scheme of offenders being released without tags. The noble Lord, Lord Timpson, described that as “completely unacceptable”, and we agree. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister details of steps the Government have taken to ensure that nothing like that can happen again. It would also be helpful to hear further details of how well the steps taken to monitor prisoners who are tagged on release are working in practice.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, we too welcome this order. I understand the reasons set out by the Minister. Under the previous policy, the automatic release point for the sentences for offences being added to the order was 40%. Under this order, in some circumstances, this will change back to 50%. Furthermore, the maximum length of a home detention curfew period will be extended from 180 days to 365 days.
While we welcome this order, I have a question to ask the Minister, further to the points made by my noble friend Lady Newlove. While the order would allow the Government to keep prisoners under home detention or in custody for longer, can the Minister outline the estimated impact on prisoner capacity in the near future of this decision, and how it is proposed to utilise this new power? Is it the intention in the medium term to return the home detention curfew power to 180 days? I also look forward to hearing responses to the cogent questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I briefly intervene, if I may. In doing so, declare my interest: until about 1 pm this afternoon, I was a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. I largely agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I agree with them because I have made that very same speech probably about 20 times in the last 10 years—nobody listens, it does not matter. The short point I want to make is this: who monitors the monitors? One of the problems that we have noticed over the last several years, when looking at the use of tags, is that far too often the monitoring organisation falls down. One expects ingenious people on tags to try to get out of the restrictions imposed by them, but one does not expect the monitor to fall down in its duties. Can the Minister please assure us that rigid steps are being taken to make sure that the monitors are monitored, and that if they fail, there is some form of contractual sanction?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. I agreed with all the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, on the importance of victims, but one point that is worth emphasising is that it is a discretionary matter for the governor as to whether a home detention curfew is granted. My understanding is that 40% of applicants for home detention curfews fail that application. That is distinct from SDS40, where there is a mandatory reduction from 50% to 40%; whether a home detention curfew is granted is a discretionary matter. The noble Baroness was broadly supportive of the measures in this SI, and I thank her for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised a number of interesting points. The one I found most interesting was about extending tagging on perpetrators beyond the HDC period and maybe beyond the licence period— I do not know exactly what he is suggesting. As he will know, a sentencing review is under way, and it may be that there is an increased use of technology. I will make sure that the noble Lord’s point is fed back to the Ministers who are enabling David Gauke and his team to do that review.
A couple of days ago, I met the Estonian Justice Minister, and a couple of weeks ago, I was in Poland. It was interesting to talk to the Justice Ministers in both those countries about how they are extending their use of technology in a number of ways—there are a lot of possibilities there. I would not be at all surprised if this is looked at further as part of the sentencing review.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, went on to talk about the capacity of the prison estate and the need to have spare capacity so that the system can essentially be managed properly for the benefit of the prisoners. This means that they can complete their courses and be relatively near to home, so that family ties are not broken. All the noble Lord’s points on that are absolutely right. What he said is very ambitious, but I hope the Government are matching his ambition in the sequencing of the steps we are taking to try to have a prison system that reduces reoffending—that should be, and is, the primary objective of any prison system.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, raised, on who monitors the monitors. My noble friend Lord Timpson is monitoring the monitors, and he is having absolutely regular meetings with Serco to reassure himself that the technology is working properly and that the further technology that we will need will be available. This is a real issue, and the noble Lord is right to raise it. It is very much alive in my noble friend’s head, if I can put it like that.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, asked whether we would return to the old regime in due course. The answer to that is that we will keep the current proposed changes under review. One difficulty that we have had is that the situation is changing so quickly that it has proven difficult to do a proper review in a stable regime. The previous Government did not do a review of the previous regime when it went from four and a half to six months, and the current changes from six to 12 months need a suitable amount of time to bed in, to make sure that a proper assessment is done so that the Government can take a view about future steps. I hope that that puts the noble Lord’s mind at rest—the Government will constantly keep these matters under review.
Police Act 1997 (Authorisations to Interfere with Property: Relevant Offence) Regulations 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 October be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
In moving this Motion, I also ask that the House approves the National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025.
Both these instruments, which were laid before this House on 29 October 2024, relate to the National Security Act. This Act, which received Royal Assent in July last year under the previous Government, includes a number of measures to protect the public, modernise our counterespionage laws and disrupt the full range of modern-day state threats. Among those measures is a prohibited places regime, including a suite of tools and offences to protect and capture harmful activity in and around some of the UK’s most sensitive sites, including by modern threats such as unmanned aircraft, which noble Lords will recognise colloquially as drones. It is essential that we make these two amendments, to ensure consistency of approach to the consequential amendments in both English and Welsh versions of related legislation and to ensure that our law enforcement bodies have the right tools to do their critical work.
It might help noble Lords if I outline the first instrument, the Police Act 1997 (Authorisations to Interfere with Property: Relevant Offence) Regulations 2025. This adds drone-specific offences under the National Security Act 2023 to the list of relevant offences in the Police Act 1997, which provides police and other authorised officials with the legal authority to employ counter-drone equipment to detect and prevent the use of drones in the commission of relevant offences. The amendment is essential to enforce the National Security Act, as it ensures that police and other authorised officials can authorise the appropriate technical tools to tackle and combat drone misuse. If we do not proceed with the legislation, there may be instances where an offence under the National Security Act 2023 is committed but the police are unable to authorise the use of their equipment.
The second instrument, the National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025, amends the Welsh language version of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2019. Last year, when changing the English language version of the Act through the National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendments of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2023, an oversight took place, as happens occasionally, and the corresponding change was not made to the Welsh language version. It will be with this order today. The instrument will correct this oversight, ensuring that there is no misunderstanding when consulting the Welsh language version of the Act regarding the ability to disclose information obtained in the course of an investigation by the Public Services Ombudsman, if required in relation to a prosecution for offences under the National Security Act 2023.
I hope that that is relatively clear. These are two simple amendments, and I hope that I have made it clear from these remarks that the regulations will ensure the correct application and enforcement of primary legislation, supported by the previous Government, which has already been agreed by Parliament. Passing them will be an important step to correcting an inaccuracy and giving powers to enforce legislation.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, there is no doubt that our laws need to be kept updated to reflect the evolving security threat, the speed at which technology is developing, and the increasingly unstable global situation. So, on balance, we accept that both these instruments are proportionate and will support them.
Our concerns around the National Security Act regulations relate to the knowledge test for these offences, given the steep penalties involved. Does the Minister recognise that the sensitivity of a site might not always be obvious, and that a site’s sensitivity can be fluid, particularly in the case of military vehicles? Could he provide some clarity around the kinds of restricted areas the legislation will apply to, and give assurances that a reasonable person—for example, innocently flying a drone in the countryside—will be protected?
In relation to the Police Act regulations, my understanding is that these allow the police to use counter-drone measures against an unmanned aircraft flying over sensitive military sites, and I have a number of questions in this area. Who has responsibility to deal with unidentified drones around these sites? The military already has its own counter-drone capability; will the police powers run alongside that?
Last year, there were almost 400 police drones operating, of which more than two-thirds were made by DJI, a Chinese firm that the US has linked to the Chinese military—although the company denies this. The previous year, the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner warned that the UK police estate was “shot through” with Chinese-made surveillance drones, used by 23 of the 31 police forces operating drone cameras. At that time, the National Police Chiefs’ Council said it would carry out the necessary review to ensure that national security standards were being met. Perhaps the Minister could say whether that review was carried out.
Just five months ago, West Midlands Police told a magazine that its current drone fleet included 12 DJIs, as well as two made by Autel, another Chinese-based company. Autel was also supplying drones to Nottinghamshire Police and Wiltshire Police, before it was sanctioned by the British Government last month for arming Russia to fight in Ukraine. In light of this, is the Minister satisfied that the police are working with drone providers which can be trusted and whether there are measures in place to ensure that these drones cannot be used to monitor or collect information on critical UK infrastructure?
The drone industry is booming, with estimates that there could be over 76,000 commercial drones in UK skies by 2030—so these security concerns will not go away. China is currently way ahead of everyone else in this area, with DJI the world’s largest commercial drone manufacturer. So it is vital the Government do all they can to support the UK drone industry, which is already responsible for several world firsts.
We support the legislation, but our focus must be on ensuring that our police have the right tools and expertise to counter these threats, wherever they arise. We should heed the lesson of the Trojan horse and ensure that any “spy in the sky” is not already in our midst, starting with the security of our own police drones.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, we welcome and support both these orders. The first statutory instrument adds offences under the National Security Act to the list of relevant offences in the Police Act 1997, enabling the use of counter-drone powers by police and other authorised officials. This means they will have the power to use counter-drone technology and to take action against unmanned aircraft or drones which are being operated in an area around a prohibited place or a cordoned area without authorisation.
As has already been noted by noble Lords, we have seen an exponential increase in the use of drones in crime. It makes perfect sense to empower the police to tackle this rising threat. It is consistent with the evolving threat reflected in the debates on the National Security Act, which passed through this House last year.
I turn to the draft National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025, which are also supported on this side of the House. As the Minister explained, this is a consequential amendment to the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2019. One can understand how these incidents occur, and it is clearly appropriate to make the order that is sought.
The National Security Act was a landmark achievement for the previous Conservative Government and passed with a good measure of parliamentary support across both this House and the other place. It reflected the evolving national security threat that our country faces. It places Britain at the forefront of efforts to protect our citizens, businesses, institutions and defence establishments from the ever-changing threats posed by hostile actors, cyber threats and covert intelligence measures. The only question I have for the Minister is: when does he estimate that the National Security Act will be fully in force?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the contributions from His Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am grateful for the Opposition’s support for both orders, which are relatively straightforward and, I hope, totally uncontroversial. I hope that this House today, as well as the House of Commons in due course, will support them.
I will start with the extremely important and valid points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. The first relates to the potential for individuals not to know about a site or for the site sensitivity not to be obvious. The Government have considered that, where appropriate, steps should be taken to ensure that all prohibited places are clearly signposted for the benefit of the public. They will remain discretionary for a time, because it will not always be appropriate or practical for security reasons, but the prohibited places offences under the National Security Act 2023 take account of this. Whether or not signage is in place depends on the circumstances, and that would then determine whether or not an offence has been committed. For most places, signage is in place. There will be a limited number of places where there is no signage—but, again, it is not appropriate, even today, to talk about what types of prohibited places they may be, for reasons that are obvious.
The National Security Act 2023 protects our most sensitive sites against activity, which is why we welcomed it when it was introduced by the previous Government. Section 7 of the Act sets out what the prohibited places are, including certain Crown land in the UK, the sovereign base areas, defence establishments, and areas for the defence of a foreign state or the extraction of material for UK defence purposes, as well as sites owned or controlled by the UK intelligence services and used for their functions. Such prohibited places are inherently sensitive and therefore may be at risk. An offence might be committed under Section 5 if a person carries out unauthorised conduct in relation to that prohibited place. As has been mentioned, there would be a defence under legislation for that.
The noble Baroness asked, quite rightly, who has the responsibility of dealing with unidentified drones around these sites. The police forces play a major initial part in protecting UK defence sites from drone misuse, but responsibility for that misuse will depend on the site and its specific circumstances. The Home Office is trying to support the development of the national police counter-drone capability, which has taken place over the last five years. The SI provides greater assurances and outlines circumstances where action can be taken in relation to cordoned-off drone areas.
The noble Baroness specifically mentioned Chinese matériel. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is looking at, and collaborating with, military partners and other state drone operators to make sure that we align security standards. That means that we are looking at a national procurement framework that includes drones as part of this, and we are engaging with police forces to ensure that the suppliers added to the framework meet the required security standards.
Again, that will determine whether drones of any particular provenance are allowed to be used by UK police forces and others. That security assessment will, I hope, reassure the noble Baroness.
The final question, from the noble Lord, was about the full implementation of the National Security Act. I have to say to him: when parliamentary time allows and when government decisions have been taken. I will inform him when that moment is due to arrive.
National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 October be approved.
Local Digital Television Programme Services (Amendment) Order 2024
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Twycross
That the draft Order laid before the House on 5 November be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, over a decade since the first service launched, local TV continues to complement our national public service broadcasters by providing local content, including news and current affairs, to audiences across the UK. From London Live, which broadcasts just a few miles up the road in Kensington, to Notts TV in Nottingham and NVTV in Belfast, there are now 34 local TV services broadcasting all over the UK.
These services bring social and economic benefits to the areas that they serve, not only through making and showing programmes that meet the interests of their local audiences but by providing training opportunities, often giving people their first experience of working in the television sector. For example, one local TV service, KMTV, has developed a partnership with the University of Kent and provides training opportunities for journalism students. In a TV sector that is all too often London-centric, local TV services provide a way into the industry for those based in all parts of the UK, as 11 are based in the north of England, five in Scotland, three in Wales, and one in Northern Ireland.
All these services are carried on the local TV multiplex, which enables their broadcast on digital terrestrial television, known as Freeview. The multiplex is operated by Comux UK, which is co-owned by the local TV services themselves. The multiplex plays a central role in the local TV ecosystem by providing subsidised carriage for all the local services and is funded by using the profits generated from the carriage of a small number of national services.
However, the climate for local TV has been challenging. Services have struggled to maintain consistent audience numbers and develop sustainable revenues from advertising. Last year, the TV advertising market in the UK experienced its biggest decline since the 2008-09 financial crisis. While this has impacted all commercially funded broadcasters, it has been particularly acute for local TV services, which operate with a smaller audience base than their national counterparts. The previous Government committed to change the local TV licensing regime to enable the extension of the local TV multiplex until 2034, and to consult on the options for the renewal or relicensing of the 34 individual local services. That consultation ran from June to September last year and received responses from current licence holders, media and telecoms companies, and members of the public.
In the consultation, the then Government set out their proposals for a light-touch renewal process for the multiplex licence, led by Ofcom, and the conditional renewal of all 34 local TV services, subject to Ofcom’s assessment of their performance to date and their plans for the next licence period. Respondents to the consultation were broadly supportive of this approach. Some respondents, particularly the incumbent licence holders, raised concerns regarding the disproportionate burden that renewal might place on licensees. They also emphasised the importance of the renewal process being concluded in a timely fashion to deliver the certainty that the sector and its commercial partners require.
My department has taken these responses into account in drafting this order and worked closely with the independent regulator, Ofcom, which will administer the renewals process, to refine its provisions. A previous version of the order was laid in draft before Parliament earlier this year on 7 May, but it was subsequently withdrawn. This was because the delay to the order coming into force caused by the general election meant that Ofcom would not have had time to complete the renewal process and still be able to run a competitive relicensing process in the event that any licences were not renewed.
In light of this, the updated order includes additional powers for Ofcom, with the consent of the current licence holders, to extend the local TV licences by a period of 12 months. This will ensure that Ofcom will be able to conclude the renewal process at least 12 months before the extended licences would otherwise expire. The order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Neither committee raised any concerns about the legislation.
The Government believe that the renewal process provided for by this order is in the best interests of the sector’s long-term health and sustainability by providing stability over the next licence period, while ensuring a proportionate degree of regulatory oversight. We want local media, including local TV, to thrive and, importantly, keep communities informed about local issues and decision-making. Enabling the renewal of the local TV licences is an important part of these plans. I beg to move.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to Daniel Cass, chief executive of That’s TV, for his views and queries on the order. The local TV sector welcomes the power granted to Ofcom to renew the UK’s current 34 local TV services on Freeview. It is important that the renewal process implemented by Ofcom does not become unduly onerous. The draft order requires Ofcom to assess both programming and business plans for the new licence period from 2026 onwards. However, Freeview is diminishing. This makes business planning for the new licence period highly challenging.
The DCMS should seek to ensure that Ofcom focuses on what is most important. In particular, the aim should be for Ofcom to protect core local news delivery on local TV services in the new licence period. For most local TV services, their news bulletins are funded by the commercial advertising secured around their non-news entertainment programming. If this model is to remain viable in the coming years, it is unlikely to be a realistic option for Ofcom to be puritanical about non-news programming and how it is delivered. If Ofcom asks local TV services to deliver more local programming than the market can realistically support, this will have the opposite of the desired effect, with services closing.
The costs and benefits of holding licences needs to remain at the forefront of Ofcom’s assessment process, or it risks becoming a fantasy exercise. On Freeview, local TV services benefit from electronic programme guide prominence regulated by Ofcom. However, there is no guarantee of either carriage or prominence for the digital apps now being planned by local TV operators. I suggest to the Minister that the Government need to work with the industry to secure a pathway for local TV operators to launch their apps on internet-connected TV platforms.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, this was Jeremy Hunt’s big idea 10 years ago, when he said that Birmingham in the USA had several local TV stations and Birmingham in the UK had none. BBC licence fee money was used—I think it was £25 million—to establish local television, and there was an ongoing budget of £5 million a year. Jeremy Hunt’s idea of 34 local TV stations, from Manchester to Maidstone and Bristol to Belfast, was given a prime spot on Freeview TV, but, of course, the stations soon struggled financially, not least because of Covid, as all media outlets did.
Now we see a sector which is not local television; there is no way in the world that having repeats of old films and travelogues is local television. Yes, there is some local news—10 minutes on weekdays—but, in fact, on many occasions, they run next to each other so that they have more time to put on repeats of old films.
I welcome the fact that we are going to extend the current licence for 12 months to give Ofcom the time to set this all up, but, during that period, I hope that we look and make a proper, realistic and honest appraisal of what local television should be. To me, local television is not a syndicated 10-minute news bulletin with hardly any, if any, local television programming.
The only thing I think is true is the point that the Minister makes that it gives people an opportunity to develop skills in that particular media field, but I would like some research on this. For example, I wonder how many local people are involved in Local TV Liverpool. I think it is no longer called that—what is it called now? I think it is called That’s TV, because the same programme is syndicated across different cities of the UK.
If we are serious about Jeremy Hunt’s original idea of local television, then let us explore whether that model works financially. If it does not, then the money—if there is any still going—would be better spent on extending other local provision, whether in local newspapers or radio.
Over the years, we have seen a sort of pretence that we need to support local news. We have seen local commercial radio stations syndicated in London, with all the skills and the same programmes being developed in London. We have seen local journalism decline and decline, and we have seen the BBC’s local radio stations have their budgets cut as well. It has always seemed bizarre to me that, on the one hand, the BBC and the licence payers are paying for local democratic reporters, which are given to national newspapers, for example, yet at the same time we are seeing local radio cut to the bone. The time has come now to be really honest about this, and this extension will give us time to properly explore that.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, local television services currently reach up to 15 million households. These services are provided by 34 local TV services, which are licensed by Ofcom. The provision of local television brings news, current affairs and creative arts programmes directly to communities in a way that national broadcasters cannot.
Under the current legislative regime, the licences for these services would expire, meaning that Ofcom would be required to launch a whole new round of licensing negotiations, creating disruption to those who consume these services and potentially damaging the broadcasting stations involved.
Under our watch, in 2023 we launched a public consultation on how to deal with the relicensing of the local television services. The responses to that consultation informed the drafting of this statutory instrument, which was laid before Parliament on 7 May this year but was, naturally, held up by the general election.
His Majesty’s Official Opposition therefore welcome the Government’s action in bringing forward this order once again. Without it, these crucial local television services would be thrown into disarray. By allowing the automatic extension of the current licences, we are providing greater certainty to the industry while also allowing Ofcom to run the renewal process for the future. Once Ofcom has assessed the state of the current providers, it will be able to renew the licences up to 2034, thereby allowing for the ongoing continuation of the local television services.
However, this order raises a few questions. First, the Explanatory Memorandum highlights that there are a number of barriers to entry for the local television market. What steps are the Government taking to reduce those barriers and ensure open competition in future licensing rounds? Secondly, the Minister will be aware that the previous Government published a White Paper in 2022, titled Up Next. Does His Majesty’s Government have any plans to take forward the recommendations from that policy document? If not, do they have their own proposals for ensuring that the local regulatory regime is up to date? We look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to what has been quite a brief debate on an important issue. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, about the significance of the potential of the local TV sector. We want to see the local TV sector survive and thrive long into the future and provide genuinely local content, particularly local news and current affairs.
A number of points raised today explore issues that arose through the consultation and renewal process, and they have been considered by the Government in taking forward this policy. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised concerns about the extent of local content. I think there are potential issues around the ability of some local TV services to make genuinely local content that meets the needs of local audiences. We recognise that the climate for sustainably funding local content can be a challenging one. However, this requirement remains at the heart of the local TV system, and therefore it is right that it is considered through the renewal process. I am happy to write to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, with the details he requested, but I can confirm that although licence fee money was used in the set-up of this service, no government funding is currently used for the local TV system.
Before renewing a licence, Ofcom will need to be satisfied that an applicant can comply with the conditions in its licence as renewed, which in the case of the local TV services will include specific local programming commitments. Ofcom published a statement earlier this year setting out further detail about how it will assess whether a service is meeting its programming commitments, and licence holders will need to consider those as part of their renewal applications.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, raised local TV services not receiving prominence on apps, as part of the new online prominence regime established in the Media Act 2024. Local TV services do not currently have an on-demand app, and it is therefore difficult to have confidence that such an app would provide significant quantities of public service content and put that content front and centre, which are two key requirements of the new prominence regime. However, we are aware of concerns raised by the sector that any apps it might develop in the future would not have the potential to benefit from the online prominence regime, so we will keep this matter under review. As I said earlier, Ofcom, as the independent broadcasting regulator, will lead the process to extend and then renew the licences for the local TV multiplex and all 34 individual local TV services. The Government look forward to Ofcom commencing that process promptly after this order comes into effect.
We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, that the process should be proportionate. Last month, Ofcom published a statement setting out how it will approach the process in accordance with the legislation and the steps that applicants will need to take to have their licences renewed. This has ensured that licence holders have advanced sight of the requirements associated with the renewal process before the application deadline at the end of March next year, and it enables them to start preparing their applications before the legislation comes into force. Enabling the renewal of the local TV licences will ensure that services continue to receive the same regulatory benefits they have enjoyed since 2013. This includes not only access to and prominence on Freeview but prominence on regulated electronic programme guides for simulcast satellite, cable and internet-delivered television services.
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, raised a number of questions; if my response so far has not covered them, I will address them. The local media strategy will be central to addressing some of the points he raised. The Secretary of State has announced plans to develop a local media strategy in recognition of the importance of that vital sector, and we will work across government to develop it.
The order will ensure that local TV continues to complement the national public service broadcasters and contribute to the plurality of our wider broadcasting ecosystem over the next licensing period. We want local TV services to continue their important contribution to the training and development of the next generation of journalists and broadcasters, and to bolstering democracy and scrutiny of decision-making at the local level. This order is an important step in enabling that to happen. I am grateful to noble Lords who contributed to the debate. I beg to move.
Lord Storey (LD)
Will the Government give Ofcom a steer on how local news will be provided—the amount of time it will be provided for, providing it on the weekend, not just weekdays, and whether any local programmes will be included? Will the local television have a presence in the city it covers, and will that city’s name be included in the title of the station?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will write to the noble Lord on those points, rather than answering on the hoof.
Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discount) (England) Order 2024
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:09 - Division on Lord Effingham’s Motion - Ayes: 170 / Noes: 163 - Motion agreed.
The Earl of Effingham
That this House regrets that the Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discount) (England) Order 2024 (SI 2024/1073), laid before the House on 30 October, will reduce the number of social tenants who can purchase their property, undermine home ownership and cut new house building.
Relevant document: 7th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument will reduce the number of qualifying secure tenants who have the opportunity to buy their rented home at a discount. This will reverse our record in the period 2012 to 2024, which enabled almost 160,000 sales under the right-to-buy scheme. On our watch, the right-to-buy discount was incrementally increased. In 2012, the maximum cash discount went up significantly from regional levels of between £16,000 and £38,000 to a new national level of £75,000. In 2013, the maximum was propelled further in London to £100,000, and from 2014 the maximum discounts rose annually, in line with the percentage change in the consumer prices index. The current maximum discounts available are £136,400 in London and £102,400 outside London.
Our aim is to move towards a scenario where people own their own home and are less reliant on local authorities. Being able to buy your own home is a critical feature of social mobility. It allows people to acquire an asset which translates into wealth, which can then be passed on to the next generation, which in turn gives more opportunities in life. The Government have cut the maximum discount to between £16,000 and £38,000, which means that secure tenants of local authorities who want to buy their home will have to pay materially more for their property.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has released a policy paper on the review of the right-to-buy discounts which showed that sales will be reduced by 25,000 over five years. By the department’s modelling, under the previous Government’s rules 35,000 people would be able to buy their social housing by 2029, but under this Government’s new rules that figure would only be 8,500. That means that 26,500 people will potentially miss out. The Government’s own modelling has shown that there would be 7,000 sales annually to 2031 if our rules were kept. However, that number will shrink to 1,700 per year under this Administration’s new rules. That means an average of 5,300 people per year will not be able to buy their home under the new restrictions.
The Government are clearly looking to create an environment where the local authorities are able to channel a larger proportion of receipts from social housing sales into building new social housing. In July 2024, the Government increased the flexibility on how councils can use their right-to-buy receipts to accelerate the delivery of replacement homes. The caps on the percentage of replacements delivered as acquisitions, and the percentage cost of a replacement home that can be funded using right-to-buy receipts, have been removed. Local authorities can now combine right-to-buy receipts with Section 106 contributions. We understand that these flexibilities will be in place until the end of 2026, subject to a review. Furthermore, the Government in the Autumn Budget stated that councils will no longer be required to return a proportion of the capital receipts generated by the sale of the home to His Majesty’s Treasury.
We appreciate that the Government are looking for ways to build more affordable housing. However, we do not think that this should be achieved at the expense of aspiring home owners who are saving to purchase the home they have lived in for, in many cases, a considerable amount of time.
The Government believe that fewer social houses in local authorities is indicative of a problem. We would argue that creating a system that results in an ever-increasing number of social homes on the local authorities’ books is unsustainable. To clarify, we absolutely must make provision for the most economically vulnerable and in need, so that come rain or shine they have a roof over their heads. But the endgame should be to help people stand on their own two feet, independent in their own home, which they themselves have purchased. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Back in 1980, when the right to buy was brought in, I was in favour of it in principle, because it devolved power and responsibility from the state to the individual. It seemed to me that it would lead to greater investment in homes if more private cash was spent on upgrading the country’s housing stock. I did not support selling off social housing without any replacement, always urging for one-for-one one replacement. But that never happened, and worse, around 40% of those homes sold ended up in the private rented sector, with higher rents pushing up the housing benefit bill.
Paragraph 5.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum is very clear in its explanation of this statutory instrument. It says:
“The Government’s objective is a fair and sustainable right to buy scheme that protects existing social housing stock whilst ensuring that secure tenants who have lived in, and paid rent on their homes for many years, retain the opportunity to own their home. This statutory instrument will directly support that objective”.
The two key words seem to me to be “fair” and “sustainable”. It is fair that those who have paid rent for many years should be able to benefit from their rent being seen as a form of deposit, and this statutory instrument will still enable them to do so.
Back in 1980, it was only fair that council tenants of long standing should not be excluded from the benefits of inflation on the capital asset they were renting. But the situation is very different today. Discounts have got bigger. Housing for social rent has been neglected. There is a massive affordability crisis in buying a home for those on lower incomes as prices have continued to rise steeply. Yet rented housing—private or public—is nowhere near enough to meet demand from those unable to buy, and more people than ever are homeless.
It is inappropriate to allow the current right-to-buy system to continue without amendment. Indeed, in Scotland and Wales, right to buy has been scrapped altogether. That is not what the Government are doing in England. They are cancelling the possibility of extending the right to buy to housing association tenants, but the right to acquire, which has a lower level of benefit, will continue to be available.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, until May, I was the leader of a council for 17 years. Under my leadership, every single home lost to right to buy was replaced, and then some. We delivered 1% of the entire national affordable housing stock each year through the 2010s. That needs an authority that is organised and ambitious, and a clear idea of what the state is for. Did we sit there moaning about right to buy? No, we did not; we just got on with it. We struck hard bargains with landowners and developers. We recycled capital receipts. We built new homes for rent, of different tenures and different types, in both towns and villages, but mainly for social rent. That income kept council tax down for everyone. It can be done.
Throughout the 2010s, it helped that there was a 25% new homes bonus kicker for the delivery of new homes under social rent. It certainly helped when the last Government changed the rules so that we got to keep all the money to reinvest in new homes rather than see it go to the Treasury, particularly for temporary and short-term accommodation, where the need has become suddenly greater following Covid.
I can tolerate restrictions on right to buy on brand new homes, but I cannot abide those who stand in the way of a family cherishing an older property that could be brought into their ownership, the money for which would allow a new, much more modern and cheaper to run home to be built. For too long, blaming right to buy has been an excuse for inaction on house- building by councils. It has been a case of blaming the Government rather than rolling up your sleeves.
I am disappointed that the Government are diluting the incentive for families to take the plunge to seek more security and a stake in society. I particularly regret that the statutory instruments committee had to drag the full extent of these regressive proposals out of the Government, who did not want to show how many families would be disadvantaged by this proposal.
This is a moment to realise that right to buy has been one of this country’s most transformative policies and has done more to drive social mobility and give families a stake in society. That is something everyone in public life should aspire to promote, but perhaps that is asking too much from a Government who are putting limits on aspiration in so many walks of life, not driving it forward.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
I rise briefly to take part in this debate. Before doing so, I draw Members’ attention to my register of interest: I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a director of a fully privately funded affordable housing provider that actively encourages its tenants to buy their homes after five, 10, 15 or 20 years. It is called Rentplus and it does what it says on the tin: you rent at a discounted price and you buy at a discounted price. I work for somebody in the private sector who preaches the possibility that home ownership should be within everybody’s reach.
I will support my noble friend by going through the Division Lobby with him when he chooses to divide, but I will not agree on the reason. My reason is not that the Government are being unreasonable in setting the numbers they have chosen. Putting numbers on a piece of paper is a big mistake when talking about property markets; they are so varied in so many places for so many different reasons that it is better to put a percentage figure. I disagreed with what the last Government did by increasing the discounts to such a level that only really rewarded avaricious grandchildren, not the hard-working tenants who had occupied their homes for a long time. A number of elderly people were pressured into buying their houses for a capital sum that would go to their grandchildren. That should not have happened unless that grandchild had lived with those grandparents.
But, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said, right to buy is probably the single biggest piece of social mobility legislation enacted since the war. It enabled a million families to gain access to capital who never had done in the history of their families. I do not think anybody has done any work, but somebody should do, on how many businesses were set up in this country by people who could leverage capital they had not previously had access to. For a number of reasons—I think about our care sector, as people need access to capital to be able to pay to have care nowadays—this country would fall apart without it.
We should not lose sight of the fact that just over a million homes were lost to councils through right to buy, but 2 million homes were lost to councils through propositions put forward by the Tony Blair Government. Out of the 4 million homes that used to be in council ownership pre-1980, 1 million, so 25%, were lost through right to buy and 2 million—50%—were lost through LSVT. Councils such as my own were summoned to the Government Offices for the Regions to explain why they were not transferring their homes out. So this is not a tribal issue between the red team and the blue team; it is a proposition about whether we believe most people in this country aspire to be home owners. Clearly we do—I think all of us across the Chamber believe that—but do we also believe that people should be able to live in a safe, secure, decent, affordable home even if their financial circumstances mean that they are unable to do that completely unaided at the time they need it?
Right to buy is a good thing, but the right to build is the most important thing, and I agree that the Labour Government are right this time round to allow councils to keep 100% of the receipts, which would otherwise have been lost to the Treasury. Who wants to give money to the Treasury? It is much better for it to be spent locally. If the Labour Government had said that the discounts would be set at a local level by local councils to stimulate demand but not to reward avaricious grandchildren, I would not be going through the Division Lobbies tonight. But that is not what they have said; they have said, “Whitehall knows best. We’ll set an arbitrary figure that’ll have no bearing to the marketplace in a year or two’s time”.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I draw Members’ attention to my interests as detailed in the register, including being a councillor in Central Bedfordshire, which has its own housing HRA. I very much support my noble friends’ comments regarding the opportunities that right to buy has given to so many people, but I will highlight the fact that this is an issue not of the sale of council homes but of a complete failure to build.
There are 4.25 million affordable homes—an increase of some 35,000 over the last two years, even with the sale of around 30,000 affordable homes in that period. I am pleased that the last Government had the 100% retention of right-to-buy receipts, which facilitated councils building homes. If we are to build the homes that we need, it is essential to maximise all avenues to building more homes. Allowing tenants to buy their own homes with a reasonable incentive and reinvesting the proceeds in new homes is an opportunity for more, not fewer, homes.
I will give the example of my own council, and I will trump my noble friend Lord Fuller because Central Bedfordshire was at 1.5%, not 1%. I am proud that, as leader of Central Beds, we had a proactive council house building programme. For example, in the period 2021-23 we built 259 homes and acquired a further 76, and we sold 82 under the right-to-buy rules —a net increase of 253. Without the proceeds from right to buy we would have ended up building substantially fewer homes. That would have meant tens of families—possibly even 100—not having a home because we would not have had the right-to-buy proceeds. That is important, because it gives more people the opportunity for an affordable rented home.
I reiterate: the ability to reinvest proceeds from right to buy is an opportunity to provide more, not fewer, homes. The issue is one of getting homes built, which should be the focus, not curtailing opportunity.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, from listening to this debate, I recognise that there is a certain amount of agreement around the Chamber. It seems, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Porter, that this is very much a question of balance. Of course right to buy was a wonderful thing for many people, but the right to have a roof over your head is also pretty important. Therefore, if you take it too far and there are no council houses to put vulnerable people into, you will have a real problem. It seems there is a consensus that could lead to the right way forward—namely, the right amount of houses being available for right to buy but preserving enough and, as has been said, building more to protect fragile communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for bringing this debate. We are in the middle of the most acute housing crisis in living memory. Too many are left without access to a safe and secure home.
To the noble Lords who have been leaders of councils, I say: so have I. For many years as a council leader, I struggled really hard to persuade our treasurer to find the funds to build homes, only to see them sold for less than it cost us to build them. That is why the Government are committed to working with councils and other providers of social housing to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation.
We have heard much about aspiration. For the over a million people sitting on those waiting lists for a long time and the 117,000 families in temporary and emergency accommodation, social housing is their aspiration. Our job as a Government is to get the balance right between offering homes for sale and retaining stock for social rent. That balance is critical to solving our housing crisis.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I want to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, as well as the Minister for her feedback.
As she mentioned, just three business days ago, we debated housing supply and homelessness in your Lordships’ House. Please let me briefly flag some valuable and relevant contributions from that debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, said that young people tell her that
“they fear they will never own their own home”.—[Official Report, 5/12/24; col. 1330.]
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, added that
“it is unfair, particularly on the younger generation, that house ownership has become so difficult”.—[Official Report, 5/12/24; col. 1336.]
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Snape. I believe that this SI makes it much more challenging for everyone, both young and old, to get on the housing ladder and benefit from property ownership, creating not a house but a home that is their own. On that, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:02 - Division on Lord Dodds of Duncairn’s Amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 96 - Amendment to the Motion disagreed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 October be approved.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument forms part of the Government’s commitment to implementing the border target operating model by ensuring that sanitary and phytosanitary controls are applied to European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland. These controls are essential to maintaining the United Kingdom’s biosecurity and food safety, as well as focusing the benefits of unfettered access arrangements on qualifying Northern Ireland goods.
The instrument uses powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It has two main purposes. First, it applies pre-notification and sanitary and phytosanitary certification requirements to goods that are not qualifying Northern Ireland goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland. These requirements are consistent with those already applied to certain European Economic Area goods and those entering Great Britain from Switzerland, Liechtenstein, the Faroe Islands and Greenland under the transitional staging period. This means that European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland are treated the same as such goods entering Great Britain through Ireland.
Secondly, the regulations make consequential amendments to various pieces of sanitary and phytosanitary legislation. The qualifying Northern Ireland goods definition was amended earlier this year for food and feed goods. The consequential amendments in the legislation that I am presenting today ensure that the updated definition is reflected consistently across the regulatory framework.
I emphasise from the outset that the Government remain fully committed to ensuring unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods to the rest of the UK market. The Windsor Framework Command Paper, published by the previous Government in February 2023, and the Border Target Operating Model, published in August 2023, clearly state that Northern Ireland businesses will have unfettered access when moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain. The Border Target Operating Model also states that European Union and rest-of-world goods will be subject to sanitary and phytosanitary controls when moving from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. The approach adopted in this legislation is consistent with those commitments.
The instrument does not make any changes to the arrangements for moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain. Qualifying Northern Ireland goods are not required to undergo any of the controls implemented by this legislation and will continue to move freely within the UK internal market. Indeed, by applying controls to European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland, these measures more closely focus the benefits of unfettered market access on Northern Ireland traders moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods. This will sharpen their competitive advantage.
The sanitary and phytosanitary controls applied to European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland under this instrument are temporary. We will revoke this instrument when the transitional staging period, which allows for easements in the performance of official controls, ends. That is currently set at 1 July 2025.
A long-term approach for further controls on European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland is yet to be implemented. The temporary nature of the instrument allows for biosecurity controls to be in place for these goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland ahead of that, although that is of course without prejudice to unfettered access protections granted to qualifying Northern Ireland goods. I must also highlight that this instrument extends to England, Wales and Scotland.
I reaffirm the Government’s steadfast commitment to supporting the businesses and communities of Northern Ireland while safeguarding the integrity of the UK internal market. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations implement the Northern Ireland Protocol and Windsor Framework which prevent Northern Ireland being a full part of the United Kingdom’s internal market, and undermine the democratic and constitutional rights of the people of Northern Ireland.”
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for moving the Motion, for the discussions that we have had and for her engagement with noble Lords and noble Baronesses from Northern Ireland on the various issues that affect us under the Windsor Framework protocol. I move my regret amendment because the regulations implement the Northern Ireland protocol, which has been renamed the Windsor Framework but in European law is still called the Northern Ireland protocol, and which prevents Northern Ireland from being a full part of the United Kingdom’s internal market for a large number of goods and agrifood products, as well as undermining the democratic and constitutional rights of all the people of Northern Ireland.
We had a debate in recent weeks on another statutory instrument. I am grateful that we have the opportunity to debate yet another statutory instrument flowing from the withdrawal Act and the implementation of the Windsor Framework because it is important that, in this Chamber and the other place, we have the opportunity to scrutinise and examine laws that are made by way of subsidiary legislation but carry out the wishes of a foreign political entity as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. It is therefore all the more important that we should be aware of what is happening.
While they may be described as technical in nature, the substance and import of these regulations have significant political and constitutional consequences. Together with the many other statutory instruments and subordinate legislation under the protocol/ Windsor Framework already passed and to be passed by this House and the other place, these constitute a substantial body of law imposing EU jurisdiction over part of the UK.
The Minister mentioned that the regulations are temporary in nature. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee included in its eighth report a number of paragraphs on the regulations. In its submission to that committee, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that the long-term approach to sanitary and phytosanitary controls, including checks on EU and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland, as it put it, is yet to be announced. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell your Lordships when we can expect the long-term approach to be implemented, whether this House will be consulted about those long-term arrangements and indeed what arrangements are in place to consult Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive on those measures. In the meantime, these are the regulations that we have in front of us.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interests, including my membership of the Government’s Veterinary Medicine Working Group and of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House. I also declare that I support the Windsor Framework, I supported the protocol and I believe, like many others in Northern Ireland, that the Windsor Framework is a means of managing the friction of the trade in goods on the island of Ireland. It is about managing the delicate relationship that exists.
I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock is on the Front Bench. I must congratulate her on all the work she has been doing with the farming community in Northern Ireland. The latest such work was last week during her last visit, which I was told was very successful by the Ulster Farmers Union. They told me to say that they were very pleased that you visited the farm in Glenanne in County Armagh, which is an example of good farming practice in Northern Ireland.
This is the third debate in the last five weeks on regret amendments to Windsor Framework statutory instruments. Only last Friday in the House of Commons there was a debate on a Private Member’s Bill from Jim Allister, the Member for North Antrim. This sought to cancel the Windsor Framework and replace it with mutual recognition—maybe, in shorthand, the Liz Truss protocol Bill—which could impact on Article 2 of the framework on equality and human rights, as required by the Good Friday agreement, and even jeopardise our access to the single electricity market, which is protected by the Windsor Framework.
I ask my noble friends—I call them my noble friends because they are from Northern Ireland—do you really want to wreck our delicate political arrangements? Do you really want to wreck our special trading arrangements—that unique dual access for goods to the EU single market and the UK internal market? Those political arrangements reflect our unique political balance in Northern Ireland between unionists and nationalists and others. In turn, that could also jeopardise our economy and potential for growth.
Today in the Assembly—I do not know the result yet, but I can predict it—there was a debate on the democratic scrutiny committee on the Windsor Framework. I would say, “What have all of all these debates achieved?” but I imagine that today’s vote in the Assembly will result in a review of arrangements of the Windsor Framework. That would afford businesses, communities and individuals across Northern Ireland the opportunity to correct deficiencies and avail themselves of the benefits of two important global markets. This point was made this morning on “Good Morning Ulster” by the chief executive of the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland, Roger Pollen.
I know that perhaps the real purpose of the proposers —the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and on previous occasions the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—is that they want to cancel the Windsor Framework because they see it as causing certain constitutional jeopardy. I remind them that the majority of people in Northern Ireland voted to remain. In the last poll some weeks ago, 57% of the population in Northern Ireland support the Windsor Framework.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, could I just say something gently to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie? She always says that Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU. Well, London did, Scotland did, Tunbridge Wells did; we did not leave them in the customs union with some kind of trade border.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, on his explanation in detail of what these regulations do. Of course, they are another example of the Windsor Framework building on the protocol to work against the interests of people in Northern Ireland—and indeed of people in the rest of the United Kingdom, as we increasingly see. Up until now, most regulations have dealt with movement of goods from GB to Northern Ireland, but this puts the Windsor Framework on a different level, because this is about movement from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. I remember clearly when, I think, three previous Prime Ministers and the leader of the then Opposition all said that there would never be checks on goods going from Northern Ireland to GB. Now of course there is a slightly different phrase: “no checks on qualifying goods” going from Northern Ireland to GB.
The Government have said that they want to ensure that sanitary and phytosanitary controls are applied to European Union goods and any goods from the rest of the world entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland. They say that these controls are absolutely essential to maintain the United Kingdom’s biosecurity and food safety. Yet, as has been pointed out already by noble Lords, they do not seem to care about how Northern Ireland will be left exposed to any potential dangers. The SPS checks and certifications apply to goods moving from the Irish Republic through Northern Ireland into GB; they do not apply if the goods are simply moving from the Republic of Ireland and staying in Northern Ireland. There are fears about that, quite rightly, because it has been clear that sometimes the authorities in the Republic of Ireland have been very lax when it comes to imposing regulations on animal safety and so on.
I just want to repeat that, according to these regulations, goods can move from the Republic into Northern Ireland, and can be used, be consumed, be eaten, or reach their final destination in Northern Ireland without any checks. It is only when they move to another part of our own country that such checks could be imposed. That indicates that, as a result of the current arrangements with the European Union, Northern Ireland is being left exposed not only to the disruption of trade but as regards the safety of some of that trade. In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, how can the Minister accept that? What will she do to ensure that our lives and our safety in Northern Ireland are considered just as important as those in the rest of the United Kingdom?
In the Committee in the other place that discussed this last week, a Member of Parliament asked:
“Since those checks do not cover the goods when they come into Northern Ireland, but only when they go into GB, what assurances can the Minister give to people in Northern Ireland that they will not be subject to dangers or disadvantages that the rest of the United Kingdom will not face?”
I am just going to read the answer from the Minister there because I am sure the noble Baroness the Minister, who has done a great deal of trying to talk with us and keep us involved, will answer the question. The Minister in the House of Commons said:
“My understanding of the situation is that that is a consequence of the Windsor framework and the desire not to have a hard border within the island of Ireland”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 3/12/24; col. 10.]
That does not answer anything about the safety of the people in Northern Ireland being left with goods that come across without any checks.
There is a certain irony in what has been proposed. First, as has been said, we can do checks without physically stopping anything at the border. One of the reasons for the border being between Northern Ireland and GB was that we were told it was impossible to do checks on trade from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland, or vice versa, without having physical checks on the border. Everybody said, “We do not want a hard border”; no one ever defined exactly what a hard border was, but now we are told that it can be done by the production of certificates, at warehouses, at the point of destination and so on. I really do not understand how a lorry coming just from Northern Ireland into GB can be differentiated from a lorry coming through Northern Ireland with non-qualifying goods. There will have to be random checks, which will mean that Northern Ireland lorries, or those going only from Northern Ireland to GB, are likely to be stopped as well. Will the Minister admit to this or suggest that it might happen?
The important question is: if there can be these checks away from the border, why do we need an Irish sea border in the first place? The costs have already been mentioned; millions have been spent not just on the trade or support scheme, but on building these great infrastructures at various places. The Minister needs to answer very clearly why this cannot be considered. We heard a brilliant speech last week—it would be helpful if Members read it—by Jim Allister in the House of Commons when he moved his Private Member’s Bill on mutual assurance. No one really can answer. People keep saying, “Oh, there’s nothing else. We’ve got to do this. The Windsor Framework is the only way we can protect the EU’s internal market and stop a hard border”. Yet mutual assurance was first suggested by people within the European Union and only stopped when the Irish Government realised that it was not going to bring about what they really wanted, which was part of the EU’s idea to punish the United Kingdom for leaving, and to make it much easier for the all-Ireland economy, which they are desperate to have, leading to a united Ireland. I just do not understand why sensible people looking at this, not from anything other than common sense, cannot see that there are alternatives to having to divide our own country with an Irish sea border.
I want to just mention today that at this moment in the Assembly there is a debate on whether these parts of the Windsor Framework should be continued. It is a pretty shameful day for this Government, and indeed for the previous Government. What we are seeing is the move back towards a majority rule within the Assembly. Cross-community votes have always been seen as what have to happen on controversial issues. Ever since the SDLP—the original party of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie—walked out of Stormont in 1971 and the UK Government then ended the Assembly a few months later, nothing controversial has been allowed to be secured at a vote without cross-community consent. The Government changed this to a majority vote, presumably at the behest of the Irish Government and the EU. I have no confidence whatever in that vote today being seen as legitimate; it is not, because it is not the cross-community vote that should have happened.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I support the regret amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds—hardly surprising, I suspect. The Government have a problem. These regulations mean one of two things, and neither will be easy for them to explain.
We have been assured by the Government that the Irish Sea border goes only one way—so goods can move freely without engaging a border if they move from Northern Ireland to GB. In this context, the intent is clearly that Northern Ireland-qualifying goods should be able to move freely without encountering a border, as if they were moving from Wales or Scotland to England. But there is a problem: how do they differentiate lorries carrying just Northern Ireland-qualifying goods from lorries carrying goods that are not Northern Ireland-qualifying or carrying a mixture of both? If they do so by means of random border checks to confirm that a lorry is carrying just Northern Ireland-qualifying goods, all lorries must potentially be stopped and checked, including lorries carrying just Northern Ireland-qualifying goods. If that is what the Government propose, they are proposing to move away from the Windsor Framework reassurance that there will be free movement without a border for Northern Ireland-qualifying goods moving from NI to GB.
Lest the Government seek to come back at this point and say, “Don’t worry—we will randomly stop only some lorries”, I gently remind the Minister that randomly stopping lorries is how borders work. Borders are not affected by a regime stopping all lorries because, if they were, everything would grind to a halt. So, if their intent is to randomly stop lorries—some of which will end up being shown to contain just Northern Ireland-qualifying goods—their purpose will plainly be to move beyond the Windsor Framework and introduce a border for goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB.
The sensible way to deal with this would be for the Government to require, by law, anyone bringing goods that are not Northern Ireland-qualifying across from Northern Ireland to GB to pre-notify and submit all the paperwork electronically before departure, and for the Government then to randomly require some of these lorries to attend an SPS facility for checks. In deciding to not randomly stop all lorries at the border but to depend on deploying a legal requirement, together with serious criminal sanctions, for anyone evading, the requirement to have the SPS facility actually on the border would be removed. It could be some miles from the border. No lorries would be stopped at the border, and only those randomly stopped would attend the SPS facility. This would mean, first, that lorries carrying just Northern Ireland-qualifying goods could move freely from Northern Ireland to GB, like lorries moving from England to Wales and Scotland to England, so that the internal market would be respected.
Secondly, it would mean that the border would be enforced in relation to non-Northern Ireland qualifying goods away from the border. This arrangement poses a huge question. If this sensible solution would work for goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB across the Irish Sea border then there is no justification for not having a similar soft border across the island of Ireland, along the international border.
Moreover, this question hits us with real force. If a soft border is effective, it makes the imposition of a hard border for goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland monstrous; its implications are the disfranchisement of 1.9 million people in 300 areas of law and the disrespecting of the territorial integrity of the UK in violation of international law. How could we have settled for an arrangement that disfranchises 1.9 million of our own people in 300 areas of law and then sought to justify this betrayal on the basis of an account of international law that does not stand up to scrutiny? In order for it to be a valid treaty, there is a requirement that it must respect the territorial integrity of the parties, which the Windsor Framework patently fails to do in making provision for the division of the United Kingdom into two by an international customs and SPS border.
It is impossible to reflect upon these matters without having regard to the beginning of the Second Reading debate on the European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill in another place, last Friday. This Bill provides a framework for a considerably more robust border than in this case, courtesy of its deployment of mutual enforcement. This compounds the ethical question facing the Government through these regulations to an even greater extent. I was appalled to read that a Member in another place responded to the suggestion that mutual enforcement provoked such a question of trust by reading—well done to him—from a scene from Shakespeare’s “Henry VI, Part 3”,
“For trust not him that hath once broken faith”,
as if trust was something that the UK Government owe only to foreigners. Their highest level of obligation is to their own, and it is in relation to their own that there is scope for the greatest measure of broken faith.
No one is talking about simply walking away from the EU without a conversation. The point simply needs to be made that, in a context where there are actually two ways of managing the border—one that involves disfranchising 1.9 million people in 300 areas of law and disrespecting the territorial integrity of the UK—there is a need for discussion between the UK Government and the EU, and the incoming Trump Administration, about finding a new solution to this very serious and vexed problem.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, who has provided an excellent analysis of the issues facing businesses in Northern Ireland. Since the outset of the United Kingdom’s negotiations with the European Union, there has always been the potential for significant economic damage to be inflicted on one part of this United Kingdom and on the constitutional future of Northern Ireland in the union.
The root cause of the problems, with the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor Framework arrangements, is the continued enforcement of EU laws in Northern Ireland. It has been repeated in this House several times, and we will continue to repeat it, that in more than 300 areas Northern Ireland is subject to laws made not at Stormont or Westminster but by a foreign Parliament, which public representatives here in Westminster and in Stormont have no say over. Let us just get on with it and suck it up, they say, but we are not going to do that.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Dodds in his regret amendment: that this House regrets that the draft regulations implement the Northern Ireland protocol and Windsor Framework, which prevent Northern Ireland being a full part of the United Kingdom’s internal market and undermine the democratic and constitutional rights of the people of Northern Ireland.
I acknowledge and appreciate that many noble Lords have little interest in how the protocol and the Windsor Framework affect the people of Northern Ireland. They have their own mindset and, as far as they are concerned, it is done, it is over and there is nothing that is going to change it.
Of course, it is true that, as I said, there are those who have little interest. But, to those of us who are being denied our full democratic and constitutional rights, it is of major importance, and this wrong must be put right. I know that noble Lords may be dissatisfied with—perhaps even sick of—these debates coming time after time. I suggest that, until this is put right, this is not going away. We cannot close our minds or our hearts to it. Others have, but those who live in Northern Ireland, certainly from a unionist perspective, are not willing to let this go away.
I am amazed at those who say that they must at all costs protect the Belfast agreement. I know that, on many occasions, many in this House stood up one after the other to say how it is so vitally important that nothing is done in any shape or form that will undermine the bedrock of the Belfast agreement. But I remind noble Lords that at the heart of the Belfast agreement is the cross-community support for key or controversial decisions affecting Northern Ireland. Yet those same noble Lords can sit content with measures forced on the unionist community without its consent.
I assure noble Lords that, if measures were being forced on the nationalist or republican community against their consent, those in this very House who remain silent would be very vocal in their objections. So, if they believe that the Belfast agreement with the cross-community consent at the heart of it is so vital for the security, safety and prosperity of Northern Ireland, why are they not speaking up now, or whenever there has been a denial of that cross-community vote?
The protocol and the Windsor Framework place Northern Ireland under EU single market laws for goods, as though Northern Ireland was still in the EU, without any elected representative from Northern Ireland having any power to make those laws. They also destroy Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom internal market with respect to goods. Today, the Northern Ireland Assembly will vote to extend the Windsor Framework, but the safeguard of cross-community support was cast aside for the so-called new name on the block, the democratic consent mechanism. That is majority rule.
For 50 years, majority rule has been cast aside. It was not permitted. Whenever unionists had a majority, “No, no, no, we can’t have it”. We must ensure the bedrock of our future is cross-community consent. Of course, the EU fanatics, supported by the nationalist and republican Assembly Members, are able to get the simple majority, reminding unionists that Stormont is now a cold House for those with unionist convictions. So much for the Belfast agreement. I warn this House that sending the message that our constitutional rights within the United Kingdom can be undermined by the blatant repudiation of the Belfast agreement at Stormont today—with the support of many in this House—does nothing to aid the stability that every one of us craves for Northern Ireland.
A colleague of mine in Stormont, Jonathan Buckley, rightly said today that the vote was
“an illusion of democracy … a rigged vote of which the European Union already”
knew “the outcome … The protocol” is destabilising “Northern Ireland’s political landscape” and fuelling “division”. He said:
“Never has there been a more clear example of a zombie Assembly than today”.
Surely that gives a warning to Members of this House who want to close their mind, who think we should just keep it all going, that all is well, and that nothing needs to be changed.
This is in spite of the fact that businesses have been dealing with new checks and their related bureaucracy since 2021, when the original version of the protocol began to be implemented. Smaller firms with few resources face unpredictable challenges with the Irish Sea border, with sea border issues consuming a huge amount of time. This time should be profitably used in helping customers, not doing paperwork. Some have said:
“Small businesses are being crucified by the sea border”.
Under the changes made to EU legislation in February, the definition of “qualifying status”—that is, those goods moving from NI to GB—was amended, to clarify that agri-food goods from the Republic or elsewhere that do not have the necessary connection with a business in Northern Ireland will have to undertake SPS controls when moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain: not when moving from the Irish Republic to Northern Ireland but when moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.
The previous Government already introduced these import controls on a transitional basis for non-qualifying goods movements between the Republic of Ireland and GB. These regulations would introduce a requirement to pre-notify non-qualifying goods moving between NI and GB and provide the necessary certification. Although we fundamentally agree that goods produced in Northern Ireland that move to GB should be differentiated from Irish produce that moves between Northern Ireland and GB to avoid customs and SPS controls, the reality is that these regulations are attempting to provide an answer to a question that should never have been posed in the first place. The United Kingdom Government should never have conceded that there was a need to shift SPS controls away from the recognised international border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic to the Irish Sea. That was always going to create economic and constitutional harm that cannot be easily addressed.
These regulations underpin a system of SPS import controls that is convoluted and likely to be extremely hard to enforce without also stymying the transportation of Northern Ireland produce to the rest of the United Kingdom internal market. It would be a constitutional affront and economically disadvantageous if the only way to guarantee unfettered access for local producers is to cast a blind eye to trade flows originating outside Northern Ireland, and with no link to Northern Ireland, looking to enter GB by the back door.
There is also an irony in the fact that the draft regulations make provision for any controls on non-qualifying goods to be carried out away from a border control post—including, as my noble friend said, in warehouses or at the point of destination—as stipulated in Article 44(3) of the Official Controls Regulation. If it is acceptable to do this for goods entering GB from NI, why could the same flexibility not have been applied for trade between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? The old proverb says that where there is a will, there is a way—but the truth is that the EU wanted to punish the UK for having the audacity to leave the EU. Sadly, Northern Ireland was to be the sacrificial lamb.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister again for introducing these regulations and for the extremely constructive way in which she has taken a personal interest in trying to find pragmatic solutions to this undoubtedly very complex set of issues.
It is clear from the several debates we have had on the Windsor Framework regulations, today and previously, that they provoke strong emotions and reactions from the noble Lords of the DUP and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. However, it is true that in Northern Ireland there are also different points of view on these matters, which we heard very clearly, eloquently and constructively expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie.
I will not repeat the Brexit arguments that I have made previously, but it is none the less true that we would not be debating these issues if we were still in the European Union or if the whole of the United Kingdom had remained in the EU single market. There are genuine and legitimate issues about how to carry out parliamentary scrutiny of EU single market regulations when we no longer have representation in EU institutions and have to be a rule-taker without a say in the process. I have suggested previously that it would be useful for the whole House to have a wider debate, at some point soon, on our relations with the EU and on the much talked about reset with the EU and what it would look like in reality. It would also be useful to have a debate on the approach towards parliamentary oversight of decisions and regulations adopted by the EU and their impact on UK businesses in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
On the specifics of the regulations we are debating this evening, from these Benches we broadly welcome them as a further pragmatic and temporary step to try to make this complex arrangement work slightly more effectively. As these regulations apply only to sanitary and phytosanitary controls on European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland, we believe that they sharpen the competitive advantage of Northern Ireland traders moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods.
I have three questions. The first is the same as the one the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked. Can the Minister say when this long-term approach to these issues is likely to be published and adopted? As she said in her introduction, these temporary measures will apply only until July next year. Can she say how MPs, noble Lords and all Northern Ireland political parties and businesses will be consulted in this process?
My second question is the same as the one the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked. Can the Minister say a little more about progress or otherwise on an SPS and veterinary agreement? It is clearly for the new Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in your Lordships’ House to decide its own programme, but it would be very useful if it were to look at some of these issues when it starts work next year.
My third and final question is something I ask every time. Can the Minister explain a little more about how these regulations will be enforced and policed in reality? Other noble Lords have raised this in a different way. I conclude by thanking her once again, and I look forward to hearing her responses.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, for bringing this regret amendment to the House. I listened to some very powerful speeches by him and his noble friends on both sides of the House.
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have some significant doubts and concerns about these regulations, given the impact they may have on goods moving from Northern Ireland into Great Britain, but we will not oppose them. We welcome that some goods will continue to have unfettered access to Great Britain, but we are concerned about the non-qualifying goods and the effect this will have on businesses that trade across the Irish Sea.
While the Windsor Framework was a significant improvement on the original protocol, that is not to say that improvements cannot be made wherever necessary. The Opposition will continue to scrutinise the secondary legislation and assess its impact. Can the Minister confirm to the House that the Government will keep these regulations under review and take any action necessary to lighten the burden on businesses trading across the Irish Sea where possible?
The businesses affected by these regulations may need extra support. Can the Minister outline the steps that the Government are taking to give businesses in Northern Ireland the support they need? Indeed, what assessment have the Government made of the effect of these changes on businesses in Great Britain trading with Northern Ireland? How will the Government support that smooth trade?
Goods from Northern Ireland must be traded as freely as possible, and they should not be at an unfair disadvantage. That was at the core of our work when we were in government. We all know that the Windsor Framework was the result of a painstaking negotiation with the EU, but the Government should do everything they can to ensure Northern Ireland’s smooth and unfettered access to the UK internal market. As my honourable friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar said in the other place:
“The Windsor framework, I believe, is better than the protocol. ‘Safeguarding the Union’ is better than the Windsor framework, but that does not mean that further progress is not possible”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/12/24; col. 627.]
Does the Minister agree with that assessment?
We look forward to scrutinising the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland policy further, and to the Minister addressing our concerns about smooth trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and about upholding the importance of biosecurity—biosecurity not just in GB but Northern Ireland for goods that stop there. We will press the Government to bring forward plans to encourage businesses to trade across the sea so that we all benefit across the whole of our United Kingdom.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for his very thorough and clear introduction outlining his concerns and why he has tabled a regret amendment. Many thoughtful and constructive points have been raised, which reflects the importance of the legislation and the principles that it upholds but also the concerns. This Government take very seriously maintaining our biosecurity, supporting the smooth functioning of the United Kingdom internal market and honouring our commitments under the Windsor Framework. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for her extremely kind comments and her recognition that I have been working very hard to understand fully the challenges and concerns that a very complex area of legislation entails.
This instrument is looking to deliver the necessary provisions to ensure that Great Britain’s responsibilities on biosecurity and food safety are upheld and safeguard the health of our people, animals and plants. At the same time, it reaffirms and strengthens the Government’s unwavering commitment to unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods, ensuring that businesses in Northern Ireland can continue to enjoy their unique position in the UK internal market.
Turning to the points that were raised in this debate, I will focus specifically on the questions regarding the legislation and do my best to address them. I have been listening very carefully—I can assure noble Lords of that—but a meeting has also been arranged between me and noble Lords from Northern Ireland in January, and I am sure that we will be picking up many of these issues at that meeting.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others, asked about consultation engagement. A period of engagement on the border target operating model, which contained an overview of controls that are introduced in this instrument, ran from 5 April 2023 for six weeks. There has not been specific consultation on this SI because it is delivering the approach that was set out in the BTOM, which was consulted on extensively.
As noble Lords have pointed out, the instrument is temporary and does not set out the approach for the long-term treatment of non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland. Any future long-term approach will be developed with input from stakeholder engagement. Noble Lords have asked about that long-term approach, and I can come back to that.
The noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord McCrea, asked about the response from stakeholders on this legislation and other legislation coming forward. The feedback from the six-week BTOM consultation was published on 29 August 2023. As we did not specifically consult on this SI, the feedback did not specifically relate to it, but there were calls from Northern Ireland agri-food businesses that there was a desire to focus the benefits of unfettered access more closely on Northern Ireland traders, which is what this SI seeks to address. We will provide a further update on the timeline for implementation by next summer.
Collaboration with devolved Administrations was also raised in the debate. We will continue collaborating with the devolved Governments and all border stake- holders to support implementation readiness across the vital points of entry, to better protect UK biosecurity. We will communicate any additional updates well in advance so that traders have the time that they need to prepare. The Government will also work closely with devolved Governments to develop plans for the delivery of the long-term approach for the treatment of European Union and rest-of-the-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland. Noble Lords might be interested to know that only this morning I met with devolved Ministers and officials to discuss issues around BTOM, so that work is ongoing and very hands-on at a ministerial level. I wanted to reassure noble Lords of that. This was from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so there is a lot of work going on. I have implemented those meetings to ensure that we all work together and understand each other and what we need to get out of any decisions that are taken. The important thing is to preserve that unfettered movement of qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister but she has not really answered the question. If goods coming from the Republic through Northern Ireland into Great Britain have to be security-checked for phytosanitary and all the other reasons, why are people in Northern Ireland then left with nothing? How does the Minister know that we are not going to be poisoned or threatened by some kind of problem that she feels will come through to Great Britain?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I completely get the point that the noble Baroness is making. Our international commitments, and the trade and co-operation agreement, require us to treat EU goods equally, regardless of the entry point. As she is aware, there is a lot of legislation already in place. There are issues within the Windsor Framework. There are matters that we need to discuss with the EU as we go forward with the EU reset that has been discussed. These more complex issues are where we need to dig into the detail in our meetings outside of the legislation, and the whole point of me wanting to meet noble Lords is so we can do that. We can dig into those details and I can better understand the concerns, and we can look at whether there are things that we can do to manage this better. I hope the noble Baroness is happy that I am not trying to dodge it; I just need to understand it better, so that we can discuss it properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, asked about electronic systems for paperwork. We have been looking at this; it is quite complicated, but we are exploring whether it might be possible, to answer that specific question.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie asked about the potential SPS and veterinary agreements with the EU. I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her work as part of the veterinary medicines working group. This is a critical part of taking that work forward, and a way that we are working in collaboration and consultation to ensure that we get the best deal we can. It is quite difficult because it is early stages, and we want to get this right, so I cannot say anything formally at present. I assure noble Lords that a lot of work is going on behind the scenes on looking to get the best outcomes that we can for both SPS and veterinary agreements.
I conclude by summarising what we consider to be the benefits of these regulations. They strengthen Great Britain’s biosecurity by delivering alignment in the treatment of European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland. We believe it is right that goods from the European Union and the rest of the world are treated differently from goods moving within the UK’s internal market. Additionally, the consequential amendments to the qualifying Northern Ireland goods definition in existing legislation ensures that the updated definition, which focuses the benefits of unfettered access more squarely on Northern Ireland traders, applies to the direct and indirect movement of these goods into Great Britain. I am sure noble Lords will be aware that there will be further statutory instruments to come on very similar areas—the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, assured us that this will be the case.
I am aware that the noble Lord, Lords Dodds, may well be minded to divide the House on these regulations. As I mentioned at the start of my response, I have invited noble Lords from Northern Ireland to come, in January, to another meeting, as a follow-up to our previous one, and I very much hope that they will accept. I reassure noble Lords, who clearly have very real concerns about statutory instruments regarding the Windsor Framework and the implementation of the new BTOM, that I am listening. I want to have the opportunity to consider wider concerns in more depth, so that I can properly understand them and see if there are ways that we can move forward together on this. I do not pretend to have all the answers or a magic wand to resolve what is, in many areas, a pretty impossible position, but I am genuine in wanting to work with noble Lords on this. With that having been said, I once again thank everyone for their contributions. I commend the regulations to the House.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to the points raised by a number of noble Lords this evening. I thank her also not just for the substance of what she said but for the tone in which she has approached these issues this evening and on other occasions, as well as for her willingness and dedication to work with us on some of the issues that affect so many people who we are speaking for in this House—both unionist and nationalist, because the Ulster Farmers Union, which she mentioned visiting, is made up of many people of different backgrounds and they all have common concerns.
When we speak about wanting to give a voice, a vote and a say in making laws and legislation for Northern Ireland, we want those rights to be for nationalists, unionists, and those who have no party at all. That is why it is staggering that tonight in the Northern Ireland Assembly there will be members of parties—the SDLP, Sinn Féin and Alliance—who will vote to deny themselves the right to make, develop and amend laws over 300 areas affecting vast swathes of our economy, including one of our most important industries, the agrifood industry, which is massive in Northern Ireland. They will vote to hand over the powers to develop those laws to a foreign political entity, which may on some occasions vote and decide laws beneficially but may on other occasions decide to vote and make laws in their own interests, which is perfectly understandable. Why would you want to hand that away? This is not a unionist argument; it is an argument for Northern Ireland and for the Assembly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, talked about working together. That is why we in the DUP voted to go into the Executive with Sinn Féin, despite its support for murder and mayhem, targeting many of us in political life and the security forces. We want to move Northern Ireland forward, but you cannot move it forward on the basis of a majority vote that excludes every single unionist. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, referred to the fact that there are different views. Well, there is a nationalist view, supported by the Alliance Party, and there is a unionist view. That is why we have a cross-community voting mechanism in the Assembly. There has not been a majority vote on any matter of substance affecting Northern Ireland for 50 years—yet, tonight, there is. That is not acceptable in the long term. It will not endure.
Opera
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support opera.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure, particularly after listening to that very interesting debate on Northern Ireland, to come to a very different topic: the future of opera in this country. I tried at the time of the general election to obtain a QSD and succeeded—but the election stopped it.
This is a particularly important and significant debate. Mainstream opera—and I am talking about mainstream opera—is, in my view, one of the greatest musical art forms in the world, and it enriches our society. It encompasses orchestras, soloists and choruses, and it is spectacular, musical and dramatic. My father was a coal miner. When he was a young man, his parish priest introduced him to “Cavalleria Rusticana” on 78s. The idea that opera is somehow elitist is completely nonsensical—certainly where I come from in Wales, but also in our country as a whole. You will pay more to go to a pop concert or a football match than you will to go to an opera. The idea that it is only rich people who go to the opera needs to be scotched.
Opera is one of our greatest institutions, but it is in crisis: in serious trouble. Over the last number of years, there has been a serious reduction in productions and performances of opera. Of the four main opera companies in England and Wales, excluding Glyndebourne, three have suffered considerable contraction in the work they do. Comparing our country with others, Germany has 59 opera companies and France has 17. In other European countries there are many others. But we have only those four.
As a consequence of the cuts, to which I will refer in a moment, there has been a considerable drop in audience numbers. It is not because people do not want to go to the opera but because, throughout the whole country, there is reduced opportunity for them to do so.
Even more worrying is the situation outside London, which is now very grave: there has been a serious decline in touring opera in England and Wales. For example, the Welsh National Opera, with which I have some affinity, used to go to cities such as Liverpool, Southampton, Oxford, Birmingham and others. It still does, but, as I will explain later on, in far fewer numbers.
Mainstream opera is inevitably much more costly than other art forms. It is 10 times more costly to produce an opera than drama, for example. Since 1945, public funding has been the cornerstone of mainstream opera companies. We have the Royal Opera, Welsh National Opera, English National Opera and Opera North. The last 15 years has, as I have said, seen a serious decline in the number of productions and performances.
The cuts to opera have been terrifying. I will give your Lordships some examples. In 2012-13, there were 455 performances of opera in England and Wales; in 2023-24, there were 294. Outside London it is worse: in 2012-13, there were 195 performances and in 2023-24 just 87. Last year, we saw a 40% drop in the number of performances outside London for our people to go to outside the capital city. It is not the same for ballet, dance or drama. The result has been huge inflation costs continuing for opera companies, and they simply cannot maintain orchestras and choruses. It is a spiral of decline that is simply terrifying.
Arts Council England has made a number of seriously daft decisions over the last number of years. I will not go into how it justifies them, but the result has been there for everyone to see. Cuts have been made to the highest-cost art form, which is opera, and the only company to escape this spiral of decline—this doom loop—was the Royal Opera, largely, of course, because of the Royal Opera House income from many donors. But the other companies—English National Opera, Welsh National Opera and Opera North—have all suffered.
Your Lordships will have seen over the last number of years serious debate in the newspapers and elsewhere about what would happen if English National Opera—ENO—left London completely. I think that that has been renegotiated over the last year or so by the very effective chair of the ENO, and it has meant that it still has some integrity, but it is a reduced form. It is effectively a part-time opera with fewer performances than it traditionally had. It will operate in the north of England, but its base at the Coliseum will at least be continued.
Welsh National Opera is more seriously affected. We now have just 16 touring performances of Welsh National Opera in England and Wales, compared with 55 a decade ago. Opera North is down from 95 to 56 touring performances. Both companies operate on reduced terms, with loss of staff and opportunity. Mainstream opera outside London is now in great peril with a dispersal of singers, instrumentalists and management teams. We are faced with an enormous dilemma.
Happily, the Welsh Government are currently looking at their budget, and I am hopeful that they will give Welsh National Opera extra funding for it to continue. One of the problems that Arts Council England faced over the last year was a total lack of communication with the Arts Council of Wales, which meant that the very large cuts from Arts Council England, which gives money to Welsh National Opera because of its touring activities, were made without consultation. The combination of cuts to the Welsh and English Arts Councils meant that the WNO suffered considerably.
Opera needs, above all else, an immediate injection of cash. That is the only answer after 15 years of serious underfunding. We cannot wait until the next funding round of Arts Council England in 2027-28—that is too late. The DCMS must look seriously at the future of opera. If necessary, it must bypass the Arts Council. It would be best to work with it but to ensure that there is a continuance of opera in our country it needs this new cash injection. It happened 20 years ago with drama, and there is no reason it cannot now happen with regard to opera.
The Minister, or the Secretary of State, should meet Members of your Lordships’ House to discuss this important issue. There is a case for the DCMS to set up a special opera working group, working with the Welsh Government to ensure the future of opera. We should be looking too towards a national opera service.
The reason the Arts Council made the decisions it did some time ago was, we are told, because of levelling up. The opposite has occurred—with the complete reduction in performances and productions, it is in fact levelling down. So there is a serious need to relook at what is happening with our opera system.
Opera’s repertoire includes many of the supreme achievements of human imagination and incorporates more than all the major art forms put together. There is nothing quite like it. Unless we take this urgent action, we will wake up one morning and it will be gone.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. I agree with practically everything he said. I start by declaring my interests, but not the usual ones recorded in the register: I am passionate about opera and have a very firm belief that the UK needs a strong, sustainable opera sector.
Unfortunately, opera is phenomenally expensive, and it is a fact of life that it cannot exist solely on box office and other commercial income. On the other hand, not all opera is dependent on public subsidy, and some wonderful opera manages without. The very large programme at Glyndebourne Festival Opera and the Wagner-based programme at Longborough are but two excellent examples. These rely on the generosity of donors and, in many cases, a family whose passion for opera has provided the financial and artistic foundations. But donations cannot support the whole of opera in our country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, explained, the public subsidy to opera has been shrinking in real terms, which has had very significant impacts. This has led to less opera being produced. Very few companies have the ability to magic up replacement income streams. For example, the output of English National Opera, to which I will return, has significantly reduced in recent years and is certainly much lower than when the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and I sat on ENO’s board.
As we have heard, touring has also been reduced. Glyndebourne used to receive a grant which allowed it to tour. When that was axed, Glyndebourne stopped touring, with the result that many thousands of people who cannot reach East Sussex or cannot obtain or afford tickets for the festival have lost out. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, about what has happened to Welsh National Opera and to Opera North.
Who made these decisions? At the end of the day the Government are responsible but, as in so many areas of public sector activity, they have outsourced the detailed decision-making to an unelected and unaccountable quango in the form of Arts Council England. I believe the Government need to take a long, hard look at whether ACE is fit for purpose.
The Government’s funding for ACE has not kept pace with inflation, but at the same time they have told ACE to put more money into the regions and move stuff out of London. Levelling up then became a crude weapon of destruction in ACE’s hands. As an opera fanatic, I want as many people as possible in this country to experience opera, but achieving that by weakening what is good in an already fragile ecosystem in order to spread resources around the country is a very high- risk strategy. It can and probably will inflict lasting damage on opera as a whole, and everyone will lose.
The evidence points to ACE not having a firm grasp of either what it takes to maintain a healthy system of opera provision or what will happen if parts of the system become unsustainable. Its decisions on ENO epitomise this. ENO was told with no notice whatever that it was to be demoted from the national programme and that it had to locate itself outside London. Instead of receiving around £12.5 million a year, it was to get £17 million over three years to make its transfer out of London. This decision did not make any sense at all and was incapable of execution within the resources allocated. ACE largely backed down on 2023 funding and, after a long process, gave ENO more money and a longer relocation timetable.
We now know that ENO will relocate to Manchester, where it will undertake some rather vaguely specified activities that do not look much like the output of a major opera company. It will also put on a cut-down season in London. I have no idea whether this will work as a solution, but I would not bet on it. ENO will certainly not be the major force in the opera world that it clearly once was. We may well be seeing English National Opera entering the last phase of its life, and that will impoverish us all. I cannot think of a more wasteful approach to ensuring that opera has a firm future in the UK.
The Government need to take responsibility and act. They must step into the opera space before ACE ruins it for good.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, in his very powerful speech. I agree with everything that he said.
The final blazing “Amen” of the “Messiah”, which we in the Parliament Choir sang a week ago in St John’s Smith Square, was followed by a moment of profound stillness and silence. Nothing moved, until someone in the audience broke the spell by exclaiming, “Wow!” A standing ovation followed. Our conductor, Nicholas O’Neill, had emphasised to us that Handel had gained his reputation in London as the composer of Italian opera, and that we were to approach the work not with heavy thumping religiosity but with the lighter rhythms of Handel’s operatic works. Why had Handel moved on from opera to a series of oratorios? The answer is, largely, cost. The “Messiah” could be performed in Dublin or in Chester—anywhere—and in theatres or in churches, with no scenery, no machinery, no costumes, which all made it more profitable. But a concert performance of opera can never tell the story as well as a fully staged presentation can. Storytelling is central to every culture in the world. Later, from the 18th century onwards, great composers explored the whole range of human experience. As the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, opera became the peak of western culture.
I was hooked at an early age. At 18, I sang the part of Master Ford in Ralph Vaughan Williams’s “Sir John in Love”, with the composer himself in the audience. His appreciative letters to the producer of those performances, Brian Trowell, and the conductor, Leon Lovett, are preserved in his archives.
It has been a pleasure to introduce two of my grandsons to opera in a number of productions of the Welsh National Opera in Llandudno. One of them is now studying music at Cardiff University; the other is taking a music course for A-level. The development of their musical interest illustrates how devastating it is that funding has been reduced for the three remaining touring opera companies, WNO, Opera North and Glyndebourne. Ironically, as more and more funding has been taken away over the years, more responsibility has been given to them to provide outreach as well as community, health and education work—out of the funds which used to support just the performance of opera.
In England, many cities have lost their regular visit by a touring company, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has pointed out. Ordering the ENO to Manchester will not fill that gap. The consequences for Welsh National Opera are that, whereas it used to perform nine operas a year across three full seasons, the future looks like three to four operas across one extended season. Only 30 main-scale performances of these chosen works are planned for 2025-26. Spring performances in Llandudno and Bristol next year are now cancelled.
The recent announcement of a £755,000 grant from the Arts Council of Wales resilience fund is welcome but, with an in-year deficit of £2.7 million due to cuts in funding from the arts councils of England and Wales combined, a one-off payment like that will make no difference. Some 20% of the orchestra has been lost already since Covid and there is no funding to fill these pivotal seats in the orchestra pit. Twenty-five positions will still be lost in the administration staff, and the quality of WNO productions will suffer.
The chorus of the Welsh National Opera is always an exciting part of the evening. A group of 40 full-time choristers is now planned to be reduced to 20, supplemented by no more than eight freelance singers. Voluntary redundancy will have already reduced the number of full-time chorus singers to 23 by this coming Christmas. Talks are continuing but three strike days—strike days in opera—have been set aside for next February. Will DCMS work with the Welsh Government to come to terms with Equity in Wales to restore funding to the Welsh National Opera, and in particular to settle the chorus strike that nobody wants?
Labour must not let us down in Wales. It must ensure that the great tradition of opera performance is maintained. It has produced many stars and given so many chances to young singers and orchestral players and their contribution to the economy of Wales has been so great. I urge the Minister to act swiftly and to not destroy a tradition which has taken so long to build.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, ultimately as a society we have to decide whether we want opera, and if we want it, we have to find a way to pay for it. I must declare an interest, having written three operas and with another opera in the pipeline, although, given the prognosis of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, perhaps I should say, “Fingers crossed”. I was also on the board of the Royal Opera House for many years, chairman of its opera committee, and a member of the Arts Council panel that looked at provision—and underprovision—of opera in this country. That last experience is highly germane to our debate today since the panel was tasked with identifying areas that were underprovided for—less privileged areas in terms of opera reach. This we did and remedial action was achieved, thanks to companies such as the Welsh National Opera, Glyndebourne touring, and Opera North. I soon realised that opportunity is everything—the chance to experience a life-affirming and sometimes life-changing transformation, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, mentioned.
More recently, the last Government instructed the Arts Council to move certain opera-making from London to the regions, as we have heard. I emphasise “instructed” because, as I understand it, this went completely against the previously observed conventions that Arts Council England should be free of political interference—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, quite rightly told this House that opera funding was a matter for Arts Council England due to its status as an arm’s-length body. Try telling ENO that because the instruction has led, as we have heard, to many cuts at ENO and its partial move to Manchester, a city previously well served by Opera North. Indeed, I went to Manchester as a composer with Opera North. Naturally, I wish ENO well and I appreciate the welcome the company has received from Andy Burnham and others in Manchester. However, whether this really is in the long-term best interests of opera in this country is, I fear, debatable, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
Among other changes to opera support were some devastating cuts across the board, not least to the excellent Welsh National Opera, which, along with other companies such as Glyndebourne touring, as I have just mentioned, actually took touring to those areas that we had identified as being underprovided. So will these cuts be reversed? Is it too late, I ask the Minister, to save musicians and singers at WNO? Indeed, should we not look at a more sensible way of funding opera? Is it really sensible for the Arts Council to look at small-scale, versatile companies, of which we have several, in the same light as multimillion-pound national companies? How can they conceivably compare?
Another effect of the recent cuts is that young singers and musicians have lost work opportunities. Touring was always a wonderful opportunity to try out young singers and give them experience, but that experience and the opportunity to make a living have been profoundly and further eroded by the effects of Brexit, so that singers are rarely now invited to perform. Research shows the quite astonishing decline in work opportunities abroad. It is necessary to understand that securing singers, casting singers and getting them in to replace sick principals—sometimes at 24 hours’ notice—depends on availability and having no problems with travel and visas. As a result, many European houses are avoiding hiring English singers altogether, despite their sight-reading abilities. Will the Government please attempt to reach a rapprochement with the EU to ease the rules on cabotage, visas and carnets so that singers, instrumentalists, pop groups, dance companies et al can once again spread what used to be our enviable cultural reputation beyond these shores and therefore contribute to the Treasury a huge amount of much-needed income?
I shall say a few words about why I think opera is so important. When I was on the board at the Royal Opera House, I initially had a problem with Wagner— I could not quite get it. Then I went to “The Ring”, conducted by Haitink, and it was as though I had been through some miraculous experience. At the end of it, I was a blithering, blathering wreck; I was in tears. Opera can do that, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. I have seen children come to the opera and be transformed. There is something about the ability to put music and drama together in such a powerful way that takes it above almost any other art form—but it is expensive. As I said at the beginning, we have to decide as a society whether we do or do not want opera. If we do, we have to find a way to pay for it. Perhaps looking at the tax system for donors is one way forward.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for securing this important debate. From one coalmining family to another, I say that access to opera should be for all.
I speak in this debate primarily in support of the Welsh National Opera. As I was the youngest of seven siblings, my parents had to get a bit more creative with my name. They called me Carmen, after one of the most popular operas ever written. My mother watched the performance, her first opera, in the 1980s in what was formerly known as the Gaumont Theatre in Southampton, now the Mayflower, and she was taken by the story of a fiery woman.
Although named after an opera, I attended my first performance only a couple of years ago. It was a brand new opera by WNO, staged at the Millennium Centre in Cardiff, called “Migrations”. It was a journey at the heart of the way that humans behave in the 21st century. Act 1 was a story of modern-day refugees struggling with the reality of living in another country, dealing with a different language and culture, having left their own behind through necessity. Act 2 focused on the experiences faced by those who chose to pack up their lives to help our NHS, only to face the prejudices of the racially troubled 1960s. The performance was a skilful example of storytelling. I am yet to watch “Carmen”, but it is on the list for the future.
As has been stated, the Welsh National Opera is funded by Arts Council England and Arts Council Wales in recognition of its work in both countries. WNO is the last remaining full-time international British opera company that also tours extensively across the UK. It runs projects on and off stage across England and Wales. As we are focused on Arts Council England funding in this debate, I shall share some examples of the health, education and community projects that WNO leads offstage in England. The CLEAR Project in Southampton is a charity empowering and assisting refugees and asylum seekers with advice services, English classes, work clubs and more. WNO has partnered with the project and has run sessions at the University of Southampton, teaching songs from Iran and Syria.
WNO has also worked with the Woodlands School, a specialist school for children with complex physical and sensory difficulties, covering Plymouth, Devon and Cornwall. It held a globally unique concert for PMLD students, doing what it does best, which is providing music for all. There is also the Creative Classrooms project that provides CPD for teachers across the academic year, focusing on creativity and exploring ways of embedding music in the classroom and how this links to the curriculum. These are just a handful of the types of projects that WNO leads offstage—this is not just about performances.
As a result of the financial cuts from Arts Council England, the Welsh National Opera finds itself struggling and has had to make substantial redundancies alongside a reduction in its activities, as was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I am a big believer in widening opportunities for all and I fear that, without restoration of funding to WNO, there is a huge risk that opera will be guarded for only those that can afford it, both in terms of performers and those who watch in the audience.
In conversation recently with soprano Camilla Kerslake, who runs a foundation that offers opportunities for all children to enjoy music and support, I discovered that only 5% of people in British opera are from working class backgrounds, and most of them are from Wales. Wales is a success story in this regard and, when it comes to widening access to music and the arts, Wales has proven that it is possible. What would happen to this statistic without the WNO? Are this Government happy for a world-leading sector to be a preserve of the rich only? The statistics speak for themselves. Investment in arts in school enriches every aspect of a child, from academia to self-esteem. In the 1970s, the proportion of working-class people in opera was almost double, most likely due to heavier investment in music education in schools too.
I will conclude with some questions to the Government, which I hope will be addressed at the end of this debate. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the impact that cuts to the WNO will have on the numbers of people from working-class backgrounds in opera? What discussions have taken place regarding the difficulties being faced at WNO and the risk of the sector disappearing altogether? I hope that a solution is forged and a sustainable plan put in place to secure WNO’s future and the enjoyment of future generations. Diolch yn fawr iawn am wrando.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, on obtaining this debate at a suitably operatic time of the evening, and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, in the debate.
For those of us who know and love it, opera is the most enthralling, inspiring and uplifting art form of all. Unfortunately, as we have heard, it is also one of the most expensive. You really cannot do it full justice without an orchestra, talented actor-singers and designers, sets and costumes, large theatres, dramatic lighting and more. There are not enough people who know and love opera to protect it from accusations of elitism—unlike popular music or football, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, pointed out.
So it is hardly surprising that there are challenges facing the state funding of opera, which takes up such a large proportion of total arts funding. I was at an opera APPG event last week where a music professor, who had formerly worked for the Arts Council, suggested that, to preserve opera in the long term, opera lovers themselves might need to pay a greater share of the costs and rely less on the Government. But I wonder, picking up from something that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, whether the Government could not do more to promote greater private support. Perhaps when they want to reduce public funding for opera, they could think about tax or other incentives—even public recognition through honours—to encourage private donors to replace some of the funds lost. Other countries do it: why can’t we?
Another challenge is to increase the audience for opera, to which the answer has to be education. I will illustrate this with two stories. Some of your Lordships may remember Frank Johnson, erstwhile editor of the Spectator. Frank came from a poor home in the East End and went to a sink school in Shoreditch, having managed to fail the 11-plus. The school provided children to appear in operas at Covent Garden. Frank discovered that he could get out of some of the maths lessons, which he hated, by volunteering for this.
He appeared as an urchin in a succession of great operas, culminating as one of Medea’s children, whom she was about to murder, in Bellini’s “Norma”. Having spent an entire act clutched rather painfully to the bosom of Maria Callas, he became a passionate and deeply knowledgeable opera lover for the rest of his life. It is possibly not a route for everyone, but it does show the value of gaining early experience of opera.
My second example comes from another opera APPG event last Tuesday in the Jubilee Room. This featured 20 children from St Joseph’s Catholic primary school in Chelsea, who provided the children’s chorus for ENO’s recent performances of “La Bohème”—which also featured my godson as Marcello. The school offers a highly impressive music curriculum, involving all its students from all backgrounds. I suspect that many of the children who sang the Act 2 chorus of street children with such thrilling confidence and enjoyment at the APPG event will retain a fondness for opera throughout their lives.
That shows the power of opera to engage children, and it certainly calls for a proper level of government investment in large-scale main-stage opera across the UK so that companies such as English National Opera, Welsh National Opera, Opera North and the Royal Opera can continue their brilliant work with young people and enable many more of them to experience opera, to fall in love with opera and, in due course, to demand that their Government keep opera alive.
I end with two questions for the Minister. What are the Government doing to boost private investment in opera? How will they ensure that the vital outreach and education work of the major companies can continue and expand to ensure that all young people are able to experience, enjoy and value the unique rewards of opera?
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I was going to start by saying that I am very keen on opera, because I thought that might be quite an original way to start, but it turns out that I am not alone. It seems that everybody in this Chamber is, and that is very heartening.
I agree with those who said that, at its best, opera is the most complete and satisfying form of theatre ever imagined. I make no apology for saying that and believing it. It has given me some of the most exhilarating experiences of my life, as clearly it has to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I have also been close to the business of opera, as indeed he has, over the years in executive and non-executive roles, including as a member of the board of WNO and briefly, as the noble Lord knows, as chief executive of the Royal Opera House.
I have been involved with conservatoire training and seen at close quarters what it takes to acquire the skills needed to perform opera. My daughter is a professional opera singer and has been for 20 years. She is now also the artistic director and chief executive of OperaUpClose, to which I will return, a national touring company based in Southampton and included since 2023 in ACE’s national portfolio.
So I know something about the art form and something about the sector. But what I mostly am—to go back to my original point—and always have been, is a fan of opera in all its guises, and it is the variety of those guises that I want to touch on. I have loved and admired our big opera companies all my life. We have been told who they are. I would add to the four that have been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Murphy Glyndebourne and Scottish Opera. I know it does not fall within the purview of Arts Council England; none the less, it is part of the ecosystem, to which I will also return.
I am very dismayed by what has happened recently. My views about Arts Council England and the decisions it has taken recently are on the record and I am not going to repeat them. Over the years, these big companies have expanded what they do beyond their wonderful productions to encompass education, outreach, training and much else besides—as we have heard. They are also key local employers. Their work is crucial and they are right to deploy their formidable advocacy skills to defend their interests.
However, in supporting such companies, we must not forget that they are not the whole story and that what they do is not everything that opera can be—that is despite what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said; I hesitate to disagree with him, but I do. They are part, as I know they would readily acknowledge, of a complex, wide-ranging ecosystem, largely reliant not on long-term employees but on an army of freelancers. The vital innovation that will keep opera alive for the future happens across the whole of that ecosystem. All of it needs support in these very challenging times.
OperaUpClose is a good example. It is a small but ambitious company, where emerging composers, singers, conductors, directors, designers and technicians can test their ideas and learn their craft, and where established practitioners can do things differently. OperaUpClose actively chooses to perform in smaller spaces and places where opera is rarely available. It engages with local communities, inviting them to contribute directly to the creation of work. It runs important early career training opportunities and commissions work for very young audiences. If you have never been in a room with a bunch of very young children—three and four-year-olds—watching a man dressed as a teddy bear talking about not being able to get to sleep, then you have not heard “Peace At Last”, and you have not lived. All of this is delivered by a tiny team, with tiny budgets, competing for diminishing resources in an increasingly tough funding environment.
Yet there is nothing second best or reductive about what companies such as OperaUpClose are doing. High musical standards and production values are at the heart of their work; they extend the boundaries of what opera can be and the impact it can have. Doing that depends on a workforce that is almost all freelance, and as skilled and extraordinary as you will see in any grand opera house—and indeed many of them are the same people.
When we talk about supporting opera, we must talk about supporting the whole sector, at all scales and iterations; otherwise the whole sector will wither and ultimately die, as we have already been warned this evening. I believe that opera, no matter where or at what scale it is performed, is a living, breathing, evolving art form, with a unique ability, as we have also heard, to stir our most deep-seated emotions of joy, anguish, longing and acceptance. That is why it is important. I say to my noble friend the Minister when she comes to reply that opera speaks in many voices—let us make sure we are listening to all of them.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, like others, I will talk about funding, with particular reference to Welsh National Opera, and about Brexit.
My wife has told me that, living in the West Country, her first introduction to live opera happened as a teenager, when her mum, a schoolteacher, bought tickets to see Welsh National Opera at the Bristol Hippodrome. It was the first of many such visits, leading to a lifelong love of opera. No doubt many others, as we have heard, will have had similar experiences.
There are a number of points to be made here, but one of them is that WNO has, over the years, benefited, and continues to benefit, English audiences— although today the cuts have meant a reduction in such touring, with Liverpool now dropped as a touring venue. The current crisis—and it is a crisis—at WNO is, or should be, the joint responsibility of both the Welsh and British Governments, a point that cannot be emphasised enough.
If, as a society, we believe in an art form, we should fund it properly, irrespective of its relative expense. This means public funding. That is why the idea of an imagined “fair deal” for each of the arts or arts organisations is misguided, because different art forms demand extremely varying degrees of funding in order to thrive. That is a fact of artistic life. Although there is overlap, opera in a car park or a street is a different form from opera in a concert setting, which is different again from a full staging, yet there has to be a sense in which all opera will depend ultimately on the survival or otherwise of our larger companies.
Unlike Germany, we have very few large opera companies, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, pointed out in his excellent introduction. We should absolutely treasure these companies, rather than run them down, which is the direction that certainly Welsh National Opera is heading in, unless there is a significant turnaround. It is clear from the facts and figures—the facts include the loss, this weekend, of seven members of the chorus—that Chris Bryant was wrong when he recently said, in an Answer to a Written Question, that he is
“confident that the WNO is in a strong place to succeed”.
Chris Bryant, Lisa Nandy and the rest of the DCMS team need urgently to look at this again. Given the current deficit of £2.7 million, the announced £775,000 will be swallowed up straightaway. What WNO needs most, immediately, is emergency funding, as we have heard.
As soprano Elizabeth Atherton, who has campaigned ceaselessly for Welsh National Opera, told me this week,
“if we want our national opera companies to succeed, then that comes with a financial commitment at a certain level in order to safeguard the sustainable future of the companies and to enable everyone to access performances without it becoming the realm of the wealthy”.
Bearing these arguments in mind, there is a strong case that the core running costs of our national opera companies should be removed from Arts Council England’s oversight and protected by government instead, in a similar way to how the national museums are protected. Companies that need millions of pounds to be viable should not be competing with smaller grass-roots organisations—that makes no sense whatever. Somewhat ironically, such grass-roots organisations include the hugely worthwhile Streetwise Opera, which works with the homeless and which is also struggling for funds, albeit at a very different level of funding.
I believe that we need ACE, but through the Let’s Create programme it is overloaded with the kinds of community projects that used to be in part funded by local government. ACE needs to be much better funded and able to concentrate on what ought to be its core function of funding artists and performers, which includes the kind of companies that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to. All this funding is doable, considering that, within the scheme of things, arts funding is a drop in the ocean compared to the budgets of other departments. Ultimately, it is a question of political will.
Opera singers have rightly spoken out against Brexit—notably Sarah Connolly and, recently, Royal Opera star Rachel Nicholls. As reported by the Independent, she said that
“unless we are very careful, we are going to lose our entire classical music industry in this country”
through Brexit. Such a strong statement might raise a few eyebrows, until you realise how much of a European ecosystem classical music, including opera, is in its fundamental character. Rachel Nicholls has admitted that, despite being a star, she has not had a single contract in Germany since free movement ended. The problem is about not just touring but filling positions at short notice—now virtually impossible—and longer-term positions, which are so important for artists at every stage of their careers but which are now often advertised as being for only European passport holders.
I ask the Minister the same question I asked at Questions today. Without a commitment to rejoin the single market, how will the Government address these particular concerns? In some ways, these feel among the most intractable.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen has done a great service to this House, opera and WNO in securing this debate and introducing it so compellingly—a case of a good revival being a great substitute for a cancelled first run. Although I was fortunate enough to be brought up with opera from an early age—I went to Sadler’s Wells first when I was nine and to the first night of Sadler’s Wells at the Coliseum, before it became ENO, in 1968—it was a great performance of Verdi’s “Don Carlos” by WNO in Oxford when I was a student that had me really hooked, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
Those of us who have become hooked on opera should recognise that it is not everyone’s cup of tea, but those who respond to this extraordinary four-dimensional art form come from every social, economic and demographic background, if they have had half a chance to experience it. The burgeoning country house opera scene does wonderful work and provides employment, on-stage and off, often for young singers, musicians and technicians. However, I cannot help feeling that there is a cost to this that the opera community should recognise—that the elitist image, which my noble friend Lord Murphy powerfully demolished, is inevitably reinforced by the pictures of an audience in evening dress on lawns, with champagne glass in hand. If you go to a performance of Opera North, where my noble friend the Minister was a member of the board, WNO, ENO or Scottish Opera, the audience looks very different from that. If you went to a performance at any time over the past 25 years by English Touring Opera in Hackney, York, Norwich, Durham, Sheffield, Buxton, Poole or Exeter, you would have seen work of extraordinary quality being enjoyed by people from all walks of life.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, whose time as a fellow board member of ENO left me with deep respect and affection, is not known in your Lordships’ House for advocating fiscal profligacy. If she believes that additional funding is needed without delay for opera, my noble friend the Minister should listen. I also share her views of Arts Council England. The seeds of ENO’s recent problems were sown as long ago as when we were on the board together, 20 or more years ago. The board was perhaps not as robust as we should have been in challenging the Arts Council then.
When I look back at the ENO and opera more widely over the past 30 years, the Arts Council’s influence has often been baleful, and recent years have seen this only worsen. As I said in the debate that I was privileged to introduce two years ago following the national portfolio awards by the Arts Council, its inexplicable and damaging decisions were not confined to opera—there were the 100% cuts to Britten Sinfonia and the Donmar theatre as other examples. As I said in that debate, I am not persuaded that the arm’s-length principle any longer justifies the existence of a central Arts Council, but for as long as it does exist and holds the responsibilities that it does, its performance must improve, immediately and transformationally.
I was therefore dismayed to hear reports that the chair of the Arts Council, Sir Nicholas Serota, was going to be given an 18-month extension to his two terms—during which I can only say that he has run Rudolph Giuliani close in destroying a once strong personal reputation and in presiding over the terrible damage by the Arts Council to the performing arts. The culture of Arts Council England needs change now. Eighteen months from now, this Government will be halfway through their term. The arts generally, and opera in particular, need help now, and delay will be deeply damaging. Will my noble friend say whether she believes that the reappointment of Sir Nicholas would ensure that that help came? If not, will she assure the House that his reappointment will not happen?
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I rise tonight to thank with enormous pleasure the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for tabling this important and timely debate. As others have said, the UK has a large, important and rich ecosystem of over 100 opera producers, from community projects to world-class companies. At its heart are five major organisations: the Royal Opera House, Opera North, English National Opera, Welsh National Opera and Glyndebourne, which have been essential catalysts for opera’s success in Britain. However, as others have said tonight, this ecosystem now faces an existential threat.
Since 2015, our major opera companies have been severely impacted by real-terms funding cuts. The evidence is stark: Welsh National Opera has seen a 51% real-terms reduction in Arts Council funding, Glyndebourne’s funding has fallen by 63% in real terms and even the Royal Opera House has experienced a 32% real-terms cut. This has led to a devastating reduction in performances, touring, education, work and job opportunities, as others have said.
Let me illustrate the human cost. Welsh National Opera, which had previously provided the most extensive opera touring in England, has been forced to withdraw from venues and reduce its chorus. It faces a £2.7 million deficit this year, as others have said. Its total budget must shrink from £18.7 million to around £12 million by 2027-28, a reduction that threatens its very existence as a major opera company. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has said, Welsh National Opera has been forced to reduce its chorus to just 20 members and is contemplating the loss of its full-time orchestra. It has already cut touring weeks in Bristol, Liverpool and Birmingham, creating financial stress on the venues it visits.
Opera North is now the only full-time opera orchestra outside the Royal Opera House. This is nothing short of astonishing for a nation of our cultural standing. Germany, by contrast, has 83 full-time state and regional opera companies.
For performers, singers, instrumentalists and technicians, there is less work and lower pay. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has said, Brexit has compounded these challenges by effectively eliminating many European performance opportunities that British artists relied upon.
The consequences extend far beyond individual institutions. Opera companies are vital hubs in our cultural ecosystem. They train the next generation of singers, musicians and technical staff, they provide secure employment for over 3,800 workers and they reach hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren through education programmes. When we diminish these companies, we damage the entire performing arts sector.
The impact on regional access is particularly concerning. With Glyndebourne forced to cancel touring and Welsh National Opera reducing its presence in cities like Bristol, Liverpool and Birmingham, we risk creating cultural deserts outside London. This directly contradicts Labour’s mission to deliver growth and opportunities across every nation and region.
So what steps should government now take? First, government and Arts Council England need to create a joined-up and well-informed strategic approach to long-term funding. Government and ACE need to recognise that opera companies operate on three to five-year planning cycles, and that short-term cuts and changes create waste and instability. Opera company managements no longer have any confidence that ACE can meet their needs or find a way forward that is not simply salami slicing. The companies would rather come up with their own solutions than be presented with unrealistic and badly considered policy ideas which are not based on research. This echoes much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, have said this evening.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, also said, we must strengthen music education in schools, which is the pipeline of future audiences and talent. Most schools have effectively abandoned music provision following sustained cuts and a lack of Ofsted oversight, but music education is not just about creating future singers. Research shows that children who study music perform better across all subjects.
Perhaps most powerfully, we should consider the example of the Kyiv Opera, which continues to perform, even as air raid sirens pierce the night. When asked why they persist under such danger, their artistic director declared, “What are we fighting for if not our culture?” In the midst of an existential struggle, Ukraine demonstrates that opera is a defiant and vital expression of human civilisation. Let us keep it that way, accessible to all, and not let it become available only to the rich in the south-east at high prices.
Opera in Britain faces a critical moment. Without decisive government action, we risk irreparable damage to one of our greatest cultural assets. The companies have shown that they can adapt and innovate. They have demonstrated their value to communities across the nation. They now need the Government to match their commitment with proper support.
Baroness Harman (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly thank my noble friend Lord Murphy for securing this debate and the crystal clarity with which he set out the case for opera. I fear that, after such an excellent debate, I have very little to add, but I will speak in support of opera. I also strongly agree with the trenchant criticisms that the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, made about what Arts Council England did under Sir Nick Serota.
I will put on record my belief that opera is the pinnacle of art forms. I have so much admiration, and almost a disbelief, for what the artists who engage in it achieve—from what the singers, soloists, chorus, orchestral musicians, conductors and composers do, through to the creative wig-makers, costume-makers, choreographers, set designers, lighting designers and many others. They put their heart and soul into what they do for us, not just with their superhuman talent, dedication and commitment but by bringing an openness and generosity of spirit which is humbling. It is entertainment, but it is more than that: it is creative expression that helps us understand, and prompts us to question, everything about ourselves and the world in which we live, as the noble Baroness, Lady, Smith, so ably exemplified.
I celebrate opera for the excellence that it achieves and join those who insist on its place in our future. It should never be put in opposition to the question of access. On the contrary, it is precisely because it is such a great art form that we should ensure that everyone has access to it and can experience it. Breaking down the barriers to access must continue to be at the heart of the mission of these great opera companies. That means that we must have action from the Government and change from Arts Council England.
We heard earlier today that the number of students taking music at A-level is down 45%. I welcome the fact that the Government have put arts and creativity at the heart of the curriculum. Music cannot be the preserve of those educated in private schools—or those who have the great good fortune to be the grandsons of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. We need all the talents, and everyone has the right to experience it.
Arts Council England must turn over a new page on supporting large-scale opera. Opera has struggled to cope with the appalling cuts of 2022. An announcement in which opera was the biggest loser by hitting the ENO—outreach is at its core—and slashing touring budgets for Glyndebourne, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, explained, and the Welsh National Opera meant that, at a stroke, it shut off the very access that we should strive for.
There is a lot of talk about things in this country being broken; opera is nearly broken. Huge damage has been done to the opera sector by Arts Council England that needs to be addressed. We have heard of the possibility of support from the Welsh Government, which is very encouraging. I hope, too, that our regional mayors and councils and the Government in Scotland will recognise opera’s importance and do what they can to support opera for those they represent.
I agree with the points made about Brexit. We must have an agreement to enable EU touring and the reinstatement of something like the Erasmus scheme to allow the exchange of music students.
The Prime Minister is obviously a gifted musician; he went to the Junior Guildhall School of Music and Drama. He launched his plan for change at the creative industry sector of Pinewood. Let us hope that, after the dark years for opera, we must have better days ahead.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for the opportunity to debate the problems facing the opera sector. I agree with much that has been said. The noble Lord has come up with the next step following this debate—he spoke of the need for a DCMS opera working group and a national opera service. There is potential in those suggestions.
Mention has been made of Germany, which is correct, but there, local government has a key role in the offering of opera, the management of premises and opera companies, and so on. We have a very different structure. I have noted the challenges that we have heard across the Chamber about who makes what decisions, why and whether they are divorced from the impact of their decisions on communities. As we have heard, reductions in funding are having an impact. There are fewer performances and rising concerns about viability. Outside London, there are serious problems with touring opera to smaller places. Opera is more costly. It is difficult to maintain orchestras, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. There are now only two—one outside of London. The number of productions is declining. There are the pressures on freelancers and the impact of Brexit, and there is the importance of supporting the whole sector.
I will take a slightly different angle in what I am about to say. I wanted to speak in this debate because I believe that opera can build audiences. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, suggested earlier that this needs to happen. The noble Baroness, Lady Harman, talked about access, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about opportunity being everything, and absolutely it is. However, as we know, two-thirds of income for performances outside London is dependent on grants. I support Arts Council England’s aim to broaden access to cultural opportunities across England. That is right as an ambition, but action can build audiences. I understand that the 2022 announcement of funding has been controversial. In terms of English National Opera, it was never clear to me how ENO would work in the same broad geographical area as Opera North, which is my local opera company even though it is based 90 miles away from Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
I noticed a reference in the resolution of ENO’s understandable and correct wish to maintain a London presence as well as its Manchester base: that ENO will perform in the “city region”—that is, Greater Manchester. I hope and had assumed that ENO would have a plan to deliver performances outside that city region—in Lancashire and Cumbria, for example. I have also been hoping that the north-east of England could benefit, directly or indirectly, from the arrival of ENO in the north of England, through more opera being performed and more outreach activity achieved.
I am going to count Gilbert and Sullivan as mainstream opera—we might have a debate on whether it is, but for many people, it is mainstream. A few weeks ago, the programme notes by Opera North for its impressive revival this year of “Ruddigore” pointed out that there are some 2,000 amateur musical societies across the country, with 100 dedicated solely to Gilbert and Sullivan. As someone who developed a love of opera through Gilbert and Sullivan, I understand the importance of that route. I believe that there is untapped demand for opera, and it has to be tapped. I recall that when I chaired the Theatre Royal trust in Newcastle there were frequent discussions about our poor audience for some operas. A difficulty was that we had limited performance availability. Arts Council England was funding new works, rightly, but they then had to be performed, taking some of those slots. This meant that some of the more popular operas could not be performed. The solution would have been more performance dates, but those could not be funded. Yet I believe that there is a latent demand.
My evidence is this. On 24 November, at the Glasshouse International Centre for Music at Gateshead, we heard Sir Michael Tippett’s “A Child of Our Time”. There were 300 performers, with international soloists; there were guest members of the chorus of Royal Northern Sinfonia, with over 200 singers, mostly locally based; there were guest members of the orchestra—amateurs alongside the professional musicians. The standard was very high indeed and the audience was large. So audiences for work such as this can be transferred to opera. The Arts Council needs to provide leadership effectively on this, and it needs others to help manage that process, but the suggestion made at the very start by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, might get us part-way down the road of achieving that.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for giving us this excellent debate tonight. I thank him again for the wonderful recital that he organised with WNO here in Parliament before the election; I and many from both Houses thoroughly enjoyed that.
As noble Lords have said, opera is a sublime art form, but an expensive one—although, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, rightly says, it is a drop in the ocean compared with other things that government spends public money on. The costs have been well rehearsed: the years of training for those musicians and singers; the litany of jobs that the noble Baroness, Lady Harman, reeled off expresses how many people it takes to put an opera on; the seasonality of the work, with so many people forced to juggle other jobs, not just on the way up but when they reach the heights of the art form; the need for rest days—you cannot do a matinee and an evening performance like you can six days a week in other theatre; and, of course, the international travel, as our Question this afternoon helpfully covered. When money is tight, it is the important things that are cut first: the touring; the outreach; the avant-garde and innovative performances.
But, at its best, opera really is like no other art form. I found myself in Milan at the end of last month on the centenary of the death of Giacomo Puccini, so I was able to make my first visit to La Scala. It was a wonderful evening and a very Italian experience; two and a half hours queuing for day tickets and then much of the orchestra and chorus were on strike. But hearing those arias in the theatre where they were premiered was spine-tingling, even with the handful of artists who performed.
Of course, as noble Lords have noted, we have wonderful opera in this country as well. It is an ecosystem with more than 100 producers of opera, but with the work anchored around the big companies whose names have rightly been on our lips today. I am glad the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, reminded us of the work of OperaUpClose. I have had great pleasure seeing them and companies such as Pegasus come into the national portfolio and receive funding: they, too, are essential to that ecosystem.
My noble friend Lady Noakes was right to point out the booming country house opera scene, often with no public subsidy. Audiences at Nevill Holt have grown at a rate of 15% a year. From Garsington to Glyndebourne, Grange Park to Holland Park, and so many more, there are many reasons to be optimistic. However, it is important that we support the proscenium arch—the big grand opera that is the pinnacle of this art form.
I will join the tributes that have been paid to English National Opera: the company, the board and others have weathered a turbulent period. I particularly single out Harry Brünjes, who bows out after a decade as chairman of English National Opera this year. He deserves all the praise, bouquets and garlands that ought to come his way, and he has done it without making friends in high places in the process. He has done the company a huge service, as indeed have Jenny Mollica and the team who carry on their brilliant work. We look forward to what they are doing in addition to their work at the Coliseum: their new partnerships in Manchester with organisations such as the Royal Northern College of Music, the Hallé Orchestra and Factory International. I am particularly looking forward to the “Einstein on the Beach” that they will be performing at Aviva Studios.
The benefits of opera are not just economic and social, as we have seen through ENO’s work on Breathe, which was mentioned in the Lancet and has won it a prize from the British Thoracic Society; the Welsh National Opera’s work with people suffering from long Covid; or the Royal Opera’s pioneering work on the Sound Voice Project, supporting medtech advances in the NHS for people with voice loss. There are huge benefits to this art form in so many ways. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can say anything about the growing interest in social prescribing: with these health benefits, is there an argument for using some of the other larger budgets we have across government to support the work that opera companies are doing?
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is right to say that opera speaks in many voices; even in a debate of much consensus, there has been some disagreement, or we would reach for different answers. I think a lot rests on the review of Arts Council England, which the previous Government set up in March and which the new Government have paused, understandably, in order to run it in their own way. I see that Sky News is today reporting that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge of Barking, is to be picked as the new chairman of the review. I do not know whether the Minister can confirm that. If so, I am sure we will be delighted in your Lordships’ House to have easy access to her, although I do regret the way that Dame Mary Archer, who was selected in the last Parliament, was treated, not just over the review but as the prospective chairman of the Royal Parks.
Will there be an advisory panel? The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, very kindly agreed to sit on an advisory panel—I do not want to dragoon her into it again, but I think it is important, particularly if there is to be a party-political parliamentarian chairing the review, that we again make sure that it is a non-partisan and broad-based thing that can look at many art forms.
There are huge questions to ask, such as on the length of funding cycles; on whether there is a case for treating larger organisations differently, analogously, as the noble Lord, Earl Clancarty, says, to the way the national museums are funded; and on how we can avoid the cliff edges when decisions are made to stop funding—could we give companies advance notice? I firmly support the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, about the importance of supporting philanthropy: for every £1 the Royal Opera and Ballet gets, it raises £6 in private philanthropy. How can we use the honours system and the tax system to protect it? What can be done in the short term for the Welsh National Opera, which is indeed facing a huge funding pressure? Its staffing cost alone is £9 million. Is there an argument for exempting it from the rise in national insurance contributions to try to help it weather the storm until these answers can be reached?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Murphy for a very personal introduction to the debate—I am sure we all valued that, and we have continued in that vein—but, most importantly, for initiating this important debate on a subject close to my heart. I became a board member of Opera North way back in 2002 and have watched its progress with enormous interest, and I put culture into my portfolio when I was leader of Leeds City Council. I thank all noble Lords from all sides of the House for their thoughtful contributions. I will not be able to answer all the points raised—12 minutes is just not going to be long enough. I am so sorry. If there is anything in particular I do not cover, I will of course write to noble Lords to give the detail.
First, it is important to emphasise the points that were brought out about the value of opera and the contribution it makes to our cultural life. It is, as we have heard, an entirely unique art form, telling stories in an extraordinary way. I will not bore noble Lords with my own favourite examples, but I think we can say that opera represents one of the high points of all human achievement, and government should be proud to support it. I echo the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—“Wow”—I think it just goes to show what we are talking about.
Let me also reassure noble Lords that the Government are not ignorant of the economic challenges faced by this sector, given that so many points have been raised by noble Lords today. As well as noting the challenges, we are all determined to ensure that arts and culture are no longer the preserve of a privileged few. As we have heard tonight, we need to reject the tired misconceptions and prejudice, particularly about opera and its supposed exclusivity. We all know the role that opera can play and the contribution it can make across society. We also know that opera is undoubtably an economic asset on national level, making up part of the cultural sector’s extraordinary £34.6 billion contribution to the UK’s gross value added.
Opera’s impact goes further, however, and I will highlight a few examples. To pick up on the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, yes, I believe in social prescribing, and I recognise the ENO’s Breathe project, which links opera to those recovering from Covid—a very interesting piece of work. Opera North has a really successful music education programme called In Harmony, which in October saw a record number of 12 schools participating, with over 3,200 pupils benefiting each week from the high-quality provision and performance opportunities. Half of those participating receive free school meals.
We have also heard a great deal about the contribution that the Welsh National Opera makes at the heart of Welsh communities. Its take-part initiatives include Cradle, an intergenerational project focused on dementia, which enriches both the older people and the children who participate. I noted in particular the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on children’s education, and the wonderful examples given by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of opera speaking in many voices.
We know that in recent years the most significant direct government support for opera has come through higher rates of orchestra and theatre tax relief, from which opera companies are able to benefit. However, there was a clear nod tonight towards the contribution of philanthropy, and we need to echo that. Across the DCMS sectors, it is key to supporting our most beloved institutions and the whole of the cultural space.
We have had a lot of comment about Arts Council England. I do not wish to dwell on some of the comments made, but I confirm that we are working with it and others to understand exactly what the challenges and opportunities are for our sectors. As we have heard, we are undertaking a review into documenting current and past funding for the arts, culture and heritage sectors. We announced at the Labour Party conference that Ministers will undertake a review of Arts Council England, and they are considering next steps and further details. We do not comment on rumours or speculation, and the announcement of the chair will be made public at the appropriate time. However, I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that a non-partisan, inclusive approach will be absolutely central to the work that we know we need to do.
I understand from the comments made tonight by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lady Harman just how unhappy noble Lords have been about some of the decisions made by Arts Council England in the recent past. I am sure everyone will understand I cannot answer for investment decisions made not only under a previous Government but also by an arm’s-length body. Therefore, while I note the critiques noble Lords have raised, I will not respond directly to them. Furthermore, the issues around the chair of Arts Council England are based on rumour, so I cannot comment.
I think we all know that it has been a tumultuous couple of years for the English National Opera, which has weathered the storm impressively well. But it launched its Manchester season just a month ago and it has been received very well in the north and shows real ambition and commitment to making a difference in that area. I am pleased to say that Opera North is working very closely with ENO, from what I understand.
At the start of the debate my noble friend Lord Murphy eloquently raised his concerns regarding the Welsh National Opera. The Government recognise the unique and valuable role WNO plays in cultural life and its leading role in the UK’s opera and classical music sector. We also recognise the very real challenges that have been outlined tonight. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, recognises from what I am saying that I understand the wider impact of opera on all our communities. As noble Lords may be aware, Chris Bryant has had a series of very productive meetings with the Welsh Government, the Wales Office, Arts Council England and the Welsh National Opera to really understand some of the issues in more detail.
We had an interesting Question earlier today that picked up some of the issues that have been raised tonight, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, about Brexit, its impact, the parlous state of our touring companies and musicians, and the real challenges that we face. I hope I outlined earlier today the real commitment by the Government to work in partnership with the EU to find ways that we can come through this to benefit so many different organisations—it is not just music, as we heard earlier—and that engagement will continue.
I noted the comments about Glyndebourne, and of course it is regrettable that it will no longer tour. Touring is a big issue also for the Welsh National Opera, particularly the impact in Wales, but also in England. But I congratulate Glyndebourne on the success of its autumn season, which I understand proved extremely popular.
As we know, Arts Council England has contributed £10,000 towards the cost of consultancy support, which is helping the sector develop a concept for a new sector representative body. We see this as a positive development for opera, supporting the sector to speak as one. We know that other organisations have done their own research—I am thinking here of the Laidlaw Opera Trust and how it has identified key opportunities and challenges. Norwich Theatre’s Opera Voices research has focused particularly on audiences, and we must not forget the importance of audiences in this debate.
In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for taking part in such an important debate. I hope there is an understanding and a recognition that the Government take the cultural sector very seriously, whether in their industrial strategy or in recognition of the contribution that arts and culture make to society, health and well- being, as well as sheer and pure enjoyment. I loved the “blithering, blathering” mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, if I have got it right. I can end only by apologising if I have not been able to address all the points raised. I look forward to continuing this conversation and my door is very much open.
With particular reference to my noble friend Lord Murphy about the working group idea, I suggest that he writes to the Secretary of State, highlights the work he has experienced in the past, and suggests that it be reconvened. There is enormous benefit from sharing all the rich experience from around this House. We have a vital contribution to make and I look forward to being part of it.