Grand Committee
(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 10th December 2024
(2 days, 16 hours 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
(2 days, 16 hours 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
(2 days, 16 hours 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
(2 days, 16 hours 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
(2 days, 16 hours 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
(2 days, 16 hours 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
(2 days, 16 hours 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
(2 days, 16 hours 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
(2 days, 16 hours 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
(2 days, 16 hours 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
(2 days, 16 hours 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
(2 days, 16 hours 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
(2 days, 16 hours 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
(2 days, 16 hours 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
(2 days, 16 hours 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
(2 days, 16 hours 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.