House of Lords

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 5 February 2025

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Armed Forces Personnel: School Fees

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[Baroness Goldie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what engagement they have had with armed forces personnel whose children are currently educated at fee-paying schools to ascertain the impact on such families of imposing value added tax on school fees.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Ministry of Defence is continuing to monitor the impact of the Government’s change to VAT rules for private schools on service personnel who claim the continuity of education allowance. The Ministry of Defence recalculated CEA rates based on the new fees published by schools for January 2025, and this increased the income tax-free amounts available to claimants.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. I am aware that the continuity of education allowance has been uprated, but that still leaves a parental contribution. What we do not know is by how much the parental contribution will increase as a consequence of VAT on school fees. Indeed, even the combined talents of Sherlock Holmes and Einstein would fail to penetrate MoD methodology on this issue. We know that Armed Forces personnel will have to pay more in school fees. Can the Minister answer a simple question? How much more will they be paying?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I will always check the figures and, indeed, check hers, as she will know. She will also know that the allowance contributes towards the cost of boarding school education, with the MoD paying a fixed rate of up to 92% of fees for children attending state-maintained schools and up to 90% of fees for those attending independent schools. I would say to her that, in essence, this is exactly the same policy as the previous Government had.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, what impact has this policy had on recruitment and retention? Have the Government made any assessment yet of that?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord will know that there have been considerable concerns around recruitment and retention. The Government have undertaken a review of that. He will also know that we have taken a number of measures alongside that to deal with it, not least of which was to ensure that we implemented in full the pay rise for Armed Forces personnel. We have extended childcare grants to armed services personnel serving overseas, and one of the biggest things we have done as a radical Government is to bring back from Annington Homes over 36,000 military houses, the state of which was a disgrace. This will be a major contribution to improving the morale and the recruitment and retention of Armed Forces personnel.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister knows the good record that the Labour Party has of investing in military schools, with the £20 million- plus that it put in to rebuild The Duke of York’s school in 2009. Can he say how many children have left because of this announcement?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a good point about the record on investment. He did a good job himself in ensuring that we had investment into schools such as The Duke of York’s. On the number of children, approximately 2,650 service personnel claim CEA for around 4,000 children. The figures that I have show that none have left the CEA system following this policy change. Five children out of those 4,000 have moved schools, but that is within the CEA framework.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, as one whose children benefited from the RAF allowances, as both my daughters embarked on their seventh school at the age of nine, I know how important these forces allowances are. It is good that the Government are reviewing them to see how they can support them, but I wonder about those military personnel who have children at the small independent schools that specialise in special educational needs or skills. They are most under threat from this, because the parents are very often not wealthy; they are hard-pressed and trying to do the best for their children. If those schools are forced to close, has any thought been given to the military children who might need to resort to local schools, where there will be no resources and no places for them?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really important point. The maintenance of schools such as those that she has pointed to is exceptionally important, hence the rise that I mentioned in the continuity education allowance to meet the increase in fee. Of course, she also makes a really important point about special needs. She will know that if a member of the Armed Forces or service personnel believes that there are needs for a particular child over and above what the continuity education allowance makes possible, they can apply for an additional grant to help with the support for that child and their special needs.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

The Minister knows well that it is not just service personnel but other people employed in the Civil Service who have their fees paid by the Government. Does what he has announced to do with the armed services apply equally to those other people, including, as I instanced the other day, people in the Diplomatic Service?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that diplomats who are based here—I am in the process of writing to him about this, as I said I would in answer to his previous question—in many circumstances have their children’s fees paid. They are exempt from them, as indeed are our Armed Forces personnel and our diplomats when they go overseas. There is a multiplicity of tax and benefits arrangements which benefit our diplomats and our Armed Forces personnel when they go abroad, and similarly when their counterparts come here. Those multiple arrangements between different Governments have existed for decades. That is exactly the same now as it has been in the past.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the Opposition seem to be very worried about the impact of this on recruitment. What would have been the impact had we followed the advice of the Opposition and frozen public sector pay?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I think my noble friend has answered his own question. I thank him for that. The important point to make is that, when we came into government, we were determined to ensure that the recommendations of various public sector pay bodies were met in full. The pay recommendations of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body were met in full and that was an important statement made by the Government about the importance not only of public service workers in general but of the Armed Forces personnel who serve our country.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, as the father of a soldier, I am particularly interested in this topic, particularly where both parents are serving in the Armed Forces, often in different locations. What assessment has the Minister made of confidence in the Armed Forces covenant with this change?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I go back to the answer I gave before. If the Government were taking no action with respect to the increase in fees resulting from the VAT increase, that would no doubt be a matter for concern and consideration in this Chamber. The fact of the matter, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and others, is that the Government have continued with the policy that existed under the previous Government where up to 90% of the fees of eligible children are to be met through the continuity of education allowance. That policy is important and has not changed. We will continue that policy, because we recognise the sacrifice that is sometimes made by Armed Forces personnel who, because of their duty, have to move regularly between different bases or between bases here and bases abroad.

Schools: Citizenship Education

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:16

Asked by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what changes they are considering for citizenship education in schools to accompany proposals to reduce the voting age to 16.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, teaching about democracy and elections already forms a central part of the national curriculum for citizenship at key stages 3 and 4 and can be taught as a non-statutory topic in primary schools. We will consider the citizenship curriculum in the context of the curriculum and assessment review, and we see the potential of lowering the voting age to help boost young people’s engagement with citizenship and democracy.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will be well aware of recent polls showing the levels of disillusion young people have about our current political institutions. Part of the argument for lowering the voting age to 16 is to get young people engaged in our institutions and voting before they leave school. The informal conversations I have with my grandchildren and the grandchildren of friends tell me that, frankly, the level and quality of citizenship education in state schools is pretty awful. Unless there is action to improve it considerably, this will not be a success.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right about the challenge of engaging young people in politics—a challenge that rests with the political parties represented around this Chamber as well as with our schools and broader civic society. I was very proud to be the Minister, under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who introduced citizenship into the curriculum in the first place when I was last in government. The noble Lord makes a fair point about the need to ensure that there is sufficient quality of resource and teachers to make sure that it is effective in our schools. I and my colleagues in the department will certainly bear that in mind.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for jumping the gun, but the experience of my grandchildren does not tally with those of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, since they seem to engage in quite a lot of citizenship— but maybe that is to do with the school, which is a comprehensive. Does my noble friend agree that one of the elements which might bring more 16 year-olds into full participation in our democracy is to educate them in our shared culture of human rights? There is something in it for them and something in it that they can do.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that, although there are challenges, many schools and teachers are facilitating an enormous amount of knowledge, discussion and consideration of a wide range of issues under the heading of citizenship. She is also right that we should include knowledge about our human rights and our responsibilities as citizens within that. Not only is that part of the curriculum but it is being delivered in the very best schools—and, in fact, broadly across schools.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Will the Minister consider extending citizenship classes to not only schoolchildren but all adults, from the Prime Minister downwards, in order that the Prime Minister can correctly define the term “key worker” where it relates to Covid cases?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The issues around citizenship, promoting engagement in our democracy and ensuring that young people feel it is worth their while are not served by using the Chamber in that way.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that people need maturity as well as education to vote responsibly and that, at 16, people might have a very good education but are unlikely to be mature? Does she agree, therefore, that the voting age should not be reduced to 16?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It was a manifesto commitment of this Government to consider that. The evidence demonstrates that young people take on quite a lot of responsibilities at 16. Following on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, starting voting earlier seems to ensure that people will be more engaged in democracy throughout their lives.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is answering on citizenship, but does she accept that, in this day and age, citizenship requires young people—indeed, all people—to have a much better understanding of and a greater ability in critical thinking to address and respond to the misinformation and disinformation with which they are peddled all the time? Will critical thinking be seen as a fundamental part of the curriculum?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a good point. That is part of what we have asked the curriculum and assessment review, which is currently in place, to consider. Critical thinking and the ability to identify the use of misinformation in media, and to distinguish it from proper sources of information, are critical elements of what young people deserve as part of their education.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, in view of the demise of many youth clubs across the country, does the Minister agree that citizenship education must be professionally taught at both primary and secondary school level by trained teachers?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The ability to take part in citizenship education in both primary and secondary schools, as the noble Baroness says—of course, in secondary school it is a compulsory part of the national curriculum—is an important part of ensuring that young people are engaged. On her first point, the need for broader support of and engagement with young people is the reason why the Government launched plans in November 2024 to create a new national youth strategy for and by young people, as part of our mission to improve opportunity.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, debate in your Lordships’ House in recent weeks has often focused on the issue of poor mental health, particularly among young people. In general, we know that it is good for your mental health to have agency and control over your own present and future. Would the Minister agree that bringing in votes at 16 or younger would be good for mental health and that education to accompany that would be excellent as well?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is not going to tempt me to suggest that we should have votes below the age of 16, but I agree that agency and being engaged broadly in social action as well as being able to benefit from active citizenship, which is often part of citizenship education in schools, is good for young people in a whole range of ways.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister rightly talks about the importance of the quality of education in citizenship and all other subjects. Would she agree with me that, given the pushback from practically every educational quarter on the new Ofsted framework and the removal of deep dives, it will be almost impossible for parents to know the quality of the education that their children receive?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do not agree with the noble Baroness. This Government were right to remove the single headline measure, which was low information and had high stakes for schools, and to embark on the consultation launched on Monday, which included an excellent speech from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, on an approach that is about ensuring rigour of inspection, information for parents and appropriate accountability for our schools.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the Lib Dem Benches next.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, we warmly support lowering the voting age to 16. To follow on from the second part of the question from the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, can the Minister say how the recruitment of citizenship teachers is going, because in past years it was very difficult to recruit them?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that there is a challenge in the reduction of the number of specialist citizenship teachers in our schools over recent years, which is why this Government have placed a focus on recruiting more teachers and ensuring that they have—whether it is through pay or other conditions—every reason to stay in the classroom and ensure that young people can benefit from their knowledge.

Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:27

Asked by

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect to receive a report from the Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, Tom Hayhoe has been appointed Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner. He will use every means possible to recover public money lost in pandemic-related fraud and ensure that that money is returned to public services. At the end of this year, the commissioner will provide a report, which will be presented to Parliament, outlining his findings on PPE procurement and other areas of Covid fraud, as well as identifying lessons and recommendations for government procurement in the face of future crises.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that, but there seems to be some confusion about whether, after his all too short 12 months, the commissioner should report to Parliament on lessons to be learned for future pandemics, or whether he should report according to his job description: regularly, to the public and Parliament, about how much of the £8 billion—not just from Michelle Mone and the VIP lane but many others—has been recovered. Can we have an assurance that the public and Parliament will be told regularly how much of that money has been recovered?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question, and he is absolutely right. We promised that we would act on the fraud and waste that took place during the Covid pandemic. Let us remember that billions of pounds were handed out to friends and donors of the Conservative Party, including a £40 million contract awarded to the then Health Secretary’s local pub landlord. Billions more were defrauded from the taxpayer, and more than £1 billion was spent on PPE that either did not arrive or was not fit for purpose.

On entering government, we found £674 million of contracts in dispute, but we inherited a recommendation from the previous Government that any attempt to reclaim that money should be abandoned. That is unacceptable. The Chancellor has instead put a block on any contract being abandoned or waived until it has been independently reviewed by the commissioner, and she will absolutely ensure that regular reports are given to Parliament, as my noble friend asks, on the progress of that work.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm that his colleague, the anti-corruption Minister, resigned over allegations of corruption, and can he please tell the House what assistance His Majesty’s Government or the police are giving to the authorities in Bangladesh investigating this?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am not sure what that has to do with the Question before us, but the Prime Minister and the Minister involved absolutely have set out the circumstances of that case in the letters that they exchanged.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that a key reason why exposing Covid fraud has been so slow and difficult is the inadequacy of whistleblowing protection, which exposes so many whistleblowers to financial ruin and career destruction? The harm is not tackled by the duty of candour, which is important but is not whistleblower protection. Will the Government please deliver urgent reform as a crucial way not just to solve this problem, but to deter or catch early any kind of future abuse? I recommend to the Minister proposals for an overarching office of the whistleblower.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her question, and I absolutely agree with the underlying point she is making. I met Tom Hayhoe, the Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner, last Friday, to make sure that I was fully prepared for this Question. I discussed his work with him, and he told me that he is considering a whistleblowing mechanism to enable the public to draw attention to abuses they are aware of. The work he is doing is absolutely in line with what the noble Baroness is asking for.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend ask the commissioner—and maybe take an interest in this himself—about the shortage of yachts for sale at the end of Covid? I was told by one of these yacht owners—this is not something I have ever indulged in—that he could not buy one for love or money. The reason was that people had been given, in his words, “a lot of money” by the Chancellor, particularly if they were running businesses, and were then able to indulge in buying yachts, to the point where they ran out of opportunities to do so. There was clearly something going on there.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend clearly knows more yacht owners than I do—I have not discussed this matter with any yacht owners—but I absolutely understand the point he is making about the amount of fraud and abuse that was rampant in the system. The fact that the previous Government decided not to pursue so many of those contracts is not acceptable, which is exactly why we have set up these systems.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, more seriously, wherever there is fraud in public life, it should be rooted out and punished. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that the best and wisest course is to wait for the outcome of the commissioner’s report, including any recommendations on whistleblowing? A lot was done in a hurry during Covid—some good, some less good. But the worst thing would have been to extend the lockdown for months, as favoured by Sir Keir Starmer.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The commissioner has clearly set out his programme of work. He will work in three phases: first, an assessment of the recovery efforts to date; secondly, a plan for further activity to drive additional recoveries; and thirdly, a consideration of lessons learned and recommendations for future government schemes. The noble Baroness says that we should wait for the outcome of his report; that is perfectly fair, but what I do not understand is why we inherited a recommendation from the previous Government that any attempt to reclaim money should be abandoned. That is surely unacceptable.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, has not a smokescreen been created here? Can my noble friend guarantee that the commissioner will carry out his full investigations and that, once he has done so, any criminal activity will be referred to the police to take the appropriate action?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question, but obviously, I cannot say what criminal activity may be uncovered. Certain proceedings and investigations are already ongoing. We would not want to prejudice those proceedings, and nor would the commissioner, but my noble friend is right to say that the commissioner should be allowed to do his work.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the person investigating must have as much transparency as possible? During this sorry affair, whenever we asked questions, the last Government kept coming back to commercial sensitivity. That excuse should not be used: the public should know how their taxes are being used.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I completely agree with the noble Lord. The underlying point he is making is that we should be able to understand where taxpayers’ money has gone and to recover as much of that as possible, so that it is not lining the fraudsters’ pockets but is funding our public services. That is absolutely what the commissioner’s work is about: identifying where that money has gone and trying to recover as much of it as possible.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that the root cause of the fraud was our lack of preparedness for the epidemic, which caused people to rush into contracts? What assurance can he give the House that if there is another pandemic—heaven forbid—even this year, we are ready and would not be open to fraud again?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. It was certainly one reason; I do not know whether it was the main reason. A pandemic remains the top risk facing the UK, as outlined in the national risk register, and ensuring that the UK is prepared for a future pandemic is a top priority for the Government. We are embedding the lessons learned from the Covid-19 pandemic within our approach to pandemic preparedness. As I understand it, it is clear that the UK did not have enough PPE, for example, in stock when the pandemic hit, and at the Budget we invested £460 million to strengthen the UK’s pandemic preparedness and health protection capabilities. There is also a forthcoming Department of Health and Social Care pandemic preparedness strategy. It will include a new UK-wide respiratory pandemic response plan, which will be tested later this year in a tier 1 national exercise.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, what inquiries are the Government making into the fraud that the Chinese Communist Government sought to perpetrate, along with certain members of the international medical establishment, to the effect that the Covid virus did not originate in a laboratory in Wuhan?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

To be honest, I am not aware of any such investigations.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I wish the Government well in their counter-fraud investigations into Covid, because public money is of course of the utmost importance, but there is a clear and present daily problem with government procurement. Some years ago, I did a piece of work with the TaxPayers’ Alliance, looking at the price of photocopy paper across public institutions. It was vastly different: from £1.99 to £5.33 for a ream, within a health trust on the south coast. Can the Minister assure me that work is being done to maximise procurement gains throughout the system?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, I can, and I agree with the noble Lord. At the Budget, the Chancellor launched the Office for Value for Money, which will assess where and how to root out waste and inefficiency and to unlock value-for-money studies in specific high-risk areas of cross-departmental spending, and scrutinise investment proposals to ensure that they offer value for money.

Care Homes: Safety Ratings

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:37

Asked by

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the remarks by Sir Julian Hartley, the new chief executive of the Care Quality Commission, that the public can no longer trust the safety ratings given to care homes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, the CQC has assured the department that Sir Julian Hartley, the new chief executive, did not use the exact words attributed to him in the interview with the Sunday Times recently. However, the chief executive gave a very honest assessment of the Care Quality Commission’s operational failings as a regulator and the challenges that face it in regaining public confidence. We welcome his candour, as well as his actions.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, it seems that available reports about care homes, which are needed, may be four years out of date, which is a serious shortcoming. At a time when the pressure is on to discharge people who need social care, as opposed to medical care, does my noble friend agree that the serious problems in the inspection regime are a barrier to any kind of progress with hospital discharge, and that the aim must be to make the CQC the trusted organisation it once was, on which families can rely when arranging care for their loved ones?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend is quite right in her observations. Indeed, serious shortcomings are at play. As for the age of the assessments, to which she refers, that is of scant help to those who are seeking to make decisions for either themselves or those who they care for. The CQC, under its new leadership, is prioritising tackling the oldest assessments. The first order of priority is to reduce the registration backlog, which at present is over 10 weeks, and address issues with the registration portal. An independent review has been commissioned to look specifically at the technology that will help reduce the backlog and provide the very necessary up-to-date assessments.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister say what urgent steps are being taken to restore public confidence in the CQC’s ratings, and, in particular, what measures are being taken to ensure that the voice of both the patient and their families is given far greater weight in the way that these judgments and ratings are made by the regulator?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I agree that public confidence is absolutely crucial. That is why honesty is very important and why the Secretary of State accepted in full the recommendations of Dr Dash’s review into the CQC, which was published in October. In addition to new executive leadership, a recruitment process is under way for new non-executive leadership, including the chair, which is very important. I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of the patient voice, because that will lead to greater confidence. There is a long road to go down, but I am absolutely confident that we are well on the way.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, organisations such as the Medical Defence Union report that new healthcare providers are facing severe delays registering with the Care Quality Commission. These delays are slowing down the process of registering new patients to access services. Can my noble friend the Minister outline what discussions the Government have had, or will have, with the Care Quality Commission to resolve this issue?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I assure my noble friend that the department has discussions with the CQC at fortnightly meetings. Those discussions are about performance, including clearing the backlog of registration of new providers, and this will continue in order to make the necessary improvements that my noble friend seeks.

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a lot of the problems in care homes would be alleviated if becoming a carer in a care home required certified training, supervision and a defined career path, rather than it being a job of last resort for itinerant job seekers, as it seems to be in many homes at the moment?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that the workforce is absolutely crucial, and I very much value the contribution that is made by those who work in care homes. Perhaps it would be helpful to say that, just last month, we announced that the care workforce pathway, a new national career structure for adult social care, will be expanding to support opportunities for career progression and development. This is the direction of travel that we want to take.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, whether or not the newspapers were correct in reporting what the CEO said, I am sure we would agree that the Care Quality Commission has been found deficient in its performance. With particular reference to the reports on maternity services, which are now in crisis, what are the Government going to do about properly evaluating maternity services?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I absolutely agree that the CQC has been deficient in its performance. We can look back to 2023 for the roots of that, when a new single assessment framework for assessing providers, coupled with a new IT system and changes in the CQC’s staffing model, were all brought into play. That produced a stark reduction in its inspection activity, as well as causing huge problems in the time taken to carry out re-inspections. In all of the ways that I have already mentioned, in addition to discussions on reducing the backlog and looking at the technology, staffing structure and improving governance within the CQC, this will be a root-and-branch change and will greatly improve inspection for maternity units and others.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, Sir Julian Hartley, in the Health and Social Care Committee hearing, said that the new IT system introduced by the regulator had been a complete failure. What steps will His Majesty’s Government take to ensure that public bodies, not just the CQC, have adequate and effective rollouts of digital systems, so that they can deliver on their performance targets? On 6 January, the Secretary of State announced that the Government were launching an independent commission on social care reform, with the intention of forming a national care service. Can the Minister please update the House on the progress made towards this commission?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

To take the second question first, the commission will start its work in April. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has agreed to lead that review. The terms of reference will be published, and the first report will be with us next year. On the important point about IT, as I mentioned in response to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that problem arose in 2023. The CQC has acknowledged, as we have, that there have been huge challenges with the provider portal and the regulatory platform. The Dash review talked about poorly performing systems hampering ability. This is not how the system should work. As we move towards the 10-year plan, and from analogue to digital, we will have that front and centre in how we work.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the Secretary of State in July said that

“the CQC is not fit for purpose”.

Given the systematic failings still within that organisation, what timescale have the Government given the CQC to become fit for purpose?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The Secretary of State did indeed say that, and he was right to do so, in the spirit of transparency. The fortnightly meetings which I mentioned will be a constant assessment until we have met the necessary timeframes that are only reasonable to assist people in making decisions. All of that—how might I put it?—deep focus on the CQC will continue. I do not think this will be quick, but it will be thorough.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, 30% to 40% of public money given to corporate-owned care homes vanishes in profits, leaving little for front-line services. Almost all care homes forcibly closed between 2011 and 2023 were operated by for-profit companies. The Government’s promised crackdown on care home profiteering probably will not even be as effective as that on water companies. What will it take for the Government to recognise that profit and care cannot easily be combined?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The independent sector, which is not just the private sector but the charitable sector, is an important part of the provider framework. We will continue to work with it to provide the right quality of services for those who need them.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:48

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, before we move on to other business, the House will be aware that we have a number of votes planned today across three items of business. To make things run as smoothly as possible during Divisions, I ask noble Lords to please observe the following. As the House divides, we need both “Content” and “Not content” said loudly and clearly, and again at three minutes, when the Lord Speaker or the Deputy Speaker calls from the Woolsack. Particularly for the second time, this must be heard by the clerks for the Division to continue.

If noble Lords have any questions about voting or other problems, or issues with their pass, they should go to the Table Office before Third Reading on the data Bill starts, and the staff there will do everything possible to help them sort out the problem—or they can go to their party Whip or the Convenor’s office. Please do not come to the clerks at the Table during the vote. They have important work to do during the Division and they should not be distracted. That also creates a jam, where Members cannot actually vote, which delays the voting.

I ask noble Lords to remember also that, when they go to vote and are walking, the microphones are still on and the business is being recorded. When they enter the Division Lobbies, they should press their pass firmly on the card reader to make sure that they have voted. Some of the recent votes have been very close. I am sure that no noble Lord wants to be the one person who lost it for their side because they did not touch the reader properly.

After noble Lords have voted and passed by the Whips, they should either come back into the Chamber or leave the Lobby, arriving at Peers’ Entrance or the Prince’s Chamber. Please try to avoid standing behind the Whips and having conversations. It slows down the flow of other Members and makes the Division longer and more difficult.

I hope this is helpful to the House. If these simple points are followed, it will make things much easier for all noble Lords in the House during Divisions.

Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:51

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 November 2024 be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 3 February.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, that is a very hard act to follow. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Motion agreed.

Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2025

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:52

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 3 December 2024 be approved.

Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 3 February.

Motion agreed.

Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:52

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That the draft Rules laid before the House on 5 December 2024 be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 3 February.

Motion agreed.

Community Radio Order 2025

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:53

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 10 December 2024 be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 3 February.

Motion agreed.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

3rd reading
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

Relevant documents: 3rd Report from the Constitution Committee, 9th and 12th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee.

Welsh and Northern Ireland Legislative Consent sought.

15:53

[The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make a brief statement on the devolution status of the Bill. Parts 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the Bill include provisions within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Senedd Cymru and the Scottish Parliament. On 22 October, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology wrote to counterparts in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, seeking their agreement to initiate the legislative consent process and to support a legislative consent Motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd Cymru. Since the beginning of the Bill’s passage, my officials have been in regular contact with the Northern Ireland Civil Service, the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government. We are hopeful that the legislative consent process will progress swiftly over the coming weeks, ahead of Report in the other place.

Although it has not been possible to secure consent by this time, I take this opportunity to thank officials in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and express my gratitude for the close working throughout the passage of the Bill. We remain committed to sustained engagement on the Bill with all three devolved Administrations as it progresses through Parliament.

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Vallance of Balham]

1: After Clause 80, insert the following new Clause—
“Data protection by design: children’s higher protection matters(1) Article 25 of the UK GDPR (data protection by design and by default) is amended as follows.(2) After paragraph 1 insert—“1A. In the case of processing carried out in the course of providing information society services which are likely to be accessed by children, when assessing what are appropriate technical and organisational measures in accordance with paragraph 1, the controller must take into account the children’s higher protection matters.1B. The children’s higher protection matters are—(a) how children can best be protected and supported when using the services, and(b) the fact that children—(i) merit specific protection with regard to their personal data because they may be less aware of the risks and consequences associated with processing of personal data and of their rights in relation to such processing, and(ii) have different needs at different ages and at different stages of development.”(3) In paragraph 3, for “1 and 2” substitute “1 to 2”. (4) At the end insert—“4. Paragraphs 1A and 1B are not to be read as implying anything about the matters that may be relevant to the assessment of what are appropriate technical and organisational measures for the purposes of paragraph 1 in cases other than those described in paragraph 1A.5. In this Article, “information society services” does not include preventive or counselling services.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment imposes duties to take account of matters relating to children on controllers involved in providing information society services which are likely to be accessed by children. The duties apply when these controllers are designing the means of processing personal data and when carrying out the processing.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I will now speak to the government amendment tabled in my name. The Government are firmly committed to protecting children’s personal data and ensuring that online services likely to be accessed by children are designed with their safety and privacy in mind. We have listened carefully to the concerns raised in this House during earlier debates and have worked quickly to bring forward this amendment, which reflects those discussions. During the debate on 21 January, I made clear that, while we could not accept Amendment 22 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which would have placed new duties on all data controllers, the Government were open to a more targeted approach that addressed the areas of greatest concern.

This amendment delivers on that commitment. It amends Article 25 of the UK GDPR, which already requires data controllers to design appropriate organisational and technical measures to implement the data protection principles. The amendment strengthens these obligations for information society services providers, such as social media and the streaming sites likely to be accessed by children.

They will be required to give extra consideration when deciding which measures are appropriate for online services likely to be accessed by children. Specifically, information society services providers must consider

“the children’s higher protection matters”

set out in the clause when designing their processing activities. These are:

“how children can best be protected and supported when using the services, and … the fact that children … merit specific protection with regard to their personal data because they may be less aware of the risks and … their rights in relation to such processing, and … have different needs at different ages and at different stages of development”.

The new duty expressly applies to

“information society services which are likely to be accessed by children”.

They are the same organisations that should already be following the ICO’s age-appropriate design code. Organisations that are already complying with the code should not find it difficult to comply with the new duty, but organisations that have treated compliance with the code as optional will now be under a clear legal duty to design their services with children’s rights and interests in mind.

I also want to make it clear that other organisations that process children’s personal data may need to consider these matters on a case-by-case basis and depending on the context. Although this amendment creates an express duty on information society services providers, those matters may sometimes be relevant in other contexts. Proposed new subsection (4) makes that clear.

I take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and other noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate. I hope this amendment, together with the other steps we are taking in the Bill to protect children, including the new duty on the ICO to consider children’s interests when carrying out its regulatory functions, will be welcomed across the House. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the Minister, to which I have added my name, and welcome his words from the Dispatch Box. As he said, this new duty provides a direct and unequivocal legal duty on all information society services likely to be accessed by a child and acknowledges in the Bill that services outside the definition of ISS must also consider children—indeed, they must consider children’s specific protections when determining how to process their data.

For the last decade, I and others have fought to establish minimum standards to ensure the safety and privacy of children in the UK and, over time, we have learned that we cannot assume a trajectory of progress. Standards can go down as well as up, and we cannot be sure that the intentions of Parliament will always be interpreted as robustly as promised.

I am concerned about the impact of tech lobbying on this Bill, the regulator and the Government’s wider digital strategy. I hope that the companies represented by those lobbyists will take note of this amendment as a sign that, when it comes to children, they have absolute responsibilities under the law. The Bill team has persuaded me that the child-specific duties on the ICO in the Bill, in combination with its new reporting duties, mean that the ICO will report separately about steps it has taken and will take to uphold children’s heightened data rights. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is also the Government’s expectation.

16:00

On Report the Minister told the House:

“The new ICO duties set out in the Bill will ensure that where children’s interests are relevant to any activity the ICO is carrying out, it should consider the specific protection of children. This includes when preparing codes of practice”,—[Official Report, 21/1/25; col. 1692.]

including the promised action to deal with the problems of edtech and the new code on AI. I have spoken to many noble Lords in the Lords tech team, and we all welcome and look forward to the promised engagement from both the ICO and the department during the development of those codes.

I thank the Minister and the Bill team for their efforts in introducing this measure, and I ask the Minister to commit to writing to the ICO to confirm its expectation that it will reflect that UK data law has been further strengthened through this new duty to consider children’s higher protection matters. As he said, the AADC is not optional.

Finally, I congratulate the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for DSIT and the Safeguarding Minister on the Government’s recent announcement that they will introduce legislation to make it illegal to possess, create or distribute AI tools designed to create child sexual abuse material. But I am also keen to recognise that this proposal was originally brought forward by this House as an amendment to this Bill and its predecessor. It would not have been possible without the hard work and support of countless noble Lords and MPs to secure this new law, including but not limited to the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Stevenson and Lord Bethell, the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and my noble friend Lord Russell.

This law addresses a clear and urgent need. I record our collective gratitude to the specialist police officers who, in addition to their front-line duties, took time to bring this issue to our attention and provided advice and input throughout. I also thank 5Rights, the NSPCC, the IWF, the Telegraph, Sky News and the BBC. Pushing for change, even change that is so clearly needed, is the tireless work of many people. Our thanks are due to them as our hearts go out to those who have been victims.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the little exchange we have just had, which was most welcome, arose because it became clear in Committee that there were meetings of minds but not meetings of words in what had been presented there. I am pleased to join the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in congratulating the department, including the Minister and the Bill team, on listening to the House. When the House gets behind a theme or topic and expresses it across all sides, it is worth listening to what is being said and thinking again about what was originally proposed, so that what comes out in the end is for the good of all.

It is always a bit unnerving to be namechecked in somebody else’s speech, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for picking up the tech group, as she calls it, which has been following this and other Bills for the past five or six years. It has got together on many occasions to improve what we have seen before us, and I hope that the House recognises that. It is also important to recognise that when we speak as a House, we have a power that is worth engaging with, as we have shown on this occasion. I am grateful to the Minister for recognising that in his words at the Dispatch Box.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to congratulate the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on the amazing work she has done. Furthermore, I appeal to the Government and all the different departments that may be involved in bringing before Parliament any legislation that in any way, shape or form involves children. We have repeatedly had to deal with Bills that have arrived in this House where it is quite clear that the needs and vulnerabilities of children are not being recognised right from the beginning in the way the legislation is put together. We have to pull it apart in this House and put it back together, because it has not been thought of properly in the first place.

I appeal to the Minister to ensure that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. We need to learn the lessons of the battles that we have had to fight in recent years with a variety of Bills—largely successfully, mainly thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. We do not want to keep on repeating those battles. We need to learn and do better.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to be part of the tech team and a pleasure to welcome a government amendment for a change. Although some of us might quibble with the rather convoluted paragraph 4, we should not stand on ceremony in that respect. I pay huge tribute to the tenacity of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, throughout a series of Bills, not just this one. Our motivation in pressing for this kind of amendment has been the safety of children, whether with the Online Safety Act or this Bill. This amendment takes the Bill a step further but, as the noble Baroness says, we will remain on the case. We look forward to engaging with the ICO on this as the Bill is implemented.

I echo the noble Baroness’s thanks to the Minister and the Government for putting forward the CSEA offence. As the noble Baroness said, that had its origin in this Bill but will now be in the crime and policing Bill. I thank the Government for taking that forward. Also, it is very nice to see the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, back in her place.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this amendment. I too welcome the return of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and wish her a speedy end to her recovery.

Most of all, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on her successful campaigning to deliver better protections for children during the passage of this Bill. Throughout our consideration of the Bill, we on these Benches have firmly supported stronger protections for children in the Bill, which build on the important and collaborative work done by so many of us in the tech team under the previous Government and this one. Although we had some specific concerns about the drafting of some previous amendments on this topic, we are delighted that the Government have listened to the noble Baroness and brought forward their own amendment, which the noble Baroness is able to support. We firmly agree that children merit specific protection regarding their personal data, as they may be less aware of the risks and consequences of data processing. We support the amendment.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I have noted the points about the left hand and the right hand, and about institutional memory. I echo other noble Lords in their thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her persistence and insight. I can confirm that we would expect the ICO to update its regulatory action policy to reflect the changes and report against this duty. I will also write to that effect. I am glad that we have reached consensus on this very important matter.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

2: After Clause 139, insert the following new Clause—
“Creating purported intimate image of adult(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).(2) After section 66D insert—“66E Creating purported intimate image of adult(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—(a) A intentionally creates a purported intimate image of another person (B),(b) B does not consent to the creation of the purported intimate image, and(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.(2) “Purported intimate image” of a person means an image which—(a) appears to be, or to include, a photograph or film of the person (but is not, or is not only, a photograph or film of the person),(b) appears to be of an adult, and(c) appears to show the person in an intimate state.(3) Subsections (5) to (9) of section 66D (person in an intimate state) apply for the purposes of this section as if references in those subsections to a photograph or film were references to an image.(4) References in this section to creating a purported intimate image of a person do not include doing so by modifying a photograph or film of the person where what is created by the modification is an image which—(a) appears to show the person, but(b) does not appear to show—(i) something within section 66D(5)(a) to (e) (read with subsections (6) and (7) of that section) which is not shown in the photograph or film, or(ii) a person who is not shown in the photograph or film.(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for creating the purported intimate image.(6) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.66F Creating purported intimate image of an adult: further definitions etc(1) This section applies for the purposes of section 66E.(2) “Consent” to the creation of a purported intimate image includes general consent covering the particular act of creation as well as specific consent to that particular act.(3) Whether a belief is “reasonable” is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.(4) “Photograph” includes the negative as well as the positive version.(5) “Film” means a moving image.(6) A reference to an “image”, “photograph” or “film” includes data stored by any means which is capable of conversion into an image, photograph or film.(7) An image of a person appears to be an image of an adult if—(a) the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is aged 18 or over, or (b) the predominant impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is aged 18 or over (even if some of the physical characteristics shown are those of a person under 18).”(3) In section 79(5) (meaning of references to image of a person), after “a person” insert “(except in sections 66E and 66F)”.(4) In the Sentencing Code, after section 154 insert—“154A Purported intimate images to be treated as used for purpose of certain offences(1) This section applies where a person commits an offence under section 66E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (creating purported intimate image of adult).(2) The purported intimate image to which the offence relates, and anything containing it, is to be regarded for the purposes of section 153 (and section 157(3)(b)) as used for the purposes of committing the offence (including where it is committed by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring).””Member’s explanatory statement
This clause makes it an offence to create a purported intimate image of an adult without consent and provides that deprivation orders can be made under the Sentencing Code in connection with the offence.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to continue this debate on the intimate image deepfakes within the context of this legislation. We have heard the concerns raised by Members of this House and, as I committed to on Report, I am pleased to move a government amendment that will ensure that those who create an intimate deepfake of an adult without their consent, or a reasonable belief in their consent, are held accountable under the criminal law. This is an important step forward in itself, and one which shows how carefully the Government have listened. However, as I made clear last week, and as I will come on to, we will table further amendments as the Bill progresses through the House of Commons.

Before turning to the specifics of the amendment, I take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge. She has shown unwavering commitment to supporting the victims of online abuse, which has been invaluable. Her tireless efforts have significantly shaped policy in this critical area. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton, who have given much of their time to support the noble Baroness and meet me and my ministerial colleagues and officials as we work through the policy on this important issue.

Technological advancements have progressed at such a tremendous pace, making it increasingly easy for individuals to create a realistic intimate image of a person without their consent. This is unacceptable. We recognise the risk posed by the creation of these images, both to the individuals depicted in them and to society more widely. Victims report feeling embarrassed, violated and unsafe, and the images undermine the fundamental principle of consent—something we as a society hold in the highest regard. As such, we must act now.

As noble Lords will recall from last week’s debate, the Government committed to tabling an updated amendment at Third Reading reflecting the views heard in this Chamber. Amendment 2 will make it an offence to intentionally create

“a purported intimate image of another person”

without their consent or reasonable belief in their consent. Importantly, there will be no additional mental elements for this offence, which adopts a consent-based approach to better protect victims from harm. This recognises that creating such images, whatever the perpetrator’s purpose, should be considered a criminal violation of a person’s privacy. The scope of this offence will be limited to images of adults, as existing legislation already provides for a number of very serious offences involving similar images of children.

We have carefully considered the concerns raised regarding the types of images involved. We are grateful to the noble Baroness for her constructive collaboration. We have defined the images in the amendment more broadly than originally proposed, by reference to Section 66D(5) to (9) of the intimate image abuse framework in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This offence will therefore cover the creation of the same types of images as are covered by the sharing intimate images offences, an approach which we intend to replicate in the proposed taking offences. Consequently, the criminal law will be comprehensive and consistent on this issue.

It will be a criminal offence to create, take or share an image which shows, or appears to show, someone engaged in sexual acts, or where the most intimate parts of the body are exposed or covered with underwear, or where the person is, for example, using a toilet.

The Government’s amendment includes a defence based on reasonable excuse, which would apply in the exceptional circumstances where there is a reasonable excuse for creating such an image. The defence places the legal burden of proof on the defendant, so it will be for the defendant to convince the court, on the balance of probabilities, that they had a reasonable excuse for creating the image, rather than for the prosecution to prove that they did not have such an excuse.

It is right that such a defence is available. The law in this country regularly includes a range of defences, including defences of reasonable excuse, and this defence is also available in many other offences, including intimate image offences. This is particularly so with such a new type of offence, where we simply cannot know all the circumstances, now and in the future, as technology develops, where it may be committed. That is another reason for the reasonable excuse defence.

We are confident that the courts would consider very carefully evidence of any such excuse, and how reasonable it was, on the facts of every individual case. That is something the courts are used to considering, and the CPS is used to interrogating, in many offences, and we believe this strikes the right balance between protecting victims and respecting individual rights.

16:15

Without wishing to pre-empt the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, I note that she has tabled Amendment 5, which aims to remove the reasonable excuse defence from the government amendments. I was clear during last week’s debate that we felt it necessary to include this defence in our amendments. Indeed, the noble Baroness’s amendment on Report included the same defence. It is the Government’s view that this defence is necessary to ensure that the deepfake offence is a proportionate response to the threats posed by intimate image deepfakes. Were Amendment 5 to be inserted into the Bill, the Government’s view is that the provision would more likely than not be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The new offence would be a non-imprisonable offence with a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine. As this will be a sexual offence, victims will be entitled to automatic anonymity and be eligible for special measures at trial. I know that many Peers are concerned about the maximum penalty we propose for this offence and share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, that this defence should attract a custodial sentence, which she has put forward in her Amendment 6. I reassure the House that we have considered this very carefully, as we always do when creating new criminal offences. We are confident that the maximum penalty of an unlimited fine is appropriate for a new offence such as this, which captures a wide range of behaviour.

Furthermore, we think that this offence will typically, if not predominantly, be prosecuted alongside offences of sharing intimate images. This offence will often come to light when the images are shared, and sharing intimate images attracts a maximum penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment. We will, of course, continue to keep this under review.

I now turn to the topic that has generated considerable debate within the House and is the subject of several of the noble Baroness’s amendments, and that is solicitation. We are committed to making it a criminal offence to ask someone to create a deepfake for you, regardless of where they are based or where their image is created. We are committed to bringing forward amendments to do that during the Commons stages of the Bill, so that it will be criminalised alongside the act of creation itself when the measures come into law. This will ensure that both creating and soliciting the creation of an intimate deepfake image without consent or reasonable belief in consent are criminal. That is a promise I make from this Dispatch Box.

We have not been able to include solicitation in this amendment. That is not because we do not want to do it but because we need to make sure the offence is robust, taking into account the way in which similar terms are used elsewhere, and ensuring we do not risk creating confusion about which offence to prosecute or call into question the operation of other related areas of law. We know that an act of solicitation contributes to the commission of any eventual creation offence and, as such, we view it as a core part of the package to ensure a more complete and effective approach to justice. We remain committed to working with the noble Baroness on this issue, and hope that the assurance given today is enough to prevent her from pushing Amendment 3 to a vote.

I turn to another important issue raised by the noble Baroness in previous debates, and that is time limits. We understand how crucial time limits are. Unless a specific exception is made, there is a standard time limit that applies to summary-only cases. They need to be brought within six months of the offence being committed or the matter of the complaint arising. We have listened carefully to concerns expressed across your Lordships’ House and agree that we do not want perpetrators to get away with creating a deepfake without consent just because no one knew about it in time for the prosecution to commence within six months. We will therefore consider this very carefully to better protect victims, and I make a commitment today to bring back an amendment on this in the other place.

Let me close by thanking once again the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, the other signatories to her amendments and their supporters for their tireless campaigning on these important matters. I reiterate that the Government remain steadfast in bringing forward their manifesto commitment to ensure the protection of victims, and that is our priority. That is why we will, as I have promised, bring forward further amendments on solicitation and time limits in the other place. I trust that noble Lords will agree that our amendments represent a real step forward in criminalising deep fakes and protecting victims. I beg to move.

Amendment 3 (to Amendment 2)

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

3: In the title of inserted section 66E, after “Creating” insert “or soliciting the creation of”

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to government Amendments 2, 8 and 9 and to my Amendments 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10, which are tabled in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Clement- Jones. In doing so, I declare my interest as a guest of Google at its Future Forum, an AI policy conference.

First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who has taken so much time in the past few weeks to meet me and discuss my concerns. I am very grateful for his patience and work in getting the new government amendment to a much stronger position than the original one. I am grateful for the undertaking to amend the time limit for prosecuting cases so that prosecution can take place even after six months have elapsed from the commission of an offence.

Amendments 3, 7 and 10 relate to my substantive amendment, Amendment 4, on soliciting sexually explicit content. I thank the Minister for his commitment to ensuring that solicitation will be included in the Bill when it reaches the Commons after scrutiny by parliamentary counsel. However, noble Lords will know that I have been urging the Government to tackle solicitation and that I am entirely inspired by the experience of Jodie, whom many noble Lords have met, and many women like her.

I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that my concern about solicitation is not new. In fact, I first flagged the issue to your Lordships’ House in July last year, so I cannot help but feel disappointed that, after all this time, the Government are still asking for longer. Solicitation is an integral part of the amendment, and I believe we cannot risk the amendment going to the Commons without its inclusion. I know so many of us, and the survivors watching, will feel far more reassured to send this Bill to the Commons with the wording clearly stating that the offence is committed irrespective of the location of the person or persons solicited, whether or not they are identified and whether or not the creation occurs.

I turn now to Amendment 5, which would remove reasonable excuse. This was an issue first highlighted to me by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on Report. The amendment speaks to our concern that reasonable excuse may be interpreted in a way that Parliament has not intended and may allow abusers to escape justice, leaving victims traumatised.

Finally, Amendment 6 gives judges the option of imprisonment as well as a fine. It is vital that the Government take a strong position in standing up to those who abuse women in this appalling way. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that there is no expectation that every perpetrator will end up in prison, but it is vital that the option is open to judges so that, in the most extreme of cases, there is a deterrent to show how seriously, as a society, we take this form of digital violence against women. Campaigners agree, saying that if you do not have prison, abusers will think they are untouchable. There is an attitude of being emboldened. Jodie and Sophie, both survivors, have independently described the Government's proposal of a fine as simply insulting. Jodie said:

“for the most serious cases of deepfake abuse, prison sentences must be an option for judges. The effect of this abuse is devastating, and the sentencing must reflect that”.

Sophie agreed that a fine would not have deterred her perpetrator and described the proposal as an insult to those whose lives are turned upside down.

My understanding is that the Government’s proposed non-consensual taking offence will rightly have the option of a prison sentence. I would be interested to know the Government’s reason for deeming that non-consensual taking can result in prison but non-consensual creation cannot. Internet Matters found that teenagers saw sexually explicit deepfakes as worse than real image-based abuse, for reasons such as lack of autonomy and awareness of the image, anonymity of the perpetrator and the ways in which the images may be manipulated to make the victim appear. I am sure that, like many young women, I am struggling to comprehend a legal system that offers a heavier punishment for fly-tipping than for the violation of my consent. How many more women must suffer before we finally treat VAWG offences on a par with other crimes?

I asked campaigners to share with me some of the language used to solicit this content when men posted clothed images with requests to put women in sexually explicit content. It gives an insight into the mind of the people who inflict this abuse on women. A milder one stated, “I want her done for two reasons. One, she is hot. Two, she has a huge ego and this will humble her”. Another said, “Do whatever you want to this woman. Degrade her”.

The vast majority of the language was far more extreme and left me feeling physically sick. I implore the Government to listen to the voices of survivors and to not close off the option of prison when prosecuting the people who inflict this appalling abuse, ripping away a woman’s consent to degrade her. I urge noble Lords across this House: think of the women in your lives—your daughters, granddaughters, nieces, wives. If someone had abused them in this appalling manner, would we still be saying that prison should not be an option?

For too long, women have had their pain minimised and their experiences belittled. We are at the precipice of a new age of extreme misogyny and I urge noble Lords to please strengthen the hands of the judges to tackle this abuse. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The skill and determination of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, have persuaded the Government to address this important topic in the Bill. She has performed a great service to this House. I thank the Minister, most sincerely, and the Bill team for bringing forward their Amendment 2, and for the amount of time and trouble they have taken on this subject and their patience in discussions on this matter.

The Government have come a long way in their Amendment 2, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, that there are three improvements that this House can and should make to the Bill before it travels to the House of Commons. The first is to add an offence of soliciting a purported intimate image. That is the subject of Amendments 3 and 4 from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. The people who create the purported intimate image are often outside the jurisdiction, so the law needs to penalise and deter those in this country who solicit such images from people abroad. There is no dispute from the Government. The Minister made it very clear on Report and again today that such solicitation should be an offence. The Government accept that it should be an offence whether the person solicited to create the image is here or abroad. The Government also accept that solicitation should be an offence whether or not the image is, in fact, created. All of that is agreed and Amendments 3 and 4 from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, do the job.

The Government’s position, as the Minister has said, is that the solicitation offence will be added—he gave this commitment—in the House of Commons. I simply do not understand why a solicitation offence cannot be added in this House, to make it clear to the House of Commons that noble Lords believe that this is of fundamental importance.

16:30

I greatly respect the integrity of the Minister. I have had many dealings with him over the years and I greatly respect him, but all noble Lords will know that, once this Bill leaves this House, matters are out of our hands —and out of his hands. There are all sorts of reasons why the Government might change their mind on including a solicitation offence in the Bill, and then this House would have no opportunity to come back to the matter.

I hope that noble Lords will agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, that this House should take this opportunity to include a solicitation offence, when there is no substantive dispute from the Government that it should be included in the Bill. As the Minister said in his very sensitive opening remarks, a solicitation offence is “an important part of the package” and is needed—that is what he said, and I respectfully agree—to make the legislation effective. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, does the job and I hope that we will support her.

The second improvement to which I hope the House will agree is to remove the “reasonable excuse” defence that is included in the Government’s Amendment 2, under new Section 66E(5). Amendment 5 from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, would remove the reasonable excuse defence. The reason I support her on this is that I can see no circumstances in which there could be a reasonable excuse for the defendant’s conduct if the prosecution proves, as it must, the elements of this offence. Those elements, as defined perfectly properly by the Government, are that the defendant has intentionally created “a purported intimate image” of the victim; that they have done so when the victim has not consented; and that the defendant “does not reasonably believe” that she has consented. The prosecution has to prove all of that.

I asked the Minister on Report to give an example of when a reasonable excuse defence might apply if all those factors were proved. With respect, he did not do so. He has suggested in discussions that a defendant might lack mental capacity or be very youthful, but in such a case the CPS would need to prove an intention to create the image and mental capacity or youth would, of course, be important factors that the sentencing magistrate or judge would be bound to take into account.

I would add that for the legislation to include a reasonable excuse defence would be wrong in principle, because Parliament would be saying that such conduct—the conduct we are discussing—could be excusable, and it is not. To include such a defence would also be unfortunate in practice, because the inevitable consequence will be that defendants take up the court’s time presenting spurious excuses such as—this is what happens— “I was only having a laugh” or “The victim lacks a sense of humour”. That type of defence, and others, will add to the distress of the victims. A reasonable excuse provision has no place in this offence.

With great respect, I do not understand the Minister’s suggestion that the absence of a reasonable excuse defence would conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights. There can be no breach of the defendant’s human rights unless that person can bring forward an excuse which is reasonable. As I have suggested, it is impossible to envisage in what circumstances the excuse would be reasonable. You need to be a victim to have a human rights argument, and the defendant in this case is not a victim; the victim is the unfortunate woman whose privacy has been violated.

The third improvement that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, address is to include in the Bill a power for the court not merely to impose a fine, which is the Government’s position, but, where appropriate, a sentence of imprisonment. The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, is proposing that the sentencing magistrate or judge should have the option—I repeat, the option—in severe cases to impose a sentence of imprisonment.

It is not difficult to envisage cases where a sentencing magistrate or judge should have the option of imposing a sentence of imprisonment for creating a purported intimate image of the victim. Suppose that the defendant has committed this crime on an industrial scale, with hundreds of victims. Suppose that the defendant had a previous relationship with the victim, which she has ended. Perhaps she declined to enter into a relationship with the defendant, and he has decided to punish and humiliate her as an act of revenge by using an innocent photograph that he has of her to create the purported intimate image, knowing that she has a particular mental vulnerability and that his conduct will lead to her having a mental breakdown when she learns that the purported intimate image of her is being seen by people in her community. Can the Government seriously maintain that, in a case such as that, the magistrate or the judge should be denied the option of imposing a sentence of imprisonment?

If the Minister will not think again and will not accept the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on these three important issues, I hope that the noble Baroness will divide the House. If she does, she will certainly have my support.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just said. Any of us who have ever acted as lawyers for women who have been exposed to this kind of conduct will know the suffering that ensues from it. The arguments placed before the House by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, are absolutely right. The court has to have wider discretion on sentencing, because sometimes it will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said, that multiples of this will have been done and to many different women. It will be there on the internet for all to see, causing incredible mental anguish and pain.

I have just come from a Select Committee where we have been hearing evidence about transnational repression. We have just heard from a woman working for BBC Persian, who had the experience of photographs being turned into deepfake pornography and sent to her daughter’s school. I ask you to imagine the implications of that being circulated, to your own child’s detriment. That is the way in which these things work. I emphasise that there is no example of reasonable cause that could be imagined that could justify it—there really is not. It is very important that we all recognise that.

There will be people—let us imagine Mr Andrew Tate appearing in court for an offence of this kind, were he to do it—who will say that the world should see the beauty of women’s genitalia and admire the great beauty of women as they submit themselves to men. Do we really want the time of the courts to be taken up with that kind of nonsense—because it will be? It will be said to be about trying to inform and educate people about sexual intimacy and sexual matters. All manner of nonsense, presented as reasonable excuse, will be put before the courts—that is what will happen. I urge the court—sorry, I am going into lawyer mode. I urge the House, rather, to see the seriousness of this and that this is a moment where we should be taking a stand and saying no.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised three issues: sentencing and the options available to judges; the issue of reasonable excuse; and recognising that the prosecution authorities will not pursue a case against a child who has somehow stumbled upon a way of doing this. Very careful decisions will be made about people who have not got mental capacity. If we do not take a firm stance on this now, it will be used and abused in terrible ways, to the detriment particularly of women.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

I simply want to endorse, but not repeat, the propositions of law advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I will do exactly the same. It is extremely important that magistrates should have the power to imprison as well as to fine.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I have spoken to these amendments at every stage of the Bill. One of the unfortunate outcomes of being a campaigner for online safety is the abuse that we get directly from people who do not want the online world to be safe. That abuse comes in all forms, including that which the noble Baroness is trying to criminalise. I say to the House that we must support the noble Baroness. I am so disappointed that the Government are not here with us. Support the noble Baroness.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I have a couple of quick things to say. First, there is no reason not to put this into the Bill here; it can be amended in the Commons quite happily. Secondly, without solicitation in the Bill, there is a massive loophole. One can work out exactly how to get round the whole thing by just inserting someone soliciting in the middle. The other thing is that this can happen to men and could be used for blackmail, so this could be used against that, which is very dangerous. We need imprisonment in the Bill, because if someone makes enough money out of whatever it is that they put out there, a fine is nugatory and they will not worry about it. We need to have imprisonment as well.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I endorse every word that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, have said.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, from the Government, on bringing forward his amendment, which also incorporates the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. The noble Baroness stood up and could not be deterred— I am glad that this has been a good result.

Noble Lords might want to know why the Government have put forward this amendment. A notification from the BBC came to my mobile at 1 pm. It had to do with Naga Munchetty, who says:

“Scammers spread fake nude pictures of me on social media”.


The scammers have written an article—which is absolutely false—saying, for example, that the Government have ordered Naga Munchetty to be detained, and it includes a lot of nude pictures. Given what the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, have done, that lady will feel that we are moving forward.

Finally, I say that soliciting must be in the Bill; reasonable doubt, or whatever other view, must be out; and imprisonment must be in the Bill.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

In speaking to this group of amendments, I am mindful of the admonition from my noble friend the Chief Whip to respect the rules of the House, and I look at the advice that we are given on today’s agenda about how to conduct oneself in these circumstances, so I have no intention of repeating what the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have said, because I agree with every single word of it—and I agree with all the endorsements of the arguments that they have put forward. However, I want to make a contribution to this debate about the purpose of all this and what the issue is.

16:45

I thank my noble friend the Minister for the way in which he and the Bill team have conducted themselves and for their ability to listen and on occasion to act, which is a limited commodity sometimes in debates in your Lordships’ House, but it just has not gone far enough. For all the reasons that have been given, we should continue to deal with the issue of solicitation here, if we possibly can, because it is relatively simple. I do not know what the complication is: if people do things in this jurisdiction to avoid being prosecuted for doing other things, which is what solicitation is about, we should criminalise it—and we do in every other area of the law, as I have said before. I am trying not to make the same speech that I have made about three or four times on this.

On Monday, I was witness to a conversation about the challenges and priorities that the UK faces in the current geopolitical context in terms of its national security. One party to that conversation asked the other for an assessment of the highest-priority challenges faced in this current geopolitical environment and the other, who is an expert in national security, said in their opening remarks that we live in an age of impunity. We certainly do in that context, but it is clear from the data in relation to the creation and dissemination of these abhorrent AI-generated images that that is exactly where we are and where almost every woman or girl in the United Kingdom is in relation to this form of sexual abuse.

The victims, and those who feel that they may be victims but do not know about it yet, or who have been threatened to be victims, feel that they are living in a world of impunity. They feel that the perpetrators are committing these acts with no fear of sanction—or, indeed, the social consequences that should result from that. I am advised repeatedly that 98% of deepfake videos online today are pornographic and that, of those, 99% are of women or girls and have been created for misogynistic or revenge porn reasons. Despite the fact that we have criminalised the sharing of these images and that such an act attracts summary penalties under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the amendments to it in the Online Safety Act, there has been an almost negligible number of prosecutions and even fewer convictions. I do not know how many there have been and, if I asked my noble friend the Minister how many, I do not know whether he would be able to tell me, but it is a negligible number.

If and when these amendments pass into law, including the three amendments on what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, identified as the main unresolved issues, they will help to end the feeling of impunity that scars the victims and ensure that everyone who creates or solicits the creation of such an image or video without the consent of the person involved will be committing a crime. Nothing can be less ambiguous than the operation of cause and effect. Perpetrators must know that this country has determined that it is criminal to create these images in these circumstances with no defence—and the defences are limited—and that they will be punished and unable to avoid the consequence by just getting someone else to do it on their behalf.

This legislation with the amendments proposed performs three principal tasks. With respect to those who serve us in various departments in this Government, it has been far too difficult to establish those three principal tasks. First, they establish consent as the determinant of criminality in these sexual abuse cases, as it already is in all other sexual abuse cases, thereby removing the burden on victims of engaging with the challenge of proving motive, which they should never have been asked to engage in. Secondly, they criminalise the solicitation or commission of sexually explicit deepfakes—I prefer the word “commission”, because there is a financial element for some of the people who create them solicited by others. Thirdly, in the guise of Amendment 6, they open the possibility of jail time for the perpetrator if the court regards that as appropriate in the specific case.

The measure of success of these provisions, if enacted, will lie not in the number of convictions brought, let alone jail time served, but in the number of women who do not become victims of deepfake sexual abuse in the first place, and in the more women and girls there are who are relieved of the fear that it may be happening to them and they do not yet know it, or that they can be threatened with it. As with the discussion of the strategic security issues to which I alluded in my earlier remarks, the key is not prosecution but deterrence. We know that, in any context, deterrence works only when it is rests on the possibility of an appropriately severe response where infractions are committed or where society is resilient to such behaviour—so deterrence by resilience.

I do not envisage a welter of convictions and short sentences resulting from these amendments—an issue that is particularly acute given the disastrous inheritance that this Government were bequeathed by their predecessor in terms of the prison estate and overcrowding —but the possibility must be written into law to deter those who may otherwise choose to commit such crimes. Noble Lords will recall a phrase from Coriolanus: “Action is eloquence”; however, when making legislation, it is not the act of prosecution that is desired—in fact, one can argue that that is an admission of a societal failing—but establishing a causal nexus of sufficient severity to ensure that bad actors choose not to incur severe risks to themselves and instead keep within the law.

In closing, I return to something that I said on Report—which is probably a breach of one of our pieces of guidance. We know that the march of technology and the feeling of anonymity and impunity afforded by the internet have conspired to make this problem epidemic. The amendments to which I have put my name and which have been championed with such energy and forensic advocacy by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Pannick, engage these challenges in a manner that I think is proportionate and just. It is for those reasons that they should stand part of this Bill as it becomes law.

[Baroness Bertin (Con)]

My Lords, I back 100% my noble friend Lady Owen’s amendments and pay tribute to the powerful contributions to this debate. I have spent the past year working on a pornography review, which I hope the Government will publish as soon as possible. I back these amendments 100%. This is an industry that is out of control and growing. There are so many victims—there are victims in the past and there will be many victims in the future. If these amendments are not backed, the Government will be falling short and failing those victims. I do not believe that this Government want to fall short; I have huge faith that they want to meet their targets on halving VAWG over the next few years. They will not meet that target, however, if they do not act bravely and take thorough, proper decisions on these kinds of crimes. We must back these amendments.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I can be very short; there are three points. First, it must be right to include solicitation; it is integral to the success of this Bill, and it is necessary to do so. Secondly, to omit “reasonable excuse” is obviously right. It would be incompatible with the Bill to include it. Thirdly, it must be right to have imprisonment as a sentencing option in appropriate cases. What about someone who has done it before, particularly in respect of the same victim?

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, I want to say just one thing. In light of what has been said, I urge the Government to accept these amendments. They will do themselves no credit by resisting them, and I am certain the amendments will be passed.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I think we have an open-and-shut case. I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, who has recruited a formidable group of Members of this House in support of her amendments. I cannot understand why the Government are allowing what could have been a very civilised agreement to founder on these three rocks. That seems to me to be quite extraordinary, particularly when we have heard that forensic tearing apart of the Government’s case by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. One of the great campaigning skills of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has been to recruit him to deliver an absolutely brilliant destruction of the Government’s case. The “reasonable excuse” and solicitation aspects are both coach and horses. We do not want the Bill to leave this House without the noble Baroness’s amendments; otherwise, a coach and horses will be driven through those provisions.

As for the imprisonment aspect, that is probably the most important of the three for many of us. All the other comparable offences—false communications; threatening communications; encouraging or assisting serious self-harm; cyber flashing; revenge porn; epilepsy trolling; harassment and stalking—are imprisonable to a greater or lesser degree, so we really ask the Government to rethink their position before going to a vote. We will support the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, if she pushes this to a vote, which I very much hope she will if the Government do not concede. She used the phrases “digital violence” and “extreme misogyny”. Digital violence leads to and constitutes extreme misogyny, and that is why we are so passionate about this offence and getting it right.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I too support my noble friend Lady Owen in her amendments. Thanks to her tireless and frankly inspiring work, we have an opportunity to make a real difference now—today. She made a powerful and disturbing case for her amendments, and we have heard in Committee, on Report and now today how important these changes are to the many women who have already been victims of deepfakes. This is clearly something we need to address urgently to protect others from being victims in future and to bring perpetrators to justice. Deepfakes can ruin lives, and now is the time to act. In this, my noble friend has our full support.

I congratulate the Government on having travelled some way in tabling their amendment today. We are disappointed that they have still not been able to deliver including solicitation in the proposed offence. My noble friend’s amendments would ensure that it is an offence to solicit—I, too, rather prefer that term—or commission the creation of these kinds of images, and we support her inclusion of solicitation in the new offence.

Of course, I understand that the Government plan further amendments, but for now we are also disappointed that they have decided not to give the courts the option of imposing a custodial sentence on those who commit this new offence, and have chosen not to remove the “reasonable excuse” defence when a defendant has intentionally created an image of this type. Given the seriousness of the new offence and its significant impact on the lives of victims, this new law must have more teeth. We support my noble friend in bringing Amendment 6 to the House, and we will vote with her on this and her other amendments if she chooses to test the opinion of the House. Like others, I rather hope she will.

I conclude by once again paying tribute to my noble friend, who has assembled such a distinguished and respected group of signatories to and supporters of her amendments. Her approach to the Bill is in the highest traditions of your Lordships’ House, and I am proud to support her today.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been both a wide-ranging debate and a specific debate on the noble Baroness’s three amendments. I will deal first with the solicitation point. We have heard the strength of feeling, and the Government will not oppose the noble Baroness’s Amendments 3, 4, 7 and 10. As I said, we had wanted to do it another way, but we recognise the strength of feeling expressed in this debate.

17:00

I turn to Amendment 5, the “reasonable excuse” amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, we had a discussion on Report in which I did not actually put forward what a reasonable excuse might be, but in a subsequent private discussion, I postulated that it might be a young person or somebody who lacked mental capability. I still think those are cases where one might advance that argument, but a more general point is that it is very common in courts up and down the land to have “reasonable excuse” arguments. One hears those arguments all the time, and it is for judges and magistrates to decide whether they think they are indeed a reasonable excuse. There is nothing unusual about that at all. Since the offence itself is, first, so widely drawn, and, secondly, novel, it is prudent to include the “reasonable excuse” wording within the definition of this offence. So, we will be opposing the noble Baroness’s Amendment 5.

All the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy were sharing offences, which are already imprisonable offences. The offence we are talking about is the creation of an image, not sharing or threatening to share. We agree that that should be an offence, but the maximum sentence will be an unlimited fine—potentially, an unlimited fine for each image. We think that that is appropriate, rather than having an imprisonable offence, so we disagree with the noble Baroness on Amendments 5 and 6.

We support the creation of this new criminal offence. In many other aspects of law, we are looking at how to combat this evil developing in the online world, but the approach we have outlined is the best one, and I urge noble Lords not to support the noble Baroness in Amendments 5 and 6.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him about the aspect of deterrent? You may have someone—or a company—who is inordinately rich, or someone who is extremely poor, for whom, as he knows, a fine will not work because they do not have any money. There will be instances where a fine would not do but the deterrent would be the possibility of prison.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness makes a fair point. In practice, this offence is very likely to be charged with the threat to share and other offences, which are of course imprisonable in their own right. As I said, there is no limitation to the number of offences that can be charged. We think it more appropriate that this be a fine-only offence, given the plethora of other offences which can be charged in this field.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

It is important to clarify that someone can be in a relationship with a partner who creates a sexually explicit deepfake, which presents a very real threat to that person even if their partner has not actually threatened to share it. That is what campaigners and victims believe: if you are in this kind of relationship and you know that someone has developed these sexually explicit deepfakes without your consent, that presents a very real threat. We believe that should be imprisonable.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, in a sense, this will be tested in the courts. If the woman knows that the images have been created, the threat is there; that is what she is worried about. Of course, that is a separate offence, as I have already said. On the offence where there is no threat and it is just the creation of the image, we believe that a fine-only sentence is appropriate.

Amendment 3 (to Amendment 2) agreed.

Amendment 4 (to Amendment 2) agreed.

Amendment 5 (to Amendment 2)

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

5: In inserted section 66E, leave out subsection (5)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove a “reasonable excuse” defence when a defendant has intentionally created the purported intimate image, the victim does not consent and the defendant does not reasonably believe that the victim consents.

17:06

Division 1

Ayes: 318

Noes: 130

17:21

Amendment 6 (to Amendment 2)

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

6: In inserted section 66E(6), leave out “a fine” and insert “imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for a summary offence or a fine (or both)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the courts have the option of sentencing a convicted defendant to a term of imprisonment if the court thinks that is appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, this gives me a chance to thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It is essential that we have prison as a deterrent in our fight against this appalling abuse. Victims view a fine as an insult and, with that in mind, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

17:21

Division 2

Ayes: 302

Noes: 132

17:33

Amendment 7 (to Amendment 2)

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

7: In the title of inserted section 66F, after “Creating” insert “or soliciting the creation of”

Amendment 7 (to Amendment 2) agreed.

Amendment 2, as amended, agreed.

Clause 142: Extent

Amendment 8

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

8: Clause 142, page 174, line 22, at end insert—
“(c) section (Creating purported intimate image of adult) (creating purported intimate image of adult) extends to England and Wales only.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new Clause “Creating purported intimate image of adult” extends to England and Wales only.

Amendment 8 agreed.

In the Title

Amendment 9

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

9: Title, line 18, after “services;” insert “to make provision about the creation of purported intimate images;”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment inserting the new Clause “Creating purported intimate image of adult”.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Amendment 10 (to Amendment 9)

Moved by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

10: After “creation” insert “and solicitation”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment relates to Amendment 4.

Amendment 10 (to Amendment 9) agreed.

Amendment 9, as amended, agreed.

A privilege amendment was made.

17:34

Motion

Moved by

[Lord Vallance of Balham]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

My Lords, this Bill has had a lively and long previous life, with many of these areas having been debated over the years by noble Lords sitting here today. I would like to give a brief summary of some of the changes that have been made to the Bill, as well as reflecting on some of Bill’s core aims.

I start by giving thanks. I hope I will be forgiven for not naming every noble Lord who has spoken on this Bill to date. I extend my gratitude to my noble friend Lady Jones, who I am sure everyone here is delighted to have back. She laid excellent foundations in getting the Bill through its initial stages in the House. I am sure that noble Lords will want to join me in wishing my noble friend a swift and full recovery.

This has been my first experience leading on legislation in this House. I apologise for when I got things wrong. I have learned a great deal. I am grateful for both the support and the many shades of advice that I have been given.

On the deepfakes point, I join the many noble Lords who have expressed their admiration for the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. It is her first time bringing an issue of such great importance to a debate. She has done so with great skill, determination and passion. The Government have undoubtably heard your Lordships’ clear views on this crucial issue.

The other area of the Bill that has been strengthened today is on children’s data. We have put into law the children’s higher protection matters. I extend thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding.

The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, raised excellent points about online harms research, and we had a robust discussion of automated decision-making thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Markham, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose.

More broadly, many noble Lords contributed to the debates on AI and copyright, including the noble Lords, Lord Bassam, Lord Freyberg and Lord Holmes, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I agree that AI poses some of the most pressing questions of our time, and the strength of feeling on copyright is clear. I emphasise that we have heard this House. We are listening, including with our open consultation, and, as I have said several times, we are committed to making the right decision on this—and right means right for all parties.

We wholeheartedly agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, on the importance of scientific research and that scientific research is in the public interest, even though we still have some concerns on the formulation and unintended consequences of the specific amendment. I thank him for raising the debate and bringing different opinions to the table.

As my noble friend Lady Jones said at Second Reading, data is

“integral to almost every aspect of our society and economy, from NHS treatments and bank transactions to social interactions”.—[Official Report, 19/11/24; col. 146.]

I will use this final part of my speech to highlight some of the areas where there has been agreement across the House and which highlight some of the huge potential that data and the contents of the Bill can have on our lives.

We have new provisions for smart data schemes and new digital verification services to provide new ways for people to prove and verify identities. The maps provided by the creation of the national underground asset register will improve the efficiency and safety of the way we install, maintain, operate and repair our buried infrastructure. We have a new soft opt-in mechanism for charities, which will help them raise vital funds by allowing them to continue to reach out to supporters.

The contents of the Bill support delivery of every one of the five missions set out by the Prime Minister. I know that in the other place there will be further discussions on the Bill and on the changes that noble Lords have made. I am in no doubt that there will be further disagreements, but I am sure that Members will be grateful for the time and scrutiny afforded to the Bill. That will only make it a better Bill and will ultimately help it achieve its aims to harness the power of data, drive economic growth, support modern digital government and improve people’s lives.

Finally, I thank the officials who worked on the Bill, including the Bill team: Simon Weakley, Lois Clement, Ryan Jones, Robyn Connelly and Joy Aston.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I was very pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Vallance’s words in relation to what we have been doing today and also taking a broader conspectus of what we have been doing in the longer periods of Committee and Report. I think he has answered the question I was going to leave him with, which was on whether the Government were in listening mode when the House took such determined decisions, as it has done on a number of issues, which I know he was opposed to. I hope that I am right in assuming that he is saying that he understands the motivation behind them, which is in no sense to try to wreck the Bill but, in the best interests of this House, to try to make sure that what comes out of it reflects the wider experience and range of views that can come from those who have knowledge and understanding of this Bill.

As he said, this is not the first data protection Bill we have—I was going to say “endured”, but that is not right—enjoyed, and we have been through a number of the issues that have surfaced again in the past few weeks at other times. As we heard in Committee—a number of people have said this and I think it is still true—this is really not the data protection and data processing Bill that we need. What we have is an attempt to try to bridge some of the infelicities that have occurred in recent years because of the combination of legislative processes that have happened within the GDPR, Brexit and the Data Protection Act 2018. That does not make it the Bill we could have had. I am not forecasting, but I suspect that we will probably have to return to this within a few years to try to bring forward some of the issues that are still buried in this, which do not come out quite as well as they could do, and I look forward to that.

The Minister was right to say that this is his first major piece of legislation. I think he has done extraordinarily well to be able to pick up the mantle and the first steps taken by my noble friend Lady Jones, who we welcome back. I also pay tribute to the Bill team, who have been exemplary in trying to provide the information we need to make the best decisions.

We will see the Bill back in due course. It will have, presumably, changes to some of the issues on creative copyright, scientific research and some other points that the noble Lord mentioned. I hope that, when that happens, we will have an opportunity to reflect on that together, and I make an open invitation to the Minister to engage with some of the people he has named already, whose clear interest in this has been flagged to him. I am sure they would want to try to continue the discussion before we go into the formal processes.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I think we have had quite enough excitement for one day. I want to thank colleagues all Benches—they know who they are—for making the fairly gruelling passage of this Bill endurable. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Vallance. We were sorry to lose the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, but the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, played the part of a kind of impact substitute in the second half of the match, and I thank him. I thank Mohamed-Ali Souidi in our Whips office for his enormous hard work on this Bill. I also thank the rather sleep-deprived Bill team. They engaged constantly on the Bill and what has resulted is a much better Bill than its predecessor, the DPDI Bill—but it is still not perfect.

I think we have made some progress, as the Minister outlined, on the charities’ soft opt-in, which I welcome that very much, the automated decision-making code to be drawn up by the ICO, the jurisdiction review, which was not heralded in Hansard, but I very much hope that the MoJ will get that under way, enhanced children’s duties, which were just passed today, assurances on researcher access to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and two enormous strides, potentially. I tend to think of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the web crawlers as a new rock band, but we place a lot of hope that the Government will see the light on that and that in due course we will also see the outcome of the debate on what constitutes scientific research. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has triumphed today with her new offence and I very much hope that, in its full form, it will take its place in statute.

Sadly, there was no movement on ministerial powers in key areas such as recognised legitimate interest, but we live in hope that this Government will, at least at some stage, have a self-denying ordinance. We are not there yet; maybe we have to keep plugging away in future Bills. But we are a lot more content with this Bill going forward to the Commons than we would have been if the DPDI Bill had gone in the same direction.

17:45

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill has an unfortunate combination of being extremely important and somewhat obscure, but we have between us scrutinised it very closely over the past few months. Thanks are very much due to the noble Lord, Lord Vallance—particularly for stepping in, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, as an impact substitute—to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for their constructive engagement and the—I cannot think of a better word—professional way in which they have taken this Bill through our House. It has not been an easy Bill for any of us. I know at first hand how demanding some of its elements are for Ministers and I am pleased to have the chance at this point to express my appreciation.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions throughout Committee and Report and, indeed, tonight. We hope the other place will look favourably on the constructive amendments that we have all made to this Bill and we look forward to continuing to engage with the Government as it makes further progress.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL]

Report stage
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Report

17:47

Clause 4: Preparation of standards

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

1: Clause 4, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(3B) A group of persons under subsection (3) must include a representative from an organisation that is the representative body for a sector.”

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1 I will speak also to Amendments 2, 4 and 5 standing in my name. Amendments 1 and 4 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mirror the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in Committee, which I also put my name to. They seek to bring the expertise of sector representative bodies to the preparation of standards and assessment plans and distribute the workload so that Skills England is not drowned in the preparation and updating of standards.

I note that there is a reference to employer representative bodies in the section of the draft framework document that covers the purposes of Skills England, although it is used merely as an example. Can the Minister articulate what the block is to the Government committing to work with employer representative bodies? The Government stress the breadth of their ambition for their industrial strategy and for Skills England’s part in delivering this, so why not bring in the wider expertise capacity of employer representative bodies, both in more traditional and more modern sectors?

I turn to Amendments 2 and 5, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has also given his support. These amendments seek to give the Government one last chance to be absolutely explicit in their commitment to employers and to those undertaking training. The text of the amendment comes from the original IfATE legislation and so has been thoroughly tested not just in debate in both Houses but also in real life.

I am told by those who have been involved in the governance of IfATE that the duty to

“have regard to the reasonable requirements of … industry, commerce, finance, professions and other employers regarding education and training, and … persons who …. wish to undertake education and training”

has been a very serious duty in relation to the approval of a standard under new subsections (3) or (6).

The Minister will understand very well the influence that government policy has on employers. Recently, the Government announced that level 7 apprenticeships would no longer be eligible for the levy and there are question marks over the funding of some level 6 apprenticeships. This policy had been trailed for some time. If we look at the impact on recent apprenticeship starts, levels 6 and 7 saw starts rise by 10.9% as employers scramble to lock in funding ahead of the proposed changes. However, starts at levels 2 and 3 and the absolute level of under-19s participating in apprenticeships declined. So, while the Secretary of State celebrated the overall increase in apprenticeship starts of 1.3%, the building blocks of this rise are exactly the ones that the Government are removing. There is a real risk that the changes they propose, with the move to a growth and skills levy, will result in a drop in the number of people undertaking these qualifications, as funding for existing high-quality qualifications is removed and newer ones are perhaps not made the immediate priority for employers, particularly given the likely impact of employers’ national insurance contribution increases on recruitment into lower-paid roles.

All of this matters because the framework document is, at best, vague and, at worst, silent on the involvement of employers. There are some statements in the section on aims, saying that employers will be engaged in the preparation of occupational standards, but it does not say how. The rest of the document, particularly the section on the responsibilities of the chief executive, does not refer to this. It focuses rather on their role as accounting officer in relation to the board and the department, with no mention of employers.

There are broad references in the section on the purposes of the new agency and the reference I mentioned earlier in brackets to employer representative bodies but, if I were an employer, I would be concerned and would want an explicit reassurance from the Minister about my role going forward. I urge the Minister either to explain why employers are so much less visible in the framework document or to agree that this amendment would fit best within the Bill or, at the very least, in the next draft of the framework document. I hope that she can commit to that today. If I may, I will speak to her Amendments 3 and 6 after she has spoken to them. I beg to move.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 1 and 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Before speaking to them, I thank the Minister for her very positive engagement with those of us involved with the Bill. That includes several meetings and her letter last week describing the three amendments that she has tabled—all of which represent welcome improvements, even if they do not go quite as far as I might like—and including a draft of the proposed framework document for Skills England. Having said that, I remain concerned about what impact the transfer of IfATE into the DfE will have on the vital engagement of employers in standards and assessment processes, and about the proposed status of Skills England as an executive agency, albeit an arm’s-length body within the DfE.

Amendments 1 and 2 relate to the organisations which should be involved or taken into account by the Secretary of State when preparing apprenticeship standards. Amendment 1 requires that a group of persons preparing such standards should include a person from the representative body for the relevant sector; it would be even better to spell out that this should be the representative skills body. Many industry sector skills bodies have played a crucial and leading role in working with IfATE to prepare standards and assessment plans for their sectors. It will be important to continue this under the new regime, not least because of the positive effect it could have in leveraging valuable support for Skills England from such bodies.

Recognised sector skills bodies, such as Energy & Utility Skills for the energy and utilities sector, already work closely with employers in their sectors to identify needs and translate them into standards and training pathways in England and across the devolved Administrations, ensuring UK-wide consistency. Through their links with employers, they can respond with speed and agility to the developing skills needs of their sectors, while ensuring consistency with existing qualifications and apprenticeships across the whole UK. They work closely and effectively with IfATE, thereby ensuring that employer views are properly represented in standards and assessment plans approved by IfATE while minimising its workload.

I also support Amendment 2, which broadens the range of bodies to whose interests the Secretary of State must have regard. Both amendments seek to ensure that the central role of employers and other relevant bodies is properly and fully reflected in the Bill.

Amendment 3 in the Minister’s name—I will speak to it briefly now rather than standing up again later—addresses the issue that I and others raised in Committee about spelling out the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might herself prepare a standard, rather than a group of persons. The amendment requires the publication only of matters to be taken into account in deciding whether to make such a decision rather than specific criteria, but I welcome it as far as it goes.

Amendments 4 to 6 raise essentially—almost exactly—the same issues as the previous three but in relation to the preparation of apprenticeship assessment plans rather than occupational standards. All I will say is: ditto. Again, I support all three of them, particularly Amendment 4, which requires a person from the representative skills body for a sector to be included in the group of persons developing a standard for that sector, for the same reasons as I have given for Amendments 1 to 3.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 2 and 5, to which I have added my name. I declare the fact that I am a teacher. I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister and her team very much for our collegiate and friendly meetings and for their letters on the draft framework. They have gone a long way in calming a lot of the fears that I had about this Bill and about the lack of information. There is still a lot that has not been said, but I am an optimist. I genuinely believe that the Government are going in the right direction but, rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I would like to hear a little more.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, when a framework Bill comes before the House, you expect to have a series of amendments such as these, asking for more information. I thank the Minister for answering some of those questions, but the fact of the matter is that this is still a framework Bill. I hope that we will get a little more detail when she responds to this group, but we really need a bit more information before we assess a piece of legislation. I thank her for what she has done, but I hope she will take back to her department that the original approach on this really was not good enough.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, I echo much of what has been said already, including appreciating everything the Minister has done to meet some of the points and criticisms raised in Committee. However, Amendments 1, 2, 4 and 5 are important because it is very important to have employers and representative bodies in the Bill.

I would like to look back in history to the period in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, when apprenticeships in this country were in raging decline and the quality of much of what was being called an apprenticeship was very low. All three major parties have been involved in turning that around, and we are in a much better place than we were in the early 2000s, let alone the 1990s.

18:00

However, the statutes that set up what was originally the IfA then IfATE were important. If something is buried deep inside the Department for Education and there is no statutory responsibility or declaration that employers are at the heart of apprenticeships and need to be there, and if you do not take explicit account of professional bodies and unions—all the major institutional players that determine whether a vocational training system will work—then you are laying out trouble for the future.

On the whole, I am not a huge enthusiast for putting everything in primary legislation, but on this occasion these amendments are correct. We should have these commitments in the Bill and not merely buried in later framework documents. I therefore support them.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all Members who have been involved in the consideration of this Bill for being willing to meet with me and share concerns. I am glad that people have recognised that we have made progress as a result of that process.

I think that we all agree that effective skills provision is critical to boosting growth and spreading opportunity to all parts of the country. Through this Bill, the Government are taking steps to enable the rapid development and delivery of high-quality training aligned to current and future skills needs. For this to be possible, we need to ensure that the processes for developing and approving training are sufficiently flexible to respond to diverse and changing skills needs across the economy and the wide range of different occupational specialisms. This Bill, therefore, introduces specific flexibilities intended to make the system more responsive and more focused on the needs of employers and other key stakeholders.

For those who argue, quite rightly, that we should listen to employers, I say that it is precisely because of what employers have told us about the need for speed and flexibility that we have introduced the provisions in this Bill. As I tried to do in Committee, I also reassure noble Lords about the absolutely central role that employers will play in the work of Skills England. Building on the work of IfATE, employers will continue to play a critical role in the design and delivery of apprenticeships and technical education. It is crucial that those reflect the needs of employers and that employers have confidence in them. Skills England will ensure that there is a comprehensive suite of apprenticeships, training and technical qualifications for individuals and employers to access, all of which will be informed by what employers and other partners tell us that they need.

As I have said on several occasions about the functions that are being transferred, and in response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, the default position will continue to be that groups of persons, including employers, are responsible for preparing standards and apprenticeship assessment plans. In other words, what is proposed in this Bill maintains the same focus on employers as in the original Act setting up IfATE.

What is more, we have the experience of how Skills England has been operating in shadow form. We have Skills England’s first report, which provided a very important springboard for Skills England to engage in further dialogue between employers, unions, providers, experts, regional bodies and the Government to interrogate, corroborate and build our shared understanding of what skills the economy needs. The assessment of skills needs, including the needs of employers in different sectors, will be continued in Skills England’s second report, which is due in early 2025. In every case that noble Lords have talked about, I am absolutely clear—and we have already seen evidence from Skills England—that employers, representatives of sector skills groups and employer representative bodies should be, will be, and are already being, engaged by Skills England.

The question is whether these amendments act against the wish of the Government, and, I believe, of other noble Lords, to ensure that we are doing this in the most speedy and appropriate way. It is vital that the Bill does not lose its ability to deliver this change—the change to be more responsive and more focused on the needs of employers and key stakeholders—by taking on amendments which will slow down Skills England and, in some cases, make it slower and more cumbersome, with more prior requirements than IfATE’s current processes. Any such burden would impact the wider skills system and hinder its contribution to the growth and opportunity missions that are important to this Government.

In Committee, during the debates on Clauses 4 and 5, noble Lords raised concerns about the membership of groups of persons formed to create standards and assessment plans, as has been repeated today. I outlined how, at present, there are no statutory criteria that prescribe the make-up of these groups. In other words, it is not the case that IfATE already has in legislation specific named representatives that need to form these groups. However, IfATE is under a duty to publish information about matters it will consider when deciding whether to approve groups of persons to develop occupational standards and apprenticeship assessment plans. In this legislation, that duty is being transferred to the Secretary of State unchanged. That level of transparency, because of this Bill and the transfer of functions, will be part of the functioning of Skills England.

Amendments 1 and 2 would, however, prescribe in legislation that a group of persons that prepares an occupational standard or an assessment plan must include a representative from an organisation that is the representative body for a sector. I spoke in Committee about the risks of introducing new constraints on the structure of these groups with criteria in primary legislation. They would make the process for forming groups slower and more onerous. I do not think it is in anyone’s interest—not least learners or employers—to incur such delays. They could prevent the membership of the group reflecting specific factors important for its work. To specify sector representative bodies or any specific member of the group of persons would prioritise certain people or bodies over the expertise of others.

Clauses 4 and 5 create a power for the Secretary of State to prepare a standard or an apprenticeship assessment plan themselves, where satisfied that it would be more appropriate for them to do so than a group of persons. In Committee, noble Lords expressed concerns about this new power and how it will operate—understandably, given the arguments that have been made. In previous exchanges, I set out why it is important that this additional flexibility is built into the system: to respond to the particular skills needs of different occupations. I also set out that, in practice, it will remain the default for groups of persons to prepare standards and apprenticeship assessment plans.

However, I recognise that this flexibility must also be balanced against transparency. In Committee and today, the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran, Lady Garden and Lady McGregor-Smith, and the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare, Lord Hampton and Lord Addington, all spoke on the clauses about the power for the Secretary of State to prepare a standard or an assessment plan. I listened carefully to the points made. As such, and in recognition of arguments put forward by noble Lords during the passage of the Bill to date, government Amendments 3 and 6 will be proposed today.

The amendments will create new duties on the Secretary of State to publish information about matters they will take into account when deciding whether it would be more appropriate for them, rather than a group of persons, to prepare occupational standards and assessment plans. These amendments will result in powers in the Bill being subject to equivalent transparency as powers being transferred to the Secretary of State from IfATE. To reiterate the point I made earlier, there will not be less statutory requirement for employer engagement in the Bill, but the equivalent to what is in the legislation governing IfATE.

The amended Bill therefore provides for consistent transparency throughout. It will mean that the Secretary of State will be under a duty to publish information on the matters that will be taken into account when making decisions in three areas: first, on whether to approve a group of persons to prepare a standard or assessment plan; secondly, on whether to approve a standard or assessment plan; and, thirdly, as a result of government Amendments 3 and 6, on whether it is more appropriate for the Secretary of State to prepare a standard or assessment plan, rather than a group of persons.

Amendments 4 and 5 would create that statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have due regard to the reasonable requirements of employers and those who may wish to undertake training when considering whether to approve occupational standards and assessment plans, where they have been developed by a group of persons. The Secretary of State is already subject to a general public law duty, which requires them to take into account all relevant considerations before taking decisions relating to the functions for which they are responsible. There is therefore already a requirement that, when executing the functions described in the Bill, the Secretary of State considers and balances factors such as those outlined in the noble Baroness’s amendment. In fact, the public law duty includes, but is broader than, the factors listed in the proposed amendment.

I recognised the concerns of noble Lords that we were more explicit about the aims, objectives and governance of Skills England. That is why I reference again to noble Lords Skills England’s first published report, the documents published and the exchanges made during the passage of the Bill, including the draft framework document that I shared with Members of the Committee who had particularly focused on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, says that it is just a draft; it is, because the framework document itself needs to be approved by the board of Skills England, but it is a pretty full draft and very much aimed at reassuring noble Lords about the approach Skills England will take and the nature of the organisation, which is what I was asked for more information about. We have also been clear that a fundamental part of Skills England’s role is to ensure that technical qualifications and apprenticeships meet the needs of both employers and learners.

The amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, are therefore well considered but, we would argue, duplicative of existing duties on the Secretary of State, commitments made about the purpose of Skills England, and the further evidence in additional information I have provided for noble Lords. The existing duty to take into account all relevant considerations will be fulfilled by Skills England and through the considered approach to create Skills England as an executive agency, which we will return to in the next group of amendments, when I hope I will be able to respond to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, as well.

I therefore hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and other noble Lords are reassured that her concerns are already addressed. I hope she agrees not to press her amendments, so that we can ensure that flexibility and speed of response to the skills challenges that our country faces and enable Skills England to start doing that as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank Minister for her remarks and thank all noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. I followed some of her argument but not all of it, so I will ask for a little clarification. First, on my comments about the framework being a draft, it is clearly a long document, and thought has gone into it. I was just trying to make the point that, when you look at the CEO responsibilities, it talks about responsibilities to other groups but not employers. The fact that it is a draft—I hope the Minister might give a little here—is also an opportunity to use some of these amendments, which could be woven into a final draft.

18:15

The Minister talked about the importance of flexibility and quality, which I think we are supportive of across the House, and the need for the Government to be as responsive as possible. I also heard her say that the approach will mirror how IfATE works in terms of engagement with employers. But where I got slightly lost is that there is a distinction in relation to Amendments 1 and 4, which, one could argue, would put additional burdens on the Secretary of State and the department: will they really make things less agile or will they give a national perspective and agility, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said? We can argue about that. But I do not understand why the Minister argues that Amendments 2 and 5 add burdens, because those were in the existing IfATE legislation. Can she clarify that? Clearly, none of us wants to slow things down or put in bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake, but it would be helpful to have in the next draft of the framework document those explicit references to having regard to that range of employers, which gives the Secretary of State infinite flexibility. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

If I remember rightly from my previous reading of the framework document, the first or second page of the current draft explicitly mentions employers. Although the noble Baroness is right that that is not necessarily reiterated in the formal functions of the chief executive, their role is of course running the organisation and delivering the aims and objectives. Obviously, there will be reiterations in the framework document. I am sure that Skills England itself, and the board when it is set up, will want to ensure, as will those with whom they are agreeing the nature of the framework document, that the explicit role of employers is properly demonstrated within that. The framework document will then be a public document that people will be able to look at and hold Skills England to account on—through myself as the Minister and through the CEO and others—in its delivery and its relationship with employers.

On the point about the other amendments, my argument was that they duplicate in a narrower way duties that already lie with the Secretary of State by virtue of her public law duty, and therefore there is already a requirement that those functions would be executed and that the Secretary of State would need to consider and balance those factors in making decisions. I hope that the noble Baroness feels that that is sufficient assurance and feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I feel a bit reassured, but not entirely clear. To the extent that the framework document is a public document, it is much easier for anybody reading it, rather than talking about public law duties, to talk about having due regard to employers and people who undertake the training, et cetera. The Minister is nodding, so I am going to take that as an encouraging sign that, when we see the next draft of the document, it will be a bit more explicit on that point. With that reassurance from her, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 2 not moved.

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

3: Clause 4, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
“(4A) In subsection (7), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) information about matters that the Secretary of State takes into account in deciding whether it would be more appropriate for a standard to be prepared by the Secretary of State than by a group of persons for the purposes of subsection (3A);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish information about the matters that will be taken into account in deciding whether it would be more appropriate for a standard to be prepared by the Secretary of State than by a group of persons.

Amendment 3 agreed.

Clause 5: Preparation of apprenticeship assessment plans

Amendments 4 and 5 not moved.

Amendment 6

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

6: Clause 5, page 2, line 38, at end insert—
“(5) In subsection (10), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) information about matters that the Secretary of State takes into account in deciding whether it would be more appropriate for an apprenticeship assessment plan to be prepared by the Secretary of State than by a group of persons for the purposes of subsection (6A);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish information about the matters that will be taken into account in deciding whether it would be more appropriate for an apprenticeship assessment plan to be prepared by the Secretary of State than by a group of persons.

Amendment 6 agreed.

Amendment 7

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

7: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on exercise of the Secretary of State’s functions(1) Within the period of six months beginning with the day on which section 3 comes into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament and publish a report about the exercise of the relevant functions.(2) The report must include information about—(a) which of the relevant functions are being exercised through an executive agency known as Skills England, and(b) the impact of the exercise of the relevant functions on apprenticeships and technical education in England.(3) In this section “the relevant functions” means the functions conferred or imposed on the Secretary of State by sections 1 and 4 to 7 and Schedule 1.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament and publish a report about the exercise of functions conferred or imposed on the Secretary of State by this Bill. The report must be laid and published within six months of the abolition of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I start our consideration of this group of amendments by re-emphasising, as I did in the first group, the urgency with which we need to tackle the skills gaps in our economy. They are holding back growth and opportunity, which is why we intend, as a priority, to establish Skills England as an executive agency of the Department for Education.

I know that, quite legitimately, in Committee there was a challenge about the nature of the executive agency, questions about whether that was an appropriate form for Skills England, and concern about the fact that the nature of the Bill meant that there was no mention of Skills England. I hope that, in the amendments that I propose and through some of the other reassurance that I have provided to noble Lords, I have addressed those issues.

The executive agency is a widely used model of arm’s-length body, of which there are many examples which play important roles, including the Met Office, the DVLA, and the Standards and Testing Agency. I provided more information about the functioning of executive agencies in the letter that I circulated. It is certainly not the case, as was suggested at Second Reading or at some point in Committee, that somehow Skills England would be in some cupboard in the Department for Education. This is a serious and well-used way in which to create an arm’s-length agency in government, which has been used by Governments of all persuasions in recent years.

Executive agencies have clearly defined status and must be established and governed in line with official Cabinet Office guidance. To summarise, the guidance states that executive agencies are identified as appropriate for the delivery of specialised functions, separate from a primarily policy-focused department but within a policy and resources framework set by that department, and the delivery of services to other parts of central government using specialist skills. The executive agency model therefore provides a strong fit for Skills England.

As I have emphasised, it is imperative that Skills England is fully operational as quickly as possible, designing and delivering high-quality training that reflects employers’ needs. Compared with a non-departmental body, for example, the executive agency model can be up and running much more quickly.

Following what I hope is the successful passing of this Bill, Skills England can quickly take on functions from IfATE, alongside those it has already begun to deliver while in shadow form. The executive agency model provides Skills England with the independence to focus on the delivery of its functions at arm’s length from the Department for Education, while ensuring sufficient proximity to the department, so that Skills England can quickly and efficiently inform decisions on skills policy and delivery.

Noble Lords have expressed concerns that pursuing this model will mean that there is insufficient transparency around exactly which functions are being transferred to the Secretary of State from IfATE and those which are to be executed by Skills England, as well as around the impact that Skills England’s responsibility for and execution of its functions will have in practice on our apprenticeships, technical education and the objectives that I know noble Lords share to improve our skills system.

Similarly, noble Lords have queried what the executive agency model means for how Ministers will be held to account for their decisions as related to these functions, and how Skills England will be held accountable for its performance. I assure noble Lords that, as with other executive agencies, Skills England will be required to have robust governance arrangements and clear lines of accountability, including to Parliament. Ministers, the principal accounting officer and the chief executive will be accountable to Parliament, and are usually those who, for example, appear before Select Committees as required.

Skills England will be overseen by a board, headed by a non-executive chair. As I said in Committee, I assure noble Lords that we have borne in mind the necessity to have strong credibility with employers in choosing who the non-executive chair will be. I hope that we can soon introduce them not only to noble Lords in this House but more widely to employers and others engaged in this activity. This board and chair reflect Cabinet Office guidance that executive agencies should be led by a board where there is a need for a significant level of independence from a department to carry out its functions effectively, or where they are of sufficient size and importance to require independent assurance. The board will advise on strategy and deliverability, maintain high standards of corporate governance, ensure that controls are in place to manage risk and scrutinise performance. Working with the board, the chair will provide the strong and independent leadership, support and challenge needed for Skills England to deliver its objectives.

The broader governance arrangements for Skills England, as we touched on in the previous group, will be set out in a framework document. This is a core constitutional document that must be produced in line with guidance from the Treasury. Skills England’s framework document will be agreed between its board and Ministers, as I have already suggested. Once finalised, it will be published online, and I will deposit a copy in both Houses. I have written to noble Lords with more information on what the framework document will likely set out, including the detailed sponsor relationship between Skills England and the Department for Education, lines of accountability to Parliament, and Skills England’s purpose, aims and duties. Noble Lords can see examples of such documents for other arm’s-length bodies online, as all are published by the Treasury.

Noble Lords have expressed an interest in understanding more about Skills England’s future reporting arrangements. I can provide assurance that the reporting arrangements of executive agencies are clearly defined. They must produce an annual corporate plan and an annual report, both of which will be published in respect of Skills England, subject to any commercial considerations in the corporate plan. These will, together, support Skills England’s accountability, including to Parliament, by providing transparency over its strategic priorities and performance. Again, my recent letter to noble Lords sets out more detail on what guidance dictates that corporate plans should include, such as—I know noble Lords have raised this point—key objectives and performance targets, and assessment of current and recent performance against those targets.

Taken together, I hope that the steps I have described here—namely, compliance with clear and detailed Cabinet Office guidance on the role and purpose of executive agencies; appointment of an independent board; and publication of a framework document, annual corporate plan and annual report—demonstrate that Skills England is being set up in a way that ensures transparency about its work and accountability for its performance.

18:30

However, in recognition of the request from noble Lords for further reassurance on these questions, I seek to move Amendment 7, which will require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament, within six months after the closure of IfATE, a report setting out which of the functions in this Bill are being exercised by Skills England and the impact of the exercise of these functions on apprenticeships and technical education in England.

As I have previously indicated, it is anticipated that the functions being transferred from IfATE to the Secretary of State relating to the development, approval, review and revision of apprenticeships and technical education will largely be exercised by Skills England. The amendment creates a requirement to set out publicly those functions that Skills England is taking on and the impact of that. Transitional arrangements will support a seamless transfer to enable Skills England to pick up the baton from IfATE and continue core work with employers to shape apprenticeships and technical education, as part of its wider remit.

Amendment 8 would impose an additional reporting requirement on the Secretary of State, namely that they lay before Parliament a report within 12 months detailing the use of the powers in the Act and their effect on matters including the identification of skills gaps and provision of technical education intended to help meet them. I am happy to have had the opportunity to discuss this with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, since Committee. I would like to address specifically some of the priorities that he has identified in his amendment and, again, provide reassurance on how they will align with the governance framework and reporting requirements that Skills England will be subject to. For example, the noble Lord rightly highlights the important role of Skills England in identifying skills gaps. This is absolutely central to the work of Skills England—as demonstrated by it being the main focus of the very first Skills England report last year—and I can absolutely commit to the noble Lord that this will feature in the framework document that we will publish.

The noble Lord’s amendment also includes a requirement for the Secretary of State to report on the uptake of apprenticeships. Skills England will be responsible for identifying where skills needs are not being met by training products, including apprenticeships, and developing or updating the standards that underpin them. Gathering, reporting and acting on intelligence about employers’ engagement with the apprenticeship offer will therefore be central to Skills England’s work, and I can also commit to this being made clear in the framework document.

I hope that the noble Lord is reassured that the framework document will reflect the issues with which he is concerned, and by government Amendment 7, which creates a clear duty on the Secretary of State to report on the work of Skills England, including the impact of the exercise of the Bill’s functions on apprenticeships and technical education. I hope that he will agree with me that, together, these commitments deliver the aims of Amendment 8.

Amendment 10 would create a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report setting out Skills England’s activities in the preceding year and to ensure that, in performing its functions, Skills England has regard to matters such as the quality of training and education and value for money. Noble Lords will notice that this amendment replicates the requirements that will be placed on Skills England as a result of its establishment as an executive agency, as I have already set out. It describes those matters which the Secretary of State already considers, in accordance with her duties under general public law, and which are those generally included in framework documents signed between sponsor departments and executive agencies.

The framework document will include, for example, and as I have already identified, references to Skills England’s aims, such as ensuring that training is high quality and transferable. In the sections on the roles of the principal accounting officer and accounting officer, it will include reference to the need to ensure that Skills England’s activities deliver value for money in the use of public funds. I can therefore see no benefit in such requirements being put into the Bill.

I trust that these amendments, together with the information I have provided, have reassured noble Lords of Skills England’s independence and accountability. I beg to move the government amendment.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister makes very strongly the case for skills, in terms of the Government’s agenda for growth, which is something we all support. As a nation, we have been slow on the uptake in realising that we owe it not just to our nation but to our young people in particular to ensure that they have the skills and the opportunities to contribute, including to their own well-being.

At the beginning, people were disappointed when this much-heralded Bill arrived. We all thought it was going to be a skills Bill, as the name on the jar suggested, so we were quite shocked. I think that the best description of the Bill came from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett— I cannot possibly repeat it, so I will leave Members to look at Hansard to see what he said. My view was that if we want to provide what the Government want, we have to be open and flexible. We cannot just leave it all to the department to get it right or wrong. It was very difficult to look at ways to contribute, to be quite honest. You would go to the Legislation Office, which would say, “Oh, this is not in scope; that is not in scope”, so you had to look for mechanisms to actually make a positive contribution and to hopefully make a success of this. My amendment was to say that the Secretary of State should report to Parliament within 12 months of the passage of the Act to address the skills gaps, et cetera. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for reaching out and having a number of conversations about the Bill. I have to say that it is not perfect—we are not in a perfect world—but she did that and I am very grateful to her for it.

Much has been made of the draft framework for Skills England. I ask noble Lords to put their hands up if they have read it from cover to cover—I am sorry; that is teacher mode. Well, I found it quite depressing at times. Let me just read some, on a very minor point. By the way, this wins the “Yes Minister” prize:

“Any disputes between the department and Skills England will be resolved in as timely a manner as possible. The department and Skills England will seek to resolve any disputes through an informal process in the first instance. If this is not possible, then a formal process, overseen by the senior sponsor, will be used to resolve the issue. Failing this, the senior sponsor will ask the relevant policy director-general to oversee the dispute. They may then choose to ask the Permanent Secretary to nominate a non-executive member of the department’s board to review the dispute, mediate with both sides and reach an outcome, in consultation with the Secretary of State”.


My goodness me. If that is how we operate, I really worry about our ability to develop the skills we need.

Joking apart, I think the draft skills document needs to reflect a few other things, which I could not see in it. Perhaps the Minister can reassure me. Wearing my local government hat, I am conscious that our 34 combined authorities have responsibilities in terms of developing skills and have put together skills programmes. I wonder how that will be addressed by the Minister. When she responds, perhaps she can home in on that for me. I will deal with the other issues when we come to them.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I am not sure whether this is an appropriate moment for me to join in but, as I have been mentioned twice this evening, I thought I had better put on record where I stand. First, I thank my noble friend for the substantial consultation and listening exercise, which has already been mentioned on all the Benches opposite. I think we are all extremely grateful that she has been prepared to do that and to reflect those representations, including those made in Committee. Committee was not entertaining, because I do not think the Bill is entertaining in any way, shape or form, but it was thorough. There is nobody taking part tonight, or who took part in Committee or at that very brief Second Reading at about this time of night, who has not got a real commitment, interest and dedication to getting this right. I commend my noble friend because she is totally committed to making this work.

I have not changed my mind: I think this is a mouse of a Bill. We have to elevate Skills England into a lion of an organisation, and I look forward very shortly to the announcement of the substantive chair of Skills England and to the framework document that my noble friend has published in draft becoming a substantive document, taking into account the comments that have been made by Members on all sides this evening. The review that my noble friend referred to will be important and I think that the amendments she has agreed to and moved tonight will make a difference.

I may have said it before, but I am going to say it again: it is not just my dog that has had to get used to being on the other side of the Chamber—the government side. I am adjusting, as well as the dog, to making my way up these Benches. One of the consequences is to cut your own Government a bit of slack and, when they have listened to you, to take that on board and to ride with their assurances. That is what I intend to do tonight, and I ask Members opposite not to push anything to a vote because we need to move on rapidly from this transfer of IfATE.

We need to be very wary that that transfer does not swamp the work of Skills England and its much broader task, as exemplified by the somewhat belated publication of Mark Farmer’s review of construction and engineering and the substantial challenge that it outlines. The Government responded, and I was tickled a bit because it took me back all those years to when the Government declined to comment on or to endorse recommendations that were “not in scope”. Honestly, we have to try to govern in a way that relates to what is happening in the world outside, not by going through the processes that, I am afraid, Ministers are so often presented with. We have a massive challenge in this country to get it right, and we have to use the growth and skills levy—all of it—effectively and in tune with, but not completely run by, the business community, which, frankly, also needs to step up to the mark. If we had the same number of training days that we had 15 years ago then 20 million more training days would be delivered in this country. It is a combined effort between employers, big and small, and those of us, in Parliament and outside, who are committed to making it work, in conjunction with government and now with Skills England.

I hope we can go forward from tonight with the kind of ambition that I know my noble friend and the Secretary of State have to make this work. I am sorry that Skills England is not going to be a statutory body, but it is not make or break and it is not an issue over which I would want the House to divide. I hope, with the review that has been mentioned already, that we will be able to accelerate progress in making this work for the country.

18:45

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. A significant number of the amendments discussed in Committee related to reporting requirements. If Skills England is to be an executive agency within the Department for Education, which still seems less than ideal—I will come to that later—arrangements for transparency and accountability, especially through reporting, become all the more critical. So, I welcome the Minister’s Amendment 7 requiring the Secretary of State to publish a report six months after the abolition of IfATE on how she has exercised the functions transferred from IfATE. However, I feel that this does not go far enough in spelling out what should be covered by the report.

The draft framework document, as we have heard, requires the publication of an annual report and accounts, and indeed a corporate plan, but I am not clear whether that will really cover the breadth of information needed. Surely Skills England will need to publish, at least every year, a report on progress across the whole of the Government’s promised post-16 education and skills strategy, of which Skills England will be at the heart. What we need is not so much a corporate plan as a sort of state of the nation report: where are we with the skills objectives that Skills England is all about promoting? For that reason, I added my name to Amendment 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, which is more specific about the issues covered in the report. We have covered that.

I also feel that it is particularly important to ensure that the local skills improvement plans developed across the country by employer representative bodies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, mentioned, and the plans of the mayoral combined authorities are covered as part of the state of the nation report. That is one reason why it is very important that Skills England should be a lion, to use the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, rather than a mouse. At the moment, it is somewhere between the two but moving in the right direction.

I also added my name to Amendment 10 from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which spells out a number of matters relating to quality, value for money, efficiency and effectiveness in Skills England’s performance of its functions, and specifies some content of the annual report. I hope the Minister will give us further reassurance on how the Government will ensure that the report lives up to what I see as the requirements of a state of the nation report. Failing that, if the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, decides to test the opinion of the House, I will dutifully march in behind her.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 10, to which I have added my name. With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the whole point of being a Cross-Bencher is that you do not have to cut any Government any slack.

The thing I really like about Amendment 10, to take up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is that while I find the language in the framework document very iffy at times, Amendment 10 has

“ensure that education and training is of an appropriate quality … represents good value … ensure that Skills England performs its functions efficiently and effectively”.

I really like that.

We talk about annual reports. The Government have already committed to putting out a report after six months. I really like annual reports.

The Minister talked about Skills England already having experience in shadow form. Perhaps she could comment a little more about that as well.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 7 in the name of the Minister, Amendment 8 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Aberdare, and my Amendment 10. It feels a bit churlish not to welcome a report on how Skills England is discharging its functions, and it is even more troubling to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, since I have obviously made it a policy always to agree with him. However, I genuinely think that this amendment is rather odd.

The first thing is the timescale. The amendment says that the report

“must be laid and published within six months of the abolition of”

IfATE, which means the department will need to start writing it within a few weeks of the Bill passing, since I imagine that the sign-off process is similar to the example the noble Lord, Lord Storey, read out, in terms of complaints. What will it be able to say at that point about the exercise of its functions—that it has just got started? What impact will a few weeks of work have on apprenticeships and technical education in England, particularly given how many other moving parts there are in the system, with the proposed introduction of the growth and skills levy? I genuinely worry that, with the best will in the world, the report risks being rather thin and without any real substance, and that it will not be the kind of state of the nation report the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, suggests is appropriate.

In contrast, Amendment 8 sets a more realistic timescale. It is much more tailored to the specific points the Minister has heard repeatedly across the House, which relate to skills and technical education policy and strategy. I guess that it is a backdoor way of trying to get a bit more policy into the Bill. The serious point, which so many of our debates have centred on, is that the Bill is not clear on the Government’s specific policy approach. I urge the Minister to consider Amendment 8 as a helpful way of starting to sketch this out and perhaps to commit in her closing remarks to including at least parts of it in the next draft of the framework document.

I draw attention to two particular points in the document—which I am so glad that I read, otherwise I would have been found out by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. At 26.2, where the document refers to the annual report and accounts, it says that it will include the main activities and performance during the previous financial year. The Minister has obviously memorised it—we could have “Mastermind” on this. At 26.3, the document says there will information on the financial performance of Skills England. So, some of the points in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, could be used to flesh out those statements.

I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Hampton, for their support for my Amendment 10. We have already debated the point of principle that the framework principles for the new executive agency should be in the Bill, and my amendment does this in a way I had hoped would not be controversial for the Government—although I am not terribly encouraged by the Minister’s opening remarks. I would be very grateful if, when she winds up, she could be absolutely clear on whether the public law duties which she says cover all the points in my earlier amendments and this amendment apply to IfATE. If they did apply to IfATE, why was that original drafting chosen and why was it part of the legislation passed by both Houses?

Like Amendments 2 and 5, this amendment takes the text from the original legislation, puts it in the Bill and applies it to Skills England. It is clear that Skills England will need to have regard to the quality of education and training, and the Minister said that that was in the aims. She can put me right if I have missed it, but I have to say that I cannot see it anywhere in the aims, so maybe she could commit to including that. It is also clear that it must represent good value in relation to funding and be efficient and effective, and it needs to prepare an annual report and lay it before Parliament. Paragraph (c) makes it clear that the Secretary of State can write to Skills England setting out

“other matters to which it must have regard when performing its functions”.

It gives the Secretary of State the flexibility for the focus of Skills England to evolve over time, which I am sure it will, naturally and rightly. The aim of this is not a straitjacket for government; it is just trying to get a balance between transparency, focus and flexibility.

I laid my amendment before the Minister shared the draft framework document and her letter, and I have a couple of concerns arising from those. Of course, if these principles are not in the Bill, Ministers can change at will the focus of the agency. I know that is not the Minister’s nor the Secretary of State’s intent—or I assume it is not—but the Minister’s letter to your Lordships says that there will be a review in the 18 to 24 months from inception, and a very wide range of options will be looked at, which seem to run from creating a different body to putting Skills England on a statutory footing. I know that this is not the Minister’s intention today, but it is what the letter says, and it underlines the point that a number of noble Lords have tried to make on more than one occasion.

Secondly, as I have said already, there is a lot of detail on page 7 of the document—it is page 7 of my printed version, although the printer of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, obviously uses different page numbers. It is the section on aims. It is not explicit in the same way about the importance of quality, it does not talk directly about the need for education and training to represent good value, and it does not talk about efficiency and effectiveness. I appreciate that there are generic references—boilerplate text—in the document, but it would be helpful if the Minister committed to amending this to reflect those three principles, which she confirmed in her opening remarks she definitely accepts.

The list on page 7 risks highlighting some of the issues we have debated at length, with specific government policies included in it, such as the Government’s mission to become a clean energy superpower. Of course, those priorities could change, and it would be entirely appropriate to put them in an annual letter from the Secretary of State to the agency. I am just surprised they are in the framework document. Perhaps I am being overly picky, and the Minister can correct me if I am, but it feels odd for an independent agency to use the term “superpower”—it does not feel quite right.

I very much hope that when she sums up, the Minister will be able to say how much of the text and the spirit of my amendment she will be able to put into the next draft of the framework document. It is more workable and much clearer than the current text in the section covering purposes and aims, and it is obviously more rigorous to have those principles in the Bill, but if the Minister commits to using that text in the framework document itself, I absolutely trust her. It is a workable, albeit less satisfactory option. If she cannot do that, when we come to call this amendment, I will test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords once again for their interest and probing. As my noble friend Lord Blunkett said, there is a shared commitment to ensuring that Skills England lives up to the challenge of improving our skills system in the way in which this Government have set out.

As I commented in Committee, considering that noble Lords spent a fair amount of time then—as did the noble Lord, Lord Storey, today—complaining that the Bill did not enable them to talk about Skills England, they nevertheless managed to talk about it. We have continued that discussion today, which I am pleased about. I understand the frustration of noble Lords who have not had the benefit, as I have, of seeing the development of Skills England and of knowing the plans for its future, and their fear that the legislation does not, in its scope and interest, live up to the ambition that the Government have for Skills England. However, the proof of legislation is not in the words on the page; it is in the action, ambition and impact that Skills England will have.

19:00

In Amendment 7, I am trying to reassure noble Lords who suggested that they were unclear about the way in which the functions being transferred as part of this legislation would be performed by Skills England. They were concerned that, somehow, this was just a bureaucratic taking of functions into the Department for Education. The intention with Amendment 7 is to reassure noble Lords.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, suggested that six months is too short. I reassure her that the six-month timeline will kick in from the abolition of IfATE, which is unlikely to be upon Royal Assent but later. We will commence the functions in a way that leaves the abolition of IfATE until the very end. In reality, as Skills England has already been operating in shadow form, and as the functions are transferred to it, the six-month period is not six months from today or even from Royal Assent. I believe that there will be a reasonable balance between responding to the concerns of noble Lords—by being clear, soon, about how Skills England is operating with the functions that have been transferred to it—and making sure that that is sufficiently broad.

We are putting this alongside the annual report and the corporate plan that I have identified, as well as an existing state of the nation report that Skills England produced last November. It produced a state of the nation report in its first analysis of the skills gaps in the economy, alongside the beginnings of its analysis about where future needs would come from. Of course, it will soon produce the second of its reports. I argue that, by combining the Government’s commitment to produce the report on the transfer of functions and the impact on technical education and apprenticeships, the annual report and the corporate plan, and the state of the nation reports, Skills England is providing a wide level of both information and accountability.

We returned to discussions about the framework document. I thought that I was helping noble Lords by bringing forward the draft of the framework document; I still believe that that was the case. I am a bit sad that it was described as “boring”, but very pleased that at least the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and I—and, I hope, others in the Chamber today—have read it. Tempted though I am by her suggestion that we should have a “Mastermind” round on this, I point out that I have already taken part in “Mastermind”—and I won. I will not be returning with this as a specialist subject.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I congratulate my noble friend. I have taken part in “Mastermind”, and I lost.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do not think that any of us here will make any further appearances on “Mastermind” with our specialist subject as the framework document for Skills England.

Nevertheless, it is more interesting than some have suggested, particularly its purposes, aims and duties. I will undertake to reflect very carefully on the points that have been made by noble Lords about what more should be included in the draft, while trying to resist the idea that this document will be written by committee in this Chamber. However, some strong points have been made by noble Lords about what could be included in the next draft, including the point about the role of local government, which we will come to in a later group of amendments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised a point about public law. It was necessary to give general duties to IfATE in statute because it was a statutory body, and therefore all its functions needed to be laid out in statute. Skills England is not a statutory body, as we have discussed at length, so the Secretary of State carries out the relevant functions and is already subject to the broader public duties. Because of those functions being carried out by the Secretary of State, the public law issue arises in this case.

In finishing, I hope that noble Lords feel that we have responded to concerns around the scope and narrowness of the legislation; the fact that we did not describe Skills England in the legislation; and the understandable requirement for accountability and reporting, which I hope I have described clearly. I absolutely share my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s view that, while the legislation may be mouse-like but important, the actions of Skills England will roar like a lion.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether she can clarify something. She said that she would think about putting references to local government in the framework document. Can she commit to making explicit reference to quality, value for money, efficiency and effectiveness in the early pages —the purposes and aims section that she referred to? Some of it may be implicit in her mind, but can it be explicit?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

That is a fair suggestion. With the proviso that this is a draft that will have to be agreed to by Skills England’s board with Ministers, I nevertheless share her view that Skills England will need to be focused on those things. I think that we could make progress on that in the next iteration of the framework document.

Amendment 7 agreed.

Amendment 8 not moved.

Amendment 9

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

9: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Creation of Skills England(1) A body corporate known as Skills England is established to carry out the functions transferred to the Secretary of State under this Act. (2) At the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must transfer to Skills England all the functions transferred from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education under this Act.(3) Nothing in this section prevents the Secretary of State from transferring more functions to Skills England under other enactments.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would put Skills England on an independent statutory footing rather than as part of the DfE. The role of IfATE would be included in that planned for Skills England.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 9, I will also speak to Amendment 15.

As noble Lords know all too well, we have had considerable concerns about two elements of the set-up of Skills England: first, the independence of the body; and, secondly, its ability to respond to the needs of employers and learners. The second area concerns the space that Skills England needs to deliver its priorities before absorbing, or indeed being absorbed by, IfATE. The Minister spoke, I think for the for the first time, about the more elongated process of that.

We believe that the first risk remains that Skills England could be buffeted by changing political priorities, and that that remains a greater risk while it is in the department. However, we recognise the lengths to which the Minister has gone to reassure noble Lords of its relative independence.

Indeed, in her recent letter she stressed the balance between securing

“external technical expertise and political impartiality”

while

“ensuring close policy alignment”.

She went so far as to commit to a review of Skills England. Her letter states that the review will ensure that Skills England’s functions remain useful and necessary, and

“will also assess whether there are more efficient and effective alternatives to deliver the government’s objectives including consideration of alternative types of ALB. This will include an assessment of whether SE should be brought onto a statutory basis”.

I referred in my earlier remarks to finding that slightly ironic, given the length of time we have spent debating that. I had mixed feelings about that paragraph. It seems extraordinary that, within two years, given all the time the Government have had to plan for the change, they might decide that Skills England is not the right vehicle to deliver their skills strategy. As I said earlier, I find it highly unlikely that the Government would then decide at that point to put Skills England on a statutory footing, so maybe the noble Baroness could just explain what was behind the thinking in that paragraph.

In relation to Amendment 9, I will take the noble Baroness’s letter at face value. Although we remain concerned at the potential for political interference with the independence of Skills England, we welcome the openness of the Government to review the position in future.

Amendment 15 aims to pick up the second set of concerns articulated by several noble Lords in our previous debates, but perhaps most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in his speech in Committee. He said:

“My fear, which I expressed briefly … at Second Reading, is that given the number of people currently transferable from IfATE, full- and part-time, which nudges 200, given the macro job that Skills England will need to do and given the way in which the policy framework was at least touched on on 24 September … there is a real danger that IfATE will swamp Skills England at birth”.


He went on to say that, when he led on another learning and skills document,

“we never envisaged that an agency inside government would have to take on the assurance and accreditation of the relevant sector standards”.—[Official Report, 21/11/24; col. GC 98.]

So, Amendment 15 aims to address, at least partially, the risk that Skills England is diverted from its central strategic task and buried under the weight of the accreditation and assurance process. It creates a one-year delay between the establishment of Skills England and the commencement of this legislation, so that Skills England has a better chance of getting up and running as effectively as possible before absorbing the IfATE functions.

The Minister has told us that the recruitment for the role of CEO of Skills England is going well, and similarly for the board, but these things take a moment to bed in. It takes time to recruit the wider team and to build the culture within Skills England. So, none of this in any way seeks to impede the Government’s ambitions; it just wants to give them a bit more opportunity to set up the structures for success.

As the noble Baroness noted, there is a lot of good will towards Skills England across the House, and we have heard that again today. But I just feel that, if we were privy to the risk register—which I am guessing that the noble Baroness is not planning to publish in draft—there would be a few risks marked in red, which would say something like, “Insufficient resources to deliver on the strategy”, “Time pressure to build effective relationships with other government departments”, or, “The ability to hire a high-quality team at speed”. The amendment in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, gives the Government breathing space to implement this well. All of us who have been involved in government know that writing a policy is not the difficult bit; implementing it and making sure that it is executed effectively is at least 10 times as hard. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s remarks.

19:15

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 15, to which I have put my name, and in support of Amendment 9.

Everybody here is agreed that apprenticeship is hugely important for productivity and growth, and in offering young people a valuable and valued route into skilled employment and adult life. When IfATE—it started off as the IfA—was created, it was seen as a major step in the ongoing recreation and revalidation of apprenticeship and was praised as such by all major parties. It was thought that it could be an independent structure with the convening power that is critical to that mission.

I certainly hope that we might be creating something like the BIBB—the German Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training—which is a wonderful institution that convenes employers, unions, government officials at all levels and researchers, all of whom have an established and major role, and one which everyone in Germany knows about. That did not happen overnight; it was built up over the years. None the less, it has been absolutely critical to the huge role that apprenticeship has played in German life and in the German economy, in its ability to change and develop when economic circumstances change, and, most dramatically, to recreate and revitalise apprenticeship in what was East Germany.

I know that the Government agree about the importance of apprenticeship and that Skills England is designed to support apprenticeship as well as to signal the importance of skills more generally. But there is a cost associated with the reassertion of a habitual and deeply ingrained pattern in this country of constantly reinventing institutions and public and quasi-public bodies, especially in the skills area. It is a real problem because, although skills professionals can just about keep up, most of the people who are actually involved in delivering skills—employers and people on the shop floor, in local government, in colleges and in unions: people who are not professionally engaged in following skills policy—find this very difficult.

Although I hanker after a statutory body, because it has the visibility and the power to convene people in a way that something inside the Department for Education never can, what worries me most is the fact that we have reintroduced instability and uncertainty into the skills world at a time when we are also really aware of the huge importance of developing our skills policy and continuing to grow apprenticeships. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I am very concerned by the fact that we have this drop-off in level 2 and 3 and with young people. So I feel that Amendment 15 offers a clear signal to people about when change is coming, which could be extraordinarily helpful to those who are actually involved in developing, amending and delivering standards, and in planning apprenticeships.

Obviously, I was reassured to hear from the Minister that it was unlikely that IfATE powers would be moved immediately, but I have to say that, although that and the direction that Skills England is going in may be clear to her, out there it really is not clear. People are in a complete fog. They are going, “Yes, I’m sure it’s a great idea. What is it? What is happening?” If it could be made really clear to people that there will be a year’s delay before IfATE powers are transferred, at which point Skills England will be in much better shape, everything will be much clearer, and lots of the other things that have to be done will be done, I think that would be really helpful to everybody concerned.

This is not about having something that you put on the statute book but it never happens—which does occur: quite a major clause in the last piece of skills legislation has never been activated. It is not about that. The transfer of functions will be on the statute book, and it will be very clear that this is going to happen, but it will also be clear to people when it is going to happen, and I think that would be enormously helpful.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

It always concerns me that when new Governments come in, they invariably get rid of particular bodies and create their own. For example, the previous Labour Government set up the regional development agencies, which were hugely successful and built up expertise, et cetera. The coalition Government came in, abolished them and set up a different type of organisation, which took literally years to get going and to be as successful as the regional development agencies.

I do not like the phrase “to delay”; I much prefer “to hand over”. When you hand over, the organisation you are handing over to needs time to embed itself, to understand the situation and to work properly. I am not particularly happy about it, but I will live with Skills England being in the department. We are where we are, and if the Government want to do that, they will.

What is important is that, wherever Skills England is, it is successful and works, because we all want that. It will be successful, to my mind, for three reasons: first, its direction, which the Government set; secondly, who is appointed as chair, and the quality of the board; and—probably—thirdly, the opportunity for the various bodies, be they trade unions, the employers or the combined authorities, to give their information, views and thoughts. To use a strange word, I am quite smitten with this proposal, because it works and helps to enhance the Bill, so I will be interested to hear what the Minister says.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I support both the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness. Lady Barran. I will try to keep my remarks brief about Skills England, the aims of which I think we all support, and which are crucial to the Government’s growth strategy and missions, the industrial strategy and all the things we would like to happen. Above all, it must pull together. The Government have talked about a post-16 education and skills strategy, and I assume that Skills England will be at the heart of that.

In order for that to work, Skills England will need to be co-ordinating skills policies and activities across government departments, because every government department needs skills and has shortages; across regions, local areas and nationally, including the devolved nations; across industry sectors; and across policy priorities. The “state of the nation” was probably the wrong phrase: what I am really looking for is, “What difference have we actually made at Skills England in tackling the very real problems that we all recognise in the skills area?” That will happen only if someone is ensuring consistency and synergy between all the complex elements involved—no doubt with a strong need for consensus-building, if not actual knocking of heads together. This lion needs not just to roar, but to have a few teeth. Whether or not it is a statutory body, it should at least have the right authority and powers, and the right chair and CEO. It is disappointing that we do not know who the chair is going to be, although I know the Minister was hoping to be able to let us know before Report.

The Minister mentioned some of the other executive agencies, and it seems to me that none of those—the Met Office or the DVLA—has the breadth of roles, responsibilities and relationships that this body needs to have. Of course, while it is doing that, it has to undertake the practical functions, transferred from IfATE, of preparing standards and apprenticeship assessment plans. It would help if the Government had some time to concentrate on getting Skills England up to speed in all those areas, so that it can build on its encouraging first report and get on with sorting those things out before the IfATE transfer completely overwhelms its capacity. For those reasons, I support Amendment 15, in particular, and will support the noble Baroness if she decides to push it to a vote.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, establishing Skills England is a manifesto commitment. The Prime Minister announced the creation of Skills England in July last year. He set out the Government’s approach to delivering our growth and opportunity missions in the Plan for Change. This change is already under way, and Skills England’s creation is a key part of that change. I set out in the second group of amendments the need for the Government to respond urgently to critical issues within the skills system by establishing Skills England.

For too long, the skills system has not provided enough young people with the right pathways through education and into employment; it has not responded to some of the issues outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf; and it has not provided sufficient roaring or teeth, in order to make sure that we are addressing the need for our skills structures to boost skills, productivity and opportunity. That is why, in Skills England, we are bringing coherence to the skills system, combining new functions with improvements to existing ones.

On the points made about the delay in bringing IfATE’s functions into Skills England, the point of Skills England is that it will enable us to build on the work of IfATE, which, during Committee, I have commended. I have said that I think that really important work has been done there, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, bringing employers into the heart of developing standards and apprenticeships. Nevertheless, the function of IfATE has been narrower than the challenge of skills development now needs. We will be building on the work of IfATE, but putting it in the context of a much larger and more significant organisation that will be able to identify where the gaps are in our skills system; that will be able to work alongside employers, trade unions, providers, local government, the mayoral authorities and others to identify where those gaps are; but that will look to where those gaps will be in the future, and use the functions transferred from IfATE to develop the technical education and apprenticeships to help fill those gaps. It is really important that those two functions operate together.

With Skills England, we are not starting from scratch here, as I have frequently emphasised: Skills England is already operational in shadow form and doing that important work to identify skills gaps. As I spoke about at some length in the previous group, our belief is that the executive agency model for Skills England is the best fit to enable it to get fully operational as soon as possible.

The amendments in this group would, I am afraid, delay the establishment of Skills England. I understand the points being made, but I am more confident about and more ambitious for the speed with which we can move than other noble Lords. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, this is not simply a policy statement; Skills England already exists in shadow form and is engaging with employers. It is already advising the Government and publishing its state of the nation analysis, and it will be facilitated to do that through the bringing across of the functions currently vested in IfATE.

Amendment 9 would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to establish Skills England as a statutory body with a separate legal identity. I might be being picky but, to come back to the description by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and others of Skills England being absorbed within the department, I have gone to some lengths to explain the nature of the arm’s-length body that we are setting up in Skills England as an executive agency and the way it will operate, appropriately independently from the department while still being close enough to feed into important policy developments.

19:30

The amendment also suggests that the transfer of functions that the Secretary of State takes on through this Bill should happen within 12 months. To reiterate, we have carefully considered the range of options for the model that Skills England could take. We have concluded that the executive agency is the most appropriate model, in light of the urgent need to plug skills gaps in key sectors and to unlock economic growth. Setting up Skills England as an executive agency will help us move quickly, which is crucial given the urgency of the skills challenge that we face. It builds in the right level of independence while maintaining proximity to the Department for Education, and enables high levels of transparency about its functions and accountability for its impact.

I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, about the significance of who leads this organisation. I wish that I had been able to give more information today about that leadership. However, I can assure him that, when we are able to announce that, it will give reassurance to noble Lords about the nature and seniority of the leadership of Skills England.

On the point about the review, which I wrote about in the letter that I circulated to noble Lords, it is good practice for new arm’s-length bodies to be reviewed after the start of full operations. I am clear that there should be such a review, led by the Department for Education, within 18 to 24 months of the establishment of Skills England. Such a review will align with the requirements of any future Cabinet Office review programme. It will ensure that Skills England’s functions remain useful and necessary and assess whether there are more efficient and effective alternatives to deliver the Government’s objectives, including consideration of alternative types of arm’s-length body and whether Skills England should be brought on to a statutory basis.

In being open, I am now accused by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, of not being as committed to the executive agency model as in fact I am. I wanted to reassure noble Lords that we will do what is necessary to make sure that Skills England has the right form to continue making the impact that we believe it can make. A commitment to review in this way does not alter our judgment that the executive agency model is the one that we should pursue for Skills England’s urgent work to tackle skills gaps in our economy, and we should therefore proceed on this basis so that we can see a fully formed Skills England take shape as soon as possible.

Amendment 15 would create delay by postponing the commencement of the majority of the Act’s provisions for one year from the date on which Skills England is formally established. That would pause both the transfer of functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State and IfATE’s closure. As I suggested earlier, this amendment would frustrate and delay the transition to Skills England, when I have seen strong support from noble Lords for its work and comments about the need to ensure that it has the impact that everybody has argued for. Peers expressed concern about delay in Committee because of potential damage to the skills agenda during the interim period. Delaying the commencement of provisions would prolong existing confusion and fragmentation, to the detriment of employers, learners and the economy. Furthermore, the amendment would remove control over the exact date on which commencement of the different provisions would occur to an arbitrary, unclear date.

As I stated in Committee, it is our intention that commencement regulations will be made promptly after Royal Assent. We are deliberately and proactively acting to sequence the commencement dates of the different provisions in the Bill so that they are each brought into force at an appropriate point, and we are leaving IfATE’s abolition to the end of that process because there needs to be a legal entity to do some of the processes.

To be clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, we will want to transfer the functions earlier precisely to enable that broader, ambitious task that we are asking Skills England to do—bringing together skills gaps analysis with the ability to develop those qualifications and apprenticeships and the technical education that will fill those gaps. This approach will mitigate risks in the transition from IfATE to the Secretary of State. I hope that I have been able to provide some reassurance. For all the reasons that I have outlined, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her remarks and all noble Lords who have contributed. I was struck, listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, by the length of time it takes to bed in a new agency and the time it took with IfATE. I was reminded of the remarks in Committee of my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith, who quoted one of her colleagues as saying that it was five years before IfATE was taken seriously.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, also talked about sending a clear signal on timings. It sends a clear signal not just on timings but on how seriously the Government take the strategic side of Skills England’s role. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was clear about the complexity of the task that Skills England has to undertake and deliver on. The contrast was fair. It is a very different role from that of the Met Office or the DVLA. I hope I would never accuse the Minister of anything bad; of course it is good practice to review a body, and there are Cabinet Office guidelines on that. She will also understand that it felt odd to read in her letter that one of the options under consideration was to put the agency on a statutory footing, given all the reasons we have heard as to why that is not an option.

I also push back on her criticism that my amendment sets an arbitrary date. She knows much better than I that the Government can redraft my amendment and remove an arbitrary date but keep its spirit. I hope she acknowledges that. The main point she was making was that this amendment will create a delay. There is nothing in it that slows the Government down. In fact, we keep hearing about how Skills England is already operational without any legislation or a CEO, although I suggest that some of the work it has done was picking up on the work of the Unit for Future Skills, which already existed in the department.

The amendment gives the Government space to do a fantastic job in incredibly important policy areas. There are two elements within Skills England. There are some major strategic objectives that it needs to deliver on and some operational functions which today are delivered by IfATE. My amendment gives the Government a year, but if they chose to adopt it they could redraft it. The spirit of this is to give Skills England and its leadership time to get into the detail to prepare the plans and implement them as this country deserves. Therefore, when we get to Amendment 15, I will test the opinion of the House.

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 9.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Amendment 10

Tabled by

[Baroness Barran]

10: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Framework for Skills EnglandThe Secretary of State must—(a) ensure that in performing its functions, Skills England has regard to—(i) the need to ensure that education and training is of an appropriate quality;(ii) the need to ensure that education and training within the remit of Skills England represents good value in relation to financial resources provided out of public funds;(b) ensure that Skills England performs its functions efficiently and effectively;(c) give notice in writing to Skills England when setting out other matters to which it must have regard when performing its functions;(d) publish, in such a manner as they think fit, any notice under paragraph (c), and lay a copy of it before Parliament;(e) require Skills England to prepare, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year, an annual report which includes—(i) a description of what Skills England has done during the year, including a description of what Skills England has done as a result of any notice given by the Secretary of State under paragraph (c);(ii) such other provision as the Secretary of State may direct;(f) lay a copy of the annual report under paragraph (e) before Parliament.”

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I have had reassurance from the Minister that she will accept the three points that I raised around quality, value for money, and efficiency and effectiveness—or whatever were the words that we used. On that basis, I committed earlier that I would not move Amendment 10.

Amendment 10 not moved.

Amendment 11

Moved by

[Lord Ravensdale]

11: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on green skillsSix months after the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report assessing how they plan to carry out the functions transferred to them under this Act to support development of medium- and long-term green skills needed in order contribute to—(a) the achievement of the targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,(b) the achievement of the targets set under Sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021, and(c) the adaptation to current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer for AtkinsRéalis and as a director of Peers for the Planet.

My two amendments in this group address the two issues I raised in Committee. I will first cover the need for a duty on Skills England regarding the critical area of green skills, which is covered by Amendment 11. Given the scale of the skills needed to address the challenge of turning the UK into a clean energy superpower, and the challenging targets that we have—the national strategic goals of climate mitigation and adaptation—many Peers have been pressing for a long time to put in place a national strategy for responding to these skills needs. We had some welcome progress with the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, when the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, agreed an amendment with the Government for a climate duty on the development of local skills improvement plans.

What was missing was that overarching strategy. We all welcomed the formation of Skills England to begin plugging those gaps. I am very grateful to the Minister and her team for their collaborative approach in response to this amendment, which we raised in Committee, to include the delivery of our climate and nature targets within Skills England’s remit. Having this in the framework document for Skills England, given the constraints of the legislation, will ensure that this national strategic goal is woven into Skills England’s approach and that the good work already going on at local level through the LSIPs can be knitted together. We have had some really good feedback on the LSIPs and how they are working, but the missing piece is that integration. What the Government are doing with the framework document will help to address that. It will take things to that next step of integration, so I am very grateful to the Minister.

Amendment 12 is based on an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in Committee. I recall the noble Lord saying that we all support devolution and its goals but that we start to create joins that did not exist previously and that we have somehow to find a way of joining those bits back together, whether with a regional or sectoral approach.

The key point of the amendment is to ensure that Skills England delivers for areas without a devolution deal. This is based on my experience in the Midlands, which I set out in detail in Committee and will not repeat here. I thank the Minister and her team for committing to include within the framework document that Skills England will address those regional skills gaps. This is important for ensuring that Skills England delivers for all areas across the UK. I look forward to further detail on how that will be implemented. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, the policy is the easy bit; the implementation is the challenge.

On a related point, this highlights the importance of a regional view for skills to ensure that there is that coherent delivery of skills for key priorities. The regions are the right level to do that. In my industry, the nuclear industry, we could in the Midlands consider, for example, just what Derby needs for submarine nuclear reactors and small modular reactors. We could consider separately what West Burton needs for STEP fusion and what Birmingham needs for nuclear components. However, we can do so much more with a regionally integrated skills picture to avoid that duplication and to ensure that we share that knowledge and expertise on skills development. That is why we have set up Midlands Nuclear and the Midlands hub for nuclear skills to take that regional view.

19:45

Building on that, as the Minister knows, we currently have pan-regional partnerships, which are set up to take that regional view. They do a lot of good work on skills, but there is an ongoing consultation on government proposals to remove funding from those organisations. As I have explained, my concern is that this will leave us without that regional view, which will detract from skills provision and many other areas. I urge the Government to think through the impact of these proposals to remove funding from pan-regional partnerships on skills and on similar areas where a regional view is needed. Also, I urge them to ensure that regional bodies continue in some form and do that knitting together that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, talked about. I beg to move.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I support and echo what the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, said, particularly on local and regional skills. It is important that our growth strategy is linked to the skills that we need in that growth and to existing provision.

I was quite worried about the Chancellor’s recent announcement about growth, and it makes my point. It very much centred on the south-east. Merseyside has a thriving pharmaceutical industry, and some of our focus on skills is directed towards that industry. We also have the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, which is funded quite considerably by Bill Gates. Suddenly, we hear that AstraZeneca, on which we have an Urgent Question tomorrow, is pulling out because there is insufficient money. The Government need to be sensitive to requirements not just for growth across the whole nation but for how we can use the importance of particular sectors in our regions and localities.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I very much support Amendments 11 and 12, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and welcome the approach that he has taken. It feels so practical and so grounded in his own experience, with that focus on planning and implementation, as he mentioned. It also highlights the sophisticated choices that need to be made in skills policy between what is needed locally, regionally and nationally. It sounds as though the Minister has already been listening, but I hope that she can give the House further reassurance that she will take these amendments very seriously.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his amendments and for the conversations we have had about the reasoning behind them, which I accept. We had a meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on this issue as well. He is right to draw attention to these two very important issues, namely the crucial need to boost the availability of green skills and the need to ensure that high-quality training is available to—and designed in line with the needs of—all parts of the country.

As set out in the Invest 2035 Green Paper, published ahead of the forthcoming industrial strategy, delivering long-term sustainable growth is inextricably linked to our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. It is critical that the skills system is set up in the right way to deliver on this mission. I will return to that in a moment. Meanwhile, our English Devolution White Paper makes clear the Government’s commitment to spread growth and opportunity to all parts of the country and sets out the route to delivering much-needed change. It will not be possible to deliver on these priorities without building the evidence on the scale and nature of green skills needs in the economy and ensuring that there is a comprehensive suite of training that aligns with the identified needs and is available for people to access up and down the country. Therefore, Skills England must have a central role in driving the change that is needed on both issues the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, has highlighted. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to set out in more detail the work that Skills England will do—and indeed has already begun—in this space, and hope that this will be sufficient to persuade the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

Amendment 12 would create a duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, within six months of the passing of the Act, a report which assesses the co-ordination of local skills improvement plans, assesses the impact of the functions transferred to the Secretary of State on those parts of the country without a devolution deal and determines the scope and level of investment of the growth and skills offer in meeting national, regional and local priorities.

As set out in Skills England’s first report, working together with partners on the ground to ensure that regional and national skills needs are met is a central function of Skills England. While in shadow form, Skills England is already working closely with a range of key organisations at local and regional level to ensure that we are laying the foundations for joined-up decision-making and information sharing, which will ensure that we develop the highly skilled workforce that our economy needs in all parts of the country.

Skills England is collaborating with mayoral strategic authorities, as well as local government in areas which do not yet have devolution arrangements, to shape the delivery of skills provision. It is also working with a wide range of regional organisations, such as employer representative bodies, to help them contribute to the construction of skills systems that reflect and feed into both local and national priorities. As noble Lords have mentioned, local skills improvement plans support this objective by providing an ongoing mechanism through which local employers, strategic authorities, providers and other stakeholders come together to identify and resolve skills needs and issues. LSIPs will be overseen by Skills England, helping to ensure that all parties play their part and take action where needed, such as increased support through dedicated relationship managers.

I take the point made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, that there is a complexity in the relationship between the national priority setting and action, and the regional and local environment. We have already worked on this and I commit to ensure that we work further. Skills England is clear about the way in which it will create co-ordination between those levels, particularly with respect to those areas which do not have some of the devolved arrangements that, for example, the mayoral areas have.

Our reformed growth and skills offer will enable employers to fund training that meets priority skills needs identified by Skills England, in addition to apprenticeships, recognising the importance that high-quality work-based learning has in our skills system. The new offer will be aligned with the industrial strategy, creating routes into good, skilled jobs in growing industries, such as construction, digital and green skills.

It is by drawing on evidence from, and working with partners across, the system that Skills England is developing—and will continue to develop and publish—authoritative analyses of national and local skills needs. In its first report, Driving Growth and Widening Opportunities, published last September, it provides an assessment of the key skills challenges that limit growth and opportunity, and an initial assessment of the skills needs in the economy. Building on that, Skills England will publish a further report in early 2025, providing more detailed sector-specific skills assessments and analysis of the agreed set of priority sectors defined by the industrial strategy.

Given the centrality of the local and regional dimension to Skills England’s work, the public reporting and governance arrangements I have described previously—those being a published framework document, the annual report and corporate plan—would include an assessment of its impact on delivery against these aims, including in respect of LSIPs, areas not yet covered by devolution deals and the growth and skills offer. It is for this reason that I hope that the noble Lord will feel that his amendment would duplicate the existing reporting requirements that I have outlined and is therefore unnecessary in light of those requirements.

Amendment 11 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report on how, in their use of functions transferred to them, they are supporting the development of green skills. Extensive work to identify and address current and future green skills needs is being prioritised under this Government to ensure that the UK workforce is prepared to deliver the clean energy superpower mission. Reporting on green skills has already started, ahead of Skills England being fully established. Skills England published an initial assessment in its first report in September of last year, which included a description of the scale of the challenge and some of the key skills needs of the green economy, as well as those specific to clean energy. Skills England will build on this in its second report, which will provide sector-specific skills assessment of priority sectors, including the eight growth-driving sectors identified in the Government’s industrial strategy and those pivotal to delivering the Government’s missions, notably net zero and clean energy.

In recognition of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and acknowledging the importance of green skills and meeting necessary climate targets, I will ensure that the Skills England framework document includes specific reference to Skills England’s role in developing green skills. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has already noted that we have included that in the framework document—albeit not quite in the terminology that the noble Baroness would have wanted to see. In respect of Skills England’s local and regional work, I would also expect information on its work on green skills to be included in the annual report and corporate plan that Skills England will be required to publish, given its vital importance. The Department for Education is already required by the Environment Act 2021 to report on progress on green skills through the annual carbon budgets delivery audit.

As such, I hope the existing requirements and the commitments I have made here in respect of green skills will be sufficient to deliver on the aims of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, which I do support and have been pleased to engage with him on. For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that the noble Lord will be assured of the Government’s commitment to these vital issues and that he will therefore see fit to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say, and I am very pleased with what she said. There was a lot of reassurance on areas without a devolution deal, particularly within the reporting requirements for Skills England and how it will engage with regional and local bodies, which answered the original intent of my amendment.

We have reached an excellent compromise on green skills as well. Having the detail in the framework document —the way it has been mapped out, particularly in referencing our targets—is a really important step forward to properly integrate it with the delivery of green skills and our climate and environment targets.

I thank the Minister again for her approach and collaboration in the meetings she has undertaken with us to get to this position. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

Amendment 12 not moved.

Clause 9: Power to make consequential provision

Amendment 13

Tabled by

[Lord Addington]

13: Clause 9, page 4, line 11, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (6),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Addington ensures that all new statutory instruments made in the six months following the passing of the Act must follow affirmative procedures.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I have realised that both amendments in my name have been covered by previous discussions. On those grounds, I will not move them.

Amendment 13 not moved.

Amendment 14 not moved.

Clause 11: Commencement

Amendment 15

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

15: Clause 11, page 4, line 22, leave out “on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint” and insert “at the end of the period of one year beginning on the day on which Skills England is created”

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

20:01

Division 3

Ayes: 183

Noes: 127

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Amendments

Welsh legislative consent granted.

20:13

Motion on Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.

1: Clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 4 to 8

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group and to the Motions tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Blencathra.

I am delighted to be back in the Chamber debating this important legislation. I thank all noble Lords for their continued interest in this Bill. In recent weeks I have met noble Lords from across the House to discuss changes made to the Bill during its passage through the other place, and I am grateful for the insightful questions and views shared with me and my officials in advance of our debate today. I am also grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for accompanying me on an interesting day we spent at two emergency overflows operated by Anglian Water. Although Clause 2 is no longer in scope of our discussions on the Bill, I hope the noble Duke found his visit helpful in bringing to life some of the issues we considered during previous debates.

I turn to today’s debate and to the first group of amendments that the House must consider. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, for the very constructive way in which they have worked with me and my officials to strengthen the Bill during its passage through this House. Although I am sure the noble Lords were somewhat disappointed to see the Commons overturn their amendments, which were voted into the Bill at Lords Report stage, I am grateful to them for meeting me over the past weeks and months to discuss the reasons why and to try to find alternative means of realising the intent behind their amendments.

I will now take some time to share the key points from these discussions with other noble Lords here today. Commons Amendment 1 removes from Clause 1 the requirement for Ofwat to set rules on the reporting of water company finances. This requirement was removed because it would duplicate existing processes and requirements set out within water company licences, which I will briefly summarise now.

Water companies are already required under their licences to publish, by a set date, financial performance metrics within their annual performance reports. These metrics include interest on their borrowings, financial flows and an analysis of their debt. Condition F requires water companies to keep appropriate accounting records, while condition P requires them to report material financial issues to Ofwat and includes restrictions on dividend payments. If water companies do not comply with these licence conditions, Ofwat can take enforcement action, including issuing fines.

I hope that noble Lords can therefore see why additional, detailed financial reporting requirements, such as those that would be introduced as a result of Motion 1A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, would not be a necessary addition to the Bill. However, having further discussed the intention behind the previous amendment with the noble Lord, the Government now understand that he has been seeking more transparent and accessible reporting on the key financial metrics. Indeed, I believe that this is what Amendment 1B, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, seeks to do.

Ensuring that key financial information is presented in a format that is easy for the public to understand is vital, particularly if we are to rebuild public trust in the sector, and we agree with the noble Lord that there is room for improvement in making financial data more accessible. From studying a range of water company financial reports, it is evident that some water companies provide information much more clearly than others, so to achieve our shared objective to improve accessibility, in recent weeks my officials have worked closely with Ofwat and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to identify the most effective way of ensuring that data on water company finances is presented in a simple format. The Government and Ofwat believe that this outcome can be achieved through the use of water company annual performance reports, which must be produced in line with Ofwat’s regulatory accounting guidelines.

As previously outlined, Ofwat requires companies to keep appropriate accounting records through licence conditions. Crucially, Ofwat can also specify how this information is presented through its regulatory accounting guidelines. Ofwat is due to consult on changes to these guidelines this year, which will provide an opportunity to update how financial information is presented in annual performance reports. These updates could include, for example, a requirement for a summary table of financial information, such as debt levels and financial restructuring, among other things, to be presented at the front of the report, all on one page.

Using Ofwat’s regulatory accounting guidelines ensures flexibility and means that requirements around data presentation can be updated to reflect changes in the public’s priorities and interests. Ofwat can also use its guidelines to help ensure consistent presentation of financial information across all water companies’ reports. Updating these guidelines would quickly and effectively achieve the objective that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, seeks to achieve.

I understand that other noble Lords across the House also want to see improved transparency around water company financial reporting, and I encourage noble Lords to think about how we can most effectively achieve this outcome. We believe that a dynamic approach using existing powers, rather than a non-specific legislative requirement, would be more effective because it can respond to the changing needs and expectations of the public.

If the House agrees with the Government’s proposed approach, Ofwat stands ready to consult on the necessary changes to its reporting guidelines and the change will be made in time for the 2025-26 annual performance reports to be published. However, I am not able to ask Ofwat to proceed with this approach if water companies are separately required to meet a new legislative obligation. Therefore, I kindly ask all noble Lords to carefully consider the options I have outlined here today.

I now turn to Commons Amendment 2, which removed the requirement for rules made by Ofwat under Clause 1 to be brought into force by statutory instrument and within six months of the Act coming into force. I will take this opportunity to speak to Motion 2A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which does the reverse. As the noble Lord is aware, the Government understand the need to ensure that Ofwat’s rules are brought forward as soon as possible. Indeed, that is why the Government tabled Commons Amendments 5 to 7, which collectively will ensure that the duty on Ofwat in Clause 1 to make rules commences on Royal Assent.

Motion 2A would require publication of Ofwat’s rules within six months of this Act coming into force. This timing obligation is rendered unnecessary as a result of Commons Amendments 5 to 7, which amend the commencement provisions for Clause 1 so that Ofwat will now have a statutory duty to issue the rules without significant delay following Royal Assent. I hope noble Lords can understand why we believe that this aspect of Motion 2A is no longer appropriate. I am also pleased to report to the House that Ofwat has been making good progress towards developing its rules and had already completed its initial policy consultation at the end of 2024.

The other key element of Motion 2A requires that rules made by Ofwat under Clause 1 be brought into force by statutory instrument. Existing powers in the Water Industry Act 1991 for Ofwat to make rules adopt the same approach to scrutiny as in Clause 1 and do not require confirmation by statutory instrument. Further, I am concerned that the additional scrutiny process in Motion 2A would lead to a delay in bringing the rules into force. I have also previously outlined that this additional legislative process risks compromising the independence of Ofwat, which must be protected. The necessary secondary legislation would also need to be prepared by government, and therefore represents significant government interference in the independent regulatory process. This kind of interference has the potential to have adverse impacts on investor confidence and confidence in the regulatory regime.

I also note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has reviewed and reported on the appropriateness of all powers in the Bill, excluding the new clause on support schemes, and did not recommend additional parliamentary scrutiny of Ofwat’s rule-making processes. While the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, does not necessarily agree with the Government on this point, I know we agree on the intention behind the amendment, which is to ensure that parliamentarians have sufficient oversight of Ofwat’s rules.

On that basis, my officials have worked with the team of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and Ofwat to find an alternative way of providing parliamentarians with the opportunity to scrutinise Ofwat’s rules. I am pleased to say that, as a result of this collaborative approach, Ofwat has offered to hold a drop-in session in Parliament where it will answer questions on its proposed rules on remuneration and governance. This session would provide all interested Peers and MPs with the opportunity to ask Ofwat questions about the rules and raise any concerns before they are finalised.

Ofwat has provided a draft of a letter stating its intention to hold this drop-in session and stands ready to finalise and issue this letter to formalise its commitment to doing so should the House be supportive of this approach. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in light of what I have just laid out, to reconsider whether his Motion is now needed. As I am sure he would understand, Ofwat cannot reasonably be expected to offer its drop-in session if additional, legislative processes are required in this space.

I once again thank the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, for their continued and thoughtful scrutiny of the Bill and for drawing attention to areas where improvements could be made and on which the Government have responded, as I have laid out. I hope the noble Lords, and indeed all noble Lords across this House, will see that the alternative proposals put forward by the Government and Ofwat present a more effective means of achieving the intended outcomes. On that basis, I hope that both noble Lords feel able to not press their Motions. I beg to move.

Motion 1A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 1)

Moved by

[Lord Cromwell]

1A: Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 1 and do propose Amendment 1B to the words so restored to the Bill—

1B: Clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert “, and to present such information on structuring and debt prominently, including on the website of the undertaker, in a format that can be readily accessed and understood, including by bill payers.””

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion 1A and Amendment 1B together and would like to put on record how very grateful I have been for the discussions with the Minister and her team, her recent letter to all Peers about my amendment and the nice things she has said today—although I thought there was a bit of a threat to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, at the end there.

Although there is much that we agree on in principle, and what the Minister has outlined today is not obstructed in any way by Motion 1A and Amendment 1B, it is my firm belief that the amendment as presented today in Motion 1A and Amendment 1B, in plain language, needs to be included in the Bill. I suggested that the Government bring forward their own amendment setting out what she has suggested today, but they have chosen not to do so.

The original amendment required water companies to report annually on their financial structuring or restructuring and their debt levels and associated risks. I therefore regret its deletion by the Commons which, as I will address in a moment, perhaps misunderstood the need for and purpose of the amendment. That is why I have added the further wording at Amendment 1B to ensure that the information is sufficiently prominent and accessible.

The background to the amendment remains the same. The water industry and, in particular, several companies within it have both failed to invest sufficiently and got into financial difficulties because of distorted financial engineering, including overloading with debt and what I might politely call accounting sleight of hand. This has come to light not because of the regulator Ofwat, which went along with these corporate behaviours either because it simply did not understand them or, so long as the water kept flowing and the prices were low, chose not to look closely at what was going on. What was going on was an almost complete failure to invest at anything like the rate that was needed to secure a sustainable water and sewerage management system, while at the same time extracting moneys conveniently rebadged so that they were not classed as dividends. It was not Ofwat that blew the whistle on this but rather civil society, individuals and some in the media. The Industry and Regulators Committee of this House, on which I had the honour to serve, also played a part in highlighting the matter in its critical report on the water industry.

Noble Lords will be familiar with the rest: polluted rivers, excessive executive bonuses and some water companies close to bankruptcy. Once the scale of underinvestment came to light, we were told that the water companies would raise money from investors and the City to catch up—albeit over a 25-year period—on the neglect of the water and sewerage infrastructure, but we have seen that protestation fail to reach anything like the scale of money needed. Indeed, in the case of Thames Water, different classes of bondholders have fallen out with each other and the company is in court seeking £3 billion more of expensive debt, in part from hedge funds, to add to its existing £19 billion of debt, to which should be added an estimated bill of £800 million to £900 million in interest by next year.

20:30

Further, Thames Water has estimated that its legal bill alone is running at £15 million per month and openly stated that restructuring is expected, the advice costs for which will take the bill for that restructuring to above £200 million. Meanwhile, groups of MPs are writing letters urging that the company be taken into special administration. I will leave it there, as the matter is now in the courts. However, I see that the company claims that these costs will not be passed on to customers. I can note only that its experience to date of raising investor money, as we were promised, has not been nearly successful enough. The water companies are now imposing, with Ofwat’s agreement, very substantial increases in water rates for bill payers, who have no choice but to pay up or somehow learn to live without water.

All this was able to take place because information on financial structuring and debt accumulation lurked, if at all, in the back pages of large and complex annual reports. I recently read the most recent annual report of one water company which has financial engineering and debt issues. There was no reference to that in the chairman’s report or in the chief executive’s report—surely, the two people who should take ownership of such matters. Finally, more than 100 pages in, I found a single line in the financial report that stated just one figure as the amount of debt. In subsequent discussions with the Minister’s team, I was presented with what was felt to be a better annual report from another water company. On a page heavy with small print, there was indeed a small diagram of its ownership structure, but where was this? It was on page 108.

Motion 1A and Amendment 1B are simple. They require that, once a year, the financial structuring and debt of the water company are reported in a prominent and clear way that is understandable by bill payers and civil society, who are not equipped with expensive forensic accountants to dig out and explain what lies beneath. Noble Lords will remember that the original amendment was strongly supported in this House but, although praised in the Commons by several speakers as sensible and valuable, it has been removed. On what grounds was that? The grounds were that the information required is already in the annual reports—albeit buried many fathoms deep, as I highlighted just now—and that its repetition might cause confusion. Those making this argument have maybe never heard of key facts being repeated in an executive summary. I fear they must also be rather easily confused.

I have been told that the information the amendment requires is already in the annual reports but, at the same time, that regulatory guidelines mean we cannot include this information. I am sorry, but it cannot be both already included in the reports, albeit almost impossible to find, and not possible to include. That is a direct contradiction. It is also simply not credible that a company cannot make the information more prominently or intelligibly displayed in its reporting, rather than folded away after 100 or so pages. I know that the Minister agrees with me on this, hence her proposal just now. For clarity, I should finally point out that the amendment proposed requires the company to report annually on its financial engineering and debt; it does not specify that this has to be in the annual report.

I say again that I, like all in this House, have enormous respect for the Minister. I am genuinely very grateful to her for the courteous discussions we have had and again for her suggestions today, but this is not about good will between transitory individuals. It is about ensuring within the Bill public transparency to assist society and regulators in holding more effectively to account the companies entrusted with what is, after all, the most vital resource we all need to survive. They need that simple, publicly accessible check on the factors that have brought them to their current mess—not after a further review or by words from the Dispatch Box, but now. I will listen with care to what the Minister says but I believe that, before the matter passes out of our hands, I may need to ask this House to ask the Commons to think again on this. I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion 1A by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to amend Commons Amendment 1, and my own Motion to disagree with Commons Amendment 2. Before I begin, my noble friend Lord Roborough and I remain very grateful to the Minister for her excellent engagement and spirit of openness throughout the discussions on this Bill. We are also grateful to her excellent team of officials, who have been very helpful throughout. Where we have agreed, there has been fruitful progress and where we have disagreed, I hope that we have done so constructively.

I speak first in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, who has argued convincingly for improved financial reporting and transparency by water companies. We support his amendment. On Report, the noble Lord explained:

“This amendment is not complex or onerous, but it is vital. It requires simply that water companies report annually on their financial structuring, debt levels and any associated risks”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. 236.]


He emphasised the need for this to be set out in plain language and prominently displayed.

We all know that debt levels in the water industry are simply too high. Last year, the BBC reported that water companies have a combined debt level of £60 billion; the cost of servicing that debt has grown significantly in recent years. Most notably, Thames Water faces serious financial difficulties. Although the Government have previously argued that the noble Lord’s amendment is duplicative, his Motion today makes his objective even clearer. Yes, existing reporting requirements are already in place for water companies but we know that they are not working. Stronger reporting and transparency requirements are a step in the right direction.

The Minister has accepted that debt levels are being monitored by Ofwat already. On Report, she conceded that

“more can be done to ensure that debt levels are more closely monitored in future”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. 249.]

We agree with her; more can be done, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has given us that opportunity today. The official Opposition will support him in his Motion, if he chooses to test the opinion of the House.

Turning to the Motion in my name, I am seeking to restore the wording of my noble friend Lord Roborough’s amendment to the Bill following the decision in the other place to remove it. The Bill as drafted allows Ofwat to set rules on water company governance and remuneration for executives without appropriate oversight. Our Motion would ensure that the first rules are provided to the Secretary of State by Ofwat and put before Parliament through the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments.

I am grateful to the Minister for sharing the Ofwat letter with us but, if I may say so, it is a wee bit feeble. A drop-in session for Members of Parliament is not enough. Parliament, without being arrogant about it, deserves the right to greater scrutiny than that.

My noble friend Lord Roborough’s Motion strikes at the heart of what is wrong with our water industry today: the failure of our regulator to tackle problems in the sector and the inability of Ministers to intervene on the independent regulator.

In opposing our Motion, the Government have effectively argued that Ministers and Parliament do not need additional powers to hold the regulator to account. At the same time, Ministers have told us that whole regulatory framework of our water industry needs to be reviewed, and have already started work on that review. So, which is it? Either the water industry is not properly regulated, and therefore Ministers and Parliament need appropriate powers and processes to challenge and scrutinise the regulator, or the sector is regulated well, and these powers are not necessary.

The Minister said that the Government say that they do not want to interfere with the independence of Ofwat, but I was under the impression given by the long-term review that the Government intend to interfere in a mega way and possibly scrap Ofwat. The Government have recognised that the sector is not regulated as well as it needs to be, so it follows that we should put additional oversight in place.

I do not think we can wait for the Government’s review to conclude. Ofwat is not performing as it should, and this House should have a role in scrutinising its plans under this Bill. I believe our Motion delivers that much-needed scrutiny, and I intend to test the opinion of the House when my Motion is called.

[Lord Remnant (Con)]

I declare my interest, having been a non-executive director of Severn Trent, the largest of the listed water companies, for eight years between 2014 and 2022, chairing the board’s remuneration committee during that time.

I support Motion 2A in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and will address the reasons given by the Minister in the other place, and essentially repeated just now by the Minister, for objecting to the clauses this Motion this seeks to reinsert. Those reasons are that the additional process of requiring an SI risks compromising Ofwat’s independence, that it would represent significant government interference in the independent regulatory process, and that that kind of interference could have adverse effects on investor confidence.

These arguments have little merit. Ofwat is a government department, and the Secretary of State is responsible for appointing, and has the power to remove, the chair and members of the board. In no way is Ofwat independent of government; nor can the Government escape association with and responsibility for the rules generated by Ofwat, and their consequences. Ofwat is directly accountable to Parliament. If that is so, why should it not account to us for these rules when drafted?

In any event, independence is a red herring when considering the impact on investor confidence. Investors will focus on the rules themselves and their effect on the ability to attract and retain management, and so on the investability of the water sector. In this, they have legitimate cause for concern. The Government are choosing to abrogate their responsibility in this area to Ofwat—an economic regulator, the core competence of which is certainly not the setting of rules on remuneration, and for which it is unsuited.

There are already signs that Ofwat’s approach will be unduly punitive, particularly regarding its retrospective application. However, I thank the Minister for her letter to me at the end of last November following Report, when she confirmed that Ofwat would look closely at the impact retrospectivity has on long-term incentive plans, but the intent was for the provision to cover performance for the 2024-25 financial year onwards only.

None the less, taken as a whole, these rules may discourage the best people from working in the industry, restricting water companies in rewarding good performance and, which is just as important, penalising poor performance. They are likely to force companies away from bonuses and long-term incentive schemes linked to performance, towards a compensating increase in fixed pay. Thames Water has already indicated that this is the line it is likely to take, and others will surely follow. Is this really the result we want to achieve? At the very least, Parliament should have the opportunity to consider the proposed rules and assess for itself the potentially damaging impact on future investment in the sector.

The scale of investment required to clean up our waterways and rebuild our broken water infrastructure is unprecedented. Institutions have a choice of where they invest. In such a heavily regulated sector, they will make a critical assessment of the quality of management tasked with the delivery of the financial plans underpinning that essential capital programme. If Ofwat gets it wrong, it risks starving the water sector of the investment it desperately requires and which all noble Lords wish to see. At best, it will increase the returns investors demand, with the cost inevitably passed on to consumers.

Given the stakes, it must surely be right that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise and approve the relevant rules before they come into effect, so I am very much in favour of Motion 2A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I have listened closely to what the Minister has said this evening, but the opportunity for noble Lords to ask questions in a drop-in session is a poor substitute for further parliamentary scrutiny.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, on his work. I will briefly lend my support to my noble friend Lord Blencathra and put a question to the Minister in regard to the letter that she sent to us on 31 January, where she says that she wishes

“to give parliamentarians the opportunity to engage with Ofwat”,

but she prefers “alternative, non-legislative means”. It is more appropriate to put this in the Bill, as in our original amendment. I urge the Minister to respond favourably, in that regard, to Motion 2A.

20:45

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak at this stage of the Bill, which is ping-pong, not Report. I was satisfied with the progress we made on the Bill while it was completing its passage in this Chamber before going off to the other place. I am naturally disappointed that the amendments we voted on were removed. However, I understand the rationale for this. I am grateful to the Minister for her time, and that of her officials, in providing a briefing ahead of ping-pong. This helped to set the scene for moving forward.

From the outset, the Government made it clear that the Water (Special Measures) Bill was the first step in a series of changes that the Government were considering to improve the water industry generally. Yesterday morning, I attended a briefing with Sir Jon Cunliffe, who is chairing the water commission, which is looking into a wide range of aspects of the water industry on behalf of the Government. The water commission will call for evidence towards the end of this month, and a period when submissions will be made and received will follow. At the right time, Sir Jon will publish his report. At that stage, there will no doubt be a series of debates and discussions around the recommendations contained in that report.

Given that the Government’s stated aim is to look at the water industry in its entirety, I believe that there is wisdom in waiting for the water commission to report, so that we can see where the Water (Special Measures) Bill fits into that scenario. We could then understand how the pieces of the jigsaw fit together and have a more complete picture of how the water industry is to be taken forward for the benefit of both the consumer and the water companies as a whole.

Turning to Motions 1A and Amendment 1B, in lieu of government Amendment 1, I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to have transparency and clarity over the issue of water company debt. He is looking for this to be in the Bill. It is not acceptable for water companies to hide their level of debt in the depths of their financial reports, where it is unlikely that many water bill payers will be able to find it. Transparency is essential for consumers to grasp the level of debt that water companies are carrying. If the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is not satisfied with the Minister’s response this evening and decides to test the opinion of the House, these Benches will support him.

Motion 2A, from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which seeks to amend the government Motion on Amendment 2, would require the Secretary of State to bring in regulations relating to Ofwat via statutory instrument. The use of statutory instruments to bring in legislation is a slow, cumbersome and not very transparent way of moving forward; perhaps that is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. These Benches did not support the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, when he moved his original amendment on Report. We welcome the Minister’s commitment that Ofwat will hold drop-in sessions, and we will not support the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, today.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their further contributions to this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Blencathra, for providing further detail around their concerns. I would like to make it clear that the Government have carefully considered all non-government amendments tabled throughout the passage of the Bill, and that, where we agree with the intent behind a given amendment, we have worked hard to find an appropriate way forward.

It is in that spirit that I reviewed Motion 1A and Amendment 1B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. As previously explained, the Government agree that it is of utmost importance to ensure that members of the public can easily access and understand information on water company finances. However, I do not agree that the approach proposed by Motion 1 A and Amendment 1B is the most effective way of achieving this outcome. I am disappointed that, after considerable engagement on the Government’s alternative approach, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is still dissatisfied with the suggested way forward.

The noble Lord has previously spoken to me about the need to specify how data is presented. I want to be clear that the specific metrics that he wants to see in reports are already required to be included through licence conditions. Indeed, he has pointed that out himself; the information appears in the annual Water Company Performance Report. What is missing, and what we agree with him on, is better formatting and clearer presentation with this information readily available right at the front of these reports, which is exactly what we propose can be achieved through regulatory accounting guidelines.

The noble Lord’s amendments require only that the data is presented in a format that can be “readily accessed and understood”, which is arguably open to interpretation by water companies. Having listened closely to him, we agree that data should be presented in this way, but the approach proposed by government would be more specific and could include, as I mentioned before, a summary table of financial information right at the front of the annual Water Company Performance Report. As such, while I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House, I maintain the view that primary legislation is not the most effective means by which to achieve the intended outcome. I therefore urge Members of the House to support Commons Amendment 1 and the non-legislative proposal put forward by government and Ofwat.

I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, for continuing to raise the need for sufficient parliamentary oversight of Ofwat’s rules. These rules will be central in driving improvements in the culture of water companies, which of course we all want to see. As such, it is right that we, as parliamentarians, do what we can to ensure the rules are robust, without compromising the regulatory independence of Ofwat. That is why I was pleased to receive Ofwat’s offer of a drop-in session, which would give noble Lords and MPs an opportunity to further understand and raise concerns on the rules before they are finalised. I therefore urge all members of the House to support Commons Amendment 2 and enable Ofwat to move forward with arrangements for that session.

To finish, I reiterate that the Government strongly agree with the need to ensure increased transparency and accessibility of water company data and ensure sufficient scrutiny of Ofwat’s rules on remuneration and governance. I believe that the approaches that I have outlined today demonstrate the commitment of government and Ofwat to effectively and comprehensively address the concerns raised by noble Lords on these topics. I therefore ask that all noble Lords support Commons Amendments 1 and 2 and, in conjunction, the non-legislative proposals put forward by the Government.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, the hour is late. I thank the Minister for her kind, helpful and almost persuasive words. I do not think that anything that she has proposed is precluded by my amendment—in fact, it could be a way of implementing it. Had I put it down in such detail, I would have been told that it was too prescriptive. However, for the reasons I set out earlier, I am afraid that my amendment needs to be in the Bill, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

20:53

Division 4

Ayes: 168

Noes: 112

21:03

Motion on Amendment 2

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2.

2: Clause 1, page 4, line 33, leave out subsections (5) and (6)

Motion 2A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 2)

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

2A: Leave out “agree” and insert “disagree”.

21:04

Division 5

Ayes: 123

Noes: 117

21:15

Motion on Amendment 3

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 3.

3: Clause 10, page 15, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
“(a) sections 205A and 205B of the Water Industry Act 1991 (pollution incident
reduction plans and implementation reports),”

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak also to Commons Amendments 4 to 9.

I will begin by speaking to Commons Amendments 5 to 7, which amend the commencement provisions for Clause 1. These amendments will see Ofwat’s duty to set rules on remuneration and governance brought into force on Royal Assent, rather than through the use of commencement regulations. This emphasises the Government’s expectation that Ofwat’s rules should be in place as soon as possible following Royal Assent, as well as providing greater certainty to Ofwat and water companies as to when Ofwat’s duty will come into force.

I know that many noble Lords—in particular the noble Lord, Lord Roborough—previously spoke to the importance of ensuring that Ofwat’s rules on remuneration and governance will be set promptly after Royal Assent. I hope that these amendments provide further reassurance that the Government expect these rules to be brought forward at pace, and I hope that the House is supportive of them.

Commons Amendment 3 is another minor and technical amendment, this time to Clause 10. It ensures that the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales’s cost recovery powers are broad enough to enable the recovery of costs associated with the enforcement of the requirement on water companies to produce implementation reports.

Noble Lords will recall that this requirement was added to Clause 2 on Report following calls from across this House to strengthen requirements around the implementation of measures set out in water company pollution incident reduction plans. However, an expansion in the regulators’ cost recovery powers—as set out in Clause 10—was not enabled at the same stage, which left a potential funding gap. Commons Amendment 3 addresses the gap, ensuring that the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales can recover all costs associated with the enforcement of the new requirements introduced by Clause 2.

Commons Amendment 3 also clarifies that cost recovery powers concerning pollution incident reduction plans and the implementation reports are available for plans covering areas that are wholly or mainly in Wales, as well as plans covering England. I again hope that noble Lords will feel able to support this amendment, which will help to ensure the regulators can carry out their enforcement duties and functions effectively.

I will speak now to Commons Amendment 4, which introduces a new clause to the Bill, and Commons Amendment 8, which is consequential to Commons Amendment 4. During the Bill’s passage through this House, many noble Lords voiced concerns about vulnerable customers and their ability to absorb forthcoming increases in their water bills. I thank all noble Lords who shared their views on this critical matter, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who worked with her team to ensure that the discussion continued in the other place.

I reassure the House that the Government absolutely recognise and share these concerns. That is why the Government introduced Commons Amendments 4 and 8, which add to existing powers for water companies to provide for special charging arrangements for customers in need. This will enable water companies to provide consistent support for water consumers right across the country, replacing the current postcode lottery of existing support schemes, which vary from company to company.

The new clause will allow for the possible automatic enrolment of vulnerable customers on to future schemes, enabling them to get the full support to which they are entitled without having to proactively apply. This will be enabled through improved information sharing between public authorities and water companies.

The details of any scheme brought forward will be established through consultation, as required by the new clause and secondary legislation. In the meantime, existing schemes will continue to operate to ensure that vulnerable customers across the country are supported. Separately, we remain firm on our expectation that water companies will hold themselves to account for their public commitment to end water poverty by 2030 and will work with the sector to ensure appropriate measures are taken to deliver this. I hope that noble Lords will welcome this addition to the Bill and will support the Government in ensuring that the necessary powers are in place to enable support to be brought forward through secondary legislation.

Finally, briefly, Commons Amendment 9 was tabled simply to remove the privilege amendment made in my name in this place. Tabling such an amendment is standard practice; I therefore believe no noble Lord will oppose the Government doing so.

I again thank all noble Lords for the time and attention that they have given to the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 4 and the consequential Amendment 8. I support the Government in this regard. I put a question or two to the Minister on the correlation between energy poverty and water poverty. Is this something that her Government will look at closely? The Minister wrote to me with the level of bad debt, which is a staggering figure: between 2019 and 2024, it cost the water sector £2.2 billion. Will this be addressed by the amendments that she has brought before the House? That would be very welcome indeed. Obviously there are those who can pay but will not pay, but there are those vulnerable customers to which she referred, and I welcome the fact that continuity of support will be secured by these amendments. Although I lend my support, I would be grateful if the Minister could address those two brief points.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these amendments, which were inserted by the Government in the other place. Amendments 4 and 8 introduce the requirement for all water companies to have a social tariff for those consumers who are unable to pay their water bills due to their circumstances. Some water companies already have a social tariff in place but others do not. I welcome this measure to ensure that all water companies will be required to assist those vulnerable customers who are unable to pay the full water rate.

These amendments are almost identical to those tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place. Those amendments were rejected by the Government, prior to them subsequently tabling their own social tariff amendment—the ones we have before us today. Although it would have been preferable for the Government to have accepted the original Liberal Democrat amendments, it would be exceedingly churlish of these Benches to reject the amendments before us this evening, which achieve the same outcomes. We are therefore happy to fully support this group of government amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, in the nicest possible way, that I feel she did me a disservice in her remarks in the previous debate when she suggested that our support for a statutory instrument was to slow things down. Our support for the statutory instrument was to get better parliamentary scrutiny. As a former chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, I am well aware of the speed at which the Government can go at times, and making statutory instruments is not a slowing down measure.

However, I officially rose to speak to the government amendments in this group which were made in the other place. The principal, substantive amendment relates to the special provision in water company charging schemes and will help the Government to ensure that water companies take a consistent approach when supporting vulnerable customers. We are firmly in favour of protecting consumers from unaffordable increases in their bills, and we are disappointed that the Government rejected our amendment to protect consumers from higher water bills at Report.

The other government amendments largely relate to the commencement of the Bill, and we will not oppose those changes at this stage.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for her support and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for not voting against anything that we are proposing.

On the questions put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, obviously, money owed by customers is bad debt and anything that we do to address the amount of money that is owed for vulnerable customers will clearly have an impact, so these amendments will affect the issue that she raised. I appreciate the point she makes on energy costs and water poverty. Poverty needs to be addressed in all sorts of ways. I am pleased that I am a member of the Government’s child poverty task force; these are the kinds of issues that it is looking at and considering how best to address, because there is no point looking at the issue in just one place. You have to look at it right across the piece. That is what we hope to address in this case. With no further ado, I thank noble Lords very much for their time on the Bill so far.

Motion on Amendment 3 agreed.

Motion on Amendments 4 to 9

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 4 to 9.

4: After Clause 11, insert the following Clause—
“Consumer charges
Special provision in charges schemes
(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In section 143A(3)(b), after “regulations” insert “or, in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State (rather than the Welsh Ministers), by which that entitlement is otherwise to be established”.
After section 143A insert—
“143AA Special provision under section 143A: financial arrangements
(1) Subsection (2) applies if regulations under section 143A impose on relevant undertakers whose areas are wholly or mainly in England requirements of the sort described in subsection (2)(d) of that section.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish a scheme for the purpose of distributing among the relevant undertakers that are subject to the requirements all or part of the costs incurred by them in complying with the requirements (with the distribution to be on such basis as is provided for in the regulations).
(3)The scheme may operate by way of—
(a) direct payments between relevant undertakers, or
(b) payments into and out of a fund established and maintained under the regulations.
(4) Subsections (5) and (6) apply if a scheme is established under subsection (2).
(5) If the Secretary of State or the Authority makes price control provision, they must design the provision with a view to not preventing the passing-on of costs as described in subsection (7).
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) make provision about how the Authority is to comply with subsection (5);
(b) modify the effect of any price control provision made by the Authority with a view to enabling the passing-on of costs as described in subsection (7).
(7) The passing-on of costs occurs when a relevant undertaker is able to recoup its relevant net costs by charging additional amounts under section 142(1).
(8) An undertaker’s relevant net costs are the total of its costs incurred in—
(a) complying with the requirements referred to in subsection (1), and
(b) complying with the requirements of the scheme, less any payments it receives under the scheme.
(9) In this section, “price control provision” means provision made by or under—
(a) regulations under section 143A,
(b) rules under section 143B, or
(c) a condition of a relevant undertaker’s appointment under Chapter 1 of Part 2, that restricts the amount that may be charged by a relevant undertaker under section 142(1).
(10) Where a determination within section 12(3) (determination by CMA provided for by undertaker’s appointment) involves the making of price control provision, subsections (5) and (6) apply in relation to the CMA as they apply in relation to the Authority.
143AB Special provision under section 143A: consultation
(1) This section applies to—
(a) regulations under section 143A that, in relation to relevant undertakers whose areas are wholly or mainly in England, make provision of the sort described in subsection (2)(d) of that section, and
(b) regulations under section 143AA.
(2) Before making regulations to which this section applies, the Secretary of State must (subject to subsection (3)) consult—
(a) the Authority,
(b) the relevant undertakers to which the regulations would apply, and
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) But the Secretary of State does not have to consult if— (a) the regulations only amend earlier regulations, and
(b) the Secretary of State considers that the amendments are sufficiently minor that consultation is unnecessary.”
(4) The Digital Economy Act 2017 is amended as set out in subsections (5) and (6).
(5) In section 38 (disclosure of information to water and sewerage undertakers)—
(a) in subsection (2), for “people living in water poverty” substitute “eligible people”;
(b) after subsection (9) insert—
“(9A) A person is “eligible” for the purposes of this section and section 39—
(a) if the person is living in water poverty, or
(b) in the application of the sections to a water or sewerage undertaker for an area which is wholly or mainly in England, if the person is among those for whom special provision is required to be made by regulations within subsection (3)(a).”
(6) In section 39 (disclosure of information by water and sewerage undertakers), in subsection (2), for “people living in water poverty” substitute “eligible people (see section 38(9A))”.”

5: Clause 15, page 21, line 24, at end insert—
“(aa) section 1 (rules about remuneration and governance);”

6: Clause 15, page 21, line 34, leave out paragraph (a)

7: Clause 15, page 22, line 7, leave out paragraph (a)

8: Clause 15, page 22, line 21, at end insert—
“(aa) section (Special provision in charges schemes);”

9: Clause 15, page 22, line 40, leave out subsection (11)

Motion on Amendments 4 to 9 agreed.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Committee (2nd Day)

21:26

Clause 5: Public protection procedures

Amendment 20A

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

20A: Clause 5, page 4, line 16, after first “or” insert “giving advice about”
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to understand the Government’s expectations of organisations under the new duty to implement procedures “for preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises or event”.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 21A, 22, 23A and 24A. Amendment 20A seeks to probe the Government’s expectations of organisations that will have the duty to put public protection procedures in place. The public protection procedures listed in Clause 5(3) include measures

“for preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises or event”.

We have no concerns about the prevention of entry to a premises or event, and we can conceive of circumstances where leaving a premises or event would not be the right thing for an individual to do in certain circumstances.

That said, there is a real question for organisations running premises and events. If they are required by the Act to put measures in place to prevent people leaving the premises, what will that look like in reality? Are we empowering people in, for example, a church hall to lock its doors with people inside in the case of a terror incident, or do we expect volunteers to stand in the way of people trying to leave to prevent them leaving? Can we really expect small community organisations to make these decisions for people? Would they not be at risk of prosecution if they got these decisions wrong? This is a specific query but one where clarity from Ministers is necessary.

As background to this amendment, I remind the House that there have been emergencies in the past where the official advice has been wrong, at great cost. After the tragic Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, we learned that the official advice had been wrong and that many of those who survived did so only by ignoring the official advice to stay in their rooms and close their front doors until the fire was over. So we look to the Minister to set out his expectations for how this duty will work in practice. Amendment 21A would add a second test to the Secretary of State’s powers to amend Clause 5. As drafted, the Bill permits the Secretary of State to amend Clause 5(3) if he is satisfied that further procedures will reduce the risk of terrorism.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has already spoken about regulatory mission creep, and my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth has pointed out the risk that procedures may be overburdensome for small organisations such as community centres and church halls. Our amendment seeks to add a proportionality test that the Secretary of State will have to meet before he can amend subsection (3). I am quite sure that the Government can add procedure after procedure to reduce risks under this section of the Bill as introduced, but we need them to consider whether these further procedures are reasonably proportionate before they introduce them. I hope that the Government will take this on board and look at how the Bill can be improved here.

21:30

Amendment 23A is a very specific probing amendment. I will not labour this point. With this amendment, we are seeking an answer to the Government’s expectations of organisations with enhanced duties putting together their plans. It is a simple question which I hope the Minister can answer today. Can he give us a rough sense of what “reasonably practicable” will mean in this context?

Amendment 22, tabled by my noble friend Lord De Mauley, proposes the introduction of a new clause to allow public protection procedures to be waived by the Secretary of State or the Security Industry Authority under specific circumstances. This amendment represents a pragmatic and sensible approach to ensuring that security regulations are proportionate, fair and effective. This is a neat and well-drafted amendment that would give the Government greater flexibility when implementing security measures under the Bill. The Bill rightly seeks to enhance public safety by mandating security measures at qualifying premises and events. However, as with all regulations, there must be room for flexibility to address situations where compliance would be unreasonable or ineffectual. This amendment achieves precisely that balance, by allowing a waiver where the cost of implementation is disproportionate or where the prescribed measures would offer no tangible benefit in reducing the threat of terrorism.

On the issue of cost, we must recognise that many of the venues and events that are captured by the Bill are run by small businesses, community organisations and charitable groups. Imposing blanket security requirements without consideration of financial viability risks driving these important contributors to our social and cultural fabric out of operation. This amendment ensures that, if a venue can demonstrate that the cost of implementing a particular procedure is unreasonable, it can seek relief. This is a common-sense safeguard that acknowledges the real-world financial pressures that many operators face.

The amendment also addresses the fundamental need for security measures to be proportionate and effective. Not all public protection procedures will be relevant to every venue or event. For example, a small rural gathering with minimal public footfall may face no credible terrorist threat. In such cases, mandating extensive security measures would not only be unnecessary but could erode public confidence in the overall security framework, by appearing arbitrary or heavy-handed.

The amendment places a clear and reasonable burden of proof on the applicant, who must demonstrate either that the costs are unreasonable or that the security measures would not reduce the terrorist threat. This would ensure that waivers are granted judiciously and only when justified by evidence. Moreover, by involving the Secretary of State or the Security Industry Authority, the amendment ensures that waiver decisions are made by those with the appropriate expertise and accountability. This provides a safeguard against abuse while maintaining the flexibility needed to adapt to different circumstances.

This amendment is not about weakening security standards but about ensuring that they are applied in a way that is fair, proportionate and effective. It reflects a mature understanding that security is not a “one size fits all” solution. I commend my noble friend Lord De Mauley for tabling this proposal and urge the Government to give it very serious consideration.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 20A, 21A and 23A.

As we have heard, Amendment 20A is a probing amendment to do with advice. Always leaving persons where there is reason to suspect an act of terrorism is occurring or about to occur is not necessarily the right course. You need to have procedures in place which not only prevent leaving but give advice about what to do—it might be to leave or not to leave. If we are going to have specific terms in the Act, it should be clear that the broader picture is encompassed. It could be construed as being simply advice about leaving. At present, on one reading at least, it is too inflexible.

I move on to Amendment 21A. To reduce the risk of reasonable harm is, I suggest, too bold and too bald. Is any risk, however small, to be encompassed by this, to make it even smaller? You will never make any risk negligible. Is any harm, however modest, to be encompassed? What is being guarded against? There is nothing to detract from the purpose here. It is simply to make it workable in real life. We must be sensible about imposing what is, in effect, strict liability for unforeseen circumstances. That is why we suggest that there should be an assessment of the risk, cost and outcome, and proportionality.

Amendment 23A is simply to give a clear time. Currently, I suggest, the words “reasonably practicable” are too vague. They could lead to arguments. It would be better to set an end date. Is it once the document is prepared that it should be provided or is it the time in which to prepare it? To me, reading this, it was not clear. There has to be reasonable time to prepare it and there has to be a time limit after that for providing it. Really, there should be an end date in any event for providing it, which should be clear; in other words, you have a reasonable time to do things but it must be done within three months, six months or whatever is the right time. That is the purpose of this.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 22 is in my name. I am sure we all recognise the threat that the Bill seeks to address and do not underestimate its importance. The attack on the Manchester Arena was, frankly, awful and we must do everything we can to prevent such things happening in future. However, in doing so, we surely must not inadvertently stamp out important local and cultural community-enhancing opportunities for people to enjoy themselves in times when, frankly, there is not much joy to be had.

At Second Reading, the Minister said, I think at column 646, two things which particularly concerned me. First, he referred to “public protection” even in the case of an event attended by as few as 200 people. He referred to “evacuation”, “invacuation”—apparently a word in the Bill drafters’ lexicon, if no one else’s—“lockdown” and “communication”. I will examine “lockdown” in a moment.

Secondly, the Minister expanded on the wording in Clause 6(3)(b), which refers to

“measures relating to … the movement of individuals into, out of and within the premises or event”,

and he added the words,

“such as search and screening processes”.

Let me illustrate my concerns by reference to two different types of event.

First, I help run one of hundreds, probably thousands, of annual parish and village charity fundraising events around the country. Ours, like countless others, is knocking on the door of becoming a qualifying event. We have assessed the risk of attack carefully, and already we have in place sensible precautions. The area is surrounded by walls, so a vehicle could not get near the crowd. A bomb or gun attack, although of course awful, would be highly unlikely, as the target is low value and, furthermore, the event is conducted in the open air, so a bomb would be vastly less effective than in a building with a roof and walls. When I spoke on Amendment 11, I referred to the fact that all 15 attacks listed in the impact assessment took place in urban areas.

I turn now to lockdown. Incidentally, it appeared from PMQs today that the Prime Minister himself does not fully understand the concept of lockdown. But the noble Lord the Minister said in the context of this Bill that it is

“the process of securing premises to restrict or prevent entry by an attacker by, for example, locking doors or closing shutters”.—[Official Report, 7/1/25; col. 646.]

How does he recommend that we in our village event would exercise lockdown? The event is outdoors, not in a building. There are no doors to lock or shutters to put down. Yes, the area is surrounded by walls, but they would not keep out a determined attacker if there was such a hypothetical person. So we will be required to have in place the ability to lock ourselves down but we are, in practical terms, unable to. There is genuinely very little likelihood of an attack but, when the Bill comes into effect, we will be obliged to do something that I cannot yet understand how to achieve.

Similarly, I have grave concerns about the implications of the Minister’s reference to “search and screening processes”. It is important that he explains what he means by “search and screening”. Does it mean full-body scanning, for which each unit costs several hundred thousand pounds and daily rental costs are several thousand pounds? Does he mean having a hand-held metal detector passed over attendees’ bodies? Even those, to be effective and not the knock-off ones of the kind one can buy on the internet, cost thousands of pounds. Does he mean that bags are to be searched? Exactly what does he mean?

At the event I am contemplating, the imposition of the requirement to search or scan guests, as referred to by the Minister at col. 646, could be so costly that it would be an additional reason that we could no longer hold our event, which last year—admittedly an exceptional year—will have given more than £5,000 to local charities and village schools. Is closing us down really what the Government want to do?

The impact assessment estimates the 10-year cost to enhanced duty premises at £52,093. It is not clear whether that would be the same for a qualifying event, but it does not look far off to me. That is just over £5,000 a year, which would kill off very many such events. In the debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, referred to his concerns that costs should not unduly constrain events such as those I am concerned about, and I hope that His Majesty’s Government think the same.

Secondly, I am involved with a major annual rural open-air sporting event. There are many similar events around the United Kingdom through the year, including agricultural shows, Eisteddfods, game fairs, horse trials and shows, music and literary festivals, Guy Fawkes Night events, Green Man—the list is long. These are not small affairs, yet many are run on a shoestring and, in recent years, several have already been lost.

In the case of the event I am involved with, the main issues are the same as those I referred to earlier: lockdown, and scanning and searching. The viewing public arrive in cars along narrow country roads with already very long queues. In practical terms, it would be impossible to search all the cars as they arrive. Depending on the direction from which they approach, traffic control decrees that they are directed to a number of car parks that surround the event on all sides. There being no suitable natural barriers, it would also be impracticable to funnel the crowds, once on their feet, so that they can be searched individually as they move into the event area.

Many of these events run at little more than break even, so the cost of barriers to funnel the crowds, combined with that of searching and scanning equipment and manpower, is likely to mean that they would not survive.

21:45

Modern life is well practised in the preparation of well thought-through risk assessments. In cases such as the events I am contemplating, risk assessments are intelligence-led and based, as necessary, on thorough briefings from the intelligence community and the police, who I am sure the Minister would agree do an outstanding job keeping us safe. The solution, therefore, to the problems the Bill creates, as proposed in my Amendment 22, is that it allows that the risks can be thoroughly assessed, and that those of the public protection procedures that are agreed to be unnecessary can be waived. My amendment acknowledges that this would need to be signed off by the SIA or the Secretary of State.

In the debate on Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said:

“Ultimately, what we are trying to say with this legislation is that people who organise public events, whether they are formal events, community events, concerts or whatever else, should be thinking in advance, ‘Is this going to be secure?’”.—[Official Report, 3/2/25; col. 522.]

He said later that

“the fundamental issue, which is raised by this set of amendments, is not what is the burden of this but what is the risk appetite that the people who are organising this event, and that we as a nation have, about the event concerned?”.—[Official Report, 3/2/25; col. 540.]

He is at least partly right that the Bill does not allow the people who are organising the event to consider the risks. It demands that they do certain things, regardless of the level of risk, dependent on whether the crowd is more than 200 or more than 800—or, apparently, if it is unticketed, in certain circumstances not to do so.

In making his case against Amendment 11, the Minister prayed in aid the fact that the threat to the UK is currently graded “substantial”. He is of course right, but there are four other possible levels of threat: “critical” and “severe”, which are higher than “substantial”, and “moderate” and “low”, which are lower. The Government’s position on the Bill’s rigidly set figures of 200 and 800, with strict requirements on organisers’ obligations above each, takes no account of the threat level. There are many other factors that bear on the real risk, and therefore the measures it is appropriate to take at an event, such as the environment in which it takes place. I have mentioned rural and urban, and there are widely varying environments even within those. The dynamics of an audience will be vastly different from event to event. There are many variables that affect the nature and value of an event as a target for an attacker, but the Government’s approach takes no account of them. An intelligence led, risk-based approach would involve co-operation with the police and security forces in order to arrive at a carefully tailored plan for each event.

It is worth saying that the Government have already made themselves unpopular enough with people in the countryside. Do they really want to provoke them further by causing their favourite events to cease? The rural and farming community, as I am sure the Minister knows, is among those at highest risk of suicide. Do the Government want to put themselves at risk of criticism for exacerbating this, because this really is the way to do it?

I have some further questions for the Minister. First, on the requirement in Clause 6(3)(b) relating to

“the movement of individuals into, out of and within the premises”,

what does the Bill mean by movement within the premises? Is this movement between specific areas? How would such areas be defined; or is it movement generally? How do the Government envisage that this be monitored or controlled?

Secondly, on the requirement in Clause 6(3)(c) relating to

“the physical safety and security of the premises”

or event—I think the Minister said at Second Reading that this included hostile vehicle mitigation—to what extent does that include hostile vehicle mitigation in an event’s car parks?

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

I am sorry have to say to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that the time limit is 10 minutes for him. If he could bring his remarks to an end, the House would be very grateful.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I will. Thirdly, as regards the requirement in Clause 6(3)(d) relating to security of information about the event that may assist in planning acts of terrorism, given that most large events are pre-advertised and many are pre-sold, how practical will this requirement be and how does the Minister consider it can be complied with? I will write to the Minister with my other questions.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I suspect that the answer to quite a lot of the points that have been made lies in the term “reasonably practicable”, which is seen throughout the Bill. I asked some questions about that on the previous day of Committee, in particular whether reasonably practicable was limited to physical considerations or included financial ones and was a mix. Fair enough, my amendment was about the meaning of “immediate vicinity” and that is what the Minister answered, but I do not think he answered that question. If he is able to do so today, I think it might help us quite a lot. The financial implications are specifically referred to in Amendment 22.

I first heard the term “invacuation” about 20 years ago and I heard it from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. I am very doubtful about Amendment 20A. I do not think it can be dealt with by advice. Taking the example of Grenfell, it seems very harsh to say this, but bad cases make bad law. I really doubt that the example we have heard could be answered by the change in the Bill proposed by this amendment.

With Amendment 21A, I suppose the question is whether reasonably practicable encompasses proportionate. I think, in the context, it does. Conversely, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and I think he is right to question in Amendment 23A whether it is appropriate that a copy of the document dealing with procedures is provided to the SIA as soon as reasonably practicable after it is prepared. It would be helpful to have a specific time limit here to ensure that the documents are prepared quickly, in a timely manner. That may be something for the SIA to be able to indicate was required, but it would be right not to have an entirely open-ended arrangement that could mean that some people who should be preparing documents do not get on with them as quickly as they should.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower’s amendments in this group, specifically Amendments 21A and 23A, and I hope to do so very briefly. It strikes me that Amendment 21A is a crucial brake, as it were, on the power of the Executive. It introduces a test of reasonable proportionality to the creation by the Secretary of State of further procedures by regulation.

I know that there are some later amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and others on the totality of the Henry VIII clauses in this clause and ensuing clauses. But, in the event that these specific provisions, namely subsections (4) and (5), remain in the Bill, Amendment 21A represents a crucial limit on the powers of the Government. In the age-old phrasing relating to proportionality, it is important not to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Insisting that “further procedures” meet an additional test of being reasonably proportionate imposes on the Secretary of State a duty to consider the question of proportionality in a measured and proper way.

Finally, Amendment 23A, as others have said, would provide an express and definitive timeframe for ensuring documentary compliance. The legislation would thus avoid uncertainty and vagueness by creating a specific time period. That strikes me as being in the interests of the person responsible for the enhanced duty premises or qualifying event and in the interests of the SIA. In short, everyone would know where they stand, and I suggest that that kind of awareness is to be commended. I look forward to hearing the Government’s clarification of all the points made.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the speeches which have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, talked about sledgehammers cracking nuts; I slightly wonder whether that is what the amendments in this group would have the effect of doing. It is clear that for the qualifying premises—let us separate out the enhanced duty ones for a moment—what is being talked about is taking reasonably practical measures, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, and that there should be appropriate public protection.

When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, I thought that it sounded as if, as an event organiser, he is already exemplary because he has thought about these things. I am sure that he has briefed the volunteers and the people around him about this. I slightly wonder why people have got so worked up about what the consequences and implications of all of this are.

If people want to know why there is this question of whether you invacuate or evacuate—whether you lock the doors or whatever—I am very taken by the accounts I heard of the Borough Market incidents. There were decisions which had to be made instantly as to whether to shut and barricade the doors or bring people in from outside. That assessment is going to be made on the spot, in an instant, but it is much better if the event organisers or the premises organisers have spent a bit of time thinking about it in advance, as clearly the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, has done, briefing each other and considering the various “What ifs?”. There is no right or wrong answer in those cases; you have to make the best assessment, but you will always make a better one if you have thought about it in advance, worked out what the choices are and what drives them.

My other point is about Amendment 22 and the waiving of public protection procedures. This sounds like the sledgehammer to crack a nut, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. A bureaucratic process will be set up whereby an events organiser or a premises organiser will make an application for a waiver to a public body, no doubt filling in lots of forms. Frankly, would it not be quicker just to do what the Bill asks: to make appropriate, reasonable arrangements? That is surely what is there and, if they are appropriate and reasonable, then the organisers will not have problems as a result of this Bill.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords who have tabled these amendments because, self-evidently, they have generated a discussion on some important points. That is extremely valuable, not just as clarification today but for those who ultimately, should this Bill become an Act, have to implement it downstream, so I am grateful to noble Lords for them. If I may, I will try to deal with the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst, first and then return to that of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, as a separate series in due course.

Amendment 20A from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Sandhurst, concerns the procedure under Clause 5 for preventing individuals entering or leaving premises or events. Clause 5 sets out some types of procedure, four in total, of which lockdown procedures may be used to reduce the risk of harm by moving people away from danger. I think the proposals in the legislation are dependent on the premises or event. They would potentially include locking doors, closing shutters or, in some cases, moving people to a safer part of the premise.

The noble Lord highlighted some examples in his contribution. If an armed attacker were outside a theatre, leaving doors open or unlocked would risk the attacker entering the premises. There could be a plan whereby, at certain events, a lockdown procedure would have to be activated to secure the auditorium against entry, such as locking the doors until the police arrive or securing the scene, which may reduce harm to staff and the audience. It might be a procedure relating to particular circumstance. It will vary according to the type of situation or attack.

In some cases—as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey mentioned, this happened in the event at Borough Market—a lockdown might help to save lives. In other cases, it might be more appropriate for people to flee. Statutory guidance will be published by the Home Office/SIA in due course to illustrate the Bill’s provisions, including on public protection measures. During the London Bridge attack—the noble Lord said that he wanted the Minister to give examples—some premises successfully executed a lockdown procedure and, in doing so, saved lives. That is really important to remember.

We are not being prescriptive. Going back to what my noble friend Lord Harris said, the public protection procedures in Clause 5(3)(a), (b), (c) and (d) set down the type of things that organisations and the responsible person need to think about and prepare for as part of a plan. With all due respect to the noble Lord, the changes he is proposing are not necessary because the Government consider that the requirements of the clause are appropriate as drafted. Again—we will come on to this issue in a moment, with other amendments in the name of the noble Lord—we are trying to be proportionate and reasonable.

On Amendment 21A, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that proportionality is at the heart of the Bill as a whole. It is important to remind the Committee that this Bill has been through several iterations. It has been through consultation, drafting, a Home Affairs Select Committee, previous Government engagement and the engagement of this Government. Out of that, we want to get proportionate measures that ensure that in-scope premises and events take proportionate and appropriate steps.

It is about being reasonably prepared and prepared for risk—straying into what the Lord, Lord De Mauley, said—whatever the size or location of a premises. He is right that the majority of these attacks have taken place in urban areas at large venues, or in urban tarmacked areas. That is not to say that it will not happen elsewhere, that a terrorist group will not pick a farm event, a small village hall or another similar event.

That is why not just this Government, but the Government he supported, put in place the measures before us today. It is why the Bill went through a public inquiry, emerging from the recommendations of Sir John Saunders. It is why it went through the draft legislation process, and why the Commons Home Affairs Committee supported it on a cross-party basis, even though the majority of its members were from His Majesty’s Opposition. We are trying to be proportionate and reasonable, and the public protection procedures in Clause 5 are an important element of the Bill’s effectiveness and power.

I hope that assuages the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel. Again, we are trying to do something that is proportionate, achievable and relatively cost-effective. I have mentioned elsewhere the cost of the potential measures. We have estimated it at around £330 per year for the lower tier. That is not in terms of cash being paid out to anybody; that is our assessment of the potential costs that can be incurred. It is about good practice, good training, good support, making sure that we have evacuation and invacuation procedures, looking at the exits and entrances and what would happen, and making those assessments, while making sure that the responsible person knows what they are.

The Secretary of State could add further procedures if they consider that necessary, but I am straying into later amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. I have some sympathy with those, and I hope that when we reach them—probably now on Monday—I will be able to give some comfort to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Anderson, about the use of Henry VIII powers. However, we will deliver that at a slightly later date in the consideration of the Bill. Whatever happens, if there were any changes under the current proposals, they would be subject to the affirmative procedure, so this House and the House of Commons would have an opportunity to support or reject any changes brought forward by the Government as a whole.

On Amendment 23A, from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Sandhurst, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, again gave a reasonable level of support to the idea of a timeframe for any duty and consideration being put in place. Clause 7 places the legislative requirement on those responsible for enhanced duty premises and events to prepare and maintain a document that records important elements of their compliance. That is a valuable document that will help the regulator consider compliance. It should be provided to the Secretary of State via the Security Industry Authority as soon as is reasonably practical. This will enable the SIA to make an initial evaluation of the premises’ or event’s security approach and engage in meaningful discussion or engagement about any potential inspection.

There is no single standard type of premises or event. Some will have long-established premises with little change needed and some will have to make changes accordingly. To ensure that regulatory provisions work as effectively as possible for all, the document should be sent to the SIA at an early stage. However, at the moment, by providing a maximum timeframe of six months, the amendment may result in either inaccurate documents or material that is out of date being sent. It could hinder regulatory activity and it could hinder the provision of advice and help to strengthen the venues’ practices. But I have noted what the noble Lord said and what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said in support. Although I do not wish to accept the amendment today, those points have been put on the record and we will obviously examine them in due course.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. I genuinely understand his motivation to ensure that the Bill does not render it difficult to put on many events that are valuable for cultural, social, tourist and business purposes. I accept and understand that objective. The Bill as drafted has caused concerns that he has put on the record—which, again, I will examine because of his timeframe, and if he writes to me I will examine those concerns as well—that are founded on his belief that this will be damaging. But, in my view, the Bill sets down the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey mentioned: procedures for public protection in place so far as is reasonably practical. In determining what is reasonably practicable, the responsible person—which may in this case indeed be him—will take into account their operating context and the particular circumstances of the premises or event. They will consider the appropriate procedures in the light of the cost and resources. That is the assurance I give him.

What we are asking for in the Bill, under the various clauses before us, is that he thinks, as I think he has tonight, about the consequences and about whether there is a threat; that he makes that assessment; that he makes the provisions; that he—or she—looks at whether those areas need to have that plan; that he makes sure that the volunteers in an organisation know about that plan; and that he makes sure, potentially, that the paid professionals he or she is dealing with look at and understand that plan. Accordingly, no procedure is required to be put in place at unreasonable cost to the responsible person, and in the measures in the clauses that he mentioned and expressed concern about, such as public protection measures, he will note that there is no mandating of those public protection measures or mention of scanners or other material. There is simply an assessment for the responsible person to organise accordingly.

The first condition in the noble Lord’s amendment for the grant of a waiver is therefore unnecessary. Furthermore, it is anticipated that developing and implementing these procedures should be simple, for cost and staff time. Some of the actions required as part of the procedure could be as simple as locking doors, closing shutters and identifying a safe route to cover. Some of the areas that he has mentioned, such as open-air events, will qualify under the Bill only if they have the requirements in earlier clauses—a building, or a paid entry or exit or ticketing system. Again, I accept that some of the events that he referred to in his contribution may have that, but the whole purpose of the Government’s proposals—which I remind him was shared by the previous Government in broad terms—is to provide good practice, a framework and a consideration for somebody responsible to think of a plan in the event of a terrorist attack.

I assure the noble Lord that this is not about preventing a terrorist attack. That is the job of the police, to whom I pay tribute, the Security Service, to which I pay tribute, and the myriad organisations trying to make sure that we stop bad people doing bad things before they ever get to the stage of doing them. But, sadly, he will know that the risk is always there. The security services try to do this every day of the week, but there may be occasions when something difficult and challenging happens, and this Bill is about what happens when that begins. It is about mitigating the risk, having that plan and proposals in place, and having those public protection measures to stop an attack and reduce the vulnerability in that place.

I genuinely understand the noble Lord’s intention and I look forward to receiving his letter and giving him a full response to it. I hope that I can assure him that the Government’s objective is to put good practice in place at minimal cost and ensure that those people who have a responsibility for an event transmit the evacuation protection plans to those who can impact those plans in the event of that split-second moment, as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey said, when a daily event of enjoyment, pleasure and fun suddenly sees, in its immediate effect, a terrorist attack under way. We are trying to ensure that the split-second decisions that saved lives in Borough Market are thought about beforehand to save lives in the event of an attack.

I would love to assure the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that no attack would ever take place at the Caerwys Agricultural Show in my former constituency, for example, or at a scout gathering somewhere else, but I cannot. We will stop it upstream when we can but, in the event of an attack happening, we are asking whether the people on the ground know what to do. That is what the Bill is about, and that is why I urge him to write to me and not to press his amendments this evening, as, indeed, I urge the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst. Their points are well made and they will continue to be considered, not just during the passage of the Bill but, crucially, when Royal Assent is achieved. The two-year period that we have to implement the Bill is the time when the guidance and discussion that the noble Lord seeks will be part of the consideration of this, I hope, successful and productive legislation.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the hour is late, and I shall be as brief as I possibly can. This has been a useful debate, with most of these amendments seeking clarity from the Minister on the Government’s expectations for the practical implications of the Bill, as well as proposing a genuinely workable new mechanism to exempt premises or events where the Bill is not reasonably applicable, as under the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord De Mauley.

I thank my noble friends, particularly my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for speaking in support of the amendments and about assessment of risk and proportionality. My noble friend Lord De Mauley made a very good case in support of his amendment, which sought clarity as to the extent of searches. He is absolutely right that these small events are run on shoestrings in some cases, and they will be lost to rural communities if we are not careful about how we present the Bill. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support for Amendment 23A.

I will just say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that we are not worked up on the Benches on this side of the House. We merely seek clarity, which of course he will of course understand and respect. It is our place to probe, which is exactly what we have been doing this evening.

In finishing, I just thank the Minister for his response on this group. He has had a very constructive attitude to the amendments that we have proposed to the Committee and I thank him for his continued engagement. We need to get this Bill right but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 20A withdrawn.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.15 pm.