House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
The Budget made the choices needed to fix the foundations of our economy. Taking those into account, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that unemployment will fall to 4.1% next year and remain low until 2029. We are taking action to support jobs and growth, and to transform employment support to get Britain working.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
Will the Minister answer a simple question: since the Budget, have unemployment rates gone up or down?
Alison McGovern
I have just given the OBR’s assessment. It is worth noting that there are still a significant number of vacancies in the economy. We are determined that the Department for Work and Pensions will be reformed to serve employers better, so that they can fill those vacancies.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Many disabled people in Ealing Southall are unnecessarily unemployed purely and simply because their employer refuses to respond to their request for the reasonable adjustments that they need to do their job. Will the Minister consider strengthening the right to reasonable adjustments, so that workers receive a response within a specified number of weeks, in line with the recommendations in the groundbreaking disability employment charter?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. I know she met my colleague the Minister for Social Security and Disability recently, and I am sure that their conversations were productive on this important point.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I recognise what was behind the increase in the national minimum wage for 18 to 21-year-olds, but I have been surprised by the reaction of businesses in my constituency. Those businesses have told me, in terms, that they will reduce the number of 18 to 21-year-olds they employ, because there is a higher failure rate associated with their employment, as they are new to the workforce, yet employing them will cost the same as employing those who are older. Does the Minister recognise that issue, and what will she do about it?
Alison McGovern
Anybody who sees that, in the British economy, there are nearly 1 million young people out of work or training—not doing anything—would say that is a dreadful legacy left by the previous Administration. That is why the youth guarantee is at the heart of our “Get Britain Working” plan.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I call Dr Jeevun Sandher, may I offer him my congratulations on his engagement?
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
That is incredibly kind of you, Mr Speaker.
Young non-graduates are finding it far harder to get good, well-paid jobs. The number of young people not in education, employment or training has nearly doubled since 2013, and youth unemployment is at its highest rate in almost a decade because young people are not getting the skills they need. On top of that, they are becoming far sicker; one in three young people currently has a mental health problem, and that figure is rising. What are the Government and the Department doing to give young people the skills and the health support that they need to get good, well-paying jobs?
Alison McGovern
That question demonstrates the quality analysis I would expect from recently engaged economists on the Labour Benches. The Minister for Skills and I have been working closely on the youth guarantee, because we know that it is only by colleges and jobcentres working in hand in hand that we will get young people the skills that they need to succeed.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
In the run-up to the election, Labour clearly committed to an employment rate target of 80%, but in the past few weeks I have noticed a shift in language from “target” to “ambition”. Will the Minister clear this up for us: are the Government still committed to the 80% employment target, or will that be another broken Labour promise?
Alison McGovern
I make no apologies for having ambition for people in our labour market. The figure was always an ambition, because Labour Members want our jobcentres to shift away from pointless admin towards real ambition for everybody who steps through the door.
Helen Whately
I think we all heard that loud and clear: Labour has ditched its employment target. That is already another broken Labour promise. However, I feel for the Minister. How can she be expected to boost employment when her Chancellor is busy taxing jobs and then shrinking the economy? The Government have destroyed business confidence, have put up taxes on jobs, and are piling red tape on employers. Which of those measures will help her to deliver that employment “ambition”?
Alison McGovern
I have brought forward proposals to get Britain working, together with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Secretary of State for Education, and Secretaries of State right across Government. That is how we will plot a course towards our ambition of an 80% employment rate. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for being kind enough to refer to our “Get Britain Working” plans as
“rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic”.
It was very brave of her to acknowledge that the last Government’s legacy for us was a sinking ship.
Kanishka Narayan (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
Our ambition is an 80% employment rate over a decade of national renewal. We will get Britain working by creating a new jobs and careers service in our overhaul of jobcentres. We will bring forward a new youth guarantee, so that every young person is earning or learning, and will give local areas the power to join up work, health and skills support to help the 2.8 million people who are out of work due to long-term health conditions.
Kanishka Narayan
I thank my right hon. Friend for her response, not least given the dire inheritance from the previous Government: the worst performance of an employment rate in the G7 since the pandemic. I see that inheritance in my community, in Barry in the Vale of Glamorgan, where individuals carry not the indulgence, and not the offence, but the misfortune of ill health. What is the Secretary of State doing to tackle economic inactivity, so that we give hope again, not just to those individuals, but to my community?
Liz Kendall
In the Vale of Glamorgan, the economic inactivity rate is almost one in four people. That is higher than the rate for Wales as a whole, and certainly higher than the UK average. From spring next year, we will launch eight trailblazers to support more people with long-term health conditions into work, including in Wales. That is backed by £125 million of additional funding. We will design the programme jointly with the Welsh Government, and we aim to launch it in the spring. We are determined to boost jobs and growth in every corner of this great country.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Fedcap, a national organisation, is running a scheme to get economically inactive people to become the next generation of solar panel engineers. More such schemes will be necessary to plug the skills gap that developers report, especially if the Government are to meet their ambitious housing target. Will the Secretary of State commit to continued funding for schemes that are delivered by such organisations via jobcentres?
Liz Kendall
I congratulate organisations such as the one that the hon. Lady mentions for their brilliant work, not only to keep energy costs down but to support people into work. I will work closely with the Minister for energy consumers, and others in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, to support those organisations, including through jobcentres. More jobs and lower bills are key to improving people’s living standards.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
In communities like mine in East Thanet, there is above-average youth unemployment. It is important to be reassured that the “Get Britain Working” White Paper will be designed to help young people, particularly in coastal communities like mine, where we need a year-round economy, and support and activity to get young people into work.
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is exactly right: we have to deliver better jobs in every part of the country, including coastal communities like hers. We need to give young people the skills that they need, and job opportunities, so that they can build a better life. I look forward to working with her as we deliver our youth guarantee and “Get Britain Working” plans.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether she will maintain strong sanctions against those who are capable of working but choose not to?
Liz Kendall
If you can work, you must work, and if you repeatedly refuse to, sanctions will remain, but I know from young people in my constituency that they are desperate to get the skills and opportunities that they need. Unlike the Conservative party, that is what our youth guarantee will deliver.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
It is good to hear Front-Benchers being so positive about their White Paper, much of which we are pretty familiar with. Let us look through some of the measures. The integration of employment and health support—we were doing that when we were in government. It was called WorkWell. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) led on it. What is the youth guarantee that we have been hearing about? According to the White Paper, it
“brings together a range of existing entitlements”.
It is a very familiar set of policies. The fact is that the Government’s White Paper is just a rehash of existing support, and a bit of money with no strings attached. There is, however, one thing that the last Government were doing that this Government are not: strengthening the conditionality for benefits. The Secretary of State says that she will continue the existing sanctions, but what new measures will she introduce to ensure that people who can work will work?
Liz Kendall
I am not sure where to start. If the Conservatives’ programmes were so successful, why do we have a record 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term health problems, and 1 million young people not in education, employment or training? I love the 15 WorkWell pilots, but we want to join up health, work and skills support in every corner of the country, not just a few places.
There will be a different approach for young people under our youth guarantee. There will be the opportunities people need, but also a requirement to take them up, not only for those on unemployment benefit, but for those young people who can work but are out of work due to a health condition. That is the difference a Labour Government make: there is work for those who can, and proper opportunities.
Danny Kruger
I applaud that soundbite, but we did not hear about any new measures that will be introduced, or any additional sanctions that we need. The right hon. Member talks about what the last Government were doing. We were reforming the work capability assessment. The Office for Budget Responsibility said that our reforms would have seen 400,000 fewer people on long-term sickness benefits, saving £5.4 billion over this Parliament. The Labour Government have paused that work while they hold a review. They have had 14 years. I do not know what they were doing to plan for government—not very much, it looks like. [Interruption.] They had all that time. What were they doing? I do not know where their plans are. The Chancellor is counting the savings to the welfare budget that our party would have delivered. Will the Minister commit to implementing the reforms, and if not, how will she make the savings that she is counting on?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Member is laughing at his own chutzpah. I am happy to talk about the past 14 years, but the work capability assessment is not working. It needs to be reformed or replaced. That is what we said in our manifesto, and we will bring forward our proposals in a Green Paper in the spring. That has to be part of a bigger programme to help people with long-term health conditions and disabilities into work. That is what our “Get Britain Working” White Paper does, and I am happy to discuss it with him more in future.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I hope the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating Chris McCausland and Dianne Buswell on their victory on “Strictly” this weekend. In the light of that victory, how does she plan to make the Access to Work scheme more fit for purpose, so that it can help more people with disabilities reach their full potential?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely join in the hon. Gentleman’s comments. It was a great joy to see that victory at the weekend. We want to see Access to Work working better. We want to get the backlogs down, and for that support to be available to more people.
Labour Members believe that disabled people have the same rights as anyone else to work, socialise and take part in life. That is what we are determined to achieve, not just through the Department for Work and Pensions, but through every part of Government. The hon. Gentleman will know that we recently announced lead Ministers for disability in every Department. That shows how important we take this issue to be.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Emma Reynolds)
Due to the Government’s steadfast commitment to the triple lock, pensioners will see an above-inflation increase of 4.1% in their state pension next year, which means that they will be up to £470 better off—and, over the course of this Parliament, over £1,900 better off.
Susan Murray
I thank the Minister for the insight. In Mid Dunbartonshire, nearly a quarter of my constituents are of pension age. Many have placed their hard-earned income into private schemes, yet despite their financial planning, they face the harsh reality that inflation is outstripping the modest yearly increase to their pension, eroding the value of their lifetime of saving. What steps will she take to prevent the erosion in value of private pensions, and to mitigate the problem of the growth in the value of pension funds not being passed on to pension holders?
Emma Reynolds
The Chancellor launched a landmark pensions review in July, which I am leading. It has two objectives: to boost returns for future pensioners, so that when they save into private pensions, they get better returns, the likes of which we see in Australia and Canada; and to boost investment in the UK economy.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
The poorest pensioners in our society are those who are eligible for pension credit but do not claim it, and those who are just a few pounds above the threshold and miss out on passported support. Means-testing, by its very nature, is simply not the best way to get help to those who need it most, so will the Minister reconsider the recent decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance?
Emma Reynolds
We will not reconsider that decision, because as a result of the £22 billion black hole that we inherited from the Conservative party, we have had to take tough decisions in a very tight fiscal environment. However, my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity to remind people that they have until Saturday to make a pension credit claim, which can be backdated and will passport them to winter fuel payments and other related benefits.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Edinburgh is a booming and—oh, sorry.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
We have all been there, Mr Speaker. Businesses are crying out for staff, yet only one in six employers uses jobcentres. Our “Get Britain Working” White Paper will revolutionise employment support to give employers the workforce they need. The support will include a new jobs and career service, designed around employers’ needs. We are also launching an independent review of the role of employers in promoting healthy and inclusive workforces.
Chris Murray
Some of us are still getting our heads around our new jobs, Mr Speaker. Edinburgh is a booming economy that has all the raw materials to thrive in the years ahead—especially because we have some of the growth industries that the Government have identified as being key to the future of the economy. However, businesses in my constituency are crying out for workers with the skills that they need. What are the Government doing to ensure that the workforce has the skills that businesses need?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend describes exactly why we need a local tailored service: so that all employers can properly engage with jobcentres and work together to find the skilled members of staff that they need. I agree with him that Edinburgh offers so many opportunities to our young people. I know that all my DWP colleagues in Edinburgh will work with him to get business the skilled staff that they need.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
E-commerce is a growing part of our economy. Will the Minister spare a thought for small-scale employers in my constituency and throughout Northern Ireland, who. since Friday, have seen their supply chain clobbered by the imposition on Northern Ireland of the EU’s general product safety regulations? Because of the extra paperwork and the need to pay an agent in Northern Ireland, many suppliers in Great Britain are now refusing to sell to Northern Ireland. Will this Government ever take steps to reintegrate Northern Ireland into the internal market—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have to shorten questions a little, so that I can get others in.
Alison McGovern
I am not entirely sure that the issues the hon. and learned Gentleman raises are completely within my responsibilities. However, DWP colleagues in Northern Ireland work closely with business, and I am sure that they will continue to do so, whatever the prevailing economic circumstances.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
We are committed to reviewing universal credit to ensure that it is doing the job that we need it to. We have started by announcing the fair repayment rate in the Budget, and we will keep Parliament updated.
Antonia Bance
Twenty-seven per cent of working-age people in Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley rely on universal credit. I welcome the fair repayment rate announced in the Budget, but a major reason for benefit debt is the design flaw in universal credit, which means that claimants must wait five weeks for their first payment. Will the Minister confirm that the five-week wait will be considered in the review of universal credit?
Sir Stephen Timms
I can assure my hon. Friend that advances of up to 100% of potential universal credit entitlements are available urgently during the first assessment period of a claim, but she is right to raise concerns about the five-week wait. I commend to her the excellent report on this subject published by the Work and Pensions Committee in the last Parliament. The point she has raised is definitely one that we need to consider.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Some of the farmers who work so hard to put food on our tables find it difficult to put food on the table themselves, and need additional Government support. That used to happen via tax credits, but the transition to universal credit has been hugely challenging for farmers, given the seasonal nature of their work. Will the Minister meet me to hear some of their concerns, so that we can incorporate those concerns into the Government’s review?
Sir Stephen Timms
We are watching very carefully the progress of migration from tax credits to universal credit, which will be complete in the early part of next year, but I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady and discuss some of the difficulties she is seeing.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
More people in good jobs is the foundation of our approach to tackling poverty. That is why we have set out the biggest reforms to employment support in a generation, on top of extending the household support fund, introducing a fair repayment rate for universal credit, and the extensive work of the child poverty taskforce.
David Taylor
In my constituency of Hemel Hempstead, according to figures given to me by the local charity DENS, there has been a 1,000% increase in the number of people needing to use food banks over the past 10 years. Meanwhile, another institution, the Hemel Hempstead community fridge, sees queues an hour before it opens, in scenes akin to something out of Soviet Russia. Does the Minister agree that there are few more shameful examples of the last Government’s record on poverty? [Interruption.] I cannot quite hear the mutterings of Conservative Members, Mr Speaker—I think the word they were looking for was “sorry”. Will the Minister also outline further steps that we can take to reduce the need for food banks to exist at all?
Alison McGovern
The statistics my hon. Friend has read out are, I am sorry to say, consistent with those of the Trussell Trust, which distributed 61,000 emergency food parcels in 2010. Last year, the figure was 3.1 million. That is not acceptable, which is why we have committed to tripling investment in breakfast clubs to over £30 million and—as I have said—introduce our fair repayment rate for deductions from universal credit, because if a person is out of debt, they are out of danger. We are increasing the national living wage to £12.21 an hour from next April, which will boost the pay of 3 million workers. That is also why the child poverty taskforce is working very hard.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Benefits such as pension credit and disability living allowance are important in assisting people to stay out of poverty, but delays in processing applications push people into poverty. One constituent of mine is an 82-year-old gentleman who has spent more than 16 weeks waiting for his application to be processed, and another is the mother of a disabled child who has waited more than 18 weeks and is now being told that it will take an extra 25 weeks for a mandatory reconsideration. What steps is the Minister taking to reduce delays in processing applications for pension credit and other state support, in order to help lift households out of poverty?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for the question that she rightly puts to this House. We have increased the number of staff working on pension credit by over 500, and are working very quickly to deal with those backlogs and delays. As she says, we need to get through those backlogs.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Jobcentres work with a range of external providers to offer a wealth of outreach support. In Berkshire, this includes work coach support for customers with complex needs delivered by Reading college, outreach delivered by the Slough homelessness team and at Windsor Homeless Project locations, and employment support delivered by the probation hub in Reading. Outreach work is something that we not only strongly support, but actively encourage.
Mr Dillon
The Minister has named a number of projects in Berkshire, none of which falls within my constituency of Newbury. Would he welcome community interest companies such as Lambourn Junction hosting jobcentres in their facilities to make sure that people in rural constituencies such as mine have access to a jobcentre, rather than having to travel into the main town centre for that support?
Andrew Western
I would very much welcome such an initiative being brought forward in the hon. Member’s constituency of Newbury. He may also be pleased to know that there is the potential for a youth hub to open in Newbury, similar to that in Oxford, which was grant funded and is already in operation.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Emma Reynolds)
Due to the introduction of auto-enrolment, which is at least one policy that has cross-party support—it was legislated for by the last Labour Government and was taken forward by the coalition Government—there has been a 92% increase in the number of employees saving into a workplace pension scheme since 2012, which is over 10 million people saving for a pension who were not saving previously.
Rebecca Long Bailey
The Minister will be aware that around 10% of people automatically enrolled into workplace pension schemes choose to opt out, often due to low pay and cost of living pressures, leaving them losing out not only on building up their contributions, but on the top-ups of their employers. Would the Minister consider a simple tweak and allow employer contributions, which would have been due in any event, to continue in such opt-out circumstances?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, which is indeed an interesting idea. It is one that was put forward recently by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and I will consider it. In the pension schemes Bill, which we will introduce next year, low earners with multiple small pots will have those pots consolidated, so that the money works better for them and gives them a better retirement in the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for her answers. Both parties—the one now in opposition, and the one in government—have always encouraged people to buy pension contributions in every way they can. However, the fact is that for many people who are low earners, it is not possible to have a pension scheme and at the same time to live, given the age we are in and the cost of living. What can the Minister do to encourage people to do so in a way that does not impact on the money they have coming in?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Member for that question. A number of ideas have been put forward by think-tanks and research institutes. One such idea is a sidecar savings account, which could be used for a pension, but could also have some money set aside for a rainy day should somebody fall into debt. We are considering that. He raises a very important question, because some of those on low incomes sometimes cannot afford to put in those contributions, but there may be a way between opting out and remaining in the scheme, and we are looking at that.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Once people are granted refugee status, they have immediate access to DWP employment support and services. Work coaches work with refugee customers to understand their individual employment needs and provide tailored support, as appropriate, including with CV writing, interview preparedness and help securing work experience. Those who require more intensive support can be referred to DWP employment programmes or other contracted provision.
Tim Farron
The Government are seeking to clear the very unacceptable backlog—the huge backlog—of asylum applications they inherited from the previous Government. As a result, we are already beginning to see an increase in the number of newly recognised refugees, who rightly now have the right to work and to contribute here. Can the Minister say a bit more about the strategic planning and cross-departmental work that is happening on providing tailored support—he talked about tailored support, but the existing scheme of course comes to an end in June—so that refugees who have every right to be here have the ability to take a job, pay taxes and contribute here?
Andrew Western
The hon. Member is entirely correct to recognise the important role of refugees in contributing to our economy. There is a range of tailored support available with things such as language support and, as I mentioned earlier, with CV writing and interview preparedness, but there is also support with ensuring that their qualifications earned elsewhere are transferable to this country. I would of course be very happy to meet him to discuss further the support that could be put in place as we look, as he says, to clear the asylum backlogs. We are in constant communication with the Home Office and other Departments to ensure that there is a holistic approach in doing so.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The Government keep the rates of parental pay under review. Following the Secretary of State’s announcement in a written ministerial statement to Parliament on 30 October, and subject to parliamentary approval, parental pay will increase in line with the consumer prices index at the rate of 1.7% from April 2025.
Munira Wilson
At less than half the rate of a full-time national minimum wage, maternity and paternity pay is so low that most parents simply cannot live on it, and they are often forced into debt, or forced back to work sooner than they would like. A poll of fathers found that two-thirds of them would take more leave if paternity pay were higher. If we want to give families choice in how they care for their children in those precious early months, will the Minister discuss with colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade how we can boost rates of maternity and paternity pay?
Andrew Western
I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, but requests for a significant uplifting of benefits come with a price tag and I heard no suggestions as to how that would be paid for. On support for parents, the Government committed in their manifesto to review parental leave to ensure that it best supports working families. Further details of that review will be announced in due course.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Recent damning statistics highlighted that just 2% of parents made use of shared parental leave in the past year, with uptake skewed towards the highest earners. Given the importance of breaking down barriers to equal parenting for employment, will the Minister ensure that he works with the Department for Business and Trade as part of the upcoming review to ensure that enhanced parental leave is considered, including strengthening paternity leave entitlements?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is correct to highlight not just the importance and benefits of shared parental leave, but the disparity between those who make use of it. I will, of course, maintain dialogue with the Department for Business and Trade as we go through that review, but I would also welcome a discussion with my hon. Friend about his ambitions and ideas for how we could take that forward.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
No assessment along the lines that the hon. Gentleman asks about has been made. Benefit rates are reviewed each year, increasing by 6.7% last April and by 1.7% from next April, in line with inflation.
Bobby Dean
I thank the Minister for his answer, but I would like to focus on the age differential in the rates. He will be aware that people under 25 receive a different rate of universal credit. The Government announced that they will try to abolish the age differential for the national living wage. If it could also be abolished for universal credit, that would be really good for young care leavers. Will the Minister look at potentially phasing out the age differential in universal credit?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting suggestion. That is not something I am considering at the moment, but as he will have heard me say earlier, we will be reviewing universal credit over the course of the next year or so. We certainly want to support young care leavers—he will know of the recent announcement that we made about changes to carer’s allowance—and we are keeping all those matters under review.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
Our new youth guarantee will ensure that every young person is earning or learning, tackling the scandal that we inherited of almost 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. Young people in Harlow, Derby North and across the country deserve the opportunity to work, get skills and build a better life, and that is what this Labour Government will deliver.
Chris Vince
In my constituency of Harlow, lots of fantastic organisations provide transferable skills for young people, and I thank the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) for reminding me of the name Jason Shaves, who is an incredible champion for that kind of work. Does the Secretary of State agree that giving local areas such as Harlow the flexibility, power and funding to engage with young people in the way that best works for them will get them back into employment quicker?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we are going to give new powers, responsibilities and funding to local areas to deliver our youth guarantee. They know their communities best. They know the voluntary organisations, schools, training providers and businesses, and the mental health and other support that many young people need. In Harlow, I know that that approach will be key to giving young people the opportunities that my hon. Friend wants and that they deserve.
Catherine Atkinson
Mel was out of work and homeless, but YMCA Derbyshire saw only her potential, not her disadvantage. Now, she is at Toyota and on track for a leadership role. Its working assets programme has a 70% success rate in supporting homeless young people into employment. How will the youth guarantee help the Government join up with, enhance and champion local programmes like that?
Liz Kendall
That sounds like a fantastic programme by the YMCA in my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is precisely why we need to join up with what local colleges are doing, with the support provided by local councils and with supported employment programmes run by the NHS. If we join that up and base it on local needs, her young constituent and many others like her will get the chance they need and deserve to build a better life.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
We want to reform the system to do a much better job in helping people to enter and stay in work. We will publish a Green Paper next spring and we will be discussing our proposals with disabled people.
Jack Rankin
To protect those in need and to deliver for taxpayers, we need to take tough decisions. Reforming health and disability benefits will require Ministers to make difficult choices, but so far the plans rely on reducing NHS waiting lists, which the Office for Budget Responsibility has said will have hardly any effect on economic activity. Are Ministers willing to make unpopular decisions to solve this issue and, if so, when?
Sir Stephen Timms
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will make the right decisions, and they will be set out in our Green Paper in the spring. There is a need to reform the health and disability benefits system—there is no question about that—and we want to talk to disabled people themselves about the details, in order to make sure that we get it right.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
Disabled people and people with long-term health conditions deserve the same rights as everybody else, including the right to work. Many of the 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness say that they want to work, if they can get the right help and support. That is what our “Get Britain Working” plan will deliver.
Liam Conlon
A core objective of the “Get Britain Working” White Paper is to support disabled people into employment. As the Secretary of State knows, the blue badge scheme is an important provision in enabling people to get to work, but data released this month shows a sharp rise in blue badge theft, with badges being sold on by criminals for upwards of £500 to people who use them to avoid parking charges. Will the Minister back my campaign to tackle this injustice?
Liz Kendall
Yes, I think it is disgusting that some people think it is all right to steal the blue badges that so many disabled people rely on to work, but also to socialise and to see family and friends. I know that the Minister for Future of Roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who is responsible for this issue, is a strong supporter of the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon). I will contact her to stress my support and that of my entire Department.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The “Get Britain Working” White Paper rightly says that
“people deserve the opportunity to thrive and that sports, arts and culture are crucial to achieving this goal”,
especially for those with disabilities. The Sovereign centre in Eastbourne, where I learned to swim, provides vital sports and leisure opportunities that will help serve that aim. With the future of two of its pools being considered, does the Minister agree that to best honour the aims of the White Paper, Eastbourne borough council should engage with all interested providers who may be able to protect our fun and training pools at the centre before making any final decisions on the next steps?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not sure that was a relevant question, as well as the hon. Member shoehorned it in. Secretary of State, do you want to answer? It is up to you.
Liz Kendall
I believe that sport, as well as art and culture, can play a huge role in engaging and inspiring people, helping them on the pathway to skills, confidence and jobs. I want to see that provision enhanced in future, because we are determined to have that at the national partnership level, and it needs to happen locally, too, to get people working and earning again.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
Our plan to get Britain working is crucial to tackling low pay and increasing living standards in every corner of the country. When only one in six people ever fully escape low pay, the Labour party believes that is not good enough, so our new jobs and careers service, backed by £55 million of additional funding next year, will kick-start our reforms to help more people get work and get on in their work so that they boost their living standards, too.
Connor Naismith
Average wages in my constituency of Crewe and Nantwich—a place with a proud industrial heritage—lag behind the regional and national averages at just £686 a week before tax. Will the Secretary of State outline how the “Get Britain Working” White Paper will support growth as well as high-skilled, well-paid jobs in my constituency, not just the biggest cities?
Liz Kendall
The Government share my hon. Friend’s determination to boost the living standards of his constituents, so the “Get Britain Working” White Paper will ensure that every local area—including in his constituency—produces its own get Britain working plan. Alongside our industrial strategy, our plan to make work pay, the national wealth fund and Skills England, that will help people to get work and progress in their careers, with good opportunities for employment right across the country.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Emma Reynolds)
Under the last Conservative Government, an estimated 880,000 of the poorest pensioners eligible for pension credit were not claiming it. We have launched the biggest ever pension credit awareness campaign and written to 120,000 pensioners on housing benefit, urging them to apply. As a result, claims for pension credit have more than doubled, and those who receive pension credit will also receive winter fuel payments and other related benefits.
Mr Holden
Before the last general election, the Labour party suggested that removal of the winter fuel payment would mean an extra 4,000 pensioners a year dying, freezing in poverty. How many will die under the Government’s policy this year?
Emma Reynolds
The Government remain absolutely committed to supporting low-income pensioners. We are supporting them through the household support fund, which local authorities can use to help people on the lowest incomes with their bills. The Minister for Energy Consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), has also raised £500 million from energy suppliers to help those most vulnerable consumers in debt. We also have the warm home discount and the warm homes plan to help those on low incomes to heat their homes.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Under the Conservatives, billions in pension credit went unclaimed. The burden for driving up claims often lies in fantastic organisations such as Christians Against Poverty, the Falkirk and Clackmannanshire Carers Centre and Citizens Advice Falkirk and Denny, as well as the brilliant Falkirk council welfare benefits team in my constituency. What assurance can the Minister give me that beyond 21 December her Department will work tirelessly to prevent billions in benefits from being left unclaimed?
Emma Reynolds
Indeed, we have taken forward the biggest awareness campaign for claiming pension credit that has ever been seen. We are determined that those on the lowest incomes should claim pension credit and be awarded it, which will passport them to winter fuel payments and other related benefits.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Scottish Government are bringing back the winter fuel payment because we are aware what an awful disaster this has been for the Labour Government. People are terrified to switch on their heating. Will the Minister please explain to pensioners living in poverty circumstances but not eligible for pension credit what they should do this winter? Should they just wear an extra blanket?
Emma Reynolds
The Scottish Government have been given a record settlement in the recent Budget. As the hon. Member knows, winter fuel payments and other benefits are devolved to the Scottish Government.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the residents of York for donating to my thermals collection on Saturday, but I know that older people in the city of York will really struggle this winter. Will the Minister say how many people across the country have signed up to pension credit since July and what additional steps will be taken to ensure that those who miss the 21 December deadline will still be able to get support to keep warm this winter?
Emma Reynolds
Claims have more than doubled—they have increased by 145% since late July—and we are working at pace to process those claims. We have deployed an additional 500 staff to ensure that those on the lowest incomes get the pension credit that they need.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
As a lifelong champion of family carers, dealing with the problem of carer’s allowance overpayments is a priority for me and for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability. Last week we set out the next steps in our independent review led by Liz Sayce, the former chief executive of Disability Rights UK. It will report by the summer and will look at how and why overpayments were built up, the changes we can make for the future and how best to help those affected. Along with the biggest ever cash boost to the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance announced in the Budget, it shows our determination to give family carers the support they need and deserve.
Alison Griffiths
In Bognor Regis and Littlehampton more than 23,000 people have lost their winter fuel allowance—more than 90% of former claimants. Does the Secretary of State think that it is fair that someone who has paid tax all their working life will now be taxed on their state pension as well as losing their winter fuel allowance?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady talked about the winter fuel payment, but she failed to mention our determination to ensure that the 880,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit, but are eligible, claim it so that they can get their winter fuel payment. The £4.9 million allocated from the household support fund to West Sussex, which covers her constituency, can be used precisely for those pensioners just above the pension credit threshold who have worked hard all their lives but need extra support with the cost of heating.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Yes, I can confirm that. We place a very high value on the contribution of family carers. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Budget announcement on the carer’s allowance earning threshold will help avert inadvertent overpayments, and will make an additional 60,000 carers eligible for carer’s allowance. We are determined to do everything we can.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
How many people who should get the winter fuel payment will get it this winter?
Liz Kendall
We intend to ensure that everybody who is entitled to pension credit, and therefore the winter fuel payment, claims it and gets it. We have seen a 145% increase in claims—far more than was ever achieved under the last Government. If the hon. Lady was so concerned about that, perhaps she should have taken action during her party’s 14 years in government.
Helen Whately
Unfortunately, the right hon. Lady simply will not give a straight answer. She will not tell the House what she knows; she knew that the Government’s choices would push 100,000 pensioners into poverty and she did not tell the House that, either. Let us try this question instead. The Government’s own figures show that pensioners applying now will have to wait until the spring to find out whether they will get winter fuel money. What is her advice to a pensioner sitting in the cold and wondering if they can afford to turn on their heating this Christmas?
Liz Kendall
If the hon. Lady cared so much about pensioners in the cold, why did her Government leave 880,000 not claiming pension credit? Why did they first promise to bring together housing benefit and pension credit in 2011 and never deliver it? This Government are taking action—42,500 more people are receiving pension credit now than when she left government. We are determined to act; perhaps she should apologise for her failure.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Emma Reynolds)
I place on record my thanks to the 160 local authorities that have worked with the Department for Work and Pensions to raise awareness of applying for pension credit, and also to the various charities around the country that have worked with us. The number of people claiming pension credit has doubled—a record number—and we are processing those claims at pace.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
A report by the National Audit Office last week highlighted how cliff edges in the care allowance system have resulted in 136,000 people owing £250 million. In the light of that, will the Minister ensure that we stop this injustice and stop the demands until a fairer system is introduced?
Sir Stephen Timms
I welcome the NAO report, which I asked for last May, when I was Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. We are determined to address the problem of carer’s allowance overpayments. The cliff edge could be dealt with through the introduction of a taper instead of the current arrangements, as the Chancellor mentioned in her Budget speech in the autumn. If we do that, it will not happen quickly, because it will be quite a major project, but it is something that we are looking at closely.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for representing the concerns of his constituent. The Department is working closely with the Pensions Regulator. We are looking to gather information on the number of schemes that provide discretionary increases on pre-1997 benefits and those that do not. At the moment, the trustees of those schemes have discretion over the decision to index those benefits.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
We still have more than 800,000 vacancies in this economy, and businesses are crying out for staff. That is why, through our reform programme, we are determined that the DWP will serve business better. I look forward to working with Members across the House to make that happen.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Emma Reynolds
There are unfortunately many such cases in which people are preyed on by scammers. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the case further.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Alison McGovern
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the OBR report that says that overall, employment will go up.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
How does the Secretary of State envision the future of jobcentres in my constituency and across Scotland, and what role will technology play in that?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that any reform to our jobcentres must come with digital transformation. We are currently exploring schemes such as a “Jobcentre in your pocket” app, as well as looking for ways in which jobseekers can self-serve in terms of meeting the conditions of their conditionality regime.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Emma Reynolds
I was the first Minister for eight years to meet the WASPI campaigners to listen to their concerns. The ombudsman took six years to investigate six cases. We are working at pace on this issue. We hope to come to the House soon—if the hon. Gentleman will listen to my answer—to update him and the public on what we will do next.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Young people in supported housing, including in my constituency, effectively pay a marginal rate of tax of 55% on their universal credit when they start work, meaning that earnings of just £133 a week see their housing benefit tapered to nil. That means that work does not pay. Will the Minister look at the economic benefits of reducing that taper and increasing the applicable amount, ensuring that work does pay and improving housing security?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. There is a problem in the interaction between the universal credit taper rate and the housing benefit taper for people in supported and temporary accommodation. We are, at the moment, looking at options for how to tackle that quite serious work disincentive problem.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Alison McGovern
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the condition of children living in poverty in this country. That is why, as I mentioned earlier, the child poverty taskforce is doing extensive work on the issue.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
According to the 2022 Migration Observatory report, over 200,000 children are likely to be in families with no recourse to public funds. As the 2022 Work and Pensions Committee report highlighted, those families face particularly tough circumstances without access to benefits. Will the Minister confirm whether the child poverty taskforce is engaging directly with affected families to understand the challenges they face?
Alison McGovern
The child poverty taskforce is considering all children across the UK in all aspects of our child poverty strategy. We recognise the distinct challenges of poverty faced by children in particular groups, such as migrant children, disabled children and others. We are engaging directly with families affected by poverty. We recognise that the causes of child poverty are deep rooted and we will look at all levers to make change.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
In Epsom and Ewell, local charities such as the Sunnybank Trust are seeing a lack of employment opportunities for people with learning disabilities. In fact, only 6.9% of people with learning disabilities are currently in paid work. What measures is the DWP taking to support employers to help individuals with learning disabilities to get into work?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Member raises a very important point. She will probably be aware of the Buckland review, published before the election, which looks specifically at employment support for people with autism. The Minister for Employment and I met Sir Robert Buckland recently, and we are looking at how we can take forward the ideas he proposed in his report.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
A recently published freedom of information request indicates that AI tools used to detect DWP fraud are biased and disproportionately discriminate against people by age, disability, marital status and nationality. Obviously, that has caused considerable concern. What assurances can the Minister give that the procurement and use of such tools will be covered by strict governance standards, including tests for fairness?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend will know that we face a significant challenge, with fraud and error costing the Department almost £10 billion a year. It is right that we look to utilise all available tools to tackle it. However, I understand her concerns, although I would remind her that the final decision on whether someone receives a welfare payment is always made by a human. That is the most robust safeguard that we can have in place—although of course it sits alongside a broader suite.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
My inspirational constituent, Bells Lewers, has terminal bowel cancer. When she was first undergoing treatment, she was initially turned down for personal independence payment, despite the significant impact on her ability to work and carry out basic daily activities. Has the Minister considered incorporating clinical diagnosis alongside function in eligibility assessments, and will he meet Bells to discuss the assessment process?
Sir Stephen Timms
We do keep the asylum process under review, but I would be happy to look at the details of this particular case and perhaps meet the hon. Lady and her constituent, if that would be helpful.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
An astonishing £35 billion has been lost to benefit fraud and errors since the pandemic. Will the Minister outline the plans and the timeline for recouping that money?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the enormous cost to the Department—upwards of £35 billion—of fraud since the pandemic. She will be pleased to know that the fraud, error and debt Bill is due to come to the House early in the new year. This Government are serious about tackling fraud; it is just a shame that we inherited the mess we did.
United Front Work Department
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I call the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I will make a short statement.
The House of Commons respects the jurisdiction of the courts—for example, in our sub judice rule. The sub judice rule applies to all criminal cases, including cases involving espionage, which are currently before courts. It is important that nothing we say should prejudice a fair trial before a jury. The sub judice rule also applies to the majority of civil cases, but it does not apply when a ministerial decision is in question, such as the decision in this case by the Home Secretary to exclude the person known as H6 from the UK on the basis that his exclusion is conducive to the public good on grounds of national security.
I understand that this afternoon the administrative court decided to lift the anonymity order. The Government are responsible to this House, which holds Ministers accountable for what is done on their authority. Although it is important that Members should be able to question Ministers, I remind them of the rule set out in paragraphs 21.20 and 21.23 of “Erskine May” that it is only in order to criticise the conduct of a member of the royal family when debating a substantive motion drawn up in proper terms, which is not the case in this urgent question. I hope that the House now has a feel for the way in which we will debate this subject.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Government if they will make a statement on the extent of the operations of the United Front Work Department within the UK.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The first duty of any Government is national security, and we therefore welcome the court’s decision to uphold the Home Office’s position with regard to the exclusion of H6, who can now be named as Yang Tengbo. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission concluded that there was a “basis for the conclusion” that H6
“had been in a position to generate relationships with prominent UK figures which could be leveraged for political interference purposes by the CCP (including the UFWD) or the Chinese State.”
Where there are individuals who pose a threat to our national security, we are absolutely committed to using the full range of powers available to disrupt them. When we encounter foreign interference or espionage, whether it stems from the United Front Work Department or from any other state-linked actor, we will be swift in using all available tools, including prosecutions, exclusions, sanctions and diplomacy, to keep our country safe.
Given the potential for further litigation, it would be inappropriate for me to say any more, but it is important to recognise that this case does not exist in a vacuum. As the director general of MI5 made clear in October, we are in the most complex threat environment that he has ever seen. Alongside the threat from terrorism, we face ongoing efforts by a number of states, including China, Russia and Iran, to harm the UK’s security. Our response is among the most robust and sophisticated anywhere in the world.
The National Security Act 2023, which was supported by Members on both sides of the House and which strengthened our powers to protect the UK, is central to our protection against states that seek to conduct hostile acts. To date, six individuals have been charged under the new Act, and the Government have been working hard on the roll-out of a crucial part of it: the foreign influence registration scheme, or FIRS. We will say more about that soon, but we intend to lay regulations in the new year and commence the scheme in the summer.
The Government have also set out our approach to China, which will be consistent and strategic. We will challenge where we must in order to keep our country safe, compete where we need to, and co-operate where we can—for example, on matters such as climate change. That is acting in the national interest, as the Prime Minister reiterated earlier today. However, the threats we face from foreign states are pernicious and complex. The work of our intelligence agencies is unrivalled in mitigating them, and I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to them for the amazing work that they do to keep our country safe. Today, as ever, they will be pursuing those who wish to do us harm, including those from foreign states. We support our intelligence agencies in their efforts, and we always will—and they will know that at any point when the UK’s national security is at risk, we will not hesitate to use every tool at our disposal to keep our country safe.
Mr Speaker
I want to put two things on the record. First, it would have been easier for the Government to come to the House with a statement; obviously, there was more to say than we have allocated time for.
Secondly, I say to Sir Iain: please do not tell the media what you are going to do and how you are going to do it, and do not try to bounce the Chair into making a decision. If anybody else had put in for an urgent question, I would have given it to them—on the basis that I am not dancing to the tune of the media.
It would be helpful if the Government came forward with statements, rather than being dragged to the Dispatch Box. Hopefully, we can all learn from this, and here is a good example of how that will be done: I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Mr Speaker, I apologise if that was the case.
Yang Tengbo—H6—was, in fact, not a lone wolf. He was one of some 40,000 members of the United Front Work Department, which, as the Government know, the Intelligence and Security Committee report last year said had penetrated “every sector” of the UK economy, including by spying, stealing intellectual property, influencing, and shaping our institutions. Our agents say they are now frustrated by the lack of action, but they do not seem to have the tools they need to deal with the issue. One of those tools is staring us in the face. Will the Government commit to putting China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, and will they do it now? There is no need for delay.
The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, or IPAC, found that H6—Yang Tengbo—is already well known as a United Front member, and that he is known to others who are already deep in the political establishment. Parliamentarians are exposed to the United Front on a regular basis. Will the Minister remedy this today, and accept that China is our most prominent security threat and that all action must take priority?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who was the previous Security Minister, has said publicly that the Home Office was ready to name China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, which would have forced United Front members like H6 to register or face serious consequences. Given that doing so is an available option, why have we not done it yet? Is it true, as is being reported by papers, including The Times, that behind the scenes the Government are now under pressure from banks, the wider business community and Government Departments not to do it?
When it comes to a member of the royal family, I simply say this: how was it that somebody who was known to the security forces was allowed to get so close to a member of the royal family without proper scrutiny exposing them?
Finally, I note that the Prime Minister said today in response to the issue that we will “co-operate where we can”, particularly on environmental issues, and “challenge where we must”, particularly on human rights issues. If the Prime Minister means that, why are we still buying from China huge numbers of solar arrays that have demonstrably been made using slave labour? Surely his statement is clearly incorrect; far from challenging China on human rights, it now appears that we are turning a blind eye. Why is that?
Dan Jarvis
Let me first come to the point the right hon. Gentleman made about FIRS. Upon our arrival in government, we found that FIRS was not ready to be implemented, as has been claimed. Since coming into office, we have ensured that more people than ever are now working on FIRS implementation, and the case management team have been recruited and are now in place. As I said in my opening remarks, we plan to lay the regulations that underpin the scheme in the new year, ahead of the scheme going live in the summer. As we have previously committed, we will provide three months’ notice of the scheme’s go-live date to give all those who will be affected by it adequate time to prepare.
The scheme will be underpinned by an IT solution consisting of a registration platform, a case management system and an online public register. The IT programme developed under the previous Government was not ready for the scheme to go live, and plans were not sufficiently robust. This Government have progressed at pace with the work to ensure that we are in a position to launch FIRS, with the laying of the regulations in the new year with a view to the scheme going live in the summer. Work is also under way to identify which foreign powers will be placed on the enhanced tier. That will be based on robust security and intelligence analysis. The Home Secretary and I plan to begin setting out the Government’s approach for the use of the enhanced tier in due course.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The first duty of Government is national security, and the threat that the country faces is the most complex and evolving we have ever seen. Given the range of threats we face from hostile state actors, it is important that the Government take action to protect our critical national infrastructure from cyber-attacks and ransomware attacks. Can the Minister update us on the plans announced in the King’s Speech for a new Bill on cyber-resilience and other actions to improve protections in this area?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are working at pace with colleagues across Government, including in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, to progress these matters. There is a lot of work going on across Government to ensure that we are as resilient as we can possibly be to the threats we face from a range of actors. He can be assured, as can the House, that this Government will use all necessary measures to protect our security and ensure that our critical national infrastructure is as resilient as it possibly can be.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Can I start by thanking the Security Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for the security briefing they arranged earlier today for the shadow Foreign Secretary and myself? We are grateful for the assistance. Chinese infiltration of public organisations is of grave concern, but this is not just about public organisations such as the Government; businesses and universities are also being systemically infiltrated, and intellectual property theft is often at the heart of what the Chinese Government are trying to achieve. When I was Technology Minister, I saw this in areas such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing, and I would like to hear the Security Minister say more about intellectual property theft of cutting-edge technology in a moment.
Last year the head of MI5, Ken McCallum, said that Chinese activity seeking to infiltrate our institutions was taking place on an “epic scale”. Last year there were multiple attempts by Chinese companies to get hold of sensitive technology, and MI5 estimates that 20,000 individuals have been approached by Chinese agents who are trying to influence them, or forge contacts in some way. It is likely that at some point, either in the past or in the future, an attempt to contact every Member of this House will be made in one form or another.
The Opposition will fully support the Government in working to secure our nation’s safety, and I will ask the Minister one or two questions in that spirit. First, would he consider expediting the implementation of the foreign influence registration scheme that he referred to? I echo the suggestion from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) that China should be placed in the enhanced tier of that scheme.
Secondly, will the Security Minister review the wisdom of the Government’s approach to China? Given what we have learned and what we now know, the very close relations that the Prime Minister is apparently attempting, and the rather sycophantic tone he took with President Xi at the G20 a few weeks ago, may not be very wise.
Chinese infiltration and intellectual property theft are of very grave concern, and I would welcome some further comments from the Security Minister as to what he will do to combat them.
Dan Jarvis
First, we were pleased to offer that briefing because these are important matters that should not divide us. It will always be this Government’s approach that, where we can work co-operatively with all Members of this House on matters relating to national security, we will seek to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman made some important points about matters relating to business, higher education and universities. He is a former Technology Minister, so I know he speaks with authority and expertise on matters relating to intellectual property theft, and this is an important point for him to make. I share his concerns. It is completely unacceptable that any entity, whether they are a hostile state or otherwise, should seek to draw intellectual property out of our country, and this Government take the matter very seriously.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the comments of the director general of MI5, Ken McCallum, and I would say to him that the National Security and Investment Act 2021 provides a framework for this Government, as it did for the previous Government, when dealing with some of these matters.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about FIRS, and I hope I have been able to provide some reassurance on the Government’s intention to table the regulations as soon as practically possible in the new year, with a view to having the scheme up and running by the summer.
On the approach to China, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the Prime Minister’s recent meeting. I would just say very gently to him that at least the Prime Minister did not take President Xi to the pub for a pint.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Will the broader China audit include an assessment of the number of Chinese Communist party operatives working in the UK, including through bodies such as the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office? And will the Minister ensure that everyone targeted, whether they are Members of this place, members of the royal family or members of the public with British national overseas status who are originally from Hong Kong, has access to tailored security support?
Dan Jarvis
We are working with other Departments to carry out an audit of the UK’s relationship with China. This is being done to improve our ability to understand and respond to both the challenges and the opportunities that China poses. It is vital that we have a thorough understanding of the bilateral relationship with China, including where we need to challenge to protect the UK’s national security. The audit is ongoing, and its outcomes will guide a consistent and coherent approach to China.
British national overseas status is a matter that I know my hon. Friend has rightly pursued for a significant amount of time. This reflects the UK’s historical and moral commitment to those people of Hong Kong who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking up BNO status at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997. BNO status holders and their families are making significant contributions to our economy and local communities. From the route’s introduction on 31 January 2021 to the end of September 2024, more than 215,000 visas were granted.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this urgent question on a crucial issue for all of us in this place, because we are looking for robust action from this Government to keep our politics and democracy safe from the influence of foreign Governments.
We should not pretend for a moment that the case of H6 is in any way unique or unusual because, as we have heard, the director general of MI5, Ken McCallum, has warned that bodies like the UFWD are
“mounting patient, well-funded, deceptive campaigns to buy and exert influence.”
We see it in our business world, and we see it in our universities.
We have the Chinese consulate in my Edinburgh West constituency, and I have, on more than one occasion, been personally chastised by the consul for expressing my views about Uyghur Muslims or for speaking up for Hong Kong residents in this country, so it is a serious problem. In fact, I was once filmed by a mysterious drone while speaking at a Hong Kong protest. We need robust action to clamp down on things like the police stations that we have heard exist in this country. The Government say they are seeking closer relationships with China, so how can the Minister reassure us that they will not weaken their stance or robustness against Chinese influence in this country, or on human rights and democracy in Taiwan and Hong Kong? How will they protect us all from China’s insidious approach?
Dan Jarvis
I can assure the hon. Lady that this Government are, and will be, taking the robust action required to combat the nature of the threat that she rightly characterised. She is right to say that the particular circumstances of the case we are discussing today are not unique. The Government are working with the intelligence agencies and partners to combat a much wider threat On matters relating to China, she will understand that the Government have to weigh a number of considerations. While national security will always be our primary responsibility and the thing we take most seriously, there is, as there would have been for the previous Government, a requirement to look for areas where we can co-operate. In truth, we have to balance that relationship, but I can give her an assurance that we will take the robust action required, including through the defending democracy taskforce, which is a useful mechanism that we use across Government to look more closely at these matters.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Members from across the House are right to raise concerns about the security threats and attempts to undermine or infiltrate our institutions that we face from China. On behalf of all Members of the House, will the Minister pass on our thanks to all those who work in the security services for their vital work? Most of us will never know or see that work, but it is constantly protecting us from those threats.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. By necessity, the work that our intelligence services do is in the shadows, but since coming into this role a number of months ago, I have been extremely impressed by the professionalism and dedication of those men and women who work incredibly hard to keep our country safe. We all, across the House and the country, owe them a debt of gratitude, and I will ensure that is passed on.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
May I urge the Minister to introduce the FIRS scheme as soon as possible and commence it at the earliest possible opportunity? What steps has the Home Office taken to ensure the proposed new Chinese embassy, at the Royal Mint site, has proper oversight, so that we do not allow it to become a new base for spies?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee for her questions; I know the Home Secretary is looking forward to appearing in front of the Committee tomorrow.
On the embassy, as the right hon. Lady will know, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has called in the application, in line with current planning policy. The planning decision sits solely with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government—the Deputy Prime Minister. As the right hon. Lady will understand, I am unable to say anything more about that, but a final decision will be made in due course.
The right hon. Lady also asked about FIRS. I can give her an assurance that we are progressing it at pace, and it is the Government’s strong intention to introduce it as soon as practically possible. To that end, we intend to lay the regulations as soon as possible in the new year.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The shadow Home Secretary referred to “sycophancy” towards the Chinese, but I think that charge is better directed at Members of his own party. It is less than five years since Theresa May went to Beijing, where she was praised by the state media; I know that because I was on that trip, in a former career. She was praised for “sidestepping” human rights issues in the furtherance of the wider necessities of the trip. Does the Minister agree that that is not the right approach to the Chinese?
Dan Jarvis
I agree that is not the right approach; the current Government’s approach is the right one. I have laid out the strategic approach we intend to adopt with China. We have to be clear headed about the nature of the threat we face, but we also have to look for areas where we can co-operate as well.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
Last year, as Home Secretary, I made the decision to exclude Yang Tengbo from the UK because his presence posed a threat to our national security. That decision was based on the advice of MI5, and I am very pleased that the High Court has upheld that decision. I say gently to the Minister that it is regrettable that it has taken a high-profile case, public outcry and Opposition MPs dragging the Minister to the Chamber to finally get the Government to commit to implementing the foreign influence registration scheme—a scheme that we enacted and that was ready to go at the time of the general election. If the Government are really serious about tackling the unprecedented threat posed by China—malicious cyber-attacks, transnational repression, the Confucius institutes, Chinese police stations, and of course human rights abuses against the Uyghur Muslims—when will they list China on the enhanced tier?
Dan Jarvis
I was not going to make this point, but given the way in which the right hon. and learned Lady has made hers, I will gently point out that the previous Government had a significant period from the passing of the National—
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. and learned Lady shakes her head. It is a statement of fact that the previous Government had a significant amount of time—many months—from the passing of the National Security Act 2023, during which they could have chosen to implement FIRS. They did not implement FIRS. It now falls to this Government to do so, and that is precisely what we will do.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
It is disappointing that some Opposition Members are trying to turn what should be a moment of collective unity in the face of a shared security threat into a political row. Does the Security Minister agree that it is pretty incredible for the party whose Defence Secretary was sacked for leaking vital intelligence about the Huawei 5G contract now to pose as the protector of our national security?
Dan Jarvis
I agree. This Government’s approach will always be to work constructively across the House on matters relating to national security, but given the record of certain right hon. and hon. Opposition Members, I suggest that humility might be the order of the day for some of them.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I do not want to go over the readiness of FIRS again and again. I will leave it at this: I was assured by the same officials who sit in the Box advising the Minister that it would be ready to go by the end of the year. Clearly the advice has changed. Only one thing in the Department has changed, which is the party leading it, so I can only assume that there has been a change of intent, but I am delighted that it will be ready to go by the summer—better late than never. The real question, of course, is whether it will be worth having. The advice from MI5 was very clear: if China is not in the enhanced tier, it will not be worth having. Will China be in that tier?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I take these matters incredibly seriously. He and I have known each other for a very long time. I therefore know that he will take on trust my assertion to him and to the House that the scheme was not ready to go when we arrived in government in July this year. We are working at pace. I have today given the House a timeframe and said that we are looking very closely, working with colleagues across Government, at how we can best structure the scheme. We will make announcements in the normal way in due course.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
One weak point in protecting our parliamentary democracy from hostile state actors is money in politics. Does the Security Minister agree that this latest case shows that it is a priority to ensure that our electoral laws are robust enough that only funds that are clean and sourced entirely from within the UK fund our political parties, because there certainly seems to be some confusion among some of the parties in opposition?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and speaks with great authority on this matter. He will know that we have just appointed Baroness Hodge as the Government’s new anti-corruption champion. She will support the work that we do, looking very carefully at the impact of dirty money on politics. He is right that the Government will want to assure ourselves that the electoral laws that govern the conduct of elections are robust, and ensure that there are no opportunities for people from overseas to intervene in our political processes. That advice should be taken very seriously by all parties across the House.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
In my constituency there are many Hongkongers deeply concerned about surveillance from Chinese agents in this country. Can the Minister give my constituents any assurance that their legitimate fears are being addressed by the Government?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the plight of his constituents. Yes, I can give him those assurances. The Government take very seriously the kinds of interventions he refers to. Through the defending democracy taskforce, we are looking carefully at the issue of transnational repression, and we will have more to say about it in due course.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
Can I ask the Minister about the integrity of our democracy? In particular, what steps is he taking to ensure the integrity of the processes and institutions of our political process, especially but not only with regard to China?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I briefly mentioned earlier the importance that this Government attach to the defending democracy taskforce. We inherited that body from the previous Government. We are working at pace to ensure that it works across Government as effectively as possible. Fundamentally, it seeks to address the point he made about challenging those threats to the integrity of our democracy. This Government will ensure that no stone is left unturned in seeking to address the significant challenges that we all know we face.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Just a few days ago, the head of MI5 talked about having to make “uncomfortable choices” and paring back counter-terrorism operations in order to deal with the huge rise in state threats. If the Government mean what they say about security being the first priority of Government, will the Minister undertake to ensure that MI5 and the security services as a whole have the resources they need to tackle all the threats? By all means, blame the previous Government for the state we are in, but it will not get him far, because I need him to answer that question.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and a good challenge. I can assure him that the Home Secretary and I work incredibly closely with MI5 and colleagues across Government to ensure that they have the resources they need to do the difficult job they do. I mentioned the remarks that Ken McCallum made in his annual threat lecture back in October. The nature of the threat we face is more challenging and complex than at any point in our lifetimes. That does require resource and expertise. The Home Secretary, I as Security Minister and all the Government will work to ensure that our security services have the resources they need to do the job.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I am grateful for the urgent question and thank the Minister for what he has said, in particular about the defending democracy taskforce. Can he assure me not only that the Government will do all they can to secure our national security but, with respect to the activities of individuals with known links to the Chinese Government and who are considered to be a national security risk, that the fullest of investigations will be done to ensure the integrity of our national security?
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The United Front Work Department is said to have 40,000 members globally, and Mr Yang Tengbo is surely the tip of the iceberg in the UK. The department is tasked with cultivating relationships not only with high-level figures that extend an influence to British nationals, but with those in all walks of society. That means the public need to be much more aware of the risk to themselves. What is the Minister doing to assess the number of those members in our society, and what public awareness campaign will he make for my constituents in Dundee and constituents across these islands?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member makes an important point about public awareness, and I will take that away and give it further consideration. With regard to the remarks he made at the beginning, he has essentially underlined the importance of why we need the FIR scheme. As I have said a number of times before, the Government are committed to implementing the scheme. We are getting on and will implement it in the new year.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Notwithstanding the somewhat chiding tone of some of the comments from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, does the Security Minister agree with me that it is actually possible both to maintain a consistent and long-term relationship with China, as we must, and to take the robust measures that he has set out today to defend our national interests?
Dan Jarvis
I do agree. That is the challenge for any Government, regardless of their political stripe. Yes, of course national security is the priority and we must defend against the threats that we face, but we also have to co-operate economically. The Government will seek to balance those two responsibilities.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Security Minister mentioned the breadth of the national security threat against the United Kingdom. He mentioned Russia, China and Iran, but, unless I missed it, he did not mention North Korea. Will he comment on that? Following on from the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) asked about resources, is the Minister confident that the UK intelligence community, across agencies, has sufficient resources to manage the increased threat that he has recognised today?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman speaks with experience and authority on these matters, and he is right to mention North Korea. On his point about resources, I am not remotely complacent about that at all. Mindful of the nature of the threat that we face, the Home Secretary and I will work with our colleagues across Government to ensure that our security services have the resources they need. We have exceptional people stepping forward to serve, and it is the responsibility of Government, regardless of political colour, to ensure that they have the resources and technology they need not just to keep pace with the threat, but to retain a competitive advantage. We will ensure that they have the resources to do that.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Yang Tengbo is the alleged Chinese spy who has been stalking the corridors of power in our country, rubbing shoulders with royalty, Prime Ministers and business leaders, yet his name was withheld from the great British public. Does the Minister agree that his name was withheld only to avoid embarrassment for previous Prime Ministers and for business leaders, and that that was not in the best interests of the British public?
Dan Jarvis
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I named H6. His initial anonymity was a result of a court order; it was not a UK Government decision.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
The west certainly learned a lesson about energy supplies and where they come from when Russia invaded. To build on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, I want to press the Minister on solar and renewables. The Government have an agenda to push this country quickly towards renewable energy, yet China manufactures and processes a lot of the materials that we need for it. Before we accelerate towards that goal, will the Minister undertake an assessment of the risk to our energy supply? That is a crucial piece of our national security.
Dan Jarvis
I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reasonable and constructive points, which we will consider further. He will acknowledge that the Government must make difficult judgments about those matters, but I assure him that we will look at them with a clear-headed view of what is in our national interest, and in the end national security will always prevail.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that it is not just the big schemes that need consideration, but the small ones too? Elite capture can happen at higher education and infrastructure level. Peking University HSBC business school in Oxford wants to expand. The local planning authority narrowly passed the proposal. I asked the previous Government to call it in, but just last week this Government approved the scheme. That is a mistake. The economic benefit will go primarily to the Chinese Communist party. Will the Minister’s Department ask the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to look again at the scheme? What resilience is he offering local planning authorities on such matters?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady is right. It is not just about the bigger schemes; the smaller ones are important as well. I think what she refers to was essentially a planning matter, but I will look at it further. On matters relating to higher education, we work closely with colleagues in the Department for Education, and mechanisms are in place across Government so that when concerns are expressed, we will follow them up.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I acknowledge the transformation in the security threat that this country faces, and I urge the Government to move forward as quickly as they can with the implementation of FIRS. However, I draw the Minister’s attention to the website of the US Department of the Treasury, which today gave a read-out on the seventh meeting of the financial working group between the US and the People’s Republic of China, and set out a memorandum of understanding arising from the group’s discussions in Nanjing. The Minister should do everything he can to ensure that we have a sophisticated relationship with China. As uncomfortable as that may be, in order to preserve global and financial stability, we need to maintain our relationship.
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very sensible point, as always. I have not yet looked at the US Treasury Department’s website, but I give him an undertaking that I will look at it and report back later today. He is right about the sophisticated relationship, as he describes it. As he knows government well, I can tell him that we take these matters incredibly seriously, and that the National Security Council provides the forum for decision making on these issues across Government. A lot of work, effort and political leadership goes into ensuring that that is an appropriate forum for making decisions collectively, across Government. Some of those decisions are not easy—some are more challenging —but we will always seek to do what is in the best interests of our country.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Government recently put on hold the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, passed last year. Does he feel that that has helped or hindered the work of United Front in our universities, particularly our elite institutions?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which I am very happy to discuss with him offline. I will look carefully at the suggestion he has made; I know that it is being considered by colleagues across Government, but let me take it away and I will come back to him.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
China is clearly trying to infiltrate all areas of UK society. Will the Minister outline the meetings that he is having with the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that the UK strengthens its foreign direct investment screening and cyber-defences, and focuses in particular on increased data transparency requirements, in order to become more economically resilient?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member makes an important point. I can assure him that we are working collaboratively across Government, not only with colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade but with those in the Cabinet Office. He has mentioned cyber, which we take incredibly seriously. I was recently at the National Cyber Security Centre, which is doing extraordinary work with partners across Government. We are co-operating closely with other Government Departments, including the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, on looking at what more we can do to combat that threat.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Can the Minister assure the House that Chinese investments in the UK are properly scrutinised, particularly those that may be used to acquire leverage over UK policy?
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The urgent question asked about the extent of the United Front Works Department’s operations in the United Kingdom. What is the Minister’s assessment of that department’s work with, or within, the devolved Administrations?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member makes an important point. On the nature of the threat, I refer him to the annual threat lecture given by the director general of MI5 back in October. We work incredibly closely with all the devolved Administrations, and I hope at some point to visit the hon. Member’s part of the world.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. He will be aware that I have spoken on numerous occasions about the feelings of my constituents who are British passport holders of Chinese origin, and their impressions of the threats from the Chinese Communist party. Other hon. Members have also spoken on the subject. What the Minister has said is not surprising, but it remains concerning. Does he agree that inaction is not an option, and how can he give Chinese nationals who are British citizens assurance about their safety and security? I have had to make reports to the Police Service of Northern Ireland because I was concerned for these people’s safety while they live their life in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman has been consistent in raising this matter. Let me give him an absolute assurance that foreign intervention, wherever it comes from, is completely unacceptable, and this Government will use all tools at our disposal to combat it. We use the mechanism of the Defending Democracy Taskforce, and there is a lot of work looking at the issue of transnational repression. I can assure him that we take these matters very seriously, but if he has specific concerns that he wants to raise with me, I am always happy to discuss them with him.
English Devolution
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the publication of the Government’s English devolution White Paper.
This Government were elected on the promise of change, and we are determined to transform our economy and our country through a decade of reform and national renewal that reverses the chaos and decline that we inherited. We will rebuild Britain from the ground up, so that it works for working people, through a mission-led plan for change that unlocks growth and raises living standards in every region. We will deliver new homes, jobs and opportunities for all by matching investment with reform to improve local services, and to maximise the impact of every penny we spend.
The British people deserve an economy that works for the whole country, and to have control over the things that matter to them. That is why we are moving power out of Westminster and putting it back into the hands of those who know their area best. The White Paper that we have published today sets out the means through which we want to achieve that, backed up by our landmark English devolution Bill, which will finally redress the imbalance of power between this place and communities up and down the country.
This change cannot be delivered soon enough, because for all the promises of levelling up, after 14 years, our nations remain economically divided, with living standards in many parts of the country stagnating. We have an economy that hoards potential and a politics that hoards power. As a former councillor and council leader, I have seen the immediate and tangible difference that local leadership can make. However, I also recognise the frustration that local leaders face in delivering the change that their areas need. In fact, it mirrors the frustration that local people feel when they cannot effect change in their neighbourhood or on their high street. That hits at the heart of what it means to live a decent life. Pride of place and security are rights too often denied in the places that need them the most. This Government are determined to end the top-down approach to decision making in this country, and to replace it with a principle of partnership.
The last Labour Government began the process of change by creating the London Mayor, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I saw the transformational impact of empowered local leadership in Greater Manchester when in 2014, a decade ago, I was one of the local council leaders who worked in co-operation to agree the first English devolution agreement outside London—an agreement that created the combined authority, which has delivered genuine change under the leadership of an elected Mayor, working hand in glove with local leaders.
Crucially, none of the now 12-strong mayors would claim that they act alone. Whether they are attracting investment in clean carbon and renewable energy, growing digital and creative industries, bringing buses back under public control, or tackling violence against women and girls, all would point to solid local partnerships and the importance of local government in delivering change, but the truth in England is that the process of devolution remains unfinished. Today, we are introducing to the House the measures to finally get the job done.
At its core, this White Paper sets out how the Government will strengthen and widen the mayoral model of devolution across England, shifting power, decision making and money away from Westminster in a completely new way of governing and driving growth. We are empowering more Mayors by introducing integrated funding settlements, and by giving them a statutory role in the rail network, and greater control over strategic planning, housing funding and skills training, so that they can deliver change that local people can see and benefit from. Ultimately, our goal is mayoral devolution that means that powers can be used to shape local labour markets, integrated transport systems, clusters of businesses, and housing development. That is the sort of strategic decision-making that is not possible over a smaller geographic area. By creating strategic authorities—a new tier of local government—we will give our cities and regions a bigger voice in getting the resources and support that they need.
The Government will shortly set out their devolution priority programme for areas that stand ready to progress devolution on an accelerated timescale, and a plan for inaugural mayoral elections to take place in May 2026. Each of those areas will have an elected mayor sitting on the Council of the Nations and Regions. We will work with those areas that are already in discussions with the Government to confirm their position. To those areas that are ready to move at pace, we say: come forward now. Be part of this movement. Be part of this moment.
We understand that devolution is a journey, and that some areas will need time to decide what course to follow. We want to walk alongside all areas—areas defined locally, not from those at the centre with a map—as they take the first step to realising the potential of devolution, for instance through a foundation agreement to unlock new powers. Our ambition is clear; we will legislate for a new power of ministerial directive that allows the Government to create strategic authorities where absolutely necessary, if local agreement has not been possible, to achieve full coverage of devolution across England. We will deliver a new constitutional settlement for England that makes devolution the default setting, with an ambitious devolution framework secured in law, guaranteeing powers for each level of devolution. All that will be underpinned by improvements to accountability, including an outcomes framework for integrated settlements, so that the system remains fit for purpose as we devolve more powers and funding.
None of this reform can be achieved without strong local government. Councils are the bedrock of our state. They are critical to driving growth and delivering local public services that people can rely on, but they have been neglected for too long. That is why we are establishing a proper partnership with local leaders through multi-year funding settlements, and moving away from farcical bidding wars for limited ring-fenced funding pots. We will give councils the respect and powers that they deserve and need to deliver the missions and the plan for change, so that change is keenly felt in every community. We said that we would reset the relationship between central and local government, and we meant it. We will give councils the certainty and stability that they need to plan ahead and prioritise their budgets, and to tackle local issues through public sector reform and prevention, rather than through more expensive crisis management, for which taxpayers are paying more and more, often for worsening outcomes. We have to tackle that head-on.
It is important that councils be the right size and shape to serve the people they represent, with simpler structures that people can better understand. Through our bold programme of unitarisation, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget, we will ensure that local government reorganisation and devolution can be delivered in tandem as soon as possible. We look forward to areas coming forward with their own proposals. This statement gives the clear direction that local governments have been asked for, and my door is always open for discussions with colleagues about how that will look and feel in their area. Although I recognise that this will be a challenging process for some, for many there is growing agreement that the time has come for change.
I am under no illusion about the scale of the task that we face in delivering more power into the hands of local leaders, but we are committed to resetting the relationship with local and regional government, and to working with local leaders to deliver the change that the country voted for; that is what the electorate will judge this Government on. Placed alongside the work that we are progressing on fixing the broken audit system, rebuilding the standards regime, and bringing forward plans for community power, this plan shows that the Government are determined to get our house in order and ensure a top-to-bottom redistribution of power in England, as we reset our economy, restore local government, and rebuild our country from the ground up, so that it works, finally, for working people. That is what it means to take back control, and that is what we will deliver. I commend this statement to the House.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
According to the Ipsos MORI veracity index, 41% of our constituents trust local councillors, with just 19% having the same expectation of Government Ministers. That is a reflection of the value we place on local leaders who know and understand our communities. Those local leaders will be getting a clear message from this White Paper: this Government feel that the men from Whitehall know best what their place needs. This is not bottom-up local leadership, but top-down templates for local government. This is not the chance to flourish as a place and a community with a unique identity and history, but an expectation of being subsumed into an anonymous structure that knows and cares little for local areas, focusing instead on Whitehall targets. Through the back door, by stripping local politicians of a say over important planning decisions and by imposing financial assumptions that further constrain local decision making, our local democracy is undermined.
Instead of genuine devolution, this White Paper sets out a reductive approach. It is a mishmash of new tiers and new taxes, taking decision making further away from residents. If the experience in London is anything to go by, it will cost them a fortune at the same time. More concerning still, the approach fails the key test of starting with a clear understanding of what we require our local councils to do. More than 800 services are delivered by each council on average, ranging from education to public health, environmental standards, children and vulnerable adult safeguarding, early years, libraries and museums, not to mention councils’ key regulatory functions, such as trading standards, housing enforcement and acting as the billing authority for billions in taxes. It is hard to see how demanding that all those local officers simultaneously reapply for their own jobs will help them to focus on the needs of their communities, not to mention cope with the huge additional responsibilities heading their way via legislation such as the Renters’ Rights Bill.
The approach also does not build on the successes we already see. It is common for councils to share services and staff to reduce the cost to taxpayers. Breckland and South Holland have shared a chief executive for many years. Trading standards has been a shared service across London for a long time. Those measures, driven by local leadership, are what deliver genuine savings and service improvements.
Let us look at some of the most serious concerns that the Opposition have arising from the proposals, above and beyond the years of disruption to council services and rising taxes. When Labour councils are telling the Government that they are already failing on their housing targets and that their plans are undeliverable, why would the Government be focusing on removing elected councillors’ say on planning, rather than focusing on building the more than 1 million units that already have planning permission? Why elect mayors to a timetable that is not in any way clear?
At a time when our constituents are labouring under a rising tax burden, the Government set out the chilling prospect of mayoral levies. Those are charged at nil rates by Conservative mayors such as Ben Houchen and Andy Street, but now top £471 per band D household in London under Mayor Khan. The black hole in local government finances just got bigger.
Imposing mayoral control over grant funding for housing and regeneration, detaching it from the host communities, and moving those decisions to a remote mayoral tier further undermine the concept of local consent for development. Perhaps most worrying for local council tax payers are the plans around Great British Energy local power plans, with the potential for even more local authorities to be taken to the edge of bankruptcy, as local energy companies have already done in Nottingham and Bristol.
In conclusion, this announcement could have been so much more. It could have been a chance to rethink from scratch the duties, responsibilities and funding of local government, and to ensure that its form follows its function. Our local leaders, many from my own party, will do their best with what is available, and we will have their backs as they do what they can for the interests of the people they serve, but make no mistake: this is a massive missed opportunity.
The White Paper shows that rewiring our state, rethinking our approach to local government and fulfilling the aspirations of local leaders and communities are being put aside in favour of bureaucratic and structural tinkering. The Minister once stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box and called for genuine fiscal devolution of powers across things such as education and demanded more say for local people to hold decision makers to account. Whatever happened to that local champion?
Jim McMahon
I will come to some of the questions raised, but let nobody in the Chamber take lessons and lectures from the Conservatives when it comes to the perilous state that local government has been left in. Let us talk about the councils that were going bust left, right and centre on their watch. Let us talk about the fiscal discipline on 1,000-audit backlogs. What does that mean? It means £100 billion of public money that they could not account for, which held up the signing off of the national accounts. That was their legacy, and they talk about being custodians of public money—they did not even know where the money was.
What about the crisis that was building up in adult and children’s social care and in homelessness? At a time when we should have been thinking about prevention and reform and getting ahead of the problem, essentially the previous Government were making matters worse, not better. When Conservative Members talk about their legacy and being on the side of councillors, we should ask which Government it was that eroded the standards regime—its teeth were put completely to one side—leaving councillors open to abuse and intimidation and turning council chambers into hostile, toxic environments. Which Government was it that made councillors publish their home addresses when they were facing death threats?
We are doing the work now to repair the foundations of local government, giving it the funding that is needed. After a decade of year-by-year funding, we have given local government a multi-year financial settlement so that it can get its house in order as part of the rebuilding work. That is what is needed now: grown-up politics, a plan to fix the country and a plan to put local government back on its feet. But just doing that is not enough; we have to break the centralising system.
If a local authority wanted £1 million for a local project, the previous Government made them compete with their neighbouring council for a limited supply of money. The bidding wars that took place wasted millions of pounds of public money, and in the end they did not deliver on their core promise of levelling up. That was the agenda, and it has got to change. We have to change that cap-in-hand, parent-child relationship where power is hoarded at the centre.
The people queuing up to have conversations about reforming public services and devolving powers to mayoral combined authorities may not be Conservative Front Benchers, but they are Conservative council leaders who recognise that they finally have a Government on their side, willing to work in partnership to make the changes where the previous Government failed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for the statement. It is about how we bring local leaders back to the agenda and back to the central aims that they have been complaining about over the last 14 years. It is important that any devolution reforms build trust among local people, who rely on vital services from housing and planning to social care; the Minister must keep that in mind as he is going through the reforms.
Ultimately, some councils may fear that residents’ voices in smaller district areas will be lost if they are absorbed into larger unitary authorities. Will the Minister outline how he will ensure that residents do not feel disenfranchised by losing representation in their community? Will he assure the House that, should residents choose not to adopt a mayoral model, they will not be disadvantaged?
We know that our frontline services are at breaking point, as the Minister outlined, and many will welcome the multi-year settlement, but we do not want to see adult social care and temporary accommodation—all those areas—becoming stuck between a disbanding district authority and a nebulous unitary authority. Will the Minister assure the House that there will be proper accountability during the reorganisation and that we will not see local residents and councillors left in limbo?
Jim McMahon
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that very important point about how we maintain public trust and confidence in a period of change. First, local government representations to Government will be self-organised within counties, and we will receive the recommendations and requests that come forward. We will write to all 21 areas in scope to invite them to make representations to be part of the first wave priority programme. From the conversations that we have had, we expect a significant number of local authorities to want to be part of that reorganisation. But to be clear, that is not something that we are imposing. We are writing out and local areas are self-organising, because they understand that reform and modernisation are central.
When it comes to not losing a local voice, the White Paper makes it very clear that the devolution offer is not just about creating new structures, and it is certainly not about creating new politicians. This has to be a genuine shift of power. There is a big section on community power, because a lot of people—and this may even transcend the previous Government—do not feel power in the places where they live. Quite often they feel that things are done to them and, when they see the decline of high streets and town centres, they feel that the change is going one way, and it is not good. The paper is about rebuilding local community power. Our expectation in the White Paper is clear that, regardless of the size of local authority, every council—including existing unitaries—will work out a way of getting to those local communities at neighbourhood level, and reflect in a democratic way and a public service way how best to give local people a voice.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Local councils are the backbone of our communities, delivering services to every home and business. Under the last Conservative Government their funding was slashed while their responsibilities were broadened, which means that many now face a financial precipice not of their making. As they are alongside residents, they are usually the ones in the firing line when people and businesses are distressed.
I have faced local government reorganisation before, as leader of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council. Five years on in Dorset, the public are not convinced that large unitaries work for them. They do not see services improve; they just see a more remote council that has to cover a much bigger area, moving money from where it was raised to be spent elsewhere, and through an organisation that cannot understand the differing needs. Scale that up even further, and I fear that more issues and individual community needs will slip through the net.
The paper talks of mutual respect and collective purpose, but after giving mayors such extended powers and the ability to levy a mayoral tax, I wonder if the Minister can confirm what specifically will be left for council leaders. For my area of Wessex, which is Thomas Hardy country, rather than being well-known local leaders, the creation of a mega mayor is more likely to be a case of “Jude the Obscure”.
I am deeply concerned about the impact on local authority staff both now and in the future, including on their ability to move between councils to develop their skills. Councils have already rationalised staffing to make ends meet and have shared services, as was said by the shadow Minister, and they will struggle to reinvent again. What plans do the Government have to ensure that local authorities will be sufficiently funded to implement such changes, and to limit the outflow of millions of pounds to consultants to make this happen?
Turning to the role of elected members, the lived experience of these community leaders is so worth while. I am deeply concerned about the loss of districts and district councillors and the move to strategically elected members. Those people are likely to be required to travel much further and give much more of their time, making it harder for people with caring responsibilities or full-time careers to serve. The paper brings forward potential sanctions for breaches of standards, which is very welcome, but it says little about how we reset the relationship with those counsellors to make sure that the time and effort they put in is properly reflected.
The White Paper fails to say anything meaningful about the ticking time bomb of social care, and its reference to the financial crisis being faced up and down the country hints at further devolution. [Interruption.] My question is, what can the Minister do to ensure that local communities do not feel like this is a top-down diktat and can make their own decisions about the future?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that time is at a premium, and I want to be able to get everybody in.
Jim McMahon
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her question, and for her service as an elected council member for a period. I understand that there will be concerns about the move to larger unitaries, but the fact is that there is a two-tier premium that the taxpayer is paying. At a time when resources are limited, we have a responsibility to take money from councils’ overhead costs in the back office and bring them to the frontline to give people good neighbourhood services. I suspect that if people were asked, “Would you prefer the existing two-tier system or more money being directed at local public services?”, most would want the money to go into local public services. However, there is a balance here, and it is for local areas to find it.
We are very clear in the White Paper that we want to move away from councillors being perceived as back-bench. We want to reform them, essentially, as frontline councillors —as the conveners of a community, with greater power and influence and the ability to get things done.
On social care, an additional £4 billion was provided in the Budget, with the provisional settlement to be announced this week. Of that amount, £600 million is for a recovery grant to go to areas with high deprivation but low tax bases, to ensure that we rebalance fairness in the system.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
Although the Minister said in his statement that the proposal was the end of a top-down approach from central Government, to many of my constituents it looks like a one-size-fits-all model that works for Greater Manchester, which he represents quite ably, but does not necessarily work for the rural English counties. What assurances can the Minister give my constituents—and me, frankly—that this approach will not be imposed on local areas against their will? How will he measure consent from a local area that this is the approach they want?
Jim McMahon
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for securing a Westminster Hall debate on this very issue. The Government do not accept the one-size-fits-all argument any more than an argument that councillors work in some areas but not others, and that Members of Parliament work in some areas but not others. In the end, when given the powers and resources, mayors can achieve change in partnership with local leaders.
We are not creating super-councils. We are creating a strategic authority that will give power from this place downwards, giving councillors far more power. On how we will do it, I can say that in Lancashire, in our drive to widen devolution across the country, the principle is for foundation authorities; of course, Lancashire has already agreed to a level 2, which, in the White Paper, would be the equivalent of a foundation authority. In that sense, it already has devolution in place.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Government say that they want to end the top-down approach. How does that square with a district council such as West Lindsey in Lincolnshire being denied any say in massive solar farms or wind turbines? Will the Minister do me a favour and confirm that his aim is to pass more power back to district councils? Indeed, will he promise that he will not unilaterally abolish them just because we have a new mayor for Lincolnshire?
Jim McMahon
It would be a bit rude to diminish the powers of the Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire before they are in place, especially as I will move the order enabling the election to happen, and we want them to be a success. We could have taken a different view—it was a legacy agreement that was carried over from the general election—but I recognise genuinely that the leaders there, who are leaders of different parties from my own, worked in good faith to reach an agreement with the previous Government that we felt needed to be honoured. That needs to be the tone of all such conversations. We need to take party politics out of the conversation, which can be difficult to do in this place. Those are not the conversations that I have with council leaders and councillors across the country, who genuinely want to put party politics to one side and to work in the interests of their local community. On the question of power over local planning decisions, if local councils want power, they must have a plan.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Decisions taken in this place are subject to rigorous scrutiny and accountability, but recent history in several areas shows that that is not always the case with local decision making—not all councillors and mayors are paragons of virtue. As we dissolve more powers, can my hon. Friend explain what levels of scrutiny and accountability will be built into his plans?
Jim McMahon
It is a very important point, and we were mindful of that concern because devolution in England has been developed by deal, rather than with a clear framework from the outset, so there are natural gaps. I do not decry, by the way, the progress made previously in filling in the map of the midlands and the north of England, but we need to reconcile that now.
If we give more powers and resources downwards, we need to ensure that the checks and balances are robust. There is a lot that we need to do. There are recommendations in the White Paper on the principles of a local public accounts committee, for example, so that public spending can be brought into scope. We are also looking at oversight for the bodies that strategic authorities establish, such as trading companies or joint ventures, to see whether they should be in scope of best value. We are also looking at checks and balances for the officer structure and whether to bring in an accountable officer structure, as in a local authority, to ensure a clear difference between the political and operational leaderships and the powers that each has.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to his place; this is the first opportunity I have had to do so. As the Department will be aware, both Dacorum borough council and Three Rivers district council in my constituency do not have a local plan in place. They are both controlled by the Liberal Democrats. Will the Minister confirm what would happen in the case of his proposed plans? Separate to that, we have local county elections next May. What are his intentions for them? Do they still go ahead? There is a lot of uncertainty. In 2026, how many mayoral elections does he anticipate?
Jim McMahon
On local plans, if any areas at this point have failed to get a local plan in place, they are leaving the door open for development to take place without any checks and balances, and in a way that really does take away local power. We are trying to reconcile that and get a balance. I hear quite often about the housing targets that have been set—the 1.5 million new homes. I should say, by the way, that there are a lot of good skilled working-class jobs that go with that 1.5 million new homes. There are 150,000 kids in temporary accommodation who need a home. There are 500 kids in hotels in my constituency who deserve a secure, affordable place to live. There is a bigger crisis here, which is why local plans are so important. Where they are not in place, we will have to look at strategic plans in those areas. We are out to consultation on a number of those points.
On county elections, the letter will go out today to county councils inviting them to make a submission in January. Subject to that submission being robust, it can be part of a priority programme. We will do what the previous Government did and accept the view that if a local authority will not exist in the near future, it makes no sense to have an election to it. However, we will very soon after want to have an election for the shadow authority that will follow, so further detail will follow on that.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his White Paper. At the back of it, there are five pages of powers that are not currently enjoyed by Lancashire, as a foundation authority. Will he agree to work with partners in Lancashire to ensure that we can get a deal done and over the line for a mayoral and a reorganisation package? Lancashire’s time is now and, in his words, can we grasp this moment and this movement?
Jim McMahon
Well, I am glad somebody was listening! There are huge opportunities in Lancashire. If we think about the work that has been done to secure a mayoral combined authority in Hull and East Yorkshire, and if we think about the opportunities in Cumbria, Cheshire and Lancashire, that completes the map of the north. Our leaders there are already self-organising through the Great North project, chaired by Mayor Kim McGuinness, to lead from the front on inward investment. It would be a shame, given Lancashire’s economic success, particularly on energy and other issues, if it is not part of that agenda. On the organisation, I think most people in Lancashire accept that, after 20 years or more of talking about it, the time had probably come. But it is for local areas to come together and have a plan that is right for their place, and to make a submission to the Government. It is not for the Government to redraw the map of England and impose it on every community. But our ambition is clear and the direction is clear: we absolutely welcome areas making that submission and we want to work towards more mayoral combined authorities.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I place on record my thanks to my two district councils, which I wholeheartedly support: Broxbourne and East Herts. Page 17 of the White Paper states that the Government want to create unitary councils of “500,000 or more”. What does “or more” mean? Does that mean I could end up with a “super council” for Hertfordshire covering 1.2 million people, which is not a proposal that I would support?
Jim McMahon
In some ways we have to give direction. What we heard during the consultation stage with local government—that includes, by the way, the County Councils Network and the District Councils’ Network—is that the more clarity on a framework that can be provided by central Government upfront, the better for local government to be able to organise. We are very clear that on an efficiency level—if the drive is for efficiency—the 500,000 is roughly the population needed to draw out those efficiencies. In the example that the hon. Gentleman gave, it would not be 1.2 million. It might be two or even three councils, because in areas in discussions about a mayoral combined authority, we have accepted—it is outlined in the White Paper—that there will need to be some flexibility in terms of scale and size of the local authorities that sit under it.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Derbyshire already has a mayor, but we have a two-tier authority. If we cannot get agreement on the size of the unitary authority, will Derbyshire and similar authorities still hold elections next May, and how will my hon. Friend break the impasse if those at county level want one Derbyshire and those in the districts want two or three?
Jim McMahon
The assumption is that elections in counties will take place as planned, unless authorities actively approach us to say that they want reorganisation discussions and have proposals that they can work up. In those circumstances, we will take the view that elections to an authority that will not exist should be postponed so that an election for a shadow authority can follow. On Derbyshire, we need to be careful: the Government’s role is to invite and to receive, not to draw the maps, which is for local authorities to do. As my role is quasi-judicial and I will need to take a view on potentially competing proposals, I cannot comment on what individual counties may or may not look like.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
Councils are clearly on their knees, and I welcome multi-year funding settlements and changes in the grant programme, but will the Minister confirm that the Government will support devolution so that not a penny of councils’ budgets is spent on it and they can focus on frontline services? In his statement, the Minister said that councils could
“take their time to decide on the course they wish to follow”,
but went on to say that the Government would
“legislate…to create strategic authorities”
where they felt that was necessary. How does the Minister square those two sentences?
Jim McMahon
This is about partnership, about tone and about how we can work together. Because there has been a fair amount of talk in the sector about reorganisation and devolution, even before the White Paper a number of authorities had approached the Government saying that they wanted to have a conversation about local government reorganisation and/or devolution. We have had to respond that we cannot have a hundred hares running all over the place without a transparent plan and timescale that can be understood so that people can make a judgment about whether this option is right for their area or not. What we will have is a proposal to double-run a devolution priority programme alongside a local government reorganisation, with a key point where those two pieces of work must come together for joint decision making. That will at least mean that every authority knows what stage it has reached, and can make a choice: is it at the right point in the process to opt in, or will it need more time?
The point about the backstop is very important. As I have said, there is no map that we are intending to impose anywhere. Let us suppose that within a region we have an agreement to compile every county bar one, and we reach the end of the current Parliament. In that event, I think it legitimate to say, “Well, there is nowhere else to go.” It is fairly self-explanatory that there will be a fundamental strategic authority in that area, and that is the type of process that we are considering. We are not considering redrawing the map of England and imposing this in one fell swoop. It is about partnership and working with local areas, and so far those conversations have been very fruitful.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
I hugely welcome the White Paper. For us who are in the frontline trying to deliver services to our residents under the dysfunctional two-tier system that exists in Lancashire, this is a breath of fresh air. It is exactly what we have been requesting for years. Does the Minister agree that now is the time for Lancashire leaders to put aside short-term personal and political considerations, not to wait for the Bill to be published, and to work with urgency in drawing up proposals for new local government structures that are focused on the needs of residents and, ultimately, bring the highest level of devolution to Lancashire?
Jim McMahon
I entirely understand that there are local tensions in Lancashire, to put it mildly, but my experience of council leaders in all parties and at county, district and unitary level has been positive. Even when there are differences, they are shared in a respectful way. I would not underestimate the progress of the level 2 agreement that we have in Lancashire, which will see a devolution of powers relating to, for instance, skills and compulsory purchase orders as a first step towards overall devolution. The agreement contains a commitment that by autumn next year a proposal for a mayoral combined authority will be submitted to the Government, with or without local government reorganisation. We have been very clear about our direction on local government reorganisation, and our expectation is that those in Lancashire and other places have heard about that direction and will act accordingly. In the end, times change. My son’s primary school in Oldham had the Lancashire education committee plaque on it; in Lancashire county hall, there is the Oldham plaque. Times change and boundaries change, but people and communities do not, and the Government who represent them have to be fit for purpose.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
If devolution means anything, it means giving local leaders the right to do things differently. If a future mayor of Essex wants to compete with London by creating a less heavily regulated or less heavily taxed business environment, would that individual have the power to do so under the proposals put forward by the Government?
Jim McMahon
It is in the eye of the beholder. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to turn Essex into Monaco, I suspect that it will not happen. But if he is asking for genuine freedoms and flexibilities so that local leaders can make the right decisions to attract investment, assemble sites, invest in infrastructure, and remove barriers to planning and infrastructure, that is absolutely where we are going. On the issue of tax and fiscal devolution, we are very clear that the White Paper represents a moment in time; it is very much the start, not the end. What should be read in the White Paper is an ambition to provide certainty across Government and to make sure that the level of ambition is raised. When the right hon. Gentleman sees the schedule of devolution across the programme and the competencies—which are very important for economic development and regeneration—he will see that there is a lot of scope there.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the prospect of the further devolution of powers over transport, housing and other important economic matters. Can the Minister outline the greater scope for using those powers? In Berkshire, we would like to see a western rail link to Heathrow, which would dramatically improve connectivity between Reading, Slough and Heathrow airport. Unfortunately, many other strategic projects have been held up, such as a third bridge for Reading. Will he comment on the potential benefits of devolving these issues?
Jim McMahon
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I said that this is less about structures and politicians, and more about outcomes, and those are exactly the types of examples that we need to look towards. The real test for many people is, “If I’m standing at the bus stop on a miserable Monday, when it’s raining, does the bus turn up or not?” Having more control over local bus services, through franchising or even public ownership, is part of the offer on the table, but buses alone do not fix the transport system; we also need rail devolution. The White Paper points to an ambitious schedule of devolution when it comes to rail and multimodal transport, and particularly to single ticketing, because, in the end, even if we have co-ordination of transport, it needs to be affordable for people, and different modes of transport need to be linked when it comes to single ticketing. There are definitely opportunities on the transport agenda.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Minister will know that in Cumbria we are still going through the process of a reorganisation that happened just 18 months ago. For better or worse, all reorganisations are massively distracting and take people’s eyes off the ball. Does he understand why residents, businesses and everybody else in both parts of Cumbria—we now have two local authorities—are outraged at the thought that a mayoral model might be imposed on us? Is that not the opposite of devolution? Is it not right that local communities should be able to have the devolution that we want? We are up for all the devolution that the Minister will give us, but we do not see why we have to have a top-down mayoral model and be told that we have to have a reorganisation again, five minutes after the last one.
Jim McMahon
I pay tribute to leaders in Cumbria for the engagement that we have had with them; I recognise that they have just been through a local government reorganisation and that there has been a lot to settle in the area. They have embraced our conversations with great maturity, and those conversations have been fruitful, but we recognise that different places are at different points. Different places have different pressures that they need to reconcile, which is why we are looking at a priority programme for the areas that will soon be ready to go. We need to get the legislation and consultation in place and make the case to the public. We accept that some areas will need longer.
On mayors, I have been here long enough to see a number of Members stand up and protest against the idea of a mayor, only to pop up a bit later as the candidate for the same position, so I say to people in Cumbria: be careful what you wish for.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I remind the House that we have around 40 minutes, and around 40 Members wish to speak, so please keep answers and questions succinct.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I welcome the move to devolve to every corner of the United Kingdom, but in relation to the upcoming Cornish devolution discussions, what is the Minister’s vision of how the Government will put into practice the legal obligations to protect and support Cornish national minority status in the same way that minority status is protected for our Celtic cousins in Wales and Scotland?
Jim McMahon
I thank Members in Cornwall and the leaders in Cornwall for the discussions that we have had. I know that devolution is an issue that is strongly felt, and that identity in particular is an issue that is strongly felt. We recognise that we need to strike the right balance, so the White Paper will point to a population size that is optimal in our view—in terms of economic footprint, public service alignment and reconciling public service delivery boundaries—but we recognise that in Cornwall, as in Cumbria, we might have to take a more nuanced approach. I will be clear that our view is to have established powers related to integrated settlements and devolved powers of significance. That will come with a mayor, but of course Cornwall has agreed to a level 2 deal and in the current White Paper, that would be a foundation deal as a starter for that journey.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Whatever our views on the different flavours of local government, surely we in this House can all agree that good local services are delivered when there are excellent, hard-working local councillors who have been democratically elected. At the moment in counties up and down the land, county councillors are campaigning for re-election for four-year terms next May. The matter before us is an important decision for local people to make and it should be part of the discussions in the election campaign next year, so can the Minister take this opportunity to rule out any suggestion that he is cancelling any county council elections next year?
Jim McMahon
In all things I try to be direct, and I have been direct in saying that if those councils that come to the Government with a request for reorganisation meet the test and have a credible programme in place, the elections will likely not take place until the year after, because they will be postponed to elect the shadow authority that would replace the county and the districts. We are clear on that. To give the hon. Lady assurance, there will not be a mass cancelling of elections for the sake of it, in the hope and prayer that some councils might come forward for reorganisation. There has to be a balanced and proportionate approach, and that is what we intend to take.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Stoke-on-Trent is already a unitary authority, but it is surrounded on either side by a two-tier district system of Newcastle and Staffordshire Moorlands, who are our friendly neighbours and proud communities but fundamentally different places. Can the Minister set out what will happen to existing unitary authorities? Can he also say how, as part of this review, he will protect the identities of communities who look to a place rather than to a compass point and a county name? And if we are going to have new mayors with new powers, can he set out what the corresponding reduction of Ministers in this place will be to reflect the reduced number of services they will provide?
Jim McMahon
On the question of whether we will reduce the number of Ministers, I can easily answer that by saying that that is well above my pay grade, but I hope there will always be a need for a Local Government Minister to oversee, to hold people’s hands and to be a well-wisher. The identity question is really important, and any devolution or reorganisation has to get the balance right. The tests that will be applied are in the White Paper. This is about getting the balance right between ensuring: that the economic footprint, which is the real economy, is recognised; that, as much as possible, there is public service boundary alignment to services across policing, the health service and others; and that we capture identity as much as possible. There will be a trade-off in some cases, but it is for local areas to come forward with the right proposal for their area after due consideration.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Of the 42 councils across the country that have increased social homes, four are in Oxfordshire. South Oxfordshire district council has doubled the number of social homes it has delivered over the last 10 years. Meanwhile, Oxford city council next door has halved its number. There are district councils that are doing incredible work, so why should they face finding themselves lumped in with underperforming councils? Surely, rather than having a distracting reorganisation, proper devolution to those councils that are doing well is the way to deliver for local people.
Jim McMahon
There is nothing in the White Paper that is about decrying the work that has gone before. In fact, there is a great deal that celebrates the work done by local government, such as the community leadership provided by frontline councillors, council leaders and council executives on a range of issues. They are the builders of devolution, so this is not about something being done to them from the top; it is about local areas coming together and making a request to the Government for local government reorganisation and/or devolution. As a Government, we will work as partners in that development, but we fully appreciate that district councils across England are doing a very good job of delivering good public services, but there also has to be an acceptance that this is not the most efficient way of delivering public services; there are other ways.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the ambition he has shown in his statement, particularly on how we can get local authorities to support the building of the 1.5 million homes that this country needs.
Before the White Paper’s publication, the Department saw expressions of interest from various areas. However, some of those initial submissions may no longer reflect the scale of ambition or the devolution options that we now know are available. Can the Minister reassure me that authorities with greater ambition, which are ready to act swiftly in line with the powers and vision outlined in the White Paper, will be given the opportunity to revise their proposals and to fast-track a mayoral model on geographies better suited to delivering results for their residents?
Jim McMahon
There were three types of programme on the transition to the new Government. The first were the legacy devolution agreements that were agreed under the previous Government but had not yet passed through Parliament, which we wanted to reconcile. The second were the areas that we wanted to target—by and large, areas in the north of England to complete the map of the north and to populate that area. The third was a write-around from the Deputy Prime Minister to get a real sense of where different areas might be on their approach to partnerships, to the type of scale and to the type of geography. We saw the expression of interest process very much as a temperature check, so the proposals that came forward are certainly not binding either on local areas or on the Government. We expect further proposals to come forward, including from the same areas.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
What guarantee can the Minister give that there will be new money from the Treasury to fund the costs of any local government reorganisation in Essex, to avoid the costs of that reorganisation resulting in cuts to public services or increased council taxes?
Jim McMahon
That question was raised earlier, and I apologise for not addressing it. The Government will provide capacity to enable both devolution and local government reorganisation through discussions with local authorities. Some of that might be funding, and quite a lot might be support through workforce development. Last week, we launched the workforce development group —a joint project between MHCLG, other Government Departments and bodies such as the Local Government Association—to make sure that we are addressing the workforce issues. Even before the reorganisation, we know that many counties are struggling to recruit to jobs like adult social care and many districts are struggling to recruit to jobs like planning, so there is a bigger issue here that we are looking to address.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which lists me as a member of Lichfield city council and Lichfield district council.
I want to touch on the future of parish and town councils, as the White Paper talks in two places about stronger engagement between the new authorities and parish councils. Can the Minister go further by saying how that will work, particularly given their importance in places like Staffordshire? Staffordshire has almost 1 million people, is 3% of the length of England, and has real centres of community and a lot of population centres that are not currently reflected in their district councils but are very much reflected in their town councils in places like Burntwood.
Jim McMahon
Again, we say in the White Paper—I also referenced this in my opening remarks—that it was a Labour Government who introduced quality status for parish councils to recognise that that tier of government has a very important role to play and can do far more if trusted and given the power to do so.
We see that town and parish councils have an important role to play but, in the end, that is notwithstanding reorganisation. Reorganisation will need to take place in many areas, and parish and town councils could or could not do more, but I would say that that is a slightly separate issue.
As to the proposal for individual areas to take account of issues like identity, belonging and the different units of government, we are happy to have those conversations on a one-to-one basis. I can assure the House that there will be ample opportunity to meet me and my fellow Ministers on a one-to-one basis, as well as for drop-in sessions, to make sure that matters that are not picked up on the Floor of the House can be picked up later.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a district councillor. Real devolution means empowering local communities, not centralising power into regional super-unitary councils. Residents in my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon would be best represented by a south Warwickshire unitary council, rather than a remote Warwickshire-wide unitary council, which will have five different local plans. Does the Minister agree that a top-down minimum target population of half a million people risks dividing existing communities and forcing together communities with no shared identity?
Jim McMahon
That is a fair point. I am losing track of the number of MPs who are standing up to declare they are still councillors, although I recognise there is a transition—I went through it myself—and there may be an overlap between being a councillor and a Member of Parliament. On the detail of individual counties, it is for local areas to make a submission to Government, and for the Government to assess the proposals that come forward. The Government do not have a plan on a map for the hon. Lady’s county, but we expect that the county and the district will get together to work out a proposal that they can accept and submit to Government, which we can then review.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Cornwall will welcome further devolution. We are a long way from London, but I want to build on the question about town councils. In places like Cornwall, cuts to unitary councils have meant town councils have already taken on a lot of responsibility, so how does the Minister see those town councils continuing in the future?
Jim McMahon
When Labour was last in government, we brought forward landmark legislation to create the Mayor of London, Parliaments in Scotland and Wales and the Assembly in Northern Ireland. The quality council status was introduced for parish and town councils, and powers on wellbeing and other matters were given to local government. The previous Labour Government recognised, just as this Government recognise, that devolution has to work from the top to the bottom and the right powers have to be in the right places. At a neighbourhood level, we see town and parish councils playing a critical role in devolution, and we look forward to further discussions with the sector.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
There is much to commend in the White Paper and, broadly, the Minister is to be congratulated. However, he knows as well as I do, as welcome as the multi-year settlement announcement is, it is predicated on an outdated and effectively broken funding system. I understand the Treasury is not keen to revisit that in any meaningful way, but may I urge him to consider a rural-proofing mechanism to the funding formula, to ensure that the additional costs of delivering local services in rural areas are recognised? Change is scary, but I do not recognise the picture painted by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). In Dorset, we became a unitary authority, and no sane person would ever want to go back to a two-tier system, but we benefited from the excellent skills of Paul Rowsell, who died earlier this year and is much missed. Will the Minister ensure there are expert teams within his Department to work alongside those councils that wish to make that important change, which will deliver savings and better services to local people?
Jim McMahon
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is my predecessor, for his question and for the tone with which he dealt with us in opposition; I honour that in return. The fair funding review is absolutely critical. We are committed to a multi-year financial settlement, which is about giving security, but we all know there is no security if the money is insufficient to meet demand. The hon. Gentleman and the House have absolute assurance that all the cost factors, including the cost of rural service delivery, will be taken into account in a fair funding review.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
In comparable countries, a city like Southend would generate £55 billion more across the country. Will the Minister explain what powers the English devolution Bill will give to mayors, so they can drive local growth and areas can fulfil their financial potential?
Jim McMahon
I remember when the Greater Manchester devolution deal was signed in 2014. Its principles were to reform public services, so we could focus on prevention rather than crisis management, which is more expensive and has worse outcomes, and grow the local tax base, because the area would become more productive through investment. I will be honest and say that we did not see the investment in prevention reform, so growth was stunted. However, even in that context, growth in Greater Manchester has outperformed that of other areas, in large part because of the devolution agreement and the leadership and co-ordination involved. Even by independent assessments, allowing our regions to realise their full potential would be worth between £30 billion and £50 billion to the economy that is not currently being realised, so there is an alternative and we have to grasp it.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)
Yesterday, a former Labour deputy leader referred to my party as a “threat to democracy”. I am sure that that was a cute turn of phrase for television, but given that the framework that the Minister has laid out allows elections next year to be gamed so easily, is the real threat not potentially the Labour party?
Jim McMahon
I would not characterise the hon. Gentleman’s party as a threat to democracy, but it might be a threat to sanity. We are all tested on a too-regular basis by fairly ridiculous statements that try to drive a wedge and divide people instead of bringing them together. One thing about devolution is that, regardless of party politics, across Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives what we have seen in local areas is that when it comes to people, places and putting communities first, party politics are put to one side. I extend that invitation to the Reform party, too.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is instructive to hear a former local government Minister on the Opposition Benches, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), describe the current system as “broken”. That is probably why we need the White Paper. My constituents have grown weary and frustrated at non-delivery by various tiers of local government in Kent, particularly when it comes to failures to provide special educational needs and disabilities support for pupils, and poor bus services compared with neighbouring ones in London. What hope for better delivery across all services—schools, social care, health, transport and roads—might we have from the White Paper?
Jim McMahon
It was previously very difficult for the Government to have an honest conversation with local government about what an adequate level of public service provision should be in a given place, because they knew full well that they were not providing the resources to enable that to happen in a fair way across the country. When we fix the financial foundations of local government through the fair funding review and the multi-year settlement, and build rigour around it, we will move away from the hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of top-down metrics that central Government expect councils to report on. We will look to simplify the funding system to end unnecessary ringfences that act as shackles on local government, but there has to be governance, accountability and a very clear responsibility to deliver the outcomes that the Government want in return for those freedoms, flexibility and fair funding.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
My constituents will be waiting to see how the Department’s plans for local government reorganisation affect Wokingham borough council. They will want to ensure that their voices are listened to if we are to be shuffled around, merged or abolished by Whitehall. Importantly, they will want to know whether the Government’s plans will hit their wallets. Can the Minister commit to ensuring that funding for any changes will come from his Department, not from council tax, which should instead be used to fund vital local services?
Jim McMahon
Only this week are we seeing a genuine redistribution of money in the local government system so that it goes to the areas that need it the most. For far too long, the funding formula did not recognise deprivation or that some tax bases are weaker at a local level than others. The £600 million recovery grant is intended to get to those areas. On value for money for public services, and getting them down to a neighbourhood level, as I said, there is a two-tier premium that is paid by local taxpayers to the tune of around £2 billion, which could be better used for local public services, and by central Government through the floor protections that we give to district councils, and that frankly could be used in better ways in areas of high deprivation and need.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I hope that Norfolk will be part of the devolution priority programme so that we can unlock the powers and funding that we need on areas from transport to housing. May I ask the Minister specifically about the role of key cities? Norwich is a key national and regional economic power, but it needs devolution to fully unlock its potential. It is vital that we have a key role and voice in the process of devolution and reorganisation. Can he assure us that that will be the case, and set out the process for cities in particular to do that?
Jim McMahon
Obviously, we inherited the plans for Norfolk and Suffolk from the previous Government. I will be clear that we could not progress with that deal because it would have seen directly elected council leaders assume the role of a mayor, but without the framework in place to support that, which we did not support. We have been working constructively with both counties to look at a mayoral combined authority over a bigger footprint, and we hope they will come forward as part of the programme. That is a matter for them. They may decide now is not the right time, but there is huge potential.
On devolution in Norwich and also Ipswich, it is important that reorganisation is strongly anchored in terms of place and the economy. Of course, in this case, Norwich would be central to that.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What say will voters in the New Forest have if there are proposals to remove either their district council or their county council?
Jim McMahon
Local government reorganisation is a statutory process, so it requires local areas to produce plans, as does devolution. Both are required to go to public consultation to solicit views—that is part of the process. When the formal process starts, the Government’s role is to assess the proposals and the consultation as submitted. We do not take a view on geography and form until we make the final decision.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
The biggest issues holding back economic growth in Mid Cheshire are long-term under-investment in our transport infrastructure and the lack of a joined-up skills agenda, working with businesses across local authority borders. That is not unique to my constituency. The reality is that, in 2010, east Germany’s economy overtook northern England’s, and that trend has accelerated over the past 14 years. What new powers will the English devolution Bill give strategic authorities to drive improvements in local transport and to take control of their sub-region’s skills agenda?
Jim McMahon
This was one of the reasons why we were so keen to complete the map of the north of England. Most would accept that strategic transport, certainly, crosses county boundaries. If we think about connectivity in the north of England, how Lancashire, Greater Manchester, the Liverpool city region, Cheshire, Cumbria and the rest are joined up, and then even into Yorkshire, requires co-ordination. We want mayors and strategic authorities to work together across that pan-region, so that even more powers can be devolved to address the type of issues that my hon. Friend talks about.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
According to the White Paper, a constituency like mine will see Cambridgeshire county council and Huntingdonshire district council merged into a unitary council as the principal authority, under Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority as the strategic authority. How will unitary councillors fulfil the roles of multiple district and county councillors in a part-time capacity, and what does it also mean for the forthcoming combined authority mayoral election in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough?
Jim McMahon
The forthcoming election for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will go ahead as planned. There is no proposal to change the boundary of what is currently a combined authority that will move to being a strategic authority. Local government reorganisation where there is an existing mayoral combined authority, providing that it is coterminous in terms of the review it has undertaken, will not have an impact at all. All that happens is the membership of the combined authority will change to reflect the new council structures as they appear.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
As a former councillor of 10 years who sought election to this place to give power back to communities, I am absolutely thrilled by this devolution White Paper, and I congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward. I have two points. On page 16, there is an ambition to make the mayor the chair of the integrated care partnership and also the police and crime commissioner, as in South Yorkshire. I commend that and would like to hear more about it. On page 94, there is a proposal for a right to buy community asset. Hengistbury Head outdoor centre in my constituency just found out that it will be a community benefit society with a lease for 99 years, but it has taken far too long to get to that place. I invite the Minister to come to Hengistbury Head outdoor centre—it may involve getting in a kayak—to find out more about what this right to buy could involve at the ground level. I would love to know more about the Government’s intent on the matter.
Jim McMahon
I know many Labour and Co-operative Members of Parliament have been campaigning hard on the extended community right to buy. That is about giving communities the power to take over those important community assets on their high streets and in their town centres in a meaningful way. The Minister for local growth, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), is working hard on a communities White Paper, which will provide far more detail. In the end, it is not just about that community right to buy; it is about a genuine shift where people feel far more control, power and agency in the places where they live.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Trying to create multiple unitary authorities in Essex will not work, will not have public support, will take the best part of a Parliament to implement and will not save money—in fact, quite the opposite—and there is a risk that local government will grind to a halt in the meantime. As for mayors, in 23 years of canvassing in my constituency, I have never once had a constituent say to me on the doorstep, “I want a mayor of Essex.” Indeed, looking up the road to London, the last thing on earth that we in Essex want is another Sadiq Khan.
Jim McMahon
I will put the right hon. Gentleman down as undecided.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s ambitious announcement and the opportunities that devolution could bring the people of Pompey, and I thank him and his team for the time that they have given Members of this House and for his offer of an open door. Portsmouth is one of the most densely populated parts of the country, so alongside the commitment to desperately needed affordable housing, will the Minister commit to using the English devolution Bill to empower my communities with the right to buy beloved community assets, such as empty shops, pubs and much-needed community spaces, to ensure that cities such as mine, and the people in them, feel the pride of ownership once again?
Jim McMahon
That is a good point. When we talk about important community assets, we see from an economic point of view that it is far better for them to be used and productive, but in the end we also recognise that they are hugely important to community identity and pride. In a lot of working-class areas, including Oldham, Chadderton and Royton, which I represent, the local civic building, local pub and local church are not just buildings but part of people’s story, and people really care about them.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Top-down reorganisation of a failing council such as Conservative-run Devon county council is a bit like shuffling the deck chairs on a sinking ship. We know that years of chronic underfunding have made it impossible for councils to fulfil their obligations, so I welcome the multi-year funding settlement. However, creating larger regional authorities does not devolve power; it shifts power and responsibility away from local communities to a distant, higher-tier authority that will feel remote to towns and parishes in places such as Devon. We must have the opportunity in May to pass our verdict on Conservative-run Devon county council, which has been failing our most vulnerable children for over a decade. Will the Minister assure me that those elections will go ahead as planned in 2025?
Jim McMahon
It would be rude to deny the good people of Devon a spat between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. But in all seriousness, it is for local areas to decide whether they want to apply to the Government to be part of the reorganisation programme. If we receive a request from that area, we will administer it in a fair way, as we would any other.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the huge opportunity in the White Paper for cities such as Exeter, which is also held back by Tory-run Devon county council—the upper-tier authority. Can the Minister confirm that devolution and reorganisation will work hand in hand to help Exeter, a key economic growth city, to retain, enhance and expand its historic self-governance, and to unleash its economic potential as an equal partner in a strategic authority?
Jim McMahon
Absolutely. One keenly felt problem with the previous devolution framework was that it did not have due regard for the role of district councils in primary cities, university cities and economic hubs. Reorganisation gives those places the ability to grow, become unitary authorities, and take their place in the new strategic authorities.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Fifteen years ago, just before I joined this House, we saw the reorganisation of Wiltshire county council into the unitary Wiltshire council, and the abolition of several district councils. It seems that another reform in the heart of Wessex will be the probable outcome of these proposals for Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire. Can the Minister assure the people of Salisbury, who still have some difficulty accepting the abolition of Salisbury district council, that the proposed changes will be positive in terms of the combination of resources for strategic investment in transport and other such services?
Jim McMahon
In any local government reorganisation, there is always a fine balance between trying to create a cohesive new council and respecting the strong local identities that people feel—identities that are unique. When that is done right, the council can be confident in its own standing, because it knows that it is delivering outstanding services; when it is done wrong, it is trying to impose an identity on a place through the form of a council that does not reflect the local identity. For those of us in towns such as Oldham that went through the 1974 reorganisation, that is felt as keenly as in other areas, but that is not about the type of government; it is about culture and approach. When it is done well, it can work.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all the district councillors in the loyal and ancient borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, including the Tories who tried and failed to defeat me—I will be nice to them. On page 10 of the White Paper, the Minister notes that:
“We must end the top-down micromanaging”.
I agree. Notwithstanding how much of this announcement was trailed in the press and on social media in recent days, can I press the Minister on the point raised by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell)? The Minister has said that there will be trade-offs when it comes to local identities. Who will ultimately decide on those trade-offs, and when will people in the real world be able to have their say on these proposals?
Jim McMahon
People in the real world had their say at the ballot box, because devolution and taking power out of this place was a manifesto commitment that we are absolutely clear-eyed about delivering. The White Paper is about delivering that commitment. As for process and consultation, first, it is for local areas to determine what proposal they will submit to the Government—the Government do not have a proposal that we are submitting to local areas. Secondly, it would be ideal if local areas could get around a single proposal so that the Government’s only role is to receive it and say, “Thank you very much,” rather than choosing between alternative proposals from the same area.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I thank the Minister for the time he made available to me at one of his surgery appointments recently and welcome the announcement of something that we discussed then: the ending of bidding for discrete funding pots, which was a trademark of the last Conservative Government. How will we ensure that these announcements do not impinge on the announcements his Department made last week? My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) eloquently set out the challenges of reorganisation in Cumbria. How are we going to make sure that those housing targets can be delivered during this period of uncertainty?
Jim McMahon
We are very mindful that there is a lot of change in the system quite early on. That is deliberate. We believe strongly that when the next general election comes, people will make judgments based on whether they feel better in their own financial security—whether they have money in their pocket and feel like they are getting on in life—and feel secure in the place where they live. Local public services are part of that. As such, we have made a deliberate decision to make the necessary structural changes early on in the Parliament, through the White Paper and other measures, so that we can get them out of the way and people can really see the benefits towards the end of the Parliament.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of Rugby borough council. Page 16 of the White Paper speaks about
“Reforming and joining up public services”,
and says that,
“Over the long term, the government is announcing an ambition to align public service boundaries”.
Will my hon. Friend expand on how these reforms can enhance people’s ability to hold public service leaders to account through their elected representatives, and to exercise greater democratic control over such services?
Jim McMahon
We talk quite a lot about how sufficient funding was not provided over a decade of underfunding, but that does not mean there were not growing costs in the system. We have found that in the end, local government is where all the demand presents itself—whether it likes it or not—when there is failure in other parts of the system, whether that is the failure of developers to build enough properties, the NHS not quite being able to co-ordinate with community services, or the private sector exploiting its audience and charging eye-watering sums, such as in children’s services. We have to redesign local public services around people, place and communities, and public sector reform and prevention are part of that. The alignment of public service boundaries is critical; if people do not have democratic control and oversight over things such as integrated care boards or police and crime commissioners, aligned to strategic authorities, we will not make the progress that we need to make.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I welcome the intention to reorganise local government that the Government have set out. Clearly, this has been in play for a while, but the Minister will know that the independent and sovereign kingdom of Kent has had an identity of its own for about 2,000 years. The exact borders of that identity are open to some debate even today—quite extraordinarily, but they are. Will he please tell us what priorities he will use in the devolution priority plan? Will he be championing size—the 500,000-plus—the transport infrastructure or the historical affiliations? How is he going to understand this, and how will he prioritise for the priority plan?
Jim McMahon
I think the right hon. Member has outlined exactly the balance we are trying to get. One priority is about size for efficiency through both devolution to strategic authorities and local government reorganisation, if that follows in the same area. The second is about how the real economy is functioning, because in the end this is about growth and making sure that a functioning economy can be identified and can grow. Those will, of course, be mixed in with identity to make sure that it works. It follows, I think, that in most places the historic counties will be the building blocks for that, but I know that some boundaries are quite hotly contested, as we have seen in Cumbria. However, we are not going back 2,000 years.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Parts of Britain such as Cornwall that have national minority status have been working towards devolution for decades, if not centuries. Given that the Minister has outlined a certain pace and ambition in this White Paper, will he work with Cornwall council, town and parish councils, and ourselves to ensure that that pace and ambition are delivered on and secure Cornwall its rightful place on the Council of the Nations and Regions in due course?
Jim McMahon
There have been a number of competing proposals. I do not believe in elephants in the room, but one was an explicit proposal to have a Devon and Cornwall combined authority with a mayor. It was by and large proposed by Devon, but it was met with what I would describe as quite animated resistance from Cornwall for different reasons. It is not our intention—and, frankly, there are not enough hours in the day—to keep getting involved in local disputes about boundaries and identity. What we want, and this is genuine, is for the local area to self-organise, come up with a proposal that is right for the area, and make that proposal to the Government so that we can work in partnership and deliver the outcome of getting powers out of this place and into places such as Cornwall.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I welcome the elements of this White Paper that are about devolution, but we have to recognise that some elements are about concentration. The Minister has talked about the two-tier premium, but the reality is that his proposals mean that in some places a local tier will be replaced by a more distant mayoral tier. Does he recognise that this risks creating a bit of a democratic deficit? Surely, we should be trying to keep the “local” in local government as much as possible. Given that average turnout in the last lot of mayoral elections last year averaged 30%, what will he do to address the risk of democratic deficit? In particular, will he introduce a fair and proportional system for local elections?
Jim McMahon
The truth is that these strategic authorities are about taking power from this place and moving it down to communities. Every Minister gets hundreds of sign-offs every single day, but as Conservative Members will remember, they include Ministers having to sign off whether cyclists can pass through a local park because the parish council has to apply to central Government for permission. That is part of the centralising nature of the state that we have to change.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and the White Paper. Centralisation is part of the reason why we are one of the most regionally unequal advanced economies, as IPPR North has set out, but it is important that these strategic authorities are run well. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that they are funded fairly, and what assurances can he give that strategic authorities must demonstrate responsible stewardship of the public finances?
Jim McMahon
That is why there is a proposal in the paper to regularise the mayoral precept process. Where combined authorities exist and do not apply a precept, it is not that mayors and combined authorities do not cost money—of course they do—but that local authorities pay for them through a levy or a contribution outside the precept system. Our view is that, for transparency, accountability and political accountability, when mayors and combined authorities or strategic authorities are spending money, the public have a right to see that identified in their council tax, and they can make a judgment about whether that money is being spent wisely.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The residents of Staffordshire Moorlands do not want to be subsumed into Stoke-on-Trent. Can the Minister guarantee that they will not be forced into a devolution deal against their will, and that decisions that matter to them will continue to be taken in the Moorlands and not in Stoke-on-Trent?
Jim McMahon
I do not want to get myself into neighbourhood disputes—there are not enough hours in the day. I hope that it will be clear from reading the White Paper that this is not a forcing together, but a genuine distribution of power from a centralising state to communities where it really matters. My hope is that local disputes, some of which I am sure are well rehearsed and go back a long time, are put to one side. In the end, the prize is the greater good, which is for the benefit of all.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s recognition that unitary authorities deliver for residents. Bracknell Forest council is an example of a unitary authority promoting a strong sense of place and delivering economic growth. Although it is small, it is mighty. Will my hon. Friend agree to work with Bracknell Forest council to develop a plan that works for Bracknell?
Jim McMahon
We are absolutely committed to working in partnership, giving capacity and time to ensure that those local nuances are reflected in whatever follows.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Minister has just concluded the Greater Lincolnshire devolution deal, which I welcome and support. As he will know, there were two unitary authorities in the north of the county and the rest is a two-tier system. Do the Government expect that two-tier area to come forward with proposals for unitary authorities? If so, may I remind him that the sparsity factor plays with Lincolnshire, and the target of 500,000 is far too high. Prior to 1974 there were three county councils to cover the whole county.
Jim McMahon
We do not have a proposal for reorganisation for Greater Lincolnshire, but that is not to say that conversations are not taking place locally about making a representation to Government. When that letter goes out later today, we expect areas that are currently not on our list will come forward on that basis. In the end, it is for local areas to determine what submission they want to make, but in terms of sparsity and having an anchor that makes sense, I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Royal Mail Takeover
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the ongoing takeover of Royal Mail Group’s parent company, International Distribution Services plc.
Royal Mail is an iconic national institution, and this Government are committed to ensuring that it remains one. Since taking office in July, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and I have been clear that the Government will robustly scrutinise the proposed takeover of Royal Mail and ensure that there are safeguards for its future. While a takeover bid is still ongoing and subject to the relevant regulatory processes, the purpose of this statement is to update the House on the legally binding undertakings that have now been given to the Department for Business and Trade by the bidder, EP Group. I wish to be clear that this does not mark the conclusion of the takeover, and these undertakings will become effective only if the takeover goes through. Should the takeover complete, I am pleased to announce that the Department for Business and Trade has secured significant commitments to promote a long-term and financially sustainable future for Royal Mail in the United Kingdom.
It will be helpful if at the outset I set out where Royal Mail was at the time the takeover bid was announced. Before the bid, Royal Mail’s financial position was challenging. In its financial year 2023-24, Royal Mail recorded a loss of £348 million. That loss was in part due to a long-term decline in letters, and the significant fixed costs of the universal service delivery network. At the same time, Royal Mail has not met its quality of service targets set by the independent regulator, Ofcom. Royal Mail’s performance for the 2023-24 financial year resulted in Ofcom fining it £10.5 million. While the previous Government were happy to accept decline, this Government have worked closely with the buyer to secure significant commitments to deliver the transformation of Royal Mail into a sustainable service, and hard-wired in stronger protections for Royal Mail’s identity.
When the discussions with EP Group began, my Department’s objectives were: first, to strengthen the financial sustainability of this iconic and important British institution; and secondly, to protect the customers, workers and brand of Royal Mail. Today I can confirm that we have agreed a deed that customers and the workforce alike can welcome, with significant new commitments from the buyer to the Government. This deed is a clear example of the Government’s commitment to working hand-in-hand with business to generate reform and investment in public service. It is also yet another example of this Government fixing the foundations where the previous Government did not.
I am proud to announce to the House that we have agreed that the Government will have a golden share in Royal Mail. This golden share will ensure that the Department for Business and Trade now has an ability to prevent Royal Mail from moving its headquarters abroad or moving its tax residency without Government permission. I should make it clear that that is an entirely new measure that was not in place at the time of Royal Mail’s privatisation. Except in very limited circumstances, that measure will remain in place in perpetuity, including when there is a subsequent change in ownership of Royal Mail. I want to be clear that the agreement will not give the Government any role in the day-to-day running of the business—Royal Mail remains a private entity.
Not only have we agreed a golden share, but the EP Group has made a number of other commitments in addition, which I will set out at a high level. Those commitments include a commitment to prevent value extraction unless two tests are satisfied: first, a financial test that takes into account the debts of Royal Mail, so that value cannot be extracted if the company is heavily indebted; and secondly—this recognises a key concern of the public—a quality test to ensure that value is not extracted unless specific performance targets are met.
All businesses need to adapt and improve in order to respond to change, and Royal Mail is no different. Recognising that there is a need for Royal Mail to modernise, there is a commitment from EP Group to ensure that Royal Mail has the financial means to fund the transformation of its business in the three-year period following completion of the acquisition. In addition, EP Group has agreed to take an immediate step to strengthen Royal Mail’s balance sheet by removing a significant intra-group debt, which is currently due to the remainder of the International Distribution Services group. The agreed undertakings also include a commitment to ensure that Royal Mail retains ownership or access on fair terms to those assets necessary to meet the universal service obligation.
Next, EP Group has agreed to meet all the regulatory requirements that Royal Mail Group is subject to, including ensuring that it remains the universal service provider for as long as EP Group is in control. We all know—not just in this House, but across the UK—that Royal Mail is an iconic British brand, and that is why there is a commitment to the existing brand protections in place for Royal Mail. Royal Mail is a respected and revered operator, and not just in the UK—it has various international responsibilities at international fora and with the overseas territories. Those will be respected and continued, maintaining the UK’s prestigious international position.
EP has stated its long-term commitment to Royal Mail, and the discussions have demonstrated the wide range of areas of public interest in the work of the company, so I am also pleased to confirm that EP has committed to taking steps to facilitate discussions between any future owner of the business and the Government, be that in 10 or 20 years’ time. These commitments have been offered by EP Group to the Department on a voluntary basis; nothing has been offered in exchange.
I take this opportunity to thank EP Group. I am confident that we share the same objective of a reliable and financially sustainable universal service provider, while workers and consumers are placed at the heart of a sustainable Royal Mail. I am also pleased that, as well as reaching an agreement with the Department, EP Group has today announced that it has in-principle negotiated agreements with both unions representing the Royal Mail workforce. The Government welcome those agreements, and I am confident that the constructive and collegiate approach between the unions and the buyer can represent a restart for industrial relations in the Royal Mail Group.
I have set out some of the key commitments, but there are further commitments from EP Group that I do not have time to set out in full today. I am therefore placing copies of the deed in the Libraries of both Houses. I will keep the House informed as much as I can as the takeover progresses. I commend this statement to the House.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
May I start by thanking the Minister for advance sight of his statement? Before I get into my questions, can we take a moment to thank every postman and postwoman up and down this country for their hard work, particularly at this time of year? In all the challenging weather, they are out there putting letters through every letterbox in the land and collecting thousands of letters from the red pillar boxes in every corner of our country. I take the opportunity, especially in this Christmas season, to say thank you on behalf of all of us.
Every colleague here will recognise the importance of Royal Mail, both as an institution and as a provider of a vital nationwide service. It has been in existence for more than 500 years, and it has seen a lot of change over those years, but the one consistent thing is that it is still a service on which we all depend every day. It is not the only way we communicate any more, but it is a vital one, and it will continue to be needed, including by Government. What a shame it is that one of the biggest postal deliveries done by Royal Mail this year was from the Government. It was a letter to many pensioners—often on low incomes—cancelling their winter fuel payments.
The dwindling number of letters sent has eroded the base on which the success of Royal Mail was built. The inevitable consequence is that Royal Mail has been facing serious financial challenges, and amid those challenges the service received by people across Britain has become worse, whether that is deliveries missing their deadlines, letters going missing or occasionally, in some areas, people going weeks at a time without post. The example of that failure was shown last week by the fines that Royal Mail received. The cost of this poor service cannot be overstated, whether it is for those who subscribe for services by mail, those who rely on business deliveries or those who miss appointments with their general practitioner, impacting their health and costing the Government. That poor service cannot be allowed to continue.
The inward investment into the service announced today will be scrutinised by shareholders, but given that they are the golden shareholder, I have questions for the Government. What guarantees has the Minister received about the service provision? What commitments has he received about the level of jobs across Royal Mail? How much of Royal Mail do the employees themselves now own? In some places it has been reported that the commitment to the tax residency guarantee is for five years, but I heard the Minister say at the Dispatch Box that it was perpetual. Can he clarify that?
What ongoing role will the Government have in making sure that Ofcom ensures that Royal Mail delivers the service expected by customers? The fines do not seem to be doing it. An important part of the service offered by Royal Mail is the universal service obligation, which now requires post to be delivered six days a week and parcels to be delivered five days a week. When the Royal Mail is working well, the universal service obligation provides an outstanding service. However, Royal Mail wishes for it to be reformed. Does the Minister believe that the obligation must be maintained in its current form? Can he confirm what discussions he has held with EP Group about the obligation? Will he confirm whether there is a sunset on the obligation? He mentioned that there potentially was with a transfer of ownership.
The value of Royal Mail goes far beyond the universal service obligation. Can the Minister outline whether he expects any of the other services provided by Royal Mail to be impacted? For example, can my rural constituents continue to count on their letters being collected from every post box? What risks has he identified with the takeover itself? Although the Post Office and Royal Mail are separate entities, they are closely tied. Just over a month ago, the Government announced that more than 100 post office branches were at risk of closure, with hundreds of jobs lost. Can the Minister explain what assessment he has made of the risks facing the Post Office and how they will be impacted by the sale of Royal Mail?
Royal Mail faces the same headwinds, often created by this Government, as other businesses. Whether it is Labour’s employment regulations or the national insurance jobs tax, businesses have warned that they may be forced to put up prices and cut jobs, because of the very actions of this Government. Finally, can the Minister confirm whether Royal Mail has expressed concerns over the Budget or the Employment Rights Bill?
Justin Madders
I thank the shadow Minister for her comments, and I start by joining her in thanking all those postal workers who throughout the year—not just at this time of year, when it is particular busy, but 12 months a year—come rain or shine, sleet or snow, deliver those much-needed communications from friends, family and loved ones. I was pleased to be able to go to my own depot in Ellesmere Port last Friday. I will go to another one in my constituency, in New Ferry, this Friday. All hon. Members should be encouraged to make those visits, because they really show how much we appreciate the work that our postmen and women do.
The hon. Lady is right that the Royal Mail is a service that we all depend on. I agree that performance has not been good enough in recent years. That is why we have had a number of discussions with the company and with Ofcom about how we will get things back on track. That is why the agreement is so important, because the deal will get in the investment needed to try to drive up that performance.
I turn to some of the hon. Lady’s specific questions. On guarantees of service provision, the legislative framework is already there for the universal service obligation, and I see the takeover having no impact on that. It has not been part of the discussions—it is an entirely separate issue—but Parliament will have its say on that if needed. Next year, Ofcom will have a consultation on the universal service obligation. I think it is recognised that an awful lot of work is needed to bring standards up to the level that we would like, and one of the protections in the agreement will hopefully deliver on that.
On jobs guarantees, the hon. Lady will be aware that the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union has spoken positively about the agreement reached. He believes that sufficient assurances have been given on jobs. On employee engagement, she asked whether the employees will own the company. That is not the case, but they will have a say in governance in future as a result of an agreement between the Communication Workers Union and EP Group. That is to be ratified by the Communication Workers Union executive, but that will be a groundbreaking arrangement that we did not have previously. She also asked about tax residency in perpetuity, which is what the golden share does indeed intend to deliver.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I welcome the statement made by this hard-working Minister. I take it from the announcement that Mr Křetínský has cleared the investment screening tests that the Cabinet Office is responsible for. It would be useful to have that confirmed.
Let me press my hon. Friend about the universal service obligation. Is it his intention that beyond the initial five years he will seek six-day delivery and a universal service obligation in place for Royal Mail for as long as His Majesty’s Government retain the golden share?
Justin Madders
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his comments. The golden share is to deal with tax residency and headquarters being domiciled in the UK. Obviously, there will be discussions about the universal service obligation. We know that this is a fast-moving market, and that will be for determination by Ofcom some time next year.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
The Royal Mail has been plagued by issues for years, and my constituents do deserve better. A reliable postal service is essential for all of us, but particularly for rural businesses and those waiting for important NHS appointments.
Naturally, in communities like those I represent in Wiltshire, there are some serious concerns about what the statement might mean for the quality of rural services. Last Friday, I met with the brilliant posties in my constituency of Chippenham, some of whom have been in the job for nearly 50 years, who were rushed off their feet delivering Christmas cards. Spending time with them reminded me how important they are—they can often be the first people to notice that someone has not been to their door in days. They are the unseen champions of our community, particularly in rural communities where other people are not walking past. They reminded me that a reliable postal service is essential for our local communities. I therefore join hon. Members in thanking them for their dedication, specifically at this time of year.
Businesses depend on timely deliveries, and many older residents rely on our postal services for banking, utilities and keeping connected. Any weakening of the universal service obligation would disproportionately harm the rural areas of Wiltshire where alternatives are limited. Therefore, the Government and EP must give us a commitment that they will not water down the Royal Mail’s service at the public’s expense. With the Royal Mail’s universal service under review, it is particularly important for the Government to be clear about the future of these services with this new owner. I would be grateful if the Minister made it clear to my constituents at home that the number of delivery days will not be reduced as a result of this sale to EP Group and that any changes on the horizon will not be charged to the public purse.
My questions about the delivery standards are particularly important, given that we are in the middle of Christmas, and many millions of people rely on the Royal Mail, not least for that. One thing that is particularly concerning for us at the moment might well be —[Interruption.] I am sorry, I have one last thing. With it moving abroad—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but the Liberal Democrats get two minutes for their response and we are quite a while after that.
Justin Madders
I assure the hon. Lady that the universal service obligation is not contingent on this deal—that is an entirely separate matter for Ofcom to be considering—but a number of commitments that we have secured in this agreement will hopefully improve standards, which in any event have clearly not been as we would all want.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister and the Government’s work to secure the long-term future of the Royal Mail. The statement shows that we have got a good deal for UK customers and workers. Will the Minister assure me, Royal Mail customers and workers in the Livingston constituency that when the deal goes through, the new owners will be held rigorously to their obligations on an ongoing basis? We have had too many instances over the last 14 years of privatised industries going off track because the regulatory environment has not ensured that they meet their obligations.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that some of my early discussions in this role have been with Ofcom, and indeed with Royal Mail about its performance. There is a shared determination between not just the regulator and the Government but the trade union, the workers and the new owners to drive up that performance, because we can all clearly see that it is not good enough at the moment.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Thirty-one years ago, when I had the Minister’s job, I was trying to privatise the Post Office, but I was stopped by rebellious Tory Back Benchers—nothing new there. I was sacked a week later. So I warn him that this is quite a difficult issue.
What people were worried about was the universal service obligation—it costs so much more to deliver in rural Lincolnshire than in central London—so I think that what we are all worried about is that, as the Royal Mail moves ever further away from public ownership, this new private company will try to chip away at the universal service obligation, particularly in rural areas. Can the Minister reassure us that he is really on the case?
Justin Madders
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. Is he now the rebellious Back Bencher, I wonder? We all share those concerns about the universal service obligation. This deal is not contingent on the universal service obligation. We have had discussions on how we improve the current state of affairs, because it is clearly not good enough. I hope that his constituents will see an improvement in service as a result of this deal.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Barely a week goes by without a constituent reaching out to me to express frustration at the quality of service they receive from our local Royal Mail delivery services. What will the announcement mean for them and for the quality of service that they receive?
Justin Madders
We hope that the deal will lead to an improvement in service. Specific investment commitments are being made as part of the deal, which we hope will be used to drive up standards. I think that everyone is committed to seeing an improvement on where we are at the moment.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I have eight Royal Mail delivery offices in my constituency, staffed by a team of hard-working posties who cover a vast rural area around the Scottish Borders. Will the Minister tell them, and me, what commitment the new owner has given to maintaining those offices and staff levels?
Justin Madders
The hon. Member must be busy at Christmas time if he has eight offices to visit. He makes an important point about the Royal Mail’s vital role in rural constituencies. We have got commitments to improve standards, and hopefully the deal will deliver on that through the increased investment that has been agreed.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Postmen and postwomen in my constituency were shaken to the core a couple of months ago when one of our postmen was brutally attacked and hospitalised while doing his rounds. I am sure the Minister will join me in sending my sympathies to him and his family for that terrible incident. When I visited the depot in my constituency—fortunately, I only have one—the postmen were concerned about the long-term future of Royal Mail. What assurances can he give me and postmen in Harlow that he has done all he can to protect Royal Mail and ensure that any future takeover does not lead to a running down of services?
Justin Madders
First, I extend my sympathies to my hon. Friend’s constituent who was attacked. We all feel abhorrence when public servants are attacked doing their job.
My hon. Friend can be assured that services will be protected. This is an opportunity to get investment. We have commitments that were not in place previously post privatisation, so we are in a better place than before.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
On Friday I will be visiting the delivery office in my constituency. Like other Members, I am concerned to reassure those who work there about what this privatisation will mean for them. We have talked a lot about services and universal obligations, but what reassurances can the Minister give that jobs will not be lost down the line?
Justin Madders
It is not a privatisation—that began under the hon. Lady’s party’s time in office. This is an important step forward, getting commitments that were not previously in place to protect the Royal Mail brand and delivering the investment that we all clearly see is needed.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Our posties go above and beyond 12 months of the year, but especially at this time of the year. I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, but I particularly welcome the support that it has garnered from the workforce. Can he say a little more about his conversations with the trade unions during the negotiations about the industrial relations reset that has been discussed by the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union? What steps have been taken to ensure that any future owner of Royal Mail does not run it into the ground?
Justin Madders
The Secretary of State and I have regularly met the Communication Workers Union. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, there has been considerable industrial unrest in recent years, so it is extremely good news that the Communication Workers Union has talked positively about the groundbreaking deal that it has signed with EP Group. I agree with the union that it is time for a fresh start and a complete reset of employee and industrial relations. We want good industrial relations across the whole economy, so we welcome the constructive way that EP Group has engaged with the trade unions. We hope that that spirit carries forward into the future.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
As many have mentioned, many rural communities will be concerned to know how this could affect them. I spoke to postal workers in Blandford Forum in my constituency on Friday; they can be the best advocates, so can the Minister ensure that they are well primed to explain to their customers—who they are very proud to serve—what this means for the universal service obligation?
Likewise, the Royal Mail has such a crucial job in delivering elections, particularly but not exclusively with postal votes. There is growing concern about the resilience of Royal Mail to meet the growing demand. I appreciate that it is outside the Minister’s brief and he may need to write to me, but can he provide some assurance to the House that the contract that the Government give to Royal Mail will be honoured in full by the new owners to ensure that our democracy can still function?
Justin Madders
The hon. Member may have noticed that I was sitting next to the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), before the statement and we had a brief conversation about that, because we all agree on the importance of Royal Mail delivering our democracy. I assure him and his constituents that it is our intention to see that the universal service obligation is complied with and improved on in future.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
I start by thanking postal workers across the country for the magnificent job that they do all year round. I remind Liberal Democrat Members seeking assurances that it was under the coalition Government that the Royal Mail was privatised in the first place, with none of the assurances that we have currently have.
I refer Members to my entry in the register, and I declare that I started my working life on a Royal Mail apprenticeship. It is a proud part of my life—28 years of service, and I am proud of all of it. The Royal Mail has been run into the ground and is currently broken. Through the golden share, the Minister has been able to get this Government back in the room, because we have been locked out ever since privatisation. That represents a breakthrough, and ensures that Royal Mail does not carry on as it has. The current board is responsible for the biggest failure in quality of service, the biggest attack on its workforce and the creation of a two-tier workforce. Can the Government give us some assurances that those responsible will not walk away filling their wallets, but will turn around and apologise for what they have done?
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions and his service in the Royal Mail. Clearly, arrangements for those currently in the Royal Mail are a matter for the new owners once the deal goes through, and I am sure that that point will be discussed. He is right that the performance has not been good enough, and we are very pleased to have secured a number of commitments in the deal that were not previously in place.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I welcome many parts of the statement, not least the part on quality assurance. I would like to know a little more about that because one issue in Dundee, which has the largest teaching hospital in Europe, is that appointments letters often arrive too late, which of course has an impact on the NHS.
I want to focus specifically on the question not yet answered, which is about jobs. In Scotland, 11,000 people are employed by the Royal Mail, and they will be listening today to find out what cast-iron assurances there will be for their jobs. Mr Křetínský recently completed a takeover of a French supermarket, promising in 2023, in the run-up to that deal, that there would be no job losses, but one year later there were plans to cut 3,000 jobs. Can the Minister be very specific today and tell us what cast-iron guarantees he has for the 11,000 people employed in Scotland and those who are employed elsewhere across the UK?
Justin Madders
I have no doubt that the Communication Workers Union and the Unite Communication Managers Association would not have spoken positively about the deals that they had struck had they not received sufficient guarantees about the workforce. As I said, the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union has been on the air today, speaking very positively about the commitments that he has received about not just job security but governance arrangements, and about workers having a “meaningful stake” in the success of the business moving forward. This is a really positive deal, and if the CWU is speaking positively about it, I think the hon. Member should be reassured.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
On Friday morning, I visited the West Brom Royal Mail sorting office and saw the fantastic work that the staff there do. Many of the posties have worked there for decades, and one for as long as 40 years. How will this deal protect Royal Mail and, critically, the postmen and postwomen who are so important to our communities?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the biggest assets in the Royal Mail is the workforce itself. That is widely understood not just on the Labour Benches but by the EP Group. As I said, commitments have been made between the trade unions and the EP Group on job security. I hope that goes some way to dealing with her concerns.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
When I visited the two depots in my constituency last week—I join Members in thanking our posties—I noticed how run down and aged the van fleets are. Will there be an upgrade of Royal Mail fleets as part of this deal? Given the Minister has said that the Government’s golden share does not extend, maybe understandably, to operational matters, is the takeaway today that there can be no assurance for my rural constituents that their service will be maintained at the level that they expect?
Justin Madders
I can assure the hon. and learned Member that there is nothing in the deal that affects the universal service obligation, and it is our understanding and commitment to continue to ensure that there is a universal service obligation moving forward. There are commitments in the agreement to deliver more investment. On the van network, I know that Royal Mail has purchased a number of vans in recent times, conveniently from the Stellantis plant in my constituency. Hopefully, that will be replicated throughout the country, because it is an ageing fleet. As the company has ambitious targets to meet net zero, I think it wants to improve the make-up of the stock.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I thank John Kay, my local CWU rep, for showing me around the Fotherby Street depot on Friday morning. It was very good to see my current postie, Nev, there as well. They pointed out that some of the performance issues, including missed deliveries, come down to a lack of staff, which comes down to the two-tier workforce. It is less desirable now to work for Royal Mail. Has the Minister had conversations with Royal Mail, EP and the CWU about moves to end the two-tier workforce?
Justin Madders
When I visited my depot on Friday, we discussed the two-tier workforce and the variation in terms and conditions. I think it is generally recognised that it is not a helpful thing; I do not think it has helped Royal Mail with retention. My understanding is that there are agreements to be made between the Communication Workers Union and the EP Group on moving away from that. The detail has yet to be ratified by the union’s executive, but I hope that will mean there is a common basis to try to deal with the issue.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I am the proud son of a postie, as the Minister knows, and I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud member of the CWU. When I met my local posties at the depot on Friday, they told me that they have seen the demise of Royal Mail since privatisation. My constituents are asking for reassurances—what can the Minister tell them about how we can finally get Royal Mail operating to a decent standard again, ensuring they get their letters on time?
Justin Madders
I pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend father does, and to his work as an official of the Communication Workers Union. What the union has said about the reset in industrial relations is really important to improving standards; of course, the other part of the agreement—on investment in the company—is much needed. When everyone works together, everyone shares the common goal of the business expanding and improving its performance. I think we have got everyone aligned on that at last, and I hope that we will all see improvements off the back of that.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Our posties are friendly, familiar faces who go above and beyond all year round, but never more so than at Christmas. It was a pleasure to visit Bournemouth Royal Mail depot recently, on a tour with Martin and Sonia. Will the Minister outline how the Government will prevent any future owner of Royal Mail from driving the company into the ground? What assurances can he give the people of Bournemouth that Royal Mail will finally deliver?
Justin Madders
There are a number of safeguards in the deed of understanding that relate to value extraction, so the EP Group will not be able to take profits out of the company unless there is an improvement in performance; there are also safeguards in respect of debt leverage. I hope that gives my hon. Friend the assurances he is looking for.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I join Members in paying tribute to and thanking our postal workers. In particular, I thank those at my depot in Portsmouth North, which I will be visiting for the second time next week; that was one of my first visits when I was elected. Like me, the posties and people of Portsmouth North were concerned when the previous Government began to negotiate a takeover deal. We therefore welcome the steps that this Minister and his team have taken, particularly around the involvement of the workforce and the trade unions. Can he give us further information on those negotiation talks?
Justin Madders
A number of commitments have been made that were not previously in place, and there is no doubt that we are in a much better position than we were post privatisation. As I say, this groundbreaking deal between the unions and the company includes rights in terms of governance, a profit-sharing incentive and guarantees on job security. I am sure that Members will be pleased to hear that we really have made fantastic progress.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
For the final question from the Back Benches, I call Dave Robertson.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) is right to raise the issue of complaints, which I am sure all Members from across the House receive from constituents let down by failures to meet the universal service obligation. From speaking to posties, as I did today, it is clear that posties right across the country, just like my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), are proud of what they do. They are proud of the job that they do, proud of being part of the community, and proud of the identity that working for that iconic brand gives them. It is clear that they are not the ones who are letting the public down; that is down to the current board of the company, which is running the organisation into the ground. Today I spoke to a proud postie, who said that he feels the company is a national disgrace—that shows how far it has fallen under the current ownership. Can the Minister assure me that the new ownership will not be allowed to sink to the depths that the current ownership did under the guidance of the previous Conservative Government?
Justin Madders
I agree with my hon. Friend that when the Royal Mail fails to deliver, it is not the fault of the postmen and postwomen; it is about institutional failure in the company that has been allowed to fester for too long. He will be pleased to hear that we have secured a number of commitments to get the investment and security that we need to ensure that the poor performance does not carry on.
Point of Order
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I spoke earlier on the English devolution White Paper, I forgot to alert the House to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a Hertfordshire county councillor. I wanted to correct the record at my earliest opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for prior notice of his point of order, which is now on the record.
Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]
Monday 16th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 45-I(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (19 Nov 2024)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am delighted to open the Second Reading debate on the Water (Special Measures) Bill—something I hope the whole House will consider to be an early Christmas present. I thank the noble Baroness Hayman of Ullock for her outstanding leadership of the Bill during its passage through the House of Lords, where it quite rightly won support from all sides.
Our rivers, lakes and seas are part of our beautiful British landscape and have been enjoyed by generations. Our countryside is one of the things that makes us proudest to be British, but that pride too often turns to dismay because in too many parts of our country, the local river, lake or beach has been made filthy by pollution. People worry that the places they enjoyed when they were younger are no longer there for their own children or grandchildren. No parent should have to worry that their child might get sick from splashing around in the local sea or river. Our green and pleasant land is no longer quite so pleasant. Our rivers, lakes and seas are being choked by record levels of pollution from untreated sewage, as well as chemicals and run-off from agriculture and highways.
The Bill is not just about the desecration of water running through our countryside. Clean water is essential for every home and business up and down the country. It is one of the essential foundations of our economy, our communities and our national security. We use water to cool power stations, generate electricity, supply our leisure industries and grow the food that feeds us, but our water infrastructure is under increasing strain. It is outdated, inadequate and crumbling. The situation is made worse by our changing climate, with more frequent and severe rainfall, floods and droughts. Water supplies to homes and businesses are disrupted too frequently in some parts of the country. I have spoken to residents in Hastings and Rye who were rightly furious at the inadequate information, lack of alternative supply and little to no compensation when yet another outage happened in their locality.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for the work he and his Department are doing to change the compensation rules so that when these incidents happen, my constituents get higher levels of compensation—something that the Conservatives had 14 years to do, but failed to do. Had they acted in that time, my residents would not be left without compensation for the incidents that have happened in Hastings, Rye and the villages.
Steve Reed
I pay huge credit to my hon. Friend. She has been such a champion for her communities in Hastings and Rye, demanding the better water services they deserve.
The failure to invest in our water infrastructure means that the demand for clean drinking water will start to outstrip supply as early as the mid-2030s. Without urgent action, some parts of the country would then face water rationing. The water system is broken but, instead of fixing it, the previous Conservative Government just stood back and watched as our water infrastructure crumbled into disrepair. Instead of strengthening regulation to ensure water companies invested sensibly and at the right time, the Conservatives hobbled the regulator and let water companies divert millions of pounds into wholly unjustified multimillion-pound bonuses and dividend payments.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State share my amazement that under the previous Conservative Government organisations had to campaign to have sewage-free rivers, lakes or seas, as if it were some kind of privilege rather than a right for everyone? Does he have any idea of the amount of money that was taken out of the sector, and out of the infrastructure we needed, in profits and bonuses under that Government?
Steve Reed
I agree that it is indeed amazing. I know that all of us on the Labour Benches, and perhaps on the Opposition Benches too, share the public’s anger at what happened to our rivers, lakes and seas.
The legacy of 14 years of Conservative Government is the highest level of sewage spills on record, economic growth held back by a lack of water supplies, and now potentially painful bill rises to fix the problems they left behind.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State says there was the highest level of spills on record. How does he know? When Labour was in power previously, only 7% of sewage outlets were even monitored.
Steve Reed
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that there is very little point in monitoring sewage in the water if all you do is watch the sewage increase and keep on flowing into our rivers, lakes and seas. The Conservatives seem to be satisfied with the failure they presided over. The Labour party will fix the problem that they left behind.
If you find cracks in the wall of your house and ignore it for years, the problem gets worse and the cost of putting it right escalates. That is exactly what the Conservatives did to our water system. They refused to bring in the investment early enough, so ageing infrastructure crumbled even further and the cost to bill payers has rocketed.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
We are about a month away from Thames Water signing up for another £3 billion of debt. If that happens, 46% of the bills of every customer in that catchment will be spent on interest expenses, and that is without even paying down the £20 billion of debt. How is that helping anyone?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. One of the reasons the Government commissioned a review into governance and regulation is because of the failure of the current system that the previous Government allowed to continue.
I share customers’ anger about the scale of water bill rises they seem likely to face. They are rightly furious at being left to pay the price of Conservative failure. I am grateful that the party opposite has indicated support for the Bill. It is just a shame its support has come so late. In December last year, while they were still in government, I called a vote on introducing a ban on unjustified bonuses for water bosses, but they refused to do it. They could have acted at any point over the past 14 years, but they would not do it. There have been many times in history when Labour has had to clean up the Tories’ mess, but rarely quite so literally as cleaning up the raw sewage polluting our country’s waterways.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Does he acknowledge, though, that under the previous Labour Government we saw none of the massive capital investment that we are seeing now with the Thames tideway tunnel, which was started under the Conservative Government in 2016? It will be completed next year and is one of the biggest changes to removing sewage from our waterways in history.
Steve Reed
The Conservatives had 14 years to fix the system and they chose to do absolutely nothing. They have left it to the incoming Labour Government to clear up the mess they left behind.
The truth is that the water sector needs a complete reset. It needs reform that puts customers and the environment first for once, and a new partnership with the Government to invest for the future and upgrade our water infrastructure.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
My constituents do not understand why they may be facing a 50% price increase from Thames Water, partly to service a £3 billion loan. The Secretary of State talks about resetting the water industry. Will he consider taking Thames Water into a special administrative regime, so it can be properly reset and the inappropriate debt built up under the previous Government written off to the benefit of taxpayers and consumers?
Steve Reed
There is a process by which any company would go into administration. That situation has not yet arisen with any company. The Government are, of course, closely monitoring the situation with Thames Water, but as things stand the company remains viable and I reassure consumers in that area that there is no threat, and would be no threat, to water supply in any circumstance.
The Government have a three-stage plan to deliver change and bring in the biggest ever investment in our water sector. That started with the initial reforms I announced in the week following the general election. It continues with the Bill before the House today. It will be completed with the water commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, and further legislation that will follow on from that.
In my first week as Environment Secretary, I met water company chief executives and announced a set of immediate reforms to start the process of change. Money earmarked for investment to upgrade water infrastructure will now be ringfenced, so it cannot be diverted for other purposes, including paying bonuses or dividends. If it is not spent on what it was intended for, it will be refunded back to customers as discounts on their bills. Water companies agreed to formally change their company objectives to place customers and the environment at the heart of everything they do. They will set up powerful new customer panels to scrutinise key decisions. Customers who face frequent water outages—like the constituents my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) talked about—or contaminated tap water, as residents and businesses experienced in Brixham in Devon, will now receive more generous compensation and they will get it faster.
We promised in our manifesto to put water companies under special measures to clean up our water. The core provisions of the Bill do precisely that by strengthening the powers of the regulators and holding water companies to account for poor performance.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State rightly talks about the role that regulators have to play, whether that is Ofwat or the Environment Agency. While the water companies were getting away with what they were doing, the Conservative party took huge amounts of money out of the EA. Independent figures from Unchecked UK suggest an 88% reduction in enforcement activities, and that a 50% reduction in the environmental protection budget led to a 60% reduction in activity. Will he set out more on how regulators will be key to clearing up our water industry?
Steve Reed
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes some extremely important points. In my speech, I will be coming on to how we intend to ensure the regulator not only has additional powers but additional resources to enforce those powers.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
On compensation, sewage discharges have a massive impact on the local economy in places like Cleethorpes in my constituency, which relies on holidaymakers to support our tourist and hospitality economy. Will the compensation extend to businesses, or will those companies which are put under special measures be required to support other local businesses that are hampered as a result of sewage discharges?
Steve Reed
That is an important point. Polluted water does not just damage people’s health; it damages the health of local economies as well, and the compensation will extend to businesses in a way that it previously did not.
The Bill gives Ofwat legal powers to ban bonuses if water company executives fail to meet high standards. It will introduce stricter penalties, including imprisonment, when senior executives in water companies obstruct investigations by environmental regulators, and it includes provisions to allow automatic and severe fines to be imposed for wrongdoing. When increased costs are a result of penalties being issued by the regulators, for instance under the new automatic penalties regime, penalties will come out of water company profits and not from customers.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
In evidence given to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Ofwat confirmed that had the measures to ban bonuses been in place earlier, the boss of Southern Water—which covers my constituency—would not have received his most recent bonus. It was Tory inaction that allowed it.
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for cleaner water for her constituents, and she is quite right. If millions of pounds had not been diverted unnecessarily and unfairly into bonuses, that money could have been invested in improving the broken water infrastructure.
The Bill will go further by expanding the cost recovery powers for the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. That means that water companies will bear the cost of enforcement activities, in line with the “polluter pays” principle, while also giving regulators the extra resources needed to hold water companies properly to account.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
As the Bill seeks to strengthen the regulation of our water companies, is this not an opportunity to finally regulate the existence of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in our water? Those highly toxic chemicals can be linked to serious health conditions. Scotland, the European Union and United States have put guidance on a legal footing. Why is the Secretary of State not using this opportunity to regulate the presence of PFAS in our drinking water, and to protect our health and that of our children?
Steve Reed
I recognise the point that the hon. Lady is making, and the Water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), will be pleased to meet her to discuss it further.
This Government will not let water companies get away with abuses that the last Government did nothing to stop. The Bill will open up the sector to greater scrutiny by ensuring that there is consistency and transparency in the reporting of pollution. It requires water companies to report in near real time on discharges from emergency overflows which at are present largely unmonitored. It requires water companies to consider the use of nature-based solutions such as reed beds, wetlands and tree planting when they develop their drainage and wastewater management plans. That will ensure that they consider all possible opportunities to use sustainable approaches that benefit the environment as well as managing water more effectively.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I am extremely encouraged by what the Secretary of State is saying. In my constituency—I have been following this for well over two years—the amount of sewage discharge has been absolutely contemptible. In 2023 alone, Thames Water pumped sewage into the river 116 times, for 990 hours, even when it was not raining. I am heartened to hear that, unlike the last Government, our Government intend to take serious measures to ensure that bosses are forced to clear up the mess that they create, and stop them doing it. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that, unlike the last Government, he will ensure that the regulators use the powers they are given and do not behave as feebly as they have for the past 14 years?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, may I point out that interventions must be short? More than 60 Back Benchers want to speak in the debate.
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is right to make that point. We are not just giving the regulators more teeth; we are also giving them more resources to ensure that they can carry out enforcement against those responsible for wrongdoing.
The Bill requires Ofwat to consider how it can contribute to achieving targets set under the Environment Act 2021 and the Climate Change Act 2008 when carrying out its functions. Together, these measures will ensure that water companies serve customers and the environment far better in future.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree with me, and with my constituents, that sewage pumped 193 times for 404 hours, in the context of £41 million in bonuses, produces angry residents, un-swimmable seas and potential bill rises—in short, a real faeces show—and does he agree that it cannot happen again?
Steve Reed
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining why her constituents are so angry about the situation, and why the Bill is so necessary as we start to turn the water industry around so that it serves customers and the environment better than it did previously.
I want to reassure the House that although water is a devolved matter, my Department has engaged with the devolved Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland throughout the development of the Bill. All its provisions will apply to both England and Wales, and we will continue to work closely with our Welsh counterparts as it progresses.
Steve Reed
I hope that Members will allow me to make some progress. I am worried about how much time I am taking, given that so many other Members want to contribute to the debate.
The Bill is just one part of the Government’s ambitious and long-term approach to fundamentally transforming the water sector. Together with the Welsh Government, I have commissioned Sir Jon Cunliffe, the distinguished former deputy governor of the Bank of England, to lead an independent commission on the future of the water industry. It will be the most comprehensive review of the industry since its privatisation 35 years ago.
Several hon. Members rose—
Steve Reed
I will make some progress, if Members do not mind.
The commission will review regulation and governance from the bottom up to ensure that we have a robust framework that can attract the significant investment that is needed to clean up our waterways, while guaranteeing future water supplies, restoring public confidence and promoting economic growth. Sir Jon will be supported by an advisory group covering areas including the environment, public health, engineering, customers, investors and economics. The commission will seek advice from stakeholder groups, including environmental campaigners, consumer champions, water companies, regulators and the public, and it will make recommendations by June 2025. This is our opportunity to completely reset the water industry so that it is fit for the future and can finally move on from the failures of the past.
I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hull West and Haltemprice, who will steer the Bill through this House. I know that she will lead this work with the expertise and passion for which she is well known across the House. No one is better suited to lead our Department’s first piece of primary legislation under the new Government.
This Bill is our chance to right the wrongs that have so angered members of the public up and down the country. Water pollution is not inevitable and it is not acceptable.
Our children and grandchildren deserve to make the same wonderful memories that we did, splashing about in clean rivers, swimming in the sea or playing on the shores of our beautiful lakes, without fear of getting sick. It is time to clean up our water once and for all, and the Bill is an important step in making that happen. Let us seize the opportunity to give this country back the clean rivers, lakes and seas that are our shared birthright.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to debate the vital issue of water and how this Bill may be improved. The Secretary of State will be relieved to hear that I intend to focus on water quality tonight, rather than his selling of farmers, fishermen and family businesses down the river—we dealt with that this afternoon at the London Palladium summit.
Across the House, we agree that there are fundamental problems facing the water and sewerage industry that span decades. While we enjoy high-quality drinking water across the UK, there are, sadly, some streams, rivers and beaches where sewage is discharged with disgusting results, chiefly because our Victorian-era sewerage system cannot cope with a larger population and increasingly volatile weather. We Conservatives recognised that when we entered government in 2010 and started the enormous and decades-long task of turning things around.
Victoria Atkins
I will come on that, and the hon. Gentleman will regret asking that question.
I am going to set out our record on water, because it is important that this Government act on the facts rather than believing their own rhetoric—as was demonstrated, sadly, by the shameful betrayal of farming and family businesses in Labour’s Budget of broken promises.
Since 2010, the number of designated bathing waters has increased. We have seen a significant improvement in water quality ratings, with more waters rated as “excellent” or “good”, and an increase in blue flag beaches. I gently point out that England performs better than other parts of the UK when it comes to leaks, drinking water quality and bathing water quality. I understand why Labour Members—including the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah), who is no longer in her place—have raised the issue of dividends, but it is an inconvenient fact that over 65% of dividends were paid out during the New Labour Government era, with a decline over the 14 years that we were in government.
There is more to be done, which is precisely why we want to help the Government to improve their piece of legislation. It is also why the work of the last decade must be seen as part of this giant infrastructure project. We were the first Government in history to set out that storm overflows must be reduced. To do that, storm overflows had to be monitored and measured. I have to say that I was surprised that the Secretary of State was so dismissive of the need to monitor. As a Home Office Minister, I was painfully aware that we needed to monitor, for example, reports of sexual violence against women, because once it is measured, we can manage it.
It is surprising that the Secretary of State does not appear to think that monitoring storm overflows matters. The reason why is that the previous Labour Government monitored just 7% of storm overflows in 2010. He cannot say that there are more overflows than ever before, because the previous Labour Government did not measure them. The fact that we increased monitoring to 100% of storm overflows means that we know the frequency and have been able to build a body of work on top of that. [Interruption.] He asks what we have done as a result, and I am very happy to help him with that. The data has empowered enraged residents to demand that their local streams, rivers and beaches be cleaned up. It is a critical part of the decades-long work on our water systems that is required, but we were not content with maximising monitoring. The data must be used—
Several hon. Members rose—
Victoria Atkins
I will give way in a moment.
The data must be used to improve water quality, which is why our landmark Environment Act 2021 gave stronger powers to regulators and imposed stricter demands for tackling pollution. We set legally binding targets to improve water quality and availability, and to reduce nutrient pollution. We rolled out catchment-sensitive farming to 100% of farms in England. Presumably, the Labour Government support the Environment Act 2021, because they seem to be replicating some of it in this Bill.
We recognised that the ageing water infrastructure needs rebuilding. The Conservative Government stepped up the requirements for investment, including investment from water companies in storm overflow improvements and nationally significant infrastructure projects, such as the Thames tideway tunnel super-sewer—the Secretary of State need only walk out the back of this House to see that sewer. He is now taking credit for the last Government’s work and is not happy to accept that.
Ben Coleman
May I suggest that if the right hon. Lady wishes to see the situation in the Thames, she need only go three bridges downstream to my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham, where the people who live in the Chelsea Reach houseboats regularly send me photos of the dirt and sewage coming down the river after 14 years of absolute failure to regulate the industry?
Victoria Atkins
I imagine the hon. Gentleman presents himself as a fair-minded individual to his constituents. When the Thames tideway super-sewer is open and functioning, presumably he will say to his constituents that they will see a vast improvement in the terrible situation that he has just described, thanks to the previous Government securing investment in order to make it possible.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Listening to the right hon. Lady and the excuses that the previous Government have made for what they did, it seems that what you were doing was equivalent to polishing one of the many turds that you will find in the Thames. Perhaps you would like to listen to your main electoral competitor, Reform UK, which actually has a policy for public ownership—I was quite surprised to find that out myself. Perhaps you think that that could solve many of the problems in UK waters.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. One solution would be not using the word “you”. As an experienced Member, he should know much better than that.
Victoria Atkins
Particularly as the hon. Gentleman was talking about effluent, which is not respectful. I know that he is capable of much greater advocacy than that. I am afraid that I will take no lessons from the Reform party, as he encourages, although I understand that Labour may face some threats from that party in the Welsh Senedd elections—but I digress.
We made it clear that the water industry must prioritise action to improve the environment, including protecting priority habitats such as chalk streams. I have the good fortune to have chalk streams in my constituency; they have carved their way through Lincolnshire’s wolds for the last 10,000 years. The dedicated chalk streams fund, announced by the Conservatives in 2022, has been put to good use in Lincolnshire. Will the Minister for Water and Flooding, whom I welcome to her place, confirm in her wind-up that the protection schemes for chalk streams will continue?
Following the pandemic, we launched our plan for water, which integrates water and food planning, tackles all sources of pollution and gives the Environment Agency the power to issue bigger penalties to water companies. We banned microbeads in rinse-off personal care products, reduced plastic bag usage by 95% and banned wet wipes containing plastic, which is a huge source of water pollution.
I understand why the Labour Government highlight the bonuses that water company bosses have received. Again, I gently point out to the Secretary of State—perhaps he has not done his homework—that the Environment Act 2021, which his Back Benchers do not seem to have read, gave regulators the power to ban water bosses from receiving bonuses if companies have committed serious criminal breaches. [Interruption.] Labour Members ask whether the regulators used it. They are independent, and it is for the regulators to justify why they have not used that power under the legislation that is available.
Victoria Atkins
I will do in a moment—I am not like the Secretary of State.
The truth is that Labour Members do not like hearing the facts. We brought forward measures to ensure that companies that pollute the environment can be hit with unlimited financial penalties. We also set up the water restoration fund, meaning that any fines or penalties levelled at water companies were ringfenced to support projects that improve the environment and keep pressure off bills, rather than being returned to the Treasury. The fact that Ministers appear to have stalled the fund reveals how little this Government understand the countryside or care about it. Indeed, it looks like they have held back £168 million in fines that were due to be paid into the fund.
Why on earth would this Labour Government not want polluters to pay? Why are they content for fines of many millions of pounds to be paid into the Treasury slush fund, rather than local environmental projects that have been damaged by storm overflows? Does the Treasury really need that money, or is it perhaps paying for the Deputy Prime Minister’s new, flash apartment? My colleagues and I will work to ensure that the water restoration fund is reinstated and that money goes to local environment projects to protect local environments, as was intended.
Most of the measures in this Bill, including monitoring, blocking bonuses and significant fines, were in fact brought it by the Conservative Government. Indeed, primary legislation is not necessary to put most of these measures into practice.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I am pleased to hear the right hon. Lady championing her party’s record on the environment. Her colleagues are somewhat less confident, given that only 12.5% of the parliamentary Conservative party have bothered to show up to the debate. Is that because they are ashamed or because they do not have the same confidence as she does in their record on the environment and pollution?
Victoria Atkins
No, it is because they know that we have already put most of these powers into place and that this is a PR exercise. None the less, it is an important topic, which is why we will ensure that the Government improve the Bill—there is much improvement to be done—and work constructively across the House to ensure that that happens. We understand that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Calder Valley want clean water as much as my residents in Lincolnshire do.
In Committee and beyond, we will be working to improve this Bill, and I want to join the Secretary of State in thanking the noble Lords in the other place for already starting this task of improvement. In particular, I congratulate Lord Cromwell, who amended the Bill to improve accountability on debt levels and the financial structuring of water companies. Will the Minister please confirm that the Government will keep those amendments in the Bill?
Mr Holden
On a fairly small technical point, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) made the point that 12.5% of Conservative Members are here. Perhaps he should look at the statistics, because only 11% of Labour Members are here. I know that the last Labour Government were not interested in monitoring the outflows, but they could at least monitor their own Members.
Victoria Atkins
I thank my right hon. Friend. That shows that we on this side can count, unlike the cockeyed accounting of the Chancellor and her Ministers.
In Committee and beyond, the Conservatives will look to deliver an effective limit on water company borrowing. We will boost the way that nature-based solutions can be used in drainage and sewerage management plans, as well as in water storage and tackling pollution. We will also seek to bring back the water restoration fund as an absolute priority.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Member think it is acceptable that 90-year-old residents in Fillongley in my constituency go out in their wellington boots at night to deal with flooding in their village because her Government did not invest in local solutions for the last 14 years?
Victoria Atkins
Of course the constituents’ experience that the hon. Lady has described is not acceptable. I do not think anyone would say that it was. Sometimes the public are switched off by this back and forth, because the idea that anyone would be content with the experience that she has described is for the birds. The difference that we draw on—I hope we will have a much more constructive conversation about water than this—is that the investment that was made by the last Government in flooding has had many benefits across the country but, as I acknowledged at the beginning of my speech, there is more to be done. That is why we will support the Bill, but we will be looking to improve it.
I just want to make sure that the Minister got the point that I was making. The amendment that came from the Lords to improve accountability on debt levels and on the financial structuring of water companies is a critical one, and I very much hope that the Government will address this and set out their commitment to keep that amendment that the noble Lords saw fit to put in the Bill.
As I say, in Committee and beyond, the Conservatives will look to deliver effective and constructive amendments to this Bill, but I put down this marker. It is surprising—and, I have to say, disappointing—that the Government have failed to grasp that water companies and sewage are just two elements in managing, maintaining and improving our waterways and water quality. Where are the plans for investment in infrastructure? Where are the plans for nature-based solutions? Where are the plans for the roles of other businesses? As we face the likelihood of increased bills being announced this week, what guarantees and reassurances can the Government give to bill payers? And what plans do the Government have to separate foul water and surface water systems? That is a critical infrastructure question that I hope we will get some answers to in the coming weeks. How will the Government encourage investment, particularly given the depressive effects on growth that this Chancellor and her Budget are having on the economy?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the shadow Minister for her words of wisdom in the Chamber tonight. Does she share my concern over the excessive bonuses that the chief executives of these businesses get? Does she know how much that angers and annoys the ordinary person in the street, who wants to know why somebody is getting a six-figure sum for not doing their job right while they are just trying to make ends meet?
Victoria Atkins
Of course we understand that, and it is why we put the powers into the Environment Act 2021 that I am sure the hon. Gentleman and many others voted to support. I hope we can move away from this back and forth and understand the facts as they are and how we can improve on them, because that is what we all want.
We all care about the quality of our water. Let us not pretend or suggest otherwise. I would not suggest that Labour Members do not care about the quality of water, and I do not understand why they think we do not care about the quality of the water that we and our constituents use, drink and swim in—[Interruption.] It is interesting—the left do not like it when we point out that they use motivations rather than the facts. This is why the Conservatives set in train the measures needed to make a meaningful and long-term difference to water quality in this country. That task is not yet finished, and we will support thoughtful, sensible and cost-effective measures to further improve water quality.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
This is a heavily oversubscribed debate and I want to get as many Back Benchers in as I can, so Back-Bench speeches will be limited to a hard stop at four minutes. I call Matt Rodda, who is going to show us how it is done beautifully—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Mr. Holden, is this a crucial point of order related to the business taking place right now?
Mr Holden
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State had the opportunity today to make a declaration of interest, in having had football tickets worth £1,800 donated to him by Hutchison 3G UK Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings, which also owns three quarters of Northumbrian Water. I just wonder whether he would like to make a quick declaration on the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am not sure that it is a matter for the Chair to regulate Members’ declarations of interest. It is on public record, which is why the hon. Gentleman has been able to make that point on the Floor of the House, and no doubt it has been noted. Now, Mr. Rodda, you have four minutes. The floor is yours.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in tonight’s debate, and I start by making my own declaration of interests, in that I have family members who work in hydrology and in environmental science, which is closely related to the water industry.
In support of the Bill, I want to make three points about the real experience of my constituents with water pollution, with water supply issues—which are very serious—and on the need for serious action to tackle those issues. I am lucky to represent Reading. It is a wonderful town at the confluence of two major rivers: the River Thames, one of the country’s biggest rivers, and the Kennet, a beautiful tributary of the Thames. It is a chalk stream that starts in the north Berkshire downs and flows into the River Thames at Reading.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend’s constituency neighbours my constituency of Reading West and Mid Berkshire. In addition to the beautiful chalk stream, the Kennet, I also have the beautiful River Pang, which has unfortunately been decimated by the sewage outflows under the previous Government, with children walking to school through raw sewage in the streets—an absolute disgrace. Does he agree that the measures in this Bill will get tough on failing water companies such as Thames Water?
Matt Rodda
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly the problem, and I want to help Members to picture its seriousness.
In 2023, Foudry brook, which flows into the Kennet, was badly polluted. Next to well-established willow trees on the banks of that small river, which flows through local fields and past people’s terraced houses into Reading, I saw with my own eyes putrid green water—the stench was unbelievable—caused by a sewage outfall in Hampshire that flowed into Foudry brook and ultimately into the Kennet, then into the main River Thames. That is the sort of disgusting pollution that we are concerned about, which is why I am so pleased with the Government’s action on this important matter. It is also important to local residents who live next to rivers, who walk near rivers, who use canoes or boats in rivers, or who fish in rivers. Thousands of local residents in my area, across our county and in other similar parts of England, as well as those living near lakes and seas, are affected by this issue.
I have seen other appalling instances of pollution. In another case, I was walking with my wife next to the Thames in the middle of winter. It was a beautiful scene and, looking across the river, we could see trees, fields and hillsides in the distance. There was a heron on the water. Sadly, this view was blighted by the sight of dark brown-cream foam frothing on the river and gathering next to an island—the foam was caused by nitrate pollution from sewage.
This was in the River Thames, in a beautiful area just outside Reading, and it is the sort of disgusting pollution that we and our constituents are all having to face. That is why this Bill is so important, and I hope we can all agree to support it because such appalling pollution simply should not be taking place in England, or in any part of the United Kingdom.
I realise that time is pressing, but the measures in this Bill will also tackle some very serious issues with water supply. I have residents who had their water cut off for two days, nearly a year ago, and still have not been compensated. This affected hundreds of people living in east Reading, in the Newtown area near Reading University and the Royal Berkshire hospital. They were unable to shower or cook, and they had multiple other problems caused by the lack of water supply. I endorse the Government’s measures to toughen up the response to such failures of service.
We recently had another incident where residents were expected to drive 9 miles to Henley-on-Thames to collect water, which is simply unacceptable. Residents, including vulnerable residents, had to drive for a 45 or 50-minute round trip to collect bottled water from a Tesco supermarket on the outskirts of Henley, yet there were multiple sites in the north part of Reading from where emergency water supplies could have been delivered.
Both examples show why this important legislation is needed. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak tonight, and I look forward to hearing more from my hon. Friends.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a great privilege to speak on this Bill on behalf of my party, and a still greater privilege, I dare say, to speak as the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, which includes Windermere, Ullswater, Coniston Water, Haweswater, Rydal Water, Grasmere, Elterwater, Esthwaitewater, Brotherswater, the River Kent, the River Eden and much of Morecambe bay. We are a stunningly beautiful part of the country, and also one of the wettest. For us, water is unavoidable and precious. It is precious to our biodiversity, our heritage and our tourism economy.
As the House may have noticed, the Liberal Democrats chose to make water the centrepiece of our election campaign. So much so that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) spent much of the campaign in the stuff. We continue to champion a radical restructuring of our water industry, because water is the most vital of resources and because we cannot allow a continuation of the poor regulation, wanton pollution and abuse of power that became hallmarks of the water industry under the Conservative Government.
There is much to welcome in this Bill, including criminal liability for chief executives who are responsible for severe environmental failure—a measure that I remind colleagues was proposed by the Liberal Democrats before the last election, and that Labour refused to support at the time because it believed the measure to be unnecessary. We are pleased that Labour now agrees with us.
We are also encouraged by the proposals to increase some of Ofwat’s powers, to introduce a fit-and-proper-person test for chief executives, to institute an automatic fining system that makes sense, to install real-time monitors, and to create greater data transparency. All these measures are welcome, and they will all help, but they do not yet amount to the radical structural transformation that is so obviously needed.
The recent announcement of Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review is welcome, but it is also kind of frustrating. It suggests that the Government might well be up for a more radical change, just not yet. The review will not conclude until next summer, of course, after which many people, including in the Treasury, will need to go over its proposals before it hopefully makes it into a King’s Speech, running the risk that the more ambitious part 2 might not find its way on to the legislative timetable in this Parliament.
Of course, fixing the entire water industry and sewerage system is not an overnight job, but this feels like an especially ponderous way to solve such an urgent and pressing issue.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the perils of acting too slowly, but given that a Liberal Democrat was in charge of the water industry when it was privatised, does he not think that we might all be paying the price for the error of acting too quickly in that instance?
Tim Farron
Unless, to my absolute surprise, the Liberal Democrats were in power in the 1980s and early 1990s, I do not think that could have been the case. I was at university with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) when it happened, and neither of us was in government at the time.
The British people rightly believe that they voted for a far more ambitious plan than the one in the Bill, and they believe that they voted for it to be delivered urgently. The biggest mistake that Labour Governments tend to make is not being ambitious enough, presumably under the impression that they will be in power for longer than they perhaps might be, so my friendly advice to the Government is to seize the day and seize the moment. The millions who voted Liberal Democrat at the election absolutely did vote for ambitious and urgent change.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the water companies need to be regulated, to protect not profits but the environment? Does he also believe that bathing waters, like the wonderful Tone bathing water in which I was swimming the day before yesterday, should not automatically be de-designated?
Tim Farron
I commend my hon. Friend for his swimming activities, and I agree with him. The regulatory framework should be used to improve our waterways, not to strip them of their vital designations. We take the view that it is our job to campaign with energy and passion for a radical clean-up. We are determined to keep our word to the voters by fighting for that action.
I will take a quick moment to say something that I feel is most important. The people who work on the frontline in our water industry, and those who work for the Environment Agency and Ofwat, deserve our thanks and admiration—yet, because of the failings of the system, they end up taking the blame that ought to land here in this place. The legions of people running our water system do a vital job, so I want us to get the tone of this debate right. We can be rightly outraged about how our water industry is allowed to operate, and at the same time be hugely grateful to those who, despite the system, do outstanding work to serve our communities. I want those people to know, and to hear, that we really value them. They are a blessing to us. They are not the problem; the system is. We are determined to fight for a better system for all those people to work in.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
In a previous life, I drafted many of the amendments to the Environment Act 2021. I am sorry that the shadow Secretary of State would not let me intervene on her, and I am further sorry that she and most of her colleagues voted against every single one of those amendments. The hon. Gentleman was very kind and wisely voted for them. Although Conservative Members now talk about regulation, all the previous Government did was cut the regulator off at its knees, and we are now dealing with the consequences of their inaction and decisions.
Tim Farron
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service in a previous life, as well as in this one. He makes a very important point, to which I will turn in a moment. There is no point having great regulatory powers if we do not have a regulator with the resources to do the job that it needs to do. Nevertheless, regulation could be made better.
Water industry regulation is split between the Environment Agency and Ofwat, and that plainly does not work. We have two inadequately resourced regulators, with inadequate powers, being played off against each other by very powerful water companies that are far better resourced and able to run rings around the very good, but very harassed people whose job it is to hold them to account. I welcome the concession made in the Bill requiring Ofwat to contribute towards meeting the targets of the Environment Act 2021 and the Climate Change Act 2008. That is a step in the right direction because I believe it will be the first time that Ofwat will have proper environmental obligations, alongside its business obligations.
We have received promises, as the Secretary of State set out from the Dispatch Box earlier, that this Government will strengthen Ofwat’s powers in ways that we do not see on the face of the Bill. For instance, Liberal Democrat peers asked the Minister to confirm that the Government would ban water company bosses getting bonuses when their company had had a major category 1 or category 2 sewage incident the year before, and the Minister in the other place said:
“These are the type of circumstances in which it would be highly inappropriate for a bonus to be awarded.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. 247.]
That is very welcome, but it is not on the face of the Bill.
I pay tribute to my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place, who forensically engaged with the Bill to make it much better. I also pay tribute to the collegiate and constructive manner in which the Minister, Baroness Hayman, worked with them. To be clear, though, the Liberal Democrats would go even further and create a unified and much more powerful regulator, the clean water authority, absorbing the regulatory powers of Ofwat and the Environment Agency, but with many additional powers, including revoking the licence of poorly performing water companies swiftly, forcing water companies to publish the full scale of their sewage spills, reforming water companies to put local environmental experts on their boards, and putting robust, legally binding targets on sewage discharges.
On the issue of discharges, we welcome the change to require data from emergency overflows to be published within an hour of a discharge. That will require companies to monitor all emergency sewage overflows and to ensure that data is reported to the Environment Agency within the hour. To pursue the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), my concern is that the Environment Agency is already massively overwhelmed. In my constituency, I see good people working very hard, but with Coniston, Windermere, the River Eden and the River Kent competing for time, attention and resource, as well as the ongoing work of building flood defences in Kendal, it is hard for them to be able to focus.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the Environment Agency being under-powered and under-resourced. With rivers like the River Wharfe, it has clearly failed to address illegal discharges and to enforce the law. Does he, like me, welcome the fact that the Bill will introduce more support for enforcement by allowing the Environment Agency to recover the cost of any enforcement from the offending water companies?
Tim Farron
Yes, to a degree. I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; it is very welcome, as is the investment that is promised and the way in which it will be provided, but—and I am happy to be put right on this—I think the figure used by the Government is an additional 500 members of staff for the Environment Agency. That is one per constituency in England and Wales. That will not make a noticeable difference. In practice, the Bill could well permit a continuation of the current situation, where water companies will be setting and marking their own homework, with an Environment Agency without the capacity to even manage its current workload, let alone the new duties the Bill will give it to monitor masses of important overflow data. The regulator must be much better funded to do that well. Even then, the regulation rules must be watertight for the Environment Agency to ensure that the water companies cannot pick and choose which information they release or retain.
The Minister indicated that the data will be made publicly available and easy to access. I look forward to hearing more detail about how that will be done. That could be a positive move, allowing citizen scientists and campaign groups—such as the wonderful Clean River Kent Campaign group, the Eden Rivers Trust, the South Cumbria Rivers Trust and the Save Windermere campaign, as well as many others from other communities —to be able to hold the water companies to account to a greater degree. After all, knowledge is power. We are keen to encourage the Government to move forward with that.
We would also like to see water companies publish the volume and concentration of discharge from all emergency overflows, not just their duration and frequency. Will the Minister consider including that duty? And should we really have water companies installing and maintaining their own monitoring equipment? We believe that the Environment Agency or its successor should be doing that, with the full cost of that work paid for by the water companies.
The Bill makes almost no attempt to address the structure of finances and ownership of the water industry. The Minister has indicated that the Bill will seek to change the culture of the industry, which would be welcome, but cultural change will only come with a change to the reckless profiteering that has been the norm. As right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches have said, Lord Cromwell in the other place tabled an amendment requiring annual updates from water companies on any financial restructuring that they have done or plan to do. It cannot go unacknowledged that financial stability and good governance seriously affect the environmental standards that any water company is able to reach. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) who made those points in relation to Thames Water.
I am grateful to my noble Friend Baroness Bakewell for tabling a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Bill in the Lords to create special status, with special protections, for Windermere as an exemplar of the standards we will expect in our waterways across the whole country. The Campaign for National Parks’ health check report, which was released earlier this year, found that only five out of the 880 bodies of water in the national parks of England and Wales met the highest ecological standards, and that every single one was polluted to some degree. Windermere itself received 140 million litres of pollution in the last two years. Amendments tabled in the Lords, which we will table here also, will seek to tackle that. Water industry leaders must be forced to take responsibility for the care of these world class lakes and waterways, and our amendments to the Bill would ensure that they do so.
Although the privatisation of the water industry was an incredibly bad decision and definitely did not happen on our watch, I am not convinced that renationalisation would be necessary or a good use of public money. I fear it would mean that we would have to buy the assets back, putting taxpayers’ money into the pockets of those who have already made so much money out of them, without a single penny of that money going into improving infrastructure. Instead, it seems wiser to move away from the current model and to ensure that water companies should be community benefit corporations, so that all revenue goes into keeping environmental standards higher and solving the long-term problems of our networks. None of our constituents should have to pay for company debt. These were business decisions, taken by those who took risks to make money, rather than to invest in our sewage systems; they should bear the consequences of those risks.
The current regulatory framework seems to leave water companies immune from the highest penalties, despite their repeated failure to meet their basic obligation to prevent sewage from being dumped in our lakes, rivers and coastal areas. The current rules mean that, under special administration procedures, to remove a water company’s licence to operator would mean the regulator serving a 25-year notice on them. That is why we are disappointed that the Bill does not go as far as we want, or as far as so many water campaigners have asked for it to go.
The Cunliffe review gives us hope of a more radical set of proposals to come later in this Parliament, but our communities are impatient for change—a change more radical than this Government are so far willing to offer us. Although we see nothing in the Bill to disagree with and much in it to commend, we are left frustrated that any radical transformation will be at best delayed until a second instalment, after Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The hon. Gentleman references Sir Jon Cunliffe, and I thank the Secretary of State for commissioning the review. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Sir Jon’s review should look across the United Kingdom, because Northern Ireland Water is both a Government-owned company and a non-departmental public body and I assure the House that the water quality in Northern Ireland, especially in Lough Neagh, is nothing to be celebrated either. Should not Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review look at how all bodies regulate their water systems, so they serve the public?
Tim Farron
I think two things. I respect the devolution settlement and think it is important that we do not overstep what we are called to do today. I also, however, agree that the waterways of all corners of our United Kingdom are precious and must be protected. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
To conclude, the job of the Liberal Democrats is to be the constructive opposition in this place, and to now use Committee stage to inject into the Bill the ambition and urgency that we feel is currently lacking. To millions of people out there who care deeply about our waterways, the problems are obvious and so are many of the solutions. We call on the Government to accept the amendments that we will table in Committee in good faith, to act ambitiously and comprehensively, and to do so without delay.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Helena Dollimore, a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution. Today, we will vote on a landmark piece of legislation to begin the clean-up of our water industry. The measures in the Bill ramp up regulation, ban bosses’ bonuses and ensure independent monitors on every sewage outlet, linked to a system of automatic severe fines. Make no mistake: these are the biggest increase in powers for a generation, and the changes cannot come soon enough for my constituency.
Before I come to the devastating impact that Southern Water has unleashed on my constituency, I pay tribute to the campaigners and community volunteers who exposed the scandal. It is only because of their determination and detective work that we have understood the scale of the problem. Volunteers from the clean water action group in Hastings go out testing the water three times a week. I also thank our local East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service, who time after time are the first on the scene when sewage is spilling out on to the street.
The community that I represent in Hastings and Rye is furious at the conduct of Southern Water. From Camber Sands to Old Roar Gill, sewage has poured on to our beaches and beauty spots. Our way of life as a seaside community has been compromised. Our appeal as a tourist destination has been tarnished and livelihoods have been ruined. Many people have got sick from swimming in the sea, or caught ear or eye infections. People have ended up in hospital with sickness, and one constituent even attributes her deafness in one ear to an infection that she caught swimming in the sea. Another constituent in Winchelsea beach told me that he cannot grow vegetables because for the last decade his back garden has been regularly flooded with sewage. A family in West St Leonards had to move out of their home for months and live in temporary accommodation after sewage flooded their home.
The town centre in Hastings was flooded twice in one year. Businesses and residents who had just moved back into redecorated homes saw their homes flooded all over again under a foot of sewage water. They then had to be rescued by firefighters. It was shameful. It has cost our community millions in damage, as well as the untold human cost of having possessions, property and livelihoods ruined. In the vast majority of cases, residents and businesses in my constituency have not been properly compensated by Southern Water. We have been left on our own to pick up the pieces, all while Southern Water’s boss has been allowed to collect a huge bonus. That money should be spent on fixing broken pipes, not rewarding failure.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I commend the hon. Lady on her excellent speech, and her celebration of local campaigners. In my constituency, Thames Water is responsible for numerous sewage leaks and a great stink that lingered over our market town of Camberley last summer. Does she agree that the Bill needs to provide for tougher regulation, and greater transparency and accountability, to ensure that water companies put health and safety and water quality over shareholder dividends?
Helena Dollimore
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. One of the things in the Bill that I really welcome is that it will stop water companies marking their own homework. The monitors on every outlet will report independently to the Government, so that we can issue automatic severe fines—a big change and step forward.
If huge amounts of sewage and major flooding in my constituency were not enough for one community to endure, we have also suffered major water outages at the hands of Southern Water. The taps have run dry twice in recent memory. In September 2023, 10,000 residents of Rye were left without water for up to nine days. In May this year, in Hastings, 30,000 people were left without water for five days. It caused huge disruption and had a major impact on local businesses. It has to stop. The Conservatives had 14 years to update the compensation guidelines for such incidents, and failed to act. Because of the action that this Labour Government are taking, if future incidents occur, my constituents will be eligible for greater compensation from Southern Water.
The Conservatives let the water companies off the hook for far too long. Instead of forcing the industry to invest in crumbling infrastructure, customers’ money was instead siphoned off into shareholder payouts and bonuses. My constituents now face record water bills because of that failure. We inherited a crumbling water system from the Conservative party, and this Labour Government are acting to clean up the mess. This Government are acting where the previous Conservative Government failed, to end the disgraceful behaviour of the water companies and their bosses with this Bill. This is just the start of the change. I thank the Government for announcing an independent commission on the water sector to see what more they can do to ensure that the water sector works for customers and the environment. I will work very hard to ensure that the voices of my residents in Hastings, Rye and the villages are heard as part of that process.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I welcome this Government’s continuation of the previous Government’s monitoring plans, and the fines that we had asked to be imposed upon water companies. I am the MP for Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages, which is a beautiful area along the Thames. We are also on a floodplain, and I have spent years working with the Farnham sewage action group, the Little Marlow sewage treatment works, the community and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that we are monitoring our storm overflow discharge.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to increase the capital spend on sewage treatment works. That is a wonderful and welcome sign, particularly when two of my sewage treatment works were approved only in July, when Labour took over. That is great news, which I am very happy to see. The Farnham and Little Marlow treatment works are due to be completed in 2026 and 2028. It is a wonderful opportunity for the Government to put their money where their mouth is, and invest in the future of the Thames in Marlow and Farnham. Will the Minister confirm that that investment will be maintained and hold Thames Water to account on delivery to that timescale? I have heard Ministers speak from the Dispatch Box of the Government’s eagerness to commit to this, and I am presenting two wonderful examples that we can monitor in the months to come.
My constituency is home to not only beautiful Marlow but aquatic sports along the Thames, which many young people enjoy. We have the Marlow rowing club and the Borlase rowing club, as well as the Little Marlow treatment centre, which is one of the most heavily fined sewage overflow and treatment centres in the country. Aquatic sports are practised in that area. I would welcome the Minister’s consideration of an amendment that I will table in Committee and on Report to ensure that the statutory requirements for areas where aquatic sports are practised are the same as the requirements for bathing areas, so that when young people, particularly secondary school children, row along the Thames they can rest assured of the water quality. I hope that this will be at the centre of cross-party support for ensuring that places such as the Thames, Marlow, Beaconsfield, Farnham and Burnham are looked at in a holistic way, and that the capital spend needed to invest and upgrade our sewage system will be committed to from the Dispatch Box today. I would welcome any further information from the Minister.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
Today, we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the foundation of our national parks. The Peak District, where I live, the majority of which is in High Peak, is our original national park and still the best, but our beautiful nature-rich rivers that run through the Peak District and High Peak are being soiled by raw sewage. High Peak is one of the top 50 constituencies that have been worst affected by sewage being dumped into our rivers. In 2023, the River Derwent and the River Wye suffered thousands of sewage overflows, contributing to water pollution and ecological harm, yet the water company bosses responsible rewarded themselves with outrageous bonuses. In 2022, the United Utilities chief executive officer received £3.2 million of remuneration, including an annual bonus of nearly £1 million. Severn Trent, which was fined £2 million for reckless pollution, still lifted its bonuses to £3.36 million. We must stop rewarding failure.
At the general election, ending the pollution of High Peak’s rivers and waters was a top priority. It was raised in all six—yes, six—hustings I did, often more than once. In High Peak, the pumping of raw sewage into our precious rivers has become emblematic of the utter chaos and failure of the past 14 years, so I greatly welcome the measures in the Bill. The independent monitoring of all outlets will provide greater transparency for my constituents and will enable the regulators to hold United Utilities and Severn Trent to account. Combined with the increased ability of the Environment Agency to bring forward criminal charges against lawbreaking water executives with tougher penalties, including up to two years’ imprisonment, and new powers for Ofwat to ban bonuses unless water bosses meet higher standards of protecting our precious environment, that should concentrate the minds of executives at Severn Trent and United Utilities.
It was a Labour Government that created our national parks 75 years ago today, and it is a Labour Government that are taking the steps to protect the rivers that run through those parks for the next 75 years.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I welcome many of the measures in the Bill and will focus in the time available on the real action our constituents need from Government to bring our sewage network up to date.
Too often and for too long, our constituents have paid the price for a failure of forward planning by the water industry. In September, my constituency was the victim of exceptional flooding. In the aftermath, as we sought to learn lessons, many stories involved raw sewage coming up into people’s homes and gardens and flowing down their streets in places such as Harlington, Barton-le-Clay and Greenfield, as excess surface water overwhelmed the sewage system. No one, be they in Mid Bedfordshire or anywhere else in our country, should see a storm cloud overhead and fear that they will end up ankle deep in sewage—not in the 21st century.
I say this is a problem of forward planning because a shocking example of industry neglect during the flooding came from new town Wixams. The town is still being built out, with construction beginning this century, and yet the flooding overwhelmed the wastewater and sewage infrastructure, which could not cope with the amount of water being discharged into it. Thousands more homes will be built in Wixams and across Mid Bedfordshire over the coming years. We must do more to force the water industry to ensure that those homes are served by infrastructure that is fit for purpose and climate resilient.
The previous Government recognised that we have a Victorian sewage network, and they stepped up requirements for water companies to invest in improving our infrastructure. This Government must be similarly ambitious. I welcome clause 4, which talks of the importance of nature-based solutions in drainage and sewage management plans, building on the previous Government’s work in their plan for water.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
In 2023, Chichester experienced 990 spills lasting over 17,000 hours. It is an environmental scandal and a public health crisis. As the Secretary of State said in his opening comments, it is time to clean up our water once and for all, and I welcome the Bill. Does the hon. Member agree that nature-based solutions, such as wetlands, will play a vital role in reducing spills and can be brought in quickly, but only if the regulation allows?
Blake Stephenson
I absolutely agree on the importance of nature-based solutions, and those solutions are talked about frequently in my community and, I am sure, in communities across the country. They were not necessarily spoken about five or 10 years ago, but we have a real opportunity to make a difference if we focus and deliver on nature-based solutions.
We must go much further in this area to ensure that all our towns and cities are built to absorb water. On implementing sustainable urban drainage systems, I mentioned this previously to the Minister for Water, and I will keep banging on about it. We must bring into force schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010—I recognise that the Act is from 2010 and a lot has happened since then—and take much stronger action to ensure that drains do not become blocked.
One way we could tackle the problem of abstraction and, indeed, flooding is by backing projects like the Bedford to Milton Keynes waterway park, which would run through the Marston Vale in Mid Bedfordshire and help channel water to where it is most needed. I hope the Government will give that project the support it needs.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
I am pleased to be called to speak on this crucial piece of legislation, which will directly benefit the people of Nuneaton. For far too long, water companies have operated with little accountability, prioritising profits and shareholder payouts instead of the wellbeing and community impact that is so important to my residents.
The people of Nuneaton are tired of our river being polluted with raw sewage, and they are tired of being ignored and seeing a lack of action from water companies such as Severn Trent. In 2023 there were 66 sewage dumps, totalling 464 hours of raw sewage flowing into our rivers. That is a staggering 38% increase in the number of dumps and a 60% increase in the duration compared with the year before. Now we are told that in Nuneaton we will be expected to take 60% additional sewage to accommodate for Hinckley. Rather than investment supporting the overflowing infrastructure we have, the infrastructure will only be used to accommodate our neighbours.
Despite Severn Trent failing to meet its compliance targets and risk factors increasing, we are seeing record-breaking profits of nearly £3 million, and there is no benefit to the people of Nuneaton. I have met Severn Trent, and I am interested in the positive narrative that we have heard, but that is incongruent with the experiences of my residents, especially those who live on Church Lane in Weddington, for whom sewage flowing down their streets and contaminated solids in their gardens have become all too commonplace.
I support the Bill to block bonuses for executives who oversee the environmental damage, and to bring criminal charges for those who persistently break environmental law.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
My constituency is home to two significant rivers: the Hogsmill, a pristine chalk stream; and the River Mole, which tragically ranks as one of the most polluted rivers in the country. The River Mole, stretching 50 miles from Sussex to the Thames, is more than a waterway; it is a much-loved amenity for families, walkers and wildlife. Yet it is fighting for its life. Sewage discharges surpassed 2023 levels by November this year, with over 12,500 hours of raw sewage polluting the river through storm overflows. That is unacceptable. The crisis has been caused by water companies’ mismanagement, enabled by Ofwat’s failure to hold them to account. Thames Water has prioritised shareholder dividends over infrastructure investment, and Ofwat has issued no fines for sewage treatment failures since 2021—an extraordinary regulatory failure.
The Water (Special Measures) Bill introduces vital provisions to block bonuses for water company executives and to impose fines. Although these measures are welcome, they do not go far enough. Ofwat is a regulator that does not work, and it must be replaced with a new regulator with powers to ban bonuses comprehensively, to revoke licences for poor performance and to set legally binding sewage targets. Bonuses must be blocked not just for pollution, but for persistent leaks, missed investment targets and failing infrastructure improvements. The Liberal Democrats would ensure that the companies are held accountable for all their failures, not just the most egregious ones.
We must also rethink water company ownership. Since privatisation, those companies have accumulated £68 billion of debt, while paying out £70 billion in dividends. Customers are now paying for that debt in their bills. In a public-benefit model operating as not for profit, debt-free mutuals would reinvest all profits into upgrading our water system. That model works. Denmark, whose not-for-profit utilities have some of the lowest water losses, ranks among the top EU countries for bathing water quality.
Closer to home, I commend the River Mole river watch group in my constituency. Those dedicated volunteers test water quality and report pollution online. Their work is extraordinary, but they should not have to do it alone. Water companies must publish detailed and transparent data on sewage spills so that the public understands the full extent of the problem. Such local groups deserve more than praise; they need a seat at the table. Those environmental champions should have representation on water company boards, bringing community-driven accountability to decision making.
My constituents and the rest of the public are sick of seeing their rivers turned into open sewers. They are sick of paying higher water bills to subsidise shareholder profits and executive bonuses while vital investment is neglected. The Government must go further by replacing Ofwat with a new regulator that has stronger powers, expanding the ban on bonuses, empowering local communities, and reorganising water companies into public benefit organisations. This is our chance to turn the tide on water mismanagement and restore our rivers to health. The people of Epsom and Ewell, and indeed of the whole country, deserve no less.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Last year, more than 100 people met at South bay in Scarborough to protest about the consistently poor water quality. Ironically, as they prepared to enter the water, they were approached by lifeguards who told them that it was not safe to do so because of the high levels of sewage. The event was organised by Surfers Against Sewage. One of its members, Steve, who is a constituent of mine, has had to close his surfing business because the water quality is so poor that he cannot guarantee the health and wellbeing of his surf students.
I also have the fantastic Wave Project in my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby. That charity is committed to improving children’s mental health and wellbeing through its award-winning surf therapy programme, which enables children and young people to build confidence and overcome anxiety barriers through surfing. However, it regularly has to cancel sessions at short notice because of the poor water quality, which causes immense upset for youngsters and their families.
Away from my beautiful beaches, the River Esk starts its 28-mile journey in Westerdale in the north York moors and flows eastward to Whitby. It is the only major river in Yorkshire that flows directly into the North sea, and it is both commercially and ecologically important. It supports Atlantic salmon, sea trout and the endangered freshwater pearl mussel. However, pollution is destroying the health of the River Esk. Eighteen storm overflows—17 of which are in my constituency—discharge into the river. In 2023 there were 637 sewage spills. The worst offender was Ruswarp sewage pumping station, which had 126 spills. Such discharges release pollutants, which reduce water quality and cause harm to aquatic life. That is particularly concerning during the salmon spawning season, as it can affect fish eggs and juvenile fish.
Yorkshire Water has stood back and let that happen. It is hardly surprising that, after Yorkshire Water was fined £47 million for historical sewage spills and poor customer service, campaign groups continue to call on its chief executive to repay the £371,000 bonus that she received last year. Where is the accountability? Official figures show that 87% of rivers in Yorkshire and the Humber fail to achieve a good ecological standard. It cannot be right that people’s health and livelihoods, as well as our precious environment, have been so severely impacted by privatised companies that put profit before people and the planet.
I welcome the measures in this ambitious Bill, especially the move to boost accountability, which will mean that the chief executive of Yorkshire Water will no longer receive her bonus unless she meets high standards in protecting the environment and customers. The new requirement on the water companies to report on the frequency and duration of all emergency storm overflows within an hour of a discharge taking place will tell us the real story for the first time. Only then can we draw a line under this disgraceful era of profit at any cost, and move towards fixing the broken water industry.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is absolutely right and correct that we debate these measures to improve the water industry. In the light of continued concerns over Thames Water and Southern Water, action must be taken to protect our water service.
It is important to take a step back and put the debate into its proper context. We must appreciate that most of the UK has a combined sewerage system, meaning that both rainwater and wastewater are carried in the same pipes, before wastewater goes into a sewage treatment plant. If, as in recent weeks, we have exceedingly heavy rainfall, capacity can be exceeded and water companies are allowed to spill untreated wastewater into rivers and seas—otherwise, there is a risk of flooding people’s homes with waste. There has been an issue of companies doing that when there has been no rain—known as a dry spill—which is not acceptable.
Although it has been miscommunicated by other parties and by the Secretary of State, the previous Government took the vital step of requiring storm overflows to be monitored. As hon. Friends have said, that monitoring increased from 7% in 2010 to 100% in 2024. It has enabled discussions and plans to fix the poor behaviour of the water companies. The overflows were always happening, but the previous Government’s monitoring caught the poor behaviour and highlighted the action that was required.
Sarah Bool
Not just yet.
No monitoring does not mean that water is clean, as the Secretary of State seemed to suggest. One must be faithful to the facts.
We will support this Bill’s Second Reading because it includes many measures that the previous Government established—for example, companies that pollute the environment can be hit with unlimited fines, and water bosses can be banned from receiving bonuses if their companies commit serious criminal breaches. However, some measures need to be amended, including to maintain the previous Government’s water restoration fund. Why has that not been continued?
We must ensure that we focus on our water infrastructure, which is largely out of date. Poor maintenance causes leakages, and poor capacity leads to sewage overflows. Tackling those problems will require investment and innovation. Ofwat must use its powers more effectively to better monitor performance and enforce standards in a timely fashion. Although I acknowledge the Bill’s focus on penalties for water companies, we must ensure that incentives for investment and change are in place for the years to come.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill as a first step towards broader change across the water sector to ensure that it works for people. The number of complaints about water and the management of our waterways has been a key concern for people in North West Leicestershire for some time, but residents feel that water companies have not acted while bills have predictably continued to rise.
When I was a member of Leicestershire county council’s environment and climate change scrutiny committee, I pushed for the water companies in Leicestershire to attend our committee, which they did—eventually—in November 2022. They gave a great presentation with some glossy pictures, but their suggestions, which looked nice on paper, simply have not materialised. My impression was that there was a severe lack of transparency and accountability among those companies about the damage that they were doing to our water system, which followed the previous Conservative Government’s unwillingness to act and push them to clear up their mess. The long-term priorities for the water companies have been shareholder and executive pay. They have been taking bonuses while polluting our waterways, and increasing debt without increasing investment.
There are signs of recovery, however. The Bill has not yet become law, but there has been a shift in Severn Trent Water’s willingness to clear up its mess in North West Leicestershire, and its hard-working employees have appeared to start engaging with us. That must continue if we are to challenge the constant impact that poor water quality is having on our communities and our environment. Water issues are a constant in my casework files, as they are for so many hon. Members, and local people have been in touch to report dry weather outflows. They are asking, quite rightly, about the legitimacy of outflows in dry weather and of large-volume releases during wet conditions. What is clear is that those releases have been seriously damaging for our communities.
Let me bring home an example of the importance of this Bill. I have been working with a group of residents in Whitwick in my constituency who have a shared garden space next to the Grace Dieu brook, where they have a storm drain. That storm drain regularly releases effluent, and when I visited recently, despite having had a crew to clear up, it was clear that there was still debris. While the water in the brook had been tested immediately after the spill and found to be within a normal range, the residual smell remained—it just clung—meaning that those residents were unable to use their personal space.
There is another site in Donington le Heath, which is home to the most-used sewer outflow in my constituency. I was invited to see a resident who has a smallholding close by. They have a storm drain on their land alongside the River Sence, a particularly beautiful watercourse. When I visited earlier in the year, they had just had an effluent release, and despite 10 bags of rubbish having been cleared from the area, there was still a clear path of debris from the spill. This keeps happening, and it has to stop. Those are just two cases in which our local communities have borne the impact of poor decision making and a lack of investment in infrastructure. They should not have to manage untreated waste while the execs get their bonuses—communities should not have to continue to deal with this.
This Bill puts failing water companies under special measures and sends a clear message that this Government are ready to take the action necessary to fix our foundations. It is the start we need to deliver the transformational change that our water system desperately needs.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
It is an honour to speak on such an important issue, one that affects my coastal constituency daily. Sewage discharges, water quality, and the related issue of flooding are among the most pressing concerns for my constituents.
The Environment Agency’s bathing water classifications, updated on 26 November, reveal alarming declines in water quality. Bognor Regis East’s classification dropped from good to sufficient, while Aldwick’s remained poor for the third consecutive year. Abuses of our water system are having a serious impact on public health, our vital tourism industry and our natural environment. However, by focusing only on water companies and sewage, this Bill delivers an oversimplified approach. There is an urgent need for holistic and comprehensive solutions to protect our waters, prevent flooding and tackle sewage discharges. This issue is not simply about water companies and sewage, but the Bill falls into the trap of focusing solely on them.
In Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, the situation is compounded by recurring flooding, which affects businesses and homes from Shripney Road and Durban Road on the boundary of the constituency to Fish Lane and Rope Walk in Aldwick and Littlehampton respectively. That flooding is exacerbated by extensive house building on our flood plain and by the local topography. Without infrastructure improvements and an integrated action plan, sewage outflows will continue to blight our coastline. Combined, these issues are causing a decline in our tourism industry, devastation to homes and businesses, increases in insurance premiums and significant financial losses for affected local businesses and employers. This is not a mild inconvenience for a few sea swimmers—although I count myself among their number—but something that affects our entire area.
As such, the Water (Special Measures) Bill is a timely opportunity to accelerate essential environmental improvements. I am concerned, though, that the Government are not sufficiently grasping this opportunity. The absence of robust enforcement measures for proposed reporting is particularly concerning. Clause 2 requires water companies to “prepare and publish” annual pollution incident reduction plans. That is a step towards greater accountability, which I welcome. However, the clause lacks enforceability and thus any purpose, as it mandates only the preparation and publication of those plans, not their implementation. As such, will the Government amend the Bill to ensure the delivery of measures set out in those reports and provide the necessary enforcement powers? My constituents, and the public, are weary of empty promises on water quality. It is essential that this Bill mandates that water companies deliver measurable improvements, not meaningless promises.
Ms Billington
The hon. Lady and I share concerns about the safety and health of our seawater. I just want to clarify for her that we have accepted the Lords amendment in relation to the enforcement plans, and are ensuring that those plans will be on the face of the Bill.
Alison Griffiths
I thank the hon. Lady for clarifying that point. Letting the Bill pass without that amendment would have been a disservice, so I am delighted to hear it.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
In my constituency, we do not have a single unpolluted watercourse. Last year, on the Conservative Government’s watch, Severn Trent Water, the company that covers my constituency, was responsible for over 60,000 sewage overflows nationally. In Stoke-on-Trent South, we have had 24 sites polluted by 337 sewage dumps lasting a total of 1,570 hours.
I have spoken many times about the impact of flooding and sewage pollution in my constituency. I have highlighted the ongoing battle of the village of Upper Tean to combat frequent flooding and pollution of the River Tean. Upper Tean’s village recreation space, with a children’s playground, is frequently flooded with sewage-contaminated water. The people of Upper Tean are good people, and are willing to work with all agencies via the newly created Tean flood action group to positively rectify these problems. Indeed, the most recent meeting had a positive outcome, in that a particular outflow will have CCTV monitoring installed to address the issue of false sensor recordings and to address poor communication within Severn Trent regarding the reporting of incidents. Through local meetings with the people who are affected and with local water representatives who come in good faith, we can make change.
Following on from our experience in Upper Tean, I cannot stress enough the importance of listening to consumers and empowering the citizen voice, so I am pleased to note that new section 35B of the Water Industry Act 1991 will require that consumers be involved in the water companies’ decision-making processes, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcements regarding the requirement for customer panels. I want to ensure that guidelines are laid out so that such panels are not tick-box consultations that can be manipulated with clever questions. They must be truly participatory, with diverse input, offering constructive criticism and solutions that make a difference in real life. We must always put the people and their voice at the heart of decision making.
In Tean, after much prolonged pressure, we have seen that we can develop positive local relationships between representatives of water companies and citizens. However, the same cannot be said of the chief exec, who seems rather resistant to meeting or even replying personally to emails, but is quite happy to take her bonus. As such, I welcome the Bill and its focus on empowering regulators to hold the water companies and their chief executives to account, including by blocking bonuses, bringing criminal charges and being able to implement automatic, severe fines. People are fed up of being taken for mugs—cash cows to deliver paydays for shareholders. We bathe in sewage while shareholders and execs are showered with dividends and bonuses. This Bill is just the start of this Labour Government’s journey to hold those companies to account, bringing an end to the profiteering and the decay of our water infrastructure, and to turn the tide on pollution. It should be supported by Members on all sides of the House, and I hope it sails through today.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call Ellie Chowns, a member of the Select Committee.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I declare an interest as a founding co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution. As the Minister well knows, I have a deep and abiding interest in the theme of water pollution. I gently remind her that agricultural run-off is the primary source of water pollution in my constituency, and I welcome the constructive conversations we had on that topic last week. Today, I will talk about the broader topic of the Bill.
Water companies have extracted £85 billion of value from our water industry since privatisation—that is an extraordinary figure—and their flagrant abuse of our rivers, seas and lakes is a stain on our country, literally as well as figuratively. Some 30% of all water bills now go on debt servicing and dividends, and this is money that should be going towards maintaining and improving our water infrastructure and services. Thames Water, Southern Water and South East Water have all had their credit ratings downgraded, meaning that about a third of bill payers in England and Wales are now paying their bills to junk-rated companies, which again is extraordinary. As companies’ finances get worse, new debt gets more expensive to service, and where does the money come from? The money comes from bill payers.
It is clear for all to see that the interests of water company shareholders and the interests of the public are at odds. It is not possible to use our water as a vehicle for maximum short-term profit and at the same time to deliver safe, reliable, affordable drinking water and a clean environment. One comes at the expense of the other.
Ellie Chowns
I am really sorry, but I will not give way because I know so many Members want to come in.
In my view and that of my Green colleagues, the only way to run a water system in the interests of people and nature is to take away the profit motive entirely. It should never have been allowed near our water industry in the first place. Any steps to end this culture of impunity in the water industry are very welcome. Unfortunately, the measures in this Bill are, in my view, largely to look nice in headlines, and they are maybe a bit of an attempt to look busy. I say that gently, but I do think we need to go further. In fact, the majority of the British public agree with me: 82% of the British public believe that we should have water in public ownership. I challenge the Government to take up that mantle—that mandate—from the British public to do the right thing, and to take the profit motive out of water entirely.
I always believe in talking about areas of common ground, and I recognise that multiple elements of this Bill are positive steps. I will, with my colleagues, be supporting it. I welcome the extension of monitoring requirements for sewage overflows, and I welcome the requirement for more customer involvement in decision making, which I would like to see extended to worker representation as well. I welcome the encouragement for companies to consider much more use of nature-based solutions, and I would love to see this extended even further.
To be honest, however, what we have seen with the financial mess that the companies are in is the complete failure of the model of privatisation. We need to do more than just tinkering at the edges. The Government’s water commission will not even be allowed to consider the question of public ownership, so it will hunt high and low for solutions while continuing to kick the can down the road. Is it not time that the Minister faced the reality that profit in water has failed, and to do what the majority of the British public want, which is to bring our water and sewage utilities back into public ownership?
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker, for inviting me to speak. Like many colleagues, I stood on the banks of my local river, the River Trent, during the general election campaign, and looking out over the murky waters, I promised residents that the next Government would change a broken system. This broken system has enabled our water quality to drop to the point where only 14% of rivers and lakes in England have a good ecological status, according to the Environment Agency. Since being elected, hundreds of residents of Rushcliffe have contacted me to say they are concerned about our broken water and sewerage system, describing it as symptomatic of a broken Britain. I am therefore pleased that today’s Bill marks the start of a significant turnaround process for the health of our nation’s water.
Local to Rushcliffe, the data has been consistently going in the wrong direction. There were 471 sewage dumps in my constituency in 2022, and this more than doubled to 958 sewage dumps in 2023. The absolute number of sewage dumps is of course a crude indicator, but, sadly, the cumulative impact has also grown from 3,733 hours in 2022 to 10,774 hours in 2023. The direct impact on Rushcliffe residents is palpable, especially in villages such as East Leake that are susceptible to flooding, which frequently includes rural sewage. I welcome the works that Severn Trent is starting to take by upgrading a nearby treatment works, doubling processing capacity by the end of March 2025. However, for many residents this investment is far too late and should have been made years ago, in an era when water companies were creaming off profits and failing to act as true and honest custodians of the national water network.
To that end, I encourage the Secretary of State and his team to think carefully about who we want to be the future custodians of our water network. If water and sewage companies go under, I believe we—the state—should always be prepared to step in to offer a genuine public alternative to hedge funds and the like. As with rail and energy, we should be prepared to start a process whereby the state once again offers to play a more active role in running basic universal services, challenging private sector organisations that have happily paid out dividends while allowing 3 billion litres of water every day to be lost through leaky pipes.
Fundamentally, I believe it is the right of each and every one of us to be able to enjoy our beautiful rivers, lakes and seas without the fear of getting sick. So on behalf of my constituents in Rushcliffe, I welcome the many positive measures in this Bill as it seeks to enhance enforcement powers and to start cleaning up our water for good. Moving forwards, there should be no more sticking plaster fixes, because, quite frankly, the very least that my constituents deserve is a water and sewage system fit for the 21st century.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I thank the Government for introducing this Bill and the Minister for Water for meeting me last week.
This is a vital issue, not least for my constituents in Exmouth and Exeter East. Across my constituency, from Cranbrook to Exmouth, we have felt the full force of South West Water’s neglectful and harmful behaviours. This year across the county of Devon, we have experienced the full gamut of the damaging effects of a water company that is crying out to be reformed, be it by legal or regulatory tightening. From cryptosporidium parasite outbreaks in the Brixham area to the closure of beaches in Exmouth, our county has had enough. Our local wellbeing, health and economy have been significantly impacted, and our beautiful home is starting to gain a national reputation for all the wrong reasons.
We have a responsibility to ensure that the Bill is as effective and strong as it can possibly be, and that means listening carefully to voices from all parts of the House. Most Members will be familiar with the long history of this issue, so I will not relitigate arguments that have been made already, but it is important to reiterate that this is not a problem that has emerged overnight. We have collectively dropped the ball on this issue—from the last Labour Government under Blair and Brown to the Lib Dem-Conservative coalition and the last Governments, we are all in part complicit—[Interruption.] I think that is a very fair point. This has happened over many decades, and I would very much like to reiterate that point to Labour Members.
Although it is absolutely right that we strive to end the unacceptable practice of sewage discharges, we must confront the hard truth that we cannot transform these crumbling systems overnight without disastrous consequences, such as sewage backing up into people’s homes, on to our streets and into our communities. That is why we must commit ourselves to the long haul. This will require sustained investment, careful planning and clear accountability, not short-term fixes or political point scoring.
Caroline Voaden
The hon. Member mentioned the cryptosporidium incident in May in Brixham in my constituency, where 17,000 houses were affected by contaminated water. A boil water notice was enforced for eight weeks, and many of my constituents are still suffering from that. I say to the Minister that, when the Drinking Water Inspectorate reports next year, I hope the water company will be forced to pay proper compensation, because it would appear that its negligence and not maintaining its facilities over the past decades was possibly one of the causes of the contamination.
David Reed
I thank the hon. Member for raising those points; this issue has affected our county, and I hope that members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee raise it as fast as possible, to ensure that South West Water is held accountable and placed in front of them to answer questions about how that outbreak happened. I reiterate that our constituents deserve a solution that is ambitious but achievable. It was under the previous Government that the scale of the issue was truly identified—a point that has been raised repeatedly this evening.
Peter Swallow
The hon. Member is correct: many Conservative Members have raised the issue of monitoring, and they have repeatedly mentioned storm overflows. Will he put on record how many emergency overflows are currently being monitored?
David Reed
This is a major issue. We are talking about the sewage network for an entire country. The last Government pushed for storm overflows to be looked at, and I am glad that the Bill, which has been brought forward by this Government, will look at emergency overflows.
As we know, the landmark Environment Act 2021 gave regulators stronger powers to tackle pollution and ensure greater transparency, holding water companies and polluters accountable. The last Government also set legally binding targets to improve water quality, reduce pollution and enhance biodiversity, while the plan for water took a systematic, local, catchment-based approach, requiring significant investment in storm overflow improvements. That was decisive action to hold water companies to account, linking performance to shareholder payments, banning bonuses for water bosses responsible for serious breaches, and empowering regulators to impose unlimited financial penalties on polluters.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
In Eastbourne, we are blessed with 94 beaches, but our water quality has dropped from “excellent” in 2015, to a low of “satisfactory” under the last Government. At the same time, Southern Water has made significant amounts of money—with more than £2.9 billion in dividends, and the chief executive receiving £183,000 in bonuses this year and a salary of £765,000. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the last Government allowed that to happen, and will he apologise for what they allowed to happen to our water industry?
David Reed
The hon. Gentleman mentioned 2015, so let me return to the point I just made: these problems did not happen overnight. He will know that the Liberal Democrats were in coalition with the Conservatives until 2015.
The previous Government took decisive action to hold water companies accountable, linking performance to shareholder payouts, banning bonuses for water bosses responsible for serious breaches, and empowering regulators to impose unlimited financial penalties on polluters. Those actions laid a solid foundation, and it is important to note that many elements of the Bill mirror work already undertaken by the last Government. For example, the confiscation of bonuses from water company executives responsible for pollution is already in motion under existing frameworks. Many measures outlined in the Bill were already being implemented and do not require primary legislation.
To make real, lasting improvements, we need a more wide-ranging strategy, and I hope the Government will listen carefully to constructive criticism, because my constituents in Exmouth and Exeter East, like so many others, deserve nothing less. As I have emphasised, we are committed to collaboration on this issue, to ensure that we make vital progress on limiting water pollution.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of a crucial and overdue piece of legislation: a Bill to regulate, govern, and establish special administration measures for water companies in the United Kingdom. This is not just a matter of environmental stewardship; it is a matter of public trust, local accountability, and the health of all our communities. This issue matters to all our constituents, including mine, who have expressed deep frustration with the way that water companies are managed. In 2023 alone, we witnessed 1,011 sewage dumps in the Medway catchment area—in a tidal area known for its sites of special scientific interest and RSPB nature reserves. Time and again we see news of raw sewage being discharged into our waterways, resulting in devastating pollution levels.
Watershed investigations have uncovered a cocktail of nearly 500 chemicals in our rivers, and found that the River Medway—a chalk aquifer, no less—is the joint worst most polluted river in the UK. According to the Angling Trust, chemicals detected include ketamine and fluoranthene—a very toxic compound used in pet flea repellent, which undiluted has been described as “Novichok for honeybees”, with one drop able to kill thousands and thousands of insects. I think of those who walk along the riverbanks, work on our rivers, enjoy our parks, or fish in our waters, unaware of the devastating pollution levels that were allowed under the previous Government. How can we explain to the people of Medway, or anywhere in the UK, that such practices were allowed to continue?
Over the last 14 years we have seen weakened regulation, a failure to invest in infrastructure, and the turning of a blind eye as water bosses pocketed millions of pounds in bonuses. It was a kind of perverse performance related pay where, it seemed to many, the higher the discharges, the greater the bonuses. Some may argue that privatised water companies are critical for investment and efficiency, that profit motives encourage innovation, and that regulation would stifle growth and deter private sector involvement. It is, however, welcome that there is some element of cross-party consensus that privatised, low-regulation industry has failed this nation.
The truth lies in responsible action. We need strong Government regulation to ensure that water companies meet their obligations, balanced with the empowerment of local governments and communities to oversee and protect their resources. The current state of our rivers is a disgrace and we need change. Let us introduce stricter penalties for water companies that fail to meet environmental standards, and push for greater investment in our infrastructure, including significant upgrades to waste water plants. The Bill is about more than just fixing a broken system; it is about creating a sustainable future for our children. Cleaner, greener rivers mean healthier communities, stronger governance means fairer water bills and better services, and a protected environment means that we can safeguard not just our wonderful wildlife, but also the quality of life for generations to come.
It is absurd to think that in 21st-century Britain, human waste is being dumped in major waterways, and that we have allowed that to be the status quo. To my colleagues in the Chamber tonight I say: support this Bill. To the people of Medway and beyond, who I represent, I say: demand better from those entrusted with your most vital resource. Together, we can build a system that works for everyone, not just for shareholders, but for families, businesses and the environment.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
As the MP for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, I am in the honourable position of representing a constituency containing three mighty rivers: the River Usk, the River Tawe, and the world famous River Wye all rise in the hills and mountains of Mid Wales and pass through this giant constituency. All the water in the Wye ought to be considered a national treasure, stretching as it does across some of the most picturesque landscapes, providing habitats for an array of wildlife, and supporting multiple communities through tourism and recreation. Yet sadly, the Rive Wye is dying at an astonishing speed. That is why strengthening the regulation of our water companies is understandably a major priority for my constituents.
I know that my constituents are disgusted by the reality of sewage dumping, as many of them have told me so. Wild swimmers, anglers and kayakers are just three groups affected by sewage dumping and the knock-on impact that has on our local economy, yet in Wales, the environmental regulator—Natural Resources Wales—is chronically underfunded and has faced decades of budget and staffing cuts by the Welsh Labour Government. Those cuts have left it unable to fulfil its role, meaning that the current legislation is not being properly enforced. NRW requested a minimum of 50 extra staff members just to do its job properly, and 250 additional staff members to do it well.
The expansion of regulatory powers must be matched with the necessary resources to strengthen the regulator’s hand and to enable enforcement. Despite the River Wye being probably the most famous case of river pollution in the UK, it might surprise some to learn that the other two rivers in my constituency, the Usk and the Tawe, are in even worse health, with all three sadly placing in the top 30 most sewage-filled rivers in the UK. While I welcome the legislation strengthening the monitoring of emergency overflows, it is important to recognise that citizen scientists, such as the Friends of the Upper Wye and Save the River Usk, have been doing most of the legwork when it comes to telling us what exactly is in our rivers and where particular areas of concern are. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for community groups to have the right to representation on water company boards, so that we bring back that local expertise on board.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary water group and chair of the all-party parliamentary group for sustainable flood and drought management.
If our forests are the lungs of the environment, then our rivers, streams and other watercourses are its veins and arteries. They carry vital nutrients and elements around their catchments, ensuring that our flora and fauna flourish and thrive. Globally, we know that all species are currently dying out at rates more than 100 times the normal evolutionary rates of extinction. Locally, the picture is just as bleak. According to the most recent Rivers Trust report, “The State of Our Rivers”, no single stretch of river in England or Northern Ireland is in good overall health, and toxic chemicals persist in every single stretch of English river.
Pollution in rivers comes from a variety of sources, including trade, agriculture, highways, riparian assets and sewage assets, among others. Whether we are tackling floods, drought or pollution, there is a need to bring all agencies with a responsibility for managing our water together to plan for and deliver a sustainable water future. There has never been so much public focus on the water industry. Recent years have seen: the renewed emergence of open-water swimming in a time where people explored their local environment much more during covid; the growth of citizen science increasing the available data on offer; campaign groups making a huge breakthrough in highlighting the challenges we face; and, increased data transparency showing there to be real problems. The public have lost faith in the industry and in the Government’s ability to regulate it, with widespread concerns about under-investment in infrastructure and unacceptable levels of pollution.
The measures in the Water (Special Measures) Bill are the start of fulfilling the Government’s ambition for the water sector as a whole. I am proud that within days of taking up Government, the Labour party started to work on this Bill. I am equally pleased that an independent commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe has been announced to commence a full end-to-end review of the water sector regulation system. This Bill delivers on the Government’s promise to ensure that water companies are held to account in delivering service and environmental obligations, and in doing so begin to rebuild much-needed trust.
While there has been much discussion today on combined sewer overflows and other sewage discharges, I am keen to highlight the types of intervention that will be needed to clean up our rivers and seas, and the focus on nature-based solutions in the Bill as part of the drainage water management plans. Grey infrastructure, new pipes, pumps, sewers and additional treatment capacity will always be part of the equation, but as we look to become more sustainable, I am encouraged to see reference to nature-based solutions and their future role in the Bill.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I completely agree with the hon. Member about natural solutions. The urban wastewater treatment directive seems to be completely counterintuitive. In Wareham in my constituency, we have a chemical-based removal system that cost £10 million and delivered a 10 tonne a year saving, whereas a nature-based solution was calculated to deliver 90 tonnes a year, but at a fraction of the cost. Does he agree that that is definitely the way to go?
Lee Pitcher
I definitely agree that we require a whole range of different types of solution, including blue-green and the more traditional.
Blue-green infrastructure comes from working with the landscape and environment to create a new type of asset that can not only reduce flood risk or store water to be used later in times of drought, but attenuate pollutants before they go into watercourses and improve water quality at source. Such infrastructure includes the creation of ponds and rain gardens, rewilding, woodlands, mini-forests and wetlands, building in buffer strips, hedgerows and green roofs as part of new development, and engaging in smart soil management. Importantly, those have wider-reaching opportunities, too. They bring opportunities for new skills and new jobs, they facilitate nature recovery, and they provide a means of education for young adults.
The Government needed to respond fast with immediate action. They have done just that with the Bill. They needed to ensure that, in parallel, a sustainable view of the whole water sector regulatory regime was taken. They have done that with the announcement of the commission. That is the difference that a Labour Government make. On behalf of my constituents, I fully support the Bill.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. With deteriorating water standards while customers pay higher and higher bills, the water sector’s overhaul is no doubt overdue. Tougher restrictions on water companies that have paid eye-watering bonuses as untreated sewage flows into our rivers are welcomed. We have heard numbers from various constituencies, but listen to this, bois: my constituency of Caerfyrddin saw the most sewage dumped in 2023, with over 11,000 dumps lasting over 115,000 hours. Good reporting may be a factor, but the track record of not-for-profit Dŵr Cymru is not fantastic: it was fined £40 million for misleading over poor performance, while Ofwat had to block £163,000 of undeserved customer-funded bonuses, so further regulation is necessary and overdue.
However, I have some concerns regarding the Bill. First, River Action and Surfers Against Sewage have highlighted Ofwat’s continued duty to make reasonable returns for water companies, prioritising profit over environmental and public health. Profit-wise, Storm Darragh clearly showed in west Wales that supply becomes an issue when power is lost. Therefore, infrastructure investment is sorely needed.
Secondly, the extension of storm overflow monitoring to cover emergency overflows is a good idea in principle, but to make a real difference we must move away from unreliable and limited event-duration monitors to a better monitoring model that provides more insightful data on volume and discharge type. Some of those are already in motion. The Teifi nutrient monitoring project uses high-frequency monitoring sensors and multi-sondes along the Teifi river. Supported by citizen science, data is collected four times a day, tracking pollution and identifying sources, which will guide action plans for the Teifi, Tywi and Cleddau rivers. When I was a county councillor on Carmarthenshire county council, I was delighted to be part of the nutrient management team putting those sonde monitors into the river and promoting nature-based solutions.
Plaid Cymru believes that Wales should have full control over its water resources. Much of the Bill’s provisions are already devolved matters, subject to Senedd consent. According to a recent statement, Labour Senedd Members believe that it is in the “best interest of Wales” for the UK Parliament sometimes to legislate in devolved areas, including where that enables policy objectives to be most effectively achieved. The sanctity of Welsh devolution should never be vulnerable to the whims of any London party politics, and that Labour policy does cause long-term concern.
The aims of the Bill are welcome, and the current scandal of water quality must be resolved. However, we need to ensure that the Bill adequately prioritises environmental and public health without undermining devolution.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am going to reduce the time limit to three minutes, after the next speaker. I call Andrew Pakes.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Phew! Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.] I am privileged to speak on Second Reading of a Bill that is of huge interest to my constituents and the country. After 14 years, the new Government have inherited record levels of illegal sewage dumping in our rivers, lakes and seas, an Environment Agency budget halved since 2010, crumbling infrastructure, with bursting pipes and record spills, and unaccountable water companies.
It is time to change that. It is time to hold our water companies to account and to start fixing the problem. That is why this Government have made the Water (Special Measures) Bill a priority. We need immediate action to end the disgraceful behaviour of water companies and their unruly bosses. We had more than 3,000 hours of sewage poured into our rivers in my constituency alone last year. A lot of sewage came out of the last Government, but certainly not the sewage we are talking about tonight.
After our sewage discharges, Anglian Water, which I know is many Members’ provider, belatedly had to pay £38 million to Ofwat. The year before, Anglian Water’s chief executive received a £1.3 million package in pay and bonuses, despite the company’s poor performance. Despite overseeing the catastrophic failure, water chief executives have paid themselves more than £41 million in bonuses and incentives since 2010. It gets worse: Thames Water’s boss took a £195,000 bonus at the end of March for just three months’ work. That is the unacceptable face of unaccountable privatisation.
Little wonder, then, that constituents writing to me are angry and that people have so little faith in the power of accountability and regulation, when so little was done by the last Government. I asked Ofwat these questions directly when it appeared before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recently. The answers were wanting. That is why the Bill is so needed, and why Ministers have brought it forward so quickly. It sets out new powers to make water companies accountable, to ban bonuses for CEOs and senior leaders unless high standards are met, and criminal liability for water executives, and it sets out a new approach to ensuring that water companies live up to their environmental obligations and serve the public good. I want to put on record my thanks to those public servants who have been fighting hard against the water companies, despite the cuts of the last decade: those in the Environment Agency, the public servants in our water utilities, and members of GMB, Unison and Prospect who know what looking after our water and nature is really about.
The Bill treads where the last Government failed to go. Let us be clear about the Conservatives’ legacy: they failed to invest in broken infrastructure and let consumer money be spent irresponsibly on bonuses and shareholder payouts. The Bill rightly calls time on that unruly behaviour. It begins to restore trust in the management of our waterways and in public service and accountable regulation. I commend the Bill.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The role of Opposition is to scrutinise the Government, but as a Member of Parliament I will always be willing to support changes in the law that my constituents have been calling for. This legislation represents an opportunity to start rebuilding our water infrastructure and improve water security for future generations, and we need to get it right. I want to help make sure that it is not simply cosmetic, or contains measures that do not require primary legislation or things that were already being progressed by the previous Government. I wish to offer some constructive thoughts.
Like many Members, I have local issues. In the past week alone, I have been out with the Eton Wick Waterways Group to inspect the effluent overflow of Slough treatment works in the Boveney ditch, which I am working on with my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), and with residents in the Boltons in Windsor to see the Bourne ditch filled with sewage in a residential area. The south-east has suffered disproportionately; in fact, 90% of serious pollution incidents were caused by four companies, with Thames Water—the main provider in my constituency—responsible for more than 17 last year. That is inexcusable.
I welcome that Thames Water has finally announced upgrades to Slough treatment works following sewage overflows in Berkshire. They will include new tanks, new technology and a new pipeline. It now needs to be made to guarantee the planned improvement project at Slough, which will reduce future sewage spills and provide cleaner effluent entering the waterways around Eton Wick. I hope for the Minister's support to hold Thames Water to account on that. However, as others in this House have raised, such a change is a drop in the ocean since the entire infrastructure system is outdated and creaking. It needs long-term and sustained investment of tens of billions of pounds over decades, and we must face the reality that that will come only with increases to consumer bills.
If we expect the public to tolerate price increases, we need a regulator that works. In my view, Ofwat’s determination to keep bills low for consumers has exposed short-term thinking that has led only to higher bills in future. With additional funding, water companies—particularly Thames Water—must show customers that the money is going directly to infrastructure upgrades.
I am aware of my lack of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I join with Surfers Against Sewage and River Action, which have been working with Members across this House to encourage the Government to make clean water one of Ofwat’s legal duties, and to give it the teeth it needs. I welcome the fact that this issue is being considered in the Chamber, and I hope that everybody in this House will join me in scrutinising Ofwat’s implementation of the powers granted to it in the Bill, hoping the Government will make clean water one of Ofwat’s legal duties and looking for Ministers’ support in holding Thames Water to account at the Slough sewage treatment works.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The water is key to Bournemouth’s appeal as the most stunningly beautiful town in our country. [Interruption.] Contentious. Unsurprisingly, Bournemouth East residents are absolutely horrified by the untreated sewage that is forced on our town. Jacqueline from Boscombe has had to make her “Wild and Free” surf therapy sessions surf-free because of sewage in the sea, meaning children and young people whose mental health could be significantly improved are let down again. Sarah from Charminster, who is a regular sea swimmer to manage her long covid symptoms, is now worried about the impact of this pollution on her health and on the natural environment. Gareth in Muscliff is clear that:
“Something really must be done about this and soon for the sake of our health and future.”
Sarah in Southbourne told me that:
“This is not the only environmental crisis that we face, but focusing on it, and ensuring improvements, would be regarded as major successes.”
While the Conservatives may have let the water companies off the hook, the public did not let the Conservatives off the hook, and at the last election we saw change. We are seeing more of that change today with this Bill, which my constituents will warmly welcome. Last week I met the people who run Holdenhurst water recycling centre to see the significant upgrades that have received nearly £30 million of investment, which I support. I have also recently met the chief executive officer of Wessex Water to discuss the pollution that we are experiencing locally, and I am pleased to see significant investments that will improve Bournemouth’s ability to manage the automatic operation of storm overflows. However, we can do more. We can change how we see storm overflows so that we no longer see them as a sewage problem; we instead can see them as a rain management problem. If we reimagine rainwater as a resource to be captured where it lands, reused wherever possible and removed from foul water sewage heading to the water recycling centre, we can do a better job.
I welcome the Bill because it will give the Environment Agency and Ofwat, which are central to protecting our waterways, the powers and the support that they need. The EA will now have new powers to bring forward criminal charges against law-breaking water executives, and water companies will now bear the costs of enforcement action taken in response to their failings. The introduction of fixed and automatic penalties will make it quicker and easier for the EA to fine water companies that commit offences. Furthermore, for the first time there will be a requirement to publish real-time data on all emergency overflows, so that the public and regulators can see what is actually going on.
I close by paying tribute to the work of Surfers Against Sewage, and to Christchurch Harbour and Marine Society and Vanessa Ricketts, who have done so much locally to hold the hope while we waited for a new Government to bring forward this Bill. I am proud that this Labour Government are committed to cleaning up the mess that the Conservatives let our waterways become. The Bill is the first step towards doing that.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Rivers are the natural veins of Britain, with the lifeblood of our ecosystems flowing through them. No matter their width, depth or length, we derive so much from our rivers. Yet according to research from the Rivers Trust, not a single stretch of river in my constituency is in good overall health. It is a tragedy as much as it is a scandal—plain and simple. The Conservative party has left a legacy of unacceptable sewage outflows into our waterways, with a total failure to limit those who were responsible for it.
My constituency has the privilege of being the home of the Leander rowing club, which enters many teams in the Henley royal regatta. In June this year, the organisers of that prestigious international event had to issue guidance to participants on how to minimise the risk of illness due to “proximity to polluted water”. That should not be happening in 2024.
When I visited the Thames Water sewage treatment works at Wargrave, I met enthusiastic and knowledgeable employees, but the scale of the neglect of our sewage treatment capacity was very clear to see. Thames Water bosses have failed to keep pace with the storm overflow problem, exacerbated by housebuilding, a failing network of pipes and climate change. Now they want to increase bills by 59%. The regulator really must not let that happen. I was left with the distinct impression at Wargrave that, sadly, the company had little idea of how to fix the problem and no expectation of doing so within a reasonable timeframe. Thames Water is currently limping from cash crisis to cash crisis, accruing billions more in debt. It seems to be getting worse before it can get better.
I am aware that I am getting near to my three minutes. Can the Minister guarantee that my constituents will not be burdened by the potential failure of Thames Water? Can the Minister explain how he intends to ensure that investment in Wokingham’s sewerage system is guaranteed?
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
South West Water discharged sewage for nearly 540,000 hours in 2023, which is apparently an 83% rise compared with 2022. It is getting so much worse. I therefore welcome the measures in the Bill. They are desperately needed and cannot come soon enough for places such as Cornwall, which have suffered from sewage spills for far too long.
We all know how important our seas and rivers are for our health and wellbeing, and for our ecosystems and our economy. In rural and coastal areas, they touch on almost every aspect of our lives. In my constituency and across Cornwall we have an amazing community of sea swimmers and surfers who brave the water all year round, but who are frequently unable to go out due to sewage alerts, or who become infected and get illnesses if they do. They have been campaigning tirelessly on water quality for years.
Constituents write to me daily about sewage spills on our beaches. In the 2024 annual bathing water classifications released a few weeks ago, Porthluney in my constituency had its water quality designated as poor. During Storm Bert, sewage overflows were recorded in the River Carnon, River Penryn, Pill Creek, River Fal and many other rivers in my constituency. It affects not just our residents but our visitors too. Tourism is important to Cornwall. People come from all over the world to visit our coastline, but they are deterred when they see raw sewage on the beaches. Sewage dumping in the River Fal is part of what is destroying traditional industries such as the shellfish industry. In May 2023, 11 shellfish sites in Cornwall were forced to close due to dangerously high levels of E. coli. We have seen problems with our infrastructure this summer. A burst water main led to a loss of water pressure across a swathe of Cornwall and many people lost their water, including the hospital. Compensation was very limited and hard to obtain.
The Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitments to hold the water companies to account. It gives the Environment Agency more resource to bring criminal charges and fines, and makes them quicker and easier to enforce. The standard of proof will change and be lower, and automatic penalties will be extended. Ofwat will have greater powers to halt performance-related pay bonuses. The Bill also introduces real-time monitoring of every sewage outlet and full transparency. Along with the announcements on investment in infrastructure made in July and the upcoming comprehensive water review, the Bill forms part of a plan for a long-term fundamental comprehensive restructuring of our water industry. We will go much further. I welcome the Bill.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I believe that this Bill is disappointing. It almost totally ignores the financials of the companies, and that is the root of the problem. Unless we fix the financials, we will not fix the problem. Thames Water, for example, has £17 billion of debt, and it is currently expected to have a further £3 billion of debt by the end of January. If that happens, it will cost Thames Water an extra £334 million a year, which means that 46% of the bill of every single one of the 15 million bill payers will be funding interest payments—before the £20 billion of debt that the company will have is paid down. How does that make sense? How do we get this working again? That is not the route to a solution.
The reason Thames Water is not in special administration is that, officially, it is unable, or unlikely to be able, to pay its debts. You do not need a GCSE in business to know that if a company currently has £16 billion of debt and £1.2 billion of cash flows, it is unlikely to be able to pay its debts. I believe that our Government are running scared. They are worried about being sued by big bad American vulture investors, and that is why they are not putting Thames Water into the special administration regime—a regime that was explicitly set up for exactly this purpose. I say to the Government, “Please, do not let Ofwat approve a price rise for Thames Water. Put the company into special administration and start to deal with the problems, because we will not be able to deal with them until we deal with the financials.”
I have one minute and 17 seconds in which to ask the Government to steal some of these ideas. Yes, they should reform the three regulators, by putting them all together. In respect of clauses 10 and 11, why should consumers pay for financial losses following Government financial assistance? Why should not creditors and shareholders pay for those losses? It seems pretty weird to me. Pollution baselines should be established for each catchment; we should get that straight. Environment Agency permits for individual sewage treatment works should be reset. The capacity for each STW should be established, and the agency’s Environment Agency 3.0 multiplier should be applied to every one of them. There should also be volumetric flow meters, for which clause 3 does not provide—we are not getting them. I invite Members to read clause 3 themselves. We are getting event duration monitors but not flow meters, and that means we are back in the same place where we have been for the last 14 years. We need flow meters, so please can we insist on that? Finally, we need to haircut the debt: we need to get that £20 billion down to £5 billion. That should be the key focus, because then we will be back on a stable footing and able to invest as we need to.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to welcome this much-needed legislation. A couple of weeks ago, I visited Bitterne Park primary school, which is just across the River Itchen from Southern Water’s treatment works. I met the school’s Eco Warriors, an inspiring group of schoolchildren who are passionate about improving their environment. They told me that the stench from the treatment works sometimes makes them feel so ill that they cannot play outside at lunchtime. That is what happens when there are more than 1,000 hours of sewage dumping, as there were last year alone—a 350% increase on the year before. Those children expressed their outrage, and their desire for change, in a way that grown-ups are often less good at. Let us be clear: this is not something that our children should have to accept as normal. That is why I am campaigning for bathing water status for the Itchen, and I would like to work with Ministers to see how we can clean up the river and achieve that.
This is a big local issue, and one that I am determined to try to help resolve, but—as has been made plain by the excellent contributions of other Members—there is no doubt that it is also a national issue, and that private water companies have been treating our rivers with utter contempt. Let us not forget how we got here: 14 years of Conservative failure have left us with crumbling water infrastructure and record levels of pollution. That is the legacy. Instead of addressing the crisis, Conservative Ministers buried the scale of the problem, hiding sewage data and shielding water companies from scrutiny. That is why I welcome the tough new penalties in the Bill, which will ban unjustifiable and undeserved bonuses.
We have seen and heard how water companies have piled up debt and demanded bail-outs from the taxpayer, all the while paying bumper bonuses—more than £41 million since 2020—to executives who fail to meet the most basic standards of competence. Meanwhile, it is my constituents and those of other colleagues here who have paid the price—in higher water bills, and in the frustration of seeing a river that they treasure polluted by negligence. The Bill draws a line under those wasted years. That is what we mean when we say we are a Government of service, because we are not afraid to stand up to corporate interests. We are here in service of the British people. That means long-term investment in our water networks and ensuring that every penny spent benefits customers and the environment, not just shareholders.
I am grateful to the groups that have campaigned to keep these issues on the agenda. Now it is over to this Government of service to finish the job and hold those responsible to account.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I declare an interest: my spouse is a water economist.
As we have heard from many hon. Members this evening, urgent action is needed to clean up our rivers and waterways, including the Avon, Alne, Arrow and Stour in my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon. Those rivers and brooks are central to our communities, our local environment and wildlife, and our sporting and recreational activities, yet they are being poisoned. Water is a common good, and the water companies, including Severn Trent Water, have shown utter disregard for our most precious natural resource. This Bill is a welcome step, but much more needs to be done.
Across the UK, untreated sewage was discharged more than 600,000 times last year. It is a national disgrace. In my constituency, spills happened for a total duration of nearly 16,700 hours in 2023. I thank the citizen science champions in my constituency and the many campaign groups, from Shipstone and Stratford to Bidford and Alcester, for shining a light on this crisis. Without their tireless work, much of the devastation would remain hidden. I also pay tribute to our many rural communities, who have experienced repeated sewage flooding and are literally left to clean up the mess.
Although residents stepped up, the previous Conservative Government failed to hold the water companies to account. Shareholder profits should not be prioritised over public health and environmental protection. I urge the Government to consider the Liberal Democrats’ proposal to abolish Ofwat and replace it with a clean water authority that has real teeth—a regulator that focuses on environmental performance, demands real-time sewage pollution data, and enforces legally binding targets to eliminate sewage spills by 2030. The Bill must also mandate investment in sewage and drainage infrastructure.
This Bill is a chance to take real, systemic action to clean up our waterways. However, the Government must strengthen the proposed legislation in more radical ways so that we can give our constituents the clean and thriving waterways they all deserve.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
According to the latest Government figures, the number of sewage dumps along my constituency’s small coastline rose from 100 in 2022 to 206 last year—a more than 100% increase. Across the country, this is the legacy of the last Conservative Government. They failed to get to grips with holding our water companies to account, and we and our constituents have suffered, with polluted waterways causing swimmers and those taking part in water sports to become ill—never mind the impact it has had on the natural environment. I am told by Anglian Water that the sewage dumping figures will be significantly lower in 2024, but we will wait to see them published. An immediate positive move by this Labour Government has been to require real-time monitoring, so that the public and the regulators have full transparency on where water spills are happening within an hour of them happening. There will be nowhere to hide.
In Southend, both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) have recommenced holding water quality summits. They are a means of bringing together stakeholders and interested members of the public to discuss current issues and challenges, from pollution and sewage dumps to regular flooding. I hope our water quality summits will serve as a good exemplar of how the proposed new customer panels could work across the country.
My Conservative predecessor, the former MP for Southend West, had the right intentions when she started the local water summits during her term. However, she was restricted by the failure of her own Government to put in place sufficient regulation and consequences for the water companies to really fix this issue. In October 2021, the Conservatives voted against a Lords amendment to the Environment Bill that would have placed a legal duty on water companies to reduce sewage discharges into our rivers. In January last year, 292 Conservatives—ironically including my predecessor—voted to give water companies 15 years to clean up their act as part of the environment targets regulations. Yes, 15 years!
Having run my own business and worked in senior roles in other businesses, I know the standards required to consider awarding bonuses. Underperforming on a key metric would not, and should not, be overlooked when considering the payment of bonuses. The same will now properly apply to the water industry, and so it should. I am proud of this Bill and I am proud to support it. The Labour Government have done more in our first few months to tackle this scourge than the Conservatives did in the last 14 years. This Government are serious about bringing the change that is so urgently needed to end the scandal of water pollution once and for all.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Few of the natural features of the Taunton and Wellington constituency in Somerset are as valued as the River Tone, which goes through the constituency. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), I welcome this Bill but wish it would go further. In particular, we need a much stronger regulator. As long as Ofwat has a duty to protect profits and returns for shareholders but not to protect the environment, it will be more of a tame kitten than a watchdog. When it comes to managing the quality of our water and our waterways, profiteering surely has no place in the equation, which is why we want to see privatised water companies replaced with not-for-profit companies, which work very effectively in Denmark. Water companies also need to be held to account for longer when it comes to investing in the infrastructure that is needed.
From preparing and submitting its bathing water status application—with a lot of support from the hard-working volunteers of the Friends of French Weir Park—I know how much goes into designating a bathing water such as the Tone in Taunton. I therefore urge the Minister, in the context of the ongoing parallel bathing water consultation—to completely end automatic de-designation after five years. Wessex Water and the Environment Agency have made it clear that we can get improvements in water quality in the Tone in five years—and who would disagree with improving the tone, Madam Deputy Speaker?—but they are unlikely to be enough to protect its designation unless more time is available.
We in Taunton also strongly disagree with making new designations dependent on already having sufficiently clean bathing water quality. The whole reason that communities are seeking to get their designations is to stimulate that improvement. As Surfers Against Sewage has pointed out, making quality a prerequisite rather than the goal to be established would have prevented almost all the current inland bathing waters from being designated. Also, we would oppose allowing bathing seasons to be curtailed. I hope the Minister will also say something about bringing in water restoration grants, which would have the dual advantages of supporting the drive to eliminate phosphates from the Somerset levels and moors and improving river and bathing water quality.
Having canvassed the views of my fellow swimmers the other day, I know how much people want to see the river improved. We therefore need to give rural communities the support they need for water restoration. We need to establish a tough regulator bound by legal duties to protect the environment, not just profits, and give bathing waters enough time to be brought up to standard without the threat of de-designation and being pushed into the “too difficult” pile. Our rivers and our environment—
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
On the eve of this year’s general election, hundreds of Carlisle residents woke to find that brown water was coming out of their taps. Some might describe the stained water as a metaphor for 14 years of Conservative failure but, for most of my residents, it was just another reminder of the poor service they have had to endure from the local water company. Indeed, in the last two weeks alone, there have been 56 sewage discharges within a 5-mile radius of Carlisle, lasting a total of 152 hours.
This not only has the impact of harming local wildlife, as we have already heard this evening, but it also makes our rivers a no-go zone for locals. As someone who enjoys cold-water swimming, I find it a tragedy that our rivers, which have defined our great border city for centuries, have been reduced to the personal polluting pools of United Utilities.
Yet our system rewards this behaviour. Just last month, the company announced hundreds of millions in profit while seeking to further increase customer bills by an astounding 32%. Bonuses just shy of £1.5 million were doled out to two executives, on top of salaries already topping £1 million. This is the state of water regulation in this country—one where polluting, not the polluter, pays.
At least, that was the state of affairs under the previous Government, but not any more. I am delighted that this Bill is giving us the powers finally to hold the water companies to account, finally to block bonuses to underperforming water bosses, finally to levy fines that genuinely deter polluting our waterways, and finally to stop these companies marking their own homework by introducing proper independent monitoring of every outlet.
The water industry was a wild west under the last Government, and I for one am delighted that there is a new sheriff in town.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I welcome this legislation and this debate. Nothing typifies this Government’s job of cleaning up the mess left after 14 years of the last lot than the need to clean sewage out of our rivers.
The need in Yorkshire is greater than in many other places. Yorkshire Water holds one of the worst records for sewage discharges among water companies. Last year, it spilled sewage into rivers across our region 464,056 times. Of those, a staggering 4,125 discharges were into the River Calder, which runs through my Calder Valley constituency, making it one of the most dumped-in rivers in the country. Both numbers had increased since the previous year, yet Nicola Shaw, the chief executive of Yorkshire Water, took home just over £1 million in remuneration, £300,000 of which was a bonus. To put that in context, she earned £2.22 per sewage spill into a Yorkshire river last year. If that is a reward for good performance, one dreads to think what poor performance looks like.
In Calder Valley, and across the country, we have had enough, and this Bill rightly reflects that. This Bill gives us an opportunity to hold water bosses and their companies to account, not only through fines and clear regulations but through measures that will allow the criminal prosecution of irresponsible bosses.
I welcome this Bill, but I also recognise that it is just a start, an opening step to get our water system back on track. As we continue with our whole-system review, I hope Ministers will also look at the broader impact of water companies, including the cavalier way in which they dig up our roads for weeks on end. Indeed, a road in Hebden Bridge and Todmorden has been dug up to mend a sewer, but businesses are suffering while little work is done over the weekend. More pertinently, in Calder Valley early results from studies by Yorkshire Water into what it can do to alleviate flooding show that in areas like mine, water companies and their assets have a real impact on flooding, so I hope my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will consider looking at the broader role of water companies.
In closing, after 14 years of Tory failure polluting rivers across Calder Valley, I am proud to support the Bill and end the sewage scandal. We are serious about our environment, getting our country back on track and cleaning up the mess left by the Opposition.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
In my rural constituency of Shrewsbury, we have England’s longest river, the magnificent Severn. It flows through our historic town centre and meanders through our outlying villages, but my constituents are running out of patience with the current privatised water company, Severn Trent Water. It is failing its customers, failing the environment and, according to last week’s “Panorama”, failing financially.
Under the last Government, the whole water industry became a haven for profiteering. In the last four years, the boss of Severn Trent Water has been paid £13 million for “performance related pay”, yet in 2023 there were over 2,000 incidents of sewage dumping in my constituency alone—an increase of 42% on the previous year. My residents have their own words for that kind of performance, and they are not pretty.
To top that off, we have now heard that customers’ bills are set to rise by 46% over the next five years. This is supposedly justified by investment in the long overdue infrastructure upgrades that we need in order to reduce the sewage pollution spills into our rivers. However, companies continue pay out dividends to their shareholders, while customers are aggrieved because they have been paying out for years while the pollution went ahead. Quite rightly, customers feel that they are paying twice to solve the problem. Has there ever been a worse case of paying more and getting less?
Although we in this House welcome today’s watershed Bill, our residents are much more concerned with a different bill: the average annual water bill for Severn Trent Water customers is set to rise from £439 to £580. That is not acceptable and will be unaffordable for many, but it is also terrible value for money, given the disgraceful pollution of our river that has seen not just public health problems from infections as serious as E. coli, but devastating impacts on our ecology, including depleted fish, birds and flora along the banks of our river, which is now strewn with wet wipes and sanitary products instead of wildlife.
In Shrewsbury we have a very large and active campaign group called Up Sewage Creek, which is ably led by Claire Kirby. Many of the group are citizen scientists who give up their time to test the water quality and highlight the deterioration of our most prized asset. On behalf of my frustrated residents and our otherwise beautiful river, I urge the Minister to not only bring forward the criminal sanctions and stronger regulation in the Water (Special Measures) Bill, but to ensure that the independent water commission into the water sector holds no bars in its examination of the privatised water industry, and explores all avenues to clean up our water and shake up the sector.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
The protection of our beaches, rivers and bathing waters is incredibly important to my constituency, as hon. Members may expect me to say, as I represent a coastal constituency. My friends, family and I are regular swimmers in Weston-super-Mare’s fantastic Marine Lake, so my interest is personal as well as professional.
Marine Lake is a 200-metre infinity lake, said to be the largest of its kind in the world. It is a phenomenal asset to our community and I am proud of the work of so many to restore it over recent years. Having Marine Lake in Weston means that despite us having the second highest tidal range in the world—finding the sea in Weston can sometimes be a bit tricky—we have access to bathing water whenever we need it. So many people from across the country have memories of spending summers on the beach, with ice cream, fish and chips and swimming in the sea, creating memories with family and friends; that is part of the very fabric of our town.
In recent years the decline in water quality has damaged that fabric, and compromised access and enjoyment. As the previous Government left office, the number of bathing waters classified as poor across the UK was at a record high. Distressingly, that still includes Weston, Uphill and Sand Bay beaches—that has a profound impact on our town. There is so much anxiety among local residents and businesses about something that we should have certainty about: that it is safe to swim in our bathing waters. Many have also experienced the negative impact that it has had on tourism and hospitality—a vital source of employment to so many in Weston. The degradation of water quality in recent years must be reversed. Towns like mine need this Government to deliver where the previous Government did not.
I am grateful for the investigations by the Environment Agency and the local bathing water steering group of the causes of the poor water quality, but there is still no smoking gun. I have been reassured that over the next 12 months those investigations will be ramped up to investigate sewage from Avonmouth as the possible cause, but time is critical, and the need of my constituents for answers and swift action cannot be overstated. I have written to the Minister to outline the urgency, and request the boldest action for Weston-super-Mare.
I pay tribute to the amazing work of volunteers in Weston—first, the legendary Debbie Apted of Cleaner Coastlines. Debbie has been a personal inspiration for years because of her tireless advocacy, evidence-led approach and ability to motivate a community to action. I also pay tribute to the fantastic Mudlarks community, who work so hard to maintain Marine Lake, and the litter pickers such as Sophie and Jules from Sophie’s Super Litter Picking, and the many individuals who walk our streets and coastline daily to prevent rubbish from ending up in our waterways.
The Bill is so welcome in Weston, and I am especially pleased to see how quickly the Government have acted on this issue. It is clear to me and many campaigners in my constituency that stronger powers to properly hold water companies to account is critical if we are to change behaviour and get them to do their job. I am hopeful that, along with cleaning up our bathing waters, the Bill will go a long way towards restoring the trust that has been so sadly lost.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Anyone who has visited Shipley will know that the River Aire and the River Wharfe flow through the beautiful dales countryside of my Yorkshire constituency, and indeed that of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). I grew up paddling in the Wharfe, and as an adult I enjoy a regular dip. It was therefore a bit of a shock to learn that raw sewage was being regularly dumped in our rivers—some 1,753 times in 2023. I do not think that that is quite top of the poops, but it is not far off.
I pay tribute to the local activists who have done so much to expose this scandal and campaign to protect our environment. The Ilkley Clean River Group has been at the forefront of the campaign to end the sewage scandal. Formed in 2018, through citizen science it has shown that untreated sewage was being dumped in our rivers even at times of low rainfall. The group worked very hard to secure bathing status in 2020—the Wharfe was the first river to do so in the UK—and the group highlighted the public health risk to bathers, but it should not have needed brave local residents to challenge the water companies. The regulators have failed in their job. That is why I am so proud that the Bill will require more frequent and accurate monitoring, and introduce fixed monetary penalties so that companies do not get away with it any longer.
Under the last Government, our water was catastrophically mismanaged. Regulation was weakened, there was a failure to invest in infrastructure, and record levels of sewage were pumped into our rivers and seas. Meanwhile, bosses creamed off the profits and paid themselves in bonuses. Along with others, I call on the Yorkshire Water chief executive officer to hand back her £371,000 bonus. It is clear that change is needed, and change is coming with the Bill. It is long overdue that water companies are held to account and that we put in place the mechanisms to restrict executive bonuses. Many of my constituents, though, feel dismayed that it falls on them to pay the price, quite literally, for water companies’ failures. Customer bills are due to rise 18% next year in the Shipley constituency. Despite having no debt when privatised in 1990, Yorkshire Water has since accrued £6.5 billion of debt; today 19% of customer bills are spent just on servicing that debt.
Under-investment has left my constituency with creaking infrastructure, high bills and polluted rivers. I am pleased that the Government have set up an independent commission on water. To undertake fundamental reform, it is vital that that includes in-depth analysis of the finances and governance structures. Our once beautiful rivers, such as the Wharfe and Aire, are now awash with sewage, and our water infrastructure is leaking. I welcome the Bill, and the measures that it sets out to deal with the crisis in our water industry.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to support the Bill because we basically live in a monopoly. We live in a situation where a group of companies control an incredibly essential part of everyday life—a part that we need. As a consumer, if I do not like the service I receive, I can go somewhere else; I cannot do that with water. If I want to shop around for a better deal, I can do that; I cannot do that with water. The water companies know that—they know that they hold a monopoly on the service they provide—so they think they can get away with raising bills, failing to invest, and ploughing money into shares and dividends. Their time has come, and the Bill is apt. The new Government is providing new opportunities to change the way in which we look at water and consider it as a fundamental part of everyday life.
But as I have been listening to the debate this afternoon, I started to wonder whether the Bill is actually needed, because if we listen to the hon. Members for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) or for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), apparently everything in the Bill has already been done, and we are fine. I struggled to reconcile what the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) said in her opening speech—about this Government copying what the previous Government did in the Environment Act—with the rather gory descriptions of the effluence and other material found in waterways across the country.
I represent Stoke-on-Trent—the clue is in the name; it is the river on which we sit—and I know thousands of hours of sewage have been discharged into that river. Equivalent amounts of sewage are also being pumped into places like the Fowlea brook and the Lyme brook by a water company that is seemingly more worried about protecting its dividends than the health of the people I have been sent here to represent.
How did we get to this point, if everything the last Government did was apparently fine? The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) summed it up perfectly when he talked about the importance of regulation. Actually, we have gap when it comes to regulation—it is an enforcement gap. We have great regulation on paper that says, “You will do this, and this will happen” and “There will be penalties and fines”, but the previous Government systematically over time reduced the amount of funding available to the regulatory organisations, so that their enforcement became reactionary to events. According to the Conservatives, the reason why we have 100% monitoring of discharges is not because of some benevolent act by a party that cared about the environment; it is because the previous Government got bored and tired of the community groups around the country campaigning on the issue, and they thought, “We’ll do something about it.” I find it no coincidence that that happened this year—in an election year.
I hope that the Minister will talk more about how regulatory enforcement will happen, and about how we will provide the powers and the money that are needed.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I represent Morecambe and Lunesdale, where beauty surrounds and health abounds. It is the home of Morecambe bay and the River Lune—just two of the fantastic waterways that contribute to the health and enjoyment of my constituents. However, under the last Conservative Government, those waterways have been filled with pollution. Earlier, the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), mentioned wanting some facts. Well, here’s a fact for her: in 2023 alone, Morecambe and Lunesdale saw 13,500 hours of sewage discharges. That this was allowed to happen is an absolute scandal. Water bosses were allowed to walk off with huge bonuses while people in Morecambe bay found themselves swimming in raw sewage. Again and again, the law has been flouted by water companies and not enforced by the Conservatives, but now we have a Labour Government who will not only enforce the law, but strengthen it.
Morecambe bay is an ecologically special place. It is a site of special scientific interest and a bird watcher’s paradise, as a sanctuary for over 240,000 birds each year. Unfortunately, we do not have time for all the interesting bird facts that I prepared. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] In Arnside and Silverdale, we have—
Lizzi Collinge
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Between March and July, rare and declining bird nesting species, such as the ringed plover, oystercatchers and the Arctic tern lay their eggs on Morecambe bay’s shores. Morecambe bay is also a vital stopover point for migrating birds, offering them a place to rest and refuel. Little terns, with their distinctive face-markings and beaks, will travel 20,000 miles on their migratory journeys so that they can breed in Morecambe bay. In Arnside and Silverdale, we have our beautiful natural landscape and wetlands, which are home to diverse wildlife. Those habitats rely on robust water quality standards to thrive, making the provisions in the Bill absolutely crucial for my constituency.
My constituents have made it clear to me that they expect the Government to take action where the Conservatives failed. The Bill’s key measures include blocking executive bonuses for companies that pollute our waterways, imposing automatic fines for offences, prosecuting company directors for negligence, and mandating the real-time monitoring of overflows. The Bill also requires companies to publish annual pollution reduction plans, and strengthens oversight by regulators. Only through those measures can we protect waterways and keep Morecambe bay and the River Lune clean for future generations. I urge colleagues across the Chamber to support the Bill.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I am so pleased to be here to discuss the Bill. Water quality is one of the biggest issues facing residents across my constituency, particularly in relation to pollution levels, and under-investment in infrastructure has reduced flood resilience in our residential areas. In Southend, our beaches have lost some of their blue flags in recent months, particularly in Thorpe bay, because of surface water drainage issues. Constituents experiencing significant flooding every time there is increased rainfall. Some constituents living around the Thorpe Hall Avenue area have tried to sell up, and have been forced to sell for up to 15% below the market value as a direct consequence of flooding. That is simply not good enough, and it is why I am so pleased to be here to support the most significant increase in enforcement and regulation of the water industry in a decade.
Since my election, I have co-chaired the Southend water quality summit with my good and hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson). We have been trying to bring all community stakeholders back together again to put additional pressure on Anglian Water. The summits are held quarterly, and are an opportunity for residents, water companies and campaign groups such as Southend Against Sewage to come together to raise issues and concerns. That model empowers communities, and I am proud that our city has been a pioneer in holding water companies to account.
After all, Southend is a coastal community, so water quality is completely intertwined with daily life. Our beautiful coastlines are a natural asset that needs to be protected—frankly, they are one of our superpowers—but, frustratingly, our water quality does not always meet the standards that residents, visitors and tourists deserve. However, the Bill means that we can look forward to clean rivers, lakes, seas and estuaries. Not only will it drive up performance by blocking bonuses for executives and imposing automatic and severe fines for those who pollute our waterways, but it will introduce criminal charges for persistent lawbreakers. In 2022, £9.7 million was paid out in executive bonuses—that is simply not good enough.
For too long, water quality and food resilience have been overlooked. Nowhere is that more apparent than in Southend-on-Sea. Suffice it to say that I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill as a first step in the transformation of the water industry.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
On new year’s day, I will, like many people in Thanet, take part in a bracing dash into the sea to raise money for worthwhile causes. However, we should not take our health in our hands as we do so. Swimming should be good for you, not a risky adventure because of pollution. Good governance might seem a long way away from the delights of sea swimming, yet we cannot safely have one without the other.
Water plays such a huge role in the history and culture of East Thanet, not least because of our fantastic beaches. Margate can claim to be the first English seaside resort—I know there are others, but we are the first. For 250 years, people have come to all three of our towns in East Thanet to enjoy the stunning scenery, breathe the fabulous fresh air and swim in the sea, but as a very wise business owner in my constituency told me, “People don’t come here to paddle in poo.” That is why I and my constituents welcome this Bill, as a great starting point in cleaning up the mess that the Conservative party has left—not a figurative mess, but a literal one in our waterways. For years, the privatised water industry has been under-investing and over-polluting while paying itself millions of pounds in bonuses. That is why the action that the Government are taking through this Bill is extremely welcome and long needed.
Residents in Broadstairs have had to cope with their water being off during a red warning for extreme heat and in the middle of winter in the run-up to Christmas, managing on bottled water, because of infrastructure failures. Bills are up, the quality of service is down, the environment is in ruins, and big bonuses fuelled by gorging on debt are being paid. The water companies argue that they may need to pay more in salary bonuses to get the best people in—well, if this is the best they can get, I will be asking for my money back. We need a fundamental change in the way our water system is run, and critically, we need more accountability to bring that change about.
I know that the Secretary of State does not want to be spending his time running the water companies. I do not want him spending his time doing that either—that is not what I am suggesting. I recommend that this accountability should be local, rather than at the national level. The new independent water commission could look into how we fine water companies that break the rules by exploring the possibility of taking company stock from them instead of money. We could put any stock in a trust held on behalf of local billpayers, who would then benefit.
It may be some time before we can be confident about enjoying our waters again—some time before our rivers and seas are restored to full health—but I believe this Bill will start the process of cleaning up our water industry. It is crucial that we get the future governance right, so that our constituents can feel confident that paddling in poo is a thing of the past.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Last year, Derbyshire Dales had the 32nd highest number of sewage dumps out of our 650 constituencies. Shockingly, the number of sewage dumps increased by 26% between 2022 and 2023, with sewage spills in Derbyshire Dales lasting a staggering 28,488 hours. That is equivalent to 3.3 years of continuous pollution. It is clear that the previous Government failed to protect our water and, in doing so, endangered the environment, local industries and human health.
Much of Derbyshire Dales lies within the Peak District national park, which is renowned for its stunning scenery and landscapes. However, high levels of pollution are threatening the biodiversity of England’s national parks: as of today, only 39% of rivers and 15% of lakes within those parks remain in an ecologically healthy state. In Derbyshire Dales, that pollution is damaging some of our most scenic rivers; for example, just 6% of the surface water of the River Dove currently meets good ecological standards. Not only is that pollution a threat to biodiversity, but it is a danger to public health, as people who swim, canoe or enjoy recreational activities in these waters risk becoming ill if they are exposed to contaminated water. Recently, I witnessed this problem at first hand when I visited the River Derwent with Paddle UK.
The Water (Special Measures) Bill introduces long-overdue reforms to address this crisis. First, it bans bonuses for water company executives who fail to protect the environment and consumers. It is a disgrace that, since 2020, these executives have received £41 million in bonuses, benefits and incentives while water bills have soared and pollution levels have remained unacceptably high.
Secondly, the Bill strengthens the Environment Agency’s powers to hold lawbreaking water executives accountable —it is shocking that only five individuals have been prosecuted by the EA to date. I welcome the fact that the Bill is lowering the burden of proof required for the Environment Agency to impose fixed penalty notices from beyond reasonable doubt to the balance of probability. This will help to ensure that those who pollute our waters pay the price for doing so.
Thirdly, the Bill introduces automatic and severe fines for water companies that commit offences such as polluting or failing to meet reporting requirements. The message the Government are sending is clear: “If you pollute, expect to pay.” Alongside this Bill, I welcome the fact that the Government have established an independent commission into the water sector, and I look forward to seeing what further recommendations the commission brings forward to help ensure that our waters become clear, safe and healthy.
The people of Derbyshire Dales deserve better. They deserve rivers, lakes and waterways free from pollution. This Bill represents a critical step towards addressing these matters, and I urge all Members to support it.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a pleasure to wind up for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition in what has been a comprehensive debate tonight. I want to thank all Members, who have made so many interesting points across the House about many different aspects of policy.
The hon. Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) and for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) talked about water supply issues and when companies fail to deliver on their duties. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) talked about the fantastic Wave Project helping young people with their mental health in her constituency. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) raved about the magnificent Severn, and the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) waxed lyrical about her local birdlife.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) talked about the importance of monitoring and of a holistic approach to water management, as was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths). My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) talked about the importance of fit-for-purpose water infrastructure for new developments. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) eloquently articulated the issues with our Victorian sewage network and about the importance of the water restoration fund. My hon. Friends the Members for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) and for Windsor (Jack Rankin) are proud advocates for standing up for water quality for their constituents.
As for those in the party sitting to my left, the Lib Dems seem to airbrush themselves out of Government history and seem to forget that they were in coalition Government for some five years. May I gently remind the Liberal Democrats that they actually had a Water Minister in that coalition Government who did absolutely nothing on this issue when they were in power? They pivot and posture as the party of protest, jumping on their stand-up paddleboard bandwagon, but far from being concerned about water quality and safety, they appear more than happy to strap on their wetsuits and dive headfirst under the water.
The amendments to the Environment Bill in the last Parliament that Labour and the Liberal Democrats voted for would actually have cost in excess of £300 billion to rebuild the entire Victorian sewage and drainage systems. That was completely unaffordable, and it would have put up taxpayers’ water bills by hundreds of pounds each year. They did not tell the public that when they cast their smears on Conservative MPs and peers who voted for sensible, costed plans to realistically address the sewage situation, but they never let the truth get in the way of stand-up paddleboard bandwagons.
Water quality and how sewage is dealt with are of vital importance to all our constituents right across the House, and we on this side—the Conservatives—are proud that we were the party that began the process of addressing this while in government. What we can now see with this new Labour Government is an attempt to copy and paste many of our Conservative achievements and plans, rebadging them as their own. It is an interesting approach and a recurrent theme. They opposed and blocked all of our plans when in opposition, and now they are scrabbling around and trying to say that they agreed with our plans all along. In fact, just look what the Government have been saying this week about the Conservative-delivered comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which Labour now thinks is the best thing since sliced bread, having distanced themselves from it when they were in opposition. That is the theme of this new Government.
The Labour manifesto promised to put failing water companies under special measures to clean up water and clean up our rivers that have been polluted by illegal sewage dumping. Now it is Labour Members’ turn in government to deliver on these promises to ensure that these are not more broken promises, such as their heartless family farm tax, which they promised they would not do and then cruelly went on to do, or their promise not to raise national insurance.
I note that we would not be talking about this issue today, or we would be talking about a worse situation, had it not been for the previous Conservative Government being the first to investigate the problem, grasp the nettle and meet the ambitious pledge to ensure that 100% of storm overflows are monitored, so that we could get accurate data on what is being put into our waterways. Without that, we would need to do far more groundwork to start determining what we need to do. We must remember that the last time Labour was in charge of DEFRA in England, when it left office in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were being monitored, compared with 100% when the Conservatives left office. It was left for us to sort and improve monitoring, so that we can have an accurate view of what is happening—an evidence base for policy making, rather than poking around in the dark under Labour.
I really hope that Labour does not break its promises to improve water quality in England, because the story in Labour-run Wales is sub-optimal to say the least. In 2022, the average number of spills from storm overflows was two thirds higher in Labour-run Wales than in England—not exactly the best blueprint for government that Labour at Westminster said it would emulate. Some 92% of English bathing waters meet water quality standards, but that still needs to be higher and we look forward to the new Government detailing their plans to achieve better results.
We have heard from many Members about Thames Water, which is a notable, critical issue at this moment, but so far Labour has failed to come up with a clear plan for how it will address that and protect both the bill payer and the broader taxpayer. The Labour Government are promising to review the water system, with more reviews and more reboots, but what they should be doing is rolling their sleeves up and continuing the progress that the Conservatives started. That progress includes our landmark Environment Act 2021, delivering our plan for cutting plastic pollution and holding water companies to account; our work on measuring storm overflows; our ambitious “Plan for Water”; and strong action on water companies that were illegally dumping sewage into our waters—we have heard a lot about that tonight. That has included quadrupling water company inspections, meaning a pathway to 4,000 inspections a year by April 2025, and 10,000 a year from April 2026. That was part of our plan to crack down on poor-performing water companies.
We banned bonuses for the bosses of water companies that have committed criminal breaches, so that polluting our waters is not rewarded—a Conservative measure that this Bill copies. We also fast-tracked £180 million of investment from water companies to prevent more than 8,000 sewage spills this year, and stepped up requirements on water companies to increase investment in water infrastructure, with a commitment upwards of £60 billion over the next 25 years. We put pressure on those companies. We also prosecuted water companies that illegally pollute our rivers, making it clear that polluters must pay for damage to our natural environment. We tried to give more teeth to the regulator, Ofwat, and to the enforcer, the Environment Agency.
Let me touch briefly on the Bill’s passage in the other place. Our colleagues there tabled amendments to the Bill that we are happy were accepted, but we were disappointed that amendment 51, tabled by Lord Roborough, did not pass. It would have stopped customers across the country having their bills increased in the event of a water company being put into special measures. Under the current Bill, if a company in one part of the country is placed in special measures and costs are incurred, consumers in the rest of the country may still be liable to pay for it, despite not using the company that has been placed in special measures. The amendment would have provided a significant improvement to the Bill, and in Committee we will be asking Labour to think carefully about amendments to improve the legislation. It was disappointing that when the Labour Minister in the other place was asked about amendment 51, she failed to commit to protecting consumers from higher bills if a water company goes under.
Our Conservative colleagues in the other place also worked hard to bolster important nature-based solutions, and we are glad that the Government listened to them. We will look to strengthen that, along with the important role of the Water Restoration Fund.
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will support this Bill on Second Reading, and we will look to improve it in Committee, as our Conservative colleagues did in the other place. We will scrutinise the Bill as it goes through the rest of the legislative process, to ensure that it can be the best for all our constituents right across the House. This Bill must function in the way that the British public expect, to continue the work to clean up our British waters. The strong action that began under the Conservatives to improve our waters needs to be upheld by this new Labour Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I thank all Members who have participated in today’s debate; it has been a privilege to listen to the thoughtful and varied contributions made by colleagues across the House. I am sorry that, because there were just so many of them, I will be unable to refer to each one individually. However, I add my thanks to the citizen scientists in many constituencies who have been mentioned. I thank the school eco clubs, which have also had a mention, all the workers out there and the regulators. I state my recognition of the impact that sewage pollution has not just on the environment, but on tourism and local businesses. May I say how impressed I am by the number of Members who go wild swimming? I add my mum to the list of people who love doing that.
I must confess that, with nine days to Christmas, my love of Christmas may shine through in these closing remarks. I believe I might even have detected just a sprinkling of Christmas magic in the air, because what other explanation can there possibly be for all the unity we have heard across the Chamber? Nobody is telling us that they want the status quo, everybody thinks the situation has got worse, and through the many conversations I have had as Minister, I know that those opinions are shared by investors, environmental groups, the general public and even the water companies themselves.
I know, like all Members here, that all I want for Christmas are cleaner rivers, lakes and seas. In fact, as I think back to last Christmas, I believe that the public had almost given up hope. Our rivers, lakes and seas were polluted, bonuses were being awarded to polluting water bosses, wrongdoing was often going unpunished, and overseeing that failure were a tired Government who had run out of ideas. Then, something great happened: the wonderful people of our country elected a Labour Government. That Labour Government immediately got to work drafting this Water (Special Measures) Bill, along with a water commission to fundamentally transform our water sector for decades to come. It will prove that we did not need a Christmas miracle to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas; we just needed a Labour Government. The Bill will drive meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry as part of a wider effort to ensure that water companies deliver for customers and the environment.
During the debate, I have been making a list, checking it twice, and I would like to respond to some of the main points made. On the scope of the Bill, reform and wider issues, Members across the House have spoken about the need for more radical reform and raised concerns about wider quality issues. This Bill is intentionally narrow. We are focused on improving the performance and culture of the water industry as an urgent priority, ahead of the forthcoming £88 billion of investment in the 2024 price review. Many Members spoke about the need to hold companies to account, and the measures in the Bill do just that.
However, we know that this Bill alone will not be enough to fix our water system; we know that we need to go further. That is why we have launched the independent commission, which will look at the roles and responsibilities of the regulator among many other fundamental aspects of the water sector. All Members are invited to participate in the call for evidence in the new year. Many Members have also spoken about our precious chalk streams. The Government are committed to the protection and restoration of our cherished chalk streams, and the best way to achieve that is by fixing the framework for managing our water system, as we are doing through the commission.
Some Members expressed concerns about the timing of the commission. I reassure the House that the commission will publish a report in quarter 2 of 2025, with recommendations for actionable solutions to the sector’s problems, which will inform further legislation to transform our water industry.
A few hon. Members mentioned that nationalisation was not in the Bill’s scope. To give the short answer, that would be complex and time-consuming, would halt the investment needed—we would lose £88 billion of private investment—and would do nothing to stop sewage pollution.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the need for our regulator to be properly equipped to make use of the new powers in the Bill. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) mentioned, the Environment Agency is already recruiting up to 500 additional staff for inspections, enforcement and stronger regulation of the water industry, increasing compliance checks and quadrupling the number of water company inspections by March. However, the measures in the Bill go further and will better enable the regulators to ensure that companies are held to account. The new cost recovery power in the Bill will enable the Environment Agency to fully recover the costs of its water company enforcement activities.
In addition, new automatic penalties will allow the regulators to enforce minor to moderate offences more quickly and proportionately. Collectively, these measures will complement each other to enable the regulators to address widespread water industry underperformance. We are currently looking at the water restoration fund.
On protecting customers, many hon. Members rightly pointed out that companies have not delivered for their customers. I reassure all hon. Members that the Government are clear that customers should be placed at the heart of water company operations. That is why we will bring forward secondary legislation to introduce new and increased compensation—double the previous amount or more—which will be compulsory for water companies to pay customers for poor service, underscoring our commitment to hold companies to account and stand up for customers. That work, together with measures in the Bill that elevate the voices of consumers, will ensure that water companies deliver for their customers as a priority.
On the importance of transparency, we are better equipping customers to hold water companies to account. Clause 3 will close the current monitoring gap. However, monitoring volume and concentration is much more complex, leading to significant costs and a longer roll-out time. Such additional monitoring would not be proportionate for emergency overflows because they should be used only on very limited occasions.
Before we go—I have just a couple more—driving home for Christmas, I will conclude. The Bill will deliver the most significant increase in enforcement powers for water industry regulators in a decade, including strengthening regulation to ensure that water bosses face personal criminal liability for serious lawbreaking and new powers to ban bonuses from being paid if environmental standards are not met. The Bill is not just about policy; it is about protecting consumers, safeguarding our environment and ensuring that water companies operate transparently and responsibly.
I am confident that with the collective expertise and dedication of this House, we can pass this legislation and make a real impact. That is what we promised in our manifesto, and we know how important it is to keep our promises, especially at Christmas. So, in the spirit of Christmas and the season of good will to all, I thank everyone again for their contributions and welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with all hon. Friends and Members across the House to ensure that we get the changes needed to give the gift of clean water to future generations. Finally, on behalf of the DEFRA Bill team, we wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be broughht to a conclusion on Thursday 16 January 2025.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading .
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Christian Wakeford.)
Question agreed to.
Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise:
(1) any increase attributable to the Act in charges or fees payable under any other Act; and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Christian Wakeford.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Victims of Sexual Violence: Court Delays
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
I thank Mr Speaker for granting time for a debate on court delays and victims of sexual violence.
I do not underestimate the challenges that the Minister faces. As I will hopefully draw attention to this evening, the task at hand is considerable, but overturning this situation is owed to survivors. This topic is emotive and cuts deep. Justice is a British value that so many in our country live their lives by—a strong sense of what is right and what is wrong. But justice is also a principle that we should all be able to fall back on. When we fall victim to crime and seek redress, a timely and supported road to justice should be expected. That is a fundamental element of our social contract in Britain.
The situation that thousands of women and girls find themselves in today is far from that. The road to justice for so many victims of rape and serious sexual offences is long and falls desperately short of what is owed to them.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that too many victims of domestic abuse face years of court delays? It is an issue that constituents have raised with me. Those delays have consequences. One told me that her life is on hold, while her abuser is free to go on with his. She feels afraid to go out in her home town in case she is seen by him. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we not only address court delays but implement fast-track processes for these cases, to ensure that justice is served promptly?
Mary Glindon
My hon. Friend could not have put it better. That is the basis of this whole debate.
According to the quarterly statistics published last week, the number of sexual offence cases waiting to go to Crown court stands at 11,574—up 44.5% on the same time in 2022. Just two weeks ago, the Director of Public Prosecutions said that the delays are as bad as or probably worse than he has ever known them to be.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on concentrating on this issue, and on securing this debate so that we can all support her. Does she agree that while every victim deserves their day in court, some cases should get priority, in deference to the distress and anxiety involved? Sexual violence crimes must have that designation, and both the Crown Prosecution Service and judges should be able to streamline proceedings. We are all looking for the Minister to come back with a positive answer to hurry the system up.
Mary Glindon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think we will hear something from the Minister on what the Government intend to do and what we will hopefully get somewhere down the road.
These are women and girls who are sitting at the feet of trauma. Survivors face the enormous challenge of having to relive their experiences in court, and each day until then. The lengthy delays, which can be anywhere from two to five years, draw out this experience. I fear that more and more women and girls are losing faith in our criminal justice system—a system that is supposed to protect them. According to the Criminal Bar Association, the number of victims abandoning prosecutions increased 41% in the first half of this year compared with the first six months of 2023.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that these delays can have unintended consequences, such as a change in bail conditions? If a victim happened to move, the bail condition to avoid the area may not apply any more, and they would have to go back to the police and back to court. It can become a horrible maelstrom, bringing everything back all the time for the victim.
Mary Glindon
It causes unnecessary and troublesome complexities for people who are already facing so much in their lives. We really cannot emphasise that enough.
In the final quarter of 2022, almost 70% of rape survivors withdrew from the justice system. The situation at present is nothing short of a crisis.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is estimated that the number of rape victims who pull out of prosecutions before trial has more than doubled in five years. One reason given is a shortage of lawyers—for both prosecution and defence—willing to take on rape and serious sexual assault cases, because they say that cases are becoming increasingly complex and that they are poorly paid in comparison with other areas of the law. Does my hon. Friend agree that it may be time for us to look at whether the lawyers doing this kind of work should be properly paid?
Mary Glindon
I hope that the review that will take place will look at everything and cover every aspect. I believe its aim is to be comprehensive and to bring justice and fairness to everybody involved in the system.
It is imperative that attention is drawn to the nature of postponements, which bear down on the already fragile mental health of victims. I have heard heartbreaking accounts of court dates being moved on the morning of the scheduled trial. Imagine waiting in anticipation for that day of justice, exerting every ounce of mental strength, just for it to be snatched away on the day of the trial. I invite colleagues to imagine that happening not once, but again and again.
There is also an important public safety element, which is too often overlooked. Many perpetrators are not placed on remand, and, when there is a delay to a case being heard, someone who could be guilty is walking the streets. Returning to the issue of fairness, there is a deep injustice to that: victims must look over their shoulder each and every day and have their lives put on hold, while perpetrators may be able to cling to their freedom for years.
I am cognisant that a number of factors have driven this enormous backlog, including the pandemic, industrial action by criminal barristers, a lack of capacity in the legal profession and an increase in the number of complex cases entering the system. While many of these factors are well known, it has also been brought to my attention that defence barristers may be able to generate a postponement by requesting a last-minute adjournment as a delay tactic. I would be grateful if the Minister committed to looking at that issue in more depth. We need greater scrutiny of last-minute adjournments, which are having such devastating impacts on victims.
In the summer, I wrote to the Justice Secretary on postponements and delays, and was grateful for the response that I received from the then Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), in which I was assured that reducing waiting times for victims of serious sexual offences is a priority for our Government. The Minister advised me that the Government were carefully considering the best way to fast-track rape cases, and were working with the judiciary to understand how that may be achieved. I would be grateful if the House received an update on the Government’s progress in delivering that manifesto commitment.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we keep the blame for the backlogs exactly where it belongs? Defence barristers are doubtless doing the best they possibly can for their clients in some extremely difficult circumstances, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) says, they are paid poorly relative to other members of their profession. The most significant problems in the court system have been caused by 14 years of chronic Tory underfunding of the court system itself, the Crown Prosecution Service and the prison system, which means that: far too few people are held on remand; people are being bailed when they should not be; people are being dealt with very swiftly to try to deal with custody time limits; and there are so many problems baked into the system as it stands that victims are being wholly failed. We need to ensure the system is invested in and reformed in such a way that those problems do not continue to be exacerbated, one of the most enormous ones being—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. If the hon. Lady wants to contribute to the debate she always has the opportunity to ask the Member in charge and the Minister, but interventions must be shorter than that.
Mary Glindon
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am sure we will hear from the Minister that the Labour Government have a lot of plans to hopefully right all those wrongs.
In recent days, we have heard the Minister for courts and legal services, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman) signal toward once-in-a-generation-type reforms, as well as the need to think boldly. I welcome her ambition. For the women and girls who are waiting for their day of justice, I would be grateful if the Minister set out what actions the Government are taking in the short to medium term.
As I bring my speech to an end, I want to give voice to a constituent who wrote to me with her experience. I want her to know that there are people listening. I want her to know that she has shown exceptional bravery by sharing her story in the hope that others will not have to endure what she has. I want her to believe that the Government can put this right. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will end with her words, which are deeply moving and a powerful expression of what she and others are going through:
“In one word, dying. I feel like dying. To end the pain of living every day knowing that the trial could be postponed again, like it has so many times now. I am living in limbo, with the weight of the trial weighing on me every day. The intense anxiety in the run-up to the trial date is unbearable. I can’t eat, sleep or enjoy anything. There is absolutely nothing for me to look forward to. It’s like trying to walk through the deepest muddiest river and getting absolutely nowhere, just stuck in the same place. And that is what it is like every time the trial is postponed and I have to wait months for the next trial date. And the cycle starts again. It is killing me every single day.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) on securing this very important debate. We have heard some incredibly powerful and moving stories. I know that everyone in this House, despite our political differences, is united in one purpose: that more must be done to bring victims the swift justice they deserve. And more must be done to properly support them throughout the justice process.
As we have heard, for too many victims in this country justice delayed does mean justice denied. As my hon. Friend stated, only last week the new statistics laid bare the scale of the backlog in our Crown court, which is now at a record high. There were 73,000 cases awaiting trial or a sentencing hearing as of September this year. That number has doubled since 2019. Sexual offence cases, including rape, were on average taking 356 days from arrival at the Crown court to completion—a significant increase on the average for sexual offence cases pre-covid.
As politicians, we often reel out statistics, but behind each one of those statistics are real people: real victims, including people who have endured rape and sexual abuse, who are not just waiting months for trial, but years. For some, that seemingly endless wait is quite understandably too much to bear. Left without hope of the justice that they deserve and facing a long road to the closure that they need, many drop out of their cases all together, and when they do, their attackers get away without consequences, free to offend again.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Minister is making a very important point about victim attrition, but one thing that concerns me is the fact that court delays also mean that when cases are heard, the testimony of victims—including victim-survivors in these cases—will be of much poorer quality given the length of time that has passed, and more cases will end with a not guilty verdict for people who should very much be behind bars. Is the Department looking into that, and are there statistics for what the backlog has meant for the conviction rate?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend is right: there are concerns about that, and I hear them, as does the Department. It is true that some of the special measures that were intended to empower victim-survivors giving testimony are potentially having a negative impact. I will say more about that later, but I can say to my hon. Friend that the Department and I are very alive to it.
My aim is to get out there and meet as many victims and survivors as possible to hear directly about their experiences, some of which are unimaginably awful. One victim-survivor of rape told me that her case took years to finally get to trial, and she used words similar to those of my hon. Friend’s constituent—words that I will never forget. She said that the entire experience made her “want to die”. No one should ever feel that way about our justice system. I am proud that this Government were elected with a landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, finally making this a priority after years of neglect. It will not be easy, but I believe that we are up to the challenge. However, if we are to have any hope of doing so, we must improve the way in which the justice system responds to these crimes, and that must include ensuring that victims’ cases are heard swiftly by the courts.
As I have said, this Government inherited a criminal courts system that was stretched to breaking point. We have taken the crucial first steps to bear down on that caseload, including funding 106,500 Crown court sitting days in this financial year. We have also extended sentencing powers in magistrates courts to 12 months when they are dealing with offences that can be heard in either a Crown court or a magistrates court, which will free up 2,000 Crown court days and provide more capacity to hear the most serious cases. However, the number of cases entering Crown courts shows no signs of letting up, so if victims are going to see justice more swiftly, we cannot simply do more of the same; we have to go further.
Delivering the Government’s bold plan for change and making our streets safer will take a once-in-a-generation reform of our courts system, which is why the Lord Chancellor announced last week that she had commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to carry out an independent review of the criminal courts, looking specifically at how we might speed up the hearing of cases. Sir Brian’s review will examine how our courts can operate more efficiently, but it will also look at much more fundamental reform—considering, for instance, the introduction of an intermediate court, in which cases that are too serious to be heard by a magistrate alone could be heard by a judge alongside magistrates. We expect Sir Brian to report on his initial findings in spring next year.
This marks a crucial step towards our ambition of bearing down on the overall caseload and bringing down waiting times for all victims, witnesses and defendants. As I have said, however, we know that victims of sexual violence endure particularly long waits for justice, and, as the House will know, we have therefore made a commitment to fast-track rape cases through the system. We are considering the best way of doing so, and we are keen to build on the work that has already been done by the senior judiciary. I saw one of their initiatives at first hand during my visit to Bristol Crown court over the summer, and was struck by how tirelessly those judges and court staff are working to keep cases moving. It was inspiring to see.
This is a tough challenge, and whatever we do, waiting times will not come down overnight. If we are to keep victims engaged while they continue to face lengthy waits, partners across the criminal justice system and victim support services must pull together, as indeed they are. The Ministry of Justice provides ringfenced funding for independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers, as well as for community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence services. That is in addition to the core funding that we provide for police and crime commissioners to allocate at their discretion.
I am pleased to say that we are maintaining the 2024-25 funding levels for sexual violence and domestic support next year. The CPS recently announced its victims transformation programme, which has a focus on improving the justice process for victims of rape and serious sexual offences. Pre-trial meetings with prosecutors are now being offered to all victims of adult rape and serious sexual offences, and there will be greater access to independent sexual violence advisers as well as dedicated victim liaison officers.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) has mentioned, victims’ experience of court is affected by the interactions that they have there and with the staff.
Jim Shannon
I very much welcome what the Minister is saying; it is really positive stuff. Policing and justice are devolved matters in Northern Ireland, but I know that she takes a big interest in Northern Ireland. Could she share what she has put forward tonight with the relevant authorities in the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Alex Davies-Jones
As an MP for a constituency in a devolved nation, I am acutely aware of the need to ensure that we have a joined-up approach. Although justice and policing are devolved to Northern Ireland, I will happily discuss this issue with colleagues to see how we can best approach it, because somewhere in our United Kingdom a rape or sexual violence victim-survivor is currently suffering an insufferable wait, and we need to do more to protect all victims across the country.
As I have said, we need to look at victims’ experience of court. As part of the same programme, over 500 CPS staff who will meet victims have received trauma-informed training. We will also continue to deliver trauma-informed training at Snaresbrook, Leeds and Newcastle Crown courts, with over 400 professionals trained so far, including court staff and police. Witness waiting rooms and in-court technology have been upgraded in those courts so that victims can give their best evidence, watch proceedings away from the courtroom, or simply wait in a comfortable and private space. Attending court can be terrifying, and I know that many victims, quite understandably, fear bumping into the perpetrator when they do.
Charlotte Nichols
The Minister just made a point about victims being able to watch proceedings from another room, which is often not the case in rape trials, where the victim is considered a witness rather than a participant in the case. I know that the Department is looking at things like transcripts. Will they become more readily available, so that victims who, for whatever reason, do not feel like they can participate while the trial is taking place can read what happened after the trial as part of the process of closure?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend makes another important point. We are currently offering a pilot on transcripts. I will mention that again in my speech, but it is about how much more comfortable we can make the whole terrifying process for victims and survivors when they are in our court system. What more can we do to make their experience as comfortable—if that is the appropriate word—as it can be? As I have said, we know that it can be utterly terrifying.
There are also concerns about the way that victims’ evidence is currently presented to the jury. I hear those concerns loud and clear, particularly where the approach can reduce the chance of securing a conviction. The Department is conducting a thorough impact evaluation and looking at section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999—the mechanism by which victims can give their testimony in advance of trial—to see whether it affects the case outcome, court effectiveness and the timeliness of cross-examination. We will publish the findings of our review in the new year.
Victims of rape and sexual offences can request transcripts of Crown court sentencing remarks for free through our one-year pilot, which is running until May next year. I encourage all eligible victims and survivors to find out whether that could be helpful, and to please take up the offer.
Charlotte Nichols
Just for clarification, will transcripts be available only for victim-survivors who have secured a successful conviction? Given what we are talking about, it is important that people who were not able to secure a conviction can still access transcripts as part of the important process of closure.
Alex Davies-Jones
My understanding is that any victim who is eligible is able to apply for transcripts, regardless of whether a conviction has been secured, but I will seek clarification for my hon. Friend on that matter.
This is a landmark mission, and we have further to go to support victims of rape and sexual offences—both at court and across the whole of their journey through the system. I am proud that, as well as fast-tracking rape cases through the courts, we plan to begin rolling out our free, independent legal advisers for victims of adult rape from next year. Those advisers will be a real step forward for victims, and offer legal advice at any point between report and trial. We will also introduce specialist rape and sexual offence teams in every police force. We will make sure that police officers receive stronger training on violence against women and girls, and ban anyone with a history of violence against women and girls from joining the police force.
Wherever they are in their journey through the system, I want to make sure that every victim knows their rights and that agencies are held accountable for delivering those rights. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 lays the foundation for ensuring that victims know the rights they should receive under the victims code and that agencies are held accountable for delivering them. The Act also places a duty on local commissioners in England to collaborate in the commissioning of support services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and serious violence. We will consult on a revised victims code and the duty to collaborate guidance early next year. I am working with my officials to ensure that we have the right data and systems to monitor compliance with the new code. We have also pledged to increase the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers, so that there is more accountability when victims’ needs are not being met.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend asked me about the impact of adjournments on victims and survivors. I want to reassure her that I am looking at every possible solution and pulling every lever at my disposal across the criminal justice system to ensure that we leave no stone unturned in ensuring that the victims of these abhorrent crimes receive the swift justice that they deserve.
Mrs Russell
I understand that there is a specific problem with the criminal injuries compensation scheme as it stands, whereby a claim has to be brought within two years of the original allegation, even though in many cases there has not even been a prosecution by that point. Is that something that the Department is looking at?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend will be aware of the consultations run by the previous Government on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. I have been reviewing those consultations and we are looking to publish the Government’s response in the new year, but we are aware of the concerns from the sector, and from victims and survivors, about the scheme. We are looking at how much more we can do to support victims and survivors as a whole on these issues.
Let me come to a close by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend for securing this debate, and all the hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to such a thoughtful discussion. Sexual offences leave devastation in their wake. Victims are often left traumatised and the very least they deserve is swift justice, but too often that justice process serves only to traumatise them further, whether it is because they are not getting the right support or because they are facing an agonising wait for their case to come to court, as we have heard so powerfully this evening. We have inherited a criminal justice system—and a criminal courts system in particular—in crisis, but the rebuilding effort is under way. We have an ambitious package of reform, we are thinking boldly, and while I am realist enough to know that change will not happen overnight, I can assure you all that this Government are up to the challenge.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Implementation of International Recognition Agreements (Amendment) (Extension to Switzerland etc.) Regulations 2024
(1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Implementation of International Recognition Agreements (Amendment) (Extension to Switzerland etc.) Regulations 2024.
The regulations were laid in draft before the House on 4 November 2024. I draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip issued in relation to the draft regulations as they were originally laid. It corrects a minor error in the date of the statutory instrument referred to in the explanatory note, and updates a footnote on page 4 to refer to the Welsh statutory instrument that was made on 18 November 2024.
The regulations implement the agreement on the recognition of professional qualifications that was signed by the UK and Switzerland in June 2023. The regulations place a legal duty on UK regulators to recognise comparable Swiss professional qualifications and provide regulators with the necessary legal powers to do so. That ensures a smooth and transparent system for Swiss professionals to have their qualifications recognised, which provides certainty for those wanting to work in the UK. In parallel, Switzerland is passing legislation requiring Swiss regulators to recognise UK qualifications, which means that UK professionals benefit from reduced barriers to working in Switzerland.
The Government are using powers contained in section 3 of the Professional Qualifications Act 2022 to make these regulations. Those powers were first used in December 2023 when the Government implemented the recognition of professional qualifications provisions of the UK’s free trade agreement with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein through the Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Implementation of International Recognition Agreements (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which I will refer to as the EEA-EFTA—European economic area-European Free Trade Association—regulations.
The provisions under the Swiss agreement are similar to those in the UK’s free trade agreement with the EEA-EFTA states. These regulations add Switzerland as a specified state to the EEA-EFTA regulations. The Swiss agreement also contains an annex that provides certain Swiss and UK lawyers with a bespoke route to recognition of professional qualifications between Switzerland and the United Kingdom. These regulations amend the EEA-EFTA regulations to implement those additional provisions for Swiss legal professionals.
The regulations will come into force on 1 January when the existing recognition of professional qualifications provisions in the UK-Switzerland citizens’ rights agreement expires. That will ensure continuity in the recognition provisions and a smooth transition between the systems for UK regulators and Swiss professionals.
I will briefly provide details about the regulations. They place a legal duty on regulators to recognise comparable Swiss qualifications. They prescribe the procedure that regulators must follow in recognising Swiss qualifications. They enable regulators to refuse to recognise Swiss professional qualifications where certain conditions are met, such as an applicant having inadequate English language proficiency. They prescribe compensatory measures that regulators can require a Swiss professional to take in certain circumstances, such as completing an adaptation period. They amend sectoral legislation to enable regulators to meet those requirements where they do not currently have the power to do so. They include specific provisions that apply to the regulators of advocates, barristers and solicitors.
Separately, the Department of Health and Social Care has taken forward legislation to regulate anaesthesia associates and physician associates. As regulated professions, they fall in scope of these regulations and the EEA-EFTA regulations. Therefore, these regulations extend the obligation on the regulator of anaesthesia associates and physician associates to comply with both sets of regulations.
I reassure the Committee that, under these regulations, it remains the responsibility of independent regulators to set the standards for their profession and to decide who meets those standards. In accordance with the statutory duty under section 15 of the Professional Qualifications Act, the Department for Business and Trade has carefully consulted regulators about the implementation of the agreement. A formal consultation ran from February to April 2024 and sought regulator views on the implementation, approach and regulations. The respondents were supportive and officials from my Department have engaged with regulators on the feedback received.
The regulations cover professions that are regulated centrally by the UK Government and professions that are regulated at a devolved level by Scotland and Northern Ireland. That approach has been taken after careful consideration and extensive engagement with the devolved Governments. The regulations do not apply to Welsh regulated professions. The Welsh Senedd made regulations implementing the agreement for Welsh regulated professions on 18 November, which will come into force on 1 January 2025.
To conclude, the regulations bring into effect the recognition of professional qualifications system contained in the Swiss agreement. They ensure that the UK is meeting its obligations under international law and provide certainty for regulators and professionals once the provisions in the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement expire at the end of this year. That brings tangible long-term benefits to the United Kingdom, and also means that UK-qualified professionals looking to practise in Switzerland continue to have access to streamlined recognition processes. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition welcome this update. It is good to see the Government bringing into force an agreement made by the Department for Business and Trade when my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), the Leader of the Opposition, was Secretary of State under the last Government. This legislation will reduce labour costs but will not impinge on Britain’s autonomy over immigration or regulatory policy. It is required to prevent a cliff edge after the previous agreement expires on 31 December.
Switzerland is the United Kingdom’s fourth-largest trading partner. The total trade in goods and services between the UK and Switzerland, in the four quarters to the end of quarter 2 in 2024, was worth £46 billion. According to the Department for Business and Trade,
“The agreement also safeguards the autonomy of UK and Swiss professional regulators to…set and maintain standards…assess against these standards…decide who is fit to practise the profession”.
The UK-Switzerland recognition of professional qualifications agreement, which this legislation implements, was welcomed by the Law Society for continuing the regime under the previous UK-Swiss citizens’ rights agreement.
I have just three questions for the Minister. Does he have plans to extend the mutual recognition scheme further with Switzerland, such as to include financial services, and with other countries, such as the United States? Will he confirm that the legislation will be enacted in Switzerland on the same date? Has he considered a data exchange for qualifications that regulators deem not comparable?
Mr Alexander
The questions one always fears are the short ones that come with no thinking time, but I shall endeavour to answer the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Alexander
Exactly—and I am getting used to the challenges of being in government, as distinct from in opposition.
First, in all seriousness, I thank the hon. Gentleman for what I anticipate will be his support for the measures. He is entirely right to recognise that the work was undertaken under the previous Government and he can rest assured that the lodestar for the incoming Government in the last six months has been continuity where it makes sense in the interests of the United Kingdom economy. In that spirit, I hope that we can find common ground this evening.
As I set out, the regulations implement the UK- Switzerland recognition of professional qualifications agreement and require regulators to operate routes to recognition for comparable Swiss professional qualifications in accordance with that agreement. On the issue of extending mutual recognition, we will take a phased approach to make sure that we avoid the cliff edge that the hon. Gentleman eloquently described.
The hon. Gentleman can rest assured, however, that one of the early negotiations that we have initiated is on a Swiss FTA, which again reflects work that was undertaken under the previous Government. We have looked carefully at the mandate and negotiators have begun that process. When one looks for equivalent countries around the world where there are clear synergies in the character of the economy and the economic opportunities, Switzerland is high on that list. In that sense, whether in relation to the mutual recognition of professional qualifications or other aspects of our regulatory arrangements more broadly, we continue to look carefully at opportunities for UK-Swiss co-operation.
On the date of introduction for the Swiss legislation, I do not have that to hand. As I said, Switzerland is passing legislation to require Swiss regulators to recognise UK qualifications to ensure that the benefits are mutual. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about what we understand the Swiss parliamentary timescale to be.
As I have emphasised, the regulations continue to uphold the principle of regulator autonomy as set out in the Professional Qualifications Act 2022. My officials have also engaged extensively with regulators and the devolved Governments on the implementation. I trust that hon. Members understand and recognise the need for the regulations, as the hon. Gentleman set out, and the benefits that they will bring to the UK services trade. I thank hon. Members and commend the regulations again to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Asian Development Bank (Thirteenth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 2024
Draft Inter-American Investment Corporation (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 2024
(1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Asian Development Bank (Thirteenth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 2024.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Inter-American Investment Corporation (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 2024.
Anneliese Dodds
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. The draft orders, which were laid before the House on 4 November, will permit the UK Government to make separate financial contributions to the Asian Development Fund and the Inter-American Investment Corporation, up to the stated values. If I may, I will briefly take the Committee through the background to and purpose of the draft orders.
The Asian Development Fund, which is the grant arm of the Asian Development Bank, supports the most vulnerable countries in the Asia-Pacific and is replenished by donors every four years. ADB is one of the largest sources of development finance in the region; it provided more than $23 billion in 2023.
ADB is an important partner for the UK that plays a key role in the achievement of regional development objectives on sustainable development and climate change. In line with multilateral development bank reform priorities to support the most vulnerable, the UK has committed £120 million to ADF to maintain our position as the fourth largest donor. The draft Asian Development Bank (Thirteenth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order will allow for the provision of this core funding by the UK. During this replenishment, a record high of 38%—almost $2 billion—will be funded from ADB’s own net income, reducing the cost to donors of achieving the same development impact. The total value of the replenishment is $5 billion.
The replenishment will prioritise dedicated assistance to small-island developing states, which are particularly vulnerable to climate change, and to countries in fragile and conflict-affected situations, including Afghanistan and Myanmar. It will support much-needed climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction, will promote gender equality, will support regional integration nd the provision of regional public goods and will increase the living standards of poor and vulnerable people in the region. Specifically, ADF will dedicate at least 45% of its financing to climate mitigation and adaptation; will commit $900 million for Afghanistan and $200 million for Myanmar, providing vital support for basic human needs and livelihood development; will increase commitments to Pacific island states to $1.3 billion, some 35% of the total replenishment financing; and will allocate 20% of thematic funding to gender-transformative action, which will tackle violence against women and girls, ensure access to sexual and reproductive services and promote access to economic resources such as land and asset ownership.
ADF is an essential lifeline to the region’s most vulnerable people, who have faced multiple crises over the past few years, including climate change, coronavirus and the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. ADF provides excellent value for money for the taxpayer, leveraging approximately $11 from the bank’s resources for every $1 contributed by donors. This is one step closer to building a bigger, better and fairer international financial system—one that delivers for everyone.
The draft Inter-American Investment Corporation (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order will permit the UK Government to make further payments to the Inter-American Investment Corporation, also known as IDB Invest, which is the private sector arm of the Inter-American Development Bank group. The IDB is Latin America and the Caribbean’s largest source of development finance; it provided approximately $24 billion in 2023 alone.
The IDB is also a trusted UK partner and is instrumental in the achievement of regional development objectives on sustainable development, action on climate change, biodiversity protection and pandemic and disaster preparedness. Furthermore, the G20 has called on multilateral development banks to adopt new business models to stretch their balance sheets, increase lending and make riskier investments. With the new Government, the UK has been at the forefront of these calls. This is exactly what IDB Invest has committed to doing.
Together with other shareholders, the UK has therefore agreed to a $3.5 billion capitalisation package to allow IDB Invest to more than double the support that it provides to the region, from about $8 billion to $19 billion per year. It will do so through the implementation of a new business model: IDB Invest will shift to an originate-to-share approach to attract private capital, share risks and recycle funds, enabling greater impact and scalability for development projects. The UK is a strong proponent of the new model and the leadership and innovation showcased by IDB Invest. For that reason, we aim to achieve at least a fivefold increase in our shareholding, from 0.22% up to 1.5%—subject to shares being available—for a total value of up to $106 million.
Let me lay out some of the outcomes that IDB Invest expects to achieve by 2030 through the new business model and capital increase. It will dedicate at least 60% of investments to climate and green finance; will finance 2.5 million micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, which in turn could support 9.5 million jobs; will create more than 300,000 women direct beneficiaries of its programmes and support 1.6 million of the region’s poor and vulnerable people; and will improve access to agricultural services and investments for 44,000 farmers. It is also predicted to achieve a reduction of 3.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions and to generate 1,400 MW from renewable sources for new clean energy projects. In addition, IDB Invest will continue to share lessons learned in the implementation of its business model with other development finance institutions to encourage more private sector investment globally. This represents excellent value for money: for every $1 that the UK invests, $5 of development-related assets are generated, taking us one step closer to achieving the region’s sustainable development goals.
Both the Asian Development Fund and IDB Invest are instrumental to achieving UK objectives overseas and are among our closest and most important development partners. The financial contributions covered by the two draft orders will deliver UK international development and foreign policy objectives in some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries and will bring opportunity to tens of millions of people globally through innovative reform processes. I commend the draft orders to the Committee.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, for what I think is the first time ever; I hope that there will be many more such occasions. I thank the Minister for her very detailed and comprehensive explanation of the matters that we are discussing today, but as she will imagine, I have a lot of questions and points of clarification to put to her.
I turn first to the draft Asian Development Bank (Thirteenth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order. His Majesty’s Opposition recognise the important work that the bank does in different parts of the region, as the Minister has outlined. The work of the Asian Development Bank was supported by the previous Government, and the Opposition continue to support it. However, I would be grateful if the Minister provided much more granular detail about the up to £120 million that she proposes to spend. It is a lot of money; I think all our constituents want to see justification when money is spent, especially large sums of that kind. We have had a very high-level explanation today, but we need to go a bit deeper and look at some details.
Precisely what climate change mitigation should we expect to be funded? What kind of sustainable infrastructure development are we looking at? Will the Minister elaborate on what the Government are trying to achieve by means of “deepening regional co-operation”? What does she mean by that?
The Committee would also benefit from more information about the distribution of funds. How will they be geographically spread across the region of jurisdiction? Which areas are priorities for His Majesty’s Government?
Will the Minister also enlighten the Committee about the steps that the Labour Government are taking to help multilateral banks such as the Asian Development Bank to take maximum advantage of the huge potential offered by private finance for development? As the Committee will know, the last Conservative Government’s international development White Paper, which was published last year, was centred around mobilising financial institutions and private capital. That included ensuring that every penny of UK funding embedded in the multilateral development banks went as far as possible and was used to best effect.
We want to see evidence of what the Labour Government will be doing to pick up the baton and continue the work of the previous Government. To that end, will the Minister confirm what new initiatives are being undertaken by British International Investment to unlock greater volumes of private finance? The Conservative Government championed BII’s aspiration to try new approaches to secure more private finance, with a clear focus on equity investment to support businesses in developing economies to access additional finance. Does Labour support that? Does the Minister agree that lessons could be learned from British International Investment successes in this area that could influence the adoption of new business models by MDBs?
United Kingdom aid is a powerful driver for lifting people out of poverty, but only if it is complemented by supporting economic development policies that enable countries in receipt of our financial assistance to develop and grow their own economic base through trade, employment and skills development. Are the Government looking at furthering our work on economic prosperity by working with British firms that can offer skills, education and employment development to countries and effectively promote British interests overseas?
The Chair
Order. The shadow Minister is moving beyond the scope of the draft orders. I ask him to conclude his remarks.
Andrew Rosindell
Additionally, the Conservative Government made good advances both in spending power and in expertise, as well as leveraging our position to reform and improve the global aid system so that it could manage the challenges of this century and address our national priorities. In that specific context, we need to ensure that the money going into ADB and other MDBs is clearly targeted at bringing about economic progress, because that is what drives human development in turn.
I will turn, if I may, to the Inter-American Investment Corporation. The UK became a member of the corporation under the previous Government, and we recognise its importance as the largest source of development finance in Latin America and the Caribbean. What assurances can the Minister give that the Government are advancing the previous Government’s commitment to continually improve the effectiveness of development delivered through the corporation?
The last Government strongly supported the corporation’s reform programme. Do the current Government intend to do the same, particularly in relation to increasing the level of co-investment attracted from private investments and the allocation of capital? Will the Minister clarify whether the Government will indeed seek to purchase additional shares to take our holding up to 1.5%?
In relation to how the funding will be used, does the Minister agree that we need to improve our partnership offer, particularly to the Caribbean nations, if we are to counter the growing economic and development presence of China in the region? If she does agree, how does she intend to do so through our funding of the corporation? What measures will be in place to scrutinise the effectiveness of our offer, investments and resources so that the UK is not indirectly subsidising initiatives that could be counter to our national interests and foreign policy objectives?
Will the Minister tell us about funding through the corporation? Will it be supporting projects in support of the British overseas territories in that region? Can she provide the details of priority countries and projects?
Before I draw my remarks to a close, I will mention smaller aid and development organisations. This discussion is understandably centred on the role of big players, but we must never forget the small charities with dedicated volunteers and grassroots support who put their heart and soul into great causes and often receive less attention and support than they deserve. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have a plan to support the smaller charities, in addition to these big projects? It was a Conservative Government who established the small charities challenge fund—
The Chair
Order. I have been very relaxed, but I ask the shadow Minister to conclude. The Minister need not comment on questions that are out of scope.
Andrew Rosindell
I will conclude, Mr Vickers.
Finally, what timeframe can the Minister outline as to how and when the work of the corporation will be reviewed? Will the review be published and subject to full parliamentary scrutiny?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his questions and for his interest in this critical area. I will endeavour to answer as many points as I can.
First, I was pleased that the previous Government supported the work of the Asian Development Bank: that was really encouraging to see. I am also pleased that a new president has been announced. I met with him when he was a candidate to become the new president of the bank, and he certainly shares a similar reform orientation to that of the new UK Government.
The shadow Minister mentioned the UK’s funding, which perhaps needs to be put in the context of the previous Government’s support. We are talking about up to £120 million now, which is a slight increase on the UK’s contribution of £117.6 million made by the previous Government. It is helpful to put it in that context.
The connection between the environmental schemes on which ADB is focusing and economic growth is very clear. Previously, it has been very focused on mitigation, in terms of projects to deliver energy where it is required, and ensuring that that is done on as sustainable a basis as possible. It is also about infrastructure development, but above all it is about ensuring that its work is additional and is not crowding out private sector investment. It has to focus on the core mission for MDBs, which is to be additional to any private funding.
The shadow Minister asked about regional co-operation. A particularly important area is encouraging intra-regional trade and encouraging, for example, the integration of energy systems, which is becoming increasingly important in the light of the climate crisis. These are areas that have been examined.
The shadow Minister asked about overall reform. The new UK Government certainly recognise that the last Government were committed to reform, but we want to go far further and faster. That is what we have been pushing on, and I am pleased to say that we have been able to achieve it. We really do want to ensure that every penny goes as far as it possibly can when we are talking about taxpayers’ resources. We have seen that with the World Bank’s openness to reform and with what we managed to achieve in our negotiations around our announcement on the International Development Association. There was a commitment to ensure that every pound would be stretched on the balance sheet of the bank; it has been really clear about that and about the reforms that it is making. The announcements that we are making today also show a strong push towards the reform that is so critical. Finally, I must mention the measures that we have been pushing with the Green Climate Fund, where we have seen positive innovation, particularly in serving fragile and conflict-affected states and in the announcement that it has made about funding in Somalia.
The shadow Minister asked about BII. As he would expect, I have had frequent interaction with BII since becoming the Development Minister. I was there a couple of weeks ago. He asked about measures now being undertaken that the new Government are promoting, particularly on catalysing private-sector growth. BII is one of the few such organisations that has had an explicit focus on African nations, and particularly those that cannot access finance from other sources. I am pleased that the Financial Sector Deepening Africa project is proceeding apace and that we are seeing investments to support small-scale businesses as well as larger ones. I was in Zambia last week and saw some of that for myself. It is good to see that continuing work.
The shadow Minister talked about the need to ensure that the UK’s work is supporting development and growth in other countries. That is absolutely the raison d’être of our new approach to development. It has to be focused on partnership, recognising that the new UK Government’s core mission is growing our economy, and our partners overseas have the same core mission. We need to work with them to realise that mutual interest.
The shadow Minister asked about British firms. A review is being undertaken within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office: it is being led by Martin Donnelly and is focusing on economic diplomacy. The review is not within the scope of the draft orders, so I will not talk about it, but the shadow Minister may find it useful to find out more about it.
I have discussed the reform plans within the IDB directly with its president. In many ways, it has been a leader among multilateral development banks. It is positive that it has held the presidency of the grouping, bringing MDBs together for the first time so that it can share knowledge of reform and push things forward.
The shadow Minister asked about the Caribbean. The fund will, absolutely, be focused on the Caribbean, which is really important. That is particularly the case when it comes to adaptation-focused investment. IDB Invest will be making 10% of its investments in the Caribbean, and 60% of its focus will be on pro-environmental and climate measures, including adaptation, which are particularly important for those countries and overseas territories that are being hammered by the impacts of the climate crisis right now.
I hope I have answered most of the shadow Minister’s questions. He talked about the need to support smaller charities; we absolutely agree, but I am afraid I cannot resist saying that unfortunately the record of the previous Government includes a huge amount of volatility around funding for international development. We are determined to deliver a longer-term approach whereby we do not see in-donor refugee costs eating up a variable and—as under the Conservatives—increasing amount of international development funding. We want to bring that proportion down over time.
We will ensure that information is available about IDB Invest into the future. I know that the Inter-American Development Bank itself will be reporting on that. If the shadow Minister has any subsequent questions, on that or any other matter, I will be more than happy to respond in person or in writing.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Inter-American Investment Corporation (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 2024
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Inter-American Investment Corporation (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 2024.—(Anneliese Dodds.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Israel and Palestine
(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 653509 and 652949 relating to Israel and Palestine.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and to introduce these two e-petitions on behalf of the Petitions Committee.
I want to open this debate by expressing the grief and horror that many of us have felt so strongly in response to the tragic events in Gaza and Israel, particularly over the last 14 months. I am aware that this issue provokes powerful emotions in this place and across the country, and the roots of the broader Israel-Palestine conflict are deep and complex. I do not presume to speak as an expert on the history or politics of the middle east, but I do speak as someone who deplores the killing of innocent, defenceless people, no matter what their place of origin, their religion or the colour of their skin. The loss of life, including the lives of so many children, is truly heartbreaking, and my thoughts are with all who have been injured, maimed, displaced or bereaved.
I would like to position the debate within the framework of a guiding principle, which is that none of us gets to choose where, when or into which religion we are born. In that spirit, I hope that we can begin the debate from a shared reference point—that what we are watching in the middle east is innocent people being punished unjustly for where and when they were born, that that is wrong and that it is our duty as parliamentarians to do all we can to put a stop to it.
The intensification of this conflict began on 7 October 2023 with Hamas’s attacks on Israel, killing more than 1,200 Israelis. As of October 2024, 154 hostages had been freed, but 101 remain in captivity, with 33 believed to have died. The 101 include British national Emily Damari. Across the political spectrum, we are calling on the Government to do all they can to ensure her release.
Over the past year, the situation has escalated dramatically. The official death toll in occupied Gaza stands at more than 42,000 Palestinians, although estimates from reputable sources claim that as many as 186,000 may have been killed. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is dire, with approximately 90% of the population having been displaced at least once. I continue to call on the Government to do all they can to secure an immediate bilateral ceasefire in Gaza, to put an end to the humanitarian devastation there, to bring the hostages home and to open the door to a two-state solution, which is the only way to ensure dignity and security for Palestinians and Israelis alike.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
In July, this Government called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, but Netanyahu and his Government refused to listen. The only way we can ensure a permanent end to the cycle of violence is by facilitating the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel, so does the hon. Member agree that it is time for the UK to join the 146 UN member states that recognise the state of Palestine, and that it should do so as a matter of urgency?
Dr Savage
I will come to that point shortly.
The conflict has expanded beyond Gaza’s borders. I am sure that we all welcomed the recent ceasefire agreement in Lebanon, which faced a humanitarian crisis of its own. But it is not just in Lebanon; across the whole middle east, from Iran to Yemen, and of course most recently in Syria, we have seen the ramifications of this conflict.
The first petition calls for the immediate recognition of Palestine as a state. It received 283,669 signatures and was started by Sandra Downs, who is in the Public Gallery. I thank Sandra for her time last week, when she met me to discuss her petition.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for leading on the debate. I am glad that the Government have publicly and repeatedly called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, because the sheer scale of bloodshed and destruction is totally intolerable. Does she agree that to attain lasting peace, we need to commit wholeheartedly to a two-state solution and recognise Palestine as soon as possible, because that is the only way that we can have a sovereign and viable Palestine alongside a safe and secure Israel?
Dr Savage
I shall come to that shortly.
The UK bears a unique historical responsibility in this matter, stemming from the Balfour declaration of 1917. The declaration spoke of creating a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, but it was silent on Palestinian political rights, setting the stage for decades of conflict. It paved the way for the Nakba, or catastrophe, in 1948, when 750,000 Palestinians were driven out of their homes.
The UK Government’s position on Palestinian statehood, as stated by the Foreign Secretary on 30 July this year, is:
“We want a credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution: a safe, secure Israel alongside a viable, sovereign Palestinian state. We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state as a contribution to a peace process, at a time that is most conducive to that process.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1150.]
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I, too, pay tribute to Sandra Downs for starting this petition. Does the hon. Lady agree that the recognition of a Palestinian state is the route to peace, not a by-product of peace? We have seen the petulance of Netanyahu and the Israeli Government towards some of our European counterparts, such as Ireland, where they are shutting down an embassy, and with the terrible reaction to Macron. Does the hon. Lady agree that recognition is actually a route to peace?
Dr Savage
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but I will make some progress now, as I am aware that I am on a time limit, with the clock ticking.
The Prime Minister has also expressed support for Palestinian statehood as a contribution to the peace process, describing it as an “undeniable right” of Palestinians. The Government, however, have not committed to a fixed timeline for recognition. Currently, the state of Palestine is recognised as a sovereign country by 146 other countries, representing a little more than 75% of UN member states. On 3 December—just earlier this month—the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the creation of a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders, with 157 votes in favour, including that of the United Kingdom. A YouGov poll in early October found that 70% of respondents agreed that Palestinians have a right to a state of their own. I was proud to stand on a manifesto that committed to the immediate recognition of Palestine on 1967 lines, something that the Liberal Democrats have long called for. In fact, in each of the past three Parliaments, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) has tabled a Bill to recognise the state of Palestine.
The recognition of Palestine is a tool that will inject into Palestinian society hope that having their own state is possible. We believe that that will help wrest control back from the extremes at the edges of Palestinian society. Ultimately, if such a step were mirrored by other countries, widespread recognition of Palestine would have significant practical and political implications, including full participation in international organisations such as the UN and its agencies; access to economic benefits, including predictable market access; membership of the IMF and World Bank, opening avenues for financial support; and the establishment of full embassies in countries that recognise Palestinian statehood.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
More than half of EU nation states recognise Palestine, and the UK recognises it at the International Criminal Court and in UN agencies. Does the hon. Lady agree that it seems a bit inconsistent for His Majesty’s Government—of both parties—to have a long-standing policy of pursuing a two-state solution if they recognise only one of those states?
Dr Savage
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I agree.
Given that the Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary have both committed in principle to Palestinian statehood, and given that the majority of the international community has already recognised the statehood of Palestine, we might validly ask what the Government’s criteria are for the time that is “most conducive” to peace, and why we are lagging behind the rest of the world and dragging our feet on this issue.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
President-elect Donald Trump has nominated Mike Huckabee as the next US ambassador to Israel. Is my hon. Friend worried, as I am, that a man who has called for a one-state solution will jeopardise the situation? Does she agree that the UK Government should make it clear to the US that we believe firmly in a two-state solution?
Dr Savage
Indeed. I am conscious that I have less than four minutes left, so I will keep it moving.
The second petition, which received 107,316 signatures, demands the revocation of arms export licences to Israel. Under international and domestic law, the UK is required to prevent the transfer of military equipment and technology where there is a clear risk of it being used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law or human rights law.
Between 7 October 2023 and 31 May this year, 42 export licences were issued for military goods to Israel. The Campaign Against Arms Trade has stated that the UK has granted arms export licences worth £576 million in total since 2008. Fifteen per cent. of the components that make up each F-35 aircraft used to bomb the Gaza strip were produced in Britain. In December last year, the then Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron decided not to suspend any export licences, stating that he was
“satisfied that there was good evidence to support a judgment that Israel is committed to comply with IHL.”
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unjustifiable to continue the sale of arms to Israel, especially now that there are concerns about its compliance with international humanitarian standards? The United Nations Relief and Works Agency cannot deliver desperately needed aid to Gaza because of the aggression of the Israel Defence Forces towards its aid workers, and we need to deal with that.
Dr Savage
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.
In September 2024, the new Foreign Secretary announced the suspension of around 30 export licences to Israel, including components for military aircraft, helicopters and drones, as well as items that facilitate ground targeting.
A constituent wrote to me to say that although this is a national and international issue, it feels profoundly local to them, because there are factories producing military components for export to Israel in Cheltenham, Bishop’s Cleeve, Ashchurch, Tewkesbury and Swindon, which are all close to my constituency of South Cotswolds. My constituent went on to say that they do not believe it is right for the south-west to be so heavily complicit in crimes for which the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for violations of international law, and that Amnesty International has concluded to be tantamount to genocidal in intent and impact.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I agree very much with my hon. Friend on this point. The 2030 road map for UK-Israel bilateral relations, however, has extensive provision in relation to defence and security. It is difficult to see how the current Government could continue with that road map while suspending arms sales. Will she join me in calling for the Minister to clarify today the current Government’s position on that road map, because it was entered into by the previous Government?
Dr Savage
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention and likewise look forward to the Minister’s statement on the matter.
One of the petitions states:
“Palestinian children have been made orphans, people have been crushed by buildings in airstrikes, and there have been many other tragedies. Arms that have been partly manufactured in the UK appear to be being used in the current military action in Gaza…We believe the UK Government is on the wrong side of history, and must stop the sale of arms to Israel.”
I stood on a commitment to ensure better controls on the UK’s arms exports to countries with poor human rights records. Liberal Democrats have been calling for a presumption of denial to those countries listed as human rights priority countries by the Foreign Office, including Israel. Accordingly, we have supported a full suspension of arms sales to Israel; indeed, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) was the first leader of a major UK party to do so.
I say again that these are complex issues with no easy answers, but I hark back to the guiding principle that I stated at the outset: it can never be right to punish human beings for the time and place of their birth.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that to stop the atrocities being committed, allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, ensure the return of the hostages to Israel and have the sovereign state of Palestine, together with a safe and secure Israel, we need to do what we can to urgently achieve a mutual and permanent ceasefire?
Dr Savage
I wholeheartedly agree. As we debate these petitions, we must consider how the UK can best contribute to lasting peace in the region, what role we should play in supporting Palestinian statehood and ensuring Israel’s security, and how we can align our arms export policies with our commitment to international law and human rights. I am sure Members will reflect that in their contributions.
The question of how we achieve a sustainable solution to this long-running conflict in line with international law is not easy to answer. However, the widespread public support for these petitions demonstrates that the British people want the UK Government to play their part in helping to end the appalling suffering we have witnessed over these past 14 months and the decades prior.
I close this opening speech with a quote from Nadeem Ahmed:
“From the seeds of hope, the tree of peace shall grow, sheltering both nations.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. As Members can see, the debate is very oversubscribed. I will set a time limit of four minutes, but if interventions continue as they have, I anticipate that it will be reduced. If Members are on my call list, they need to be at a seat. I ask Members who have made an intervention and who are not down to speak to make way for Members who are waiting to speak. I also remind Members taking interventions that, as generous as it may be to the person they allow to speak, it means that Members at the bottom of the call list will not have an opportunity to speak. I leave that to your judgment.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mrs Harris. First things first: I utterly condemn the attacks on 7 October. I utterly condemn the kidnap, torture and murder of hostages by Hamas. I also utterly deplore and condemn the destruction of Palestine and Palestinian life that has ensued. That destruction is now so complete that Israel is at risk of turning Gaza into a desert and calling it peace. The prosecution of the war is now so brutal that the Foreign Secretary himself said on 2 September that any exports of weapons from here lead to
“a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.”—[Official Report, 2 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 42.]
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
On arms sales, does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK Government need to make a different decision about F-35 parts, think about employing an immediate ceasefire, cease selling arms to Israel and impose sanctions to bring about peace?
Liam Byrne
Let me come to exactly that argument. The Foreign Secretary was followed by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, who said that there were now “significant doubts” about Israel’s “record of compliance”. In court, His Majesty’s Government said bluntly, in their opening statement on 12 November 2024, that Israel is
“not committed to complying with international humanitarian law”.
Yet the Government have not cancelled all licences; they have cancelled some, but not all, and they have kept open the licences for F-35 parts.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
Liam Byrne
I will not, because time is so short.
Last week, in front of the Business and Trade Committee, a Defence Minister said that although it is technically possible to track the parts, it is contractually impossible. Indeed, Lockheed Martin has supplied me with a letter that states that, if I want to know anything about the parts, I need to address my queries to the Department of Defence in the United States.
The Government defend their case by pointing to the 28 words that allow them to make it up as they go along when it comes to weapons exports. Those words were written by the last Government and were published in the House on 8 December 2021. They state:
“The application of these Criteria”—
the selective licensing criteria—
“will be without prejudice to the application to specific cases of specific measures as may be announced to Parliament from time to time.”
There we have it. However, what Ministers have not explained is the part of criterion 1 that states:
“The Government will not grant a licence if to do so would be inconsistent with…the UK’s obligations under the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty”.
Of course, the UN arms trade treaty is very clear. Article 7 requires this Government, as a signatory, to assess any items that we may seek to export. If there is an overriding risk of the use of those weapons to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law,
“the exporting State Party shall not authorize the export.”
Now, if there was any question, doubt or dispute about whether F-35 parts that we supply could be used in such a way, perhaps the Government would have a case for keeping the licences open. But there is nodoubt, dispute or question about the Government’s analysis of F-35 parts, because in their opening statement to the High Court on 12 November 2024, they said:
“The F-35 carve-out accepts that there is clear risk that F-35 components might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of IHL”.
We now have the advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, the arrest warrants and the Government’s own assessment. I cannot see how this Government can now legally defend a position of keeping these arms export licences open.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I start by making my position abundantly clear: I am, and always have been, a steadfast friend of Israel. My commitment to the state of Israel is rooted in its right to exist as a secure and democratic homeland for the Jewish people. For me, that principle is non-negotiable. I hope that my remarks will reflect both my empathy and my unwavering belief in Israel’s right to defend itself.
Those who champion such measures as a ban on arms sales to Israel fail to acknowledge the existential threats that Israel faces daily. To remind the House, on 7 October Hamas murdered some 1,200 people. Babies, children and elderly civilians were slaughtered on that day. I have to be blunt: the scale of the barbarism was unthinkable. The world witnessed graphic evidence of men beheaded, women raped and children murdered. If we in this House fail to stand unequivocally against that level of evil, we fail humanity itself. Hamas do not aim for co-existence or peace; their very charter calls for Israel’s destruction.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Jim Shannon
I am going to keep to the four minutes—I am sorry. I would normally give way, but I am going to follow Mrs Harris’s rules.
It is deeply misguided to suggest, as one of the petitions does, that we should deny Israel the tools it needs to protect its citizens. At the same time, it is essential to acknowledge the human cost of the conflict in Gaza. Thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians, many of them children, have tragically lost their lives as well. Their suffering cannot and must not be ignored.
Hamas’s strategy is to use civilians as human shields and embed their terror infrastructure in hospitals, schools and residential areas. As Brigadier General Doron Gavish said, Hamas deliberately target civilians while hiding behind their own population. They hide among the skirts of women and among children. That is what Hamas do, because their goal is the destruction of Israel.
Although I respect the aspirations of Palestinian people, I firmly believe that the path to peace lies in negotiations, not unilateral declarations. Israel has repeatedly extended its hand in peace, most notably through the Oslo accords, but it has been met time and again with rejection and violence.
That brings me to the concept of a two-state solution. I believe in and support a two-state solution in principle, but let us be clear: peace cannot co-exist with the likes of Hamas. Any discussion of a future Palestinian state must begin with the dismantling of terrorist organisations that perpetuate hatred and violence. Can we hope for a lasting peace that allows Palestinians to thrive along alongside Israelis in safety, dignity and prosperity? I hope we can.
Abandoning Israel would have dire consequences not only for the middle east but for global stability. Israel is a cornerstone of western values in a region plagued by extremism and authoritarianism. To weaken Israel is to embolden its enemies, including Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and other forces of radicalisation that threaten not just Israel but the wider world. Israel’s existence is not just a matter of geopolitics; it is a beacon of hope and freedom in a turbulent region. We must not allow that beacon to be extinguished by those who seek its destruction.
As we debate these petitions, let us do so with compassion for all those affected by this conflict, but let us also stand firm in our support for Israel’s right to self-defence and its quest for peace. That is critical, and that is what Israel wants, but it has to be a peace with justice. To abandon Israel now, in its hour of need, would be a betrayal not just of an ally but of the principles of freedom and democracy that this House holds dear.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. We are rightly debating these important petitions on arms sales to Israel and the recognition of the state of Palestine. My constituents in Luton South and South Bedfordshire care deeply about these issues, and more than 1,300 of them signed the petitions. However, that is only a fraction of those who have reached out to me since this devastating conflict began. Since October 2023, I have received thousands of emails from people horrified by the events we have seen unfolding on our TV screens and on social media. I share the concerns of my constituents.
We have now passed the one-year mark since this terrible conflict began, and every day we watch the damage and destruction done to the lives of Palestinian people in Gaza. The priority for all of us, of course, is an end to this brutal conflict.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I thank the 543 constituents in Bedford and Kempston who signed the petition to recognise the state of Palestine immediately. Does my hon. Friend agree that after a year of Israel’s unprecedented bombardment and destruction of Gaza, which has led to massive human suffering and overwhelming evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity, it is our obligation—our duty—to recognise the Palestinian state now?
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for making an excellent point. The priority for all of us, of course, is an end to this brutal conflict, and that brings me to the first petition, which relates to UK arms sales to Israel. I respect the swift action taken by the Foreign Secretary when Labour took office to review existing arms licences, and the subsequent decision to suspend several licences to Israel where the Government concluded there was a clear risk they
“might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of IHL.”
However, my constituents continue to be appalled by the death and destruction they are witnessing in Gaza, and they want the Government to go much further.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Rachel Hopkins
I have taken one intervention—sorry.
This issue is deeply important to my constituents, and they question why the Government have not restricted arms sales to Israel completely—a position my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) argued for so well. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister set out the Government’s rationale for their position and how that position aligns with international law.
We know that only an immediate ceasefire, with the release of all hostages and a huge increase in humanitarian aid, can begin to address the tragedy unfolding in Gaza. That should rightly be the priority at this time, but in the long term, people in all the Occupied Palestinian Territories need hope of peace and a better future for their children, and I am proud that this Labour Government made it a manifesto commitment to provide that hope by pledging to recognise a Palestinian state. As has been said, recognition is essential to make steps towards a peace process and to offer Palestinian people hope of equality and a future free from occupation and violence.
My constituents are unwavering in their support for the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination. They want the Government to make that a priority, so will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking towards that? We must continue to listen to those across our constituencies who are desperate to see an end to the conflict. Importantly, we must stand firm in our work with international allies and humanitarian agencies to ensure that we bring about a renewed peace process that results in a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
Every week of the last year, virtually, we have had a debate in this or the main Chamber: questions are asked and then we go home and watch on television the bodies of children being dug out of rubble—body parts, in some instances—with those white wrappings around their bodies. In every debate we seem to have got virtually nowhere because the arms are still being sold. We are still supplying essential parts for the F-35—the very vehicle that is dropping the bombs, firing the weapons and killing the children.
Carla Denyer
Was the right hon. Member as shocked as I was to learn that, contrary to the notion that the UK’s trade in F-35 parts is untraceable, as we were told previously, not only is it traceable but the US Government are tracking it? The reason we do not have that information is that we have not even asked them.
John McDonnell
I will be careful with my language here, but one of the frustrations, in this debate as well, is getting the truth about what is happening and what is contributing to the murders that are taking place. Unless we can stop that and prevent the UK from participating, we will all be implicated. History will judge us all for not doing enough to stop it.
I am pleased that the petition has taken place and pleased about the numbers; I congratulate the people who organised it. The petition represents the sense of frustration felt out there and the real depth of anger. I have been on virtually every national demonstration. They have been peaceful, but there is a level of frustration that I do not think we can contain any more. We are alienating whole sections of our own community. It is not about the Labour party or other political parties, but democracy itself. People say, “You’re an MP. You go to Parliament. Why aren’t you stopping this? It’s no good just shouting on demonstrations. Why isn’t democracy being exercised to stop this?”
I want to make just one point about the lack of action by the Government. Yes, petitions are taking place, but other people are taking direct action and have been imprisoned. Those cases will be sub judice, so I will not mention them individually. But Palestine Action took direct action to close down an arms factory that was supplying goods and materials for the F-35 and the drones. Those people were arrested under counter-terrorism powers and detained. They are young people, a lot of them young women—some of them just starting out at university. They exercised their influence and power because we failed to exercise ours. Some have been in court; when they are in front of a jury, they usually win the case. A number of them are now on remand and will have been in prison since last March until next November, when their trial is listed.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the right hon. Member that the case is sub judice and we should not talk about it.
John McDonnell
I am careful about not mentioning any names. I am raising the issue of the process itself, which is the use of counter-terrorism powers against direct action groups. The last Government even came forward with proposals and discussions about proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. I hope this Government are not going anywhere near that.
But why are the people in prison at the moment on remand? Why can they not be tagged before their trial comes up next November? A number of them, most probably, will be proven innocent, but they will have served nearly two years in prison—for what? For trying to do what we are failing to do: prevent this Government from supplying arms to a regime that kills children.
I say to the Government: it is now time to act. All arms licences need to be closed down. The Minister may say that it is a matter of defending Israel; if so, let us have a conversation with Israel itself about how to supervise that defence internationally, rather than using it as an excuse to kill children. I have had enough of coming back here every week—as you can tell, Mrs Harris. We need action from the Government now.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. Last week, a needs assessment carried out by a Gazan NGO and sponsored by War Child Alliance charities revealed the psychological trauma of young people in Gaza living through the ongoing war. The assessment was carried out back in June. The results are devastating: 96% of children feel that death is imminent; 79% are suffering from nightmares; and 49% wish to die because of the war. This makes for distressing reading and highlights the awful plight of Gaza’s civilians.
We know the destruction of the war. We want a full and immediate ceasefire and the hostages to be released. We must continue to urge the Government to uphold international law and enforce further sanctions as necessary.
Seamus Logan
Does the hon. Lady agree that killing civilians through hunger, cold, illness, exhaustion, fear and torture is every bit as reprehensible as bombing and shooting to death 45,000 or more civilians, mostly innocent women and children, and that the only way to force Israel to stop is to completely cease providing them with arms?
Sarah Smith
I do agree with the hon. Gentleman.
We must also recognise the Palestinian state, of course, as the route towards a two-state solution. We know that the United Kingdom is firm in its support for UNRWA, and I welcome the recent announcement of £13 million of further support for it, but it is not good enough if support and vital aid cannot get through. Far too many innocent people have died in this conflict. That devastating recent data shows the specific impact it is having on children and young people. This has to end.
I thank the constituents in Hyndburn who have contacted me about the petition and welcome the work of those who organised it. We must move forward today to make sure that we are working towards peace in the region and an end to the devastation.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
I want to add my voice and the SNP’s to the millions of people across these islands who are demanding an immediate ceasefire, the release of all the hostages, an end to all UK arms sales to Israel and for the UK Government to officially recognise the state of Palestine. Since the atrocities of 7 October, the civilian population of Gaza has been subjected to the most brutal onslaught imaginable. Every day, 10 children lose at least one of their limbs, making this tiny strip of land home to the largest population of child amputees in history—something that does not happen by accident.
Brendan O'Hara
I will not; I apologise.
About four fifths of those killed were killed while inside residential buildings. The Minister knows that residential buildings are not legitimate targets under international law, but we all know that so much of what has happened since October 2023 has been a violation of international law. Indeed, Lord Cameron let slip at the Foreign Affairs Committee that the UK has long known that Netanyahu was imposing collective punishment against the population by controlling their water supply. We had hoped that things would be different with a change of Government, but that has not been the case. By choosing to deny the evidence of their own eyes in order to supply Netanyahu with the weapons he needs, the UK is complicit and is giving Netanyahu and his Government the degree of international respectability that he desperately craves. This is a shameful episode in UK foreign policy—one that will long be remembered and will not be without consequence.
When it comes to international law, everyone can see the blatant double standards. In September, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds)—Minister of State at the Foreign Office—told this House:
“intentionally directing attacks at civilian objects is a war crime.”—[Official Report, 2 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 29.]
She said that attacks that threaten power, heating and water and impact the safety and livelihoods of millions of Ukrainians are a war crime. She was absolutely right. But why are this Government and the previous one able to call out Putin’s war crimes the moment they happen but seem utterly incapable of doing so when the perpetrator is Netanyahu and the victims are Palestinians?
Our system of international law has always been fragile, but operating with such clear double standards in its application and enforcement is a sure-fire way of ensuring its complete destruction. These petitions, these mass demonstrations that we have seen, tell me that this Government are miles behind the people. People want to find a solution in which all arms to Israel are suspended and the Palestinian state is recognised.
People feel so badly let down by this Government’s defence of international law, because there seems to be very little difference between the situation now and the situation under the last Government; what change we have seen has been superficial and cosmetic. That was not unexpected, but perhaps we dared to hope that they would be better than the last lot. But there are voices in this place, many of whom we will hear today, that are loud and persistent in continuing to speak up for international law—for justice, for accountability and for peace. Those people in this House will continue to shine a light where too many people do not want it to be shone. We will keep doing it not just for the Palestinians but whenever we see the powerful and the privileged abusing the human rights of the powerless, and wilfully ignoring international law.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I can be very brief, Mrs Harris, because this speech has been honed by repetition over the past year, since Israeli tanks, troops and planes went into Gaza against not only Hamas but, significantly, the civilian population without discrimination. It mirrors, on a larger scale, the previous attacks on Gaza over the past 15 years, which I have seen with my own eyes. The Minister replying to the debate could not be more empathetic to the situation, and he could not be more sympathetic to the complaints from all parties. However, there has been a lack of action from this Government, as there was from the previous Government, and that lack of action speaks louder than any palliative words.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend celebrate the work of Standing Together, which is a group of Israelis and Palestinian people working side by side for peace? Would he support it in its call for the suspension of arms transfers to Israel and for the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine?
Andy Slaughter
Standing Together is a fantastic group, and it is one of many Israeli and multinational groups that are protesting; we have seen that on the streets of Tel Aviv, as we have around the world.
There is yet to be any substantive action by the UK, and war crimes are being committed in Gaza. The evidence is clear; it is clear from journalists, and many brave journalists have been killed. It is evidenced by the actions of the International Criminal Court and from the ICJ, through both its advisory opinion and the South African case, and the Irish Government should be praised for their association with that case last week. It is clear from votes, decisions and debates in the UN, from the evidence of non-governmental organisations on the ground, and from the evidence of medics.
The remedies are also clear, and there are many steps that the UK Government could take. They could look at trade, including settlement trade. Why is that allowed to continue? They could at preferential trade agreements with Israel. They could look at arms sales. They should certainly be re-examining, and asking the law officers to re-examine, on a weekly basis, the actions that UK-supplied arms are being used for—not just in Gaza, but across the occupied territories. They could look at sanctions, including those against settlers that go much further than the few that have happened so far, as well as against members of the Netanyahu Government—particularly the extremists such as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. Why have they not been taken so far?
We could also look at the question of recognition. It is the policy of the Government to recognise the state of Palestine at some point during negotiations. We are a long way from negotiations at the moment, and there seems to be no reason whatever not to allow recognition.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that now is the time to provide hope to Palestinians? If we are to have any hope of a political solution, this country must follow our allies in recognising the state of Palestine—not least when extremists such as Smotrich in the Israeli Government are looking to annex the west bank.
Andy Slaughter
I could not agree more. I cannot think of a single reason why we are not moving, as many other European countries have, towards immediate recognition. I heard previously from the Government, “We do not want to go it alone.” Well, now we are not just going it alone; we are going behind the curve.
My final point—I do not want to take all my time—is to ask one question to the Government: why have the actions I have mentioned not been taken? I would like to hear a coherent response because what is being said is, “We will not take action against Israel because it is an ally.” Well, sometimes we have to speak as sternly to our allies as to our foes. It is also said that Israel will ignore what we say, so we will be shown as a weak country. That is a counsel of despair.
Alternatively, we may be waiting until such time as something more extreme happens—aid no longer going into Gaza, following what is happening with UNRWA, or the threatened annexation of the west bank—and then we will take some action. That is too late. Now is the time—actually, yesterday, last year, or even 10 years ago was the time to take action. I would love to hear from the Minister, who is not only an expert in the field but cares very much about these issues, about what action his Government is going to take.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, while we debate two important petitions that a number of my Woking constituents have signed. Liberal Democrat policy on this issue is clear: British-made arms must not be sold to countries that are breaching human rights law. This principle is not just a moral standard; it is a legal one. When it comes to Israel, the British Government have failed to demonstrate transparency. Despite repeated calls, Ministers have not released their own legal advice on whether arms exports to Israel align with international law. Given the ongoing cases at the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, the British public have a right to know whether the Government are upholding their own arms export regime. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s confirmation on that.
The human cost of war is always staggering, and the last 14 months show that to be true. Tens of thousands of people in Palestine and Israel have lost their lives. The horrific numbers represent families torn apart and communities devastated. According to data from the United Nations and other organisations, Israeli Government attacks have damaged or destroyed more than half of Gaza’s homes, 80% of its commercial facilities, and 87% of its school buildings, and left healthcare systems barely functioning, with just 17 of 36 hospitals only partially operational. More than two thirds of Gaza’s road networks and cropland have been obliterated. In the wake of this destruction, the ICC’s chief prosecutor has stated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu bears criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK must uphold its obligations to the International Criminal Court by supporting investigations into alleged war crimes in the region and enforcing any resulting rulings?
Mr Forster
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We must support the International Criminal Court investigations and uphold whatever it finds.
The Prime Minister of Israel bears criminal responsibility, but it does not stop with him. The former Israeli Defence Minister, Gallant, is also under investigation. That brings me to the urgent need for targeted sanctions against those in Israel’s leadership who are directly fuelling the conflict and undermining the chance for peace. Israel’s current Finance Minister, Smotrich, is a prominent advocate of settlement expansion, opposes Palestinian statehood, and supports the full annexation of the west bank.
Mr Forster
Because of time pressure, I will not give way again—sorry. Smotrich has even encouraged the forced transfer of Palestinians out of these territories. The current Minister of National Security, Ben-Gvir, has a troubling past. He has been charged more than 50 times and convicted in eight cases, including incitement to racism and support for a terrorist organisation. Those two individuals need to be sanctioned by the UK, and I look forward to the Minister’s response on that. This violence is at risk of escalating even further, and we cannot allow that. That is why the UK should stop selling arms to Israel. It is time for the Government to demonstrate leadership; halt arms sales where there is evidence of human rights abuses; impose sanctions on the people I have mentioned and on others pushing a conflict; and lead an international effort to stop the bloodbath and rebuild Gaza.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Harris. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for securing this important debate and to everyone from my constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood who has signed these important petitions. Both the war in Gaza and the horrific actions in Israel on 7 October that started it are intolerable. Fourteen months on from the attack that claimed 1,200 lives, more than 40,000 Palestinian men, women and children are dead and 101 Israelis are still being held hostage. Palestinians in Gaza have been displaced, often multiple times. Aid has repeatedly been prevented from reaching the population and the risk of preventable diseases has continued to rise. There is an horrific humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
With medics working in intolerable conditions, witnessing unimaginable horrors and without the very basics to treat civilian casualties, does my hon. Friend agree that safe and secure routes to allow medical aid into Gaza must be prioritised immediately, without delay?
Helen Hayes
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on that point.
I welcome the actions that the UK Government have taken since the election in July. However, the UK Government have found that there is a clear risk that UK arms components are being used by Israeli armed forces in Gaza in ways that breach international law. It is welcome that the new Government took swift action to suspend some arms licences, but when there are breaches of international law, they must be clear that they take action to ensure compliance with the law. The importance of the F-35 programme is understood, but the argument that it is justifiable in the current circumstances to carry on with business as usual does not hold water. If the Government believe in the rules-based international order, they cannot recognise breaches of international law and then ignore them. The Government’s position on the F-35 licences is not defensible.
I would like to focus on the importance of the recognition of the state of Palestine as an essential precondition for a successful peace process. I have had the privilege of visiting Israel and Palestine twice. I have seen at first hand how oppressive the Israeli occupation is for Palestinians in the west bank: how every day, ordinary Palestinians face systems and actions that seem to be devised to frustrate their normal activity and grind them down; how widespread the practice of illegal settlement is and how it seems designed to ensure that there can never be a viable landmass to form a state of Palestine; and how Palestinians are forced to live under different laws, travel on different road systems, live in different areas and attend different schools.
The UK Government’s position is to support a two-state solution, but that position is currently rejected by the Government of Israel. Recognition of a state of Palestine is an important counteraction to that rejection. It would send an immediate and powerful message that the UK is serious about the only viable route to peace: a two-state solution. That must be accompanied by a much stronger position on illegal settlement and settler violence. Again, we cannot pick and choose which aspects of international law we uphold. Taking a stronger stance on illegal settlements and settler violence in Palestine is not only the right thing to do; it sends a message to Governments around the world that the UK Parliament are serious about the rules-based international order. Israeli settlements in the west bank are illegal.
There should be a process accompanying recognition for supporting and strengthening the Palestinian Authority and building the full capacity of a functioning state. Of course, with recognition comes responsibilities and accountability, but I believe that recognition of a Palestinian state cannot continue to be delayed. To do so is simply to further reduce the possibility of the two-state solution that the Government support ever coming to fruition.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for securing this vital debate. I also thank Sandra Downs for her e-petition and the thousands of people who signed it, including in my constituency of Leicester South. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds mentioned the Balfour declaration, which indeed promised a Jewish land for a Jewish people, but there was a caveat to that statement: “Nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.
Patricia Ferguson
I thank the hon. Member for taking an intervention. Does he share my fear that the statements of Israeli officials suggest that they intend to have a long-term presence in Gaza? Will he join me in condemning the de facto annexation of parts of Gaza that is going on at the moment?
Shockat Adam
I certainly agree, and I fear that too.
We of course welcome the cessation of 9% of arms licences to Israel, but that falls woefully short of what is required. Thirty out of 350 is too low, especially given that equipment made in this country is used for the killing machines that are F-35 fighter jets.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the massacre that is taking place. More than 16,000 children have been murdered and 10,000 women have been killed; they were not all hiding behind the skirts of Hamas. Palestinians have been killed since 1948—before the invention of Hamas. Just overnight, 10 Palestinians were killed, including a family—two parents and two children—in a tent in northern Gaza City. They were not hiding behind the skirts of Hamas.
We as a nation have a moral, political and legal duty to uphold international law and the rules of engagement in times of conflict. Under the genocide convention, we have a duty not only to prevent and punish genocide, but to avoid actions that might assist or enable a genocide. With that in mind, I want to raise an important and pressing issue with the Minister: the US Air Force’s use of British sovereign airspace in Cyprus. According to Declassified UK, at least 13 US planes used by the special forces, nearly all of them unmarked, have gone from Britain’s sprawling air base in Cyprus to Israel since Labour took office on 5 July and 10 October. Most flights stayed in Israel for about two hours before returning to Cyprus. Are we providing a base for the delivery of weapons to Israel? That would make us complicit in any war crimes and/or genocide that is happening there.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening this debate, and the thousands of my constituents in Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley who have sent me emails, signed the petitions and urged me to speak up about the extremely distressing situation in Palestine.
The situation in Gaza is far beyond breaking point. In the past 14 months, we have seen Israel’s deliberate assault on the innocent people of Gaza. More than 45,000 Palestinians have been killed and more than 100,000 have been injured, many of them innocent women and children. The death toll continues to rise every day. The United Kingdom cannot remain complicit any more.
A step towards change would be to cease not 30 out of 350 arms exports licences, but each and every one of them. We cannot allow Israel to destroy Gaza in the way it is doing. The Government say that they want a two-state solution, but to have a two-state solution they have to recognise Palestine. If they do not recognise Palestine, what does that actually mean? It is no more than warm words. Warm words are no longer a viable option; it is time for action, and that has to include immediate recognition of Palestinian statehood. Otherwise, advocating for a two-state solution means absolutely nothing.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I share my hon. Friend’s frustration, because 10 years ago this place voted to recognise Palestine as a state. Many of us took part in that debate. Does he therefore agree that we now need to take that vote to the United Nations? That is where we must recognise Palestine.
Tahir Ali
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point about the vote that happened here and about taking that to the United Nations. However, the United Nations is not democratic; it is a toothless tiger, because a single nation can stand up and veto such a vote. We have seen that happen time and time again.
What we have to do is to choose to be on the right side of history. One hundred and forty-six countries recognise Palestine as a state. We, as the United Kingdom, say the warm words that we are all in favour of a two-state solution. Before long, however, if Netanyahu gets what he wants in Gaza, which is for Palestinians to leave for Lebanon and Egypt, there will be no Palestine to recognise; there will be no Palestinians left in Palestine or Gaza. That is the agenda of Netanyahu, and we cannot aid and abet it by not recognising Palestinian statehood.
We have to rise above that, with immediate effect and without any further dithering. This Government have to rise to the challenge and say to Netanyahu, “Enough is enough. We will recognise Palestine as a state and we will stop all sales of arms to Israel.” If further sanctions are needed, we need to impose further sanctions.
When the Minister responds to the debate, can he explain something? Saying that it is not the right time to recognise Palestine is no longer an excuse. Can he say why the Government are not in a position to recognise Palestine? To use the same rhetoric as the previous Government—that when the time is right, we will recognise Palestine—does not cut the mustard any more. We have to recognise the innocent children, men and women of Gaza who have died because of the genocide—plausible genocide—being carried out by Netanyahu. Arrest warrants are out; ICJ rulings are out; many world leaders have called it a genocide; and we are still debating whether we need to recognise Palestine as a state. That is shameful for this Government and it is shameful to be part of this debate today, advocating recognition of Palestine when that should have happened many, many years ago, as my good and hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has mentioned; that vote has already happened. We need to have such a vote again; we need to have it in this Parliament; and we need to carry out not only the wishes of the people out there but the explicit wishes of every single parliamentarian in this Chamber.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Harris.
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for securing this debate and the petitioners for raising these important issues for debate in the House.
I am still deeply saddened by the events of 7 October 2023. More than a year after those horrifying events, many innocent people are still dying every day. I take this opportunity to extend my sympathies to all those who have lost loved ones and who are navigating life amid all the destruction.
The murder or abduction on 7 October 2023 of over 1,000 civilians by Hamas terrorists, 101 of whom are still being held to this day, must always be condemned. Those 101 hostages should be released without delay. It is also true that Israel’s response has been hugely destructive. The Gaza strip is now in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe, with 90% of the population having been displaced at least once and critical infrastructure having been damaged or destroyed.
It would be remiss of us to ignore the fact that the damage takes many forms. It is not just the deaths and permanent life-changing injuries that horrify us, but the psychological scars of being exposed to such combat. It is hard to quantify the extent of the trauma that adults and particularly children have experienced as a result of this conflict. Tragically, we must recognise that no matter how quickly this conflict ends, and it must end quickly, an entire generation of Israelis and Palestinians will live with this horror for the rest of their lives.
In October, I was part of a group of MPs who met Sharone Lifschitz, whose parents were taken hostage on 7 October and whose father is still held by Hamas, as well as Standing Together, a progressive grassroots movement involving Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel who stand against the occupation and for peace, equality and social justice. I heard at first hand the pain and anguish of the families of those on both sides of the conflict, who only want to see a lasting peace. The Liberal Democrats have been consistent on the issue for decades: a two-state solution is the only way to guarantee that lasting peace.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
All the major political parties went into the last general election saying that they would back a two-state solution and recognise the state of Palestine. Is it not about time that this Government showed leadership on the world stage and formally recognised Palestine?
Luke Taylor
I agree 100%, and I hope we hear the Minister speak with the courage to confirm that the Government will formally recognise Palestine. The dignity and security that both Palestinians and Israelis deserve can only be delivered by a two-state solution. That is why the Liberal Democrat manifesto called for the immediate recognition of Palestine on 1967 lines, and why I reiterate that ambition today.
Our conscience demands that we do that which we can and play our part to accelerate a lasting peace. That is what responsible nations do. Recognition of the state of Palestine is within our gift to grant and can be done at any moment. Contrary to what some cynics say, I believe it is a crucial first step to achieving the goal of lasting peace. It is also important that the UK considers the role its arms exports play in the conflict, so I welcome the current halt of 30 licences as a good first step. However, the UK now needs to use every tool at its disposal in order to obtain the bilateral ceasefire necessary for a lasting peace.
I conclude by echoing calls from across my party and from many parts of civil society for the Government to stop all arms exports to Israel for now, so that we can ensure that British products are not being used in any potential breaches of human rights. I encourage the Minister to act on the calls of the petitioners, to have the courage to recognise the state of Palestine and to suspend sales of arms to Israel, so that we can play our part in securing a lasting peace in the region.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I congratulate all those involved in bringing the petitions to Parliament, including all my constituents who signed them.
After 15 months of horror, the death and destruction have to stop. To address the petition on Palestinian statehood, the most important and immediate precondition must be an immediate ceasefire, with the hostages released and adequate aid allowed to flow. When I visited the region for the third time in my life in 2017, I met with peacebuilders in the west bank, Jerusalem and Israel who reaffirmed my belief in a two-state solution, but also told me how distant the prospect of peace appeared even to them.
We have seen a clear change in policy under the new UK Government. As well as calling for a ceasefire, the Government have restored funding to UNRWA, condemned attacks on UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, and committed to upholding the ICC’s arrest warrants. The Government also remain committed to a two-state solution. The question we are debating today is how and when that might become a reality. For now, our efforts must be concentrated on providing humanitarian relief and achieving a ceasefire; from that, an independent Palestinian state can emerge.
Like many other hon. Members and constituents, I have watched aghast at the scenes of suffering in Gaza. We have seen hospitals burned and aid convoys and schools bombed, and the return of ghastly, anachronistic diseases such as polio.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Does the hon. Member agree that, as a tactical manoeuvre by the state of Israel, the destruction that has been wrought on Gaza and its people is catastrophically counterproductive? These punitive measures against Palestinians will not be a harbinger of peace for Israel. If the UK is a friend of Israel, we must, as a good friend would, say, “This far and no further. You must recant.”
Ruth Cadbury
Israel’s behaviour towards Palestinians, as I saw 30 or 40 years ago, only worsens the chances of peace. It builds in children’s minds the idea that peace is a long way off. In that sense, I agree with the hon. Member.
What we have seen in recent months goes beyond any reasonable definition of self-defence, with destruction on a scale that has left Gaza in ruins. The scale of the destruction and human misery shows Israel’s disregard for international law and the rights of Palestinians. The Palestinian people may well take heart from Britain’s decision formally to recognise Palestine as a state, but they might take greater comfort from knowing that the bombs will stop falling from the skies above them. A two-state solution is still the only route to lasting peace, but we need a ceasefire now.
As well as causing intolerable suffering in Gaza, the conflict has helped to distract from the continued unlawful expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank; there are way more than when I first went 40 years ago. This is in violation of international law and provides one of the biggest obstacles to a lasting two-state solution. For as long as the conflict continues, illegal settlements and settler violence will continue, making the reality of Palestinian statehood all the more distant. Our Government must do more to put pressure on Israel and to end the conflict in Gaza. I ask the Government to take note of the concerns expressed last week by the Select Committee on Business and Trade.
No conflict is inevitable, no matter how intractable. Within our lifetimes, we have seen conflicts that threatened to outlive us resolved, but we must not let such a conflict happen again. We must end this grim inheritance. We must have peace.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
A few weeks ago, a surgeon broke down as he told the Select Committee on International Development what he had witnessed in Gaza. He spoke in particular of drones descending after a bombing and shooting—yes, deliberately targeting—children. He even spoke of wounds that he was worried indicated some sort of artificial intelligence. He was literally expressing fears of autonomous drones hunting down children. Likewise, we are aware of the long-standing partnership between the UK and Israel regarding drones in warfare, and the role of companies such as Elbit Systems is widely known, so will the Minister clarify today whether drones either developed or made in the UK are being used in this way—that is, to shoot children or doctors—and whether F-35 fighter jets containing UK-made components are being used to slaughter Palestinian families and cause mass destruction?
Apsana Begum
I will make a bit more progress. Can the Minister categorically rule out any UK products being sent to Israel to be used in Gaza, including via indirect routes and shipping between partner companies? There is a particularly chilling significance to the role of advanced weaponry and the reported use of artificial intelligence by the Israel Defence Forces against starving civilians who have been trapped in relatively small and increasingly uninhabitable pieces of land. Why is it that a modern and well-equipped army, which openly advertises that it has some of the most advanced precision weaponry in the world, is killing so many civilians, on an unprecedented scale, unless it is aiming to do so?
I know that today my constituents, who are among the top signatories of both petitions, want to hear a clear condemnation of Israel’s actions from the Minister, and not the political double-speak that Israel “must uphold international law” in theory. We all know that it should uphold international law; the point is that we all know that it is not doing so. My constituents also want a clear and unequivocal recognition of the right of self-determination for Palestinians—a right that is being brutally denied them. Crucially, my constituents want accountability for the role of the UK as the close and staunch ally of a Prime Minister who is facing an arrest warrant for war crimes, and as a country that continues proudly to profess that it stands firmly shoulder to shoulder with a regime that openly states its intention to destroy Palestinians as a people and then openly enacts this intention with a horrific, unprecedented war on civilians, wiping out entire multi-generational families. Indeed, a recent Amnesty International report concluded:
“Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide against Palestinians”.
I do wonder whether the enormity of what has happened over the past year has been properly understood, and whether the British political establishment fully knows the tremendous damage that has been done to democracy at home, the UK’s reputation abroad and, indeed, the standing of human rights benchmarks around the world. There is a complete disjunction between the majority of people and those who are meant to represent them.
Beyond the political bubble, the hypocrisy and double standards are plain for everyone to see: the disregard for Palestinian lives, the censorship, denial and, yes, the fact that UK-made weapons are being used to kill and maim civilians, 70% of them women and children. Without doubt, everything that the UK has done, everything it continues to do and everything it fails to do will forever haunt us.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I am delighted we are having this debate. It has only come about because hundreds of thousands of people signed their signatures, demanding that we have a debate. It is a shame that such a debate is being held in Westminster Hall—when a debate is of this significance, it should be in the main Chamber, to indicate how seriously we take the subject.
Public opinion and feelings on this are absolutely huge. Look at the size of the demonstrations, the numbers of people signing petitions and the number of people who contact us directly. The Amnesty International briefing sent for the debate should be required reading for all Members. Amnesty measures its words very carefully in how it puts it—it is careful not to take an overtly political opinion—but goes on in devastating detail to point out that the International Court of Justice, meeting in The Hague, has concluded that acts of genocide have been taking place; that the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for the Prime Minister of Israel and two other people; and that the argument that Britain is using about the continuing supply of weapons and arms equipment to Israel is utterly fallacious.
The argument about the supply of parts for F-35 jets claims that it is impossible to separate the parts that are supplied to Israel from those that are supplied to other places that use F-35 jets. I cannot believe that the manufacturers, the Government and the Ministry of Defence do not have a highly detailed account of every single piece of equipment that is supplied to Israel, and every single piece of equipment that goes into those planes. It is perfectly possible to identify them.
Ms Abbott
People in Hackney and country-wide feel strongly about this issue. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, far from moving towards a two-state solution, Israel is deliberately trying to disrupt it with settlements on the west bank and the annexation of the Golan heights?
Jeremy Corbyn
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The point I was making was about weapons supplies. I mentioned the F-35 jets specifically, but there are all the other weapons that are supplied. Others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), have pointed out that a mysteriously large number of flights have been taking off from the Royal Air Force base at Akrotiri, going to Israel and coming back two hours later. It seems to me that they could well be delivering weapons to Israel.
The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) is absolutely correct. Israel’s intentions in all this are to occupy Gaza, to expel the population of Gaza into the Sinai, and thus to create a new Gaza strip in Sinai—and in 20 years’ time, we will be back here, having exactly the same debate about the plight of Palestinian people who have been expelled from their own land.
We need to recognise what public opinion is doing in Britain. I have been on every single one of the 24 national demonstrations that have been held in support of the Palestinian people. They are huge and diverse, and include a pretty wide range of political opinions, but all are united on the humanitarian case. The very large blocs of Jews for Justice for Palestinians and other groups present at the demonstrations indicate the diversity. A petition asking us to have a debate is one thing, but is it to be a safety valve for public opinion, whereby Parliament has had a debate on it and that is the end of the matter, or will it be a call to action? I look forward to the Minister telling us in his reply that there will be a suspension of all arms supplies to Israel.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.
We cannot carry on with a business-as-usual approach to Israel. That has become a green light for war crimes. That is why 60 MPs and Lords from seven parties recently called on the Foreign Secretary to introduce sanctions, which is what needs to be done.
I want to use my time to put on record in this House the submission made by the Government to the latest High Court hearing into the legality of ongoing exports of F-35 fighter jet parts that end up in Israel. The Government have accepted that Israel is
“not committed to compliance with International Humanitarian Law in Gaza, including in the conduct of hostilities”;
that
“the overall picture was of obvious concern, especially having regard to the number of civilian casualties”;
and that
“there is a clear risk that F-35 components might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of IHL”.
Yet the Government conclude that these exports “should nonetheless continue.”
It is important that we address this issue head-on. The Government have decided to carve out F-35 exports from their own licensing criteria, which are meant to ensure adherence to international law, but international law and our own laws cannot be opted into and out of at will. The F-35s are the main military export to Israel. They have been used to drop the deadliest bombs on Gaza, and they have been used since the beginning of the war. The sale of these arms is not only in flagrant violation of international law, but totally immoral and leaves Britain complicit in war crimes. The sale of these arms must end.
I hope that the Minister will answer some specific questions. The Government admitted to the Business and Trade Committee last week that all F-35 parts in the global spares pool are in fact tracked by the US Government. My first question is: do the UK Government have access to that information? If not, why not, and have they asked for it? My second question is: does the UK Government know what portion of F-35 parts that the UK exported to the global spares pool has ended up in Israel since 7 October 2023? My third question is: is the Minister certain that neither domestic nor international law is being violated by this carve-out?
I also put on record that I have been told by lawyers that the ongoing export of F-35 parts leaves workers in Britain, including civil servants in Government Departments, at risk of being held individually criminally liable for war crimes and other crimes under international law, including genocide. I want a very clear answer from the Minister and the Government as to whether they have provided legal advice to workers on this. How are the Government planning to protect the civil servants and other workers who export F-35 parts that end up in Israel from potential complicity in breaches of international humanitarian law? These are important questions, and I look forward to them being answered by the Minister.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
The petitions reflect the deep concern and passion of many in our society about the ongoing conflict and suffering in the middle east, and I respect the sentiment behind them. This Government are already working towards the same objectives that many of the signatories seek: an end to the violence in Gaza, the immediate release of all remaining hostages, an improved supply of humanitarian aid and, crucially, irreversible progress towards a lasting two-state solution. Peace in the middle east will come from negotiations, dialogue and the willingness of both sides to find common ground.
I turn first to the question of recognising the state of Palestine. Both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples have a legitimate right to self-determination. The foundation of a two-state solution is an independent, viable and democratic Palestine living alongside a safe and secure Israel. Since the Oslo accords, the principle has been clear: a two-state solution can be reached only through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. An action that undermines that principle, such as unilateral recognition of Palestine by the UK, only complicates that matter and makes peace more difficult. It creates the false impression that a Palestinian state can be imposed from the outside, without the necessary negotiations. Unilateral recognition, as seen with countries such as Spain, Norway and Ireland, has led to no real progress on the ground. It is a symbolic gesture, but it does not advance the cause of peace.
We must also approach the matter of arms exports with a clear-eyed view of the facts. Revoking UK arms export licences would once again be a largely symbolic gesture, with little practical impact on the situation in Gaza. It would also undermine our credibility as a security partner in the region and send the wrong messages to adversaries, including Iran.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Presumably, my hon. Friend will recognise that 15% of the F-35 construction parts come from the United Kingdom, and they are the choice of delivery of the 2,000 lb bombs that obliterate civilian populations in Gaza. Does he share my concern that continuing to participate in that programme leaves the United Kingdom at risk of being prosecuted under various conventions for complicity in those heinous acts?
Mike Tapp
We must bear in mind that 95% of weapons come from the US and Germany, and on the legal side of things, the Prime Minister and the Government have been clear that they have consulted legal advice, which of course will continue—I expect that there will be more from the Minister on that.
That is not to say that we ignore the suffering or the rights of Palestinians—far from it—but revoking arms sales to Israel, particularly when the country is engaged in a seven-front conflict against Iran and its proxies, would undermine our national security interests in the middle east. The UK has a long-standing defence and security relationship with Israel, which played a key role in defending Israel against an unprecedented Iranian ballistic attack earlier this year.
We have real-world experience in peacebuilding through initiatives such as the International Fund for Ireland, which invested in cross-community projects in Northern Ireland long before the Good Friday agreement was signed. Over time, these projects help to change attitudes and foster the conditions for political leaders to negotiate and compromise. The UK can and must apply those lessons to the middle east. By supporting peacebuilding civil society organisations in both Israel and Palestine, we can build the foundations for lasting peace. That approach has already received backing from the G7, and was reinforced by the Prime Minister's recent announcement on supporting civil society peacebuilding.
I urge us all to focus on actions that have a tangible long-term impact. Unilateral recognition of Palestine or the withdrawal of arms exports to Israel may offer a moment of symbolic protest, but will not move us closer to a genuine and lasting peace. The real path to peace lies in dialogue, supporting peacebuilding initiatives and encouraging both Israelis and Palestinians to come to the table. The UK can play a meaningful role by investing in projects that build trust and create the conditions necessary for a sustainable two-state solution.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris.
I will limit my remarks to arms exports, but before I do, I want to recognise what an appalling atrocity 7 October 2023 was. I also want to mention the 101 hostages who are still held captive, including the British citizen Emily Damari. Like the British Government, I demand their immediate release. I have just got back from King Charles Street, where the Foreign Affairs Committee was visiting the consular team. It is plain that they do really sensitive work with the families of British hostages held overseas.
My remarks about arms exports to Israel are largely based on last Tuesday’s Business and Trade Committee sitting, where I was a guest as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has been carrying out two inquiries, one on the middle east and one on soft power. We have found that British soft power has been damaged by the lack of full compliance with international law. It undermines the UK’s reputation if we do not pursue international law consistently.
[Mark Pritchard in the Chair]
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about international law. Does he agree that the judgment that we all need to look at is the ICJ advisory opinion on the occupation? The Government are working through the process of understanding what it means—including, potentially, in respect of banning illegal settlement goods—but what is taking them so long? Our reputation has suffered hugely as a result of such prevarication, particularly from the last Government, and it is now up to this Government to repair it.
Richard Foord
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The ICJ advisory opinion is crucial, and the Government need to crack on with their rulings in the light of that opinion.
My remarks are about the carve-out for the F-35 fighter jet and, specifically, the five licences that are somehow exempt in terms of international law. The licences are what are called open general licences—that is, they can be of an indefinite duration and an unlimited quantity. The British state does not have to set out the quantities of weapons being exported. At the Business and Trade Committee last week, Ministers from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Ministry of Defence talked about how the F-35 is different: 15% of it is British, and the other 85% is produced by a collaboration involving Italy, the Netherlands, the US, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Turkey and Australia—and, by the way, we contribute only the ejector seats, the batteries and the rear parts of the tail.
The point is that we in the west have to abide by international law. The British Government have been asking for an immediate ceasefire since 4 July—the Liberal Democrats have been calling for one for a great deal longer—but Israel are not listening to the British Government. In the absence of any influence, the UK Government need to take the next step. I want to address those who allege that it is somehow contradictory to ask Israel to stop using arms while it has to defend itself against Iran. I am proud that the UK was instrumental in defending Israel against the attack by Iran last April, but I see no contradiction whatsoever. The withholding of arms exports to Israel is a policy lever that we now have to pull.
Finally, we have to remember that we are talking about the principle of distinction, which is a firm principle in international humanitarian law that every British soldier is taught: that of distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. Evidence gathered by Danish NGOs, for example, shows that 2,000 lb bombs delivered by F-35 fighter jets killed 90 Palestinians at the al-Mawasi camp on 13 July. That is little surprise, because a 2,000 lb bomb will kill people within a 360-metre radius of the detonation. The British Government are failing to comply with international humanitarian law. They need to abide by the principle of distinction. We need to abide by international law.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard.
Hind Rajab was a five-year-old Palestinian girl. Her family were fleeing Gaza City when their car came under attack. The first shot killed Hind’s aunt, uncle and three of her cousins. Just Hind and her 15-year-old cousin Layan were left alive. Trapped in the car and surrounded by the bodies of dead relatives, Layan phoned for help. The recording of her call with the Palestinian Red Crescent was later released. Layan told the operator:
“They are shooting at us. The tank is next to me.”
Layan’s last moments were then heard: machine gun fire, a scream, and the phone went dead.
The Red Crescent phoned back. Five-year-old Hind answered. She was now alone in the car, her cousin was dead, and Israeli forces were still close by.
“I’m so scared, please come,”
Hind told the operator. For three hours, Hind pleaded to be rescued:
“Come take me. You will come and take me?”
As it grew dark, she told the operator how frightened she was.
Eventually, Israeli authorities gave the green light for a Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance to be dispatched to her rescue. When it arrived, the ambulance was attacked and contact was lost. Two weeks passed before the bodies of Hind, her family and the two paramedics were recovered. All had been killed by Israeli forces. In the aftermath of these horrific events, images of Hind’s beautiful smile and the recording of her final moments caught the world’s attention.
Next month marks a year since Hind was killed. Since then, the slaughter of Palestinians has not stopped. Hind is one of more than 17,000 children killed in Israel’s assault, and one of more than 45,000 Palestinians of all ages killed. A study published last week found that 96% of children in Gaza believe that their death is imminent and that, following the trauma they have been subjected to, almost half want to die.
A new report by Amnesty International has concluded that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide; last month, Human Rights Watch said that Israel had committed ethnic cleansing against Palestinians in Gaza; in January, the International Court of Justice found that there was a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza; and in July the Court said that Israel’s occupation of Palestine breached the international convention that guards against segregation and apartheid. The Israeli Prime Minister and his former Defence Secretary are now wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. So no one in this place can say they did not know what was happening or that the facts were unclear. We know what has happened in Gaza. It is an unthinkable, unspeakable horror.
The time for expressions of regret and concern are long past. International law is clear and urgent action is needed. This means ending all arms sales to Israel, including parts for the F-35 fighter jets that are raining down hell on Gaza, and, as has been explained throughout this debate, it means sanctioning Israel and boycotting trade with illegal Israeli settlements. It means upholding the ICC’s arrest warrants, and it means revoking the 2030 road map that deepens economic, trade and security ties with Israel. These measures would go some way in showing that here in Britain we recognise our shared humanity and our legal and moral responsibilities.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing the debate and the petitioners for calling for it.
I believe I stand with everyone here today when I say that what is happening in Gaza is appalling and unacceptable. The death and devastation have caused anguish around the world and left many—including my constituents in Wimbledon—deeply distressed. The events that started this current cycle of violence on 7 October must not be forgotten—Hamas’s evil attacks are indefensible, and Israel undoubtedly had the right to protect its citizens by targeting those brutal terrorists in accordance with international law—but it is clear that Israel is not acting within international law and that a humanitarian catastrophe is now taking place.
Thousands of men, women and children are being killed in Gaza, without a peaceful settlement in sight. We cannot stand by and let the current situation continue. Children have lost parents and parents have lost children as a result of Israel’s disproportionate response. The killing must stop, with all the hostages released and an immediate bilateral ceasefire. But that alone is not enough, as we desperately and urgently need long-term peace. To achieve that, we must secure an enduring resolution of the underlying issues, which is why my party and I have long advocated for a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders and the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state. I consequently echo the calls of my hon. Friends: the Government must follow the example of our allies, including Spain, Norway and Ireland, in formally recognising a Palestinian state.
That alone, of course, will not solve the issues. We must work with the international community and the Palestinian people to establish a democratic future for Palestine. In my previous role as head of the school of law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, I visited Palestine and worked with Palestinian activists and academics who were committed to such a future and united in their view that Hamas did not represent the Palestinian people.
Furthermore, the Government must take a presumption-of-denial approach to the sale of arms to any country deemed by the Foreign Office to be breaching international standards on human rights. We should be doing far more to sanction the settlers and their illegal settlements, which, as I saw with my own eyes, are designed to undermine and make impossible a two-state solution. The world has had a duty to act, and we must play our part.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), the petitioner Sandra Downs, and all the petition signatories up and down the country.
It is fair to say that we have heard a lot of discussions and statements by hon. Members all saying pretty much the same thing: that what is taking place in Gaza is a genocide and that the UK Government need to do more. It is almost sickening to be constantly reminded by some that there is an agenda of self-defence when everyone—even children at schools—can see what is taking place on social media. They see stories like that of Hind Rajab, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne); more bullets penetrated that vehicle than she had bones. They see stories like that and they are outraged by politicians who stand up and somehow provide this smokescreen of self-defence. Self-defence has parameters. Excessive self-defence is no defence. It cannot be used to avoid accountability. We are constantly reminded by senior political figures, whether from this country or America, that somehow this is self-defence, when everybody else can see that it is not.
Look at the words of Benjamin Netanyahu: “Amalek” is the word he used. Look at some of the video footage that comes out of Gaza. Animals, including donkeys, are being shot so that food cannot reach its destination. Paramedics are being killed. Recently, a doctor at a hospital was murdered, raped and put out on to the streets. Some are saying this is all part of the agenda not to give the Palestinians any recourse even to medical aid. Because what have we got? More than 200 aid workers killed and 500 medical staff killed. These are just some of the basic stats that everybody in this country can see, yet we still have arguments of self-defence. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am not going to take up too much time, because other Members want to speak, but we have an opportunity early next year. My colleague, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), has presented a Bill on the recognition of Palestinian statehood. That is our opportunity to stand up for the rights of the Palestinians. They have suffered far too much.
Layla Moran
That Bill is really important; I have tabled a similar Bill every single year that I have been in Parliament. One thing I find remarkable about certain speeches from Members in this debate is that Palestinian voices seem to be rather missing, forgotten or, in this case, erased. Will the hon. Gentleman look at what has happened in the House longer ago than just this year? We have been having decades-long fights, on a cross-party basis, and most of us have been trying to do that. Let us continue in that vein.
Ayoub Khan
I thank the hon. Member for all her endeavours and for those of the Liberal Democrats, because they have been very vocal on this topic. I know that there may also be another Bill tabled in her name to ask for the recognition of Palestinian statehood—something on which we should all unite and seek to encourage other parliamentarians to support.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I join my hon. Friends in expressing my condolences to all those who have been killed on both sides since not only 7 October but 1948. I join in the condemnation of all war crimes committed by any state actor or group.
As Israel launches a land grab in Syria and continues to bomb Lebanon, there is a danger that its continuing actions in Gaza will get lost in the egregious cycle of death and destruction in the middle east. It is timely, therefore, that we discuss yet again what contribution the UK can make to peace in the region.
Unfortunately, the record of this Government to date has been abysmal. As mentioned by my hon. Friends, the UK continues to supply spare parts for F-35 fighter jets, playing a major part in the Israeli military offensive, and it refuses to introduce any meaningful actions. Words and condolences, as well as reports of meetings to press Israeli officials to do more, are not enough, and there is much more that the UK can do. Worse, in their refusal to admit the nature of the military offensive in Gaza, the Government are culpable in the mass murder taking place.
Our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary may not understand what constitutes acts of genocide in international law, but thankfully human rights organisations do. We have heard about the recent Amnesty International report, which is unequivocal that Israeli actions against Gaza’s 2.3 million population are genocide. Note is also made of how the Israeli Government are acting with “impunity”.
Our Government, the US and other allies to Israel have granted it immunity from war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide for decades. Today is the day that that must stop. The British Government must end their complicity in Israeli war crimes and the genocide that is taking place. Our role must be to challenge the arrogance and complacency of Israel and send the message that Palestine exists. Its people have a right to live free of occupation and to have a state of their own.
The Government claim they are committed to a two-state solution, as is everybody in this room, but they have taken no meaningful action to make it a reality. The recognition of a Palestinian state is therefore a prerequisite to peace. The reply normally given to the ask of recognition for Palestine is, “This is not the right time to recognise a Palestinian state.” However, from all the strong, passionate and powerful speeches that we have heard, it is clear that the time is now.
We know from our experience of the peace process in Northern Ireland that it is too simple to reduce political violence to irrational hatred or religious bigotry. Where we have a political conflict, we have political reasons to create a pathway to solutions. The Government can help create that pathway by stopping their supply of spare parts for F-35 fighter jets and all other weapons and by joining the vast majority of UN members in formally recognising a Palestinian state.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
We now move on to the Front Benchers, who have 10 minutes each. I call Monica Harding.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am pleased to be here to discuss these two important petitions, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate.
The Liberal Democrats have been calling for an immediate bilateral ceasefire since November 2023—one that will put an end to the humanitarian devastation in Gaza, get the hostages out and provide the opportunity for a political process towards a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. A lasting peace and two states is the only way to guarantee the dignity and security that both the Palestinians and the Israelis deserve.
Petition 653509 calls for
“the United Kingdom to recognise the state of Palestine immediately.”
I can proudly say that that is something the Liberal Democrats have long been calling for, and we support immediate recognition of the state of Palestine. The UK’s allies have increasingly been recognising the state of Palestine, and we should join them, with the hope of refocusing attention on efforts to find a political solution to the war in the middle east.
The recognition of Palestine is particularly important right now, given the threats of some in Israel—noted by the ICC and the ICJ—such as Minister Smotrich, who seeks to annex the west bank. I visited the Occupied Palestinian Territories in November and saw at first hand the expanding settlements and growing violence. Recognising Palestine on 1967 lines would make clear where the United Kingdom stands.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds pointed out, recognising Palestine is a tool that will inject into Palestinian society the hope that having their own state is possible. They are far from hope just now, and it is essential we signal that we support statehood for them. I believe that that will wrest control back from the extremes at the edges of Palestinian society. As has been pointed out, that is not the by-product of a solution; it is the route to a solution. It must be stated that Hamas can have no part in the governance of this Palestinian state.
Layla Moran
My hon. Friend is entirely right that, within Palestine, recognition is seen as a prerequisite for what might come next. It is not a replacement and is not top-down. That is deeply felt—in fact, it was promised to the Palestinian people when my great-grandfather was alive. Does my hon. Friend also recognise that, alongside a state, there need to be viable, democratic elections? They would be made much easier if everyone in Palestine were allowed to vote in them. That is what stopped the last ones happening: people were not.
Monica Harding
I support my hon. Friend and pay tribute to her work. I agree with her.
Let me turn to the second petition, on immediately revoking all arms export licences to Israel. I fully support that proposal, which my party has been calling on the UK Government to implement since April. Tougher controls on UK arms exports are vital to ensure that those arms are not used in potential human rights breaches. I support the introduction of a presumption of denial for all Governments listed in the FCDO’s “Human Rights and Democracy” report as human rights priorities. As a result, arms exports to Israel should be halted.
The Minister has long avoided responding to calls from my colleagues for clarity on the UK’s position on ceasing all arms exports to Israel, so I hope we will hear a clearer response from him today.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Sometimes, small actions can help. A number of my constituents were incredibly concerned that premises owned by my local council were occupied by a company that they perceived to have been administratively involved in supplying parts for the arms business. The council has now relinquished its interest in that building. Would my hon. Friend recognise that?
Monica Harding
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I would like the Minister to note that Members have spoken about their unease at the fact that workers in the United Kingdom are making such parts. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) pointed out, the UK Government have made a choice to export F-35 components, which is not in line with their international commitments and obligations under international humanitarian law.
As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on international development, I must use this opportunity to emphasise my deep concern about laws passed in Israel’s Knesset banning UNRWA, in a situation that could not be more desperate. The Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator starkly warned:
“The entire population of north Gaza is at risk of dying.”
That move, if enacted, would lead to the death of innocent Palestinian civilians. UNRWA plays a critical role in distributing humanitarian aid in Gaza, and that move risks catastrophic consequences. As well as words of condemnation, I ask the Minister to set out the consequences of breaching international law, and I urge the Government to consider sanctioning Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for their incitement to violence against Palestinians by illegal settlers. The Government must continue to provide support to UNRWA to address the humanitarian crisis at hand, as well as ensuring that the recommendations of the Colonna report are implemented as soon as possible.
My last point is one that I hope the Minister agrees with and acts on. Increasing international development funding is a critical way in which the UK Government can tackle the humanitarian crises resulting from conflicts such as this, which are driving the cause behind the petitions being debated today. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on international development, I must urge the UK Government to strengthen the UK’s aid and development response. Overseas aid spending is at its lowest level in 17 years, having been cut by a further £2 billion in this fiscal year by this Government. It is now lower than under the last Conservative Government, despite the Prime Minister previously promising to reset Britain’s place in the world and return us to our status as an international development and aid superpower.
The UK’s funding for health programmes and the humanitarian relief reserve fund, both of which have been cut, urgently needs to be restored so that the UK can improve its response to conflict and support the victims of the devastating war in the middle east. Not only were the programmes eroded in the years since UK official development assistance was cut from 0.7% of gross national income to 0.58% by the Conservative Government, but this Government have slashed it again to 0.5%. United Kingdom support is needed more than ever, given global conflicts and humanitarian disasters, so I call on the Government to restore ODA to 0.7% of GNI as soon as possible to reinstate our commitment to the world’s poorest by ensuring that the UK is a global leader on aid and development.
I will end where I started: the Liberal Democrats call for the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state, the return of the hostages and a halt to all arms exports to Israel, and for the Government to bring every effort and pressure to bear on Israel to get the humanitarian assistance in now.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to be able to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition today. I start by thanking the Petitions Committee and the petitioners for this important debate on the two petitions. This is clearly a matter of concern to constituents up and down the country, as well as to Members across the House.
The Conservatives support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. It is right that the people of the west bank and Gaza should have the political perspective of a credible route to a Palestinian state and a new future. Our long-standing position is that we will recognise a Palestinian state at the time that is most conducive to the peace process. We are not at that point now, and we are clear that recognition cannot be the start of the process. Hamas is still being fought in parts of Gaza, while Israeli hostages remain in captivity. Ensuring that Hamas is no longer in charge of Gaza, and removing its capacity to launch attacks against Israel, are essential and unavoidable steps on the road to a lasting peace. The steps we must take now include getting the hostages out and getting more aid in. That is crucial for making progress towards a sustainable end to the current conflict.
The suffering of the hostages is intolerable for Israel; it should be intolerable for any person and any Government who care about human dignity and human rights. Let me be clear: Hamas could release the hostages now, immediately and unconditionally. We must also do more to support the innocent civilians of Gaza who are suffering and desperate. They continue to be used as human shields by Hamas, who have no regard at all for their safety and welfare. We continue to call for more humanitarian aid to enter Gaza and, importantly, for improved access through existing routes.
The Conservative Government helped to identify different ways that aid could get in, and we appointed a special representative for humanitarian affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, who was on the ground and had a remit to try to address the bottlenecks in aid delivery. We came up with clear proposals and put them to the Government of Israel, including in relation to aid delivery through Ashdod and Erez, as well as Kerem Shalom and the Jordan land corridor. Israel made a number of significant and welcome commitments on those points, as well as on approving more types of aid, but fulfilment of those commitments is vital and we are monitoring developments closely.
Turning to arms export licences, the last Conservative Government reviewed advice about the situation in Gaza and Israel, and our assessments left the UK’s position on arms export licences to Israel unchanged. Our position in government was in line with that of many of our partners, which have also not taken the decision to suspend existing arms export licences to Israel. The Labour Government’s decision to announce an arms embargo on the day on which Israeli hostage families buried six of their loved ones, and weeks after an Iranian attack in which we helped to defend Israel, is difficult to swallow. Weeks later, Iran attacked again.
Decisions such as that have broader geopolitical implications, and we must be clear that there is no moral equivalence between Hamas and the democratically elected Government of Israel. Our assessment was that the Government’s move was designed to satisfy their Back Benchers while not defending Israel, but it looks to have failed on both counts. Particularly in light of the subsequent direct attack by Iran, the decision was evidently poorly timed and ill judged. Labour has suspended export licences as Israel fends off threats from a terror group proscribed by the UK, as well as from Iran. That is despite the Government confessing that it has not been possible to reach a determinative judgment on allegations regarding Israel’s conduct of hostilities.
Returning to the subject of the future, we recognise that an effective Palestinian authority could have an important role to play in building a lasting peace and progressing towards a two-state solution. As Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton spoke with the new Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Mohammad Mustafa, and offered the UK’s support for implementing much-needed reforms. Indeed, we are very clear that the Palestinian Authority needs serious reform to its education and welfare policies, and it needs to show democratic progress. Just as the Palestinian Authority must act, so must Israel. That means releasing frozen funds, halting settlement expansion and holding to account those responsible for extremist settler violence.
To conclude and to reiterate, we continue to want to see a sustainable end to the conflict in Gaza, the release of the hostages, and more done to get humanitarian aid to innocent Palestinian civilians. Ultimately, we want to be able to lift people’s eyes to the brighter future and regional peace.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for securing this debate, and to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for leading it. I thank hon. Members for their contributions. They have represented their views and those of their constituents, many of whom I know have signed these petitions with sincerity. With your forbearance, Mr Pritchard, and recognising the many pages of questions I have received over the course of the afternoon, I will try to make progress with my speech before taking interventions.
I recognise the tone both of the petitions and of the questions and contributions this afternoon. I think the House is united in wanting to end the agonies in Gaza, return the hostages, end the violent expansion of settlements, and secure a two-state solution. That is my work and the work of this Government, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for highlighting how different our approach is from that of the Government who preceded us. When we became the Government, we called for an immediate ceasefire. On my first day as a Minister, we restored funding to UNRWA. We have now provided £41 million to UNRWA, recognising its vital work.
We have taken a different approach on questions of international law in relation to the ICC and the ICJ, and in our votes in the UN Security Council. Even when resolutions have been defeated, we have been clear on our commitment to international humanitarian law and the need for a two-state solution. In relation to sanctions on settlers and settlements, we have taken far-reaching action, which I shall cover briefly in my speech.
I would like to say something, given how strongly many of our constituents feel about the issues. I am a Labour Member and Minister, and other Labour MPs send me the videos the photos and the many reports that I know constituents see every day, as so many people have referred to. I see them too. As a Labour Member and Minister, I am never far from the reality of the situation. I am grateful to my colleagues for helping to ensure that that is the case.
I will turn briefly to the petitions that we are debating, trying to give substantive answers to both, then I will take interventions. First, on the call for immediate recognition, I want to I want to make it clear that this Government are unequivocal in their support for recognition and of a two-state solution. Palestinian statehood, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) said, is the right of the Palestinian people; it is not in the gift of any neighbour, and it is vital, as was set out, that the people of the west bank and Gaza are given the political perspective of a credible route to a Palestinian state.
We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state, and we will do so at the time most conducive to the long-term prospects for peace. We must take that step when we think that it will make the greatest contribution to bringing about the reality of a sovereign Palestinian state, alongside a secure Israel, which I know is the end goal we all agree on.
Many Members have referenced the decisions of allies. We watch those carefully and discuss the issues diplomatically, as one might expect. Simply saying a thing does not make it so, however, and this Government are driving their efforts towards the practical questions: creating the conditions necessary for a two-state solution to become a reality. The Prime Minister reiterated that commitment and his support for reforms to the Palestinian Authority—mentioned by a number of Members—when he met President Abbas in September.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about our support for Israel’s security. Of course, that remains steadfast, as it does for Israel’s right to self-defence against terrorism and state threats. However, as we have said repeatedly, Israel must do that in accordance with international law. We have taken decisive action against extremist Israeli settlers who undermine the viability of a two-state solution and we have called out the unacceptable rhetoric of some Israeli Ministers.
As Members have said, settlement expansion and violence have reached record levels. The Israeli Government seized more of the west bank in 2024 than in the past 20 years; that is completely unacceptable. We recently sanctioned three illegal outposts and four organisations that have supported and sponsored violence against communities in the west bank. Those sanctions are focused not just on the violence, but on the settlements themselves, which are contrary to international law. We will continue to take action necessary to challenge those who undermine a two-state solution. On the questions asked about sanctions, I am afraid that I will not provide—in a way that Members will be familiar with—a commentary on whom we may target with sanctions, but I reassure the Chamber that we will continue to take the action necessary.
Let me turn to the call in the second petition to revoke all licences for arms exports to Israel. I recognise the strength of feeling. It is why on day one, we commissioned a review into Israel’s commitment to and compliance with international humanitarian law and we took decisive action where the review found possible breaches. On 2 September, the Foreign Secretary announced that decision to Parliament, and it followed a conclusion of the clear risk of items being used in violation of IHL. Let me be clear: that is not a partial suspension; it is a full suspension of all licences for equipment for use in military operations in Gaza.
I will come to the F-35 points shortly, but on the remaining licences that are not in relation to the F-35s, they are for body armour for journalists and NGOs; equipment for re-export to close allies; and items utilised for training and never intended to see conflict. Those are the remaining military licences to Israel. In my view, it is not right to suspend those when there is no clear risk that they could be used in the ongoing conflict. The majority of licences to Israel are not to the Israel Defence Forces and not for military equipment. Under this Government’s watch, there are no extant licences that could be used by Israel to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law in the Gaza conflict. All of this is subject to the measures set out in Parliament excluding exports to the global F-35 programme from the scope of the suspension. Some Members have questioned that, but let me be clear about the Government’s view: suspending F-35 licences could not be done without prejudicing the F-35 programme.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) asked how that is consistent with the law and referred to some of the opening speeches in the ongoing judicial review. I will not comment in great detail on the judicial review, which is considering these legal questions in greater detail. The section of the arms trade treaty to which he referred asks us to tend to questions of international peace and security. We have been clear in the House, and I am clear again today, that to bring down the F-35 programme would have significance to international peace and security and to our broader strategic role in NATO, and would affect western equipment support for Ukraine. This is not an arbitrary decision that we have taken. We will keep this and all aspects of our policy under close review.
Andy McDonald
Will my hon. Friend please accept from the people who make this argument that there is strength in it? The issue is the end user of the F-35 programme. There is no suggestion that the UK should withdraw from the programme entirely, only that there be a block on the end user. Those F-35s are delivering the 2,000-pound bombs that are rending asunder civilian communities in Gaza and we must play our part in making sure that does not happen any longer. Will he please accept that?
Mr Falconer
I want to be clear to my hon. Friend and to everybody here that the direct selling of F-35 parts to Israel has now been suspended; it is indirectly that we are not in a position to determine the end user. Members are saying that we could determine the end user. I reiterate the Government’s position that the global supply chain is critical to the operation of the F-35 programme and that we cannot suspend licences to end users in the way that my hon. Friend would like without imperilling that.
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being characteristically generous. As I understand it, we cannot track F-35 parts because we have signed a contract that basically renders us blind when they leave our borders. Technically, it is possible; the Ministry of Defence has said that. The issue the Minister has to address is that article 7 of the arms trade treaty is very clear that if there is an overriding risk of a breach of IHL, exports should not be made. His Government’s own submission to the courts is that that risk exists. We cannot have it both ways.
Mr Falconer
My right hon. Friend is making two distinct arguments. One is that we know who the end user is but cannot practically stop it, but we can also maintain the F-35 programme. The Government’s position is that we cannot take action on the global spares pool without bringing the F-35 programme into peril, which would have implications for international peace and security. That is the position of the Government. On the article of the arms trade treaty to which he refers, it is clear that consideration needs to be given to international peace and security. It is on that basis that we have set out our position.
Another Member asked me about the legal advice. We have set out the legal position as clearly as we possibly can—more clearly than any previous Government has on such a decision. It is being tested in the courts. We are proceeding with the utmost transparency on these questions.
Layla Moran
Is it not the case that the review itself was drawn very narrowly, focusing just on Gaza, and did not look at the west bank? We know that there are violations and other issues in the west bank, and that they are getting worse and worse. Will the Government consider increasing the scope of their review to include the west bank, and perhaps conducting it again, given that everything is under review? I rather suspect that more than 30 export licences might be suspended if the west bank were included.
Mr Falconer
I can confirm to the hon. Member that, with the exception of the position with F-35 that we have just discussed, I have satisfied myself that the review conducted in relation to Gaza also covers the licences for arms that could be used both in the west bank and in the conflict in Lebanon. I have satisfied myself that the suspension announced on 2 September would cover the—
Mr Falconer
I am conscious that I have hardly a minute left, so I will wrap up and try to provide some time—
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. At the discretion of the Chair, if the Minister is so minded, he can continue to talk for beyond 10 minutes, given that we have time because some colleagues have left. However, I am aware of his busy schedule, so it is entirely in his hands.
Richard Burgon
The United States has confirmed that all F-35 parts in the global spares pool are tracked by the US Government. Our Government have admitted that, too. Do the UK Government have access to that information? If not, why not, and have they asked for it? Do they know what proportion of the F-35 parts that the UK has exported to the global spares pool have ended up in Israel since October 2023?
Mr Falconer
I am happy to reply to my hon. Friend in writing on some of these questions of detail. On the F-35s, the Government’s position is that we cannot suspend sales to the global spares pool without bringing down the overall programme, and so the international peace and security elements to which I have referred are very much in scope.
Andy Slaughter
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. May I return to recognition for a moment? The previous Government said that they would recognise Palestine when doing so best serves the object of peace. The current Government say they will recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process. I am struggling a little to see the difference between those positions.
There was a certain amount of sophistry in what the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said, which was that we cannot recognise Palestine when the hostilities are continuing. We do not recognise states based on which Government they have or what is happening there at the moment; we recognise states on the basis of the right to sovereignty, which Palestine clearly has. What is stopping the Government from recognising Palestine now, particularly given the Commons vote 10 years ago?
Mr Falconer
I recognise my hon. Friend’s long commitment to these issues. We are committed to recognising the state of Palestine at a point where we think it will make a contribution. I expect that he and many other Members will continue to press me on these issues for as long as this Parliament goes on.
We want to make a contribution to an advance of the position towards a two-state solution. As so many Members have said this afternoon, that feels horribly and dangerously distant at this time, but we think that the recognition of the state of Palestine can make a contribution to that process, and we want to see it on a more stable footing than we are at the current time.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Mr Falconer
I will not. I will try to conclude my remarks and give the hon. Member for South Cotswolds, who secured this debate, a chance to wrap it up.
I hope that Members will see that this Government have taken meaningful action to try to alleviate the suffering. I hear the strength of feeling from both the public and the Members in this Chamber. We will continue to do more. We are deeply conscious of both the agonies in Gaza and the coming of winter, and all the pressures that will bring.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Mr Falconer
I will try to push on, if that is okay.
We have announced £112 million for the occupied Palestinian territories this year. We will continue to press for the vital services that civilians in Gaza and the west bank desperately need. That includes £13 million that the Prime Minister announced as our commitment to UNRWA when he met Commissioner-General Lazzarini on 11 December. As I understand it, he is the first ever Prime Minister to meet an UNRWA Commissioner-General.
We have continually supported hostage talks, and I welcome the reference that fellow Members have made to the British national who is still being detained by Hamas. We will continue to work alongside our allies and partners in the region, exercising every possible diplomatic lever to see the hostages immediately and unconditionally released.
As I said, we have imposed sanctions against those perpetrating and inciting human rights abuses against Palestinian communities in the west bank, and since July we have sanctioned three illegal outposts and four organisations. I welcome the comments from hon. Members about the importance of peace-building efforts.
Andy McDonald
The Minister has mentioned several times the three illegal outposts and four organisations. All outposts in the west bank are illegal. As a nation, why are we not taking much more strenuous action against all illegal occupation of the west bank and the occupied territories?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to reiterate this Government’s policy towards the west bank. It is occupied Palestinian territory: that is clear in international law, and there is no dispute about that. The sanctions that we imposed had quite far-reaching implications, including for organisations that are involved on a broad and structural basis in helping to construct settlements. I hope that there is no ambiguity about our position.
Mr Falconer
I am going to push through to the end now.
Just last month, the Foreign Secretary chaired a UN Security Council ministerial meeting to focus international attention on the urgent need for a ceasefire and the release of all hostages. On 20 November, we voted in favour of the draft UN Security Council resolution on Gaza proposed by the 10 countries elected to the council. We reiterated our unwavering commitment to the vision of the two- state solution, in which two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace. That is what we, with our international partners, will continue to press for at every opportunity.
Dr Savage
I thank the petitioners, especially Sandra, for their courage in bringing the petitions forward and for their commitment to peace. It was an honour to bring the petitions to Westminster Hall. I hope that we have done justice to the gravity of the issue and the seriousness of the dire situation facing all who are caught up in the appalling conflict in the middle east.
I thank colleagues for their thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions, and their compassion for the people of Israel and Palestine. I especially thank those colleagues who have shown over many years their commitment to the cause of peace in the middle east.
The stories we have heard this afternoon are harrowing, and the Government must take them seriously. I urge the Minister to engage directly with the proposals that have been made today, with the ultimate goal of securing an immediate bilateral ceasefire and a two-state solution, and to prioritise the resolution of the desperate humanitarian crisis over supply chains.
I hope that this debate marks not the end of the conversation, but the beginning of meaningful change. Let us not let this moment pass without action.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 653509 and 652949 relating to Israel and Palestine.
Written Statements
Royal Mail Takeover Bid: EP Group
(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Royal Mail is an iconic national institution, and this Government will ensure that it continues to be one. Since taking office in July, the Secretary of State and I have been clear that the Government would robustly scrutinise the proposed takeover of Royal Mail, and ensure there are safeguards for its future.
While the takeover bid is still ongoing and subject to the relevant ongoing regulatory processes, this statement is to update the House on the legally binding undertakings that have now been given to Government by the bidder— EP Group. This does not mark the conclusion of the takeover, and these undertakings will only become effective if the takeover goes through.
Should the takeover complete, I am pleased to confirm that the Department for Business and Trade has secured significant commitments to promote the long-term and financially sustainable future of Royal Mail in the United Kingdom.
It may be helpful to set out where Royal Mail was at the time the takeover bid was announced. In its financial year 2023-24, Royal Mail recorded an operating loss of £348 million. At the same time, Royal Mail had not met its quality of service targets as set by the independent regulator, Ofcom. Royal Mail’s performance for the 2022-23 financial year resulted in a £5.6 million fine.
While the previous Government were happy to accept decline, this Government have worked closely with EP Group to secure significant commitments to delivering transformation of Royal Mail into a sustainable service, and hardwired in stronger protections for Royal Mail’s identity.
My Department’s objectives when these discussions with EP Group began were to first strengthen the financial sustainability of this iconic and important British institution. Secondly, we wanted to protect the customers, workers and brand of Royal Mail.
The Department for Business and Trade has agreed unprecedented commitments from the potential buyer of Royal Mail to protect its long-term future and to recognise its position in the UK’s national life.
Significantly, EP have committed to issue the Department for Business and Trade with a “golden share” in Royal Mail for certain matters. This means that—except in very limited circumstances—the Department for Business and Trade can now prevent Royal Mail from moving its headquarters abroad or moving its tax residency without the Government’s permission. This is an entirely new measure which was not in place at the time of Royal Mail’s privatisation, and it will remain in place in perpetuity, including where there is a subsequent change in ownership of Royal Mail in the future.
I want to be clear that this will not change any of the Government’s role in the day-to-day running of the business; Royal Mail remains a private entity.
In addition to this golden share, there are several other commitments made by EP Group to the Department for Business and Trade. These include:
A number of financial commitments to guard against value extraction and introduce a set of requirements to strengthen Royal Mail’s finances, including the implementation of a balance sheet restructuring, which will remove a significant intra-group debt that is currently due to the remainder of the IDS group.
There is a commitment from EP Group to ensure that Royal Mail has the financial means to fund the transformation of its business in the three-year period following completion of the acquisition.
Royal Mail has consistently not met its targets set by Ofcom. Recognising this, there will be a commitment such that EP Group cannot extract value from Royal Mail Group until it both can afford to do so, and has achieved specific performance targets.
I am placing copies of the deed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS311]
Office for Budget Responsibility: Economic and Fiscal Forecast
(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
Today I can inform the House that I have asked the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to prepare an economic and fiscal forecast for publication on 26 March 2025.
This forecast, in addition to the forecast that was published in October 2024, will fulfil the obligation required by the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 for the OBR to produce at least two forecasts in a financial year.
I intend to respond to the March forecast with a parliamentary statement. This is in line with my commitment to deliver one major fiscal event a year, to give families and businesses the stability and certainty they need and, in turn, to support the Government’s growth mission.
[HCWS315]
Clean Power 2030 Action Plan
(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
On Friday 13 December the Government published our clean power 2030 action plan. This is an important step towards delivering the Prime Minister’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, by achieving clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero across the economy, and follows on from his “plan for change” speech this December.
We are undergoing a significant transformation of our energy system, and this transition needs to accelerate to meet the Government’s 2030 clean power goal, secure the economic opportunities it presents, and respond to the wider challenges presented by our ageing energy infrastructure. Our plan will play a critical role in delivering this acceleration, unlocking billions of pounds of private investment. It outlines the most ambitious reforms to Britain’s energy system in a generation to make our country’s energy secure, protect households from volatile international fossil fuel markets, reindustrialise the country with thousands of skilled jobs, and tackle the climate crisis. This plan will provide the foundation for the UK to build an energy system that can bring down bills for households and businesses for good.
Earlier this year, the National Energy System Operator published its independent, expert advice on delivering clean power by 2030. The Government’s plan builds on that advice, outlining our view of the pathway to the 2030 clean power goal and the steps needed to get there. The plan covers both individual technologies and the cross-cutting enablers of deploying them, such as planning, grid, supply chains and skills.
Key measures in the plan include cleaning up the grid connections queue by prioritising the most important projects and ending the “first come, first served” system; speeding up decisions on planning permission by empowering planners to prioritise critical energy infrastructure; and expanding the renewable auction process to stop delays and get more projects connected.
The plan has been developed in partnership with interested Departments, the devolved Administrations and other parts of the public sector, such as Ofgem and NESO. A dedicated clean power commission, made up of experts from across industry, has also informed the plan, alongside broader industry engagement.
This ambitious plan marks a significant step forward for the Government’s clean energy mission. We are committed to continuing to work in close partnership with stakeholders to deliver it.
[HCWS313]
Capacity Market: December Publications
(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I am tabling this statement to inform members of three publications relating to the capacity market. The publications consist of a consultation on improvements to capacity market rules and treatment of consumer-led flexibility in the capacity market; a call for evidence inviting further views on improvements to consumer-led flexibility in the capacity market; and a statutory report summarising the capacity market’s performance over the last five years.
This Government have committed to delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating progress towards net zero, while ensuring the security of supply. Making Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030 is one of the Prime Minister’s five missions. To deliver this mission, we will increasingly rely on renewable power. The Government have set targets to double onshore wind, treble solar and quadruple offshore wind by 2030.
Introduced in 2014, the capacity market provides Great Britain with its ultimate safeguard to ensure security of supply. It serves to ensure enough capacity is available to provide a reliable electricity supply during peak demand periods and system stress events. The funding provided through the capacity market incentivises investment in new and existing generation, interconnectors, batteries, and demand side response mechanisms that enable consumer-led flexibility to ensure sufficient available capacity when required. This capacity is acquired through annual auctions held at intervals four years ahead and one year ahead of its delivery years. The Government regularly amend the capacity market prior to auction cycles to ensure it is cost-effective and meets broader strategic objectives such as clean power by 2030.
The transition to clean power will see changes in the patterns of energy production and consumption, with flexibility playing an increasingly important role. In October, we published a consultation and call for evidence exploring proposals to maintain security of supply and to enable flexible generation capacity to decarbonise. Today, we build upon this work by publishing a consultation and call for evidence on proposals to modernise the capacity market rules and improve consumer-led flexibility within the capacity market.
Consumer-led flexibility involves voluntary actions taken freely and directly by energy consumers to shift their electricity use. This includes residential customers using smart technologies, such as smart-charging EVs and heat pumps, as well as industrial and commercial units adjusting demand and utilising behind-the-meter generation or storage. This enables consumers to be rewarded with cheaper electricity by flexibly adjusting their usage to times of lower demand on the grid.
The consultation sets out policies to streamline how consumer-led flexibility, delivered by demand side response mechanisms, participates in the capacity market. As participation in the capacity market from aggregated domestic demand-side response portfolios increases to enable increased consumer-led flexibility, it is important that capacity market rules are updated to better incorporate and enable access from emerging technologies that can respond flexibly to times of high energy demand. It also seeks views on the introduction of a termination fee for new demand-side response mechanisms that fail to demonstrate agreed capacity, improving delivery assurance to enable the capacity market to fulfil its central principle of ensuring security of supply.
The consultation also outlines proposals on capacity market rule improvements. The capacity market rules govern how the capacity market operates. It is integral that the rules are clear and consistent in their operation to ensure the market remains accessible for new entrants seeking to invest in new sources of capacity. The consultation outlines proposals to improve the accessibility and clarity of the capacity market rules to ensure greater understanding and adherence to them. The proposed changes will enable capacity market units to change their opt-out status following a change in their operational circumstances, and will remove rules on transitional and coronavirus arrangements that are no longer required. These changes should ensure the capacity market rules remain fit for purpose and continue to allow new, innovative technologies to participate in the capacity market without facing unnecessary administrative hurdles. The proposed changes also extend a policy to allow existing generators to use data older than 24 months to pre-qualify for auctions held in 2026. This will further increase auction competitiveness and lower the costs of the capacity market for consumers’ energy bills.
The call for evidence seeks views on potential changes to the capacity market to improve consumer-led flexibility. It builds on proposals laid out in the capacity market phase 2 consultation, which was published in October 2023 to invite views on how the demand-side response mechanisms that enable consumer-led flexibility could be better categorised and integrated into the capacity market. It also seeks feedback on how these mechanisms can be better supported through improved portfolio management, while maintaining the high levels of delivery assurance expected within the capacity market.
Finally, we have published the second statutory five-year review, covering the years 2019 to 2024 of the capacity market’s performance—referred to as the 10-year review. This review provides a summary of how the capacity market has performed against its original objectives. It draws on evidence gathered from a Government-commissioned independent process and impact evaluation of the capacity market scheme in September 2021, and on responses to a call for evidence published in October 2023.
The review has taken place as the Government consider larger strategic questions through the review of electricity market arrangements programme, whose remit includes how a future capacity market can meet Government objectives on security of supply. The review does not seek to pre-empt the outcomes of the review of electricity market arrangements.
These publications consider actions to improve accessibility to and functionality of the capacity market, while continuing to uphold its primary objective of ensuring security of supply. As the capacity market reaches its 10-year milestone as a key pillar at the heart of the Government’s strategy for ensuring security of electricity supply in Great Britain, these proposals seek to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and continues to play a crucial role in achieving the clean power mission.
[HCWS314]
Development and the Environment
(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government are determined to rebuild Britain, delivering on our hugely ambitious “plan for change” milestones of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major infrastructure by the end of this Parliament. At the same time, we are committed to supporting nature recovery and delivering on the Environment Act 2021.
When it comes to development and the environment, we know we can do better than the status quo, which too often sees both sustainable house-building and nature recovery stall. Instead of environmental protections being seen as a barrier to growth, we want to unlock a win-win for the economy and for nature.
In the King’s Speech, we set out our intention to use development to fund nature recovery, delivering necessary changes through legislation where we can confirm to Parliament that the steps we are taking will deliver positive environmental outcomes.
With a view to progressing policy development in advance of the publication of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill next year, the Government have published a working paper inviting views on a proposed new approach to accelerate housing and infrastructure development while going beyond offsetting harm to drive forward nature recovery.
In developing this working paper, the Government have engaged constructively with representatives of the development industry, nature conservation organisations, nature service providers, and local government. The approach proposed has benefited considerably from the valuable feedback received, and we intend to continue to work closely with key stakeholders as we continue to refine our thinking in this area.
That the status quo is producing sub-optimal outcomes is not in dispute. There is widespread consensus that it is deterring planning applications and hindering the pace at which development can be delivered, while at the same time failing to maximise benefits for nature.
The challenges relating to nutrient neutrality are a case in point. An estimated 8% of new housing supply —equating to approximately 16,500 dwellings per year, based on recent housing output levels—has historically been delivered in sensitive river catchments subject to nutrient neutrality requirements flowing from the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. There is widespread evidence that such requirements are unnecessarily deterring planning applications and hindering the pace at which homes and infrastructure in these catchment areas can be delivered. The current arrangement requires costly site-by-site mitigation for each new development, and even where mitigation measures are available, obligations currently have to be assessed and secured on a project-by-project basis that often fails to secure optimal environmental outcomes.
Alongside taking robust regulatory and policy action to address pollution and environmental harm at source, the Government therefore want to take a more strategic approach to enable development to proceed where it is needed, while delivering more effectively for nature.
Such an approach would entail moving responsibility for identifying actions to address the environmental impacts of development away from multiple, project-specific assessments in an area and toward a single strategic assessment and delivery plan implemented at the right spatial scale. Without reducing the level of environmental protection provided for in existing law, we believe this approach, if taken forward, would provide a more efficient and effective way to deliver on the outcomes that the habitats regulations and other environmental obligations aspire to achieve.
In adopting this more strategic approach, which will enable the delivery of tens of thousands of new homes alongside new infrastructure, we are seeking to:
take a holistic view of nature recovery to secure better environmental outcomes, in line with our Environment Act targets;
go beyond offsetting environmental impacts and instead use development to drive nature recovery;
drive efficiency and reduce duplication of effort to ensure every pound spent is helping to deliver our environmental goals;
make it far easier for developers to discharge a range of environmental obligations, with the legal certainty necessary to underpin substantial capital investment;
give delivery partners the tools they need to generate positive outcomes for nature, empowering them to make the right choices to deliver nature recovery;
establish a robust and transparent framework to monitor delivery of environmental outcomes; and
create a lasting legacy of environmental improvement that will promote better public health through increased access to high quality green spaces.
We want to meet these objectives by taking three steps, for which the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would provide the necessary legislative underpinning:
Moving responsibility for identifying actions to address environmental impacts away from multiple project-specific assessments in an area to a single strategic assessment and delivery plan. This will allow action to address environmental impacts from development to be taken strategically, at an appropriate geographic scale, rather than at the level of an individual project—while recognising the importance of protecting local communities’ access to nature and green space.
Moving more responsibility for planning and implementing these strategic actions on to the state, delivered through organisations with the right expertise and with the necessary flexibility to take actions that most effectively deliver positive outcomes for nature.
In turn, allowing impacts to be dealt with strategically in exchange for a financial payment that helps fund strategic actions, so development can proceed more quickly. Project-level environmental assessments are then limited only to those harms not dealt with strategically.
In due course, our proposed approach would be supported by the new framework of environmental outcomes reports that will replace the current systems of environmental assessment with a more effective and outcome-focused tool for managing the effects of development on the natural environment.
As we seek to refine our new approach, we recognise the importance of continuing to deliver nutrient mitigation schemes, including via the local nutrient mitigation fund and Natural England’s nutrient mitigation scheme. In this vein, we also intend to continue to support the delivery of strategic measures such as district-level licensing and suitable alternative natural green spaces, as well providing ongoing support for local authorities through the Planning Advisory Service.
Shifting to a strategic and more outcomes-focused approach to impact assessment and nature recovery has the potential to support the environment, as well as helping us deliver the housing and infrastructure we need, unlocking a win-win for the economy and nature. We look forward to receiving views on the options set out in the working paper.
[HCWS317]
English Devolution
(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
Today, I am pleased to announce that the Government have laid the English Devolution White Paper.
The No. 1 mission of this Government is to relight the fire of our economy and ignite growth in every region. But we have an economy that hoards potential and a politics that hoards power—England is one of the most centralised developed countries, with too many decisions affecting too many people made by too few.
To truly get growth in every corner of the country and raise living standards, as set out in the Government’s ambitious plan for change, we must rewire England and end the hoarding in Whitehall by devolving power and money from central Government to those with skin in the game.
That means empowering mayors to drive growth and ending the patchwork approach to devolution. But it also means rebuilding and reforming local government as the foundation for devolution, a reset in the relationship between central and local government, and giving communities stronger tools to shape the future of their local areas.
To do this, we will bring forward a landmark English devolution Bill when parliamentary time allows. In advance of the Bill, we have today laid the English Devolution White Paper.
Deepening and widening devolution in England
At its core, the White Paper sets out how the Government will strengthen and widen the mayoral model of devolution across England. Mayors are uniquely placed to drive growth. They can use their mandate for change to take the difficult decisions needed to drive growth; their standing and soft power to convene local partners to tackle shared problems; and their platform to tackle the obstacles to growth that need a regional approach.
To equip mayors with the tools they need to deliver, we will:
Provide unprecedented powers and budgets for mayors, via our enhanced devolution framework. This will include:
A clear and transparent route for mayors to access integrated funding settlements over time. Starting with Greater Manchester, the West Midlands, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, Liverpool City Region, and the North East, this is a consolidated budget across housing, regeneration, local growth, local transport, skills, retrofit, and employment support.
New powers over strategic planning and control of grant funding for regeneration and housing delivery, putting our regions at the centre of the drive to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament.
Devolution of non-apprenticeship adult skills functions and supported employment funding to mayors, as well as a substantive role in future employment support that is additional to core Jobcentre Plus provision. Mayors will take on joint ownership of the local skills improvement plan model and will have a crucial role in ensuring there are clear pathways of progression from education into both further and higher education and local employment opportunities.
A statutory role for mayors in governing, managing, planning, and developing the rail network, with an additional right for the most established mayors to request devolution of services, stations and infrastructure.
A strengthened role for mayors in relation to business support, boosting exports and attracting international investment.
Moving mayoral strategic authorities to simple majority voting, including the mayor’s vote, wherever possible, because unanimity is not in the best interests of getting houses built or growing the local economy.
Reform and join up public services, to help services deliver for citizens and reduce the number of politicians. One of the simplest and most effective means to do this is bottom up, through place. So the Government will: transfer police and crime commissioner (PCC) and fire and rescue authority (FRA) responsibilities to mayors where boundaries align; explore the possibility of a single mayor taking on PCC and FRA responsibilities across two or more authorities where this would result in coterminous boundaries; establish an expectation that mayors are appointed to integrated care partnerships and are considered for the role of chair or co-chair; and announce a long-term ambition to align public service boundaries, including jobcentres, police, probation, fire, health services, and strategic authorities. Through these measures, strategic authorities will be positioned as convenors on public service reform, working in partnership with local authorities.
Hardwire devolution into Government, because, for too long, the priorities of places have been ignored. New forums, like the Prime Minister’s Council of the Nations and Regions, and statutory local growth plans, which dovetail with the Government’s national industrial strategy, will hardwire local areas into the way the UK Government operate, enabling every corner of the country to play its part in delivering the Government’s plan for change.
Establish “devolution by default”. Devolution in England has been ad hoc and inconsistent, with it being too unclear what powers places can access, when and how. The Government will legislate to set out which powers go to which type of authority. The most far-reaching and flexible powers will be for areas with mayors, because they provide the most visible and accountable form of local leadership. This is the floor of our ambition, not the ceiling, so we will enable our most mature institutions to request and pilot new functions to drive innovation.
As we widen devolution, our goal is simple: universal coverage of strategic authorities in England. These should be larger than individual councils, covering wider areas where people live and work, to utilise the benefits of economies of scale. Many places already have combined authorities that serve this role.
The Government issued an invitation to places without devolution to submit proposals in July. We have had constructive conversations with a range of areas, including Cheshire and Warrington, Norfolk and Suffolk and others, about how devolution could support their ambitions.
The Government will shortly set out their priority programme for devolution—which will be for areas that are willing to progress devolution to an accelerated timescale, and to plan for inaugural mayoral elections in May 2026. The Government will continue to develop proposals for new strategic authorities collaboratively and in partnership with local areas. However, to ensure that everyone in England can benefit from devolution and ensure the effective running of public services, the Government will legislate for a ministerial directive, allowing the creation of strategic authorities where absolutely necessary and, after due time has been allowed, local leaders have not been able to agree. This goes hand-in-glove with our partnership approach to local government reorganisation. Taken together, this will mean fewer politicians who are more able to focus on delivering for residents.
Delivering devolution at every scale
Everyone—from regional mayors leading strategic economic policy, to frontline councillors convening their communities—needs the tools and trust to deliver change. That is why the White Paper is a vision for putting power in the right places and repairing the foundations of local government.
Councils are the foundation of our state—critical to driving growth, delivering and reforming the local public services people rely on, and to our democratic system. But local government has not been empowered to live up to its potential and people have suffered as a result. We will rebuild local government after 14 years of mismanagement and decline, so that it is fit, legal and decent. This means fairer funding and multi-year financial settlements, as we committed to in the local government finance policy statement in November. The initial consultation on the principles of this funding reform will be launched later this week. The public being able to hold councils to account for decisions means ending micromanagement from central Government—so we will reform the use of wasteful competitive and ringfenced funding pots and rationalise funding for service delivery into the local government finance settlement wherever possible; streamline and rationalise reporting requirements; and review requirements for local authorities to seek Secretary of State consents for the use of their powers.
We will establish a genuine partnership between central and local government, recognising the vital role of local councillors as frontline community convenors, and executive members and leaders as partners in delivering the Government’s missions and plan for change. This includes delivering 1.5 million homes, with upper tier local authorities coming together to deliver strategic planning where there is not a strategic authority in place, underpinned through provisions in the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill.
And, because unitary councils can lead to better outcomes for residents, save significant money which can be reinvested in public services, and improve accountability with fewer politicians who are more able to focus on delivering for residents, we will facilitate an ambitious programme of local government reorganisation. This programme will cover two-tier areas and unitary councils where there is evidence of failure or where their size or boundaries may be hindering their ability to deliver sustainable and high-quality public services. Reorganisation should not delay devolution, and we will take a phased approach to delivery, including prioritising areas where reorganisation can unlock devolution.
Too many of our towns, villages and neighbourhoods have been left behind by economic change and have been let down by struggling public services. We will empower communities with new rights and levers to drive change and regenerate their neighbourhoods, and protect cherished community assets, introducing a new community “right to buy” for assets of community value. We have also retained the long-term plan for towns and will reform it into a new regeneration programme. We will enhance local authorities’ powers, enabling them to address the challenges facing their areas. This will include strengthening councils’ ability to take over the management of vacant residential properties and to introduce large selective licensing schemes to improve conditions in the private rented sector, without requiring Secretary of State approval.
Upgrading the systems
Finally, we will secure devolution for the long term, strengthening accountability and building capacity. We will deliver improvements to the accountability system for devolution, including an outcomes framework for integrated funding settlements, so it remains fit for purpose as we devolve more powers and funding, and improve external scrutiny of local public spending, such as reforms to the local audit system and local government standards and oversight. To build capacity at all levels, we will ensure the right people are available for the job, seconding out from central Government if needed, while ensuring mayors are focused on their role and can empower their team to deliver.
Next steps
I have engaged closely with England’s regional mayors, via our new Mayoral Council, and local authorities, via our new Leaders Council, and will continue to do so as we roll out this ambitious programme. When parliamentary time allows, we will bring forward the English devolution Bill, which will help us deliver on the vision set out in the White Paper and on our commitment to empower communities to take back control from Westminster, so we can work in partnership to drive growth and ensure people across the whole country benefit.
[HCWS316]
Online Safety Act 2023: Implementation
(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
Today, the Government have reached two significant milestones in the implementation of the Online Safety Act (“the Act”), marking an important step forward in creating a safer online environment for all UK citizens. Today, I am laying in Parliament Ofcom’s first draft codes of practice for the illegal content duties and draft regulations setting out the threshold conditions for category 1, 2A and 2B services under the Act.
Ofcom’s draft illegal content duties codes of practice:
The illegal content duties apply to all regulated user-to-user and search services under the Act, no matter their size or reach. These include new duties to have systems and processes in place to tackle illegal content and activity. Ofcom, as the independent regulator for this regime, is required to set out measures in codes of practice that providers can take to fulfil these statutory duties. Ofcom has now submitted to me the drafts of its first codes of practice for the illegal content duties to lay these in Parliament for scrutiny. If neither House objects to the draft codes, Ofcom must issue the codes and the illegal content duties will come into force 21 calendar days later. Once the codes have come into force, the statutory safety duties will begin to apply to service providers, and Ofcom will be able to enforce against non-compliance.
Ofcom has also published its guidance on how providers should carry out risk assessments for illegal content and activity. Providers now have three months to complete their illegal content risk assessment.
The completion of the risk assessments should coincide with the codes of practice coming into force if they pass the statutory laying period. Ofcom’s codes will set out steps service providers can take to address identified risks. The draft codes will drive significant improvements in online safety in several areas. They will ensure service providers put in place effective systems and processes to take down illegal content, including for content that amounts to terrorism, child sexual abuse material (CSAM), public order offences, assisting suicide, intimate image abuse content and other offences. They will make it materially harder for strangers to contact children online, to protect children from grooming. They will significantly expand the number of services that use automated tools to detect CSAM. They will make it significantly easier for the police and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to report fraud and scams to online service providers. And they will make it easier for users to report potentially illegal content.
The draft codes are a vital step in implementing the new regime. Ofcom fully intends to build on these foundations and has announced plans to launch a consultation in spring 2025 on additional measures for the codes. This includes consulting on how automated tools can be used to proactively detect illegal content, including the content most harmful to children, going beyond the automated detection measures that Ofcom have already included. Bringing in the codes will be a key milestone in creating a safer online environment for UK citizens as the duties begin to apply and become enforceable.
Categorisation thresholds:
Services which are ‘categorised’ under the Act will have additional duties placed on them. This is on top of the duties which all regulated user-to-user and search services must comply with to tackle illegal content and, where relevant, to protect children from content that is legal but nonetheless harmful to them. The additional duties will vary depending on whether a service is designated category 1—large user-to-user services—category 2A— large search services—or category 2B—smaller categorised user-to-user services.
In making these regulations, I have considered factors as required by the Act. Amendments made during the passage of the Act, changed the consideration for category 1 from the “level of risk of harm to adults from priority content that is harmful to adults disseminated by means of the service” to “how easily, quickly and widely regulated user-generated content is disseminated by means of the service.” This was a significant change and, while I understand that this approach has its critics who argue that the risk of harm is the more significant factor, this is the position under the Act.
Ofcom advice and the Secretary of State’s (Peter Kyle) decision on threshold conditions
The Act required Ofcom to carry out research within six months of Royal Assent, and to then provide the Secretary of State with advice on the threshold conditions for each of the three categories. This research included a call for evidence so that stakeholder feedback could be considered in Ofcom’s advice.
After considering Ofcom’s advice and subsequent clarificatory information in public letters, I have decided to set threshold conditions for categorisation in accordance with Ofcom’s recommendations. I am satisfied that Ofcom’s advice, which was published in March, is the culmination of an objective, evidence-based process. I have taken this decision in line with the factors set out in schedule 11 of the Act. I have been very clear to date, and want to reiterate, that my priority is the swift implementation of the Act’s duties to create a safer online environment for everyone. I am open to further research in the future and to update thresholds in force if necessary.
I appreciate that there may be some concerns that, at this time, threshold conditions have not been set to capture so-called “small but risky” services by reference to certain functionalities and characteristics or factors. My decision to proceed with the thresholds recommended by Ofcom, rather than to take the approach of discounting user number thresholds, reflects the fact that any threshold condition created by the Government should take into account the factors as set out in the Act, be evidence-based and avoid the risk of unintended consequences.
I also welcome Ofcom’s statement that it is keenly aware that the smallest online services can represent a significant risk to UK citizens, that it has established a dedicated “small but risky” supervision taskforce and that it will use the tools available under the Act to identify, manage and enforce against such services where there is a failure to comply with the duties that all regulated services will be subject to. This includes enforcement powers: to impose penalties on service providers of up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue or £18 million—whichever is greater; to require services to take remedial action; and in certain cases, to apply to court for business disruption measures to be taken against service providers.
As Secretary of State, my priority is timely implementation of the Act to ensure that the additional duties are enforceable as soon as possible. Ofcom’s recently updated implementation roadmap sets out the expectation that it aims to publish the register of categorised services in summer 2025 and will launch transparency reporting within a few weeks of publication of the register. This timeline is contingent on the regulations for categorisation thresholds being approved by Parliament without delay.
Proportionality
Many of the additional duties for categorised services have proportionality as a relevant consideration. For example, in determining what is proportionate for the user empowerment content duty, the findings of the most recent user empowerment assessment are relevant which includes the incidence of relevant content on the service, in addition to the size and capacity of a provider. When producing its guidance and codes of practice Ofcom will have regard to the principle of proportionality. In line with Ofcom’s recommendations, we have made it clear in the regulations that services are not captured under category 1 if they use a content recommender system which only recommends to a user their own content.
Threshold conditions
Following Ofcom’s advice and having taken into account matters as required by the Act, I have therefore today laid draft regulations which are intended to give effect to the following threshold conditions for each category of service:
The Category 1 threshold conditions are met by a regulated user-to-user service where, in respect of the user-to-user part of that service, it:
has an average number of monthly active United Kingdom users that exceeds 34 million and uses a content recommender system, OR
has an average number of monthly active United Kingdom users that exceeds 7 million, uses a content recommender system and provides a functionality for users to forward or share regulated user-generated content on the service with other users of that service.
The Category 2A threshold conditions are met by a search engine of a regulated search service or a combined service where it:
has an average number of monthly active United Kingdom users that exceeds 7 million, and
is not a vertical search engine—a search engine which only enables a user to search selected websites or databases in relation to a specific topic, theme or genre of search content.
The Category 2B threshold conditions are met by a regulated user-to-user service where, in respect of the user-to-user part of that service, it:
has an average number of monthly active United Kingdom users that exceeds 3 million and provides a functionality for users to send direct messages to other users of the same service.
[HCWS312]
Grand Committee
Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]
Monday 16th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 40-III(a) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (13 Dec 2024)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in carrying on on this group, I will speak to the question that Clause 78 stands part, and to Amendments 107, 109, 125, 154, 155 and 156, but to start I support Amendment 87 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. We had a masterclass from him last Tuesday and he made an extremely good case for that amendment, which is very elegant.
The previous Government deleted the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights from the statute book through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, and this Bill does nothing to restore it. Although references in the UK GDPR to fundamental rights and freedoms are now to be read as references to the ECHR as implemented through the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government’s ECHR memorandum states:
“Where processing is conducted by a private body, that processing will not usually engage convention rights”.
As the noble and learned Lord mentioned, this could leave a significant gap in protection for individuals whose data is processed by private organisations and will mean lower data protection rights in the UK compared with the EU, so these Benches strongly support his Amendment 87, which would apply the convention to private bodies where personal data is concerned. I am afraid we do not support Amendments 91 and 97 from the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, which seem to hanker after the mercifully defunct DPDI.
We strongly support Amendments 139 and 140 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. Data communities are one of the important omissions from the Bill. Where are the provisions that should be there to support data-sharing communities and initiatives such as Solid? We have been talking about data trusts and data communities since as long ago as the Hall-Pesenti review. Indeed, it is interesting that the Minister herself only this April said in Grand Committee:
“This seems to be an area in which the ICO could take a lead in clarifying rights and set standards”.
Indeed, she put forward an amendment:
“Our Amendment 154 would therefore set a deadline for the ICO to do that work and for those rights to be enacted. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made a good case for broadening these rights in the Bill and, on that basis, I hope the Minister will agree to follow this up, and follow up his letter so that we can make further progress on this issue”.—[Official Report, 17/4/24; col. GC 322.]
I very much hope that, now the tables are turned, so to speak, the Minister will take that forward herself in government.
Amendments 154, 155 and 156 deal with the removal of the principle of the supremacy of EU law. They are designed to undo the lowering of the standard of data protection rights in the UK brought about by the REUL Act 2023. The amendments would apply the protections required in Article 23.2 of the UK GDPR to all the relevant exceptions in Schedules 2 to 4 to the Data Protection Act 2018. This is important because data adequacy will be lost if the standard of protection of personal data in the UK is no longer essentially equivalent to that in the EU.
The EU’s adequacy decision stated that it did not apply in the area of immigration and referred to the case of Open Rights Group v the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the Court of Appeal. This case was brought after the UK left the EU, but before the REULA came into effect. The case is an example of how the preservation of the principle of the supremacy of EU law continued to guarantee high data protection standards in the UK, before this principle was deleted from the statute book by the REULA. In broad terms, the Court of Appeal found that the immigration exception in Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 conflicted with the safeguards in Article 23 of the UK GDPR. This was because the immigration exemption was drafted too broadly and failed to incorporate the safeguards prescribed for exemptions under Article 23.2 of the UK GDPR. It was therefore held to be unlawful and was disapplied.
The Home Office redrafted the exemption to make it more protective, but it took several attempts to bring forward legislation which provided sufficient safeguards for data subjects. The extent of the safeguards now set out in the immigration exemption underscores both what is needed for compatibility with Article 23.2 of the UK GDPR and the deficiencies in the rest of the Schedule 2 exemptions. It is clear when reading the judgment in the Open Rights case that the majority of the exemptions from data subject rights under Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act fail to meet the standards set out in Article 23.2 to the UK GDPR. The deletion of the principle of the supremacy of EU law has removed the possibility of another Open Rights-style challenge to the other exemptions in Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018. I hope that, ahead of the data adequacy discussions with the Commission, the Government’s lawyers have had a good look at the amendments that I have tabled, drafted by a former MoJ lawyer.
The new clause after Clause 107 in Amendment 154 applies new protections to the immigration exemption to the whole of Schedule 2 to the DPA 2018, with the exception of the exemptions that apply in the context of journalism or research, statistics and archiving. Unlike the other exemptions, they already contain detailed safeguards.
Amendment 155 is a new clause extending new protections which apply to the immigration exemption to Schedule 3 to the DPA 2018, and Amendment 156 is another new clause applying new protections which apply to the immigration exemption to Schedule 2 to the DPA 2018.
As regards Amendment 107, the Government need to clarify how data processing under recognised legitimate interests are compatible with conditions for data processing under existing lawful bases, including the special categories of personal data under Articles 5 and 9 of the UK GDPR. The Bill lowers the standard of the protection of personal data where data controllers only have to provide personal data based on
“a reasonable and proportionate search”.
The lack of clarity on what reasonable and proportionate mean in the context of data subject requests creates legal uncertainty for data controllers and organisations, specifically regarding whether the data subject’s consideration on the matter needs to be accounted for when responding to requests. This is a probing amendment which requires the Secretary of State to explain why the existing lawful bases for data processing are inadequate for the processing of personal data when additional recognised legitimate interests are introduced. It requires the Secretary of State to publish guidance within six months of the Act’s passing to clarify what constitutes reasonable and proportionate protections of personal data.
Amendment 109 would insert a new clause, to ensure that data controllers assess the risk of collective and societal harms,
“including to equality and the environment”,
when carrying out data protection impact assessments. It requires them to consult affected people and communities while carrying out these assessments to improve their quality, and requires data controllers to publish their assessments to facilitate informed decision-making by data subjects and to enable data controllers to be held accountable.
Turning to whether Clause 78 should stand part, on top of Clause 77, Clause 78 would reduce the scope of transparency obligations and rights. Many AI systems are designed in a way that makes it difficult to retrieve personal data once ingested, or understand how this data is being used. This is not principally due to technical limitations but the decision of AI developers who do not prioritise transparency and explainability.
As regards Amendment 125, it is clear that there are still further major changes proposed to the GDPR on police duties, automated decision-making and recognised legitimate interests which continue to make retention of data adequacy for the purposes of digital trade with the EU of the utmost priority in considering those changes. During the passage of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, I tabled an amendment to require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of the Bill on EU/UK data adequacy within six months of the Act passing; I have tabled a similar amendment, with one change, to this Bill. As the next reassessment of data adequacy is set for June 2025, a six-month timescale may prove inconsequential to the overall adequacy decision. We must therefore recommend stipulating that this assessment takes place before this reassessment.
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, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of these clauses. First, I will address Amendment 87 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble and learned Lord—sorry, the noble Lord—Lord Clement-Jones.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
We should take them while we can. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I agree that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made an excellent contribution. I appreciate this is a particularly technical area of legislation, but I hope I can reassure both noble Lords that the UK’s data protection law gives effect to convention rights and is designed to protect them. The Human Rights Act requires legislation to be interpreted compatibly with convention rights, whether processing is carried out by public or private bodies. ECHR rights are therefore a pervasive aspect of the rules that apply to public and private controllers alike. The noble and learned Lord is right that individuals generally cannot bring claims against private bodies for breaches of convention rights, but I reassure him that they can bring a claim for breaching the data protection laws giving effect to those rights.
I turn to Amendment 91, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, Amendment 107, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the question of whether Clause 78 should stand part, which all relate to data subject requests. The Government believe that transparency and the right of access is crucial. That is why they will not support a change to the language around the threshold for data subject requests, as this will undermine data subjects’ rights. Neither will the Bill change the current expectations placed on controllers. The Bill reflects the EU principle of proportionality, which has always underpinned this legislation, as well as existing domestic case law and current ICO guidance. I hope that reassures noble Lords.
Amendments 97 and 99, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, relate to the notification exemption in Article 14 of the UK GDPR. I reassure noble Lords that the proportionality test provides an important safeguard for the existing exemption when data is collected from sources other than the data subject. The controller must always consider the impact on data subjects’ rights of not notifying. They cannot rely on the disproportionate effort exemption just because of how much data they are processing—even when there are many data subjects involved, such as there would be with web scraping. Moreover, a lawful basis is required to reuse personal data: a web scraper would still need to pass the balancing test to use the legitimate interest ground, as is usually the case.
The ICO’s recent outcomes report, published on 12 December, specifically referenced the process of web scraping. The report outlined:
“Web scraping for generative AI training is a high-risk, invisible processing activity. Where insufficient transparency measures contribute to people being unable to exercise their rights, generative AI developers are likely to struggle to pass the balancing test”.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The Minister said there is a power to amend, but she has not said whether she thinks that would be desirable. Is the power to be used only if we are found not to be data-adequate because the immigration exemption does not apply across the board? That is, will the power be used only if we are forced to use it?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I reassure the noble Lord that, as he knows, we are very hopeful that we will have data adequacy so that issue will not arise. I will write to him to set out in more detail when those powers would be used.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I thank the Minister for her offer of a meeting. I could tell from the nods of my co-signatories that that would indeed be very welcome and we would all like to come. I was interested in the quote from the ICO about scraping. I doubt the Minister has it to hand, but perhaps she could write to say what volume of enforcement action has been taken by the ICO on behalf of data rights holders against scraping on that basis.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Yes, it would be helpful if we could write and set that out in more detail. Obviously the ICO’s report is fairly recent, but I am sure he has considered how the enforcement would follow on from that. I am sure we can write and give more details.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I wish to make three points. First, the critical question is: are our laws adequate to pass the adequacy test? Normally, when you go in for a legal test, you check that your own house is in order. I am therefore slightly disappointed by the response to Amendment 125. Normally one has the full-scale medical first, rather than waiting until you are found to be ill afterwards.
Secondly, I listened to what the Minister said about my Amendment 87 and the difference between what rights are protected by the charter and the much greater limitation of the ECHR, normally simply to do with the extent to which they apply horizontally to private individuals. I will look at her answer, but at first sight it does not seem right to me that, where you have fundamental rights, you move to a second stage of rights—namely, the rights under the Data Protection Act.
Thirdly, I want to comment on the whole concept of data communities and data trusts. This is an important area, and it takes me back to what I said last time: this legislation really needs trying to reduce to principles. I am going to throw out a challenge to the very learned people behind the Minister, particularly the lawyers: can they come up with something intelligible to the people who are going to do this?
This legislation is ghastly; I am sorry to say that, but it is. It imposes huge costs on SMEs—not to say on others, but they can probably afford it—and if you are going to get trust from people, you have to explain things in simple principles. My challenge to those behind the Minister is: can they draft a Clause 1 of the Bill to say, “The principles that underpin the Bill are as follows, and the courts are to interpret it in accordance with those principles”? That is my challenge—a challenge, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, points out, to be ambitious and not to sit in a tepid bath. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment reduces the likelihood of misuse of Clause 77 by AI model developers, who may otherwise seek to claim they do not need to notify data subjects of reuse for scientific purposes under Clause 77 because of the way that personal data is typically collected and processed for AI development, for example by scraping large amounts of personal data from the internet.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 92, 93, 101 and 105, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones for adding his name to them. I also support Amendment 137 in the name of my noble friend Lady Kidron.
Clause 77 grants an exemption to the Article 13 and 14 rights of data subjects to be told within a set timeframe that their data will be reused for scientific research, if it would be impossible or involve disproportionate effort to do so. These amendments complement those I proposed to Clause 67. They aim to ensure that “scientific research” is limited in its definition and that the large language AI developers cannot say that they are doing scientific research and that the GDPR requirements involve too much effort to have to contact data subjects to reuse their data.
It costs AI developers time and money to identify data subjects, so this exemption is obviously very valuable to them and they will use it if possible. They will claim that processing and notifying data subjects from such a huge collection of data is a disproportionate effort, as it is hard to extract the identity of data subjects from the original AI model.
Up to 5 million data subjects could be involved in reusing data to train a large language model. However, the ICO requires data controllers to inform subjects that their data could be reused even if it involves contacting 5 million data subjects. The criteria set out in proposed new subsection (6) in Clause 77 play straight into the hands of ruthless AI companies that want to take advantage of this exemption.
Amendments 92 and 101 would ensure that the disproportionate effort excuse is not used if the number of data subjects is mentioned as a reason for deploying the excuse. Amendments 93 and 105 would clarify the practices and facts that would not qualify for the disproportionate effort exemption—namely,
“the fact the personal data was not collected from the data subject, or any processing undertaken by the controller that makes the effort involved greater”.
Without this wording, the Bill will mean that the data controller, when wanting to reuse data for training another large language model, could process the personal data on the original model and then reuse it without asking permission from the original subjects. The AI developer could say, “I don’t have the original details of the data subject, as they were deleted when the original model was trained. There was no identification of the original data subjects; only the data weight”. I fear that many companies will use this excuse to get around GDPR notification expectations.
Noble Lords should recognise that these provisions affect only AI developers seeking to reuse data under the scientific research provisions. These will mainly be the very large AI developers, which tend to use scrape data to train their general purpose models. Controllers will still be able to use personal data to train AI systems when they have lawful grounds to do so—they either have the consent of the data subject or there is a legitimate interest—but I want to make it clear that these provisions will not inhibit the legitimate training of AI models.
These amendments would ensure that organisations, especially large language AI developers, are not able to reuse data at scale, in contradiction to the expectations and intentions of data subjects. Failure to get this right will risk setting off a public backlash against the use of personal data for AI use, which would impede this Government’s aims of making this country an AI superpower. I beg to move.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 137 in my name I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friend Lord Russell for their support. I also add my enthusiastic support to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Colville.
This is the same amendment that I laid to the DPDI Bill, which at the time had the support of the Labour Party. I will not labour that point, but it is consistently disappointing that these things have gone into the “too difficult” box.
Amendment 137 would introduce a code of practice on children and AI. AI drives the recommender systems that determine all aspects of a child’s digital experience, including the videos they watch, their learning opportunities, the people they follow and the products they buy—and, as reported last weekend, AI is even helping farmers pick the ripest tomatoes for baked beans. But it no longer concerns simply the elective parts of life where, arguably, a child or a parent on their behalf can choose to avoid certain products and services. AI is invisibly and ubiquitously present in all areas of their lives, and its advances and impact are particularly evident in the education and health sectors, the first of which is compulsory for children and the second of which is necessary for all of us.
The amendment has three parts. The first requires the ICO to create a code and sets out the expectations of its scope; the second considers who and what should be consulted and considered, including experts, children, and the frameworks that codify children’s existing rights; and the third part defines elements of the process, including risk assessment definitions, and sets out the principles to which the code must adhere.
When we debated this before, I anticipated that the Minister would say that the ICO had already published guidance, that we do not want to exclude children from the benefits of AI, and that we must not get in the way of innovation. Given that the new Government have taken so many cues from the previous one, I am afraid I anticipate a similar response.
I first point out, therefore, that the ICO’s non-binding guidance on AI and data protection is insufficient. It has only a single mention of a child in its 140 pages, which is a case study about child benefits. In the hundreds of pages of guidance, toolkits and sector information, nowhere are the specific needs and rights, or development vulnerabilities, of children comprehensively addressed in relation to AI. This absence of children is also mirrored in government publications on AI. Of course, we all want children to enjoy the benefits of AI, but consideration of their needs would increase the likelihood of those benefits. Moreover, it seems reckless and unprincipled not to protect them from known harms. Surely the last three decades of tech development have shown us that the experiment of a “build first, worry about the kids later—or never” approach has cost our children dearly.
Innovation is welcome but not all innovation is equal. We have bots offering 13 year-olds advice on how to seduce grown men, or encouraging them to take their own lives, edtech products that profile children to unfair and biased outcomes that limit their education and life chances, and we have gen AI that perpetuates negative, racist, misogynist and homophobic stereotypes. Earlier this month, the Guardian reported a deep bias in the AI used by the Department for Work and Pensions. This “hurt first, fix later” approach creates a lack of trust, increases unfairness, and has real-world consequences. Is it too much to insist that we ask better questions of systems that may result in children going hungry?
Why children? I am saddened that I must explain this, but from our deeply upsetting debate last week on the child protection amendments, in which the Government asserted that children are already catered for while deliberately downgrading their protections, it seems that the Government or their advisers have forgotten.
Children are different for three reasons. First, as has been established over decades, children are on a development journey. There are ages and stages at which children are developmentally able to do certain things, such as walk, talk, understand risk and irony and learn different social skills. There are equally ages and stages at which they cannot do those things. The long-established consensus is that families, social groups and society more broadly, including government, step in to support them on this journey. Secondly, children have less voice and less choice about how and where they spend their time, so the places and spaces they inhabit have to be designed to be fit for childhood. Thirdly, we have a responsibility towards children that extends even beyond our responsibility to each other. This means that we cannot legitimatise profit at their expense. Allowing systems to play in the wild in the name of growth and innovation, leaving kids to pay the price, is a low bar.
It is worth noting that since we debated it, a proposal for this AI code for children that follows the full life cycle of development, deployment, use and retirement of AI systems has been drafted and has the support of multiple expert organisations and individuals around the globe. I am sure that all nations and intergovernmental organisations will have additional inputs and requirements, but it is worth saying that the proposed code, which was written with input from academics, computer scientists, lawyers, engineers and children’s rights activists, is mindful of and compatible with the EU AI Act, the White House Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, the Executive Order on the Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and, of course, the UNCRC general comment no. 25.
This proposal will be launched early next year as an indication of what could and should be done. Unless the Government find their compass vis-à-vis children and tech, I suspect that another jurisdiction will adopt it ahead of the UK, making that the go-to destination for trusted tech development for child-safe products. It is perhaps worth reminding the Committee that one in three connected people is under 18, which is roughly 1 billion children. As the demographics change, the proportion and number of children will rise. It is a huge financial market.
Before I sit down, I shall briefly talk about the AADC because sometimes Ministers say that we already have a children’s code. The age-appropriate design code covers only ISS, which automatically limits it, and even the ICO by now agrees that its enforcement record is neither extensive nor impressive. It does not clearly cover the urgent area of edtech, which is the subject of another amendment, and, most pertinently to this amendment, it addresses AI profiling only, which means that it is limited in how it can look at the new and emerging challenges of generative AI. A revamp of the AADC to tackle the barriers of enforcement, account for technological advances, cover all products and services likely to be accessed by children and make our data regime AI-sensitive would be welcome, but rather than calling for a strengthening of the AADC, the ICO agreed to the downgrading of children’s data protection in the DPDI Bill and, again, has agreed to the downgrading of protections in the current Bill on ADM, scientific research, onward processing and so on. A stand-alone code for AI development is required because in this way we could be sure that children are in the minds of developers at the outset.
It is disappointing that the UK is failing to claim its place as the centre of regulated and trusted innovation. Although we are promised an AI Bill, the Government repeatedly talk of large frontier companies. AI is in every part of a child’s life from the news they read to the prices they pay for travel and goods. It is clear from previous groups that many colleagues feel that a data Bill with no AI provisions is dangerous commercially and for the communities of the UK. An AI Bill with no consideration of the daily impact on children may be a very poor next choice. Will the Minister say why a Labour Government are willing to abandon children to technology rather than building technology that anticipates children’s rights and needs?
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and to give full-throated support to my friend the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, on all his amendments. Given that the noble Baroness mentioned it and that another week has passed since we asked the Minister the question, will we see an AI Bill or a consultation before Santa comes or at some stage in the new year? I support all the amendments in this group and in doing so, as it is the first time I have spoken today in Committee, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register, not least as an adviser to Socially Recruited, an AI business.
I will speak particularly to my Amendment 211A. I have put down “image, likeness and personality” not because I believe that they stand as the most important rights that are being transgressed or that they are the most important rights which we should consider; I have put them down to give a specific focus on them because, right now, they are being largely cut across and ignored, so that all of our creatives find themselves with their works, but also image, likeness and personality, disappearing into these largely foundation AI models with no potential for redress.
Once parts of you such as your name, face or voice have been ingested, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said in the previous group, it is difficult then to have them extracted from the model. There is no sense, for example, of seeking an equitable remedy to put one back in the situation had the breach not occurred. It is almost “once in, forever in”, then works start to be created based on those factors, features and likenesses, which compete directly with the creatives. This is already particularly prevalent in the music industry.
What plans do the Government have in terms of personality rights, image and likeness? Are they content with the current situation where there is no protection for our great creatives, not least in the music industry? What does the Bill do for our creatives? I go back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. How can we have all these debates on a data Bill which is silent when it comes to AI, and a product regulation Bill where AI is specifically excluded, and yet have no AI Bill on the near horizon—unless the Minister can give us some up-to-date information this afternoon? I look forward to hearing from her.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I should first apologise for not being able to attend Second Reading or, arguably more importantly, to be in Committee last week to support the many amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on child protection. I read Hansard carefully and was deeply depressed to see that we were once again needing to rehearse, as she has done again today, the importance of protecting children in the digital era. It seems to be our lot that there is a group of us who keep coming back. We play the merry-go-round and sit in different places; it is a privilege to sit next to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for the first time in the decade that I have been in the House. I support her Amendment 137. She has given a good exposé as to why we should think really carefully about how we protect children in this AI world. I would just like to add one point about AI itself.
We keep being told—in a good way—that AI is an underlying and general-purpose technology. That means we need to properly establish the principles with which we should protect children there. We know that technology is morally neutral; it is the human beings who do the damage. In every other underlying, breakthrough technology, we have learned that we have needed to protect the most vulnerable, whether it was electricity when it first went into factories, toys when they were first distributed on the mass market, or social media, with the age-appropriate design code. I feel that it would be a huge mistake, on the third Bill where many of us have debated this subject matter, for us not to address the fact that, as of today, this is the biggest breakthrough technology of our lifetime. We should recognise that children will need protecting, as well as having the opportunity to benefit from it.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I was not going to rise at all for the moment because there are other amendments coming later that are of interest. I declare my rather unusual interest: I was one of the architects of the GDPR in Brussels.
I rise to support Amendment 211A in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes because here we are referring to AI. I know that other remarks have now been passed on this matter, which we will come to later, but it seems to me—this has come straight into my mind—that, when the preparation of the data legislation and the GDPR was being undertaken, we really did fail at that stage to accommodate the vast and important areas that AI brings to the party, as it were. We will fail again, I suspect, if we are not careful, in this piece of legislation. AI is with us now and moving at an enormous pace—faster than any legislator can ever manage to keep up with in order to control it and to make sure that there are sufficient protections in place for both the misuse of this technology and the way it may develop. So I support this amendment, particularly in relation to the trading or use of likenesses and the algorithmic effects that come about.
We will deal with that matter later, but I hope that the Minister will touch on this, particularly having heard the remarks of my noble friend Lord Holmes—and, indeed, the remarks of my noble friend Lady Harding a moment ago—because AI is missing. It was missing in the GDPR to a large extent. It is in the European Union’s new approach and its regulations on AI, but the EU has already shown that it has enormous difficulties in trying to offer, at one stage, control as well as redress and the proper involvement of human beings and individual citizens.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lady Kidron on Amendment 137. The final comments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, in our debate on the previous group were very apposite. We are dealing with a rapidly evolving and complex landscape, which AI is driving at warp speed. It seems absolutely fundamental that, given the panoply of different responsibilities and the level of detail that the different regulators are being asked to cover, there is on the face of what they have to do with children absolute clarity in terms of a code of practice, a code of conduct, a description of the types of outcomes that will be acceptable and a description of the types of outcomes that will be not only unacceptable but illegal. The clearer that is in the Bill, the more it will do something to future-proof the direction in which regulators will have to travel. If we are clear about what the outcomes need to be in terms of the welfare, well-being and mental health of children, that will give us some guidelines to work within as the world evolves so quickly.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I have co-signed Amendment 137. I do not need to repeat the arguments that have already been made by those who have spoken before me on it; they were well made, as usual. Again, it seems to expose a gap in where the Government are coming from in this area of activity, which should be at the forefront of all that they do but does not appear to be so.
As has just been said, this may be as simple as putting in an initial clause right up at the front of the Bill. Of course, that reminds me of the battle royal we had with the then Online Safety Bill in trying to get up front anything that made more sense of the Bill. It was another beast that was difficult to ingest, let alone understand, when we came to make amendments and bring forward discussions about it.
My frustration is that we are again talking about stuff that should have been well inside the thinking of those responsible for drafting the Bill. I do not understand why a lot of what has been said today has not already appeared in the planning for the Bill, and I do not think we will get very far by sending amendments back and forward that say the same thing again and again: we will only get the response that this is all dealt with and we should not be so trivial about it. Could we please have a meeting where we get around the table and try and hammer out exactly what it is that we see as deficient in the Bill, to set out very clearly for Ministers where we have red lines—that will make it very easy for them to understand whether they are going to meet them or not—and do it quickly?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the debate on this group emphasises how far behind the curve we are, whether it is by including new provisions in this Bill or by bringing forward an AI Bill—which, after all, was promised in the Government’s manifesto. It emphasises that we are not moving nearly fast enough in thinking about the implications of AI. While we are doing so, I need to declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on AI and a consultant to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation.
I have followed the progress of AI since 2016 in the capacity of co-chair of the all-party group and chair of the AI Select Committee. We need to move much faster on a whole range of different issues. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, will be here on Wednesday, when we discuss our crawler amendments, because although the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has tabled Amendment 211A, which deals with personality rights, there is also extreme concern about the whole area of copyright. I was tipped off by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, so I was slightly surprised that he did not bring our attention to it: we are clearly due the consultation at any moment on intellectual property, but there seems to be some proposal within it for personality rights themselves. Whether that is a quid pro quo for a much-weakened situation on text and data mining, I do not know, but something appears to be moving out there which may become clear later this week. It seems a strange time to issue a consultation, but I recognise that it has been somewhat delayed.
In the meantime, we are forced to put forward amendments to this Bill trying to anticipate some of the issues that artificial intelligence is increasingly giving rise to. I strongly support Amendments 92, 93, 101 and 105 put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, to prevent misuse of Clause 77 by generative AI developers; I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in wanting to see protection for image, likeness and personality; and I very much hope that we will get a positive response from the Minister in that respect.
We have heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Stevenson, all of whom have made powerful speeches on previous Bills—the then Online Safety Bill and the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill—to say that children should have special protection in data protection law. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, says, we need to move on from the AADC. That was a triumph she gained during the passage of the Data Protection Act 2018, but six years later the world looks very different and young people need protection from AI models of the kind she has set out in Amendment 137. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that we need to talk these things through. If it produces an amendment to this Bill that is agreed, all well and good, but it could mean an amendment or part of a new AI Bill when that comes forward. Either way, we need to think constructively in this area because protection of children in the face of generative AI models, in particular, is extremely important.
This group, looking forward to further harms that could be caused by AI, is extremely important on how we can mitigate them in a number of different ways, despite the fact that these amendments appear to deal with quite a disparate group of issues.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I too thank all noble Lords for their insightful contributions to this important group of amendments, even if some of them bemoaned the fact that they have had to repeat themselves over the course of several Bills. I am also very heartened to see how many people have joined us for Committee today. I have been involved in only two of these sittings, but this is certainly a record, and on present trends it is going to be standing room only, which is all to the good.
I have two observations before I start. First, we have to acknowledge that perhaps this area is among the most important we are going to discuss. The rights and protections of data subjects, particularly children, are in many ways the crux of all this and we have to get it right. Secondly, I absolutely take on board that there is a real appetite to get ahead of something around AI legislation. I have an amendment I am very excited about later when we come particularly to ADM, and there will be others as well, but I absolutely take on board that we need to get going on that.
Amendment 92 in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seeks to reduce the likelihood of the misuse of Clause 77 by AI model developers who may seek to claim that they do not need to notify data subjects of reuse for scientific purposes under that clause. This relates to the way that personal data is typically collected and processed for AI development. Amendment 93 similarly seeks to reduce the possibility of misuse of Clause 77 by model developers who could claim they do not need to notify data subjects of reuse for scientific purposes. Amendment 101 also claims to address the potential misuse of Clause 77 by the developers, as does Amendment 105. I strongly support the intent of amendments from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in seeking to maintain and make provisions for the rights and protections of data subjects, and look forward very much to hearing the views of the Minister.
I turn to Amendment 137 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding. This amendment would require the commissioner to prepare and produce a code of practice which ensures that data processors prioritise the interests, rights and freedoms of children. It goes without saying that the rights and protection of children are of utmost importance. Certainly, this amendment looks to me not only practical but proportionate, and I support it.
Finally, Amendment 211A in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes ensures the prohibition of
“the development, deployment, marketing and sale of data related to an individual’s image, likeness or personality for AI training”
without that person’s consent. Like the other amendments in this group, this makes provision to strengthen the rights and protections of data subjects against the potential misuse or sale of data and seems entirely sensible. I am sure the Minister has listened carefully to all the concerns powerfully raised from all sides of the Committee today. It is so important that we do not lose sight of the importance of the rights and protection of data subjects.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for their amendments and consideration of this policy area. I hope noble Lords will bear with me if I save some of the points I shall make on web crawling and intellectual property for the later group, which is specifically on that topic.
Amendments 92 and 93 from the noble Viscount are about the new disproportionate effort exemption in Article 13. I can reassure noble Lords that this exemption applies only when data is collected directly from the data subject, so it cannot be used for web crawling, which is, if you like, a secondary activity. I think that answers that concern.
Amendments 101 and 105, also from the noble Viscount, are about the changes to the existing exemption in Article 14, where data is collected from other sources. Noble Lords debated this issue in the previous group, where Amendments 97 and 99 sought to remove this exemption. The reassurances I provided to noble Lords in that debate about the proportionality test being a case-by-case exercise also apply here. Disproportionate effort cannot be used as an excuse; developers must consider the rights of the data subject on each occasion.
I also draw noble Lords’ attention to another quote from the ICO itself, made when publishing its recent outcome reports. I know I have already said that I will share more information on this. It says:
“Generative AI developers, it’s time to tell people how you’re using their information”.
The ICO is on the case on this issue, and is pursuing it.
On Amendment 137 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding, and other noble Lords, I fully recognise the importance of organisations receiving clear guidance from regulators, especially on complex and technical issues. AI is one such issue. I know that noble Lords are particularly conscious of how it might affect children, and I am hearing the messages about that today.
As the noble Baroness will know, the Secretary of State already has the power to request statutory codes such as this from the regulator. The existing power will allow us to ensure the correct scope of any future codes, working closely with the ICO and stakeholders and including noble Lords here today, and I am happy to meet them to discuss this further. The Government are, naturally, open to evidence about whether new statutory codes should be provided for by regulations in future. Although I appreciate the signal this can send, at the moment I do not believe that a requirement for codes on this issue is needed in this legislation. I hope noble Lords are reassured that the Government are taking this issue seriously.
Amendment 211A from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is about prohibiting the processing of people’s names, facial images, voices or any physical characteristics for AI training without their consent. Facial images and other physical characteristics that can be used to identify a person are already protected by the data protection legislation. An AI developer processing such data would have to identify a lawful ground for this. Consent is not the only option available, but I can reassure the noble Lord that there are firm safeguards in place for all the lawful grounds. These include, among many other things, making sure that the processing is fair and transparent. Noble Lords will know that even more stringent conditions, such as safeguards applying in relation to race, sexual orientation and any biometric data that can be used to identify someone as types of a special category of data are also covered.
Noble Lords tried to tempt me once again on the timetable for the AI legislation. I said as much as I could on that when we debated this in the last session, so I cannot add any more at this stage.
I hope that reassures noble Lords that the Bill has strong protections in place to ensure responsible data use and reuse, and, as such, that they feel content not to press their amendments.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I understand the point that the Secretary of State has the power, but does he have the intention? We are seeking an instruction to the ICO to do exactly this thing. The Secretary of State’s intention would be an excellent compromise all round to activate such a thing, and to see that in the Bill is the point here.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Discussions with the ICO are taking place at the moment about the scope and intention of a number of issues around AI, and this issue would be included in that. However, I cannot say at the moment that that intention is specifically spelled out in the way that the noble Baroness is asking.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
This has been a wide-ranging debate, with important contributions from across the Committee. I take some comfort from the Minister’s declaration that the exemptions will not be used for web crawling, but I want to make sure that they are not used at the expense of the privacy and control of personal data belonging to the people of Britain.
That seems particularly so for Amendment 137 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I was particularly taken by her pointing out that children’s data privacy had not been taken into account when it came to AI, reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, telling us about the importance of the Bill. She said it was paramount to protect children in the digital age and reminded us that this is the biggest breakthrough of our lifetime and that children need protecting from it. I hope very much that there will be some successful meetings, and maybe a government amendment on Report, responding to these passionate and heartfelt demands. On that basis, I sincerely hope the Minister will meet us all and other noble Lords to discuss these matters of data privacy further. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that only one condition under paragraph 5 must be present for paragraphs 1 to 4 to not apply.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I was in such a hurry to apologise just now for missing Second Reading that I forgot to declare my interests and remind the Committee of my technology and, with regard to this group, charitable interests as set out in the register.
I shall speak to Amendments 95, 96, 98, 101, 102 and 104 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood, and Amendments 103 and 106 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson. I also support Amendment 162 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I will speak only on the marketing amendments in my name and leave the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to do, I am sure, great justice to the charitable soft opt-in.
These amendments are nothing like as philosophical and emotive as the last amendment on children and AI. They aim to address a practical issue that we debated in the late spring on the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. I will not rehearse the arguments that we made, not least because the Minister was the co-signatory of those amendments, so I know she is well versed in them.
Instead, I shall update the Committee on what has happened since then and draw noble Lords’ attention to a couple of the issues that are very real and present now. It is strange that all Governments seem reluctant to restrict the new technology companies’ use of our data but extremely keen to get into the micro detail of restricting older forms of our using data that we have all got quite used to.
That is very much the case for the open electoral register. Some 63% of people opt out of being marketed at, because they have put their name as such on the electoral register. This is a well known and well understood use of personal data. Yet, because of the tribunal ruling, it is increasingly the case that companies cannot use the open electoral register and target the 37% of people who have said that they are quite happy to receive marketing unless the company lets every single one of those users know that they are about to market to them. The danger is that we create a new cookie problem—a physical cookie problem—where, if you want to use a data source that has been commonplace for 40 years, you have to send some marketing to tell people that you are about to use it. That of course means that you will not do so, which means that you reduce the data available to a lot of small and medium-sized businesses to market their products and hand them straight to the very big tech companies, which are really happy to scrape our data all over the place.
This is a strange one, where I find myself arguing that we should just allow something that is not broken not to need to be fixed. I appreciate that the Minister will probably tell us that the wording in these amendments is not appropriate. As I said earlier in the year—in April, in the previous incarnation—I very much hope that if the wording is incorrect we could, between Committee and Report, have a discussion and agree on some wording that achieves what seems just practical common sense.
The tribunal ruling that created this problem recognised that it was causing a problem. It stated that it accepted that the loophole it created would allow one company, Experian, a sizeable competitive advantage. It is a slightly perverse one: it means that it has to let only 5 million people know that it might be about to use the open electoral register, while its competitors have to let 22 million people know. That just does not pass the common-sense test of practical use of data. Given the prior support that the Minister has shown for this issue, I very much hope that we can resolve it between Committee and Report. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have a couple of amendments in this group, Amendments 158 and 161. Amendment 158 is largely self-evident; it tries to make sure that, where there is a legal requirement to communicate, that communication is not obstructed by the Bill. I would say much the same of Amendment 161; that, again, it is obvious that there ought to be easy communication where a person’s pension is concerned and the Bill should not obstruct it. I am not saying that these are the only ways to achieve these things, but they should be achieved.
I declare an interest on Amendment 160, in that I control the website of the Good Schools Guide, which has advertising on it. The function of advertising on the web is to enable people to see things for free. It is why it does not close down to a subscription-only service. If people put advertisements on the web, they want to know that they are effective and have been seen, and some information about who they have been seen by. I moved a similar amendment to the previous Government’s Bill and encountered some difficulty. If the Government are of the same mind—that this requires us to be careful—I would very much welcome the opportunity of a meeting between now and Report, and I imagine others would too, to try to understand how best to make sure that advertising can flourish on the internet.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the amendments spoken to so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, regarding the open electoral register. They are intended to provide legal certainty around the use of the register, without compromising on any aspect of the data privacy of UK citizens or risking data adequacy. The amendments specify that companies are exempt from the requirement to provide individuals with information in cases where their personal data has not been obtained directly from them if that data was obtained from the open electoral register. They also provide further clarification on what constitutes “disproportionate effort” under new paragraph 5(e) of Article 14 of GDPR.
The noble Baroness covered the ground so effectively that all I need to add is that the precedent established by the current interpretation by the tribunal will affect not only the open electoral register but other public sources of data, including the register of companies, the Registry of Judgments, Orders and Fines, the Land Registry and the Food Standards Agency register. Importantly, it may even prevent the important work being done to create a national data library achieving its objectives of public sector data sharing. It will have far-reaching implications if we do not change the Bill in the way that the noble Baroness has put forward.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his support for Amendment 160. I reciprocate in supporting—or, at least, hoping that we get clarification as a result of—his Amendments 158 and 161.
Amendment 159B seeks to ban what are colloquially known as cookie paywalls. As can be seen, it is the diametric opposite to Amendment 159A, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose. For some unaccountable reason, cookie paywalls require a person who accesses a website or app to pay a fee to refuse consent to cookies being accessed from or stored on their device. Some of these sums can be extortionate and exorbitant, so I was rather surprised by the noble Viscount’s counter amendment.
Earlier this year, the Information Commissioner launched a call for views which looked to obtain a range of views on its regulatory approach to consent or pay models under data protection law. The call for views highlighted that organisations that are looking to adopt, or have already adopted, a consent-or-pay model must consider the data protection implications.
Cookie paywalls are a scam and reduce people’s power to control their data. I wonder why someone must pay if they do not consent to cookies being stored or accessed. The PEC regulations do not currently prohibit cookie paywalls. The relevant regulation is Regulation 6, which is due to be substituted by Clause 111, and is supplemented by new Schedule A1 to the PEC regulations, as inserted by Schedule 12 to the Bill. The regulation, as substituted by Clause 111 and Schedule 12, does not prohibit cookie paywalls. This comes down to the detail of the regulations, both as they currently are and as they will be if the Bill remains as drafted. It is drafted in terms that do not prevent a person signifying lack of consent to cookies, and a provider may add or set controls—namely, by imposing requirements—for how a person may signify that lack of consent. Cookie paywalls would therefore be completely legal, and they certainly have proliferated online.
This amendment makes it crystal clear that a provider must not require a person to pay a fee to signify lack of consent to their data being stored or accessed. This would mean that, in effect, cookie paywalls would be banned.
Amendment 160 is sought by the Advertising Association. It seeks to ensure that the technical storage of or access to information is considered necessary under paragraph 5 of the new Schedule A1 to the PEC regulations inserted by Schedule 12 if it would support measurement or verification of the performance of advertising services to allow website owners to charge for their advertising services more accurately. The Bill provides practical amendments to the PEC regulations through listing the types of cookies that no longer require consent.
This is important, as not all cookies should be treated the same and not all carry the same high-level risks to personal privacy. Some are integral to the service and the website itself and are extremely important for subscription-free content offered by publishers, which is principally funded by advertising. Introducing specific and target cookie exemptions has the benefit of, first, simplifying the cookie consent banner, and, secondly, increasing further legal and economic certainty for online publishers. As I said when we debated the DPDI Bill, audience measurement is an important function for media owners to determine the consumption of content, to be able to price advertising space for advertisers. Such metrics are crucial to assess the effectiveness of a media channel. For sites that carry advertising, cookies are used to verify the delivery and performance of a digital advertisement—ie, confirmation that an ad has been served or presented to a user and whether it has been clicked on. This is essential information to invoice an advertiser accurately for the number of ad impressions in a digital ad campaign.
My reading of the Bill suggests that audience measurement cookies would be covered under the list of exemptions from consent under Schedule 12, however. Can the Government confirm this? Is it the Government’s intention to use secondary legislation in future to exempt ad performance cookies?
Coming to Amendment 162 relating to the soft opt-in, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding of Winscombe, for their support. This amendment would enable charities to communicate to donors in the same way that businesses have been able to communicate to customers since 2003. The clause will help to facilitate greater fundraising and support the important work that charities do for society. I can do no better than quote from the letter that was sent to Secretary of State Peter Kyle on 25 November, which was co-ordinated by the DMA and involved nearly 20 major charities, seeking support for reinstating the original Clause 115 of the DPDI Bill into this Bill:
“Clause 115 of the previous DPDI Bill extended the ‘soft opt-in’ for email marketing for charities and non-commercial organisations. The DMA estimates that extending the soft opt-in to charities would increase annual donations in the UK by £290 million”,
based on analysis of 13.1 million donors by the Salocin Group. The letter continues:
“At present, the DUA Bill proposals remove this. The omission of the soft opt-in will prevent charities from being able to communicate to donors in the same way as businesses can. As representatives of both corporate entities and charitable organisations, it is unclear to the DMA why charities should be at a disadvantage in this regard”.
I hope that the Government will listen to the DMA and the charities involved.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their comments and contributions. I shall jump to Amendments 159 and 159A, one of which is in my name and both of which are concerned with cookie paywalls. I am not sure I can have properly understood the objection to cookie paywalls. Do they not simply offer users three choices: pay money and stay private; share personal data and read for free; or walk away? So many times, we have all complained about the fact that these websites harvest our data and now, for the first time, this approach sets a clear cash value on the data that they are harvesting and offers us the choice. The other day somebody sent me a link from the Sun. I had those choices. I did not want to pay the money or share my data, so I did not read the article. I feel this is a personal decision, supported by clear data, which it is up to the individual to take, not the Government. I do not think we should take away this choice.
Let me turn to some of the other amendments in this group. Amendment 161 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas is, if I may say so, a thoughtful amendment. It would allow pension providers to communicate information on their product. This may mean that the person who will benefit from that pension does not miss out on useful information that would benefit their saving for retirement. Given that pension providers already hold the saver’s personal data, it seems to be merely a question of whether this information is wanted; of course, if it is not, the saver can simply opt out.
Amendment 162 makes an important point: many charities rely on donations from the public. Perhaps we should consider bringing down the barriers to contacting people regarding fundraising activities. At the very least, I am personally not convinced that members of the public have different expectations around what kinds of organisation can and cannot contact them and in what circumstances, so I support any step that simplifies the—to my mind—rather arbitrary differences in the treatment of business and charity communications.
Amendment 104 certainly seems a reasonable addition to the list of what might constitute “unreasonable effort” if the information is already public. However, I have some concerns about Amendments 98 and 100 to 103. For Amendment 98, who would judge the impact on the individual? I suspect that the individual and the data controllers may have different opinions on this. In Amendment 100, the effort and cost of compliance are thorny issues that would surely be dictated by the nature of the data itself and the reason for providing it to data subjects. In short, I am concerned that the controllers’ view may be more subjective than we would want.
On Amendment 102, again, when it comes to providing information to them,
“the damage and distress to the data subjects”
is a phrase on which the subject and the controller will almost inevitably have differing opinions. How will these be balanced? Additionally, one might presume that information that is either damaging or distressing to the data subjects should not necessarily be withheld from them as it is likely to be extremely important.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we have covered a range of issues in our debate on this grouping; nevertheless, I will try to address each of them in turn. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, for their Amendments 95, 96, 98, 100, 102 to 104 and 106 regarding notification requirements.
First, with regard to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, I say that although the Government support the use of public data sources, transparency is a key data protection principle. We do not agree that such use of personal data should remove or undermine the transparency requirements. The ICO considers that the use and sale of open electoral register data alone is likely not to require notification. However, when the data is combined with data from other sources, in order to build an extensive profile to be sold on for direct marketing, notification may be proportionate since the processing may go beyond the individual’s reasonable expectations. When individuals are not notified about processing, it makes it harder for them to exercise their data subject rights, such as the right to object.
Adding other factors to the list of what constitutes a “disproportionate effort” for notification is unnecessary given that the list is already non-exhaustive. The “disproportionate effort” exemption must be applied according to the safeguards of the wider data protection framework. According to the fairness principle, controllers should already account for whether the processing meets the reasonable expectations of a data subject. The data minimisation and purpose limitation principles also act as an important consideration for data controllers. Controllers should continue to assess on a case-by-case basis whether they meet the threshold for the existing exemptions to notify; if not, they should notify. I hope that this helps clarify our position on that.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
When does the Minister anticipate that the ICO will produce that report?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I do not have the detail of all that. Obviously, the call for views has only recently gone out and he will need time for consideration of the responses. I hope the noble Lord will accept that the ICO is on the case on this matter. If we can provide more information, we will.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
May I ask the Minister a hypothetical question? If the ICO believes that these are not desirable, what instruments are there for changing the law? Can the ICO, under its own steam, so to speak, ban them; do we need to do it in primary legislation; or can it be done in secondary legislation? If the Minister cannot answer now, perhaps she can write to me.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Of course I will write to the noble Lord. It will be within the ICO’s normal powers to make changes where he finds that they are necessary.
I move to Amendment 160, tabled by noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which seeks to create a new exemption for advertising performance cookies. There is a balance to strike between driving growth in the advertising, news and publishing sectors while ensuring that people retain choice and control over how their data is used. To exempt advertising measurement cookies, we would need to assess how intrusive these cookies are, including what they track and where data is sent. We have taken a delegated power so that exemptions to the prohibition can be added in future once evidence supports it, and we can devise appropriate safeguards to minimise privacy risks. In the meantime, we have been actively engaging with the advertising and publishing sectors on this issue and will continue to work with them to consider the potential use of the regulation-making power. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that this is work in progress.
Amendment 161, also from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, aims to extend the soft opt-in rule under the privacy and electronic communications regulations to providers of auto-enrolment pension schemes. The soft opt-in rule removes the need for some commercial organisations to seek consent for direct marketing messages where there is an existing relationship between the organisation and the customer, provided the recipient did not object to receiving direct marketing messages when their contact details were collected.
The Government recognise that people auto-enrolled by their employers in workplace pension schemes may not have an existing relationship with their pension provider, so I understand the noble Lord’s motivations for this amendment. However, pension providers have opportunities to ask people to express their direct mail preferences, such as when the customer logs on to their account online. We are taking steps to improve the support available for pension holders through the joint Government and FCA advice guidance boundary review. The FCA will be seeking feedback on any interactions of proposals with direct marketing rules through that consultation process. Again, I hope the noble Lord will accept that this issue is under active consideration.
Amendment 162, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would create an equivalent provision to the soft opt-in but for charities. It would enable a person to send electronic marketing without permission to people who have previously expressed an interest in their charitable objectives. The noble Lord will recall, and has done so, that the DPDI Bill included a provision similar to his amendment. The Government removed it from that Bill due to the concerns that it would increase direct marketing from political parties. I think we all accepted at the time that we did not want that to happen.
As the noble Lord said, his amendment is narrower because it focuses on communications for charitable purposes, but it could still increase the number of messages received by people who have previously expressed an interest in the work of charities. We are listening carefully to arguments for change in this area and will consider the points he raises, but I ask that he withdraws his amendment while we consider its potential impact further. We are happy to have further discussions on that.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I apologise to the Minister for intervening on her when I have not spoken earlier in this debate, but I was reassured by what she just said on Amendment 162. Remarks made by other noble Lords in this debate suggest both that members of the public might not object to charities having the same access rights as businesses and that the public do not necessarily draw a distinction between businesses and charities. As a former chairman of the Charity Commission, I can say that that is not what is generally found. People have an expectation of charities that differs from what they would expect by way of marketing from businesses. In considering this amendment, therefore, I urge the Minister to think carefully before deciding what action the Government should take.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness very much for that very helpful intervention. If she has any more information about the view of the Charity Commission, we would obviously like to engage with that because we need to get this right. We want to make sure that individuals welcome and appreciate the information given to them, rather than it being something that could have a negative impact.
I think I have covered all the issues. I hope those explanations have been of some reassurance to noble Lords and that, as such, they are content not to press their amendments.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
May I just follow up by asking one quick question? I may be clutching at straws here but, in responding to the amendments in my name, she stated what the ICO believes rather than what the Government believe. She also said that the ICO may think that further permission is required to ensure transparency. I understand from the Data & Marketing Association that users of this data have four different ways of ensuring transparency. Would the Minister agree to a follow-up meeting to see whether there is a meeting of minds with what the Government think, rather than the ICO?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am very happy to talk to the noble Baroness about this issue. She asked what the Government’s view is; we are listening very carefully to the Information Commissioner and the advice that he is putting together on this issue.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the answers the noble Baroness gave to my amendments. I will study carefully what she said in Hansard, and if I have anything further to ask, I will write to her.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, in response—and very briefly, given the technical nature of all these amendments—I think that we should just note that there are a number of different issues in this group, all of which I think noble Lords in this debate will want to follow up. I thank the many noble Lords who have contributed both this time round and in the previous iterations, and ask that we follow up on each of the different issues, probably separately rather than in one group, as we will get ourselves quite tangled in the web of data if we are not careful. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new Clause (Transfer of jurisdiction of courts to tribunals).
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 108, I will also speak to all the other amendments in this group. They are all designed to transfer all existing provisions from the courts to the tribunals and simplify the enforcement of data rights. Is that not something to be desired? This is not just a procedural change but a necessary reform to ensure that the rights granted on paper translate into enforceable rights in reality.
The motivation for these amendments stems from recurring issues highlighted in cases such as Killock and Veale v the Information Commissioner, and Delo v the Information Commissioner. These cases revealed a troubling scenario where the commissioner presented contradictory positions across different levels of the judiciary, exacerbating the confusion and undermining the credibility of the regulatory framework governing data protection. In these cases, the courts have consistently pointed out the confusing division of jurisdiction between different courts and tribunals, which not only complicates the legal process but wastes considerable public resources. As it stands, individuals often face the daunting task of determining the correct legal venue for their claims, a challenge that has proved insurmountable for many, leading to denied justice and unenforced rights.
By transferring all data protection provisions from the courts to more specialised tribunals, which are better equipped to handle such cases, and clarifying the right-to-appeal decisions made by the commissioner, these amendments seek to eliminate unnecessary legal barriers. Many individuals, often representing themselves and lacking legal expertise, face the daunting challenge of navigating complex legal landscapes, deterred by high legal costs and the intricate determination of appropriate venues for their claims. This shift will not only reduce the financial burden on individuals but enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial process concerning data protection. By simplifying the legal landscape, we can safeguard individual rights more effectively and foster a more trustworthy digital environment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and his string of amendments. He made the case clearly: it is simply about access, the right to redress and a clear pathway to that redress, a more efficient process and clarity and consistency across this part of our data landscape. There is precious little point in having obscure remedies or rights—or even, in some cases, as we have discussed in our debates on previous groups, no right or obvious pathways to redress. I believe that this suite of amendments addresses that issue. Again, I full-throatedly support them.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. These proposals aim to transfer jurisdiction from courts to tribunals; to establish a new right of appeal against decisions made by the Information Commissioner; and to grant the Lord Chancellor authority to implement tribunal procedure rules. I understand and recognise the noble Lord’s intent here, of course, but I have reservations about these amendments and urge caution in accepting them.
The suggestion to transfer jurisdiction from courts to tribunals raises substantial concerns. Courts have a long-standing authority and expertise in adjudicating complex legal matters, including data protection cases. By removing these disputes from the purview of the courts, the risk is that we undermine the depth and breadth of legal oversight required in such critical areas. Tribunals, while valuable for specialised and expedited decisions, may not provide the same level of rigorous legal analysis.
Cases such as those cited by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—Killock and another v the Information Commissioner and Delo v the Information Commissioner—demonstrate to me the intricate interplay between data protection, administrative discretion and broader legal principles. It is questionable whether tribunals, operating under less formal procedures, can consistently handle such complexities without diminishing the quality of justice. Further, I am not sure that the claim that this transfer will streamline the system and reduce burdens on the courts is fully persuasive. Shifting cases to tribunals does not eliminate complexity; it merely reallocates it, potentially at the expense of the detailed scrutiny that these cases demand.
I turn to the right of appeal against the commissioner’s decisions. Although the introduction of a right of appeal against these decisions may seem like a safeguard, it risks creating unnecessary layers of litigation. The ICO already operates within a robust framework of accountability, including judicial review for cases of legal error or improper exercise of discretion. Adding a formal right of appeal risks encouraging vexatious challenges, overwhelming the tribunal system and diverting resources from addressing genuine grievances.
I think we in my party understand the importance of regulatory accountability. However, creating additional mechanisms should not come at the expense of efficiency and proportionality. The existing legal remedies are designed to strike an appropriate balance, and further appeals risk creating a chilling effect on the ICO’s ability to act decisively in protecting data rights.
On tribunal procedure rules and centralised authority, the proposed amendment granting the Lord Chancellor authority to set tribunal procedure rules bypasses the Tribunal Procedure Committee, an independent body designed to ensure that procedural changes are developed with judicial oversight. This move raises concerns about the concentration of power and the erosion of established checks and balances. I am concerned that this is a case of expediency overriding the principles of good governance. While I acknowledge that consultation with the judiciary is included in the amendment, it is not a sufficient substitute for the independent deliberative processes currently in place. The amendment risks undermining the independence of our legal institutions and therefore I have concerns about it.
These amendments overall, while presented as technical fixes, and certainly I recognise the problem and the intent, would have far-reaching consequences for our data protection framework. The vision of my party for governance is one that prioritises stability, legal certainty and the preservation of integrity. We must avoid reforms that, whatever their intent, introduce confusion or inefficiency or undermine public trust in our system. Data protection is, needless to say, a cornerstone of our modern economy and individual rights. As such, any changes to its governance must be approached with the utmost care.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his Amendments 108, 146 to 153 and 157, and I am grateful for the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose.
The effect of this group of amendments would be to make the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper-tier Tribunal responsible for all data protection cases. They would transfer ongoing as well as future cases out of the court system to the relevant tribunals and, as has been alluded to, may cause more confusion in doing so.
As the noble Lord is aware, there is currently a blend of jurisdiction under the data protection legislation for both tribunals and courts according to the nature of the proceedings in question. This is because certain types of cases are appropriate to fall under tribunal jurisdiction while others are more appropriate for court settings. For example, claims by individuals against organisations for breaches of legal requirements can result in awards of compensation for the individuals and financial and reputational damage for the organisations. It is appropriate that such cases are handled by a court in conformance with their strict procedural and evidential rules. Indeed, under the Killock and Delo examples, it was noted that there could be additional confusion in that ability to go between those two possibilities if you went solely to one of the tribunals.
On the transfer of responsibility for making tribunal procedural rules from the Tribunal Procedure Committee to the Lord Chancellor, we think that would be inappropriate. The committee is comprised of legal experts appointed or nominated by senior members of the judiciary or the Lord Chancellor. This committee is best placed to make rules to ensure that tribunals are accessible and fair and that cases are dealt with quickly and efficiently. It keeps the rules under constant review to ensure that they are fit for purpose in line with new appeal rights and the most recent legislative changes.
Amendment 151 would also introduce a statutory appeals procedure for tribunals to determine the merits of decisions made by the Information Commissioner. Data subjects and controllers alike can already challenge the merits of the Information Commissioner’s decisions by way of judicial review in a way that would preserve the discretion and independence of the Information Commissioner’s decision-making, so no statutory procedure is needed. The Government therefore believe that the current jurisdictional framework is well-balanced and equitable, and that it provides effective and practical routes of redress for data subjects and controllers as well as appropriate safeguards to ensure compliance by organisations. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response to my amendments and welcome him to the Dispatch Box and a whole world of pain on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, as he has, no doubt, noted already after just two hours’ worth of this Committee.
I found his response disappointing, and I think both he and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, have misunderstood the nature of this situation. This is not a blend, which is all beautifully logical depending on the nature of the case. This is an absolute mishmash where the ordinary litigant is faced with great confusion, not knowing quite often whether to go to the court or a tribunal, where the judges themselves have criticised the confusion and where there appears to be no appetite, for some reason, in government for a review of the jurisdictions.
I felt that the noble Viscount was probably reading from his previous ministerial brief. Perhaps he looked back at Hansard for what he said on the DPDI Bill. It certainly sounded like that. The idea that the courts are peerless in their legal interpretation and the poor old tribunals really just do not know what they are doing is wrong. They are expert tribunals, you can appear before them in person and there are no fees. It is far easier to access a tribunal than a court and certainly, as far as appeals are concerned, the idea that the ordinary punter is going to take judicial review proceedings, which seems to be the implication of staying with the current system on appeals if the merits of the ICO’s decisions are to examined, seems quite breathtaking. I know from legal practice that JR is not cheap. Appearing before a tribunal and using that as an appeal mechanism would seem far preferable.
I will keep on pressing this because it seems to me that at the very least the Government need to examine the situation to have a look at what the real objections are to the jurisdictional confusion and the impact on data subjects who wish to challenge decisions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
“3. To qualify as meaningful human involvement, the review must be performed by a person with the necessary competence, training, authority to alter the decision and analytical understanding of the data.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would make clear that in the context of new Article 22A of the UK GDPR, for human involvement to be considered as meaningful, the review must be carried out by a competent person.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 110 and will speak to Amendments 112, 114, 120, 121, 122, 123 and Clause 80 stand part. As we have heard, artificial intelligence and algorithmic and automated decision-making tools, are increasingly being used across the public sector to make and support many of the highest impact decisions affecting individuals, families and communities across healthcare, welfare, education, policing, immigration and many other sensitive areas of an individual’s life.
The Committee will be pleased to hear that I will not repeat the contents of my speech on my Private Member’s Bill on this subject last Friday. But the fact remains that the rapid adoption of AI in the public sector presents significant risks and challenges, including: the potential for unfairness, discrimination and misuse, as demonstrated by scandals such as the UK’s Horizon and Australia’s Robodebt cases; automated decisions that are prone to serious error; lack of transparency and accountability in automated decision-making processes; privacy and data protection concerns; algorithmic bias; and the need for human oversight.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 119 is in my name, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for adding his name to it. I am pleased to add my name to Amendment 115A in the name of noble Viscount, Lord Camrose.
Transparency is key to ensuring that the rollout of ADM brings the public and, most importantly, public trust with it. I give the Committee an example of how a lack of transparency can erode that trust. The DWP is using a machine learning model to analyse all applications for a loan, as an advance on a benefit to pay bills and other costs, while a recipient waits for their first universal credit payment. The DWP’s own analysis of the model concluded that for all of the protected characteristics that were analysed, including age, marital status and disability, it found disparities in who was most likely to be incorrectly referred by the model.
It is difficult to assess whether the model is discriminatory, effective or even lawful. When the DWP rolled it out, it was unable to reassure the Comptroller and Auditor-General that its anti-fraud models treated all customer groups fairly. The rollout continues despite these concerns. The DWP maintains that the analysis does not present
“any immediate concerns of discrimination, unfair treatment or detrimental impact on customers”.
However, because so little information is available about the model, this claim cannot be independently verified to provide the public with confidence. Civil rights organisations, including the Public Law Project, are currently working on a potential claim against the DWP, including in relation to this model, on the basis that they may consider it may be unlawful.
The Government’s commitment to rolling out ADM has been accompanied by a statement in the other place in November by AI Minister Feryal Clark that the mandatory requirement for the use of the ATRS has been seen as a significant acceleration towards adopting the standard. In response to a Written Question, the Secretary of State confirmed that, as part of the rollout of ADM phase 1 to the 16 largest ministerial departments plus HMRC, there is a deadline for them to publish their first ATRS records by the end of July 2024. Despite the Government’s statement, only eight ATRS reports have been published on the hub. The Public Law Project’s TAG project has discovered at least 74 areas in which ADM is being used, and they are only the ones that it has been able to uncover by freedom of information requests and from tip-offs by affected people. There is clearly a shortfall in the implementation and rolling out of the use of the ATRS across government departments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 115 would similarly act in that way by making automated decision-making processes explain themselves to the people affected by them. This would be a much better way of controlling the quality of what is going on with automated decision-making than restricting that sort of information to professionals—to people who are anyway overworked and have a lot of other things to do. There is no one more interested in the decision of an automated process than the person about whom it is being made. If we are to trust these systems then their ability, which is way beyond the human ability, to have the time to explain why they took the decision they did—which, if the machine is any good, it knows and can easily set out—is surely the way to generate trust: you can absolutely see what decision has been made and why, and you can respond to it.
This would, beyond anything else, produce a much better system for our young people when they apply for their first job. My daughter’s friends in that position are getting into the hundreds of unexplained rejections. This is not a good way to treat young people. It does not help them to improve and understand what is going on. I completely understand why firms do not explain; they have so many applications that they just do not have the time or the personnel to sit down and write a response—but that does not apply to an automated decision-making machine. It could produce a much better situation when it comes to hiring.
As I said, my principal concern, to echo that of the noble Viscount, is that it would give us sight of the decisions that have been taken and why. If it becomes evident that they are taken well and for good reasons, we shall learn to trust them. If it becomes evident that they really are not fair or understandable, we shall be in a position to demand changes.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this group. I support the spirit of all the amendments debated thus far.
Speaking of spirits, and it being the season, I have more than a degree of sympathy for the Minister. With so many references to her previous work, this Christmas is turning into a bit of the Ghost of Amendments Past for her. That is good, because all the amendments she put down in the past were of an excellent quality, well thought through, equally considered and even-handed.
As has been mentioned many times, we have had three versions of a data Bill so far over just over three years. One wonders whether all the elements of this current draft have kept up with what has happened in the outside world over those three years, not least when it comes to artificial intelligence. This goes to the heart of the amendments in this group on automated decision-making.
When the first of these data Bills emerged, ADM was present—but relatively discreetly present—in our society and our economy. Now it would be fair to say that it proliferates across many areas of our economy and our society, often in situations where people find themselves at the sharpest end of the economy and the sharpest end of these automated decisions, often without even knowing that ADM was present. More than that, even on the discovery that ADM was in the mix, depending on which sector of the economy or society they find that decision being made in, they may find themselves with no or precious little redress—employment and recruitment, to name but one sector.
It being the season, it is high time when it comes to ADM that we start to talk turkey. In all the comments thus far, we are talking not just about ADM but about the principles that should underpin all elements of artificial intelligence—that is, they should be human led. These technologies should be in our human hands, with our human values feeding into human oversight: human in the loop and indeed, where appropriate, human over the loop.
That goes to elements in my two amendments in this group, Amendments 123A and 123B. Amendment 123A simply posits, through a number of paragraphs, the point that if someone is subject to an automated decision then they have the right to a personalised explanation of that decision. That explanation should be accessible in its being in plain language of their choice, not having a cost attached to it and not being in any sense technically or technologically convoluted or opaque. That would be relatively straightforward to achieve, but the positive impact for all those citizens would certainly be more than material.
Amendment 123B goes to the heart of those humans charged with the delivery of these personalised explanations. It is not enough to simply say that there are individuals within an organisation responsible for the provision of personalised explanations for automated decisions; it is critical that those individuals have the training, the capabilities and, perhaps most importantly, the authority within that organisation to make a meaningful impact regarding those personalised explanations. If not, this measure may have a small voice but would have absolutely no teeth when it comes to the citizen.
In short, ADM is proliferating so we need to ensure that we have a symmetrical situation for citizens, for consumers, and for anyone who finds themselves in any domain or sector of our economy and society. We must assert the principles: human-led, human in the loop, “Our decisions, our data”, and “We determine, we decide, we choose”. That is how I believe we can have an effective, positive, enabling and empowering AI future. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to the series of amendments on automated decision-making to which I have added my name but are mostly in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. As he said, we had a rehearsal for this debate last Friday when we debated his Private Member’s Bill so I will not delay the Committee by saying much about the generalities of ADMs in the public sector.
Suffice it to say that human involvement in overseeing AIs must be meaningful—for example, without those humans themselves being managed by algorithms. We must ensure that ADMs comply by design with the Equality Act and safeguard data subjects’ other rights and freedoms. As discussed in earlier groups, we must pay particular attention to children’s rights with regard to ADMs, and we must reinforce the obligation on public bodies to use the algorithmic transparency recording standards. I also counsel my noble friend the Minister that, as we have heard, there are many voices from civil society advising me and others that the new Article 22 of the GDPR takes us backwards in terms of protection.
That said, I want to focus on Amendment 123C, relating to ADMs in the workplace, to which I was too late to add my name but would have done. This amendment follows a series of probing amendments tabled by me to the former DPDI Bill. In this, I am informed by my work as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Future of Work, assisted by the Institute for the Future of Work. These amendments were also mirrored during the passage of the Procurement Act and competition Act to signal the importance of the workplace, and in particular good work, as a cross-cutting objective and lens for policy orientation.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 114 to which I have added my name. It is a very simple amendment that prevents controllers circumventing the duties for automated decision-making by adding trivial human elements to avoid the designation. So, as such, it is a very straightforward—and, I would have thought, uncontroversial—amendment. I really hope that the Government will find something in all our amendments to accept, and perhaps that is one such thing.
I am struck that previous speeches have referred to questions that I raised last week: what is the Bill for, who is it for and why is not dealing with a host of overlapping issues that cannot really be extrapolated one from another? In general, a bit like the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, I am very much with the spirit of all these amendments. They reflect the view of the Committee and the huge feeling of civil society—and many lawyers—that this sort of attack on Article 22 by Clause 80 downgrades UK data rights at a time when we do not understand the Government’s future plans and hear very little about protections. We hear about the excitements of AI, which I feel bound to say that we all share, but not at the expense of individuals.
I raise one last point in this group. I had hoped that the Minister would have indicated the Government’s openness to Amendment 88 last week, which proposed an overarching duty on controllers and processors to provide children with heightened protections. That seemed to me the most straightforward mechanism for ensuring that current standards were maintained and then threaded through new situations and technologies as they emerged. I put those two overarching amendments down on the understanding that Labour, when in opposition, was very much for this approach to children. We may need to bring back specific amendments, as we did throughout the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, including Amendment 46 to that Bill, which sought to ensure
“that significant decisions that impact children cannot be made using automated processes unless they are in a child’s best interest”.
If the Minister does not support an overarching provision, can she indicate whether the Government would be more open to clause-specific carve-outs to protect children and uphold their rights?
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly, first, to thank everyone who has spoken so eloquently about the importance of automated decision-making, in particular its importance to public trust and the importance of human intervention. The retrograde step of watering down Article 22 is to be deplored. I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for putting forward that this part of the Bill should not stand part. Secondly, the specific amendment that I have laid seeks to retain the broader application of human intervention for automated decision-making where it is important. I can see no justification for that watering down, particularly when there is such uncertainty about the scope that AI may bring to what can be done by automated decision-making.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments I must apologise to the Committee that, when I spoke last week, I forgot to mention my interests in the register, specifically as an unpaid adviser to the Startup Coalition. For Committee, noble Lords will realise that I have confined myself to amendments that may be relevant to our healthcare and improving that.
I will speak to Amendments 111 and 116 in the names of my noble friends Lord Camrose and Lord Markham, and Amendment 115 from my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Knight of Weymouth, as well as other amendments, including from my noble friend Lord Holmes—I will probably touch on most amendments in this group. To illustrate my concerns, I return to two personal experiences that I shared during debate on the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. I apologise to noble Lords who have heard these examples previously, but they illustrate the points being made in discussing this group of amendments.
A few years ago, when I was supposed to be travelling to Strasbourg, my train to the airport got delayed. My staff picked me up, booked me a new flight and drove me to the airport. I got to the airport with my new boarding pass and scanned it to get into the gate area, but as I was about to get on the flight, I scanned my pass again and was not allowed on the flight. No one there could explain why, having been allowed through security, I was not allowed on the flight. To cut a long story short, after two hours of being gaslighted by four or five staff, with them not even saying that they could not explain things to me, I eventually had to return to the check-in desk—this was supposed to be avoided by all the automation—to ask what had happened. The airline claimed that it had sent me an email that day. The next day, it admitted that it had not sent me an email. It then explained what had happened by saying that a flag had gone off in its system. That was simply the explanation.
This illustrates the point about human intervention, but it is also about telling customers and others what happens when something goes wrong. The company clearly had not trained its staff in how to speak to customers or in transparency. Companies such as that airline get away with this sort of disgraceful behaviour all the time, but imagine if such technology were being used in the NHS. Imagine the same scenario: you turn up for an operation, and you scan your barcode to enter the hospital—possibly even the operating theatre—but you are denied access. There must be accountability, transparency and human intervention, and, in these instances, there has to be human intervention immediately. These things are critical.
I know that this Bill makes some sort of differentiation between more critical and less critical ADM, but let me illustrate my point with another example. A few years ago, I paid for an account with one of those whizzy fintech banks. Its slogan was: “We are here to make money work for everyone”. I downloaded the app and filled out the fields, then a message popped up telling me, “We will get back to you within 48 hours”. Two weeks later, I got a message on the app saying that I had been rejected and that, by law, the bank did not have to explain why. Once again, I ask noble Lords to imagine. Imagine Monzo’s technology being used on the NHS app, which many people currently use for repeat prescriptions or booking appointments. What would happen if you tried to book an appointment but you received a message saying, “Your appointment has been denied and, by law, we do not have to explain why”? I hope that we would have enough common sense to ensure that there is human intervention immediately.
I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has a Private Member’s Bill on this issue—I am sorry that I have not been able to take part in those debates—but, for this Bill, I hope that the two examples I have just shared illustrate the point that I know many noble Lords are trying to make in our debate on this group of amendments. I look forward to the response from the Minister.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I must confess that, of all the groups we are looking at today, I have been particularly looking forward to this one. I find this area absolutely fascinating.
Let me begin in that spirit by addressing an amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Markham and I ask the Government and all noble Lords to give it considerable attention. Amendment 111 seeks to insert the five principles set out in the AI White Paper published by the previous Government and to require all those participating in ADM—indeed, all forms of AI—to have due regard for them. They are:
“safety, security and robustness, appropriate transparency and explainability, fairness, accountability and governance, and contestability and redress”.
These principles for safe AI are based on those originally developed with the OECD and have been the subject of extensive consultation. They have been refined and very positively received by developers, public sector organisations, private sector organisations and civil society. They offer real safeguards against the risks of AI while continuing to foster innovation.
I will briefly make three brief points to commend their inclusion in the Bill, as I have described. First, the Bill team has argued throughout that these principles are already addressed by the principles of data protection and so are covered in the Bill. There is overlap, of course, but I do not agree that they are equivalent. Data protection is a significant concern in AI but the risks and, indeed, the possibilities of AI go far further than data protection. We simply cannot entrust all our AI risks to data protection principles.
Secondly, I think the Government will point to their coming AI Bill and suggest that we should wait for that before we move significantly on AI. However, in practice all we have to go on about the Bill—I recognise that Ministers cannot describe much of it now—is that it will focus on the largest AI labs and the largest models. I assume it will place existing voluntary agreements on a statutory footing. In other words, we do not know when the Bill is coming, but this approach will allow a great many smaller AI fish to slip through the net. If we want to enshrine principles into law that cover all use of AI here, this may not quite be the only game in town, but it is certainly the only all-encompassing, holistic game in town likely to be positively impactful. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on this point.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a really profound and significant debate on these issues; it has been really helpful that they have been aired by a number of noble Lords in a compelling and articulate way. I thank everybody for their contributions.
I have to say at the outset that the Government want data protection rules fit for the age of emerging technologies. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked whether we are addressing issues of the past or issues of the future. We believe that the balance we have in this Bill is exactly about addressing the issues of the future. Our reforms will reduce barriers to the responsible use of automation while clarifying that organisations must provide stringent safeguards for individuals.
I stress again how seriously we take these issues. A number of examples have been quoted as the debate has gone on. I say to those noble Lords that examples were given where there was no human involved. That is precisely what the new provisions in this Bill attempt to address, in order to make sure that there is meaningful human involvement and people’s futures are not being decided by an automated machine.
Amendment 110 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Knight, seeks to clarify that, for human involvement to be meaningful, it must be carried out by a competent person. Our reforms make clear that solely automated decisions lack meaningful human involvement. That goes beyond a tick-box exercise. The ICO guidance also clarifies that
“the human involvement has to be active and not just a token gesture”;
that right is absolutely underpinned by the wording of the regulations here.
I turn next to Amendment 111. I can assure—
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I was listening very carefully. Does “underpinned by the regulations” mean that it will be underpinned?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Yes. The provisions in this Bill cover exactly that concern.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The issue of meaningful human involvement is absolutely crucial. Is the Minister saying that regulations issued by the Secretary of State will define “meaningful human involvement”, or is she saying that it is already in the primary legislation, which is not my impression?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Sorry—it is probably my choice of language. I am saying that it is already in the Bill; it is not intended to be separate. I was talking about whether solely automated decisions lack meaningful human involvement. This provision is already set out in the Bill; that is the whole purpose of it.
On Amendment 111, I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, that controllers using solely automated processing are required to comply with the data protection principles. I know that he was anticipating this answer, but we believe that it captures the principles he proposes and achieves the same intended effect as his amendment. I agree with the noble Viscount that data protection is not the only lens through which AI should be regulated, and that we cannot address all AI risks through the data protection legislation, but the data protection principles are the right ones for solely automated decision-making, given its place in the data protection framework. I hope that that answers his concerns.
On Amendment 112, which seeks to prohibit solely automated decisions that contravene the Equality Act 2010, I assure the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Knight, that the data protection framework is clear that controllers must adhere to the Equality Act.
Amendments 113 and 114 would extend solely automated decision-making safeguards to predominantly automated decision-making. I assure the noble and learned Lord Thomas, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that the safeguards in Clause 80 are designed to protect individuals where meaningful human involvement is lacking. Predominantly automated decision-making will already include meaningful human involvement and therefore does not require these additional safeguards.
On Amendments 114A and 115A, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, many noble Lords have spoken in our debates about the importance of future-proofing the legislation. These powers are an example of that: without them, the Government will not have the ability to act quickly to update protections for individuals in the light of rapid technology developments.
I assure noble Lords that the regulation powers are subject to a number of safeguards. The Secretary of State must consult the Information Commissioner and have regard to other relevant factors, which can include the impact on individuals’ rights and freedoms as well as the specific needs and rights of children. As with all regulations, the exercise of these powers must be rational; they cannot be used irrationally or arbitrarily. Furthermore, the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure and so must be approved by both Houses of Parliament.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that one of the powers means that his Amendment 123 is not necessary, as it can be used to describe specifically what is or is not meaningful human involvement.
Amendment 115A, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, would remove the reforms to Parts 3 and 4 of the Data Protection Act, thereby putting them out of alignment with the UK GDPR. That would cause confusion and ambiguity for data subjects.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt again as we go along but, a sentence or so ago, the Minister said that the definition in Amendment 123 of meaningful human involvement in automated decision-making was unnecessary. The amendment is designed to change matters. It would not be the Secretary of State who determined the meaning of meaningful human involvement; in essence, it would be initiated by the Information Commissioner, in consultation with the Secretary of State. So I do not quite understand why the Minister used “unnecessary”. It may be an alternative that is undesirable, but I do not understand why she has come to the conclusion that it is unnecessary. I thought it was easier to challenge the points as we go along rather than at the very end.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we would say that a definition in the Bill is not necessary because it is dealt with case by case and is supplemented by these powers. The Secretary of State does not define meaningful human involvement; it is best done case by case, supported by the ICO guidance. I hope that that addresses the noble Lord’s point.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
That is slightly splitting hairs. The noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, might want to comment because he wanted to delete the wording that says:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that … there is, or is not, to be taken to be meaningful human involvement”.
He certainly will determine—or is able to determine, at least—whether or not there is human involvement. Surely, as part of that, there will need to be consideration of what human involvement is.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
Will the Minister reflect on the issues around a case-by-case basis? If I were running an organisation of any sort and decided I wanted to use ADM, how would I make a judgment about what is meaningful human involvement on a case-by-case basis? It implies that I would have to hope that my judgment was okay because I have not had clarity from anywhere else and in retrospect, someone might come after me if I got that judgment wrong. I am not sure that works, so will she reflect on that at some point?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The Secretary of State can help describe specific cases in the future but, on the point made by my noble friend Lord Knight, the ICO guidance will clarify some of that. There will be prior consultation with the ICO before that guidance is finalised, but if noble Lords are in any doubt about this, I am happy to write and confirm that in more detail.
Amendment 115 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Lucas and Lord Knight, and Amendment 123A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seek to ensure that individuals are provided with clear and accessible information about solely automated decision-making. The safeguards set out in Clause 80, alongside the wider data protection framework’s safeguards, such as the transparency principle, already achieve this purpose. The UK GDPR requires organisations to notify individuals about the existence of automated decision-making and provide meaningful information about the logic involved in a clear and accessible format. Individuals who have been subject to solely automated decisions must be provided with information about the decisions.
On Amendment 116 in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, I reassure noble Lords that Clause 69 already provides a definition of consent that applies to all processing under the law enforcement regime.
On Amendment 117 in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, the noble Lords, Lord Markham, and my noble friend Lord Knight, I agree with them on the importance of protecting the sensitive personal data of children by law enforcement agencies, and there is extensive guidance on this issue. However, consent is rarely used as the basis for processing law enforcement data. Other law enforcement purposes, such as the prevention, detection and investigation of crime, are quite often used instead.
I will address Amendment 118 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and Amendment 123B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, together, as they focus on obtaining human intervention for a solely automated decision. I agree that human intervention should be carried out competently and by a person with the authority to correct a wrongful outcome. However, the Government believe that there is currently no need to specify the qualifications of human reviewers as the ICO’s existing guidance explains how requests for human review should be managed.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the crux of this machinery is solely automated decision-making as a binary thing—it is or it is not—and, therefore, that the absolute key to it is making sure that the humans involved are suitably qualified and finding some way to do so, whether by writing a definition or publishing guidelines?
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
On the question of qualification, the Minister may wish to reflect on the broad discussions we have had in the past around certification and the role it may play. I gently her take her back to what she said on Amendment 123A about notification. Does she see notification as the same as a personalised response to an individual?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Noble Lords have asked several questions. First, in response to the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, I think I am on the same page as him about binary rather than muddying the water by having degrees of meaningful intervention. The ICO already has guidance on how human review should be provided, and this will be updated after the Bill to ensure that it reflects what is meant by “meaningful human involvement”. Those issues will be addressed in the ICO guidance, but if it helps, I can write further on that.
I have forgotten the question that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked me. I do not know whether I have addressed it.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
In her response the Minister said “notification”. Does she see notification as the same as “personalised response”?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My understanding is that it would be. Every individual who was affected would receive their own notification rather than it just being on a website, for example.
Let me just make sure I have not missed anyone out. On Amendment 123B on addressing bias in automated decision-making, compliance with the data protection principles, including accuracy, transparency and fairness, will ensure that organisations take the necessary measures to address the risk of bias.
On Amendment 123C from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I reassure him that the Government strongly agree that employment rights should be fit for a modern economy. The plan to make work pay will achieve this by addressing the challenges introduced by new trends and technologies. I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Knight that although we have to get this right, there are opportunities for a different form of work, and we should not just see this as being potentially a negative impact on people’s lives. However, we want to get the balance right with regard to the impact on individuals to make sure that we get the best rather than the possible negative effects out of it.
Employment rights law is more suitable for regulating the specific use of data and technology in the workplace rather than data protection law in isolation, as data protection law sets out general rules and principles for processing that apply in all contexts. Noble Lords can rest assured that we take the impact on employment and work very seriously, and as part of our plan to make work pay and the Employment Rights Bill, we will return to these issues.
On Amendments 119, 120, 121 and 122, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and my noble friend Lord Knight, the Government share the noble Lords’ belief in the importance of public sector algorithmic transparency, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, reminded us, we had a very good debate on this last week. The algorithmic transparency recording standard is already mandatory for government departments and arm’s-length bodies. This is a cross-government policy mandate underpinned by digital spend controls, which means that when budget is requested for a relevant tool, the team in question must commit to publishing an ATRS record before receiving the funds.
As I said on Friday, we are implementing this policy accordingly, and I hope to publish further records imminently. I very much hope that when noble Lords see what I hope will be a significant number of new records on this, they will be reassured that the nature of the mandation and the obligation on public sector departments is working.
Policy routes also enable us to provide detailed guidance to the public sector on how to carry out its responsibilities and monitor compliance. Examples include the data ethics framework, the generative AI framework, and the guidelines for AI procurement. Additionally, the data protection framework already achieves some of the intended outcomes of these amendments. It requires organisations, including public authorities, to demonstrate how they have identified and mitigated risks when processing personal data. The ICO provides guidance on how organisations can audit their privacy management and ensure a high level of data protection compliance.
I know I have given a great deal of detail there. If I have not covered all the points that the noble Lords have raised, I will write. In the meantime, given the above assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I would be very grateful if the Minister wrote to me about Amendment 115. I have done my best before and after to study Clause 80 to understand how it provides the safeguards she describes, and have failed. If she or her officials could take the example of a job application and the responses expected from it, and take me through the clauses to understand what sort of response would be expected and how that is set out in the legislation, I would be most grateful.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very detailed and careful response to all the amendments. Clearly, from the number of speakers in this debate, this is one of the most important areas of the Bill and one that has given one of the greatest degrees of concern, both inside and outside the Committee. I think the general feeling is that there is still concern. The Minister is quite clear that the Government are taking these issues seriously, in terms of ADM itself and the impact in the workplace, but there are missing parts here. If you add all the amendments together—no doubt we will read Hansard and, in a sense, tick off the areas where we have been given an assurance about the interpretation of the Bill—there are still great gaps.
It was very interesting to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, had to say about how the computer said “no” as he reached the gate. A lot of this is about communications. I would be very interested if any letter to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was copied more broadly, because that is clearly one of the key issues. It was reassuring to hear that the ICO will be on top of this in terms of definitions, guidance, audit and so on, and that we are imminently to get the publication of the records of algorithmic systems in use under the terms of the algorithmic transparency recording standard.
We have had some extremely well-made points from the noble Viscounts, Lord Colville and Lord Camrose, the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Knight and Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I am not going to unpack all of them, but we clearly need to take this further and chew it over before we get to Report. I very much hope that the Minister will regard a will write letter on stilts as required before we go very much further, because I do not think we will be purely satisfied by this debate.
The one area where I would disagree is on treating solely automated decision-making as the pure subject of the Clause 80 rights. Looking at it in the converse, it is perfectly proper to regard something that does not have meaningful human involvement as predominantly automated decision-making. I do not think, in the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, that this does muddy the waters. We need to be clearer about what we regard as being automated decision-making for the purpose of this clause.
There is still quite a lot of work to do in chewing over the Minister’s words. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, a key aspect of data protection rests in how it restricts the use of personal data once it has been collected. The public need confidence that their data will be used for the reasons they had shared it and not further used in ways that breach their legitimate expectations—or they will become suspicious as regards providing their data. The underlying theme that we heard on the previous group was the danger of losing public trust, which very much applies in the area of law enforcement and national security.
However, Schedules 4 and 5 would remove the requirement to consider the legitimate expectations of the individuals whose data is being processed, or the impact that this would have on their rights, for the purposes of national security, crime detection and prevention, safeguarding or answering to a request by a public authority. Data used for the purposes listed in these schedules would not need to undergo either a balancing test under Article 6.1(f) or a compatibility test under Article 6.4 of the UK GDPR. The combined effect of these provisions would be to authorise almost unconditional data sharing for law enforcement and other public security purposes while, at the same time, reducing accountability and traceability over how the police use the information being shared with them.
As with the previous DPDI Bill, Clauses 87 to 89 of this Bill grant the Home Secretary and police powers to view and use people’s personal data through the use of national security certificates and designation notices, which are substantially the same as Clauses 28 to 30 of the previous DPDI Bill. This risks further eroding trust in law enforcement authorities. Accountability for access to data for law enforcement purposes should not be lowered, and data sharing should be underpinned by a robust test to ensure that individuals’ rights and expectations are not disproportionately impacted. It is a bafflement as to why the Government are so slavishly following their predecessor and believe that these new and unaccountable powers are necessary.
By opposing that Clause 81 stand part, I seek to retain the requirement for police forces to record the reason they are accessing data from a police database. The public need more, not less, transparency and accountability over how, why and when police staff and officers access and use records about them. Just recently, the Met Police admitted that they investigated more than 100 staff over the inappropriate accessing of information in relation to Sarah Everard. This shows that the police can and do act to access information inappropriately, and there may well be less prominent cases where police abuse their power by accessing information without worry for the consequences.
Regarding Amendments 126, 128 and 129, Rights and Security International has repeatedly argued that the Bill would violate the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. On Amendment 126, the requirements in the EU law enforcement directive for logging are, principally, to capture in all cases the justification for personal data being examined, copied, amended or disclosed when it is processed for a law enforcement process—the objective is clearly to ensure that data is processed only for a legitimate purpose—and, secondarily, to identify when, how and by whom the data has been accessed or disclosed. This ensures that individual accountability is captured and recorded.
Law enforcement systems in use in the UK typically capture some of the latter information in logs, but very rarely do they capture the former. Nor, I am informed, do many commodity IT solutions on the market capture why data was accessed or amended by default. For this reason, a long period of time was allowed under the law enforcement directive to modify legacy systems installed before May 2016, which, in the UK, included services such as the police national computer and the police national database, along with many others at a force level. This transitional relief extended to 6 May 2023, but UK law enforcement did not, in general, make the required changes. Nor, it seems, did it ensure that all IT systems procured after 6 May 2016 included a strict requirement for LED-aligned logging. By adopting and using commodity and hyperscaler cloud services, it has exacerbated this problem.
In early April 2023, the Data Protection Act 2018 (Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023 were laid before Parliament. These regulations had the effect of unilaterally extending the transitional relief period under the law enforcement directive for the UK from May 2023 to May 2026. The Government now wish to strike the requirement to capture the justification for any access to data completely, on the basis that this would free up to 1.5 million hours a year of valuable police time for our officers so that they can focus on tackling crime on our streets, rather than being bogged down by administration, and that this would save approximately £42.8 million per year in taxpayers’ money.
This is a serious legislative issue on two counts: it removes important evidence that may identify whether a person was acting with malicious intent when accessing data, as well as removing any deterrent effect of them having to do so; and it directly deviates from a core part of the law enforcement directive and will clearly have an impact on UK data adequacy. The application of effective control over access to data is very much a live issue in policing, and changing the logging requirement in this way does nothing to improve police data management. Rather, it excuses and perpetuates bad practice. Nor does it increase public confidence.
Clause 87(7) introduces new Section 78A into the Act. This lays down a number of exemptions and exclusions from Part 3 of that Act when the processing is deemed to be in the interests of national security. These exemptions are wide ranging, and include the ability to suspend or ignore principles 2 through 6 in Part 3, and thus run directly contrary to the provisions and expectations of the EU law enforcement directive. Ignoring those principles in itself also negates many of the controls and clauses in Part 3 in its entirety. As a result, they will almost certainly result in the immediate loss of EU law-enforcement adequacy.
I welcome the ministerial letter from the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, of 6 November, but was he really saying that all the national security exemption clause does is bring the 2018 Act into conformity with the GDPR? I very much hope that the Minister will set out for the record whether that is really the case and whether it is really necessary to safeguard national security. Although it is, of course, appropriate and necessary for the UK to protect its national security interests, it is imperative that balance remains to protect the rights of a data subject. These proposals do not, as far as we can see, strike that balance.
Clause 88 introduces the ability of law enforcement, competent authorities and intelligence agencies to act as joint controllers in some circumstances. If Clause 88 and associated clauses go forward to become law, they will almost certainly again result in withdrawal of UK law enforcement adequacy and will quite likely impact on the TCA itself.
Amendment 127 is designed to bring attention to the fact that there are systemic issues with UK law enforcement’s new use of hyperscaler cloud service providers to process personal data. These issues stem from the fact that service providers’ standard contracts and terms of service fail to meet the requirements of Part 3 of the UK’s Data Protection Act 2018 and the EU law enforcement directive. UK law enforcement agencies are subject to stringent data protection laws, including Part 3 of the DPA and the GDPR. These laws dictate how personal data, including that of victims, witnesses, suspects and offenders, can be processed. Part 3 specifically addresses data transfers to third countries, with a presumption against such transfers unless strictly necessary. This contrasts with UK GDPR, which allows routine overseas data transfer with appropriate safeguards.
Cloud service providers routinely process data outside the UK and lack the necessary contractual guarantees and legal undertakings required by Part 3 of the DPA. As a result, their use for law enforcement data processing is, on the face of it, not lawful. This non-compliance creates significant financial exposure for the UK, including potential compensation claims from data subjects for distress or loss. The sheer volume of data processed by law enforcement, particularly body-worn video footage, exacerbates the financial risk. If only a small percentage of cases result in claims, the compensation burden could reach hundreds of millions of pounds annually. The Government’s attempts to change the law highlight the issue and suggest that past processing on cloud service providers has not been in conformity with the UK GDPR and the DPA.
The current effect of Section 73(4)(b) of the Data Protection Act is to restrict transfers for competent authorities who may have a legitimate operating need, and should possess the internal capability to assess that need, from making transfers to recipients who are not relevant authorities or international organisations and that cloud service provider. This amendment is designed to probe what impact removal of this restriction would have and whether it would enable them to do so where such a transfer is justified and necessary. I beg to move.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 124. I am sorry that I was not able to speak on this issue at Second Reading. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for his support, and I am sorry that he has not been able to stay, due to a prior engagement.
Eagle-eyed Ministers and the Opposition Front Bench will recognise that this was originally tabled as an amendment to the Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill. It is still supported by the Police Federation. I am grateful to the former Member of Parliament for Loughborough for originally raising this with me, and I thank the Police Federation for its assistance in briefing us in preparing this draft clause. The Police Federation understands that the Home Secretary is supportive of the objective of this amendment, so I shall listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say.
This is a discrete amendment designed to address an extremely burdensome and potentially unnecessary redaction exercise, in relation to a situation where the police are preparing a case file for submission to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision. Given that this issue was talked about in the prior Bill, I do not intend to go into huge amounts of detail because we rehearsed the arguments there, but I hope very much that with the new Government there might be a willingness to entertain this as a change in the law.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 201 in this group. At the moment, Action Fraud does not record attempted fraud; it has to have been successful for the website to agree to record it. I think that results in the Government taking decisions based on distorted and incomplete data. Collecting full data must be the right thing to do.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I had expected the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, to be in the Room at this point. She is not, so I wish to draw the Committee’s attention to her Amendment 210. On Friday, many of us were in the Chamber when she made a fantastic case for her Private Member’s Bill. It obviously dealt with a much broader set of issues but, as we have just heard, the overwhelming feeling of the House was to support her. I think we would all like to see the Government wrap it up, put a bow on it and give it to us all for Christmas. But, given that that was not the indication we got, I believe that the noble Baroness’s intention here is to deal with the fact that the police are giving phones and devices back to perpetrators with the images remaining on them. That is an extraordinary revictimisation of people who have been through enough. So, whether or not this is the exact wording or way to do it, I urge the Government to look on this carefully and positively to find a way of allowing the police the legal right to delete data in those circumstances.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, none of us can be under any illusion about the growing threats of cyberattacks, whether from state actors, state-affiliated actors or criminal gangs. It is pretty unusual nowadays to find someone who has not received a phishing email, had hackers target an account or been promised untold riches by a prince from a faraway country. But, while technology has empowered these criminals, it is also the most powerful tool we have against them. To that end, we must do all we can do to assist the police, the NCA, the CPS, the SIS and their overseas counterparts in countries much like our own. That said, we must also balance this assistance with the right of individuals to privacy.
Regarding the Clause 81 stand part notice from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I respectfully disagree with this suggestion. If someone within the police were to access police records in an unauthorised capacity or for malign reasons, I simply doubt that they would be foolish enough to enter their true intentions into an access log. They would lie, of course, rendering the log pointless, so I struggle to see—we had this debate on the DPDI Bill—how this logging system would help the police to identify unauthorised access to sensitive data. It would simply eat up hours of valuable police time. I remember from our time working on the DPDI Bill that the police supported this view.
As for Amendment 124, which allows for greater collaboration between the police and the CPS when deciding charging decisions, there is certainly something to be said for this principle. If being able to share more detailed information would help the police and the CPS come to the best decision for victims, society and justice, then I absolutely support it.
Amendments 126, 128 and 129 seek to keep the UK in close alignment with the EU regarding data sharing. EU alignment or non-alignment is surely a decision for the Government of the day alone. We should not look to bind a future Administration to the EU.
I understand that Amendment 127 looks to allow data transfers to competent authorities—that is, law enforcement bodies in other countries—that may have a legitimate operating need. Is this not already the case? Are there existing provisions in the Bill to facilitate such transfers and, if so, does this not therefore duplicate them? I would very much welcome the thoughts of both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, when he sums up at the end.
Amendment 156A would add to the definition of “unauthorised access” so that it includes instances where a person accesses data in the reasonable knowledge that the controller would not consent if they knew about the access or the reason for the access, and the person is not empowered to access it by an enactment. Given the amount of valuable personal data held by controllers as our lives continue to move online, there is real merit to this idea from my noble friend Lord Holmes, and I look forward to hearing the views of the Minister.
Finally, I feel Amendment 210 from my noble friend Lady Owen—ably supported in her unfortunate absence by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—is an excellent amendment as it prevents a person convicted of a sexual offence from retaining the images that breached the law. This will prevent them from continuing to use the images for their own ends and from sharing them further. It would help the victims of these crimes regain control of these images which, I hope, would be of great value to those affected. I hope that the Minister will give this serious consideration, particularly in light of noble Lords’ very positive response to my noble friend’s Private Member’s Bill at the end of last week.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I think the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, referred to Amendment 156A from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes—I think he will find that is in a future group. I saw the Minister looking askance because I doubt whether she has a note on it at this stage.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones; let me consider it a marker for future discussion.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for coming to my rescue there.
I turn to the Clause 81 stand part notice tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which would remove Clause 81 from the Bill. Section 62 of the Data Protection Act requires law enforcement agencies to record their processing activities, including their reasons for accessing and disclosing personal information. Entering a justification manually was intended to help detect unauthorised access. The noble Lord was right that the police do sometimes abuse their power; however, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, that the reality is that anyone accessing the system unlawfully is highly unlikely to record that, making this an ineffective safeguard.
Meanwhile, the position of the National Police Chiefs’ Council is that this change will not impede any investigation concerning the unlawful processing of personal data. Clause 81 does not remove the strong safeguards that ensure accountability for data use by law enforcement that include the requirement to record time, date, and where possible, who has accessed the data, which are far more effective in monitoring potential data misuse. We would argue that the requirement to manually record a justification every time case information is accessed places a considerable burden on policing. I think the noble Lord himself said that we estimate that this clause may save approximately 1.5 million policing hours, equivalent to a saving in the region of £42.8 million a year.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Yes, we could not see the noble Lord’s raised eyebrows.
Turning to Amendment 124, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for raising this important issue. While I obviously understand and welcome the intent, I do not think that the legislative change is what is required here. The Information Commissioner’s Office agrees that the Data Protection Act is not a barrier to the sharing of personal data between the police and the CPS. What is needed is a change in the operational processes in place between the police and the CPS that are causing this redaction burden that the noble Baroness spelled out so coherently.
We are very much aware that this is an issue and, as I think the noble Baroness knows, the Government are committed to reducing the burden on the police and the Home Office and to exploring with partners across the criminal justice system how this can best be achieved. We absolutely understand the point that the noble Baroness has raised, but I hope that she could agree to give space to the Home Office and the CPS to try to find a resolution so that we do not have the unnecessary burden of redaction when it is not necessary. It is an ongoing discussion—which I know the noble Baroness knows really—and I hope that she will not pursue it on that basis.
I will address Amendments 126 to 129 together. These amendments seek to remove parts of Schedule 8 to avoid divergence from EU legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, proposes instead to remove existing parts of Section 73 of the Data Protection Act 2018. New Section 73(4)(aa), introduced by this Bill, with its bespoke path for personal data transfers from UK controllers to international processors, is crucial. In the modern age, where the use of such capabilities and the benefits they provide is increasing, we need to ensure that law enforcement can make effective use of them to tackle crime and keep citizens safe.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response on this group, which was, again, very detailed. There is a lot to consider in what she had to say, particularly about the clauses beyond Clause 81. I am rather surprised that the current Government are still going down the same track on Clause 81. It is as if, because the risk of abuse is so high, this Government, like the previous one, have decided that it is not necessary to have the safeguard of putting down the justification in the first place. Yet we have heard about the Sarah Everard police officers. It seems to me perverse not to require justification. I will read further what the Minister had to say but it seems quite extraordinary to be taking away a safeguard at this time, especially when the Minister says that, at the same time, they need to produce logs of the time of the data being shared and so on. I cannot see what is to be gained—I certainly cannot see £42 million being saved. It is a very precise figure: £42.8 million. I wonder where the £800,000 comes from. It seems almost too precise to be credible.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I emphasise that we believe the safeguards are there. This is not a watering down of provisions. We are just making sure that the safeguards are more appropriate for the sort of abuse that we think might happen in future from police misusing their records. I do not want it left on the record that we do not think that is important.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
No. As I was saying, it seems that the Minister is saying that there will still be the necessity to log the fact that data has been shared. However, it seems extraordinary that, at the same time, it is not possible to say what the justification is. The justification could be all kinds of things, but it makes somebody think before they simply share the data. It seems to me that, given the clear evidence of abuse of data by police officers—data of the deceased, for heaven’s sake—we need to keep all the safeguards we currently have. That is a clear bone of contention.
I will read what else the Minister had to say about the other clauses in the group, which are rather more sensitive from the point of view of national security, data sharing abroad and so on.
Lord Vallance of Balham
“(10) In section 199(2)(a) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (bulk personal datasets: meaning of “personal data”), after “section 82(1) of that Act” insert “by an intelligence service”.”Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 88 of the Bill amends section 82 in Part 4 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (intelligence services processing). This amendment makes a consequential change to a definition in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 which cross-refers to section 82.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
These four technical government amendments do not, we believe, have a material policy effect but will improve the clarity and operation of the Bill text.
Amendment 133 amends Section 199 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which provides a definition of “personal data” for the purposes of bulk personal datasets. This definition cross-refers to Section 82(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018, which is amended by Clauses 88 and 89 of the Bill, providing for joint processing by the intelligence services and competent authorities. This amendment will retain the effect of that cross-reference to ensure that processing referred to in Section 199 of the IPA remains that done by an intelligence service.
Amendment 136 concerns Clause 92 and ICO codes of practice. Clause 92 establishes a new procedure for panels to consider ICO codes of practice before they are finalised. It includes a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State to disapply or modify that procedure for particular codes or amendments to them. Amendment 136 will enable the power to be used to disapply or modify the panel’s procedure for specific amendments or types of amendments to a code, rather than for all amendments to it.
Finally, Amendments 213 and 214 will allow for changes made to certain immigration legislation and the Online Safety Act 2023 by Clauses 55, 122 and 123 to be extended via existing powers in those Acts, exercisable by Orders in Council, to Guernsey and the Isle of Man, should they seek this.
I beg to move.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I will keep my comments brief as these are all technical amendments to the Bill. I understand that Amendments 133 and 136 are necessary for the functioning of the law and therefore have no objection. As for Amendment 213, extending immigration legislation amended by Clause 55 of this Bill to the Bailiwick of Guernsey or the Isle of Man, this is a sensible measure. The same can be said for Amendment 214, which extends the provision of the Online Safety Act 2023, amended by this Bill, to the Bailiwick of Guernsey or the Isle of Man.
Lord Clement-Jones
“(a) to monitor the application of GDPR, the applied GDPR and this Act, and ensure are fully enforced with all due diligence;(b) to act upon receiving a complaint, to investigate, to the extent appropriate, the subject matter of the complaint, and to take steps to clarify unsubstantiated issues before dismissing the complaint.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the secondary objectives introduced by the Data Use and Access Bill, which frame innovation, competition, crime prevention and national security as competing objectives against the enforcement of data protection law.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 134—it is the lead amendment in this group—I shall speak to the others in my name and my Clause 92 stand part notice. Many of the amendments in this group stem from concerns that the new structure for the ICO will diminish its independence. The ICO is abolished in favour of the commission.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I have Amendment 135A in this group. The Bill provides a new set of duties for the Information Commissioner but no strategic framework, as the DPDI Bill did. The Information Commissioner is a whole-economy regulator. To my mind, the Government’s strategic priorities should bear on it. This amendment would provide an enabling power, such as that which the Competition and Markets Authority, which is in an equivalent economic position, already has.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I have huge sympathy for, and experience of, many of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but, given the hour, I will speak only to Amendment 145 in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Given that I am so critical, I want to say how pleased I am to see the ICO reporting requirements included in the Bill.
Amendment 145 is very narrow. It would require the ICO to report specifically and separately on children. It is fair to say that one of the many frustrations for those of us who spend our time advocating for children’s privacy and safety is trying to extrapolate child-specific data from generalised reporting. Often it is not reported because it is useful to hide some of the inadequacies in the level of protection afforded to children. For example, none of the community guidelines enforcement reports published for Instagram, YouTube, TikTok or Snapchat provides a breakdown of the violation rate by age group, even though that would provide valuable information for academics, Governments, legislators, NGOs and, of course, regulators. It was a point of contention between many civil society organisations and Ofcom that there was no evidence that children of different ages react in different ways, which, for anyone who has had children, is clearly not the case.
Similarly, for many years we struggled to understand Ofcom’s reporting because older children were included in a group that went up to 24, and it took over 10 years for that to change. It seems to me—I hope the Government agree—that since children are entitled to specific data privacy benefits, it follows that the application and enforcement of those benefits should be reported separately. I hope that the Government can give a quick yes on this small but important amendment.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, given the hour, I will try to be as brief as possible. I will start by speaking to the amendments tabled in my name.
Amendment 142 seeks to prevent the Information Commissioner’s Office sending official notices via email. Official notices from the ICO will not be trivial: they relate to serious matters of data protection, such as monetary penalty notices or enforcement notices. My concern is that it is all too easy for an email to be missed. An email may be filtered into a spam folder, where it sits for weeks before being picked up. It is also possible that an email may be sent to a compromised email address, meaning one that the holder has lost control of due to a hacker. These concerns led me also to table Amendment 143, which removes the assumption that a notice sent by email had been received within 48 hours of being sent.
Additionally, I suspect I am right in saying that a great many people expect official correspondence to arrive via the post. I wonder, therefore, whether there might be a risk that people ignore an unexpected email from the ICO, concerned that it might well be a scam or a hack of some description. I, for one, am certainly deeply suspicious of unexpected but official-looking messages that arrive. I believe that official correspondence which may have legal ramifications should really be sent by post.
On some of the other amendments tabled, Amendment 135A, which seeks to introduce a measure from the DPDI Bill, makes provision for the introduction of a statement of strategic priorities by the Secretary of State that sets out the Government’s data protection priorities, to which the commissioner must have regard, and the commissioner’s duties in relation to the statement. Although I absolutely accept that this measure would create more alignment and efficiency in the way that data protection is managed, I understand the concerns that it would undermine the independence of the Information Commissioner’s Office. That in itself, of course, would tend to bear on the adequacy risk.
I do not support the stand part notices on Clauses 91 and 92. Clause 91 requires the Information Commissioner to prepare codes of practice for the processing of data, which seems a positive measure. It provides guidance to controllers, helping them to control best practice when processing data, and is good for data subjects, as it is more likely that their data will be processed in an appropriate manner. As for Clause 92, which would effectively increase expert oversight of codes of practice, surely that would lead to more effective codes, which will benefit both controllers and data subjects.
I have some concerns about Amendment 144, which limits the Information Commissioner to sending only one reprimand to a given controller during a fixed period. If a controller or processor conducts activities that infringe the provisions of the GDPR and does so repeatedly, why should the commissioner be prevented from issuing reprimands? Indeed, what incentives does that give for people to commit a minor sin and then a major one later?
I welcome Amendment 145, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which would ensure that the ICO’s annual report records activities and action taken by the ICO in relation to children. This would clearly give the commissioner, parliamentarians and the data and tech industry as a whole a better understanding of how policies are affecting children and what changes may be necessary.
Finally, I turn my attention to many of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which seek to remove the involvement of the Secretary of State from the functions of the commissioner and transfer the responsibility from government to Parliament. I absolutely understand the arguments the noble Lord advances, as persuasively as ever, but I am concerned even so that the Secretary of State for the relevant department is the best person to work with the commissioner to ensure both clarity of purpose and rapidity of decision-making.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I wanted to rise to my feet in time to stop the noble Viscount leaping forward as he gets more and more excited as we reach—I hope—possibly the last few minutes of this debate. I am freezing to death here.
I wish only to add my support to the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on Amendment 145. It is much overused saw, but if it is not measured, it will not get reported.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their consideration of the issues before us in this group. I begin with Amendment 134 from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I can confirm that the primary duty of the commissioner will be to uphold the principal objective: securing an appropriate level of data protection, carrying out the crucial balancing test between the interests of data subjects, controllers and wider public interests, and promoting public trust and confidence in the use of personal data.
The other duties sit below this objective and do not compete with it—they do not come at the expense of upholding data protection standards. The commissioner will have to consider these duties in his work but will have discretion as to their application. Moreover, the new objectives inserted by the amendment concerning monitoring, enforcement and complaints are already covered by legislation.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas for Amendment 135A. The amendment was a previous feature of the DPDI Bill but the Government decided that a statement of strategic priorities for the ICO in this Bill is not necessary. The Government will of course continue to set out their priorities in relation to data protection and other related areas and discuss them with the Information Commissioner as appropriate.
Amendment 142 from the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, would remove the ICO’s ability to serve notices by email. We would argue that email is a fast, accessible and inexpensive method for issuing notices. I can reassure noble Lords that the ICO can serve a notice via email only if it is sent to an email address published by the recipient or where the ICO has reasonable grounds to believe that the notice will come to the attention of the person, significantly reducing the risk that emails may be missed or sent to the wrong address.
Regarding the noble Viscount’s Amendment 143, the assumption that an email notice will be received in 48 hours is reasonable and equivalent to the respective legislation of other regulators, such as the CMA and Ofcom.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for Amendment 144 concerning the ICO’s use of reprimands. The regulator does not commonly issue multiple reprimands to the same organisation. But it is important that the ICO, as an independent regulator, has the discretion and flexibility in instances where there may be a legitimate need to issue multiple reprimands within a particular period without placing arbitrary limits on that.
Turning to Amendment 144A, the new requirements in Clause 101 will already lead to the publication of an annual report, which will include the regulator’s investigation and enforcement activity. Reporting will be categorised to ensure that where the detail of cases is not public, commercially sensitive investigations are not inadvertently shared. Splitting out reporting by country or locality would make it more difficult to protect sensitive data.
Turning to Amendment 145, with thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I agree with the importance of ensuring that the regulator can be held to account on this issue effectively. The new annual report in Clause 101 will cover all the ICO’s regulatory activity, including that taken to uphold the rights of children. Clause 90 also requires the ICO to publish a strategy and report on how it has complied with its new statutory duties. Both of these will cover the new duty relating to children’s awareness and rights, and this should include the ICO’s activity to support and uphold its important age-appropriate design code.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for Amendments 163 to 192 to Schedule 14, which establishes the governance structure of the information commission. The approach, including the responsibilities conferred on the Secretary of State, at the core of the amendments follows standard corporate governance best practice and reflects the Government’s commitment to safeguarding the independence of the regulator. This includes requiring the Secretary of State to consult the chair of the information commission before making appointments of non-executive members.
Amendments 165 and 167A would require members of the commission to be appointed to oversee specific tasks and to be from prescribed fields of expertise. Due to the commission’s broad regulatory remit, the Government consider that it would not be appropriate or helpful for the legislation to set out specific areas that should receive prominence over others. The Government are confident that the Bill will ensure that the commission has the right expertise on its board. Our approach safeguards the integrity and independence of the regulator, draws clearly on established precedent and provides appropriate oversight of its activities.
Finally, Clauses 91 and 92 were designed to ensure that the ICO’s statutory codes are consistent in their development, informed by relevant expertise and take account of their impact on those likely to be affected by them. They also ensure that codes required by the Secretary of State have the same legal effect as pre-existing codes published under the Data Protection Act.
Considering the explanations I have offered, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Lucas, the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will agree not to press their amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. If I speak for four minutes, that will just about fill the gap, but I hope to speak for less than that.
The Minister’s response was very helpful, particularly the way in which she put the clarification of objectives. Of course, this is shared with other regulators, where this new growth duty needs to be set in the context of the key priorities of the regulator. My earlier amendment reflected a nervousness about adding innovation and growth duties to a regulator, which may be seen to unbalance the key objectives of the regulator in the first place, but I will read carefully what the Minister said. I welcome the fact that, unlike in the DPDI Bill, there is no requirement for a statement of strategic priorities. That is why I did not support Amendment 135A.
It is somewhat ironic that, in discussing a digital Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, decided to go completely analogue, but that is life. Maybe that is what happens to you after four and a half hours of the Committee.
I do not think the Minister covered the ground on the reprimands front. I will read carefully what she said about the annual report and the need for the ICO—or the commission, as it will be—to report on its actions. I hope, just by putting down these kinds of amendments on reprimands, that the ICO will take notice. I have been in correspondence with the ICO myself, as have a number of organisations. There is some dissatisfaction, particularly with companies such as Clearview, where it is felt that the ICO has not taken adequate action on scraping and building databases from the internet. We will see whether the ICO becomes more proactive in that respect. I was reassured, however, by what the Minister said about NED qualifications and the general objective on the independence of the regulator.
There is much to chew on in what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords
Anti-social Behaviour and Shoplifting
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hazarika
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to tackle anti-social behaviour and shoplifting.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
This Government will tackle anti-social behaviour by rebuilding visible neighbourhood policing, with 13,000 additional neighbourhood officers and PCSOs, and will bring in new respect orders to enable police to ban persistent anti-social offenders from our town centres. We will also introduce a new offence of assaulting a retail worker and end the effective immunity for shop theft of goods under £200.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. I was pleased to see that safer streets are a priority for this Government. Will the Minister agree that anti-social behaviour and crimes such as shoplifting, aggressive begging and phone theft are anything but low-level and can blight the lives of local residents and businesses? Many people who work in shops feel like they are living in a war zone. Will he agree that anti-social behaviour can so often be the canary down the coal mine and tell a wider story about what kind of society we are living in? Finally, will there be a focus on targeting often a small number of hardened criminals who are responsible for terrorising local residents and shops? Will the police and courts take this more seriously and consider the use of technology such as facial recognition?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am pleased to say to my noble friend that it is a “yes” to every point she has raised. Anti-social behaviour and shop theft are not minor crimes. They cause disruption in our communities. Shop theft in particular costs retailers across the nation millions of pounds, which is passed on to us as customers, and it is not acceptable. That is why, on shop theft, we are going to end the £200 effective immunity. For shop workers, we will protect them by introducing a new offence, because they are very often upholding the law in their shops on alcohol, tobacco and other sales, for us in this House.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, while I agree with everything the noble Baroness has just said, will the Minister join me in the hope that the sentencing review will result in fewer women being sent to prison unnecessarily?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I do not wish to pre-empt the sentencing review undertaken by David Gauke, a former Conservative Justice Secretary, which was commissioned by the Lord Chancellor. Self-evidently, it is in the interests of society to have fewer women go to prison and to have an increase in community-based sentences. David Gauke and the Lord Chancellor will look at both of those matters as part of the review.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made about increased shoplifting being a result of increasing poverty in our society?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As always, shoplifting takes place for a range of reasons. But I will not excuse shoplifting and shop theft under any circumstances, because they are still crimes. I grew up on a very poor estate in Liverpool and in Cheshire. It was not acceptable to shoplift then and it is not acceptable now. We need to ensure that we tackle that by having neighbourhood policing, a greater emphasis and focus for the police on shop theft and greater support to retailers. I appreciate the noble Earl’s view on poverty: we look at poverty in the round and put measures in for a range of reasons to lift people out of poverty, to ensure that they can live reasonable, productive and effective lives.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has said that, before introducing respect orders, the Government will run a number of pilots, which is a very good idea. But current laws on anti-social behaviour have never been thoroughly reviewed and the Home Office does not even keep records on how they are being used at the moment. So, before the Government introduce these new respect orders, will they agree to review the current laws and how they are working, so that lessons learned could be used to inform the pilots?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that comment. We will keep all legislation under review. Again, after 14 years out of office, we want to review some of the measures: how they have been utilised and what can be done to improve community resilience. The most important thing we can do is certainly pilot the respect orders, but a really important issue will be the 13,000 neighbourhood police and community support officers, who can embed themselves more in the community, can look at what responses are required, can work with people such as shopkeepers in relation to the shop theft that my noble friend Lady Hazarika mentioned, and can work with the community to look at what could best be utilised to gain the support of the community in reducing crime.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, the increasing theft of child/baby milk formula suggests that criminal justice measures alone will not deal with this problem. So what proposals do the Government intend to bring forward to have a discussion with those who produce and sell child/baby milk formula, in order to address this issue and the increasing impact on the poorest families of the rising cost of that formula?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope I can reassure my noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, that poverty is an important issue for this Government. If there are trends in the type of theft that is occurring, such as theft of baby milk, that will indicate some element of poverty-related theft. But we have to tackle poverty holistically, looking at a range of measures on social welfare, housing and the support we are giving through minimum wage increases and other things to ensure that we can help raise people out of poverty. The Government have a target to lift the poverty level. But that still does not excuse theft, which has to be at the heart of this Government’s approach. Shop theft is a key responsibility of mine at the Home Office and we will bring forward legislative measures, if supported by both Houses, to tackle it.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, having spent most of my working life working in a shop, I welcome the protections for shop workers and the Minister’s comments about the seriousness of shoplifting and crime. What encouragement can he give to law enforcement officers to also take this seriously?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The 2014 Act that changed the threshold and put a £200 threshold on shop theft did not change the law, but it changed the approach that law enforcement officers took: thefts under £200 were seen as thefts that we did not need to respond to or go out to. I regard that as unacceptable, which is why we are changing the law to abolish that £200 threshold to allow police to focus on the issue. Neighbourhood policing will help that. The shop workers’ defence and the aggravated offence of attacks on a shop worker are there to protect shop workers who are upholding the law in shops as the first form of defence. I have been a member of the shop workers’ union for 44 years. This is an important issue to the union—it has campaigned on it for 20 years—and it is an important issue for both Houses to recognise. I look forward to taking legislation through this House in due course.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the original question was entirely right: the repeat victim/offender location theory applies to both these offences. A small percentage of offenders account for a very high majority of offences. Would the Minister agree with me that there are three things police can do to bear down on this? One, as already indicated, is to attend the scene of an event and see what has happened, whether it is shoplifting or anti-social behaviour, rather than make a phone call. The second is that a linking offence or a linking event is the supply of alcohol to underage people through pubs and off-licences. The third is the uncontrolled street-level dealing of drugs. These are susceptible to some simple tactics. It is not an issue of resources: it is about uniformity of application and method. Perhaps the Government have an opportunity to make sure the police apply all three of those.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord; he makes three valuable points which we will certainly take on board. My right honourable friend Diana Johnson, the Policing Minister in the House of Commons, has recently chaired a round table which I attended with the chief constable of north Wales, who is the lead on shop theft, to look at how we can co-ordinate police forces better across county lines, how we can follow up on the points the noble Lord mentioned in terms of onward use of criminal activity such as alcohol and/or drugs, and how we can, through Operation Pegasus, resource and examine those serious shop thefts that are involving not just shoplifters on an individual basis, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and others, but those criminal gangs that are organising very strong shoplifting hits. Operation Pegasus has just received additional resources from this Government to support its work.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that across this House we would agree that no shop worker should go to work afraid for their safety. But is the Minister aware of Home Office research showing that the majority of shoplifting offences are carried out by hard-drug users? Can the Minister tell us what steps government can take to reduce the stigma and shame around addiction so that more users seek help?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. One of the key things the last Government did—as in the last Labour Government, from 2005 to 2010—was ensure we had a number of community-based sentences and community orders to support people who had drug or alcohol addictions to overcome those addictions and therefore stop shoplifting because of those addictions. I certainly hope the sentencing review will consider that in the round. When the measures we have brought forward come to this House and to the House of Commons in due course, I hope that issue of how we tackle persistent offenders and intervene on their behaviour will be central to our purpose in passing legislation downstream.
Older People’s Housing Taskforce
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are thankful to the chair of the task force, Professor Julienne Meyer, and all its members for producing such a comprehensive, detailed and well-researched report. I recognise the importance of improving housing choices for older people, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for all he does on this issue. We are committed to taking action on older people’s housing and will consider this issue as we develop our long-term housing strategy.
Lord Best (CB)
I thank the Minister for that positive response, and I congratulate Professor Julienne Meyer and her task force on a really good report. Have the Minister and his Government paid particular attention to at least three of the key recommendations from this report, such as that 10% of all affordable housing should be for older people, that planners should require a percentage of all major developments to be for older people, and that stamp duty should be exempt where an older person is downsizing, rightsizing, making way for and releasing a home for a family elsewhere?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise how important the right housing arrangements are in supporting people to live independently and well. The Government will set out details of new investment to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme at the spending review. The National Planning Policy Framework outlines that local authorities should assess the housing needs of different groups, including older people, and reflect this in their local plans. We have strengthened the National Planning Policy Framework to encourage the delivery of mixed-tenure development. For most of those looking to downsize, the stamp duty due on the new property will be small. Stamp duty is an important source of revenue to provide essential services, and the Government have no further plans for relief for those looking to downsize.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the Minister’s reply, the task force published its report two weeks ago, before the Government published their National Planning Policy Framework, and, despite what he says, that policy framework does not reflect the major recommendations of the task force. Will the Government publish a detailed response to all the recommendations of the task force, and will they implement some of the recommendations in the forthcoming planning Bill?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, we consulted on reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and published our response on 12 December. We are determined to create a more diverse housing market that delivers homes to meet a range of needs. On the noble Lord’s particular point, we will respond to all 44 recommendations of the task force. However, my honourable friend in the other House, Matthew Pennycook, will look at this in the wider housing strategy.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the report of the task force mentions the LGBTQ+ communities only once, yet there is a growing need and desire for inclusive LGBT+ affirming retirement accommodation, as provided by organisations such as Tonic Housing. What plans do the Government have to address these specific needs?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. As I said, the task force report was published two weeks ago, and we are looking at each of its 44 recommendations to make sure that our housing needs are diverse for the country. It is in the national interest that the Government ensure that we have housing that reflects the country and that we take into account the needs of people of all backgrounds and all ages.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, in considering the housing needs of older people, is the Minister mindful that many older people are also caring? It is not at all uncommon for people in their 70s to be caring for people in their 90s, or for people in their 80s to be caring for older adult children with special needs. Will these responsibilities of older people also be considered when looking at housing needs?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point. On carers, the Government are committed to ensuring that families have the support that they need. I want to ensure that people who care for family and friends are better able to look after their own health and well-being. The Department for Work and Pensions announced its intention to bring forward an independent review of the issue of overpayment of carer’s allowance in cases where earnings have exceeded the entitlement threshold. The Government are committed to reviewing the implementation of carer’s leave and examining the benefits of introducing paid carer’s leave.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is very important to have intergenerational development so that there are not ghettos of older people in one place and ghettos of young people, particularly students, in another? If developments are intergenerational, they can help each other. Will he therefore discourage the kinds of developments I see in Edinburgh—no doubt they are elsewhere too—where private developers build blocks for students which seem to me to be purely to make some additional money rather than in the interests of the students themselves?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point about intergenerational living. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on that particular case, but I am happy to take it away with me and have a private conversation with him.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, what levers do the Government plan to have to ensure that the recommendations in the report, such as accessible bathrooms and toilets, with doors to bathrooms that open outwards, are actually built into all new plans because of a high incidence of falls in the home? These affect not only morbidity but mortality rates. Similarly, how will they ensure that stairs are properly designed, as we previously debated, to decrease the number of falls of old people on stairs?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point. I understand that accessibility in new homes—and accessibility standards for buildings in general—is an important concern. Housing is one of this Government’s top priorities. Everyone deserves to live in a decent home where they feel safe. We will set out our policies on accessible new-build housing shortly, and we will make sure that accessibility is a part of the discussion when we bring forward our new housing strategy.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, in planning for older people in housing and with regard to accessibility, is it not also important to ensure that this accommodation is near accessible bus routes, for example? Will my noble friend the Minister look at how devolved powers can be used to ensure that local authorities work together with, for instance, local bus companies to ensure that proper provision is provided for older people in what can be isolated areas?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point. I will take it away with me and discuss it with Minister Pennycook. It will also be a cross-departmental discussion with the Department for Transport to ensure that the particular issues that my noble friend raises are addressed and thought of when moving forward so that we can make not only the house accessible within, but the route to the house.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register, particularly that I was a member of the Older People’s Housing Taskforce. It is widely acknowledged that supported accommodation can significantly benefit the health and well-being of older people. That has the additional benefit of saving social care and the health service considerable costs. In addition, if it is placed in urban areas, it can support town centre regeneration.
However, due to the additional facilities, the building costs of supported accommodation are substantially higher than those of mainstream accommodation. In recognition of this, one of the task force’s recommendations to help to deliver supported accommodation was that it should not be subject to demands as heavy as the affordable housing and Section 106 planning obligations of mainstream housing. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will support this?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The Government will publish a housing strategy that will set out a long-term vision for the housing market that works for communities, building 1.5 million high-quality homes and the biggest increase in affordable housing in a generation. Supported housing plays a vital role in delivering better life outcomes, improved well-being and health, as the noble Lord mentioned, and greater independence for many vulnerable people, including older, disabled and homeless people.
We recognise the challenges local authorities are facing as demand increases for critical services. We have listened to voices across local government and have announced £4 billion in additional funding for local government services at the Budget, including £1.3 billion, which will go through the settlement.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned earlier with regard to intergenerational housing, my community and many other communities have grown up with the older generation living with us, and it has helped in caring and sharing, by both young and old, as families stay together. That has faded a bit over the decades, but it is still happening. However, the challenge for communities and families in continuing to do that is ever-increasing with the costs for caring for older people. Is the task force looking at that in its report?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting and important point. When my honourable friend Minister Pennycook looks at the 44 recommendations from the task force—I thank the task force once again for its hard work in this area—we need to ensure dignity and a better quality of living for all generations. However, as the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Best, outlines, there is a particular issue in relation to older people’s housing. We need to ensure that the housing strategy reflects the mixed tenure of houses to be built and to work closely with local authorities up and down the country to ensure that they can decide what the needs are for their area.
Domestic Animals: Welfare
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the welfare of domestic animals.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare my interest as a patron of International Cat Care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his new job. The Government will end puppy smuggling, address puppy farming by tackling low-welfare dog breeding practices and consider whether more should be done to protect the welfare of companion animals. We are supporting some key measures in Private Members’ Bills and have already met with key companion animal stakeholders as the first steps in delivering on our commitments and developing an overarching approach to animal welfare.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
I thank the Minister for her Answer and for her passion for and enduring commitment to animal welfare. Does she agree that too many cats are being bred commercially without adequate safeguards to protect their welfare? Increasingly, unregulated, unlicensed, unscrupulous owners are raising cats with extreme, exaggerated features to sell as fashion accessories without any concern for the terrible harm to the animal. So-called bully cats, for example, are bred without fur, which predisposes them to painful skin disease, and their genetically shortened legs can result in joint abnormalities and agonising arthritis. Will the Minister join me in condemning the practice of breeding for deformity, which causes unacceptable suffering and distress? Will she commit as a matter of urgency to regulating cat breeding in order to ban such activity?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the licensing of activities involving animal regulations requires anyone in the business of breeding and selling cats to have a licence, and they must meet statutory minimum welfare standards. The noble Lord makes some very good points about recent practices that are not acceptable. Defra has been working on a post-implementation review of the regulations, which will be published shortly. We are also carefully considering the recommendations in EFRA’s report on pet welfare and abuse, and the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion on feline breeding, which will also be published soon.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the Government will find time during this Session to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which is already 60 years old and rather showing its age? A fundamental improvement to the welfare of domestic animals would be to bring up to date the legislation regulating veterinary medicine and particularly veterinary medical practices, which are currently not formally regulated. That would enable the public—and indeed the animals—to be assured that veterinary medicine, and veterinary practices in particular, will provide modern, high standards of care. The Competition and Markets Authority is looking at this issue, and an update is long overdue. Can the Minister assure me that she will provide time for that legislation?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We will of course continue to support the vital work of the veterinary profession, and I acknowledge the veterinary workforce’s commitment and dedication to animal health and welfare. My noble friend makes a good point, and we are very aware of calls to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which is now very old. Defra is talking to key stakeholders and different veterinary groups to explore the best way to support the profession, and we are looking at the legislation.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, we are undoubtedly a nation of animal lovers, but some of the UK’s major animal welfare issues are in plain sight and affect some of our most popular pets. I refer to the extreme conformations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Black, but particularly the problem of flat-nosed dogs—so-called brachycephalic breeds—which suffer or are highly predisposed to ill health virtually all their life, with breathing, whelping, ocular and skin difficulties, and reduced lifespan. Legislation exists to deter the breeding of such animals, should that lead to a detriment to the health and welfare of the bitch or her offspring. Why has there not been a single prosecution under the legislation, given that this is a serious welfare issue?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, our animal activities licensing regulations have been developed to prevent poor dog breeding practices rather than penalise them. Local authorities can refuse, vary or revoke a licence to breed where they are concerned about the dog’s fitness. We believe the impact of having a licence revoked provides a significant deterrent. However, the noble Lord makes a very good point in that, currently, prosecutions are perhaps not happening as frequently as we would expect. This is clearly a matter for the Home Office, and I am very happy to take it up with my colleagues.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, now that all cats and dogs have to be compulsorily microchipped, the number of microchipping databases has shot up to 23 but none of them talk to each other, so it is really hard for rescue centres and local authorities to rehouse the animals or find the owners. What plans do the Government have to introduce a portal to link up these databases, so that cats and dogs can be rehomed quickly?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. We are aware that there are some digital challenges within the department, and we are looking at that very carefully.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that not enough is being done about puppy smuggling? How many prosecutions for puppy smuggling and for boiler-house productions have there been following the Animal Welfare Act? Boiler-house puppies could be relieved if the mother—the bitch—was present at the sale of the puppies. Will the Government enforce that?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a good point. On puppy smuggling, we have made a clear commitment to end puppy farming. We are also supporting a Private Member’s Bill in the other place on puppy smuggling, because we are determined to do our best to stop these abhorrent practices.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my register of interests. The public rightly benefit from fantastic access to the countryside through our network of public and permissive footpaths, as well as open access land. However, this brings pets into frequent proximity with farmed animals. Earlier this year, we supported legislation to update and strengthen police powers to deal with livestock worrying; it was not enacted. What plans do the Government have to increase protection for farmed animals?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have committed to support a Private Member’s Bill, introduced by the Conservative Member of Parliament, Aphra Brandreth, which looks to introduce new measures to tackle the serious issue of livestock worrying. The Bill is going to focus on three areas which we support: modernising the definitions in scope, strengthening police powers, as suggested by the noble Lord, and increasing the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine in order to act as a deterrent.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Can the Minister tell the House when the regulations to ban the use of cruel, remote-controlled electronic shock collars for cats and dogs, which inexplicably failed to gain Commons approval before the election, will be introduced? Will she give a clear commitment to put them into effect as fast as possible?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Defra’s code of practice for the welfare of dogs supports positive reward training techniques for dogs, but electronic shock collars should be avoided. Furthermore, the code advises people to seek out professional advice for behaviour problems, and the best training options that are available. The Government are currently considering the available evidence on the use of hand-controlled e-collars and their effects on the welfare of animals.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
What measures are Government thinking of taking to try to eradicate dog fighting?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, dog fighting should not be taking place in this country. We are extremely keen to root it out where it is happening, and it is matter for Defra and the Home Office to work on together to ensure that, where it is found, it is properly cracked down on.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
People remain in danger from and are occasionally killed by dangerous animals. Are the Government satisfied that the current law is sufficient?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Ongoing attacks show that we need to do more to protect the public from dangerous dogs. There has of course been a ban on XL bullies, which has been updated recently. That is there to protect public safety, and we expect owners to comply with all the conditions in that legislation. More broadly, we are working with enforcement agencies and animal welfare groups to help prevent further attacks by encouraging responsible dog ownership, addressing dog control issues before they escalate and using the full force of the law where needed.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, we have heard this afternoon the Government’s announcement on plans for substantial changes to local government. Of course, much of the enforcement of animal welfare regulations happens at local government level. Can the Minister assure me that Defra is fully involved in making sure that, whenever the changes happen, the animal welfare elements are maintained as a strong force in whatever new arrangements come in?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can completely reassure the noble Baroness that we are working very closely on a cross-departmental basis on any issues that cover more than one department’s interests. I am sure she is aware that I have a very strong interest in animal welfare and will be doing all I can to ensure that it is considered at every level.
International Anti-corruption Court
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, we look forward to considering the draft treaty, which is expected next year, for the proposed international anti-corruption court. This Government fully support the objective of holding kleptocrats to account, but the idea of an IACC carries challenges and requires detailed consideration. Meanwhile, we will use all our tools to deliver an ambitious government-wide agenda to tackle the devastating impacts of corruption and illicit finance, both at home and overseas.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for confirming the Government’s support for an international anti-corruption court. As he has indicated, international experts from countries north and south, right across the world, now have an agreed draft treaty and will soon begin consulting with interested parties. So far, these include Botswana, Canada, France, the Gambia, Kenya, Mozambique, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, South Africa and Switzerland. Will Ministers ensure that the UK both participates officially in this treaty-drafting process and encourages more states to do so? Such a new court is vital to help combat global corruption, costing $2 trillion each and every year.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, as I said, we support the objectives of the proposed international anti-corruption court. We look forward to considering the draft treaty and will continue to engage in international discussions on this subject as they arise, and as we have done to date. As my noble friend said, these discussions should not detract from the work the Government are already delivering to hold kleptocrats to account. For example, the UK’s international corruption unit has a world-leading capability and has successfully investigated international bribery, corruption and related money-laundering offences within a UK nexus, resulting in prosecutions and the confiscation of stolen assets.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister recall the problems that we have had with the ICC, for example, as some countries simply will not sign up to these international bodies? Some of the most corrupt countries in the world are not going to adhere to anything that such an international court would do. I broadly welcome the idea of such a court, but wonder whether, in reality, some of the worst offenders simply will not turn up.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a valid point. We are working collaboratively, as my noble friend said, with other countries to ensure that we can look at this in principle and then see how we can achieve it. My main point is that we should follow the money. We have actually been extremely successful: the unit I just talked about has been successful in ensuring that illicit funds are returned and that we sanction people. An important tool in our armour is that ability to ensure that people know that, when they try to get funds out of their country, we will follow it and return it.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s recent announcements on anti-corruption, including the announcement that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, will be the Government’s anti-corruption champion. Is now not the opportunity for the UK to play a leading role in the drafting of a treaty, not simply to wait for it to be presented to us? If the UK is part of the drafting, we will have the best opportunity in a long time to address the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, made: that never again will global corruption be channelled through London, the City of London, London lawyers or any part of the British establishment. That will be an opportunity if we help draft the treaty, rather than wait until it is presented to us.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
There is a range of options here, and I have met Judge Wolf. A range of experts is looking into the draft treaty, and we have been talking to international countries. What we need to do, if we are to get this court off the ground, is ensure that all these countries are working together and supporting the treaty. I heard what the noble Lord said, but I come back to my fundamental point: I will not wait until an international court is established, which can take time and requires consensus. We are determined—and this is why the appointment of my noble friend Lady Hodge is so critical—to follow the money and make sure that people do not get away with corruption.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the United Nations estimates that the cost of kleptocracy is something in the region of $40 billion per annum, much of which falls on the poorest countries in the world. When the international anti-corruption court was being mooted originally, the United Nations established the International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre, which is intended to operate a joint working platform and intelligence sharing. As the Minister indicated, the centre, having become operational in 2017, is hosted by the United Kingdom’s National Crime Agency. Can he advise the House on how many cases the centre has dealt with in the last seven years? In addition to the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, how many countries participate in the work of the centre? What steps are the Government taking to promote participation in the work of the centre? He said that one follows the money for the purposes of jurisdiction, and the United Kingdom is of course a centre for such funds.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I very much welcome the noble and learned Lord’s comments and I look forward to working with him to ensure that we can achieve these objectives. Since July 2017, the IACCC has received 331 referrals of grand corruption from 40 different countries, has identified over £1.4 billion of assets suspected to be the proceeds of corruption, helped freeze £631 million of stolen assets, and supported the arrest of 48 suspects in grand corruption cases. We will work collaboratively with all the countries that the noble and learned Lord mentioned.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I refer the Minister to remarks I cited, when we discussed this last, by the right honourable Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, who is a strong supporter of the international anti-corruption court. In pointing a finger at kleptocracy, he mentioned the Panama papers, the Pandora papers and Russian assets being used in the Channel Islands, the British Virgin Islands and UK dependent territories. In addition, he cited the need for this court to deal with the crime of aggression and the other offenses committed by Putin during the war in Ukraine. Can the Minister assure us that he will be used as one of our best advocates in the discussions which will take place on the formulation of the forthcoming treaty and making this court come about?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I welcome the noble Lord’s comments. I met Judge Wolf, who has proposed this for some time and has been campaigning for it. A range of international experts is looking at the proposed treaty, and they are doing very good work. We are committed to examining the outcome of that work and the development of a draft treaty as it proceeds. I emphasise to the noble Lord that we are not standing still and waiting for these institutions to be established. I have visited eight African countries, all of which faced corruption. One of the things that they have been incredibly pleased about is our ability to co-operate with and support them in ensuring that illicit funds not only are returned but do not get out of the country. We are absolutely determined to do that. With the appointment of my noble friend Lady Hodge, I know that we will push this up the global agenda, and we have a strong advocate in her in fighting this crime.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, following the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, does my noble friend the Minister agree that corruption is of crucial importance to developing countries and that, once the court is in operation, our very much diminished aid budget will be very much more effective?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I stress that not only are we following the money, ensuring that we take action against those who commit this crime, but in recent times we have been supporting the African Beneficial Ownership Transparency Network. I addressed its first in-person conference. With the African Development Bank, we are working to ensure that people cannot hide what they own. Transparency is another important tool in ensuring that we combat illicit finance.
Intelligence and Security Committee
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That the House approves the nominations of Lord Beamish, Lord West of Spithead, and Baroness Brown of Cambridge as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I fully support the Motion in the name of the Lord Privy Seal. Would it be appropriate at this time to ask if it would be possible for the Intelligence and Security Committee to conduct an investigation into H6 and all the allegations of spying by China?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think it is for the Lord Privy Seal to instruct the Intelligence and Security Committee on its business or how to conduct it. I am sure it will take note of the report, is fully aware of the situation and will do whatever is appropriate.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, before we start the first part of Committee, I thought it would be useful to update the House as to how we will proceed. As noble Lords will see from today’s list, the usual channels have agreed that the Committee will sit until we have reached the target—that is the debate on the next 13 groups. We will break for dinner at around 7.30 pm for around an hour. During this time, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, will take 40 minutes of questions on a health Statement given in the House of Commons last week. The House will then be adjourned during pleasure for an additional 20 minutes to give everyone participating in the Bill enough time for a proper break.
Football Governance Bill [HL]
Monday 16th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 41-V(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (13 Dec 2024)
Baroness Brady
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I refer the Committee to my interests as declared in the register. This group of amendments includes Amendment 110 in my name which addresses a concern about potential political interference in football’s new regulatory framework.
The Bill creates an unusual—and, I believe, likely to be unnecessary—requirement for football governance statements every three years from the Secretary of State. This is not merely a question of frequency; I believe that the expectation created for this statement may raise questions about regulatory independence and broader international implications, which we have discussed in this Committee a number of times.
As I and other noble Lords have pointed out, UEFA and FIFA maintain strict provisions against state interference in football. We have already seen UEFA’s general secretary express serious concerns about various aspects of this Bill. In that context, we are obliged to ask whether creating a requirement, or even an expectation, for regular political statements about football governance risks providing these bodies with an additional point of leverage over English football’s development. UEFA has been clear that it is watching the implementation of this framework very closely, including in relation to possible scope creep and stepping over the line, so it behoves us to consider carefully the possible practical implications of such a mechanism and to question its necessity.
Every three years, the Secretary of State may make a statement about football governance. The Minister may say that there is no obligation here, and that it is just providing for the possibility. However, it seems inevitable that putting this expectation into statute creates a very strong likelihood that these statements will then be made. What will they say—that everything is fine, or are they more likely to look at more areas that the regulator can examine and then expand into, as we have seen with this Bill so far?
As the general secretary of UEFA spelled out in a letter sent to me last week:
“UEFA has previously shared its concerns about the creation of an Independent Football Regulator … as normally football regulation should be managed by the national federation. It is essential to ensure that the establishment of this structure fully adheres to the principle of sports autonomy, thus preventing any risk of political or governmental interference in the legitimate and appropriate functioning of recognised sports governing bodies. The IFR’s mandate must be clearly defined and strictly limited to the long-term financial sustainability of clubs and heritage assets”.
Despite these repeated warnings, it seems reasonable to assume that the expectation of a football governance statement will create not just inevitable domestic pressure for political intervention but opportunities for international bodies to question the regulator’s independence. There may be a whole range of wider issues going on with international governing bodies at the time of the football governance statement—for example, negotiations on the football calendar or the future of competition formats. With these football governance statements, we seem to be creating an unnecessary risk that the statements, almost irrespective of their content, may be deemed to constitute political interference. English football will not be served well by such a dynamic.
My amendment would align the statement cycle with the other five-year regulatory timeframes in the Bill, reducing the frequency of these potential pressure points. However, this is about not just timing but protecting football’s independence while maintaining proper oversight. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how necessary these statements are.
Professional football requires long-term certainty for investment. In my long experience, stadium development can take up to 10 years to plan and execute. Academy investment needs at least a five-year horizon. Infrastructure projects require stable planning frameworks. Yet we seem to be risking the creation of a system where policy could shift every three years in response to short-term political steers, with each statement also potentially triggering questions about regulatory independence. I worry that these regular political statements could create permanent pressure for intervention beyond the regulator’s core purpose.
I would be very grateful if the Minister could give us the Government’s perspective on these important questions. What is the rationale for creating this unique pressure point for political intervention? How does the Minister believe that it will support long-term investment, especially given the international oversight concerns? What protections exist or could exist against scope creep through these regular statements? How will the Government manage UEFA and FIFA concerns about state interference in relation to this? I beg to move.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend’s amendment, and to question whether it is wise for the Government to include this clause in the Bill. It says:
“The Secretary of State may prepare a statement”,
and then it goes on. A Secretary of State can prepare a statement of anything at any time. It requires no statutory permission in a Bill to enable this to happen, but the effect of putting this in the Bill is, precisely as my noble friend has explained, to raise the spectre that UEFA, in particular, will see this as further evidence of political and government interference in football, which is a big concern for it. The Government have so far tiptoed around the edge of the concerns that UEFA has, but we know that the consequences for English football, if they go on to the wrong side of that line, will be severe.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I repeat my declaration of interest, having spent much of the past three months representing Manchester City Football Club against disciplinary charges brought by the Premier League.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, who has long been a friend of mine. She has unrivalled experience of being employed by Birmingham City Football Club and, for many years, West Ham United Football Club, and has achieved great success at both those clubs. I respectfully suggest, though, that here she protests too much. Clause 11(2) contains a very important restriction on what a football governance statement may do. It
“may not contain any policies that are inconsistent with the purpose of this Act or with the IFR’s objectives”.
The second protection is in subsection (6):
“The Secretary of State must lay any football governance statement, or any revised statement, published under this section before Parliament”.
Those are very considerable protections.
We listen to concerns that companies that own football clubs need long-term planning, but surely any company is subject to changes of government policy over the years. There is no protection whatever against those and the consequences thereof. I see absolutely no reason why football clubs should be protected by more than the three-year period stated here.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, before I start my comments on this clause, I thank the Minister for meeting me last week to discuss a number of issues—they did not include this clause, but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss other issues with her. My concern about this clause comes from the very first words of the Bill, which say that it is to:
“Establish the Independent Football Regulator”—
an independent regulator, not one circumscribed by a government Statement as laid out in Clause 11.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Maude, who said, if I heard him correctly, that this was unique. It is not. Sadly, my mind goes back to a previous occasion when the Government wanted to circumscribe an independent regulator. I remember the debate clearly, because the late and great Lord Judge made a massive contribution to it, scything through the then Government’s arguments about why they should have a Statement in relation to an independent regulator. The independent regulator to which I refer is encompassed in the Elections Act. The previous Government said, “Ah, we’ve got an Elections Act. We don’t really like what the Electoral Commission is doing, so we’ll put in a nice little clause which requires the Government to make a Statement”, which, in effect, circumscribed the Electoral Commission. What is fascinating about that set of circumstances, which Lord Judge and I—and the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party—criticised comprehensively, is that the wording in Clause 11 is remarkably similar to that in Section 16 of the Elections Act. In fact, Clause 11(5) of the Bill is almost identical, word for word, to new Section 4A(7) of PPERA inserted by that section.
I said just now that people on other Benches spoke against the Government imposing some form of Statement on the Electoral Commission as
“‘not fit for purpose and inconsistent with the … role as an independent regulator’”.—[Official Report, 6/2/24; col. 1604.]
We are talking here about the same wording. Those were words from the Liberal Front Bench—the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. The Labour Front Bench, in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said that
“this statement is unnecessary and the Government have provided no evidence for why it is needed … There was cross-party agreement that the commission’s independence is vital”.—[Official Report, 6/2/24; col. 1602.]
I could go on quoting the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Rennard, making the point that a regulator is independent if it is independent, not because it is circumscribed by a set of conditions as set out in Clause 11. I recommend anybody to look at the relevant amendments to the Elections Act 2022, where the wording is virtually identical. The Government then wanted to circumscribe the Electoral Commission. I would not be surprised if the officials discussing this Bill when it was in draft under the previous Government said, “Oh, we’ve got a good basic tenet; we’ve even got a set of words which we can lift, virtually verbatim, and it’ll circumscribe the independent regulator”.
I opposed the Government’s imposition of that statement in the Elections Act, because I believed it circumscribed what should have been an independent regulator. When the then Opposition forced a vote on it, I sat where the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is now and abstained, because I refused to support the Government imposing on an independent regulator a provision which is virtually word for word that set out in Clause 11. I therefore strongly support the amendments and oppose this clause standing part of the Bill.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 111, which is part of this group, and pick up some of the points that my noble friends have raised in the debate.
My Amendment 111 states that the Secretary of State should not be permitted to revise a football governance statement simply because there has been a “significant change” in government policy on football. The reasoning for this comes from much the same place as my noble friend Lady Brady’s Amendment 110: both try to prevent the possibility of frequent changes in the Government’s policies for the regulator. If the Secretary of State took up every opportunity that the Bill allows to alter the governance statement—it could be every three years, after every general election and after every change in government policy—we could see this governance statement being altered rather frequently, every few years, with effects on the stability of football.
How would clubs have the certainty they need to plan their investment? As my noble friend Lady Brady said, football clubs plan their infrastructure and stadium developments over periods of 10 to 15 years or more. The talent pipeline, which is needed to develop the players of the future, requires much more than five years of careful thought and investment. To do all this and deliver the sustainability of English football, clubs need to know what the policies of the regulator will be over the long term. They need to know what the regulator will require of them.
My noble friend Lord Hayward reflected on a broader point in his remarks. The Government have been at pains to stress the importance of the independence of this regulator. I do not doubt their intention, but how will that independence be maintained when there could be regular and changing political statements setting out the policies to which the regulator will have to adhere? We need some assurances that these governance statements will not interfere with the operational independence of the regulator. To do that, it seems much more sensible that the Secretary of State should not be able to revise these statements on a whim or because the department’s Secretaries of State are changing with the regularity that we have seen in recent years.
I hope the Minister will address the points that have been raised and look favourably on these amendments. I look forward to her reassurances.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for their amendments. Clause 11 permits the Secretary of State to publish a statement on government policy related to football governance. The statement is non-binding, but the regulator will be required to have regard to it when exercising its functions.
On Amendment 110, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, we believe that, given the fast-paced nature of football and the changing regulatory landscape, every three years is a suitable time to pass before the Secretary of State can amend this statement. This decision was reached following consultation with other regulators.
There is no duty on the Secretary of State to amend or publish a statement every three years, unless there is reason to. I understand the noble Baroness has concerns that this could present an opportunity to exert political influence on the regulator and thus a risk to the regulator’s independence. Although this is a standard provision for most economic regulators, I recognise the intent behind the amendments, to reduce the risk of interference.
The noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Hayward, raised concerns that this clause might limit independence. The football governance statement cannot be used to direct the regulator’s day-to-day operations, so it will not impinge on the operational independence of the regulator. The Bill has been brought forward as a result of the policy of this and the previous Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made clear, the regulator’s statutory scope and powers would remain unchanged and it would be under no obligation to act in accordance with any statement. We want to ensure that the regulator remains free of any undue political interference; this drafting, as with the previous Government’s version of the Bill, achieves that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, raised concerns around UEFA’s position in relation to this clause. As I have reiterated previously, we have engaged extensively with both the FA and UEFA in the development of the Bill. As has been confirmed by the FA, we are confident that the Bill as drafted will not breach any UEFA statutes. The regulator will be operationally independent of the Government and will not exert an undue influence on the FA’s ability to govern the game. This was confirmed by the FA itself in oral evidence given to the House of Commons Public Bill Committee on 14 May during the passage of the previous Bill introduced by the last Government.
Baroness Brady (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response and assurances about the purpose and scope of the football governance statements, and I thank other noble Lords for their contributions. I remain concerned about the potential for these statements to introduce unnecessary political pressure points and raise questions about regulatory independence. I appreciate the intent to use them as an optional tool for accountability and transparency. However, I respectfully request that the Minister and the Government reflect on the points raised in the debate, particularly regarding the implications for long-term investment and the risk of creating permanent leverage for international bodies, such as UEFA and FIFA, that will disproportionately affect Premier League clubs playing or aspiring to play in European competitions.
I want to pick up on the comment about Spain made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, which the Minister mentioned. That legislation concerns a very specific clause which was due to the dominance of Barcelona and Real Madrid. They sold their own rights and retained all the money, which collapsed the entire Spanish football system. That legislation is very different from the binary process of the backstop and allows for 10% of the revenues to be redistributed—as an aside, the Premier League is already distributing 16%. The clause is very specific and very different from this first-ever government intervention into British sport. The interaction between the statements and the broader regulatory framework must be very carefully managed to ensure that English football is not placed at a disadvantage in global competitions and subjected to unnecessary uncertainty and potentially harmful leverage.
I am also grateful for the Minister’s reassurance about scope creep and the need to respect the regulator’s independence. The Minister mentioned the FA’s appearance in front of the Select Committee; she will know that that was before this Bill was published. I suggest that it would be good for the Minister to speak to the FA again. There is room for further clarity on how these statements, if they are necessary at all, will be framed to avoid triggering concerns about state interference, particularly in light of UEFA’s clear reservations. I again ask the Minister to publish the letter UEFA sent to her, which, by all accounts, was very alarming.
With those points noted, I will withdraw my amendment, but I hope the Minister will continue to engage with stakeholders on these important issues. I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Brady
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 12 I will also speak to Amendments 113 to 115 in my name and Amendments 116 to 119 in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson. These amendments address what is in my view a weakness in the Bill’s approach to regulatory guidance and consultation. They are important amendments because they go to the heart of how this new regulator will operate in practice.
The Minister has reassured us that this will be a collaborative regulator working closely with football; that is very welcome. Yet, unfortunately, the Bill requires the production of guidance only for the imposition of discretionary licence conditions. For every other major regulatory function, including some of the most significant interventions ever proposed in British sport, there is no obligation for the regulator to explain how it will act via guidance. Nor, indeed, is there any requirement to consult those affected as it produces that guidance.
I welcome my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s suggestion of a code of practice to guide the regulator’s approach in a number of important areas. Perhaps I can highlight just three crucial areas where I believe we need more clarity. The first is financial sustainability, the regulator’s core purpose. Despite extensive debates in this Committee about what financial sustainability means, or should mean, in practice, the regulator would have no obligation to define how it will assess soundness or resilience in guidance or what system it will use to make it work.
That means that a club such as my own, West Ham United, seeking to make long-term investment decisions, would have no clarity on how they might be judged. Worse than that, there is no requirement to consult with the industry on what these vital definitions should look like. Ministers have described the regulatory model as light touch. One of my amendments seeks to ensure that this is indeed the case when it comes to financial regulation, asking the regulator to publish guidance on the financial outcomes it wishes to see from clubs.
Secondly, there is the owners’ and directors’ test. This vital mechanism, critical to attracting responsible investment, is not written into the legislation. It is left—albeit with some considerations in the Bill—to the regulator to develop. Again, there is no requirement to consult clubs, leagues or potential investors on its design. I do not think it unreasonable to ask: how can English football expect to attract responsible, long-term investment without requirements for regulatory transparency or co-operation that would undoubtedly result in higher-quality and better-informed regulation?
Thirdly, and perhaps most concerning, is the backstop power over financial distributions. This unprecedented mechanism could fundamentally alter football’s financial flows, yet the regulator does not need to explain how it will approach such decisions or consult on its methodology. Billions of pounds are at stake, along with the very existence of the key competitive measures, tools, structures and incentives that currently underpin the English pyramid’s success. It is the most extraordinary of interventions, yet there is no requirement for even the most ordinary of procedural safeguards.
This absence of guidance risks creating real uncertainty. The Premier League recently agreed a new domestic broadcasting deal running through to 2029. Clubs are making infrastructure investments over similar timelines. As I have already said, academy and stadium developments require five to 10-year horizons. I must emphasise that it puts football clubs in a really difficult position to be able to make major commitments without any real clarity on how they will be regulated.
We have a real lack of a clarity on a range of areas in the Bill, compounded by uncertainty as to how the regulator will go about regulating in practice. My amendments in this group do not seek to constrain the regulator’s authority in any way. They seek only to ensure that its powers are exercised transparently and intelligently. They would simply require the regulator to provide guidance across all its functions and consult appropriately on its development. This is a minimal yet clearly critical requirement.
I hope and expect the Minister to say that it is her clear intention that this regulator will be collaborative. If that is the case, I think it is fair to ask: why not go the extra step and enshrine that approach in the Bill? What justification exists for allowing such significant powers to be exercised without clear guidance or consultation?
In conclusion, I encourage the Minister to examine these vital improvements and consider them clearly. Transparency and collaboration should not be optional extras. They should instead be the cornerstones of this new framework. I beg to move.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in favour of this group of amendments. I particularly support those that would introduce a requirement for the IFR to consult those affected as it produces guidance. Consultation with key interested and impacted parties, particularly the leagues, is critical.
The IFR is an entirely new regulator operating in an entirely new regulated space with no real international experience to draw on. As I highlighted at Second Reading:
“The Explanatory Notes themselves acknowledge that football ‘was previously not regulated by statutory provisions’, and explicitly state that ‘the new regime and the distributions provisions in particular are unique and unprecedented’”.—[Official Report, 13/11/24; col. 1850.]
A duty to consult on key areas, such as those set out by my noble friend Lady Brady, to ensure that unintended and potentially damaging consequences are avoided as the regulator begins its work and develops its guidance, is surely a no-brainer.
At our recent meeting with the shadow regulator, and in various responses from the Minister during Committee, the desire and expectation of the regulator to work in a collaborative and proportionate way have been repeatedly reiterated. Several amendments in this group simply put that consultative approach firmly and squarely on the face of the Bill. I hope the Minister can look favourably on them.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I too hope very much that the Minister and the department will look favourably on these amendments, for the reasons given by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brady and Lady Evans. They seem to be absolutely essential for reasons of efficacy and to give confidence to those who will be regulated that they and others will be properly consulted. I would be very surprised to be told that the regulator would not intend to do so. If that is right, it is surely essential, as in other legislation, that this is put in the Bill so that there is no doubt about it and so that the confidence that is absolutely essential is promoted.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this amendment about the bodies that will be regulated has a fair bit of common sense behind it. I am sure the Government will have done great work on consultation and making sure there is communication between the bodies that will be being regulated and the new regulator. If the Minister can tell us how this is being done, some of my worries will be removed. Also, stating where that information will be provided would very much help. If not, it has to be in the Bill somewhere.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my amendments in this group and say a little about the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lady Brady and Lord Moynihan.
The amendments relate to the guidance the new independent regulator will be required to publish. My noble friend Lady Brady and I agree that the Bill, as drafted, should be strengthened to ensure that the regulated clubs have the information they need to meet the requirements of the new regulator.
My Amendment 116 would require the independent football regulator to issue a code of practice for competition organisers and licensed clubs. The regulator would be required to consult the FA, each competition organiser and each club in preparing this code. The overriding point of all the amendments in this group, I think, is to support clubs and competition organisers in complying with the requirements of the new regulator. We cannot expect the regulator to be effective unless it is doing its work in a clear way. These amendments would help to deliver that clarity.
I will not speak at length on this point as it is a simple one. We seek clarity from the Government more than anything else. Will the Minister give the Committee an assurance today that the regulator will produce a code of practice for regulated clubs and competitions? Might there be a way of publishing a draft code of practice while the Bill is being considered? That was certainly very helpful when we looked at the new regulatory regime brought in through the Online Safety Act, although I appreciate that, in that case, Ofcom had more of a head start than the shadow regulator does here—but it would be helpful if that were feasible.
My Amendment 117 delivers much the same result as the sensible amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Brady. Again, we want to give clubs and competition organisers a fuller picture of the independent football regulator’s plans for the future, so they can prepare for the impact it will have on the game. Again, I hope the Government will look favourably on this amendment and the point that lies behind it.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 119A in this group. Noble Lords will recall that, on many occasions, I have been active on the appointments made by the DCMS, in particular when it came to the consumer protection Bill in your Lordships’ House and the non-declaration of the CEO of Seatwave, which was an online European ticketing marketplace that was then to be sold to Ticketmaster. The announcement of the individual concerned to the DCMS board made no mention of that, and nor was there any declaration in the House, despite the fact that Seatwave was subject to very significant criticisms about ticket touting and the impact on consumers.
I took an interest over the weekend to look in more detail at some of the appointments that have been made, to satisfy myself and the Committee that they were wholly independent of government. Could the Minister provide the Committee, in due course, with a comprehensive answer on the process that has been followed to date for each and every appointment to the senior levels of the shadow football regulator, including when and how the legal requirements for Civil Service recruitment have been implemented, namely that selections must be based on merit and on fair and open competition? Departments and agencies can develop their own recruitment approaches, but how has the governance code on public appointments been followed, including integrity, merit, openness, diversity and assurance? Who has been on the appointment boards and how many appointments have been made from outside DCMS officials?
What would help the Committee to understand the question of the degree of true independence of the proposed football regulator is to know how many of the Bill team and the paid advisers to the DCMS are going on from government to join the shadow regulator and, in due course, the full regulator. Are the shadow regulator contracts in any way tied to appointments to jobs with the full regulator? If so, how many and whose?
My probing amendment does not question in any sense the integrity or competence of the candidates concerned. But I went on LinkedIn this weekend and had the opportunity to read, as a result of a connection on LinkedIn, that one of the most senior appointments made was based, in part no doubt, on the outstanding work that was done by that individual on football governance while doing their PhD. I will give one quote from that—and, again, it is not in any way impugning the integrity or professionalism or the outstanding nature of this somewhat long PhD. With this quote, I was a bit concerned about whether the independence of the appointments was truly up to the standard we would wish to see:
“Granting an authority the power to legally regulate the football industry, compelling all English football clubs to comply with the established economic framework or risk being unable to use their football facilities, thereby prohibiting the club from playing in any football competition, either domestic or international, would transfer economic power back from the clubs and leagues to the regulatory authority, reversing the process initiated by the creation of the EPL in 1992”.
That is a fairly major statement that counterbalances the Premier League’s autonomy and would question the true independence of the proposed independent regulator.
I have not had the opportunity to read the whole thesis. I look forward to doing so, and to reading any other public documentation through LinkedIn. I think it is incredibly important that, if we are going to have an independent football regulator, that regulator has to be truly independent. All the appointments need to be made on merit, bringing in the very best people in regulation from across the country, and indeed possibly from abroad, to fulfil those important responsibilities and posts. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us the confidence that that is exactly what is being pursued.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for putting forward these amendments.
On Amendments 112, 113, 114, 115 and 117, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, we clearly agree that producing guidance will be a really important part of the regulator’s work. It will help to clarify the practicalities of the legislation and ensure that clubs’ owners and competition organisers know what is expected of them and what to expect from the regulator. However, while I recognise the intent of the approach proposed, I disagree to some extent with the approach to guidance that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, has suggested we take. Amendments 112, 113, 115 and 117 would require the regulator to produce guidance on all aspects of its functions. This is likely to be a disproportionate and needlessly burdensome requirement that would likely end up being more unhelpful than helpful.
There is little benefit in issuing guidance on issues that are self-explanatory or that do not have a direct impact on the industry. I will endeavour to find some examples of that type of guidance to meet some of the queries from noble Lords—for example, on every one of the regulator’s operational or administrative functions, excessive guidance would make it harder and more burdensome for clubs to understand and comply with the system, not easier, and National League clubs would potentially struggle to sift through reams of guidance to get to what was relevant to them. We expect that the regulator will publish guidance on all relevant parts of its regime, as appropriate. It is in everyone’s interests to maximise the industry’s understanding and compliance.
On Amendment 114, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, the regulator is already required to publish guidance on how it will use discretionary licence conditions, including the outcomes it seeks to achieve. We believe that this requirement is sufficient, and it will be for the regulator to determine what that guidance should look like and how best to aid the industry without unduly burdening it.
I turn to Amendments 116 and 118, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Amendment 116 would require the regulator to prepare and issue a code of practice for all competition organisers and licensed clubs. We do not believe that a code of practice for all clubs would allow for a proportionate, tailored approach to regulation, where what is required of a club should vary depending on the club’s specific circumstances. The regulator’s current approach of bespoke regulation will address the unique challenges and risks faced by clubs better than a list of one-size-fits-all recommended measures, and its guidance, as per Clause 12, should already help clubs to understand what is required of them and to comply.
On the points raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brady and Lady Evans of Bowes Park, on Amendment 118, the regulator is already required to consult such persons it considers appropriate when publishing guidance. We strongly expect that this will include the FA, competition organisers and regulated clubs, since those persons will all be directly relevant to and affected by that guidance. However, we have not taken the approach in this Bill of listing every person the regulator should consult for every piece of guidance issued. To do so would, in our view, be counter to the operationally independent and agile regulator that we are trying to establish.
There may be times when different levels of consultation are necessary, or with different stakeholders. The regulator is best placed to draw the line between comprehensive consultation and needless bureaucracy, and to ensure that the correct groups are consulted on a case-by-case basis. On the specific consultation requirements in the Bill, including on guidance, the regulator has a regulatory principle that it should co-operate and proactively and constructively engage with clubs, owners, officers and competition organisers. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, some confidence around the collaborative points she raised. This amendment would require the regulator to consult on minor revisions to guidance, needlessly creating an administrative burden for the regulator and those consulted.
Finally, Amendment 119, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and Amendment 119A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, relate to the Secretary of State guidance in Clause 13. Amendment 119 seeks to extend the period that the Secretary of State cannot amend guidance on the regulator’s functions from three to five years. While the regulator must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance, as an operationally independent body it will not be obliged to follow it. The industry and fans alike have been clear that they do not want to see excessive ongoing government involvement in football. That is why the Secretary of State may not revise this guidance any more frequently than every three years. The Secretary of State must consult both the regulator and anyone else they consider appropriate before publishing or revising any guidance, and must lay the guidance before Parliament. While I appreciate the concerns of undue influence, extending this to five years, when there may be an issue that needs clarificatory guidance before then, would be sub-optimal.
On Amendment 119A, I agree that the regulator should be independent and free from government influence. I do not have the level of detail that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, requested. However, I am confident that appointments will be made on merit. I will write to him with additional detail following the debate. Secretary of State guidance on this point would be unnecessary. The employees of the regulator will already be independent from the Government, like other regulators in the country. Independence has been at the heart of the regulator’s design, with it having sole discretion over its operational decisions. The aims of this amendment are therefore already achieved by the Bill’s current drafting.
I have noted the points from across the Committee on the amendments in this group and I am happy to discuss these further ahead of Report. However, for the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Addington (LD)
I take it that we have a consensus that there should be some way to find out what the regulation is and the reactions to it. Will the Minister give us an assurance that it will be published somewhere we can find it? That is the real point.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Perhaps the noble Lord could clarify whether he means once the regulator is up and running. I assume so. It would be very unusual for that to not be the case, but I will confirm that and get back to him, I hope, in the course of the evening.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and for the points raised. I note her desire not to put any major burdens on the regulator, but I worry about the major burdens that that in turn puts on the 116 football clubs that this regulation affects.
I respectfully push back on the notion that the amendments are not necessary or that the IFR’s flexibility would be somehow unduly constrained by requiring proper guidance and consultation. Perhaps the Government could look at it another way: amendments of this sort could actually enhance the regulator’s ability to act effectively by building trust and clarity from the outset. That is really what the football clubs want: clarity.
The Minister points to collaboration, yet the Bill imposes no duty to consult on key areas such as financial sustainability, the owners’ and directors’ tests or the backstop powers. Without clear consultative frameworks, football will face uncertainty and investment decisions could stall. Football is a global business and investors require regulatory predictability. These amendments are not about adding bureaucracy but about ensuring that clubs, leagues and investors understand how regulatory powers will apply—that is what this is about.
Instead of creating unnecessary delays, the amendments, or amendments like them, would prevent regulatory uncertainty, providing everyone with a clear framework for guidance. Reactive and unclear regulation is likely to create much greater delays and generate a higher workload for the regulator and the clubs. I remain concerned that the existing provisions do not address the scale of the regulatory powers that the Bill is creating. The regulator will oversee billions of pounds in football revenue, critical tests of ownership and sustainability of the entire pyramid. We are the first country to do this and, in my view, these very wide-ranging powers demand the highest levels of transparency and consultation. Football deserves a regulator that collaborates in practice, not just in promise.
That said, I am somewhat—I repeat somewhat—encouraged by the Minister’s recognition of the importance of these issues, as reflected from all sides of the Committee. I hope that we might continue to engage on how best to embed these principles within the framework of the regulator. I will reflect further on her response and I hope we can consider how these concerns might be addressed as the Bill progresses. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Markham
“Delegation of regulatory powers to competition organisers(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations direct the IFR to delegate some of its functions under this Act to specified competition organisers.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the IFR may only delegate a function to a specified competition organiser if it is satisfied that the competition organiser—(a) would discharge the function delegated under subsection (1) with the same degree of stringency as the IFR;(b) would discharge the function delegated under subsection (1) with regard to the IFR’s objectives under section 6;(c) would discharge the function delegated under subsection (1) with regard to section 7(2);(d) would not alter or disregard its obligations under this section.(3) If the IFR is satisfied that the specified competition organiser meets the conditions set out in subsection (2), and the Secretary of State has directed the IFR to delegate a function under this Act, the IFR must abide by the Secretary of State’s direction.(4) If the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the IFR has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the direction to delegate a function under subsection (1), then the Secretary of State may take such action as is deemed necessary to ensure the IFR does comply.”
Lord Markham (Con)
I hope noble Lords will see this as another constructive measure that is in keeping with many of the issues on which there has been broad consensus in the Committee. The principle behind the amendment is delegating regulatory functions to the competition organisers where they are considered best placed to discharge them.
Many noble Lords have said that the competition organisers already regulate their own competitions to a large degree. We are all aware of the fit and proper owner test and of financial fair play, to mention just a couple of areas. We would all agree that competition organisers have extensive experience in this space, having been doing it for a number of years. If they were discharging a lot of the functions and the regulator was also discharging them, there would be the danger of duplication. Again, I think most noble Lords want the regulator to be light touch and low cost, particularly as all the costs are coming out of the pockets of the clubs.
I hope that this will be seen as a sensible move. The regulator would be asked to look at each area of responsibility and to decide which of the competition organisers might be best placed to carry it out. If the regulator thinks that, in delegating some of those powers, the current Premier League or EFL owner tests are insufficient, there would be nothing to stop the regulator saying that, on top of competition organisers’ existing processes, it would like them to add X, Y and Z. That would be entirely appropriate and would give the competition organisers the opportunity to prove themselves.
Given that the regulator would have overall responsibility, it would always have the opportunity to take the powers back if it thought the competition organisers were not up to the job. Amending the Bill in this way would be seen as a sensible move. It would send a good signal to football that we want to work with it in setting up the new regulator. We have all heard the Minister say that she does not want to increase the burdens on the independent regulator—in fact, she made that point in responding to the last group—so here is a way to reduce the burden we put on the regulator and to delegate it to a local level, where others are felt best placed to carry out the functions in a collaborative way. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Markham, puts his case very powerfully but I for one am not persuaded, because the delegation of functions to competition organisers would frustrate the very purpose of independent regulation. The whole purpose is that regulation is done by the independent regulator. As I said in considering the previous group of amendments, it is of course vital that the regulator consults those affected and takes into account their concerns and expertise. But to delegate the responsibility to those who are being regulated, or to the competition organisers, would be an abdication of regulatory responsibility.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Markham and strongly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We constantly hear that the purpose of the Bill is for the regulator to be agile, to be as light touch as possible and not to impose unnecessary additional burdens on football. Every million pounds spent on the cost of running the regulator, as well as the additional compliance costs for football clubs themselves, means there is less of the pie to be distributed under the redistribution parts of the Bill.
Surely one of the key ways in which we can do our best to avoid that cost burden being excessive is to avoid duplication. The reality is that the competitions, the leagues, already exercise a self-regulatory function—not regulating themselves but regulating the clubs that are members of the leagues. That is in their nature: there are conditions of belonging to those leagues that they rightly enforce, and they are going to be obliged to carry on doing that anyway. It is possible that not all of them have done that perfectly, and that not all of them will continue to do it perfectly in the future, but it is also possible that the independent regulator will not do its job perfectly. We should consider that possibility at this stage of consideration of this really important Bill, given that many clubs—not just the Premier League clubs but right down through the pyramid—have concerns about the costs, imposition and impact that creating the regulator will involve. When we move on to the next group, we will be looking at the really big, crunchy part of the Bill that covers the regulator’s operating licensing powers.
If we are to be sensitive to these genuine concerns of football clubs—which, by and large, have been pretty successful over the decades—this is a good way of showing it. If this amendment is passed and accepted by the Government and goes into the Bill, none of it says that the powers have to be delegated to any particular competition organiser; but at least giving the possibility of avoiding this overburden of new regulation, cost and impositions on something which is already very successful would be a very good signal for the Government to send.
I hope the Minister when she responds to this amendment will not rule it out out of hand but will take it away and say that we should now be looking for ways to address some of these genuine concerns. This would be a very good way of doing it.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I rise to comment on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, which, on the face of it, sounds sensible, obvious, simple, light touch and low cost. I rise also to defend the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for pointing out the blindingly obvious biggest bear trap of the entire Bill up to now: delegating the power of the regulator to the very people it is trying to regulate. It would seem to any right-minded person that this is the least sensible thing to do. Being concerned about the power of the regulator but trying to persuade us that it could give some of its powers up to someone else to help them along the way defeats the object of having the regulator.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, there are two groups which, if the Bill goes through and is enacted, will be subject to regulation. There will be the competition organisers, of course, but the biggest burden will be on the clubs themselves, and that should be our principal concern. If the competition organisers, who would themselves be overseen by the regulator, are able to discharge the regulatory functions effectively without creating a whole new panoply of compliance and enforcement mechanisms and apparatus, surely that is worth looking at and considering.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
There is some merit in what the noble Lord says. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I met Rick Parry and some people from the EFL this week and they are quite content with this. They do not see this as an onerous burden on them. They are looking forward to the regulator, a level playing field and a real chance for them to progress, so they are not going to oppose this resolution.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, in relation to consultation, on which several comments have been made during the discussions on this and previous groups, it is worth bearing in mind, when the Minister tells us that there will be wide consultation in whatever circumstances, what my noble friend Lady Brady said on day one of Committee. She said that the Government had consulted seven Premier League clubs, which did not include Manchester City. They consulted those seven clubs for about as long as it took Spurs to score four goals against Southampton yesterday. It was hardly serious communication and consideration. That is what worries so many of us: we are listening to a series of comments that sound reasonable in themselves—and I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said—but I would believe it if there had been a very clear indication at previous stages of the Bill that there had been consultation with the interested parties.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 124. I think it introduces a sensible and proportionate idea: that the independent football regulator should have the power to delegate certain functions to competition organisers, such as the Premier League, the EFL and the National League, where it is appropriate. First, I want to consider the position of the leagues themselves, especially the Premier League and the EFL, both of which already play central roles in the regulation and operation of English football. These organisations are not merely administrative bodies; they are sophisticated, well-sourced entities with established systems for financial monitoring, licensing and governance.
For example, the Premier League currently performs all the UEFA licensing for clubs on behalf of the FA, demonstrating its capability to operate efficiently and effectively under stringent regulatory frameworks. It also has robust financial monitoring mechanisms in place, which ensure that clubs comply with obligations relating to profitability, sustainability and long-term planning. As I mentioned earlier in Committee, the Premier League also invests significant resources and time in performing its owners’ and directors’ tests to a very high standard, and intends to continue to do so.
Simply duplicating all these existing structures within the IFR would be inefficient and burdensome, as the White Paper that led to the Bill rightly acknowledged:
“The Regulator may wish to allow concurrent systems, or delegate responsibilities to industry bodies, in certain circumstances. It would manage this in a way that is coherent and simple for all involved, especially clubs”.
Unfortunately, however, no sensible delegation power currently exists in the Bill, so I commend my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson for addressing this issue and allowing for this conversation. This amendment would align perfectly with that principle expressed in the White Paper. It would be a smart, almost unarguable step to take: delegation would allow the regulator to focus its resources, especially in the early years of its life, on areas where independent oversight is essential, such as addressing market failures and managing systemic risks. At the same time, it would give the regulator the option of leaning on existing processes or information systems where they are already successfully implemented.
Delegation would also address an important practical reality. The workload facing the IFR will be immense. I am not surprised that the EFL wishes to offload some of its costs to the regulator, and that is its right. In its early years, this regulator will have to establish itself, build capacity and gain the trust of stakeholders across the ecosystem. That is a big burden. Allowing it to delegate certain functions, with appropriate safeguards, ensures that it can deliver its objectives without being overwhelmed by administrative tasks that others are well placed to manage.
However, this clearly cannot be done on blind trust. The amendment includes what seem to be important safeguards: the IFR must ensure that any competition organiser meets the same degree of stringency, aligns with its objectives, and adheres to its regulatory principles. This would seem to protect the integrity of the regulatory framework, while avoiding unnecessary duplication and, therefore, unnecessary cost.
More broadly still, this amendment raises an important question that we must address about the future role of the Football Association. While the fan-led review’s position was that the FA’s current governance arrangements make it unsuitable to house the IFR at present, it also envisaged a scenario where one day this might change. As the review noted,
“the FA might at some point be a suitable location for IREF … However, the Review has concluded that this is not appropriate at this time”.
This amendment raises the possibility of the delegation of certain functions to the FA, as part of its reform journey. If the FA continues to modernise its governance structures and demonstrate the capability to take on certain functions, it could play a much larger role in football’s regulatory framework.
Indeed, I encourage the Government to consider including the FA in the scope of this clause as such, because it should meet the same rigorous criteria that the leagues have to. Delegation to football bodies could be tied to a broad review of football governance a few years into this regime. This review could assess not only the progress of the IFR but the readiness of the FA and other football bodies to take on greater responsibilities. This will ensure that the IFR can be a dynamic institution, evolving in response to the needs of the game and empowering existing bodies to step up, where it makes sense. I believe that all stakeholders, including the most ardent supporters of the fan-led review, as well as those worried about the unintended consequences of this delegation, could support this kind of sensible amendment.
Finally, but most importantly, in a letter sent to me by the general-secretary of UEFA only last week, he said:
“UEFA appreciate the background of the Football Governance Bill discussions and proposals, and we were encouraged by the intent of the original Fan Led Review which stated that this regulatory area should be returned to The FA in time. UEFA supports The FA and UK policymakers in ensuring that this is still the case”.
The FA told me, also last week, that it has recently told DCMS that
“the FA is willing to take on delegated powers from the IFR, if there are services that the regulator believes we can operate and deliver effectively”.
I ask the Minister: is it still the case, as UEFA and the FA seem to believe, that the Government intend the future delegation of powers to be handed back to the FA at some point? If it is, surely this is an amendment that the Government could and should support.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I have spoken only once—about my little club, York City—but I have attended all the Committee debates. First, I think that York City will find it puzzling if, for the first time that there is an independent regulator, the same Act will say that some functions will be delegated. That is a confusion. Down the road, that might be thought about, but we want to see this person—man or woman—who will be the independent regulator doing the job. If it becomes an impossibility or too burdensome, it is at that stage that you delegate. But to say in the Bill, right at the beginning, that certain functions will be delegated, maybe to some powerful clubs, will be a confusion.
Secondly, no one would want to be an independent regulator. If I had the ability to do so, I would tie down the job, because, otherwise, it muddies the water. What we have not teased out a bit more, unfortunately, are the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, on consultation—that is the key bit. I hope that the Government will think through those amendments, because, without consultation, the little club of York City would think that somebody wants to swallow it up.
Remember that all football clubs are like tribes. They will defend their colours and their game. The only way to deal with tribes is to make sure that they are consulted. I think this amendment is unhelpful at this stage. Let us see what happens with the kind of regulatory power that is created. This independent person must actually be independent.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I want to say a little about Amendment 124, which my noble friend Lord Markham has outlined and to which I have added my name. I am sorry that we have not yet fully convinced noble Lords across the Committee in favour of it, but it might be helpful to clear up some of the confusions which have arisen.
We are proposing delegating these duties not to clubs but to competition organisers. In doing so, we seek to avoid the sort of confusion that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, has just highlighted about duplication in the regime. As noble Lords have pointed out, there are already football bodies which have a regulatory role—the Football Association, the Premier League, the English Football League and, indeed UEFA. They will retain many of those functions. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, knows well, Manchester City’s dispute with the Premier League is because of its powers to make some of the rules for the competition to which it relates. We are trying to avoid the duplication of regulatory functions. If an existing competition organiser has processes in place to carry out these functions effectively, why could the Secretary of State not direct the regulator to delegate them to these competition organisers and bring them closer to the clubs that are playing in that competition of their own free choice?
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble Lord emphasises that the purpose of the amendment is to allow for delegation of powers to competition organisers, not to clubs. But the noble Lord will know that the Premier League, which is a competition organiser, simply consists of the will of the 20 clubs.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The 20 clubs have competed to get into it. It is a changing 20, based on the ability of clubs to take part in that competition.
Similarly, it might be more appropriate for functions to be carried out by other competition organisers at other levels of football, if there are sufficient safeguards for them to do so in a way in which the Secretary of State feels is appropriate.
In our amendment, we have tried to reflect these safeguards to make sure that the same regulatory standards apply to the bodies to which functions are delegated. Subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 124 says that a function can be delegated only if the regulator is satisfied that the competition organiser would discharge the function with the same degree of stringency as the regulator itself and that it would meet the objectives established by Clause 6 and discharge the function with regard to the negative outcomes as outlined in Clause 7(2).
We are where are because there are elements of football which have not been good at self-regulating in a way that has pleased fans. More than one political party has been concerned enough to bring this Bill before your Lordships’ House. Are we saying that we have reached a point of no return? If the competition organisers and other football organisations get their house in order and meet the standards set out in this Bill which the regulator is trying to do, will there never be a situation in which we will be able to delegate some of these functions back down to the level of competition organisers? This would mean a much more light-touch, organic form of regulation, which I think is what a lot of noble Lords in the Committee would like to see. That is the thinking behind the amendment and on which I would be interested in hearing an answer from the Minister.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
Picking up the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, particularly focusing on the Premier League, we have discussed in previous debates on this Bill the league’s concerns that the burdens of new regulation and compliance costs fall more heavily on smaller clubs than on big ones. Looking at the effect of this, my concern is how this amendment would operate if it were to be incorporated in the Bill. I would expect the Secretary of State to be looking in the first instance at the lower leagues, as that is where the pain will really be felt of imposing new burdens.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. It may also be in the lower leagues that we see the examples of better behaviour. The Secretary of State may then feel that it is right and proper to delegate some of these functions to the competition organisers for the clubs in the lower leagues.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond to the points that have been raised, I want to respond to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in the previous group, in relation to the regulator’s guidance. I can confirm that the regulator’s guidance will be published. Clause 12(5) of the Bill states:
“The IFR must publish any guidance”.
I also want to clarify a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, because I am concerned that if I let it lie then, at a later date, somebody may suggest that it was accepted. It was that only seven clubs had been met with. I stress to your Lordships’ House that this Bill is the culmination of almost five years’ work which started in 2019. Officials have had extensive regular engagement with key stakeholders, including with the clubs which will be subject to the regulation. All clubs have had a number of formal opportunities to share their views, particularly as part of the fan-led review and the football governance White Paper. Over this five-year period, DCMS has had hundreds of meetings with clubs, leagues, fan groups and other stakeholders. No club that has requested a meeting has not had one. I hope that clarifies that point.
Lord Hayward (Con)
While I understand the Minister citing a series of meetings that have taken place over a number of years, we are now talking about a Bill which has been introduced by this Government with changes from the previous Bill. Some of those changes have already been debated, and some have not. Surely, it behoves the Secretary of State and any Minister within a Government to have slightly more than a half-hour conversation with seven members of the Premier League when we know that they are going to be the most affected clubs in terms of cost burdens.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord and I may need to agree to disagree on the level and extent of the consultation. The culmination of consultations between officials and the various meetings that have taken place constitute very sound consultation. I was concerned that it might appear to your Lordships and to people externally that only seven clubs had been met during the whole course of the design of a new regulator, which I think all noble Lords would agree would be highly unusual and undesirable. I may return to that point; noble Lords may raise it again in Committee. I look forward to further discussion of what constitutes consultation.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for his Amendment 124, which creates a mechanism for the regulator to delegate its function to the competition organisers. I understand that some noble Lords believe that the regulator should act as an overseeing body, only acting through the leagues and only stepping in once the leagues have failed to address a problem or, in some instances, not wishing the regulator to exist at all. Without wanting to disappoint noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Maude of Horsham and Lord Hayward, the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and others who support this amendment, I am afraid that the model of regulation is not one that we are proposing and nor is it the model that the previous Government proposed. Notwithstanding the points that have been raised repeatedly, this is now this Government’s Bill and we are very proud to bring it before your Lordships.
The fan-led review laid bare the issues with industry self-regulation, and this is an amendment where it is important for your Lordships’ Committee to reflect on the fact that football has had ample opportunity to get this right. We are legislating only because the leagues do not have the incentives and governance structures to address these problems adequately.
I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, that this amendment could be argued to represent a bear trap. I also agree with a number of points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. As has been demonstrated, compliance with current competition organiser rules has not proved an effective way of ensuring sustainability of the game. That is precisely why a new bespoke regulator is required, with the powers, incentives and agility to act where competition organisers are unable to.
However, I want to reassure the noble Lord that the regulatory system is already designed in such a way that the regulator should not need to intervene if the required standards are already being met. If clubs are meeting their threshold requirements naturally—for example, through their compliance with the industry’s existing rules—then the regulator will not need to apply discretionary licence conditions. There is also the more formal
“Commitments in lieu of … discretionary licence conditions”
mechanism, where leagues will be given an opportunity to address specific identified financial problems so that the regulator does not need to attach a licence condition.
Beyond this, however, we do not believe that the regulator should delegate functions to the leagues—there would be a significant issue of accountability. In a case where a function was delegated and serious failings happened, accountability would then be hard to ascertain. We also do not think that a power for the Secretary of State to direct the regulator would be appropriate. Not only could that constitute undue political influence on the regulator but it would also open the door to continuous lobbying by competition organisers for regulation to be delegated to them. What is more, the amendment would allow the Secretary of State to give this direction and for regulation to be delegated back to the industry without any prior parliamentary scrutiny.
On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, about the FA’s willingness to take on delegated functions, my department continues to have discussions with all stakeholders, including the FA, on a range of issues. It is encouraging that there is willingness in the industry to tackle the problems of financial sustainability. However, as the fan-led review clearly showed, the industry has not proved able to take forward the reforms needed at this time due to the governance and constitutional arrangements in place, as well as lacking the expertise required to deliver the regime we have been discussing. An independent body free of industry influence is needed; now is not the time to delegate functions. However, as with all aspects of the Bill, the Government will keep under review the effectiveness of the regime to deliver regulation. For these reasons, I am unable to accept the amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. Is she saying therefore that we are, in essence, past the point of no return in relation to some of the competition organisers? I take what she says about the discretionary licence conditions that are available to the regulator that give it a bit of leeway with those that get their house in order, but if football were to get its act together, does she not foresee a circumstance in which some of the functions that are going to be given to the new regulator could be given to organisers, whether at the direction of Secretary of State, or by the choice of the regulator?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I agree that statutory regulation should exist only where it is necessary. In our view, the regulatory system is already designed to be proportionate so that intervention can automatically scale up and down as needed. Clubs that are already well run and are lower risk should not face additional requirements. We want standards in the industry to improve, and if this were to happen and the market was derisked, I would expect the regulator to be less involved and less noticeable. I want also to stress that the regulator will not stop the leagues imposing their own competition rules so long as they do not conflict with the regulator’s regime. However, this is not an amendment which we feel would serve the sector well, and that was why I asked the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank noble Lords; it has been a genuine exchange of views. I am also glad that it gave an opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, to make a positive point about Spurs over the weekend—and that there was a positive point available to be made about Spurs.
I genuinely appreciate the constructive challenge that we have had in this debate. I feel that there has been a bit of a misunderstanding, however. When we say that we are asking for delegation, as in contracting out the function, it is not abdication, because the independent regulator will always be ultimately responsible for that decision. It always has the final say. It is just trying to adopt the policy, which I think many of us believe in, in terms of devolution or subsidiarity—call it what you want—but it is another form of trying to make sure that the power is as close to the coalface as possible, at the same time always giving the opportunity for the regulator ultimately to make the decision. As my noble friend Lady Brady said, this point was absolutely envisaged in the White Paper. The FA and UEFA welcome it, and I must admit that I cannot see why we would not want those who are closest to it to have responsibility first.
Again, I want to clear up that I am not talking about the clubs; they are different from the competition organisers. The clubs and the Premier League, for instance, have very different views, as we have seen recently on financial fair play. The amendment is about giving those regulatory bodies—such as the FA, the Premier League and the EFL—an opportunity, where they are best placed to do it, to make those decisions themselves. If the regulator does not agree with that, ultimately it always has the final say.
I hope we will be able to return to this, because I hope it would demonstrate the collaborative approach that all noble Lords and the Government are trying to bring. I know that it is what we have all said many a time in this debate as well. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I rise to oppose the question that Clause 15 stand part of the Bill—and, indeed, Clauses 15 to 25. I do that not because I disagree wholeheartedly with this huge swathe of the Bill but because it provides opportunity to ask some questions about the nature of the licensing regime, which these clauses relate to. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer those questions and assuage some of the concerns that lie behind them.
I want particularly to discuss how the Government plan to deal with the possibility of clubs seeking to leave the licensing regime en masse. What would be their response if football clubs simply wished to be unlicensed? If several clubs opted out of the regime and established a rival competition, how would that work in practice?
We have touched on this a little but not in great depth and, when we have, the Minister has said that the Government’s solution and the design of the Bill for clubs that attempt to skirt around the legislation and operate in an unregulated competition would simply be to use the delegated powers in Clause 2(3) to make such a competition a specified and regulated one. There would be a sort of game of cat and mouse if that scenario played out. The Minister has argued that allowing this to happen in delegated powers allows for greater agility, but it is worth pondering just how much agility it really can deliver. A statutory instrument made under Clause 2(3) is subject to the affirmative procedure as per Clause 91. It therefore must be laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by a resolution of both Houses. There is therefore a limit on how swiftly the Government would be able to make such regulations and have them approved by Parliament.
It is worth also drawing attention to how this new licensing regime will interact with the existing licensing requirements from league organisers and UEFA. How do the Government envisage the regulator working with those bodies, which already license clubs, to prevent duplication of regulations and unnecessary further burdens?
Amendment 173 in this group, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, would remove the power of the Secretary of State to amend discretionary licence conditions by statutory instrument. This provision of the Bill is yet another example of where we do not have sufficient clarity or certainty for clubs and of the open-ended powers for the Secretary of State. Once again, we see a scenario in which the clubs will have to abide by rules but without the requisite certainty to enable them to plan effectively for the future. Today, we are debating the discretionary licence conditions in the Bill, but allowing the Secretary of State to amend the conditions specified in the Bill on a whim, if he or she wishes, surely defeats the purpose of putting them in the Bill in the first place.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 128, which gets to the nub of what the licensing regime should be looking at. It would require a personal statement to identify a club’s ultimate owner and that owner’s source of funds. It is really quite an important amendment because clubs, and fans in particular, have the right to know where the club’s money is coming from.
This is prompted by things that have happened to clubs in the past, when it has been quite clear to the outside world that clubs do not have the means—because their owners have failed to provide any detail or background on their own finances, despite having given assurances—to identify where their funding is coming from. I cite the case of Dr Tony Xia, who became the owner of Aston Villa back in 2016. He was approved as an owner by the football authorities, yet it later turned out that he had neither the money nor the resources. The club ended up just a week away from being unable to meet its tax liabilities.
Following the 2021-22 season, a survey of 92 clubs looking at data on wages and cash reserves revealed that many clubs, up to a senior level, were very close to not having the reserves that would ensure that they could meet their liabilities, pay wages and so on. Some clubs are very good at this—West Ham United is one of them and, apparently, Plymouth Argyle was one of the most financially secure that season, along with AFC Wimbledon and Tottenham Hotspur.
If we are seeking transparency through the licensing regime, it is clear that we will need to understand who the owner is, where their funding is coming from and how much that will kick in to ensure the safety and security of clubs for the benefit of their fans.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I have a concern with the whole of this part of the Bill and the way in which operating licences will be required and the adjudication made upon them. This part of the Bill is nine very dense pages of text, backed by three or four schedules. At various stages, it includes such dark phrases as:
“An application must be accompanied by … such other information and documents as may be specified by the IFR in rules”.
I used to be a lawyer, a long time ago, and I am reasonably accustomed to reading Bills and Acts, but when I start to read through this part of the Bill I can feel my lifeblood draining away. What of the owner or board of a small club looking at what will be required of them?
I noted that in the Minister’s winding up of the last debate she said that well-run clubs have nothing to worry about, which was meant to be reassuring. It does not matter how well-run a club is; it will have to comply with all this, and it will have to set itself up with lawyers, consultants and accountants to draw up a strategic business plan. A lot of clubs will not have a strategic business plan. That does not mean that they are badly run, but they will have to prepare such a plan. A strategic business plan is a document containing the proposed operation of a club: its estimated costs, how those costs are to be funded, the source of such funding and other information as may be specified by the IFR. That does not get done spontaneously or arise automatically.
The reality is that this is a very demanding regime intended to be put into law and enforced by the new regulator. I wonder whether there has been sufficient consideration given to putting in place a halfway-house system of regulation. Think about how companies are regulated: it is a requirement that, if you set up a limited company, designed to limit the personal liability of owners of the company, it is registered with Companies House. By law, certain listings are required and a certain amount of information has to be made public, including the filing of accounts. However, you do not have to get consent from a regulator to set up a company; you just have to register that it is in existence and subject to the laws that apply to it.
As we know, the state of football is pretty strong, stable, vigorous and successful compared with football in other, similar jurisdictions to ours. Have we given sufficient consideration to whether it might be good to take time, before we require small clubs up and down the country—which are not necessarily finding it easy to get through from week to week, month to month and year to year—to submit to this horrendous set of requirements just to get a licence to get on to the field of play in the first place, before they even set about winning a match, to go back to the drawing board and construct a regime that would require clubs to register in the same way that a company is registered, subject to rules and requirements for disclosure and transparency, and to changes being registered. That would reduce hugely the burden on clubs and would start to introduce the kind of consistency which, for reasons that I totally understand, is being sought.
I oppose the whole of Part 3 and its accompanying schedules—I am not even going to think about the plethora of regulations, guidance and further verbiage that will come out of it—standing part of the Bill.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it might be convenient for me to say a few words on this. Primarily, I am drawn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for the reasons he gave. We have heard that this is a wonderful, successful league. Bits of it are but, unfortunately, those are the bits at the top. Most of the cultural capital, I am afraid, is in the less glamorous clubs with less successful balance sheets.
We have a situation where we want to maintain the whole of the football structure: five leagues. This has proven to have—let us say—attracted financial irregularity; I think it was described as “chancers and fantasists”. We have to do something to stop this or we will start to have more disasters that mean something to the fan base.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, starts to address this. I hope that the Government are far more in tune with that amendment than with some of the others in this group.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 128. We are getting to the crux of what this regulator should be about: making sure that there are sensible financial decisions, and that risks are mitigated so that they do not jeopardise clubs’ futures.
Clubs in the EFL are expected to lose around £450 million this season and are reliant on owners to fund the shortfall. If this funding is not forthcoming, it can lead to financial trauma. Only 66 of the 92 clubs that filed accounts for the 2021-22 season included data on wages and cash reserves. Nottingham Forest spent £58,606,000 on wages but had just £25,000 in cash reserves—five hours’ worth of reserves. Surely that cannot be acceptable.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments standing in my name in this group. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Maude if I address some of the plethora of regulations, conditions and verbiage concerned. I am proposing a number of amendments that I hope will facilitate and ease the position that the Government face in this context.
I turn to my Amendment 169A. It is unclear from my reading of the licensing section of the Bill whether the IFR is expected to produce a detailed and granular set of financial rules that would be applied in a blanket way to a large class of clubs or leagues; examples include the specific liquidity ratios, the debt-to-equity ratios, operating cash-flow metrics and size of financial buffers. Or will the IFR take an entirely bespoke approach, where every club will have DLCs—discretionary licence conditions—applied according to their own circumstances? That would drive a coach and horses through the competition organiser’s ability to provide a level playing field and maintain competitive balance. The third option is that the IFR could take an outcomes-based approach whereby it produces some high-level guidance with clear outcomes that clubs must achieve and league rules sitting underneath, giving effect to these principles and outcomes. For example, the IFR could have a series of outcomes relating to working capital, transitionally financed balance sheet health, resilience, protection of assets, et cetera. Leagues could colour in these outcomes into rules.
My own strong preference is for the third option. This amendment, which characterises the third option, is designed to create space for that conversation and, hopefully, allow the Minister to say that, where existing sustainability rules are in place and working, there will be an opportunity for that kind of league-led approach at all levels within an overall regulatory framework. Therefore, my recommendation is an outcome-focused, light-touch regulation, with step-in powers where issues are identified. That is why I have drafted Amendment 169A.
I turn to my Amendments 167A, 168A and 168B. The current test for attaching and varying a discretionary licence condition sets an extremely low bar for the IFR. For example, it seems to me that the test could be met in the case of a club that is already meeting the threshold requirement, on the basis that a discretionary licence condition somehow contributes to the club continuing to meet it.
The DLC test is even vaguer as regards the systemic financial resilience objective. The DLC needs only to advance that objective. While not necessarily the intention, this risks a very unpredictable, wide-ranging and open-ended power that could have a serious impact on club finances. It is also an issue that can be easily mitigated, while still allowing the IFR to meet its objectives. Again, I seek simplicity on behalf of the clubs. I am really concerned that here the detail is so great that it will swamp some clubs.
In the current drafting, potentially the only check on endless interventions, by way of DLCs relating to the systemic financial resilience objective, will be either the IFR’s discretion—in other words, the IFR deciding it has done enough for now—or the IFR being forced to have regard to avoiding adverse effects building up as a result of excessive intervention. Neither of those seems adequate to mitigate the significant risk to English football at all levels. I acknowledge that there is discretion for the IFR to not act in this way. However, I do not think there should be an option to do so, given the very significant risks to English football that would come with the powers being used in this way.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I listened carefully to the noble Lord and, bizarrely, in preparing for the Bill, I looked at the accounts of a number of the small league clubs the noble Lord seeks to protect with this. They all have to have properly audited accounts. The clubs I looked at—they are in the National League, the National League South and the National League North—have turnovers that vary between roughly £10 million a year and £400,000 to £500,000. They are properly set-up companies that have to file reports with Companies House, et cetera, and they all go through an audit process. It seems to me that, in any event, they will supply to their auditors many of the things the noble Lord seeks and asks for. If they did not, they would not be complying with a proper audit.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has made some important points and, of course, everything I have said is based on the fact that those clubs will be following that. They are basic conditions that any organisation, not least a football club, should follow. All my amendments—I have studied them carefully—seek to make it easier to ensure that the clubs follow those procedures and that the uncertainties and vagaries in the current drafting of the Bill are clarified, making it easier and more efficient for clubs to meet their obligations as companies and football clubs in the professional leagues.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, posed a number of questions about the operation of Part 3 in relation to licensing functions. I will add one further question, to which I do not necessarily expect an answer today. Pursuant to UEFA regulations and delegation from the FA, the Premier League currently licenses clubs for the purposes of their participation in UEFA club competitions. I declare an interest as a season ticket holder at Arsenal Football Club—I realise that some of the other clubs supported by noble Lords would not have an interest in this matter for various reasons. My question is: will this function of the Premier League be affected by Clause 15 or any of the other clauses in Part 3?
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 168 and 169, which connect with some of the themes raised by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Moynihan. One of the most sensitive areas of this regime is the imposition of discretionary licence conditions on clubs. The purpose of my Amendment 169 is to say that the regulator can introduce such conditions only after being satisfied that the conditions would
“not be met by the club complying with all rules, requirements and restrictions which … will be imposed by a competition organiser”.
Essentially, this does not go as far as full delegation to leagues such as the Premier League—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the broad criticism of that—but would introduce in one specific area what might be thought of as a limited principle of subsidiarity for the imposition of discretionary licence conditions.
The main purpose is to ensure that the regulator observes the norm of good regulatory co-operation—with not just the Premier League but all the leagues—by looking first to the adequacy of league arrangements in response to specific problems that will be the most politically and competitively sensitive, before stepping in and intervening with club-specific conditions attached. Why? It is because subsidiarity is a good principle of regulation where it is not inconsistent with the application of the intent of the law; also, I believe that it will foster the habit of regulatory co-operation more generally—not just on discretionary licence conditions. It will avoid duplication and confusion in regimes, and it will equip the regulator with a bit more political protection when it comes to the charge of political interference, because it can say, “We’ve looked to the leagues to step in first before stepping in”.
In the case of the Premier League specifically—let us face it, that is where the rubber hits the road on this issue most of all—it gives it, first, a chance to maintain system-wide and league-wide governance integrity before club-specific rules arrive, rather than risking the intervention of the regulator, leading to fragmentation between clubs. Secondly, it allows differences in application, inside the Premier League, of the general IFR rules in ways that account for differences in risk, finance and strategy, which we have heard discussed many times in Committee.
An example is capital buffers. The regulator will want to require cash reserves, and in the case of the Premier League, you want to take account of those areas where there are genuine differences from lower league clubs—differences in player registration rights, meaning players are more liquid assets, for example. The Premier League could design league-wide rules that are sensitive to these different conditions. The amendment does not say that Premier League rules would trump regulator rules, but where there are concerns, the regulator would look first to the Premier League to modify league-wide rules that respond to the concerns before the regulator directly intervenes.
Another scenario might be an issue of liquidity management inside a Premier League club. This amendment would point to the regulator first looking to the Premier League to take steps such as enhancing its monitoring systems, developing new metrics, et cetera, before it goes to individual licence conditions. This, again, would ensure that the league could retain the integrity of league-wide rules, rather than Premier League clubs having individual regimes as and when they trip up over certain rules.
What if the regulator wanted to intervene with a specific club as a matter of urgency? It could still do this. What if the regulator thought Premier League rules were inadequate to the task and insisted on imposing a licence condition that cut across and undermined league rules? Ultimately, it could still do that too; in fact, it may think that was the right thing to do. But what the amendment would do is introduce a prior stage that looks to the leagues to make league-wide governance adjustment first. In the name of good regulation, that seems to me a sensible, limited amendment.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I rise to offer my support to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wood, and by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. These amendments take quite different approaches, but they seem to be driving at the same thing: a desire to clarify and improve the financial licensing section of the Bill. In my view, they highlight a really important principle—that the IFR should adopt an outcomes-focused, light-touch approach to developing its regulatory framework, and that it should work closely with football to do that.
These amendments would, in my view, be a vital step towards achieving a good balance in football regulation, one that safeguards financial sustainability by targeting clubs that have problems, which are clearly critical, while also respecting the unique responsibilities and expertise of the competition organisers. The current drafting of the Bill leaves critical questions unanswered about the regulators’ approach to financial regulation.
It is currently unclear whether the IFR will take a blanket, rule-driven approach that imposes granular financial requirements such as specific liquidity ratios or debt-to-equity thresholds across all clubs or, alternatively, whether it will adopt an entirely bespoke approach, applying discretionary licence conditions to every single club—all 116 of them—according to their unique circumstances and business models. If the IFR did the latter—it is entirely open to the IFR, because that is how ambiguous the Bill is—it would significantly undermine competition organisers’ ability to maintain a level playing field. Those licence conditions would necessarily need to be confidential to protect commercially sensitive information. For example, my club, West Ham United, would have no idea whether other comparable clubs were operating under similar conditions or not. That is a recipe for competitive chaos.
These amendments would mean that the IFR would need to take a far more balanced path to an outcomes-based approach, setting high-level principles and objectives while allowing leagues to implement their own rules to achieve those outcomes. Of course, they would be able, and must be able, to take a targeted approach to clubs getting into difficulties, stepping in at any time if those rules were deemed systemically not to be working, or if there was urgent concern about a single club or group of clubs. A more outcomes-based approach would ensure that the IFR focuses on the “what” rather than the “how”. By defining clear financial outcomes such as on balance sheet health, resilience, transitionary finance and asset protection, the IFR could establish a framework that addresses financial risks while avoiding unnecessary micro-management of clubs.
There is no reason why financial licensing should not follow this proportionate, targeted model, particularly as competition organisers such as the Premier League and the EFL already have sophisticated financial sustainability rules in place. If another competition organiser, perhaps one that has had less success in enforcing financial rules, wishes to give up this area completely to the IFR, that would be its right, but let us not forget that competition organisers have a deep understanding of their clubs’ financial dynamics. They already operate robust systems to monitor and enforce financial sustainability; for example, the Premier League has detailed profitability and sustainability rules, which are strictly adhered to, while the EFL has its own financial monitoring requirements tailored to the unique challenges faced by its clubs.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to comment on this part of the Bill. I rise to support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the clause stand part notice of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and to develop some of the points raised by my noble friend Lady Brady.
I begin with Amendment 128 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. I feel that there is no balance in it; that it creates an imbalance in terms of its impact on smaller clubs. While I have problems with the whole clause, I think this is the most difficult and onerous part, in its capacity for gold-plating and regulatory overreach. I also think it cuts across existing primary legislation, such as the Proceeds of Crime Act. What we are potentially seeing in these very loosely worded and wide-ranging powers—
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Is the noble Lord really saying that it is onerous for the regulator to know from a club who the owner of that club is, what the source of the funds might be or that the owner has funds that enable them to properly operate a football club?
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I think that is a fair question, but the amendment that the noble Lord is inviting the Committee to support today is what I might call a dangerous dogs amendment. It is basically reacting—legislation by anecdote or by the lowest common denominator. You find one bad apple in a barrel and you smash the barrel up and throw the apples everywhere. This will have a big impact on clubs.
I pray in aid the financial guidelines 17/6 that the Financial Conduct Authority put out in 2017 and the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. That was about stopping people laundering money—fair enough. What it has actually resulted in is dozens of people in prominent positions, such as local councillors, Members of Parliament, judges, chief executives of local authorities—even Members of your Lordships’ House—not being able to open bank accounts, and their sisters, their wives, their husbands and their brothers not being able to open bank accounts, because of onerous, overzealous regulation.
I am not saying that the IFR would necessarily develop in that way, but some of the most innocuous wording in primary legislation can sometimes give rise to that kind of gold-plating. It began, of course, under the anti-money laundering and counterterrorism regulations that we all supported. My point is that the sins of some clubs should not be visited on all clubs. My noble friend Lady Brady is absolutely right that if we do not have an objectives-based strategy, if we do not have a focused strategy for dealing with the most egregious issues, we will have a universalist approach of assuming that all clubs will be owned by dodgy owners—drug traffickers, people smugglers; I exaggerate for effect. There is the perception that that is the case and, of course, it is not the case at all. I say to noble Lords: be careful what you wish for.
On Amendment 173 in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, I have very serious issues with this clause, because it fails on its own merits, in many respects, because it is not commercially flexible. If we are going to give a power, under Clause 22(5), for the Secretary of State to vary the licence conditions—and I have big problems with “add”—which are already settled, we will want to do that quickly and in an efficacious manner. We will not be able to do that using the affirmative resolution in this House and the other place, because we cannot move quickly or make decisions quickly to respond to commercial change.
I am also very worried about the limited sanctions available in terms of mission creep. Clause 22(6) says:
“The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (5) only if requested in writing to do so by the IFR”.
Again, mission creep is almost built in there. Then, in Clause 22(7):
“A request under subsection (6) must explain why the IFR considers that the making of regulations under this section is compatible with the purpose of this Act”.
The question is: is a Secretary of State likely to refuse that? Probably not. There is not really a built-in self-policing mechanism in the Bill, and it is because of the wide-ranging powers and the permissive nature of this wording that I have problems.
The provision fails because it is too onerous and too draconian. However, it also fails on the other side, in that it cannot work quickly enough to address the specific club-based issues that the licencing condition variation is needed for. For those reasons, I ask the Minister to consider Amendment 128 carefully. This is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it invites the independent football regulator to exercise its powers ultra vires, which is not in the best interests particularly of smaller clubs.
Lord Markham (Con)
I rise to speak to my Amendment 173, but first I echo the words of many other noble Lords. I support the outcomes-based approach the noble Lord, Lord Wood, is trying to achieve with his amendment, and I think there is broad support for that.
To pick up on the debate between the noble Lords, Lord Maude and Lord Bassam, on strategic business plans, and to give a bit of detail by way of background, the information one needs to provide for an audit is necessarily backward-looking, looking at the last year for which accounts have been provided. A strategic business plan, by its very nature, is forward-looking. I would be very surprised if smaller clubs with, say, a turnover of £500,000, do that as a matter of course. Lots of small businesses and shops have that sort of turnover, and I am sure they are not doing it either. I am not saying it is not desirable, but it could quite quickly turn into a consultant’s paradise if every single club, including the small ones, suddenly had to produce three-year or five-year business plans. They would have to resort to consultants to do that, which would become burdensome.
This brings us to another problem that we have talked about a number of times. Noble Lords have heard me talk about liquidity issues. By trying to solve the sins of one or two clubs, we are in danger of putting a burden on all of them, particularly if we are asking clubs to deposit money as part of a liquidity ratio to ensure they have a safety net. That will inevitably take money out of football. I had a meeting with the Minister and her team last week, and I thank her for that. We had a very good conversation about exactly this point, and what she promised was a proportionate, sensible approach.
That brings me to my Amendment 173. We are having very sensible conversations, in general, based on the desire of all noble Lords to do what is best for football. However, the problem is that whatever happens here, the Secretary of State has the ability quite easily to change everything. So, in response to everything we discuss, such as ensuring that the licences required are proportionate, the Secretary of State can easily say, “Well actually, we want a more muscular approach”. All the debates over the last five days and counting, the meetings and the various consultations could quickly be set aside because a different approach is wanted. That is my concern.
It does not matter where we have got to in the conversations we have had over the past few days: they will suddenly count for nothing if the Secretary of State can completely change the rules, raise the bar and change the discretionary licensing conditions. I would like assurances from the Minister. How do we safeguard against the fact that these—in my opinion, very good—debates could suddenly be set aside because in a few years’ time, a Secretary of State wants to take a completely new approach, which could be entirely disproportionate?
This has been a rigorous and constructive “two plus two equals five” process, as I call it, as we try to agree on an approach to checks and balances. None of us will be totally happy with how it turns out, but we have all had constructive input into to it. However, all of that could be quickly set aside by a future Secretary of State being able to change the approach.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Under Clause 22(6), the Secretary of State may make the regulations the noble Lord is concerned about only if requested in writing to do so by the IFR, so the Secretary of State does not have complete discretion. We would be creating a new system which may reveal defects and omissions in its operation, so surely it is sensible to have a power to amend it if defects become manifest.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. Of course, we want to have the flexibility to react to such situations. This issue comes up in various other contexts, such as government statements. There are lots of points where the Secretary of State can vary the approach. The question is: how do we get the checks and balances right? However, I think there is basic agreement on this issue, and I would like to hear the Minister’s views.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Markham, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Moynihan, and my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton, Lord Wood of Anfield and Lord Mann for tabling the amendments in this group. I also thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will take each of the amendments in turn before responding to the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson, and their opposition to the entire licensing regime standing part of the Bill. I will endeavour to get the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, a response to his question in the near future; I do not have the detail he requested today.
Amendment 128, from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, and Amendment 129A from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, relate to owners. The first seeks to make identifying an owner’s source of funds a prerequisite for a provisional licence. I absolutely agree that it is crucial that the regulator has oversight of an owner’s funding, so it knows how a club expects to fund its activity and the source of this funding. I hope my noble friend will be reassured that this is why a club is already required to provide such detail as part of its application for a provisional operating licence.
When a club submits its application for a provisional operating licence, this must include a strategic business plan. Among other things, this must contain detail about the club’s operating costs, how these costs are to be funded and, crucially, the source of such funding. This will enable the regulator to scrutinise the source of the funds. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, importantly, a club must set out how much it plans to spend and how it will fund that cost. Furthermore, if the regulator has concerns at any time—even before it has received its provisional operating licence—about the source of an owner’s wealth, it can test that owner. Should it find that an owner’s source of wealth is connected to illicit finance, that owner will be found unsuitable.
I also agree that it is important that the industry has certainty as to what the regulator will consider “significant influence” by owners. Of course, what is meant by “significant influence and control” would need to have been set out in guidance before clubs and the regulator can consider who meets this definition. That is why I can assure noble Lords that the Secretary of State’s guidance will be produced in good time, in order to give this clarity.
Noble Lords should note that the provisions in Clause 3 and Schedule 1 that define “owner” come into force on the day the Bill becomes an Act. That means that the obligation on the Secretary of State to produce this guidance comes into force on that day, whereas the licensing provisions and other provisions which rely on the definition of “owner” will be commenced later, by regulations.
I turn to Amendment 132, from my noble friend Lord Mann. Although the risk of clubs going into administration will be greatly reduced, it may still happen. The regulator revoking a licence would be the ultimate punishment and would be used only in the most extreme of circumstances. I assure my noble friend that the regime is designed to avoid the situation his amendment aims to provide for, and that ensuring that a club has a plan for adverse shocks is at the heart of the regulator’s financial regulation regime. This might include a plan to keep the club going if, for example, an owner can no longer continue to fund it. We have spoken to many football clubs while developing the Bill, and know that the well-run clubs already do this.
Turning to Amendments 167A and 168A to 168C, from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I understand his intention that the regulator should identify a clear risk before acting. The amendments are not necessary to achieve the aim in relation to his points on discretionary licence conditions, as was explained to the Premier League when it suggested these exact amendments prior to introduction. The regulator can attach discretionary licence conditions only if the conditions contribute to a club meeting the threshold requirements, or if the conditions advance systemic financial resilience.
The regulator is bound by its general duties, meaning that it must have regard to its regulatory principles and must act reasonably and proportionately. In effect, that means that the regulator can attach a discretionary licence condition only to address a risk it has identified. I assure the noble Lord that the regulator cannot take any action that is meaningless or does not advance its objectives. If a club feels the regulator is doing that, it can appeal any action through the appeals regime.
Ultimately, these four amendments all seek to raise the threshold for intervention and limit when and how the regulator can act. For every discretionary condition, the regulator would have to demonstrate that there was no possible alternative to achieve the aim than to impose that specific condition. This would be an unacceptably high bar, fettering when the regulator can act. In practice, we think the risk of legal challenge could lead to an excessively risk-averse regulator, afraid to act swiftly or at all.
I thank my noble friend Lord Wood for Amendments 168 and 169 and for his genuinely constructive approach to scrutinising the Bill, which I very much appreciate. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, also expressed concern on the points he raised. My noble friend has met with officials and me regarding these amendments and I hope that those meetings were useful. We believe these amendments would severely limit the regulator’s flexibility to meet its objectives and ensure clubs reach their threshold requirements. The regulator should not take its lead from the competition organisers. Of most concern is the blurred accountability that this approach would introduce. The fan-led review laid bare the significant issues with self-regulation, and that is why we are introducing an independent regulator.
That said, the system is designed so that the regulator should not need to intervene if the required standards are being met. If clubs meet their threshold requirements naturally—for example, through their compliance with the industry’s own existing rules—the regulator should not need to apply discretionary licence conditions. The model in this legislation is the right one, with clear accountability, and where discretionary licence conditions are not applied in a one-size-fits-all way but reflect each club’s specific circumstances.
My noble friend Lord Bassam raised the basic requirement for clubs to have a sustainable business plan. I agree with him that that is important. That basic requirement, as well as the requirement for clubs to engage with their fans and ensure that their owners and officers are suitable custodians, are light-touch, appropriate measures that should already have been in place.
On Amendment 169A, from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the regulator is already required to publish guidance about how it will use discretionary licence conditions, including the outcomes it seeks to achieve. That will give upfront clarity to clubs and competition organisers. However, the Government do not believe that the level of detail in the noble Lord’s amendment is appropriate for the Bill. He and I would agree that we are not in-depth experts on football finances—had I looked ahead in my speech, I perhaps would not have said that, and I apologise. I am not an in-depth expert on football finances, the inner workings of football clubs or how football clubs operate; I will allow the noble Lord to make his own conclusions on the extent to which he is. The regulator will employ experts in this sector who will have far more knowledge of these areas than we do. They will also have a stronger evidence base on which to base their actions, informed by things such as the “state of the game” study and consultation with the industry itself. That is why we have required the regulator to publish guidance on discretionary licence conditions and why we think it should be left to do this independently. We do not want to unintentionally hamstring the regulator with overly prescriptive requirements for the guidance it must produce.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, if the regulator agrees with him that it should include detail on financial shocks, liquidity and debt management, it will include this.
I turn next to Amendment 173, from the noble Lord, Lord Markham. The Bill outlines the specific types of discretionary licence conditions that the regulator may attach to a club’s licence to address its financial or non-financial resources or to improve systemic financial resilience. It is possible that, as the industry evolves, these types of conditions might not remain adequate to address the new or different financial risks faced by clubs, and there might be more effective ways to address them. That is why it is crucial that there is a mechanism in the Bill to enable the types of conditions available to the regulator to be updated. This amendment would deny the regulator this flexibility and potentially make the regime unable to adapt to changing economic circumstances. It is vital that the regulator has appropriate the tools to regulate football effectively, both now and in the future.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Markham, that the Bill does not give the regulator or the Secretary of State free rein to make changes. The Secretary of State can amend the types of discretionary licence conditions that can be attached only if requested in writing to do so by the regulator—a point highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The regulator would have to provide clear reasons and consult stakeholders ahead of making a request.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
On that specific point, in Clause 22(8), the language is quite permissive and wide-ranging regarding who the IFR considers it appropriate to consult in respect of wide-ranging powers, particularly those to add or remove an item from primary legislation. Can the Minister confirm that the guidance that the Government will publish will tidy that up and make it tighter on who the IFR has to consult before it would write to the Minister seeking to vary the licence conditions?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We discussed in one of the previous groups why the legislation does not currently have specific people that have to be consulted every time. I commit to write to the noble Lord to clarify the specific point he raises. The regulator would have to provide clear reasons and consult stakeholders ahead of making such a request. The Bill has not stated every single person the regulator would have to consult every single time, but there are principles at play around how the consultation would need to take place.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the Minister but she will agree that the guidance could, for instance, include groupings of particular types of people who would be key stakeholders and would need to be consulted, because this would obviously be quite a wide-ranging intervention by the IFR.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will write to the noble Lord on that point. I hope it will give noble Lords some reassurance that Parliament would also be able to scrutinise any change, as regulations would need to be made by the affirmative procedure.
We do not believe that Amendments 174A and 174B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, would be helpful to the regulator, as we explained to the Premier League prior to introduction. The addition of a minimum six-week period would mean a total minimum of eight weeks once you include the minimum period for making representations or giving a commitment in lieu. That would mean an eight-week delay, during which the regulator would not be able to impose a financial condition, which might mean that the regulator would have no choice but to sit idly by while the issue identified at the club gets worse. That would be contrary to the regulator’s objectives and principles and is therefore not considered acceptable by the Government. Slow action has been a common feature of industry self-regulation. We will not allow it to become a feature of the independent regulator’s regime.
The regulator already has a regulatory principle to proactively and constructively engage with the regulated industry, including competition organisers. This means that regulatory intervention at one of their clubs should never come as a shock to a competition organiser. Once the regulator has given notice of its intention to attach a financial discretionary licence condition, the competition organiser will have a minimum of 14 days to propose a commitment in lieu. To be clear, this is a minimum; the regulator may well decide to specify a longer period, but, equally, if the situation was sufficiently serious and urgent, the regulator should not be prevented from acting without delay. The minimum period of 14 days therefore strikes the right balance.
Amendment 174B only adds further burden and confusion to the process of applying financial discretionary licence conditions. The regulator is required to follow the procedure set out in Clause 23, except in very limited circumstances. This includes urgent circumstances where the regulator considers that the issues are so significant and urgent that the condition needs to be imposed immediately. Under those circumstances, burdening the regulator with a requirement to go through the process of commitments in lieu when it has already acted under urgency and has its own regulation in place is not acceptable. This would also leave clubs in an ongoing state of uncertainty, where an existing financial licence condition might be replaced with a different competition organiser requirement. This would be unnecessarily complicated, confusing and burdensome.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fruitful and helpful debate on what will be one of the key issues with which we will all have to grapple once the regulator is established. I thank the Minister for engaging with the questions I raised in the spirit of the probing nature of my amendments that began this group.
The answer that the Minister gave was that the agility and speed in the system comes from the ability to seek an injunction in the courts, at least in the first instance, then from the secondary powers and the designation that the Secretary of State allows. That might be more welcome to the ears of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the rest of his profession than it might be to football clubs, but it is a helpful clarification, and I am grateful to the Minister for giving it.
This underlines the importance of getting the regulatory regime right and making sure that the regulator does its work in a way that commands the confidence of football clubs, so that they do not seek to get around the law or wish that there were ways for them to do so. With gratitude to the Minister and to the noble Lords for speaking to their amendments in this group, I will not oppose the clause standing part.
Lord Markham
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Regulator to set out its rules regarding licences no later than one month after passage of the Act.
Lord Markham (Con)
I shall speak to Amendments 125, 133 and 135. Hopefully, this will be a fairly uncontroversial, simple set of amendments, which try and set out clear expectations on timing.
I am very aware that, while there is uncertainty as to what the discretionary licensing regime may be, that has an unsettling effect on both clubs and potential investors into the sector. We would all agree that this is not something that we want. We want everyone to know what the rules of the game are, so they can either get on with doing whatever they need to do to apply to those licensing conditions and/or, if they are looking to invest in the game, so they can have that degree of certainty as to what the rules of the game are going to be, so as not to have that potential chilling effect on any new investment.
Amendment 125 tries to give the regulator a time limit of one month from the passage of the Act. I am very aware that there is a shadow regulator in place at the moment, so I hope that this is something that the shadow regulator is working on in the meantime. That is why I think that a one-month deadline is quite doable in that sense.
Related to that is Amendment 135, which says that once a club has put a discretionary licence application in, it will receive a reply from the regulator within one month. Again, I am very much assuming that these things are not a binary process. I would expect the club to be in liaison with the regulator as it put this application in and be receiving advice as it did so—so a one-month timeline at the end of that is quite relevant.
It is for us to set some expectations on the regulator in the Bill. In Clause 17(9), the regulator gets to set its own timing for it all, so it is quite appropriate that we are saying that, given the uncertainties placed on clubs, we expect these sorts of reasonable timeframes. Again, I am quite happy that we decide what those appropriate timeframes might be through our discussions on this, and there may be arguments to vary that slightly—but one way or the other, it is quite important that we set out what those timings and expectations should be.
Finally, Amendment 133 tries to give more time for how long provisional licences last. We want to try and avoid a cliff-edge situation whereby clubs are suddenly in the provisional licensing regime and then do not get beyond that. We would all then have a set of circumstances which I do not think any of us have really planned for, in terms of what would happen and whether the club would have to stop taking part in the competition at that point. Amendment 133 tries to give a bit more time around the provisional licence, increasing it from three years to four.
The main reason for these amendments is to make sure that these things are considered and that there is a good debate on what the appropriate timeframes are. It is reasonable that we put down what those timeframes should be, so clubs get as much certainty as possible in this. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I am very sympathetic to the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, in relation to his Amendments 125 and 135. Perhaps I may respectfully suggest to him and to the Minister what may be more palatable than what his amendments suggest. Amendment 125 is rightly concerned that the rules for a provisional operating licence should be made speedily. Everybody must know what the rules are. The amendment would require that these rules be made no later than the period of one month beginning with the day that this Act is passed. If the noble Lord is going to bring the amendment back on Report, I respectfully suggest that it would be more acceptable to say within one month from the date when the Act is brought into effect. The noble Lord will know that under Clause 99(1) and (2), Part 3—with which we are concerned—comes into effect not when the Act is passed but at a later date when regulations are made.
In relation to Amendment 135, the noble Lord is rightly concerned that the IFR should make the decision whether to grant a regulated club a provisional operating licence speedily. He lays down a period of one month from when the application is made. The amendment would allow for an extension of only two weeks. It is an absolute rule, subject to a two-week extension period. I respectfully suggest that that is far too confined. It is normal in a provision of this sort to allow for the period to be extended if there are exceptional circumstances. It is not difficult to envisage cases where, rightly, the IFR cannot take the decision within a period of one month plus two weeks.
For example, the IFR might reasonably take the view that it needs answers from the club to questions of detail, which it puts to the club, and the club may not provide those answers, or be able to provide them, within the period of six weeks for which the noble Lord’s amendment allows. I understand and I share the concerns at the root of Amendment 135, but it really needs to have an exceptional circumstances provision.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, looking at these amendments, I think that a little bit of agreement is breaking out that certainty and getting things done quickly are required in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, may have made drafting suggestions on the hoof, and we are lucky to have him to fulfil that function for us, but something that clarifies and addresses the issues raised here would probably be helpful. If there is something that we have all missed and it is hiding somewhere, that is great, but we need those answers.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in this group, and I certainly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has suggested in relation to Amendment 125. We are grateful to him. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right that we are seeking to make sure that we get the right balance with this group of amendments. We are keen to close the unfortunate gap that the Bill currently poses, which is that, if it passes without amendment, nobody will know what rules the regulator might yet specify or the period in which it might specify them. We need a bit more clarity for those preparing to be regulated and wanting to do so in this way would be useful. With gratitude to the noble Lords who have done the work of the Committee and suggested ways in which to improve on this ahead of Report, I look forward to hearing what the Minister thinks.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for tabling these amendments, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Addington and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for what has been a short but constructive debate. If the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, making changes on the hoof, I hope that he will accept that I am not going come up with a response on the hoof, but I will endeavour to look into the points that he raised and will get back to the whole Committee subsequently.
Starting with Amendment 125, I understand the desire for quick implementation, and the desire to make sure that clubs are given clarity on what is required of them as soon as possible. However, we believe that the regulator should not have an arbitrary deadline imposed on it to make rules relating to the application of provisional operating licences. The regulator should be able to conduct an effective consultation with clubs regarding the rules around this clause, and that should not be rushed. The regulator is already encouraged to be expedient, including in its regulatory principles, though I note that in a previous debate the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, raised some concerns around the definition of “expedient”, which we are still looking into. Beyond this principle of being time-efficient, the regulator should not be subject to arbitrary, tight deadlines that would serve only to limit its operational flexibility.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contribution, including the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his helpful suggestions. Having some certainty on the timeframe is quite valuable; the major concern is that while uncertainty is out there, you will get clubs and potential investors holding back on investment. Addressing that is the main intention behind these amendments. I hope that, as we progress further, we can look at some of those helpful suggestions so we can get the balance right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mann
“(e) setting out all financial arrangements with external agents or other intermediaries involved in contacts or recruitment, or both.”
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I again refer noble Lords to my interests in the register relating to this debate. I was in a meeting with the chair of the supervisory board of one of the more successful German football clubs discussing regulation. I asked him if there was one thing that could be done to improve football from regulation inside England what it would be. His advice was that the best thing that could be done—which is not actually available to us in this House as an amendment—would be to tax football agents in the UK through the British tax system.
Why might the head of a major football club—a competitor—wish to see that happen? If that happened—or if anything else threw into question the transparency of football finances, particularly in relation to the acquisition and departure of the key asset players—behaviour would be modified. I recall discussions with people who gave graphic detail of how, in the olden days—but not old enough for me not to have seen it happen—there was the notion of “cash in the boot”. A player would be signed to a team, suddenly and unexpectedly, and would play a few games. In doing so, cash would be handed over. I do not think that; I know that. I will not cite examples even though I could—it would not be fair to do so—but that was not uncommon.
In the modern game—today’s game—the amounts of money are much greater. One has seen situations where football clubs get into financial problems, usually because of relegation from the Premier League, and do not seem to know who owns their assets. There is a myriad of situations. That includes contract details—I can think of some in the recent past, where the fans, sponsors and others were rather bemused to find that certain players were able to go, at no fee, to play for other teams because of a clause in the contract that most people were unaware of.
My Amendments 129 and 248 seek to deal with the specific problem of how agents behave. There are examples I could cite where, pre transfer, players have been sold or bought for significant amounts of money and, literally at the very last moment, they suddenly change agents. I will give a hypothetical example, rather than shine too much specific light. Let us say that a player is sold for many tens of millions, and they have a single agent. The day before their transfer documents are signed, they then change agency. The agent then sues the player for their loss—for the cut that they would have got—even though the agents’ fees are very significantly higher than the worth of the individual agent. Why would anyone choose to do that? If you are a purchasing club and you are competing with others for a prized asset, you might well be prepared to pay more money and whatever requirements there are. But why would a selling club do that? What would the advantage be? The answer is there is zero advantage to a selling club—none—or, potentially, a disadvantage. If there are £15 million or £20 million in agents’ fees, that amount of money might come in to your club. So what is the motivation?
One of the things that has bedevilled football across the world, not just English football, has been people taking a percentage. I have spoken to people who have been offered money to give statistics on 12 and 13 year-olds in their own club—a cash-based suggestion that would accumulate over time, should the player get to a level of being worth lots of money. That is the minutia, but the major cases will involve major financial transactions. Fans are often perplexed by certain purchases and the amounts of money spent on players. They say, “What is going on here? This player does not appear to be worth quite that amount of money, or indeed anything near it. It must be because of bad football decisions”.
I put it to the Committee that perhaps the transactions are determined not always by football decisions but by loans. Most fans can cite times they have been bemused when their club has loaned a player in and paid a very large amount of money to do so, even though no one has ever heard of them before. The player then disappears a year on, and no one ever hears of them again. Why would you pay £1 million or £2 million to loan a player who no one has heard of, who has no track record and who then has no future track record?
The taxman has an interest, which is why, if I were able to do so and it would have been within the rules of this Committee, I would have proposed that taxing agents via the UK tax system would be the best answer. While that does not give public transparency, it seems that it would mediate behaviour. However, these two amendments seek to allow the regulator—not the general public—to be able to see and assess what is being paid and what is in the contracts. That would not be in a public way, but in a private way—and that would modify such behaviour.
If we are interested in competition in the sport, taking out externalities that have nothing to do with the business of the sport is in the interests—including the business interests—of the industry and the sport. Shining a light so that people do not feel it would be appropriate to do their decision-making based on how much they receive as a reward for their wisdom in, say, selling a player would be to the health of the game. Anyone in the Committee who thinks that does not happen, and has not happened, is being extremely naive. Anyone who thinks that this happens only at the lower end—the non-league, with a bit of cash in a back pocket—is also being naive.
Because of the way the football business has worked, there is a lot of money to be made, and people have managed to find ways—legally—of making additional profits for themselves, particularly out of the movement of the key asset players. These two amendments seek to allow at least the regulator to see exactly what is going on. Indeed, this is important in the critical situation where, say, a club does not own the assets that everyone thinks it has, because it has managed to sell them off in advance to some third party and therefore cannot cash in on them. There are examples that I am very familiar with, where clubs have gone insolvent because of that. In some way, this power needs to be in the Bill, unless the Government could be persuaded that HMRC would be a better decision-making body and have all football agents’ transactions in this country taxed through the UK tax system. I beg to move.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I was getting overexcited listening to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, because we have lives outside this Chamber, and for my sins, I go in the Dog and Duck every now and again, where, somehow, people find out that I am involved with this Bill. My pint goes flat before I have had a chance to drink it, because they ask, “Well, why do you not get this sorted?”
One of the main questions that comes across is: “What are you going to do about the agents?” I did not think that that was really grating with supporters, but it is—from the top right to the bottom. I know because I support Manchester City, which used to be at the top, and I look after, where I can, Stockport County, who are reasonably not near the bottom any more.
Supporters are human beings. They work hard and pay their money to go to watch the football. Nothing grates more than when they find out how much agents get for doing these deals. As has been said, there is confusion about player ownership. Do two or three people own a player? Does a company own a third of that player? If we wish to sell that player, does that mean we need the permission of those other people before we can sell him? Is that value for the club? Those issues need teasing out.
I am attracted to the idea of an agent having to pay UK tax, which would really add some clarity to the Bill. To be honest, supporters do not quite get it. I am not saying that I am above them or anything like that, but they see it as nebulous. They want to know what practical things the regulator can do for them as football supporters. If the Government were fleet of foot, they would put agents’ fees at the front of the Bill and say that any agent of a UK footballer should pay tax in the UK. That would be universally supported by all supporters.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I agree that many of us who are concerned about football could talk all night about football agents and the concerns that many people have about them.
I want to talk about another amendment in this group. The Marshalled List says that this grouping is miscellaneous. The combination of topics that we are discussing in this section is rather strange. I want to say a word about Amendment 150 in my name, which concerns the concept and practicality of assets of community value. We would like to make this a condition of the licensing system. It is really important that fans have the reassurance that their ground is not going to be sold underneath them and all the assets of the club traded by someone who does not have the footballing interests of the club at heart. I am always surprised that more clubs’ grounds and assets of this kind are not deemed to be assets of community value. That would be part of the protection of clubs’ heritage but also—perhaps as importantly—significant in protecting clubs from rogue owners.
I have a particular interest in this because of what happened to Bolton Wanderers a few years ago. Thankfully, because of the actions of the fans and the supporters’ trust, the stadium, the pitch, the circulation area, the seats, the stands, the Premier Suite, our car park and the fan zone were protected when the local authority accepted that they should be assets of community value. It meant that those assets were protected. It was particularly important at the time because we had gone through the experience of having an owner whose main concern was not the footballing future of Bolton Wanderers but the assets. A rogue owner of that kind can do immense damage, so this protection is extremely important. I urge that consideration be given to making it a condition of the licensing that football assets are designated as assets of community value.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to two groups of amendments within this group. Amendment 167 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Taylor is about the removal of rogue owners. In a sense, this amendment poses the question: what is the point of a regulator that identifies bad practice and rogue owners but does not have clear powers and mechanisms to replace them? Our amendment seeks to incorporate within articles of association provisions that would oblige owners to give up their shares and make sure that those shares were given over to a new beneficial owner, subject, of course, to the usual checks.
Our argument is that the Bill must adequately address enforcement of the fit and proper owner test to enable the regulator to force an owner to sell their shares or force a director to resign from the board. In doing that, the regulator would be able to ensure that clubs have sufficient reserves to meet ongoing operational costs if an owner is disqualified.
At some point, it might be advantageous to consider having a central sinking fund in place to help cover interim costs. In the licence criteria, the regulator might also want to insist that clubs include in their articles of association a mechanism for the resignation of a director in those circumstances. That is important because we do not want situations such as Aston Villa found in 2016. In the mid-1990s Brighton & Hove Albion had owners not only who were deeply unpopular but who were not there because they had the best interests of that club at heart. More accurately, they were asset-strippers who eventually, without providing an alternative, sold the ground to a series of companies that set up a retail park. One of the saddest moments of my life was going to the last game there. We all knew what was going to happen to that site. It was going to end up as a Toys “R” Us. I have nothing against Toys “R” Us, but there were plenty of other sites in Brighton where it could have happily located.
I turn to Amendments 205, 208, 210 and 259, which are about protecting domestic competitions. Currently, the Bill does not require clubs to prioritise domestic over European or worldwide competitions. We feel that clubs should be property consulted before changes are made to competitions. The Bill should ensure that the regulator can designate European or worldwide competitions as restricted and not to be prioritised above domestic competitions. This would prevent clubs establishing a new entity to inherit the existing club’s identity and players—for example, the Man Cities of this world leaving the Premier League and calling themselves City Blues for the purposes of entering a restricted competition.
This is important because the ecosystem of competitions has been under pressure in the last few years. For instance, earlier this year moves were made to prevent replays in FA Cup matches. I think it would be fair to summarise that that was against the will of most clubs and largely for the convenience of the bigger clubs playing in European competitions. There is nothing wrong with them playing in Europe; it is very welcome and important for the success of our Premier League. We want to make sure that this carries on being the case, but the abolition of FA Cup replays went against the vast majority of clubs’ interests and has undermined the beauty of the competition in the sense that, periodically, replays provided much-needed funds for clubs in the lower leagues. It has also restricted the opportunity for lower-league supporters to see the bigger clubs when they enter the competition. It is important that the regulator has an interest in this and that we provide clubs with the certainty and security that they will be consulted about competition changes.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment 129 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mann. It is relevant to Amendment 93 which, your Lordships may recall, requires the new regulator to regulate football agents. My motivation for that amendment was to try to keep transfer fees within football. As I mentioned, it is very important that the grass-roots clubs that develop the players of the future get their fair share.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, setting out all financial arrangements with external agents and other intermediaries involved in contracts, recruitment or both is an interesting one. My only question is: how will this work in practice? How will the regulator deal with highly confidential multi-million-pound transfers? The noble Lord mentions it being private and confidential and therefore not public, but potential leaks could affect these deals. What would the regulator do? How would he operate? How would he stop or block those transfers? The Premier League still has the best players. We still want to attract the best players. It is vital that we get this right to avoid the trap of unintended consequences. It is so important to protect the international reputation of the Premier League.
My amendment was tabled to ensure that no matter where the transfer comes from, that money stays within football. However, we would have to be careful about how that happened in practice.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, regarding Amendments 150, 152 and 164, I will not repeat what has already been said about community assets. I will speak just to my Amendment 248A, which probably counts as a miscellaneous amendment. It is a probing amendment, strong concerns having been raised by the Supporters Trust at Reading. It seeks to insert a new clause, after Clause 51, on ticket pricing, meaning that regulated clubs would have to adhere to the following rules: dynamic pricing strategies being prohibited, concessionary tickets being mandatory and ticket prices for away fans being kept at the level set out in regulations by the Secretary of State. It is a simple amendment, but I suspect that it will not be universally supported.
I understand why clubs want to use dynamic pricing and how it can be used very successfully, but this amendment seeks a more fan-inclusive approach. The Supporters Trust at Reading quoted the Early Day Motion tabled in September 2024, when 19 of the 20 2024-25 Premier League clubs increased their ticket pricing. Abolishing or reducing concessionary tickets would be very bad news for older or younger fans who felt the effects of the cost of living crisis harder than most. Also, Fair Game has said that the constant rise in ticket prices has priced long-standing fans out of the game and that there should be proper consultation with supporters to address their concerns.
I do not seek to open the debate on what a fan is, but this amendment is about giving consideration to how fans can be engaged in discussions about ticket pricing. I am expecting many noble Lords to tell me that this is too interventionist and that it will limit clubs too much, but I am interested to hear the Minister’s response.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, going through this long list of amendments, I think that we can all agree that “miscellaneous” is a good description of this group. On what is a competition, I added my name to one of the amendments, but probably should have added my name to the one about heritage. Is it a ground part of the heritage, is it part of the structure, is it what is going on? I should have put my name to this and look forward to the Minister’s reply. If we do not include this, we are missing an important part of why this Bill is justifiable.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I support the probing amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, although not necessarily the wording of it or the outcome. It is related to something that the noble Baroness and I have worked on for a long time and which is covered in my miscellaneous Amendment 258A. It binds the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and me to the same cause. There is still a major problem of abuse in the ticket market for football, not least for membership cards. Last season alone, in February one club had to cancel more than 30,000 membership cards. They were all in the hands of the touts. This is a massive problem now.
When we started to campaign to sort out the secondary ticket market, it was much smaller. Fifteen years ago there were some 120 professional touts. Now there are subscription groups which get together using bots to get hold of tickets, place those tickets on the secondary market and sell them illegally. Viagogo is, regrettably, used as a speculator—a ticketing lobby. From that, those tickets are sold abroad illegally with, quite often, information hidden behind the icons. This goes against the terms and conditions set by the clubs, which do a huge amount of work across football to make sure, especially at sold-out matches, that tickets do not get into the wrong hands.
Lord Markham (Con)
In speaking to my Amendment 332, I will follow the words of some other noble Lords and say that I find it quite confusing that we have so many disparate amendments grouped together.
My Amendment 332 would stop the Secretary of State being able to define a season. I hope that someone—maybe the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—will tell me that I have read this wrong somehow, or that it is not the intention at all, but I think we would all agree that, when it comes to regulatory or government overreach, trying to define a season and when it should start and end is not the role of government or a regulator. I hope that this is quite an easy one to clear up, because I would be very surprised if that is the intention behind it. The relevant Clause 92(3)(a) says that:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to change … the definition of ‘football season’”.
It would be very welcome if that could be clarified; otherwise, I suggest that we might want to delete it.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I will comment very briefly on the subject of football agents, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I declare an interest: my son Joel Pannick is a football agent—I am very proud of my son—who works at Base. My perspective of football agents is that there are still abuses; they need to be regulated and they are regulated. The era of unregulated bungs no longer exists to the extent so vividly described by the noble Lord, Lord Mann.
Let me say why I want, in the interests of balance, to inform this Committee of what the position is. Football agents are now licensed and they have to pass a demanding examination. They are regulated by FIFA and the FA. I should mention that the scope of the regulations was the subject of legal challenges in the last year, and those legal challenges partially were successful. It is the case that HMRC adopts a far more vigorous approach to this topic than it used to, and rightly so; it keeps a close eye on payments and receipts. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, is absolutely right that there are many agents who are not subject to HMRC because they are based abroad, but those based in this country certainly pay tax, and in many cases a great deal of tax. I thought I would just mention those factors in the interests of balance.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, I always balk when I see a group described as miscellaneous, or even worse in this case, “misc”. On the failure to give new names to the groups that have been degrouped, it is always helpful to have a go at giving us a theme. But I am grateful to the noble Lords who have covered a wide range of very important issues in this group.
I wanted to say a few words about my noble friend Lord Markham’s Amendment 332, to which I have added my name. A number of noble Lords raised in previous debates the concerning example of the delegated power for the Secretary of State to decide what and when a season is. I am glad we have had opportunity to discuss that on its own. This delegated power seems to be egregious. I am not quite clear why the Secretary of State should have a say on what constitutes a football season. I am not even sure why this delegated power is necessary—apart from granting the Secretary of State more powers over the game, there does not seem to be any particular advantage to her in granting herself this rather curious power. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response. I wonder whether UEFA has a view on this measure. Would it not regard the Secretary of State being able to intervene in the definition of a season as political interference? If the Government have had discussions with UEFA on this point, I would be grateful to know.
I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Mann, actually got round to speaking to his Amendment 153 in this group, which relates to modern slavery—such are the pitfalls of a miscellany—but I wanted to highlight that one and congratulate him on bringing it forward. I am sure all noble Lords would agree that everyone has a duty to prevent this abhorrent crime. I was very proud to work at the Home Office when my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead brought through the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which has made large headway into cracking down on this abhorrent behaviour. Since then, both the Premier League and the English Football League have released an annual anti-slavery and human trafficking statement, as have all the participating clubs. As the Minister knows, I am wary of increasing the scope of the regulator, but I would be interested in hearing how she thinks this new regulatory regime will operate within the law that we already have to tackle modern slavery and what she thinks of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Mann.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his comments on football agents. Whether they are more or less popular than lawyers, I will leave to others to decide—and indeed whether the existing regulation that is brought about by UEFA and others he mentions is, in this case, sufficient and not a requirement for further regulation, as we see in some of the other behaviours in football. I leave all these, and the miscellaneous other issues that noble Lords have raised, to the Minister to respond to.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank noble Lords across the Committee for the thorough debate on this group. If the group is called misc or miscellaneous, that does not diminish the significance of the concerns raised.
I will take each amendment in turn. First, I thank my noble friend Lord Mann for his Amendment 129. While it is right that the regulator should have all relevant details of the club’s finances when assessing it for an operating licence, we do not believe this detail is required to be provided in the Bill. The personnel statement should detail any key individuals working specifically at the club in question and should not include external individuals. However, any relevant financial arrangements can be included within the strategic business plan, or the financial plan, if the regulator deems this necessary.
My noble friend Lord Mann and the noble Lords, Lord Goddard of Stockport and Lord Evans of Rainow, raised concerns about agents and their fees. A different perspective—it is always helpful to get a rounded perspective—was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. In response to the broader point regarding agents, as was noted, FIFA has recognised the need for the better international regulation of agents and has proposed reforms. FIFA’s member associations, such as the FA, will retain the ability to introduce stricter requirements on agents than those stipulated in FIFA’s regulations. The DCMS will work closely with the FA to ensure that any national regulations for agents are fit for purpose. The Government are working with the FA and FIFA to track the implementation of these regulatory reforms, which are due to begin next year.
Amendments 150 and 164, in the names of my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton and Lord Bassam of Brighton respectively, concern assets of community value. Home grounds are often the most important assets that a club owns. That is why the Bill has prioritised key protections to prevent them being sold, used as collateral or relocated without the necessary considerations. “Asset of community value” status is another mechanism that a number of clubs and supporters’ groups have obtained for their home grounds.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, if I may ask the Minister to give way very briefly, I raised the issue of the abolition of FA Cup replays in the context of consultation. Had that been in the future, would there have been an obligation on the FA to consult which the regulator could have enforced? The shape of that competition is very germane and important to football fans across England and Wales, and it seems to me that it is a significant issue that ought at least to be part of the regulator’s consideration.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend raises an interesting point. The issue of the FA Cup replays would rightly be outside the scope of this regulator. The sporting calendar and the rules of specific competitions are matters for the football authorities to manage in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders. I am not sure whether that reassures my noble friend, but we can maybe have a longer discussion about it at another point.
On Amendment 242A from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—apologies if I am going over paragraphs that I have already covered—the intention behind this amendment is to make sure that clubs are not overburdened with requirements to notify the regulator of every event that ever happens. We do not want this either, nor is it in the regulator’s interest to receive a flood of unnecessary information. As the clause sets out, the notification requirement relates to material changes in circumstances. It will be up to the regulator to set out what it considers to be material in guidance, which we expect it will produce on this. The regulator will already have burdens in mind when setting its guidance and enforcing this duty on clubs, given public law principles and its regulatory principles. We want the regulator to receive the information and updates it needs to regulate effectively. By raising the bar for when clubs are required to notify the regulator of changes, the proposed amendment risks doing just that.
Amendment 248, from my noble friend Lord Mann, would introduce a new requirement for regulated clubs to register with the regulator all player contracts, transfer fees and other fees annually for the previous 12 months. I reassure my noble friend that, where this information is relevant for the regulator to understand a club’s finances, it can already obtain it. All clubs will be required to submit financial plans which detail, among other things, their revenues and expenses. These plans should capture details about player contracts and transactions where this information is relevant to the regulator understanding a club’s finances. Furthermore, the regulator has extensive information-gathering powers. Should it need greater oversight of the detail set out in this amendment, the regulator can already request this information, and it would not have to wait 12 months to get it. Therefore, I am confident that the Bill already delivers the intent of the amendment.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for Amendments 248A and 258A respectively, which focus on ticket prices. I understand that the noble Baroness intends to address the recent rise in clubs removing concession pricing on tickets and other such changes that have left some fans priced out of match attendance, and she highlighted concerns raised by fans from Reading. Fans are justifiably concerned, and I am exceptionally sympathetic to that. I am equally grateful for the attention by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to ticketing and the issue of resale. These are huge issues that matter to fans, which is exactly why the Government have made it explicit that clubs must consult their fans on ticket pricing as part of their fan engagement. This also includes engagement on other operational issues, which is intended to capture many of the issues the noble Lord has made in his amendment. It is also important to note that any unauthorised resale of tickets for designated football matches is already addressed in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Many clubs take this exceptionally seriously and work with police and relevant authorities on it. However, the regulator should not be seen as a vehicle to fix all of football’s woes, especially those that are well within the gifts of clubs, leagues and the FA to address. On the noble Baroness’s amendment in particular, it would also not be appropriate for the Government to dictate prices or concession categories, and there is limited precedent for such an interventionist approach on commercial decisions.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
Before the Minister leaves that amendment, could she very kindly advise the Committee whether the Government intend to meet their expected deadline of a consultation exercise on the abuse of the secondary ticketing market by the end of this year?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
If I may, I will clarify that in writing after this session to ensure I give the right response. I am not trying to avoid it; I will ensure I give the Committee a response.
Amendment 332 is from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, also spoke to it. I appreciate that noble Lords may not welcome the use of delegated powers to amend the definition of “football season” in the Bill. However, to future-proof the Bill against any changes to the footballing calendar, we feel that the Secretary of State needs this power.
It is unlikely, but possible, that a specified competition might be organised in a unique way in the future, for which the current definition may not be suitable. For example, I am sure that noble Lords remember the impact of the 2022 World Cup on the domestic calendar. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that similar changes may occur in the future that impact the efficacy of this definition.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I am now trying to be helpful, especially in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who will be able to opine on this suggestion. The reason why the Secretary of State has this power, as set out on page 46 of the memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, is that a specific competition may be played over two calendar years. That is the current definition. If it were not to be played over two calendar years, we would not be able to proceed with the definition of “football season” set out in the Bill.
We have been looking for simplicity here. Instead of Clause 92(1) defining a “football season” as
“beginning with the day in a particular year on which the first match of any specified competition is played, and … ending with the day in the following year on which the final match of any specified competition is played”,
a simpler way would simply be to delete “in a particular year” and “in the following year”. Then we would all understand that we begin on the day on which the first match is played and end on the day on which the final match is played. We thus would not need secondary legislation through a draft affirmative resolution for the Secretary of State to come back to both Houses of Parliament, as this simple amendment could clarify it all and remove the Secretary of State from this onerous task.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not sure that the Secretary of State would find it onerous, because it is not intended to be used very often. However, the noble Lord makes an interesting point and I appreciate that he made it in the spirit of being helpful.
This is not a power for the Secretary of State to dictate to the industry what a season is; it is the opposite. The power as currently defined in the Bill will ensure that the definition can flex to changes in the industry. It will also be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, so I hope noble Lords will rest assured that the House will be able to scrutinise any changes. I am happy to continue to discuss that further with noble Lords after Committee.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I think it would be helpful if the Minister took this away, discussed it and maybe checked whether a solution like the helpful one my noble friend Lord Moynihan suggested might be possible. That would remove one of the delegated powers that the Delegated Powers Committee has raised concerns about.
I was struck by the answer the Minister gave to the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, reassuring him about various matters of gameplay that are not within the scope of this regulator. The timing of the season seems to sit closer to things that she reassured him are not the job of the new independent football regulator to look at than to delegated powers for the Secretary of State. I hope she will take this away and continue discussions ahead of Report, because that feels like a very straightforward and sensible suggestion.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I was getting to the point where I was offering to take it away, so I think we are in violent danger of agreeing. On the question of the House being able to scrutinise any changes, I think we will return to this issue later, before Report.
Amendment 259 is from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton. I understand that concerns have been raised about the ways in which rules are made in the industry today, including in recent legal cases. However, the Government’s view is that the amendment as drafted is not appropriate. The scenarios listed in Clause 55(6) could well be time sensitive and urgent. They may require immediate action from both competition organisers and the regulator. It would not be right to burden the competition organiser with a requirement to consult every member club for the purpose of informing the regulator of changes to the regime on an issue that may not affect them all. We would, of course, expect competition organisers to be carrying out appropriate consultation on their own rules. However, we are wary of the regulator mandating and prescribing how the leagues develop their rules.
I will finish on the two government amendments, Amendments 320 and 330. They both correct erroneous cross-references and make no change to the content of the Bill.
For the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I am very reassured by the Minister’s clear words about the powers of and information from agents. Despite the valiant efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, we may be on the same side here, because I am in defence of British agents. With the complexities of football, there is nothing to stop anybody getting a legal cut from a transfer fee. The more transparency that is thrown on that, the more money is kept in the game.
The irony is that probably the main source of my information is agents. A second source is players and a third is owners and investors. The power of the agencies is often greater than that of the clubs themselves. That is the direction of travel. Therefore, it will be beholden on the regulator to ensure that at least there is maximum transparency. If a club wishes to give £1 million to another club in, say, Sicily for a player no one has ever heard of and who has played for two or three minutes, that is obviously a good business decision. The more out in the open that is, the healthier future the game has.
After that genuinely helpful reassurance from the Minister on my amendments, I seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw Amendment 129.
Lord Markham
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I hope this will be a nice, quick and simple group ahead of dinner break business. Clause 17 refers to awarding or refusing a provisional licence. I think we all agree that, if a provisional licence were not agreed, it would have serious consequences for a club, which would not be able to carry on playing or start a season, for example. That would have serious consequences on the fans, as well. All this amendment seeks is to give clubs sufficient time to respond. Generally, in serious situations, 14 days is not enough time to respond fully, so the suggestion is to give clubs a month in these circumstances. I beg to move.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for their amendments. Apart from Amendment 148, which I will turn to shortly, they all seek to extend to a month the minimum period for clubs, individuals and competition organisers to make representations to the regulator on a number of issues—far longer than the 14 days that the Bill sets out.
The 14 days set out in the Bill for representations is the minimum to ensure that the individual concerned has a fair amount of time to prepare and present any representations to the regulator, though it is not an absolute. The regulator may choose to specify a longer period if it thinks it is appropriate. However, the 14-day minimum also means the regulator can respond quickly to urgent issues without an extended delay if necessary. We do not think it is appropriate to introduce unnecessary delays into the regulator’s regime that would slow down decision-making and leave clubs in an extended period of uncertainty. A 14-day period for representations is not uncommon among other regulators such as the FCA and CMA.
Turning to Amendment 148 specifically, I understand that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, is to ensure that, if the regulator is looking to revoke a club’s provisional licence, the club will have an opportunity to make representations. I reassure the noble Lord that this is already captured by Clause 18(4), which says that, if the regulator considers that a club has not met the full licence test, it needs to give the club notice. This must include
“inviting the club to make representations about the proposed action”,
be that to extend the provisional licence period or to revoke the provisional licence. To be clear, the regulator would look to revoke a provisional licence only if the club had persistently and without excuse failed to take reasonable steps to meet the requirements for a full licence. This is a high bar. Therefore, the club will have had sufficient opportunities to take remedial action even before the opportunity to make representations under Clause 18(4). The club will also be able to appeal a decision to revoke a provisional licence if it believes the regulator has acted unfairly. This is yet another way in which the regulator can be held to account and decisions can be scrutinised.
I will close with the question that Clause 18 stand part of the Bill. I understand that the rationale of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in tabling the clause stand part notice is the same as that which we already discussed in relation to the earlier group on licensing. I am happy to provide further detail on Clause 18 in writing if the noble Lord wishes it, but, as I set out earlier, we do not believe there is a credible risk that clubs will refuse en masse to participate in the regime. Clubs at all levels of the game have welcomed this regime.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. The main thing is not only having a sensible conversation but making sure that the regulator is aware that, where there are circumstances in which more than 14 days are required, it demonstrates that flexibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
(d) the home ground threshold requirement (see paragraph 6).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes it a threshold requirement (which a club must comply with to obtain a full licence) to meet certain requirements (as inserted by amendment 147) relating to the club’s home ground.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I hope I can deal with this group of amendments fairly quickly. It is again a disparate group, but the main theme is fan consultation and the requirements on a club. The amendments seek to alter the fan engagement threshold requirement by requiring a club to have structures and processes for effective engagement with their fans.
It is vital that there are proper requirements to ensure that a club applying for a licence, for instance, has a suitable home ground for a minimum period of 20 years. This would help prevent owners using much-adored home grounds as bargaining chips and collateral to strengthen their financial muscle against the wishes of fans. The clauses that we seek to insert would incentivise clubs to protect their home grounds as part of their heritage and their history.
Amendment 142 concerns ticket prices. This is important because we are in a situation where clubs pretty much have a free hand in raising ticket prices. Let us take the recent example of Manchester United, which has, in effect, doubled the price of some tickets and removed discretionary or reduced ticket prices for younger supporters—my noble friend Lord Shamash could say more about that than me. The amendment would insert ticketing prices as a relevant matter for consideration in the process of regulation.
That is the spirit and intent of the amendments. I am looking for some reassurance from the Minister that fans will be properly engaged in clubs’ consideration of these issues, that there will be proper processes and ways of ensuring that their voices are heard and that issues such as ticket pricing in particular, and playing in prohibited competitions and so on, will be something the IFR can look at, comment on and, in some situations, determine.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in response to these important amendments, all of which seek to strengthen the Bill’s provisions for consulting fans. We should pay tribute to noble Lords who have long championed the role of supporters in football, particularly those who have been involved in supporter trusts and similar bodies for many years. Their passion and their advocacy are no doubt one of the reasons that fan voices are becoming even more central to the governance of our national game.
I support the intent behind these amendments. Fans are the lifeblood of football. They invest not just their money and time but their hearts and identities into their clubs. Ensuring that their voices are properly heard, and heard with respect, is not just a moral imperative but essential for the long-term sustainability and integrity of football. The Premier League clubs recognise this too. In recent years, they have made significant progress in embedding fan engagement into their governance structures. Through its fan engagement standard—the first of any league to introduce such a standard—clubs are held to account for how they involve their supporters in decisions that matter to them. Fan advisory boards are now mandatory at every Premier League club and provide supporters with direct access to senior executives, enabling meaningful input on issues such as ticketing, matchday operations, club identity and community programmes. These initiatives represent a significant cultural shift. They create a platform for genuine dialogue between clubs and their supporters, ensuring that fans’ perspectives are considered at the highest levels of decision-making.
While I support the principles underpinning many of these amendments, I also feel it is important to raise a note of caution. Specifically, I want to raise the risks of the IFR being overly prescriptive when it comes to fan engagement and consultation. Clubs are not one-size-fits-all entities; each has its own unique character, fanbase and operating environment. For example, the dynamics of a global club with millions of international fans will differ significantly from those of smaller community clubs, many of whose supporters live within a few miles of the ground. Let us take, for instance, the idea proposed in some amendments that clubs must prove that a majority of their fans support certain decisions. While the intent is admirable and builds on the FA’s and many clubs’ approach to heritage assets already, we must acknowledge the practical difficulties of legally mandating such approaches.
How does a club definitively determine what constitutes a majority? Should a global fanbase have the same weight as local season ticket holders? What happens when opinions are divided? Would the IFR reverse a decision if, down the track, it was found that the wrong methodology had been used? These are complex questions without any easy answers. We should be careful not to create a compliance culture that detracts from the spirit of good engagement. It is really good to make this aspirational on both sides. For fan engagement to work well, the club has to feel confident, be open and get out of its comfort zone; the fans must enter into the debate in a constructive and open-minded spirit too. The difficulty will come if the IFR is drawn into micromanaging fan consultation and adjudicating on individual decisions, therefore inadvertently feeding an adversarial approach between fans, groups and clubs.
Now that might sometimes be appropriate, but I strongly believe the IFR will often be best to focus on ensuring that principles are upheld, leaving the specifics to clubs and their supporters. I also want to make the point that many of these new structures and processes for engaging fans, such as the fan engagement standard and fan advisory boards, are still new; they need time to bed in.
There are some brilliant examples of good practice already; for example, clubs bringing fan advisory board members into their clubs and having them spend time with football, commercial and operational teams so that they can understand the realities of life inside the club. But it is too early to say what the best approaches or designs of these processes will be. We should encourage more thoughtful approaches that allow these structures to mature and evolve, with periodic reviews to assess their effectiveness. A rush to codify overly detailed requirements risks stifling this organic progress and creating unintended consequences.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, I am a very happy Manchester United fan. The last few minutes of yesterday’s game were bliss; they reminded us of what happened in 1999 when we won the treble.
I rise to talk again in relation to supporters’ trusts. I have been pressing this; I pressed it in debate the last week and, indeed, at Second Reading. The supporters’ trusts should be there on the face of the Bill. As I mentioned last week, there are 149 supporters’ trusts in the pyramid. Nearly all of them are recognised by the FCA and they operate under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act.
I ask my noble friend the Minister: why reinvent the wheel? We have a structure that works; it works very well indeed. I would ask that my amendment, “including supporters’ trusts”, be accepted. We understand—we are not trying to be prescriptive—that there will be other fan groups and people who might like to become involved in communicating with the club, but, having supporters’ trusts that exist throughout the UK, it would be a very sensible and easy move to make. I hope this amendment will be accepted.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, there is nothing wrong with supporters’ trusts, but working-class fans have other models as well, historically and currently; that voice also needs to be heard. Supporters’ trusts are one model and should be empowered, but they are only one model for football.
I have eight amendments here more or less doing the same thing. There is an issue here, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, alluded to and spoke to, with the fan advisory boards. There is a fundamental choice here, and I would advise the Government to be careful with the politics of this. Some clubs are choosing the fans to go on their fan advisory board; it is not the fans choosing the representation but the clubs. That is one model, but it is many miles away from the Crouch review. It is the total opposite of what fans would hope to see. The fans in this country have not gone for the German model and demanded comparative boards, 50% et cetera, supervisory boards, and that kind of power in relation to the clubs.
I have helped to establish a range of Jewish supporters’ groups. These are Jewish supporters who want no more than to be meeting up with other Jewish supporters of their club—full stop. But they do hope as well to be able to give the occasional bit of advice, sometimes very productively and positively, to their club—if the club does not refuse, as one has, to recognise a large group of Jewish supporters who simply want to be themselves—and, if there are any issues, they want to be listened to. It might be about the provision of kosher food, or ticketing policy, or that there are a lot of fixtures on a Friday night and people are finding it difficult to be religiously observant and still be able to go. It might be to do with giving advice on issues relating to racism within the stadium. On issues like these, this is a group that should be listened to; it is not a group that should have the power to tell a club what to do.
But the idea that fan advisory boards should be chosen by the club is anathema to fans. Fans are perfectly capable of choosing their own representatives. Let us think about what will happen if this Bill goes forward and the regulator has powers, but clubs can still say to fans, “No, we will choose who the fan voices will be. We will pick persons 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. They will be there under our criteria. You, the fans, will have no say”. What will happen is that conflict will emerge, and the Government will not come out of the conflict well. The perception will be that the Government had the chance to ensure this.
Let us think about a supporters’ trust, made up of people giving of their free time to organise. As a member, you elect whoever to be your representatives, and they are then your representative; it is not the club coming in and saying, “No, we will pick Lord Shamash because we love Lord Shamash. If he is elected, that is all well and good because he represents what we would like to see in Manchester United”. That would be an invidious position for anyone to be in. I hope the Minister can give some reassurance that the fan voice on those big issues—moving the ground, changing the colour, changing the name—will actually be a fan voice. If it is not, then government and Parliament will become unpopular at some stage.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I want to respond very briefly to Amendment 224 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mann. He made a wonderful peroration, but I am not sure it bore much relation to the amendment that he has laid down. Of course, none of us wants clubs to hand-pick fans who will be nodding dogs— ersatz fans who will go along with the corporate line of the football club. We do not want that.
I am not sure if this is a probing amendment for Ministers to consider before we get to Report, but it is a lock. It locks in and fetters the discretion of football clubs to make decisions that might be existential for the future of that club; in other words, diversifying activities, and not just in terms of the freehold. Clause 46 specifically mentions—
Lord Mann (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. If it was proposed that Peterborough was to be moved to King’s Lynn, or to Norwich, should not the Peterborough fans have the right of veto on moving their club out of their town?
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Perish the thought. There are many Peterborough fans who do not live in the city of Peterborough but in the Fens; they may not be too displeased at going to King’s Lynn—not that I am in any sense proposing that. He alludes to the Posh. The Posh have been able to develop a number of commercial activities over the last few years. Darragh MacAnthony, the owner, started out in 2007 as a very rich man. Now he is just a rich man, because of his love for Peterborough United.
The point is that that club has been able to stay afloat financially because the board of the club, backed—disproportionately I would say—by the fan base, has supported the diversity of activities. The noble Lord’s amendment and Clause 46 as written would lock out the possibility of many clubs and boards making decisions to protect their long-term financial sustainability.
I respectfully say to the noble Lord, for whom, as he knows, I have huge respect—particularly for the great work he has done on kicking out anti-Semitism in football—that that is a different issue from regulated fans and setting up fan organisations. This amendment would be quite prescriptive for clubs, and it would not be in their long-term interests, particularly those teetering on the edge of financial instability and unsustainability. For that reason, I hope the Minister will consider these issues when she responds to the noble Lord’s amendment and others.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 138A on what consultation means. The wording—
“leave out ‘consults’ and insert ‘meets regularly with’”—
is taken from the Explanatory Notes. On page 44, paragraph 271, under the heading “fan consultation”, they say the following:
“This mandatory licence condition … requires clubs to regularly meet with a group which the IFR considers representative of the club’s fans, which could be a group elected by the club’s fans”.
Throughout these debates, many noble Lords have quoted the Fair Game document, which refers to fan engagement as a communication process, and to a range of formal and informal face-to-face processes being part of that. That is what I am trying to get across here. It is important that clubs meet regularly with the fans and do not just consult. To consult could mean anything. It is not exclusive—of course, it could take various forms—but they must meet regularly. I hope that ultimately, the Government will accept that. It remains to be seen, but I will return to this issue on Report because it is very important.
I will comment on some other issues that noble Lords have raised, particularly my noble friend Lord Mann, who I usually agree with. I did not really take to his dismissive comment in response to my noble friend Lord Shamash. My noble friend Lord Mann said that it is all very well having supporters’ trusts, but you need organisations with working-class members. I do not know much about the Manchester United Supporters Trust, but I am sure it has working-class members.
I am a member of two trusts and have been for some 20 years. One is in Scotland—my old club, Dundee United; I pay £15 per year for that. I am also a member of the AFC Wimbledon trust, called the Dons Trust. I pay the princely sum of £10 per year for that. For that reason, I think there are more than a few working-class fans. I think that my noble friend Lord Mann was suggesting that supporters’ trusts price some fans out. I do not know if that is the case, but I would not have thought so. By definition, you would think that would be rather pointless.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My noble friend has misinterpreted my comments. Supporters’ trusts—I have been heavily involved in one as well—have all sorts of members, but there are other kinds of organisations that have never had the objective that supporters’ trusts have. That is the point: there are different types of organisations. Some purely want to go and watch football and not take on the more significant interests and structures that supporters’ trusts have.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thank my noble friend, and I fully accept that point; I have misinterpreted what he said. He seemed to be suggesting that trusts were different from other supporters’ groups. There are a wide range of groups and that is exactly the way it should be.
I am afraid I cannot go along with my noble friend’s Amendments 139 and 140. I am not opposed to them per se, but he seems to be distinguishing between fans and elected representatives of club supporters’ groups. Surely, these are the same people: you cannot be an elected representative of a supporters’ group if you are not a fan.
Lord Addington (LD)
It is nice to have a little fan club.
My amendment may be making the ultimate pedant’s point, but the Bill says that a relevant thing that cannot be interfered with is the name of a team operated by a club. My amendment refers to the name of the club itself. Is my point covered by this? I do not know. If it is, tell me where and I will be terribly happy.
The main point is that we will be still talking about who a fan is this time next year unless the Government make a decision and come up with something solid. It affects how the regulator operates and who they exclude. The Government may well have to decide who they are going to offend, but please let us do it, because otherwise fan involvement will mean nothing.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
I would like to make a short point, but it is an important one that has barely got a mention. Football clubs have a very strong interest in consulting their fans. The fans are their customers. The truth is that, if you look across the gamut of clubs all the way down the pyramid, the composition of those fan bases will be very different. Broadly speaking, the higher up the pyramid you go, the more dispersed the fan base will be. Famously, almost none of Manchester United’s fans actually live in Manchester.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
I am sorry that we did not have a proper exchange, because I was looking forward to that.
The reality is that the revenue that local community clubs get is predominantly gate money—match day revenue. As you go up the pyramid, a greater proportion comes from commercial sponsorship and merchandise; and then, when you get to the Premier League, pretty much half or more is broadcasting revenue.
I am indebted to my noble friend Lady Brady for this. More than half of the Premier League’s revenue from broadcasting is international—that took me by surprise. The next-largest part is commercial—sponsorship, merchandise and so on—and the smallest part is the matchday revenue. The point is that all this comes from the good will of fans, either directly from their pockets or because of their engagement and commitment. Tottenham happens to have a very large fan base in South Korea because our captain is South Korean. Our biggest sponsor is an Asian insurance company. Why is it supporting Tottenham? It is because there is a huge fan base in Asia.
After all, as we know—although we are sometimes shy of saying this in these debates—the Premier League is the goose that lays the golden eggs that then cascade down through the pyramid, to a much greater extent than in any of the football pyramids in other European countries. Therefore, the way in which clubs consult will be very different—but the suggestion that they need a regulator to enforce upon them the duty to consult their fans is to ignore this really important point: it is in their interest to keep their fans, wherever they are, on board. If ever there were a vivid illustration of that, it is when the European super league proposal came up. It was killed not by politicians, a regulator, your Lordships’ House or the other place but by fans.
Lord Markham (Con)
I will speak briefly to my Amendments 238 and 241. I agree with noble friend Lord Maude that it is absolutely in the clubs’ best interests to make sure that they are consulting their fans on this. If we are going to put things down, though, I will speak to two essential points.
A football club shirt is more than just the colours; it is the design as well. Any football supporter would know that the blue and white hoops of QPR are quite different from the stripes of Brighton—fans could maybe be involved in that. I remember with some humour that one Brighton design was a bit like a Tesco bag and the fans used to wear an actual Tesco bag. That probably cost the club a lot of money in lost shirt sales. But, generally, the fans have a role in that and in the name of the club—my Amendment 241 is on this—which I think most people would agree is fundamental.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am glad that the Government Chief Whip has been here to see the lively debate on all sides of the Committee, including on his own Benches, on this group. He will have noted that only two of the 19 amendments come from the Opposition Benches. So I am very glad that he has been able to join us for this lively discussion as we head into dinner.
I will not elaborate on the points that my noble friend Lord Markham made on his two amendments, to which I added my name, other than to say that I wholeheartedly agree. Given that the Government are already looking at club colours, I am interested in why this is not extended to home shirt design, which my noble friend mentions in his Amendment 238.
On my noble friend’s Amendment 241, the name of a club is hugely important. It is not uncommon for clubs to change names. I gather that Bournemouth began life as Boscombe St John’s Lads’ Institute and Arsenal started as Dial Square, in the Dial Square workshop, and then became Royal Arsenal, I think because of a local pub called the Royal Oak, and Woolwich Arsenal—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I think that is an informal one from fans of other north London clubs. But clearly the names of clubs do matter, and we would be interested in whether the Government agree with that.
Given the time, I will address the other amendments in this group as a whole. They attempt to require clubs to consult a whole host of different supporters’ organisations, community trusts and fan groups. I share the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough that, if clubs are required to consult numerous different groups—chosen through various methods and representing countless, and often competing, interests—it will be difficult for clubs to know to whom they are to listen. What opinions will they have to take on board and whose interests will win out? There is also a concern about whether this could lead to divisions forming among supporters’ groups of differing views, as they seek to influence the activities of a club in a manner that they would like.
I am concerned by what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said about football clubs picking the people who sit on their fan groups. That sounds like having a House of Parliament entirely dominated by the Executive—but that is for another Bill. The concern about this one is the old adage that too many cooks spoil the broth; that is, if we tried to have too many people vying to influence the views of a club, it would be difficult to differentiate the differing sounds and, perversely, fans’ voices would be drowned out in that cacophony. So a simpler approach might be required for fan engagement.
Trying to have a better answer to the question of who fans are, as we have said previously, runs to the heart of all this. But I agree with what my noble friend Lord Maude said: clubs are well advised to take on board the views of fans. They listen to them because they are the lifeblood of the clubs, and they make their views known pretty volubly.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their continued engagement on these important provisions of the Bill. I appreciate that I am one of the very few things standing between noble Lords and the dinner break, but I want to give a proper response and, I hope, the reassurance that my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton is looking for. We must not forget that, at the heart of all of this, it is the fans who matter the most. Football is nothing without them, and the fan engagement threshold requirement has been designed to reflect this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said, fans are the lifeblood of the game.
My noble friend Lord Bassam’s Amendment 138 seeks to make it explicit that clubs must have the appropriate structures in place to engage effectively with fans. I hope noble Lords can take comfort that this is already implicit in the Bill. The Bill already asks for all clubs, in order to meet their fan engagement threshold requirement, to have adequate and effective means to consult and take the views of fans into account. It would therefore not be possible for a club to meet this bar without also having the appropriate structures and processes for effective engagement with its fans.
On my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie’s Amendment 138A, it is important to avoid fan engagement becoming a box-ticking exercise for clubs. The intent is to ensure that dialogue can be constructive for both parties. This is why the threshold requirement requires a club to consult fans on the relevant matters. Consultation goes beyond just a meeting, which might lead fans to have only a passive role at their clubs. Instead, we expect clubs to seek input from fans on issues, with that input directly feeding into the decision-making or a club’s understanding of an issue.
I do, however, reassure my noble friend that the expectations on clubs will be proportionate to club resources and the demographics of the fan base. I hope that other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, also feel reassured by that point. This will not be the same as the statutory consultation, and we expect that the regulator will provide more detail about what consultation should look like in practice. This will allow for a bespoke approach to be taken across clubs.
My noble friend Lord Watson raised points around making fan engagement more explicit. The intention of the regulatory principle is not to list every possible stakeholder the regulator should ever engage with during the course of regulation, however important that stakeholder might be. That could be a slippery slope to an enormous list that risks—
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I understand my noble friend’s point about every stakeholder, but can she name a stakeholder more important than the fans?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend is quite clear, as are we, that the fans are central—I made that point earlier. However, making an explicit list for every single type of consultation that the regulator should have could mean that an unintended consequence would be that we missed off important stakeholders. The intention of the principle within the legislation is to encode a participative approach into the regulator’s regime. We believe that the regulator will be more effective if those being regulated participate constructively; that is to say, they are brought in and are pulling in the same direction. It is already clear from the very purpose of the Bill and its origin that the regulator will be regulating in the interest of fans and communities. As part of this, it should of course engage with them and representative groups, as appropriate.
On Amendments 160 and 163, from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, I reassure her that, where there are concerns that a club is not meeting the fan engagement standards, the regulator is empowered to gather information and look further into the situation. As it is a licensing condition, a breach of these requirements will qualify as a relevant infringement; if deemed necessary, the regulator can take enforcement action. The regulator will have the ability to receive evidence from fans when considering whether a club is meeting its licence condition or any other concerns in the regulator’s remit, but it will not adjudicate all consultations.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I think this has been one of the better debates on the football regulator. It is about one of its core purposes and, as the Minister has just said, it all flows from the fan-led review and putting fans at the heart of our football business.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for her contribution. I well understand the mix of commercial pressures and the way in which that can collide with what might be seen on the face of it as being fan interests. It is a difficult balance that one has to try to secure in this legislation. I think the legislation does that, but who or what is a fan or a supporter is a difficult question, and they may not be the same thing all the way through. The noble Baroness raised the question of who it is relevant to consult over some of the issues. I think we are heading in the right direction with further clarity. I hope that the regulator can try to work its way through some very difficult issues here.
I am very happy with the responses that the Minister has given, and I think other noble Lords will share that sentiment. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Puberty-suppressing Hormones
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and the right honourable Secretary of State for the careful and sensitive way in which he delivered the Statement in the other place. In line with my right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State in the other place, from these Benches we welcome the Government’s announcement. Whatever your politics, most people believe that one of the first duties of any Government is to protect their citizens, especially our children.
As the Secretary of State said, there has been too much heat, and perhaps toxicity, around the issue of services for children experiencing gender dysphoria, so I welcome the tone with which His Majesty’s Government have approached this issue—less heat, more light—and that they continue to take an evidence-based but compassionate approach. I also take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, for leading the review on gender services for children. The Cass review highlighted the importance of putting scientific evidence above ideology and laid out the fact that we simply do not know enough about the long-term impacts of puberty blockers on children. That is why my right honourable friend in the other place, the Member for Louth and Horncastle, when Secretary of State, banned the routine prescription of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria, and later extended that ban to private clinics.
We welcome the decision of the Government to follow the recommendations of the independent Commission on Human Medicines to extend the banning order until a safe prescribing environment can be established for these medicines. This is a common-sense approach, and allows time for more evidence to be examined to consider the holistic and long-term impacts of puberty blockers on children. The Secretary of State announced the clinical trials to gather evidence but, given understandable concerns about the risks of any clinical trial, can the Minister reassure your Lordships that these trials will have robust safeguards to ensure the well-being and safety of any children taking part, while recognising the importance of having these trials in the first place?
The Secretary of State in the other place also spoke about alternatives to puberty blockers for children suffering from gender dysphoria. As someone who takes an interest in social prescribing, I welcome the Government’s recognition that medication is not always the best solution, so will the Minister share details of some of the alternatives to puberty blockers that will be offered to children?
Finally, noble Lords will be concerned that, despite the lack of evidence, puberty blockers were prescribed to children with gender dysphoria when their safety could not be guaranteed. What steps are the Government and the NHS taking to ensure that a similar situation does not occur again and that future decisions are led by evidence? I look forward to the Minister’s responses.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we welcome the tone of the Secretary of State’s Statement. I have often said that there are many ways of being human. Growing up can often be a very trying time for teenagers. How much more difficult, then, for those young people with gender distress who are struggling with finding out who they are while being different from their peers, and all without adequate support? It is high time that proper services were put in place for young people struggling alone with these issues. Their families too need help to support them at this difficult time. For too long, children and young people who are struggling with their gender identity have been badly let down by a low standard of care, exceptionally long waiting lists, even by the standard of mental health waiting lists, and an increasingly toxic debate.
We always want to see policy based on the evidence. With any medical treatment, especially for children and young people, the most important thing is to follow the evidence on safety and effectiveness. It is crucial that these sorts of decisions are made by expert clinicians, based on the best possible evidence. It is also important that the results of the consultation and the advice of the Commission on Human Medicines are made public.
Some might wonder why the treatment is deemed not safe for gender dysphoria patients but safe enough for children with early-onset puberty. More transparency might clear up the confusion and give more confidence to patients and their families. However, the Secretary of State himself admits that he does not know what effect the sudden withdrawal of this treatment for young people already embarked on a course of puberty blockers will have. These are the young people with the most urgent need for other types of care in the current situation, so what clinical advice have the Government taken about the effect of withdrawing these drugs on the physical and mental state of young sufferers of gender incongruence already on the drugs, and what physical and psychological support will be offered to them?
In the current circumstances, plans for a clinical trial are welcome, but we would like to know the criteria for those eligible to participate. What assessment have the Government made of the recent Council of Europe report, which raises the ethical and rights implications of offering participation in the trial to only a small group of patients? If the only way to continue access to these drugs is through participation in the clinical trial, whose scope, length and start date have yet to be announced, this lays the Government open to accusations of coercion and breaches of human rights.
We welcome the plans for additional treatment centres in Manchester and Bristol as well as London, but can the Minister say why they will not be up and running for two years? Is it lack of funding, lack of premises or lack of sufficient therapists with the appropriate specialist training? This is a very sensitive area, so the wrong people could do more harm than good. If that is the reason, is there a plan for training up more qualified therapists in time for the opening of the regional treatment centres? I very much look forward to the Minister’s replies to these questions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, for her work in this very important area. I also refer to the actions taken by the previous Government, which set in train the action we are continuing. As both the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, rightly said, this is about keeping children safe. There is nothing more important than evidence-based action—which is what we have before us—and taking the necessary steps.
The Cass review made it clear that there is not enough evidence about the long-term effects of using puberty blockers to treat gender incongruence to know whether they are, first, safe and, secondly, beneficial. It is important to bear both in mind. The Commission on Human Medicines independently found that clear evidence of unsafe prescribing exists and recommended that there should be a ban until there can be a safe prescribing environment. That is where we start, and last week’s laying of legislation stops that unsafe prescribing to children and allows time to develop the necessary safeguards, as recommended by the commission. I should just clarify that the legislation is indefinite, not permanent. There will be a full review in 2027 so this continues to be a very live issue.
The clinical trials, referred to by both the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will be a world first. It is important to pay tribute to that. In addition to the work currently being undertaken to respond to the recommendations of the Commission on Human Medicines, the trial is presently undergoing development and approvals. The aim is to begin recruitment early in the new year. I am sure there will be an opportunity to update the House on that detail.
In answer to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the numbers will be uncapped, which is important. I am sure we all agree that better-quality evidence is critical. The development of the clinical trial between the National Institute for Health and Care Research and NHS England will provide the better-quality evidence that we are all looking for.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, spoke about new services. To make the situation clear, NHS England has already opened three new services in the north-west, London and Bristol. The fourth will be in the east of England and will open its doors in spring next year. The noble Baroness also asked about the timetable; we are on course to have a service in every region of England by 2026. I cannot always confirm developments of that nature, so I am glad to do so because it will help reduce the waiting list, which noble Lords are rightly concerned about. It will also bring services closer to home, which is crucial too.
Furthermore, this is a very specialist area, so recruitment and training are key. This is part of the reason for the—I would not call it a delay—realistic timetable. There is also the need to work with local trusts and take into account all the various operational considerations, so realism rather than delay is how I would put it to the noble Baroness.
I agree with the points made by noble Lords on the Front Bench about tone and discourse. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for welcoming the way the Secretary of State made the announcement and what the announcement refers to. We have a real responsibility in this House—and outside it—to handle conversations on this topic extremely sensitively. This is about people’s lives. I absolutely agree with the point just made: the public debate has been frighteningly toxic. Irresponsible statements made recently have put young people at risk of serious harm and that has to stop. That is one of the many reasons I welcome the Statement—and the tone and discourse this evening.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about alternatives to puberty blockers, no exact alternatives are being offered. However, within the new services there will be an emphasis on, for example, psychosocial support.
In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about the—she did not use this word, but perhaps I might—transparency of evidence, all the commission’s recommendations have been published in full as part of the Government’s response to the consultation. The full advice, as I hope the noble Baroness will understand, was prepared solely for Ministers, but we are considering whether it should be published. I know the noble Baroness will understand that, as with all advice prepared for Ministers, there are legal and other matters that must be considered before it can happen.
I will say a word on mental health support, which is so important for children and young people. An offer of an appointment with a mental health professional has been made to everyone on the national waiting list for children and young people’s gender identity services. Those who joined the waiting list on or after 1 September will have an appointment with a mental health professional or paediatrician before being referred to specialist gender services. Those who are not on the waiting list and are directly affected by the restrictions can access NHS mental health services through a dedicated single point of contact, supported by clinical nursing.
I hope that is helpful, and if there are any points I have missed—
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Can the Minister address the issue of the children who are part-way through a course of treatment? Will they get mental health support as a priority?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
For those who are already on puberty blockers, there is an immediate withdrawal. But I hope that what I have outlined on mental health support covers all the areas the noble Baroness, and indeed all of us, are concerned about. The approach is as compressive as possible, and the new gender services I described should make it even easier to provide the service. It is not a matter of waiting until 2026; we absolutely understand the need to provide that support now, and we are making that available.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, I echo the thanks given to the Secretary of State for his careful and scientific approach to this issue and for his very sensitive Statement in the other place.
It might be helpful to elaborate on just one or two of the points that have been raised, particularly the use of puberty blockers for precocious puberty—that is, for children who enter puberty too early—which is a licensed use of these drugs. We are confident about that use because we have many years of experience, and because it is a very different situation from prescribing for young people with gender dysphoria. The difference is that children with precocious puberty have an abnormal hormone environment, which we normalise, whereas in young people with gender dysphoria we are taking a normal surge in pubertal hormones and disrupting it. That is why it is much less clear what the long-term impact of that intervention is, and why we need careful clinical trials.
The second thing it would be helpful to clarify is the appropriate question, asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about children and young people who are already on puberty blockers from private or overseas sources. In addition to the comments made by the Minister, it is important to know that NHS England has set up a telephone number that young people and families can ring to receive a mental health triage. Young people’s mental health services have been forewarned and are on hand to provide that triage for that small group of young people who may be in significant distress because of fear of interruption of their supply of puberty blockers. There is provision that, in those circumstances, and where the clinician thinks it is in the best interests of that young person to continue on puberty blockers, an NHS prescriber is allowed to continue the prescription. We hope that those in distress will come forward and contact NHS England and therefore be supported through the system.
One of the other misunderstandings about puberty blockers is that they have become totemic as the main treatment or entry-point treatment for young people who want to transition, or who may in the longer term be trans but may not go on to a medical pathway. Young adults have said to us that they wish they had known when they were younger that there were more options for them than a binary medical transition, and that there were many more ways of being trans—that they could remain gender fluid, continue to be non-binary, or in the longer term continue to be a cis adult, as some do, and not go through any medical interventions at all.
Having a multidisciplinary team that can support young people in that decision-making without necessarily rushing them into a medical pathway is crucial, and that is what the new services have now embarked on doing.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for bringing her expertise directly into the Chamber. We are very glad that she is in the House to do so, and she has actually answered a number of the points better than I ever could.
I will emphasise one point that I am particularly interested in, because I know it has been raised a lot, about why the legislation is being laid in respect of the use of medicines just for gender dysphoria. The noble Baroness, Lady Cass, referred to this. It is really important to emphasise that the medicine might be the same, but the fact is that it is not licensed for gender incongruence or dysphoria—that is the key point. These medicines have not undergone that process, which means that safety and risk implications have not yet been considered. It is true that there are licensed uses of the medicines for much younger children or for older adults, but the issue here is about adolescents, and it is an entirely different situation.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I might return to the conventional asking of a question to the Minister—a very quick question. There are a number of practitioners who are considering, if not giving, sex steroids to patients who are requesting gender reassignment; either oestrogen or progesterone, or the equivalent male hormone. Have the Government yet considered how patients will be treated in this situation? There are certain, clear dangers involved.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand the point my noble friend rightly raises, and I emphasise again that what matters here are safety considerations—particularly when we are talking about children and young people—but also the evidence in respect of treatments, that there should be the prescription only of medication which is safe and appropriate to the actual patient and situation.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, given that puberty blockers almost invariably lead to cross-sex hormones, can the Minister explain why the proposed trial cannot study those who have already used or are using puberty blockers, rather than starting with a new cohort of children? Given that the trial will look at the long-term effects on health, does she have any indication of how long that trial will need to continue, and is it right that it might be for up to 30 years?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I do not recognise the last point that the noble Baroness made about the time. The aim is to start recruiting participants in spring next year and, as I mentioned, the National Institute for Health and Care Research is working with NHS England to develop the clinical trials. They are the first in the world and I will be very pleased to provide further information as and when it is available.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I commend the Secretary of State—and, indeed, the Minister. I commend the Secretary of State for his very clear Statement and for his courage, because he has had to stand his ground. He kept his cool, despite receiving unpleasant smears and abuse not only online, but even, to a certain extent, from the Back Benches in the other place.
I am slightly confused about something. I think we can see now that puberty blockers are a medicalised euphemism for chemical castration. The same kinds of drugs, when given to Alan Turing, were used as punishment for being gay. I am still not convinced, and do not really understand why the Government still think it is appropriate to conduct a clinical trial on children with these drugs. The Minister emphasised “uncapped” as though that was positive, whereas I thought that was scary.
As this medical scandal unravels, more and more young people are de-transitioning, but the NHS has no services to deal with this. I wonder whether the Minister would agree, perhaps, to meet some of the charities that are doing this kind of thing—there is Genspect’s Beyond Trans and its special service providers—just to discuss what the NHS might need to look at, moving forward in a different way.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I very much welcome the generous and supportive comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in respect of the Secretary of State’s Statement. I am grateful for those. I note that she finds the reference to “uncapped” scary. I presented it as the way to gather the widest amount of relevant evidence, because that is a clinical trial; that is what is so important. The reason it is being done is that there is insufficient evidence and there has not been such a trial, and we need to do one for this particular situation.
In respect of meeting charities and others, the Secretary of State has been very keen to—what I would call—reset the relationship with various groups which all have different sets of thoughts on this. I have joined him in those meetings. He has also been meeting those with lived experience. We continue to do so. We have wanted to detoxify the debate, and those meetings have helped immensely. We will continue to have that listening ear.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome the Statement. The tone, as we have already heard, has been absolutely right. Thinking about the clinical trial, I would like to know a little more about the timing. If we are intending to run a clinical trial that is going to be looking at efficacy and safety, it will not be an easy trial to run and it is going to take some time. It would be really welcome if the Minister could keep the House informed, which she has already promised to do.
I am particularly interested in hearing the Minister’s view on the following point. It is really important to get this clinical trial on the puberty blockers going, but we also need to understand the value and the evidence supporting all the other interventions too—the psychosocial support, the psychological support, and all the other interventions—so that it is not just this clinical trial but a broad understanding of what really helps these young people. `
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right to raise the second point. It is a whole range of interventions, and that is certainly something that we have very much in mind for consideration, for the reasons that we have heard in the Chamber this evening and the points that my noble friend makes. In respect of timings, it is a planned pathway study and that includes a clinical trial component. It is, as I said, to build evidence. I am glad to say that it remains on track to commence recruitment early in 2025, but only after there has been ethical approval. When that is granted, that is when the final study protocol will be ready, and I know that noble Lords will have a lot of interest in that. We will be issuing further updates in early 2025, and if there are any particular questions, noble Lords are very welcome to raise them with me.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my question follows on from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about the scale of the trial. I also note the report from the experts at the Council of Europe, which the noble Baroness referenced. In the other place, the Secretary of State said in response to my honourable friend Carla Denyer that the clinical trial would be “uncapped”, and the Minister repeated that word this evening. However, an article published yesterday in the Metro, arising from various freedom of information requests and headlined, “Trans Youth ‘Languishing’ While Waiting Six Years For Gender Healthcare”, said:
“If a trans young person joined the waiting list for gender-affirming healthcare on the NHS today, they would have to wait 308 weeks for a first appointment”.
In that context, I am struggling to understand where the Government will secure the resources from to run a trial to provide the resources needed to have this uncapped clinical trial allowing access to puberty blockers.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
In view of what the noble Baroness said, it is quite important to consider that the children and young people’s gender services waiting list currently has 6,237 people on it. I certainly agree that waiting lists for these services are too long. We are committed to changing that, which is why I outlined the timetable for the new gender services and the opening of the new centres. They will increase clinical capacity and reduce waiting times for sure. On the point the noble Baroness raised, there is a commitment to the clinical trial, and I am glad there is. As we have brought forward this legislation in an absence of evidence, it is incumbent on us, as a Government, to follow through on what the previous Government started in train, which is to use a clinical trial to provide the evidence. Otherwise, the debate would remain uninformed and not evidence-based, and that cannot be helpful.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and congratulate the Secretary of State on the moral clarity and leadership that he has shown in balancing the evidence base with compassion. Perhaps I may press the Minister on a few points. An indefinite ban is not the same as a permanent ban. Is there a chance that the indefinite ban, which goes to 2027, may segue into a permanent ban as more information and evidence arise over the next few years?
Given that it is pretty well understood that puberty blockers have given rise to fertility problems, bone health issues and psychological health issues, I cannot understand the inconsistent policy of keeping children currently on puberty blockers in the system, when we know that there is no positive evidence base and only a negative one. I think that will affect many children.
My final point is about the eight new regional centres that will be set up. Will we be certain that the ideologically-driven zealots—clinicians who misuse their position and have prescribed unsafe puberty blockers for children and young people—will not find themselves in these new facilities? That is an important issue as we wait for the clinical trial and ruminate on the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, mentioned. We need to start again on this and to understand that there are more treatments available for the most vulnerable children, who we need to protect, than merely puberty blockers.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly agree with the noble Lord about the vulnerability of children and young people in this regard, which is why we are taking this action. His last point gives me the opportunity to say that we are committed to implementing the recommendations of the Cass review in full. That is a very useful guideline and tool for us to use.
I have no expectation that the situation that the noble Lord described in his third point will happen. Recruitment is subject to all the usual provisions, and I know that the gender services will seek to recruit very positively. If the noble Lord finds out anything else, I am sure he will raise it with me.
On whether the ban could become permanent, the review—at the risk of repeating myself—will report in 2027, as the noble Lord said. I believe that we should wait for that.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the tone of the Statement. In today’s society, there is huge pressure on young people, through social media and more widely. I would really not want to be a teenager right now.
There is also huge pressure on the NHS, with multiple calls on its services. Can the Minister elaborate a bit more on how His Majesty’s Government are going to increase the number of staff and make sure they are trained to support young people? How can we support those staff? This is a tough area for them to work in. We also need to protect them from malicious complaints to make sure that they can do their job.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am glad that the noble Baroness has raised the issue of staff. It is vital that people are allowed to go about their work—as the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, should have been too—without fear of physical, verbal, online or direct abuse. I am sure that we all agree that the abuse has been an absolute disgrace. I agree about protecting those who are doing this. On the point about service, as has been said, this is about a group of vulnerable children and young people. It is our duty to provide the services to support them and to make them evidence based.
Football Governance Bill [HL]
Monday 16th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 41-V(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (13 Dec 2024)
Lord Foster of Bath
“(f) gambling advertising and sponsorship.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires clubs to consult fans on gambling advertising and sponsorship.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I begin by apologising that my involvement in the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill has prevented me from attending earlier sessions of your Committee’s deliberation. But I am very conscious that the fan-led review, which in a sense led to the Football Governance Bill, found that many fans raised severe concerns about the level of gambling advertising and sponsorship in sport. This is especially notable because it was unprompted, yet nothing in the Bill addresses these concerns. It should, and that is why I am moving Amendment 143 and speaking to Amendment 255. In doing so, I declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform.
Gambling in the UK is worth £15 billion a year and with it comes gambling harm, which is a major problem in our country. It is worth reflecting that over half of the gambling industry’s profits comes from those already suffering harm from gambling. Official statistics show that millions of people, including a horrifying number of children, are impacted by gambling. The Department of Health says that there could be more than one gambling-related suicide a day. Gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship encourage more gambling, more profit for operators and more gambling-related harm. It is a serious public health issue.
The previous Government’s White Paper on gambling included no meaningful measures to address it. Nothing was offered to tackle the relentless bombardment of gambling messages, costing the industry over £1.5 billion a year, which has grown exponentially since the liberalisation of advertising in the Gambling Act 2005.
Speaking from the Dispatch Box just a couple of years ago, the noble Lord, Lord True, said:
“My personal view, as a sports fan, is that I am sick and tired of gambling advertising being thrust down viewers’ throats”.—[Official Report, 27/1/22; col. 446.]
His view is supported by a huge percentage of the population, including football fans, over half of whom believe that all gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship should be banned.
Research evidence backs the call for action. A group of academics recently highlighted the unprecedented number of young people being exposed to gambling adverts. They concluded:
“it has become quite clear that the gambling products being offered and the ways in which they are promoted are harmful to individual and family health and damaging to national life”.
Despite proposing no action, the White Paper itself even acknowledged that gambling marketing can encourage people to start gambling, to gamble more, or to resume gambling after stopping.
Of particular worry is the entrenched link between gambling and football. It has raised concerns about not only the welfare of fans—especially the younger ones, who I will come to in a minute—but the opportunities for match fixing and corruption. Though rare, such incidents serve as a stark reminder of the risk posed by financial incentives tied to betting. It must surely be questionable that some of English football’s gambling sponsors do not even operate here. For example, Nottingham Forest’s primary shirt sponsor this season is a gambling operator that targets customers in China, where gambling is illegal. Surely that sort of thing should not be allowed.
Again, of particular concern is the way young and impressionable fans, who idolise players and clubs, are inundated with gambling logos. These are emblazoned on kits, around stadia and in programmes—as well as on TV, radio and online. It has normalised the idea of betting and makes it seem like a harmless activity.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I commend him on his leadership of Peers for Gambling Reform, of which I am a member. I apologise that I have not taken part at Second Reading and earlier parts of Committee. The Bill was being covered for the Green group by my noble friend Lady Jones. I am pleased to share with your Lordships’ House that her hip operation on Friday went very well and she should be back soon after Christmas. In the meantime, noble Lords get me instead.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, has outlined the arguments, which I think are unassailable, for both amendments. I am particularly taken with Amendment 255, to prevent gambling advertising and sponsorship in football, because that will take us to where we need to go.
I declare a recent meeting with the group Gambling with Lives, particularly Liz and Charles Ritchie, who were bereaved following the gambling suicide of their son Jack in 2017. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, we are seeing increasingly awful levels of harm, particularly among young people. There has been a doubling of the number of young people aged 11 to 17 with problem gambling, and 44 % of people who exhibit problem gambling are at high risk of thinking about suicide.
It struck me, listening to the Committee earlier today, that a phrase was used a great deal: fans are the lifeblood of the sport. Surely that is an illustration of the fact that the health of fans should be a matter of great concern to football clubs. The Lancet commission on gambling declared very explicitly only a month or so back that gambling has to be treated as a public health problem, and public health solutions are needed. That means protecting people from the gambling messages bombarding them.
I will quote a couple of statistics from 2021-22. There may have been a slight improvement since then, but not very much. During a single televised match, 3,500 gambling logos can appear. On “Match of the Day”, a gambling brand was visible up to 89% of the time. This can be described only as a bombardment and, as the noble Lord said, the consultation very clearly showed the views of fans.
We have also seen real progress from the Big Step campaign, which has been commended and is another illustration that campaigning works. But people are having to devote their lives to this cause, because the Government and the clubs are not doing the right thing. This, surely, is a place where the Government should step in to act.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, will be unsurprised to know that I oppose these two amendments, which I will do briefly.
If the gambling industry is pouring money into football, I would say that that is a good thing. Anti-gambling commentators talk as if this were drug money coming from the Mafia. The whole tone is moralistic. We have already heard mention of match-fixing and cheating, as though it is all incredibly sordid and terrible. But let me just remind the Committee that betting firms are legitimate businesses. What, so they use their sponsorship to increase their market share—what is wrong with that? Is all football sponsorship beyond gambling to be forced to pass an ethics test—some kind of purity test? This is football, not some puritan revival movement.
Let us be honest: lots of football clubs need and appreciate this sponsorship money. It is all well and good that the Premier League has collectively agreed to withdraw gambling sponsorship from the front of clubs’ match-day shirts. That is a voluntary measure—it is up to it—but the truth is that, as we have ascertained in these debates, the Premier League can afford such lucrative virtue signalling, as I consider it. For the lower-tier and lower-league clubs and for the EFL, however, such sponsorship money is often invaluable. The Bill aims to help clubs become more financially sustainable, so the last thing it needs is external parties or legislators turning off one financial tap. This would mean that some cash-strapped clubs would face ruin if deprived of such revenue.
The Bill has been put forward in the name of fans and, whatever my reservations, I do not doubt that people have the fans at the heart of their discussions, whichever side they are on. But I remind noble Lords that millions of fans are less bothered about what logo appears on a player’s shirt or on advertising boards than they are about the quality on the pitch. There is more than a whiff of nanny state when they are patronisingly told by anti-gambling advocates that the ban would be for their own protection. It seems that anti-gambling campaigners do not trust fans to make their own decisions and make the right judgments about how they spend their own money.
Writing on this issue, Jon Bryan—who is an excellent commentator on the whole issue of gambling, which he posits and reminds us is a pleasurable leisure activity—says that it also undermines any notion of fans’ agency. The notion is put forward that, as soon as fans see a logo on a football shirt, they will rush off and place a bet, as though they are being groomed and just one punt away from addiction. This treats adult fans as children, and it is infantilising. It is often posed—
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
On that last point, is the noble Baroness aware of the amount of in-game gambling that takes place through television and, of course, mobile phones, where the betting companies encourage fans watching matches to bet during the game on who will get the next corner, whether somebody be sent off, whether there will there be extra time in a cup tie and so on? Is that not interfering with the normal cut and thrust of the game in a way that is potentially dangerous, not least—I would like her to answer this point—to young people, particularly children?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
First, I would make a distinction between children and adults. Secondly, as somebody who is from a large, football-obsessed family, I am more than a little aware of all the encouragement that football fans have to put on a bet. But not all of them do when they are encouraged and, what is more, even if they do, they do not necessarily become problem gamblers, which is what is being posited. It can be something that they enjoy.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
This is not a case of me positing anything—I hope the noble Baroness accepts that. The figures I quoted are from the Gambling Commission and the Government.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I have some figures, but I wanted to put forward a counter to these amendments without going into the details. I have spoken on this on many occasions in this House and I have written about it. I have figures, and we can swap our statistics. But I wanted to argue that it is proposed that allowing advertising of any sort around football, and allowing gambling to be associated with it, normalises gambling—but that is a slightly odd argument because gambling is a normal activity. The vast majority of people who put a bet on do so without a problem: it is part of their private leisure pursuits, which they enjoy. It is completely within the realms of spending money that they probably should not spend—it is Christmas and I have done a lot of that over the last few days when shopping. One makes choices and spends money that one probably should not spend, but it does not have to be turned into some kind of problem. It is our choice, and there should be some perspective about the threat.
The Gambling Commission does not give credence to the idea that gambling problems are completely out of control. Despite a lot of noise and rhetoric, there is no evidence that there has been an overwhelming increase in problem gambling since advertising was made legal by none other than Tony Blair’s Government in 2007.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I do not disagree with the noble Baroness’s principles or beliefs when she talks about the nanny state and it being up to individuals, but where does she sit on smoking? Smoking was acceptable and everybody smoked, and sponsorship in sport was rife, with motor racing teams and darts competitions named after cigarettes. People do not smoke any more; society has changed. Unless you take positive action, you do not get that change. There is nobody in this Chamber now smoking; there is nobody in the hospitals smoking; there is nobody inside or outside football grounds smoking. That is a great thing. It is called taking responsibility for society. I wonder what the cost of gambling is to the NHS and the various other bodies that have to pick up the pieces of our individual choices and liberties. Those liberties are your own until they affect me and you, and him and her, and the NHS; it then becomes my responsibility to say something about it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I was on my last sentence, but I will now make it two sentences.
The noble Lord says that nobody is smoking now. It happens to be the evening of the Terrace Club’s Christmas bash. That is the House of Lords smokers’ group, and I can assure the noble Lord there are quite a lot of them smoking, cross-party, including from his own party. They are drinking and smoking, and every party is represented. It is in the hut round the back, by the way, in case anyone wants to pop out. There are quite a lot of people who smoke still.
Smoking advertising was taken out of sports, and a number of sports nearly collapsed—darts and snooker had a real problem. The funny thing is, guess who came in to save them? The gambling companies came in and saved those working-class, grass-roots, rank-and-file sports. Good on them, I say. The working classes were grateful at the time, and they did not all become problem gamblers as a consequence. They enjoyed the sport.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, these amendments seek to address gambling sponsorship in football, and include proposals to ban sponsorship entirely. This is a significant issue. I acknowledge the genuine concerns that many have, including the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about the role of gambling in sport. However, I would like to provide some context and explain why I believe that further interventions in this area are not required at this time.
The Gambling Act review has recently and comprehensively considered the role of gambling sponsorship across all sports, including football. The Government’s response reflects the extensive engagement and evidence gathered during that process. As part of this, the Premier League has already taken significant, proactive, voluntary steps to address concerns, demonstrating its commitment to act responsibly.
Most recently, the Premier League and its clubs have led the way, not just within football but across all sports, by taking the voluntary step to move away from gambling sponsorship on the front of shirts. This was a key ask made of us by the DCMS, and we agreed. This is a significant decision, and one that I do not believe any other major sports organisations have taken.
The impact of this step on clubs is, frankly, quite painful. Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, most clubs cannot afford to do it, but they have done it anyway because they have been asked to. The typical difference between gambling and non-gambling shirt sponsorships is around 40%. For some Premier League clubs, this decision will mean a reduction of around 20% of their total commercial revenues. For clubs in the bottom half of the Premier League table or those newly promoted, the financial hit will be especially pronounced in the short term, and comes on top of the £250 million hit to Premier League clubs over the Parliament, as I have already mentioned in this Committee, following the Budget’s rise in employer national insurance contributions. The pressures are acute, but the Premier League clubs took this decision, fully aware of the difficult commercial consequences, because it was the right thing to do and was aligned with what the Government asked of us.
Furthermore, the Premier League has led the way in driving forward the development of an all-sports code of conduct, published earlier this year. This sets out standards on gambling partnerships, including the critical issue of awareness and responsible gambling messages, that all clubs and sports organisations will adhere to. The code reflects the seriousness with which football in particular is addressing this issue, and provides a strengthened framework for responsible engagement with the gambling sector.
It is important to acknowledge the vital role that gambling sponsorship plays in supporting clubs across the football pyramid. For many clubs, particularly those outside the Premier League, gambling sponsorship represents a significant source of revenue. That is the reality we all need to be conscious of, especially in the context of the Bill, which focuses on financial sustainability. Noble Lords may be aware that the EFL has a much greater reliance on gambling sponsorship, including its title sponsorship deal with Sky Bet. The Premier League itself has never had a gambling sponsor. This demonstrates that the issue is not uniform across football and that heavy-handed interventions may well risk disproportionately affecting clubs lower down the pyramid.
The Premier League’s voluntary decision to phase out gambling on front-of-shirt sponsorship is just one major step, but it is proof that football is taking this issue seriously. It shows that football can lead the way on responsible change, even when it causes difficulties for clubs, without the need for heavy-handed interventions. We must properly address concerns about problem gambling and the need for responsible behaviour and stringent regulations. Football must clearly be part of the solution, as it wants to be, just as all sport needs to act responsibly. However, I argue that the Premier League in particular has already shown important leadership here, taking proactive and voluntary steps that, as far as I am aware, no comparable organisation has yet replicated.
In the light of the progress already made, I respectfully suggest that football does not require further statutory intervention in this area. We have shown—but of course we must collectively continue to show—that we can be relied upon to make progress on this vital issue.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his vigilance on this topic, as he always showed when I stood at the Dispatch Box opposite. I know he will be particularly vigilant as the Minister holds the responsibility for gambling. I am sure that she will be glad to have the chance to talk about something directly in her portfolio, in addition to the work that she has been doing on the Bill.
I am pleased to hear that the hip operation of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, went well, and even more pleased that she missed my disobliging comments about Arsenal this evening. That is the team she supports, so it is probably just as well that she was not here to hear them.
Of the two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, I am more taken with Amendment 143, which seeks to require football clubs to consult their fans on gambling advertising and sponsorship. I am mindful of the example of Wonga, a payday loan company rather than a gambling firm, and Newcastle United. It was an important reminder of the discomfort that fans feel when they are forced to wear the logo of companies and others of which they might not approve when they buy the football strips of the team they support.
Engaging fans on sponsorship is worth while, particularly where the companies are ones about which clubs know that fans have views. The noble Lord set out the growing concerns about the prevalence of gambling in sport and its potential to influence fans, particularly younger and more vulnerable groups. If we can strike a better balance between the immediate commercial needs of clubs and the long-term interests of the fans who support them then that is worthy of our consideration.
I am struck too by the points that my noble friends and others have raised about the importance of sponsorship deals on the finances of football clubs—particularly those in the lower leagues—to maintain their financial stability, which is such an important point underlying the Bill. Although Amendment 143 has much to commend it, the consultation must be a genuine and two-way conversation between clubs and fans to address the importance of investment in the sport and the good work that many are doing.
The second amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, Amendment 255, seeks to prevent regulated clubs and competitions promoting or engaging in gambling advertising or sponsorship altogether. In doing so, it rather overrides the open-minded consultation of his first amendment. I think this goes too far: an outright ban on gambling advertising and sponsorship would, in my view, be too blunt an instrument for addressing the complex issue of gambling and the broader questions of sponsorship in football.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling both amendments and the fact that we can consider them side by side in this group. I look forward to hearing what the Gambling Minister has to say about them.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend on this one—both noble friends, actually. I am afraid that if you want to see a country where gambling advertising and gambling problems are linked, you just have to look at Kenya—especially at the young. There is a chronic problem there, and it is doing enormous damage. Football has enormous reach and enormous power; it will reach out to you, and it reaches out to the most impressionable. I hope that the Government take some action here, showing a way forward that at least reduces the harm.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, means well with her point about the front of the jersey, but it is a team game. People run up and down; the back is still there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for these amendments. As Gambling Minister, I acknowledge the importance of monitoring the impacts of gambling sponsorship in football. Slightly bizarrely, I think this is the first opportunity I have had to discuss gambling in your Lordships’ House. I am confident, from working through the measures in the White Paper, that it will not be the last, but I acknowledge the noble Lord’s long record of campaigning on the issue of gambling harm.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and join others across your Lordships’ House in wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, a speedy and good recovery. We look forward to the noble Baroness working with us while the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is recovering from her operation.
Starting with Amendment 255, the Government do not believe the regulator should have a role in commercial matters such as sponsorship. This is outside the scope of the regulator and commercial decisions are, rightly, decisions for clubs. Further, what constitutes the promotion of gambling could be interpreted extremely widely, with significant consequences for clubs and the sport more widely. This might mean players not being able to take part in competitions that have gambling sponsors.
All major football bodies have published their joint gambling sponsorship code of conduct, which sets minimum standards for socially responsible gambling sponsorships within football. The Government will closely monitor the implementation of the codes of conduct to ensure they have a meaningful impact. I note the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about children and young people. I am happy to liaise with him and other noble Lords on this further as the codes of conduct are implemented.
On Amendment 143, I agree that where gambling advertising and sponsorship appear, it must be in a socially responsible way. Both the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, mentioned that the Premier League has already made a decision to ban front-of-shirt sponsorship by gambling firms by the end of next season. That is welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, referred to around 40 clubs that have already taken action on gambling sponsorship. As I set out in my speech at the GambleAware conference on 4 December, I really want to see the gambling industry further raise standards to ensure that levels of gambling advertising do not exacerbate harm.
I apologise to the noble Lord if my response to his question was not clear. We are trying to address volume across different companies, where even if one company has only a small amount, the collective volume can become quite significant. That is a specific issue we have asked the gambling industry to look at. Where there is volume across the piece, individually it might not be excessive but together it might represent a significant amount of gambling advertising beyond what is deemed acceptable. This work will be monitored closely.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, it has been a short but interesting debate that has raised many issues. I do not think now is the time for me to go through them all. Suffice it for me to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, basically said that gambling is a matter of personal choice. That is a view she is entitled to take. The vast majority of people have come to the view that gambling, like alcohol, tobacco and drugs, is a public health issue. That means there is a need for a degree of intervention in that activity. I, and Peers for Gambling Reform, have been debating what the level of that intervention should be.
I am certain that gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship lead to more harm in this country. We know that there is more than one gambling-related suicide every single day, and that should be of deep concern to us all. Collectively, we need to take more action than is currently being taken. That is why I hope we will have the opportunity to bring amendments such as this back at a later stage and to continue the debate then. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
(f) the club’s political statements and positions.”
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 145 seeks to add to Schedule 4 a consideration of a
“club’s political statements and positions”
in the part of the new regime that concerns the fan engagement threshold requirement. I and my noble friend Lord Markham, who has added his name to the amendment, have sought to do this in as neutral a way as possible, reflecting the fact that political statements and positions are rarely one-sided. They are usually complex matters with a number of competing and conflicting views.
We have seen in recent weeks the case of Crystal Palace’s Marc Guéhi, who twice amended his rainbow-coloured captain’s armband with expressions of his Christian faith. Plenty of people would say that rainbow armbands supporting gay rights and written expressions of Christian faith are not irreconcilable things. The problem in his case is that his expression of his religious faith fell foul of FIFA and FA regulations banning
“any political, religious, or personal slogans, statements or images”
on players’ kit or equipment, while the other was deemed an acceptable form of political expression.
During the last World Cup in Qatar, we saw the great dismay among LGBT+ fans when the FA chose to suspend its advocacy on their behalf while the tournament was taking place in Qatar. I am very proud that my right honourable friend Stuart Andrew, the former Sports Minister and now the shadow Secretary of State, wore the one love armband—which a number of fans and others were very keen to see worn—when he went to cheer our national teams on in the World Cup. Although, as a Welsh-born man representing an English constituency, I think he found it just as difficult having to reconcile deciding for whom to cheer in the England v Wales match that he saw.
We have seen many other examples of this being a growing area of concern for fans, clubs and those who have to navigate these choppy waters. Whether it is taking the knee, the decision about when to hold a minute’s silence and over what, the singing of certain anthems and songs or the decision to light certain stadia up in yellow and blue in support of Ukraine but not white and blue in support of Israel after 7 October, these are very difficult matters for clubs to decide. They should be able to decide them for themselves, but the amendment my noble friend and I have brought forward asks them to discuss these matters with their fans, to try to take on board their views, to take them with them and indeed to encourage them to think about these matters and perhaps change their mind.
In doing so, the amendment asks the Government to recognise that religious or philosophical belief is itself a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, so is worthy of our consideration when we are looking at supporting diversity in football, and that diversity of thought is really important if we are to grapple with these very thorny questions as a society.
The amendment also seeks to ensure that football clubs remain genuinely independent and free from external political pressure that might distort the relationship between them and their supporters. If we are to safeguard the integrity of football as an independent sport, we cannot allow it to be co-opted into political campaigns, whether from the Government or from any other political group. The duty to consult fans on political statements and activities is a safeguard which ensures that clubs will remain true to their roots, focused on the sport and not caught up in advancing political crusades or day-to-day rows.
I hope Minister will look at our amendment with the neutral consideration we have tried to give it in the way we have worded it. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 244 and to support Amendment 145, moved by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. My amendment seeks to formalise a duty which will prevent clubs, players and employees of clubs publishing political statements that bring division and conflict into a game that should be about generating unity.
We have seen over previous years multiple instances of virtue signalling, such as taking the knee before matches after the Black Lives Matter protests, and the wearing of certain armbands—as my noble friend has said—and laces, which are the latest attempt to campaign. I would say that it is a small “p” political campaign. I may differ somewhat from my noble friend Lord Hayward on this, so it is probably a good thing that he is not in his usual place.
Politics is not just about party politics. It is about the pernicious influence of political campaigning affecting—infecting—football, our national game. I remember the dark days of the 1970s, when a number of London clubs were perceived to be involved with the rise of the National Front and its racist politics. That gave rise, of course, to instances of football hooliganism. That was not a party-political issue, but it was a political issue. We do not want to go back to those dark days when, for instance, Millwall was associated with football hooliganism and some elements of racist behaviour.
I am not even sure that these initiatives work. The figures quoted a week or so ago in Committee show that 43% of players in the Premier League are Afro-Caribbean or Black African. They have achieved that through their skills, their abilities, their resilience and their physical fitness, not because they wore multi-coloured boot laces. UEFA already bans political statements such as these, but it has not been successful in implementing and enforcing such rules. The Government could really take a lead on that.
If the Government are so keen to have a regulator to enforce numerous other rules, many of which overlap UEFA’s rules, surely it is only right that the regulator impose rules on political statements and attempts to impose political views. My noble friend is quite right: we have seen recently the unpleasant behaviour of fans cheering on pro-Palestinian extremists; and of course, we have the ongoing debate, discussion and rivalry between Celtic and Rangers in Glasgow. That is very much a political issue.
Article 16 of UEFA’s own regulations, entitled “Order and Security at UEFA Competition Matches,” prohibits
“the use of gestures, words, objects, or any other means to transmit a provocative message that is not fit for a sports event, particularly provocative messages that are of political, ideological, religious or offensive nature.”
My own bugbear is bad language, particularly in front of children and young people. It is terrible, unacceptable, for grown men to be swearing and using really unpleasant language. However, do we really want to add into that mix the poisonous disputes of politics and political issues? I do not think we do.
Why do we not try to replicate, and perhaps enforce, UEFA’s rules in the Bill? We must remember how divisive such actions have been with supporters and fans. No one likes to be told what they should believe or how they should act. Fans themselves are diverse; they do not need to have these views forced down their throats—such as the preachy proselytising of Gary Lineker on any number of fashionable so-called progressive causes, or a pretentious new Jaguar advert which does not actually feature a Jaguar car.
Fans want to watch a football match and support a team; they do not want to be in the middle of a political bunfight. Fans turn up to watch their favourite team play, not to see a session of Parliament. For those reasons, the Minister should give consideration to this amendment. It would save us from further discord and conflict, which we do not need. Fundamentally, we have to trust the clubs themselves to do the right thing by their fans, their players and their boards and deliver good policies organically, rather than enforcing these kinds of initiatives, which have been proven not to work necessarily.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. What he said was exceptionally perceptive and wise. Look at Marcus Rashford, for example, who exploded on to the football scene in the UK in 2016, aged just 18, and scored on his Manchester United and England debuts, before becoming one of the country’s most exciting prospects. He became a household name at the same time and was recognised with an MBE for his work off the field, campaigning on child hunger, which he faced growing up in Wythenshawe in Manchester. He challenged the then Government in 2020, imploring Ministers to offer free meals to needy children in the school holidays.
The position for international sports federations—and, indeed, for clubs in this country—is to recognise that a balance needs to be struck, which is what my noble friend Lord Parkinson was arguing for. The balance to be struck in the Olympic movement is recognising that the IOC Athletes’ Commission opposes using athletes for political propaganda or campaigns, while providing the opportunity for them to exercise their views and opinions in official media settings or on social media accounts, which are so powerful. Surely this is not a subject for the regulator; this is a subject for clubs and the organisers of the competitions in which they play.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I make a brief reminder here that objections have been raised to all sorts of things. I remember when it was the poppy on jerseys in a football match. Apparently, a political statement is one that you either do not understand or do not agree with. I ask the Government, and indeed all noble Lords, to be very careful about this. These amendments are trying to exclude things that might be positive and good, because there will always be somebody who disagrees with them. All I will say is: tread very carefully here. Remembering the dead of World War I and World War II would not be seen as an overt statement in this country, but apparently it is elsewhere.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, very briefly, I am so glad that these amendments were tabled, because it gives us a chance to reflect. The statement that to determine what is right and wrong between different countries and cultures is very complicated so it is easier to say that it has no place in the game seems fair enough to me. Politics is complicated. We find it complicated in this place, even though we are the legislators and the politicians. Once you start introducing it into football, you can get into a real mess.
I am also not sure about a few things, so I want to share some confusion. One difficulty is that, for example, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, last week that he does not consider the rainbow armband to be political, but I think that it is highly ideological and political. Last month, the FA dedicated a 35-minute video to the Rainbow Laces campaign, showcasing an activist-heavy panel that included its women’s talent and senior game EDI consultant coach developer. That title gives the game away before we go anywhere.
Guess what? That particular individual used to work for Stonewall before being brought into football. I hope that we in this House understand that Stonewall is at least a highly contentious political organisation which is now at the heart of defining what is considered to be inclusive football. The problem with this profusion of rainbows on laces, pitch flags, ball plinths and all the rest of this branding is that any objection on the basis of politics leads to an accusation of being insensitive to lesbian and gay people or being homophobic. Indeed, it is the very opposite. I think that trans ideology is discriminatory against lesbians and gays because it does not understand same-sex attraction. If noble Lords are lost and are thinking, “Oh God, what is she going on about?”, that is fine. It is a political matter and nothing to do with football. I worry when football managers and teams get embroiled in this.
I was unsure about this amendment. I am usually the kind of populist democrat who says, “Vote on everything; go and have a vote”, but I did wonder when the noble Lord said, “See what the fans say—don’t put out a statement unless they agree with you”. Maybe it is because I am from a Celtic family—although some of them support Spurs. I hope that noble Lords can get their heads around this. Celtic’s fan base has gone completely bonkers on the Israel-Gaza question. It is like a Hamas support group on tour. The irony is that their sloganeering in support, as they would see it, of the Green Brigade and all the rest of it—their support for Gaza resistance—has put them completely at odds with Celtic’s owners and the board, although the Celtic Trust, the shareholders’ group, agrees with them. It has split the club. But everyone should keep out of this. Let them sloganise away, but do not get involved one way or another. Make the political point.
However, I cheered when Crystal Palace put out an official statement after the 7 October pogrom. I thought it was great that at last somebody had come out and condemned the murders and hostage-taking. We have seen what has happened to Israeli teams, which have been subjected to anti-Semitic attacks, one of which almost brought down a Government on the continent. We know what is going on. I am interested that football is getting involved in this. I have already commended those Spurs fans who have started a grass-roots campaign in support of Emily Damari, the last remaining British hostage. I want Spurs fans to chant this young woman’s name at the ground. Her uncle Rob is a Crystal Palace fan. As he pointed out, they may not have the grass-roots campaign, but at least Palace put out a statement.
I am into all this. I genuinely do not want to say that we should sanitise football clubs of all political discussion. It is impossible. It is not going to happen. I do not want the Government interfering in it or a regulator being involved. I do not want people being in a situation where they fail, or refuse, to acknowledge that they are putting forward, for example, EDI policies. These are politics in disguise, although they will not admit it. Politics is complicated. Let us keep it out of football. The fans will be political just because they are stroppy like that.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for tabling these amendments, and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. These amendments seek to add a requirement for a club to consult fans on any political statements or stances.
Amendment 244 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would additionally mandate fan approval of any political statement or political activity made by the club, its players or any other staff. This includes fan approval in relation to the issuing or wearing of items of clothing with political connotations. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, outlined, what we view as political is disputed. It is not the place of a statutory regulator tasked with sustaining the stability of the game to limit or add approval processes for political speech or action or, indeed, to determine what is defined as political in the first place.
On Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, clubs may wish to consult their fans in this regard as part of their regular fan engagement. However, this is not something that the regulator will require of clubs. The Bill is intended to ensure that fans have a voice in key decisions regarding their club, but we need to make sure that this is proportionate. That is why we have not listed every possible issue that clubs should engage with their fans on in minute detail.
As has been mentioned, it is notable that many sporting personalities have used the attention that sports receive to campaign on issues that concern them. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, highlighted Marcus Rashford as an example. To be clear, we do not want to inhibit free speech. Instead, as is the case now, fans are equally able to use their own freedom of expression to protest political statements or actions made by their club. As well as potentially constraining freedom of speech, these amendments would not improve the regulator’s ability to deliver its objectives. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister and to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group for their considered thoughts. Like the Minister, we do not want to inhibit free speech. The difficulty is in questions of an acceptable political gesture or article of clothing conflicting with the free speech of those who take a differing view. That is where it is important for clubs to be mindful of the wide range of views that are out there and to have an earnest conversation with their fans and with society more broadly.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right to mention the poppy. Sadly, it is already an article contested by some—we have crossed the Rubicon that he warned us to be wary of. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, alluded to the sectarianism that there has been for a long time in certain football clubs. This is not a new matter but one which is growing and where there are new, more complicated areas of contention. I agree with the sentiment that a number of noble Lords expressed that it is important to get politics out of football.
I hope that the Minister will reflect further on this ahead of Report. I am grateful to noble Lords for their thoughts and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 146 and speak to my Amendment 237. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for adding his name to them. These amendments are identical in nature, seeking to change “crest” to “badge” in the two instances where it is used in the Bill. These were the first amendments that I tabled on this Bill. They are short and simple but very important.
I appreciate that heraldic terms can seem confusing to the uninitiated, but if we cannot get this right in your Lordships’ House, where all Members are armigerous, where can we? It might be helpful to start with a brief glossary. A full heraldic achievement consists of many elements. The most common and obvious of these is the shield or escutcheon. On these, or on a diamond-shaped lozenge for women, is borne the coat of arms, the design of which is particular to the person or institution which bears them. We are surrounded by many splendid examples of these in your Lordships’ Chamber. Noble Lords might have found their eyes hovering over them from time to time during some of our longer debates, as mine sometimes do. If noble Lords’ eyes start to wander during the debate on this group, I will take that as a sign of focus rather than distraction.
Sadly, the stained-glass windows which were designed for your Lordships’ Chamber by Augustus Pugin were lost during the Second World War. The replacements installed in 1950, sadly not illuminated now because of the late hour, show the coats of arms of Peers who lived between 1360 and 1900. The armorial bearings running beneath the Galleries are of various sovereigns from Edward III and Lord Chancellors from 1377 onwards.
What first catches the eye when it drifts in our debates is the escutcheon bearing the coat of arms, but other elements can be seen. As Peers, we are entitled to supporters—figures or objects placed either side of a shield; very often these are animals, real or imaginary, such as the lion and unicorn in the royal coat of arms, but they can be figures as well. My late noble friend Lady Thatcher, for instance, had as supporters an admiral of the Royal Navy to commemorate the victory in the Falklands War during her celebrated premiership and Sir Isaac Newton, who, like her, was born in Lincolnshire, in recognition of her earlier career as a scientist.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, in the interests of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and me—passionate Leeds supporters—I feel that my noble friend Lord Parkinson seems to have made an error. The first Leeds United badge, which actually began life in 1908, 11 years before the formation of the club we know and love today, was originally used by Leeds City Football Club—the team that preceded Leeds United. It was based on the coat of arms of the city of Leeds and it featured three owls. In some variations, it included the Latin motto “pro rege et lege”, which translates as “for the king and the law”. The team colours, blue and yellow, also came from the city’s crest. In 1965, came the owl badge. It was considered by some to be more representative of the team known as the Owls, Sheffield Wednesday—which my noble friend did not mention; he mentioned only Sheffield United—than of Leeds United FC, despite three owls featuring on the crest of the city of Leeds. The badge would have donned the shirt of a little-known youngster by the name of Billy Bremner.
On behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, the noble Lord, Lord Mann, who is sadly not in his seat, and me, and taking only one minute of the Committee’s time, I needed to correct my noble friend Lord Parkinson on his lack of knowledge of this rather important issue of a recognised badge for Leeds United.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My point was that the 25 badges and clubs that I listed are those which have been granted through delegation by the College of Arms to the English Football League. There are many splendid but unofficial badges used by teams elsewhere in football.
Lord Addington (LD)
I will take that advice.
I put my name to Amendment 237, because I thought that it was about an identification symbol. That is what heraldry is all about, except that we do not use it any more to define who is going to belt who over the head in the middle of a medieval battlefield. All I can say after listening to the speech on this amendment is that I have learned much, but I am not sure when it will be useful.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for these amendments, which address changes to club heritage assets and what should be safeguarded by the regulator. I if may say so, this debate could be used as the definition of a lordly debate.
The Government understand that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord seek to avoid a misuse of any heraldic terms. I am grateful for the historic background that he gave in what was one of the Committee’s more unusual contributions, but one from which we all learned a great deal.
This specific clause is intended to work in tandem with the FA heritage protections, with the regulator acting as an enforcement backstop to the FA’s rules. The FA’s heritage protections use the term “crest”, and therefore this amendment would risk the regulator being out of step with the rest of the industry. However, I stress to the noble Lord that officials have liaised with the College of Arms on this. We are keen to ensure that the Bill does not incorrectly signal that the regulator would ever override the separate process of the College of Arms. We have engaged and will continue to engage with the College of Arms to ensure that it is content. This may be something that we return to upon further discussions with the college and the FA. I acknowledge the intent of these amendments but, for the reasons that I have outlined, ask the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for the way that she has engaged with this and her promise to look at it further. She is right that this is a very House of Lords issue, but I was alerted to it by comments on social media from those who watch your Lordships’ proceedings, so it is both an ancient and a very modern issue, and one about which people feel very strongly.
I am glad that the Minister has begun dialogue with the College of Arms. Just because others are getting it wrong, it does not mean that we should get it wrong in legislation. For the reasons that I have set out, I think that we can nudge towards the present legal position in the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for that and will certainly take her up on the offer to discuss this further between now and Report.
In my research I was pleased to learn that a football first appeared in heraldry as far back as 1604, when the Clarenceux King of Arms at that time granted arms and a crest to Sir William Jordan, who was briefly a Member of Parliament for Westbury. Noble Lords may be as surprised as I was to learn that a football appears in the 17th century grant given to him. His crest is
“A football or encircled by a scroll inscribed PERCUSSA RESURGO”—
“Struck, I bounce back”. That message of resilience is perhaps one to cheer us on as we consider these amendments in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I asked for this amendment to be degrouped because I wanted to ensure that the issue of equality, diversity and inclusion reporting was treated separately and as an important issue in its own right in the Bill. I thought that would mirror the way the Government have treated the same topic. I had problems with the original Bill that the Conservative Party introduced when in government. I was ready to oppose it, but in a fairly limited way. When the Bill came back with the new Government, things had been added. One of the announcements the Government made was of the importance of adding EDI—equality, diversity and inclusion—and that they were bolstering that in the Bill. I immediately became concerned. As we have all noticed, we have discussed it quite a lot already, but there is always more to say.
I want to establish something: it is admirable that corporations, institutions and football clubs are today keen to try to make themselves more welcoming places for minorities and for everyone. They should not employ any discriminatory practices that prevent people being able to participate equally—in this instance as fans, in employment or at any level of staff, management or players. The only thing that should matter is merit rather than prejudice; that should be the key principle. To be clear, my objection to the regulatory requirement for EDI reporting being added to the original Bill was not because EDI is some righteous vehicle for fairness in football governance but rather because EDI is a bureaucratic process—I would even say a bit of a virtue-signalling racket. It is expensive, ineffective and often counterproductive, and it opens the door to political interference by the state in football, something that a number of us are worried about.
On effectiveness, I remind the Committee that the Post Office won awards for its diversity and inclusion policies. The Post Office also had a modern slavery statement, a carbon reduction plan and a very worthy statement of corporate social responsibility. All the while, senior management at that same Post Office allowed its own sub-postmasters to be treated in the most inhumane, unfair and possibly unlawful manner. You can tick all the good governance boxes in the world and have award-winning EDI schemes on the books, but it does not equate to good governance.
To be less cynical, most employers mean well when they decide to implement EDI measures, but they can be so desperate to be seen to be doing the right thing that they rush into initiatives that do not work even on their own terms. Research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the CIPD, has found a worrying number of business leaders who say that they did not do any research before launching their EDI schemes.
Talking of research, I urge the Minister to look at the government-commissioned report of the inclusion at work panel. It was convened by Kemi Badenoch when she was Equalities Minister and Business Secretary. In case that allows anyone to dismiss the report as some kind of biased Tory report, the panel comprised a range of private and public sector experts. It was advised on by a renowned Harvard University professor. It really is just research. The report concludes that EDI practices are often polarising and counterproductive, and can even be unlawful. For example, in pursuit of a more diverse workforce, overzealous employers have used so-called positive discrimination even though it is illegal under the Equality Act 2010. I am worried that this is the kind of thing that will happen in football.
I remind noble Lords of the case that I mentioned very briefly in the debate on an earlier group in relation to the Royal Air Force. In 2022, hoping to meet its diversity targets, it overlooked eminently qualified white applicants for female and ethnic-minority recruits. This was then found to be unlawful, and those candidates who were passed over received financial compensation.
I remind the Committee of the case of Linzi Smith, who was reported to the police, a victim of surveillance and barred by her beloved Newcastle United Football Club for holding legal views and expressing them, not at a football ground but on social media. Her football club and the Premier League have disciplined her, and she is now banned from attending football. It is an atrocious case.
I also draw attention to a compelling new study released by Rutgers University, which has found that EDI training often sows divisions and resentment in organisations, and that EDI practices can lead to perceptions of prejudice where none objectively exists. For example, it can happen when prioritising EDI schemes, then sending employers on endless training sessions and workshops, and telling them—depending on their race, sex, disability or whatever—that they are either victims or oppressors. Guess what: this fosters and exacerbates conflicts and resentments.
What is heralded as an effective solution to bigotry and prejudice seems instead to be fuelling the very problems that its advocates claim to want to solve. Therefore, I ask the Minister to pause and think before adding this to the Bill, to avoid opening up a hornet’s nest of division in football clubs.
After all I have said, we should not be surprised to discover that things are moving pretty quickly and we could be behind the times. In America, US corporates and organisations are now realising that what they call DEI rather than EDI is causing real problems; they are starting to realise that they should get out of it. Richard Lowry, editor-in-chief of the National Review, recently wrote that one of the most important events in America this year, outside the presidential election, was the intellectual collapse of what was described as the “DEI fad”.
The Wall Street Journal and various other American newspapers have noted some of this. Walmart, America’s largest private employer, is just the latest company to abandon DEI. It announced that, from 25 November, it was rolling back a slew of initiatives related to DEI. This has included winding down programmes providing assistance to suppliers that are 51% owned by women, minorities, veterans or members of the LGBTQ+ community. It is also phasing out the phrase “DEI” in its corporate messaging, and says that it will no longer give priority treatment to suppliers based on race or gender diversity.
According to the City Journal, Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer, has dismantled its global equality, diversity and inclusion department as it oversees a broad revamping of the company’s workforce. It is now emphasising hiring on merit, while truly caring for people, regardless of arbitrary one-dimensional identity or affinity group labels. It says that that is the way to go.
This is not just me going on about EDI; this is major corporates across the world, which have tried this stuff and said that it has been a disaster. You can also look at Harley Davidson, the car maker Ford, and the farming goods company tractor today. They have all rejected EDI goals, targets, report writing, quotas and so on. We have also seen consumer boycotts that have forced brands such as Bud Light and Target to retreat from EDI-inspired marketing campaigns. That seems to me to indicate that maybe a pause is required.
I now want to come back to football.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am glad that you agree.
Football can learn from other people; and, as we are importing EDI from the corporate sector and the university sector, we should see where it has been a disaster there before we impose it on football.
Most people in football, for obvious reasons, are not experts in EDI. You can imagine a situation where a football team is basically told that the regulator could punish them if they do not live up to the EDI requirements stipulated in the Bill. They will do what every organisation does in this situation. They will think, “We don’t know anything about critical race theory; we don’t know anything about decolonising; we don’t understand this stuff, so what should we do?” Of course, they outsource the work to the experts, who know. Third-party outsiders are brought in house. They are the kind of professionals who know all about EDI. Those professionals are not necessarily motivated by fair-minded, pragmatic goals. They are often activists: individuals or organisations committed to what I consider to be a political ideology—something like critical race theory. Look at how the diversity industry has wrought havoc on all levels of the public sector in this country: universities, museums, the Civil Service. This is a real source of contention. It does not matter what side you are on; it is causing divisions.
What began as an attempt to remove barriers for historically disadvantaged groups has grown into a thriving grievance industry. We have seen that one of the slogans of EDI is to bring your true, authentic self to work. My attitude is that you should leave it at home. The only thing you should bring to work is your professional self.
I commend the Secretary of State for Health, Wes Streeting, for making the point that your political views, if you are, for example, a hospital doctor, should stay at the door of the hospital. We are not interested in your true, authentic self. But of course, all the people are coming in and saying, “I have to express my true, authentic self as a doctor and tell you everything I have ever thought about Israel and Gaza”. That is out of EDI. That is where it came from. Your own Health Secretary has rather courageously pointed out that that that should be discouraged, if not disciplined.
This part of the Bill will oblige clubs to employ expensive pen-pushers with a particular expertise in writing reports, all because of the mandatory inclusion reports. These reports will not write themselves. We heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Maude, who is not in his place. He was talking about the challenges of writing complicated business plans. You have to get all the lawyers in. Let me tell you: to write an EDI report, you also have to learn a new language. It is a completely different world. They will be paying people to write this stuff.
It does not come cheap. The cash-strapped clubs facing financial strain—an issue we are keen to do something about—will now have to find the money to pay all these EDI directors. By the way, the assistant director of EDI community services in one local council was earning £103,000. These guys are not cheap. Which council was that person working for? Birmingham. It has gone bankrupt. This is what happens. You can waste money and your priorities can get completely distorted.
I do understand, by the way, that many football clubs have big EDI departments. The Premier League is like so many big well-endowed organisations and corporations, which very often have huge EDI sections—it is a growing industry. I disapprove of that, but that is up to them; I just do not want it to be regulated. But legally requiring smaller clubs to publish their inclusion strategies—explaining how their strategic plans will fulfil the EDI requirement, with annual equality reports and so on—seems to me to be taking their eye off what should be important. It inevitably steers organisations away from their actual purpose: winning games. Diversity training cannot become as important as football training. Encouraging clubs to demonstrate their EDI credentials could be an indulgent and dangerous distraction from what they should do and what they can do best.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I rise to support my noble friend Lady Fox of Buckley, and I was pleased to sign the amendment. Noble Lords should remember that the corporate governance statement is not a voluntary part of Schedule 5; it is a mandatory licence condition and a threshold requirement. A club simply cannot progress in the licensing process unless it abides by this rather pernicious sub-paragraph of Schedule 5.
My noble friend Lady Fox made an excellent case in saying that this should be removed from the Bill; it is disappointing. We have heard many times from the Government Benches—including the Minister and the Chief Whip, who is no longer in his place—that it is hypocritical for us on these Benches to criticise the provisions of the Bill, given that the previous Conservative Government introduced the original Bill. But noble Lords will now know that I refute this suggestion because I personally would have opposed many aspects of the Bill. I think it is a terrible Bill, frankly, and would have opposed it under the previous Administration.
The Benches opposite cannot make that charge on this particular aspect of the Bill, because this is a brand new inclusion by the current Administration. I am not sure why the new Government thought this was an important measure. It is disappointing that there are no Labour Back-Benchers supporting their own Government on one of the most contentious aspects of the Bill, although I concede that the hour is late.
There are already a whole host of measures that clubs and leagues take to progress inclusion and diversity. We had debates previously, a week or so ago, which made the point that this is covered, comprehensively, by the Equality Act 2010. It is also covered by a number of employment Acts, such as the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which would prevent direct and indirect discrimination without the heavy-handed nature of this provision. Because it is going to be set down in primary legislation as part of a corporate governance statement, it will very quickly become not just statute law but case law, so it will be a de facto tablet of stone—irrevocable, a settled document.
That worries me, because we know there is a huge amount of bureaucracy—and I can say this as a former human resources specialist. There are, per capita, more HR specialists in the UK than practically anywhere in the European Union and the developed world. That means there will not just be this corporate statement; there will be the bureaucracy of impact equality assessments, people specs, job specs, race action plans, EDI plans, LGBT plans, et cetera. This is what it will become. It will be about a divisive attempt to segment and disaggregate different fan groups. I think that will be deeply regrettable. Therefore, I think it will give rise to anger and resentment—the very opposite of the sense of cohesion, belonging, unity of purpose and community pride, which surely are the raison d’être of football.
As an example, Peterborough United—Posh—posted a single photo on its Facebook page of a Pride flag. I do not have a problem with a Pride flag. I treat gay and lesbian people with respect. They are football fans; they can come and go as they wish. I make no value judgment on that. But it gave rise to an absolute deluge of negative comments on the Facebook page, and it set fans against each other. It was seen, cynically maybe, as virtue signalling by Posh. It was a kind gesture, but it backfired, I am afraid.
The Bill claims to have the interests of the fans at its heart, and the Government claim the same. It strikes me as incredibly bizarre that they have no clue what the fans actually want. Is there any quantitative or qualitative data to back up whether this provision is needed in the Bill? Football fans are not interested in EDI. They want their clubs to be run properly; they want the teams to deliver high-quality football. They actually believe in fairness and decency, not tick-box virtue signalling.
Finally, there is the issue of cost to the clubs. Policy Exchange, the think tank, has highlighted its recent annual report, Politicising Business, the enormous cost that EDI can place on clubs. It has analysed the cost of the new EDI rules that the FCA brought in for firms that it regulates in December 2023. It estimated that the new rules will incur a one-off cost of £561 million, and ongoing costs of up to £317 million a year to businesses—that is over £500 million for firms simply to improve their diversity and equality policies, which are already embedded in existing legislation. Surely this cost will be prohibitive.
Finally, I ask: what are the objectives? What are the key performance indicators? What does success look like? What does a cost-benefit analysis look like? This is about appearing virtuous and will result in conflict and discord. I do not believe that it should be in the Bill. We should trust clubs to do the right thing and to treat people both properly and fairly.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, the hour is late and I found my brain somewhat pounded into stupefaction by the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I found myself, perhaps disloyally and strangely, in agreement with the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on that matter. In this state of stupefaction, I am concerned about the serried ranks on the Government Benches waiting to jump on any mistake that I might make, so I hope that they, or perhaps their ghosts, will forgive me for any. I shall make just three quick points because the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, have said it all. I could perhaps just say what they said, but I shall try to make three very quick points, in view of the lateness of the hour and the evident but brave tiredness of the ranks in front of me.
My first point is that EDI is, believe it or not, for those who desperately believe in it and think it is tremendously important and essential to have in the Bill, a passing fad. It is a fashion. It is not even a fashion that we came up with: it is a fashion that we imported from America. My wife was, for many decades, a fashion designer in New York and she would point out to me how the colour would be decided in New York and the next year it would be copied in London. The line, the cut, the theme of fashion would be decided in New York and a year later would arrive in London. So it is with all these moral panics that, for the last decade we have seen arise, one by one, be taken very seriously and gradually fade away.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about how, even now, American academia having become obsessed with it for many years, everybody is getting bored with it because it actually turns out to be a bit of a disaster. One by one, all these moral panics will disappear and, in coming decades, people will ask, “Why on earth did they think that way? What on earth told them to do that?” There is, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said, no academic evidence. The academic evidence that companies such as McKinsey used to make hundreds of millions or more out of companies for selling these lines has been shown to be disreputable by careful academic analysis. I know; I used to work for McKinsey. There were 800 people around the world when I worked there; there are now 46,000 and the numbers grew on stuff like this, without any really valid academic basis. It is a passing fad and I hope we will not allow it to become implanted into football just at the time that it is beginning to fade.
My second point is that it crowds out useful activity. I spent decades advising chief executives of the largest companies in the world as to what they should do, and the one thing that I and so many others like me advised them on was focus: do not allow yourself to get distracted. But noble Lords who have been here during this Committee will remember that I have frequently described the Bill as a Christmas tree. What we have heard is everybody trying to hang baubles on the Christ1mas tree.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I will address the amendment tabled by my noble friends which seeks to remove equality, diversity and inclusion requirements from the corporate governance code outlined in the Bill.
First, I acknowledge a concern that I believe underpins this amendment: the sense that EDI has, in some cases, become a compliance-driven exercise, where box-ticking and slogans replace meaningful action and real change. I recognise the frustration with the rise of what some see as the EDI industry, where jargon-laden initiatives create more paperwork than progress and risk alienating those they seek to engage. I share those concerns.
I know from my experience in football and the wider business arena that real change does not come from bureaucratic edicts or tokenistic gestures. In the end, change comes from understanding people and the barriers they face, the biases they encounter and, above all, the opportunities they need to succeed. For me, EDI must be about more than processes; it must be about outcomes.
This is where football, and particularly the Premier League and its clubs, is showing how it can be done and done well. The Premier League’s equality, diversity and inclusion standard, or PLEDIS, is a good example of an enabling framework that empowers clubs to embed EDI in their operations while avoiding the pitfalls of bureaucracy. I am very proud to say that West Ham United have been awarded the highest level of PLEDIS you can get.
PLEDIS is not a blunt tool; it does not impose rigid, one-size-fits-all rules. Instead, it provides clubs with expert guidance and a structured framework to identify their own unique challenges and set meaningful goals. For example, clubs are supported to collect and analyse data so that they can understand where underrepresentation exists, whether in senior leadership, academy coaching staff or community programmes. Clubs are helped to develop tailored plans based on their specific circumstances, whether that means increasing female representation in the boardrooms or improving accessibility for disabled fans. PLEDIS helps to bring about a genuine culture of learning and development. We have held some really good educational sessions about unconscious bias, cultural awareness and inclusive leadership.
I am not saying that everything the Premier League does is perfect, but we have tried collectively to develop a system that avoids the pitfalls of bureaucracy and instead empowers clubs to take ownership of their EDI journey. You need some outside help and challenge for it to work effectively. You need external expert support to ensure that clubs are not left to navigate this work alone and to help clubs turn principles into action, with practical advice rather than burdensome mandates. The key to success in EDI is not just to measure compliance but to drive cultural change. That is what the Premier League approach aims to achieve. I believe that PLEDIS almost always continues to be used when clubs are relegated to the Football League, because clubs find it so valuable.
Consider too the impact of initiatives such as the Premier League’s No Room For Racism campaign. Although public facing, this work is backed by systemic efforts within clubs to tackle discrimination, create pathways for underrepresented groups and hold those in power accountable for progress. The Premier League has developed great programmes to develop more black coaches, bring more South Asian players through the talent pipeline and help black players on the path to becoming club executives.
All this matters, and I fully agree with my noble friend Lady Fox that it cannot be about box-ticking. It is about ensuring that every player, coach, staff member and fan feels that football is for them. When implemented correctly, EDI does not create diversion or resentment; it fosters unity by ensuring that everyone has a fair chance to participate and succeed.
I have a lot of sympathy for my noble friends who worry about the potential for overreach or missteps in EDI, and my noble friend Lady Fox is right that poorly conceived and implemented EDI policies will be burdensome and ineffective. But now that EDI has been put into the Bill, my approach will be to work with the football regulator to ensure that it is done thoughtfully, innovatively and with that laser focus on outcomes. Football clubs will have nothing to fear from embracing this work. EDI done well is not a threat; it can strengthen clubs by ensuring they reflect the communities they serve and are able to attract diverse talent, and will fundamentally make their clubs better places for everyone to work.
This does not have to be a binary choice between rigid mandates and doing nothing. The best path forward is an enabling framework supported by expert guidance and underpinned by meaningful accountability. Clubs should be encouraged, not coerced, to embrace this work; it can and it should be aspirational. I urge the Government and the regulator to consider how these requirements can be implemented with that spirit in mind.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for bringing this amendment and for giving us opportunity to look at the new additions that the Government have put in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough reminds us, this is one of the areas in which the Bill has changed from the Bill that was before the previous Parliament. He did not like the other one either, but I think that it is clear that he likes these provisions even less.
While I am highly supportive of efforts to improve equality of access for people in football and indeed in all sports—when we last looked at these issues, I spoke about the progress we have made in tackling the horrendous racism and homophobia that blighted football for a long time—I share some of the concerns that my noble friends, including my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, have raised about enshrining in law what are clearly shifting sands. As the ever-changing acronyms and the ever-expanding rainbow of colours on flags and lanyards show, this is an area that continues to change, and we must not allow the noble aim of opening up access for people and treating everybody with equal respect to be pegged to a certain moment in time in the way that it is done. I am mindful too, as my noble friend Lady Brady has just reminded us, of the enormous strides that clubs have taken to drive improvement in this area, and we congratulate West Ham on the recognition that they have won for their work on that.
We must be very wary of what is a mandatory requirement in the Bill, in the way that the noble Baroness’s amendment focuses on, and the clear cost and burden that will impose on the clubs that have to comply with it. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough spoke about those costs and burdens, and he was right as well to worry that, with the work that is done in this area, we sometimes inadvertently bring about division rather than diversity as we pit various groups of people against one another in what sometimes feel like informal hierarchies of grievance.
I share some of the concerns that my noble friends have raised, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for honing in on this further requirement that the Government seek to impose on clubs. I hope the Minister will respond to the points that they have raised.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, all I can say about this is that I may not have disagreed with every single word that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, but I certainly disagreed with her tone.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, reflecting the point from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I am afraid that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and I fundamentally disagree on this area of the Bill, but I am glad of the opportunity for your Lordships’ House to debate this issue and thank her for the amendment, as it allows me to clarify why the Government have added this provision.
The Government believe that equality, diversity and inclusion are key elements of good corporate governance. This is not about moral panic, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, or virtue signalling, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, will have a different view on the research from the likes of McKinsey, but it has shown that diversity on boards and in organisations promotes better governance, decision-making and transparency—arguably, the noble Lord’s point about its growth as a company might demonstrate that it could have a point. All this, in terms of better governance, decision-making and transparency, contributes to improved financial sustainability. The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, highlighted the value of considering EDI within the corporate space.
This relationship between diversity and better corporate performance is recognised also by the Financial Reporting Council and the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. The industry is already taking action in this space, and I welcome the expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, in this area and her example of PLEDIS, but for a regulator that will be introducing a corporate governance code and requiring clubs to report against it, it is only right that such a code also covers EDI. The regulator will look to co-operate with other stakeholders, draw on the expertise of the sector and add to industry initiatives. I am sure that they will want to engage with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, on this point as well.
As with fan engagement, this will be a statutory baseline, so clubs that already champion equality, diversity and inclusion will not have any additional burden placed on them other than having to periodically report on these things. Under the corporate governance code, clubs will simply be required to explain how they are applying the code and what action they are taking on equality, diversity and inclusion. That is not onerous, but it is a very helpful transparency measure. This transparency will only be a good thing, and I am afraid that if noble Lords disagree with that, we are simply of very different minds on this issue.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, may I ask, given that this is a specific difference from the previous Bill, what specific football-related research was commissioned by the Government that led them to believe that it was imperative to add this provision to the new Bill? If that question is too difficult to answer now, perhaps the Minister will write to me.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, it is getting late and I have just dropped all my notes. This is not actually about football per se; it is about good governance. The regulator will be concerned with sustainability. As a sustainability regulator, its interest in equality, diversity and inclusion is that it contributes to good corporate decision-making, which, in turn, makes clubs more sustainable. This is why the regulator will encourage good EDI in clubs by requiring them to report on what action they are taking to improve EDI. That transparency will only be a good thing. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment for the reasons I have given.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, may I offer to send her the academic study headed, “Study linking ethnic diversity with performance by McKinsey questioned by academics”? I am very happy to send her this. It completely rebutted the McKinsey finding that she quoted. It would be very useful were she to understand that that has been rebutted, so that she might not be quite so keen on the ideas she wishes to espouse, and we could come together on that point.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord is very welcome to send this to me, but I am afraid that, as somebody who used to work in governance myself, I am quite committed to the concept that good governance should also include good EDI.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all those who joined in with this short debate. To the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Moynihan, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, I emphasise that, despite what anybody says, they are not my friends, even though they call me their friend. I do not mean that in any rude sense. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has decided that he has taken against my tone. I do not know what I have done wrong there. I did not think I had a tone: I just made a speech. I just want to clarify that they are not my friends, but they spoke brilliantly well and interestingly on this issue.
It is very important to draw the Government’s and the Minister’s attention to new evidence that has emerged. I know the Minister did not mean to say this, but it is not advisable to say, “I have worked in this, and I am committed to this view”, given that circumstances are changing and new evidence is emerging all the time. It would be better to be open-minded. I made the point about the Post Office, and it is a good example. The Post Office won those awards for EDI and good governance at the same time as the Post Office scandal.
I definitely do not want to micromanage freedom of speech—and I do not think that the Government have any intentions of doing that through this part of the Bill—but to say that this is not the appropriate time to raise trans inclusion is not true. The truth of the matter is that it is through EDI policies that the issue of trans has become so controversial for women in women’s football. I have not raised this just because I am trying to shoehorn it in; that is the basis on which it happens.
Before I formally withdraw because of the time, I finish by saying that I absolutely do not think that football clubs should sit back, do nothing and not care about the fact that they are inaccessible to anybody or should put up any barriers to anyone getting involved in football. Most football clubs are at the heart of their community, and they do not need to fulfil all these schemes to involve a wide range of people. Every small football club I know is going way beyond anything that any EDI pen-pusher could imagine to involve the socially excluded from the local area. They are the heart and soul of local areas. My concern is that they will end up spending too much time writing reports and not doing that. That is my concern about EDI: it is an industry, so it is not helping to include anyone or create any diversity and so on. It has become a politicised, dangerous threat. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment permits the Regulator to restrict funding for clubs which may be linked to conduct harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 170, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group in my name, Amendments 194, 196 and 197. These all relate to foreign interference in football clubs, a topical issue today, given the debates that have taken place in another place on Chinese espionage and the Government’s tardiness in introducing a foreign influence registration scheme.
Amendment 170 in my name seeks to expand the scope of the regulator’s role in varying a club’s licence conditions. As drafted, the Bill is clear that the regulator may vary a club’s licence conditions to restrict its acceptance of funding which the regulator reasonably suspects to be connected with serious criminal conduct. This is a very significant power and an important one—none of us wants to see funding connected with serious criminal conduct in football. By the same token, I hope the Government would agree that funding that the regulator reasonably suspects to be linked to conduct harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom should have no place in football either.
There is an important point here, as those involved in funding football in this country might be involved in perfectly legal activities internationally, which, while legal elsewhere, may harm our national interest. I hope the Minister can explain why, if the regulator is equipped to make a judgment about criminal conduct, it would not be able to make a judgment on conduct that is harmful to the national interest as well.
Amendment 194 seeks to expand the terms of reference for the regulator’s determination of whether a person has the requisite honesty and integrity to own or run a football club to include whether an individual is a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation. The principle behind this amendment is that proscribed terrorist organisations have no place in football. I am sure that all noble Lords in the Committee agree with that.
The Government may argue that this amendment is not necessary but, given the number of foreign owners of clubs and the many appointments of international officers in the football sector, it would give the regulator the power it needs to protect football from people who are found to be members of proscribed organisations. Sadly, it is far from inconceivable that somebody resident in the UK might be found to be a member of such a proscribed group. In those circumstances, surely the Government would want the regulator to have the tools to end their involvement in football swiftly. What assessment have the Government made of the risk of people who are members of proscribed terrorist organisations being involved in football clubs in this country? Have the Government looked at this and deemed it unlikely? Have Ministers come to a view about an acceptable level of risk? If the risk is greater than zero, can the Minister explain why the regulator should not have a power such as I have set out?
I accept that proscription is not always of the same utility in relation to different terrorist networks or to the work of lone wolves. I would be happy to discuss a broader criterion, perhaps looking at a reasonable belief that someone is involved in terrorist-related activity, to capture that. I think there is a loophole that we ought to try to close in our scrutiny of these provisions.
Amendments 196 and 197 relate to Clause 37. They seek to ensure that the regulator can carry out its duties effectively, responsibly and in close co-ordination with key public bodies that can assist its work in this area. Amendment 196 would require the regulator to consult a range of bodies, namely the National Crime Agency, the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, the Serious Fraud Office, His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs and the Sports Grounds Safety Authority.
The regulation of football clubs cannot be divorced from our wider national interest. Football is more than a sport. It is a vital part of our national culture, economy and global reputation. We know it is a sector that can attract bad actors, financial mismanagement and, in some cases, criminality. Whether it is safeguarding clubs from fraud, tackling money laundering or ensuring that stadia meet safety standards, the regulator will need the insight and expertise of these key agencies in doing its work. This is about equipping the regulator with the best possible advice. I hope that the Minister will look at that with some care.
Finally, Amendment 197 would replace the mandatory “must” with the discretionary “may” in relation to the regulator’s engagement under Clause 37(3). This minor adjustment carries significant practical implications. Its purpose is to avoid placing an excessive legal burden on the regulator to consult in circumstances where it may not be necessary or proportionate. By providing discretion, we would give the regulator the flexibility it needs to prioritise its resources and respond to situations on a case-by-case basis. This amendment would not weaken the regulator’s responsibilities; rather, it allows for common sense to prevail. It reflects our commitment to safeguarding the integrity of football while ensuring that the regulation is not heavy-handed. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s excellent amendments. They are straightforward, sensible and in keeping with recent developments whereby the previous Administration established in primary legislation quite strict rules about the takeover of British businesses by foreign entities. Soft power and the global kudos and prestige of football cut both ways. They could be used by bad actors, foreign countries and state-owned entities in those countries for nefarious and possibly criminal activities such as money laundering.
Therefore, the Government would be wise to take on board the concerns that some of us on this side of the Committee have. In that respect, Amendment 196 is sensible, because we have a regime which looks at foreign entities’ ownership of UK interests. It would be irresponsible to disregard the intelligence and information provided by the agencies mentioned, particularly the National Crime Agency and the security services, in making a reasonable, fact-based decision about the efficacy or otherwise of ownership.
Given that ownership runs through this Bill quite prescriptively at a micro level, in terms of very small clubs, it is only sensible for the Government to consider how big strategic ownership decisions would be affected by this Bill. In that vein, it would be wise for the Government to consider accepting these amendments.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Markham, Lord Moynihan and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for tabling these amendments. I will take them in turn.
On Amendment 170, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, I understand that the intention behind the amendment is to allow the regulator to block a club from accepting funding that it reasonably suspects to be harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom. I agree that it is important to protect clubs from harm; that is what the Bill as a whole seeks to do. The intention of having this power, as set out in the Bill, is to protect English football from illicit finance and keep it out of the game. Illicit finance is inherently unsustainable.
However, I caution the noble Lord as to the implications of a football regulator discerning what is harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom and then blocking such funding. This is not something that a regulator can determine. They can make evidenced-based decisions on facts in a clearly defined framework. It also must be noted that there are protections in the Bill that go beyond protecting against serious criminal conduct to protect against wider harm. For example, the owners’ and directors’ test will look at the fitness of a club’s owners and officers, including any criminal history and investigations and whether the individual has been prevented from entering the UK. This seeks to protect English clubs from unsuitable owners or officers making decisions that may endanger their club. This, in conjunction with the power to restrict funds suspected to be connected to serious criminal conduct, will help to ensure that clubs are protected from harm.
I turn to Amendments 194, 196 and 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. On Amendment 194, I reassure the noble Lord that the intent of his amendment is already achieved within the current drafting. When assessing an owner’s or officer’s fitness, the regulator must have regard to any criminal convictions and proceedings, including those included in Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007. Membership of a proscribed organisation is an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, and that offence is included in paragraph 2A of Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act. Consequently, the current provisions in the Bill deliver the intent of this amendment. I hope that he is reassured by that.
On Amendment 196, I agree that it is vital that the regulator has access to information when assessing the suitability of owners and officers. The regulator may need to work closely with other organisations and stakeholders when exercising its wider functions. That is why the Bill establishes information-sharing arrangements with a range of organisations including the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office and why it adequately empowers the regulator to gather information, including from other organisations, to assess suitability. However, to require the regulator, as the amendment would, to always consult multiple organisations, even when this is not necessary to its ability to make an assessment, would be disproportionate. It would lead to slow decision-making, impacting on growth and investment. It would be a wholly unnecessary burden on clubs. As part of the fitness test, officers will be assessed on their competence, specifically their qualifications, experience and training.
Amendment 197 would give the regulator discretion as to whether to consider these matters when assessing competence. General public law obligations would still require the regulator to act consistently and fairly when testing officers. However, this amendment would give officers less certainty about what they will be tested on.
Finally, on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the whole point of the owners’ and directors’ test, which has been carefully designed, is to ensure that club custodians are suitable for assessing an owner’s fitness—this is absolutely crucial. It is right that any owner passes the tests set out in the Bill, so it would not be fair, appropriate or responsible to exempt certain types of owners from testing, but that is precisely what this amendment seeks to do. This amendment intends that owners with diplomatic status or who are Heads of State, Government Ministers or high-ranking officials of foreign Governments would not be tested. I do not need to tell noble Lords about some of the people this could exempt from testing. That means that the regulator could not consider any personal finances or criminal history, no matter how egregious. Instead, it would have to ignore these matters, so the regulator could be letting unsuitable owners in. This could be incredibly risky for the club, and any incumbent owner captured by this amendment could also never be tested, even if concerning information subsequently came to light.
Suitability should be based purely on an impartial assessment of the criteria set out in the Bill. This will ensure that the test can be applied consistently, remain fair, transparent and robust, and focus on whether an individual is suitable to own a football club. For the reasons I have set out, I would therefore be grateful if the noble Lord would withdraw his amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As the Minister spoke, I wondered whether the staff and relevant board members of the regulator will have the requisite security vetting to be able to consider some of the matters that they might need to in this area. One reason I was keen that they engaged the appropriate authorities was to make sure that things which are, by nature, highly classified and sensitive can be provided to them so that they can give advice. If the Minister is not accepting my amendment to open the channels of dialogue there, is she able to say anything, now or later in writing, about the vetting that staff and others at the regulator would receive?
I am conscious that immediately before we came into this Committee, the Minister’s noble friend the Lord Privy Seal moved the Motion to appoint members to the Intelligence and Security Committee. We make sure, rightly, that people who are suitably qualified are able to look into this area of our laws. I wonder whether she can just say a little, now or later, about the vetting and assistance that staff will have?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I could talk at great length about this, but instead, I reassure noble Lords that I can confirm that staff will be able to engage with all relevant authorities on such issues.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I appreciate that it is late. If the noble Baroness could put some of what she might have said in a letter, that would be useful. It is unfortunate that we are reaching what is a rather serious subject at what I know is a late hour with very few people left in Committee, but it would be helpful to hear a bit more about this as we ponder the issue further ahead of Report.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I would like to make it explicit that they will have the relevant clearance to deal with this issue.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that. If there is more she is able to say, I am sure that other noble Lords who are not able to be here and who take an interest in these matters would appreciate that.
The noble Baroness said that the regulator is not really equipped to decide what is harmful to our national interest. That is why, in our version of the Bill, we had the provision on taking into account UK trade and foreign policy. I know the reasons why the Government have taken that out of the Bill—because of the concerns UEFA and others raised about political independence—but I worry that, in doing so, we might lose something about our national interest which is quite important. That is why I was seeking to reinsert that criterion into the consideration. We might come back to that issue once she is able to say anything more that she wishes to, and once other noble Lords who are interested can join the discussion on this point.
Given the hour, and with gratitude to the noble Baroness for all her answers today, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.