Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Energy Bill Relief Scheme and Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Bill Relief Scheme and Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations, which were laid before the House on 16 December 2024, amend two schemes created by the previous Government in response to the energy crisis.
The amendments address an issue that was not considered in the rush to get the schemes into operation but which has now come to the fore as the schemes have been brought to an end. The issue is technical: both the energy bill relief scheme and the energy bills discount scheme, which I shall refer to as EBRS and EBDS respectively, supported non-domestic energy users, including businesses and heat networks. EBRS supported energy bills from October 2022 to March 2023, while EBDS supported bills from April 2023 to March 2024. Both schemes operated on a “claim back” model, meaning that suppliers paid out the discount to their customers before recouping those costs from the department.
Scheme funds were paid out on estimated and actual meter readings. As actual meter readings are received by energy suppliers, they rebill their customers, replacing earlier estimated bills, and the discount paid out by the department becomes settled. The department calls this process “actualisation”. Suppliers then come back to government to recover additional discount they have paid out or to pay back any excess discount resulting from an initial overestimation of the energy. This is right: the intention behind the schemes has always been for government to fund the discount to the consumer and not the energy suppliers.
The regulations require the Secretary of State to determine when a supplier should leave the scheme, based on an assessment that there will be no further material amount owed from the department to a supplier or vice versa. One of the supporting criteria to make that assessment is that a supplier has billed customers on actual meter readings to a threshold of 95% of gas supplied and 97% of electricity supported under the scheme, wherever possible. Once a supplier has left the scheme, it is unable to claim back any further money from the department for discounts that it has paid out on behalf of the schemes.
However, as the regulations currently stand, suppliers are still required to pay out discounts on any newly billed energy supplied during the periods of either scheme, when this situation could arise through no fault of their own; for example, when customers have moved premises and failed to notify the supplier or have been tardy in allowing access to meter readers. This could result in suppliers funding government support without the ability to recoup these costs from the department. This is contrary to the intention of the schemes. As a result, suppliers have been reluctant to leave the schemes, which must come to an end in a timely manner.
The amendments in this statutory instrument remove the obligation on suppliers to provide the discounts to customers, except in instances where the consumer has lost out due to poor practices by their energy supplier. In these instances, we have provided carve-outs to balance the interests of suppliers with the support and protection of consumers.
The first consumer protection is, when a supplier is rebilling a customer, it must still apply the discount for energy which was previously billed before the discount duties, even if the newly calculated additional consumption is exempt. The second protection relates to unbilled customers. When a customer receives a bill that falls within the scheme period, a supplier would be required to pass on the appropriate discount if it has not previously provided that customer with a bill. This is to ensure that the original policy intent of providing consumer support is realised. The third and final consumer protection is when unreasonable delay, or another failure on the part of the energy supplier, has led to the energy not being billed accurately or at all when the discount duties applied. An example might be if the bill was sent unreasonably late after exit from the scheme, rather than before. In those circumstances, the customer should not and will not lose their entitlement to the discount.
There is still an obligation on suppliers to repay the Government any discount they have recovered; for example, if actual consumption was lower than the estimated consumption and a discount is clawed back. Should any dispute arise between suppliers and customers in relation to these carve-outs, the resolution mechanisms would be those normally used in the industry: via a complaint to the Energy Ombudsman, where available; investigation and potential sanction by the regulator; or court action.
The amendment applies to energy suppliers in Great Britain. Separately, the regulations also amend the Energy Prices Act 2022 to allow the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland to make amendments to address this issue in the Northern Ireland scheme. This is because their power to amend their equivalent legislation has expired.
In very limited circumstances, it is possible that a customer could lose out on some entitlement to discount. If a supplier had already exited the schemes and had underestimated a customer’s energy consumption, the customer would not receive the discount on the additional newly billed energy unless the supplier was at fault, as I have just described. Given that the vast majority of energy supported by the schemes is based on actual meter readings, we do not expect many customers to be in this position.
Furthermore, our analysis shows that suppliers tend to slightly overestimate and that customers reduced consumption during the energy crisis, switching off non- critical operations to reduce costs. None of the suppliers that have left the scheme to date, nor any of their customers, has reported this risk materialising. We expect and hope that this amendment will give suppliers confidence to exit the scheme without the risk of ongoing financial liability through no fault of their own.
Energy prices for non-domestic consumers have dropped following record peaks, but of course we recognise that they remain high and pose issues for some businesses. We believe that our mission to deliver clean power by 2030 is the best way to break our dependence on global fossil fuel markets and permanently protect bill payers, including non-domestic consumers. In the short term, the Government are taking action to better protect businesses from being locked into unfair and expensive energy contracts. Last year, the Government launched a consultation on introducing regulation of third-party intermediaries such as energy brokers. This is aimed at enhancing consumer protection, particularly for non-domestic consumers. The consultation has now closed, and a government response will follow in due course.
The Government are also empowering businesses to challenge unfair and poor service from their suppliers. Since December last year, SMEs with fewer than 50 employees or that meet energy consumption or financial thresholds can now access free support to resolve issues with their energy supplier through the Energy Ombudsman service. This expands the service to 99% of British businesses, allowing them to access up to £20,000 in financial awards.
I propose to the Committee that this is a very sensible statutory instrument dealing with some issues that have arisen. It follows on from the previous Government’s decision and is consistent with what they sought to do. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the stamina he has shown over the last 48 hours. I welcome these regulations; had we remained in Government, I am sure that we would have done exactly the same—as was also said in the debate in the House of Commons.
The Minister alluded to the fact that energy prices are still quite high. I understand that within one of these regulations there is provision for an off-grid payment of £150. If that is the case, will his department look favourably on charities, public sector bodies such as schools and hospitals and, as he rightly mentioned, micro-businesses of under 15 employees—or even 50—so that they might remain eligible for that?
The noble Lord referred to unfair, and what I would call sharp, practices that are perhaps still going on. This is only anecdotal, and I cannot prove it, but there was a restaurant not too far from this building which I think partly closed and changed hands because they had an unbelievably high electricity bill in January last year, so I am delighted to hear that the Government have launched this consultation with a third party. It would be interesting to hear more about how those brokers might operate. What provision will be made to ensure that the brokers are reliable and able to operate within this sphere?
With that, I pay tribute to the previous Government for their work and the protection that was given to non-domestic customers, which was very welcome at the time. I recognise that we are still in a period of high energy prices and, with those few questions, I wish the SI a safe passage.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Minister for a pretty spectacular explanation of what is quite a complicated and technical exercise. These schemes were introduced, as was said, between October 2022 and March 2024 and, as we know, they gave much-needed assistance to non-domestic customers. We are dealing now with a small yet significant minority of consumers who have not received their finalised bills, due to ongoing delays in the actualisation process. My understanding is that these delays arise mostly from the use of estimated rather than actual meter readings, but they have created significant complexities for both suppliers and consumers, especially when one of the issues around this is the concept that the supplier can become “off-boarded” when they hit the actualisation thresholds, as mentioned by the Minister, of 95% for billed gas and 97% for billed electricity, which means they are no longer required to apply further discounts.
We agree that this is a legacy issue that needs to be dealt with. Our only issue—I am sure that the department is working on this—is the need to deal with unintended consequences, such as where a supplier is off-boarded but still has unbilled energy due to these administrative delays. The amendment allows for discounts to continue only in cases where a billing failure has occurred, but does that provide sufficient protection to the consumer if the errors are on the supplier’s part, for example?
Further issues might be that the amendment extends the rule limiting discounts on variable price contracts. Discounts can only be reduced, not increased, post off-boarding. Does that sufficiently accommodate fluctuations in wholesale energy prices that suppliers may face? Does it risk creating an imbalance in terms of supplier and consumer rights? Then there is the issue of disputes. While the original scheme allowed for disputes to be referred to the Secretary of State—a horrendous concept—the amendment seeks to close that avenue. I am sure that the department is all over this, but we need to ensure that, in the technicalities of actually making this happen, we get a fair balance between supplier and consumer rights. Otherwise, we support the passage of this SI.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Offord, for the welcome that they gave to the statutory instruments. I say to the noble Lord that we think the statutory instrument will be sufficient. The carve-outs, which are relevant to the points he raised, are aimed at ensuring that consumers will be well protected from poor operational practice by suppliers.
The noble Lord also asked about disputes. The fact is that, if a supplier cannot resolve an issue with a customer satisfactorily, the customer can either directly refer the matter to the ombudsman, if eligible, or to Ofgem, or get in touch with the department, which will then refer the matter to Ofgem. Ofgem will then review the customer’s complaint and decide whether a formal investigation into the supplier is required. If the customer has exhausted other routes, they are obviously also able to seek civil restitution through the courts, but I hope that that would not normally be necessary.
On the non-domestic alternative fuel payment, it was indeed part of the support programme. Obviously, it served its purpose, and I accept the point the noble Baroness raised.
I have mentioned the carve-outs. I understand the issue about energy bills, and we know the pressure that this causes. We debated some of these matters extensively —I was going to say last night but it was actually this morning. I might leave it there. I am most grateful to noble Lords.
Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument, laid before the House on 16 December 2024, seeks to make technical improvements and changes to the capacity market scheme—the Government’s main tool for ensuring security of electricity supply in Great Britain.
The capacity market was introduced in 2014 and is designed to ensure that sufficient electrical capacity is available to meet future predicted demand, to maintain the security of electricity supply. It provides all forms of existing and new-build capacity with the right incentives to be on the system to deliver when needed. It covers generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility—formerly known as demand-side response—and interconnection capacity.
Through capacity market auctions, held annually, one year and four years ahead of delivery, we secure the capacity needed to meet future peak demand under a range of scenarios, based on advice from the capacity market delivery body—the National Energy System Operator, or NESO.
Since its introduction in 2014, the capacity market has contributed to investment in just under 19 gigawatts of new, flexible capacity needed to replace older, less efficient plant as we transition to a net-zero economy. To date, the capacity market has been successful in ensuring that Great Britain has adequate electricity capacity to meet demand, and continues to be required to maintain security of supply and provide investor confidence. To ensure that the capacity market continues to function effectively, we regularly make adjustments to the implementing legislation, based on our day-to-day experiences of operating the scheme.
The draft instrument makes changes to eight regulations, to deliver technical improvements and changes that support the functioning of the capacity market, which have been identified and explored through consultation. This will improve security of supply. It will also accelerate investment in low-carbon technologies, increasing the role that they play in the capacity market, supporting the Government’s 2030 clean power mission.
Stakeholder feedback has identified a need to review the wider timescales associated with the settlement body’s calculation activities. This ensures that timelines for settlement remain appropriate. The “settlement body” refers to the Electricity Settlements Company, a private company owned by the Secretary of State, established to oversee the settlement of payments to and from suppliers and capacity providers. The draft instrument amends the timelines for the settlement body’s determination so that they are in line with those concerning penalty charges.
As part of the requirements under the Capacity Market Rules, some capacity market units must complete an extended performance test. This provides assurance that a capacity market unit from a storage-generating technology class can deliver capacity for the relevant duration. In effect, extended performance tests are a sub-function of the satisfactory performance days requirement, which requires a capacity provider to demonstrate availability during a delivery year. The policy intent is that failure to meet extended performance tests should have the same consequence as failure to meet satisfactory performance days. The draft instrument ensures that the regime is consistent and that the two demonstrations of performance are treated in similar fashion when failed.
To assist industry prequalifying for the capacity market, this draft instrument will further clarify that a capacity market unit can be prequalified only where no contract for difference has been awarded, unless the contract for difference in question has expired or terminated. The instrument also further clarifies that a contract for difference means a contract for difference or an investment contract entered into with a contract for difference counterparty, which has always been the policy intent.
Finally, multiyear agreements provide greater revenue certainty and are likely to incentivise further low-carbon participation in the capacity market, which improves market liquidity and can lead to a greater diversity of technologies. A new nine-year capex threshold introduced by this draft instrument will ensure that new and refurbishing projects, with costs that fall between the existing thresholds, are not prevented from entering the capacity market.
The instrument also enables participants to access a three-year agreement with a capex threshold of nought per kilowatt hour, available to low-carbon new build and unproven demand-side response capacity. It will remove barriers for low-carbon, low-capex technologies to access longer agreements in the capacity market. To ensure that projects meet the definition of low-carbon capacity, a low emissions determination, which is a decision that the delivery body may take, has been introduced by this instrument as a further reviewable decision type.
Two public consultations were conducted on the measures in this instrument. It contains a second phase of capacity market reforms, which was consulted on towards the end of 2023, on strengthening security of supply and accelerating investment in low-carbon technologies. Respondents were broadly supportive of the proposals included in this instrument.
We have also made a number of technical amendments to the Capacity Market Rules that support the regulations, which, as I said earlier, were laid before the House on 16 December 2024.
In conclusion, this is another instrument that follows from work that the previous Government did. It is self-evident that these technical changes are helpful and necessary, and I commend the regulations to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, these regulations propose amendments to the Electricity Capacity Regulations 2014. While presented as essential to streamline the capacity market, we must be careful around one or two of the implications that arise.
As has been outlined by the Minister, the proposed changes stem from two public consultations held in 2023, which received broad support—especially for increasing the role of low-carbon technologies. However, there are some concerns: how will these regulations ensure long-term energy security, and will they genuinely accelerate the shift to a low-carbon system?
First, the Government seek to remove the 10-year reapproval requirement for the capacity market, allowing it to operate indefinitely without regular reviews. While this may offer stability, we ask whether this move risks stagnating the market’s ability to adapt to fast-evolving technologies and changing energy needs. Do we not need to maintain regular scrutiny of such a critical, dynamic sector, especially in the next 10 years when technology is moving rapidly?
Secondly, the regulations aim to establish the capacity market as a permanent fixture and remove any reference to it as temporary. This again raises the question of whether this shift represents a real commitment to security of supply or whether we are entrenching an outdated system that may fail to evolve with the energy sector and the technological advancements to which we have referred.
Thirdly, while the regulations repeal provisions from the EU electricity regulation that are deemed unnecessary, we must ask whether we are simplifying the system too much and whether this could leave gaps that harm flexibility and responsiveness during crises.
Fourthly and finally, the Government are focusing on low-carbon technologies. However, can renewables, such as wind and solar, provide the same reliability as traditional generation during peak demand or system stress? Will prioritising low-carbon technologies risk energy security? How will the Government ensure that the capacity market remains competitive and attracts investment in both low-carbon and reliable generation technologies?
These regulations raise a couple of critical questions. First, how will the Government ensure that the removal of the 10-year reapproval requirement does not result in stagnation, particularly as energy generation technologies evolve rapidly? Secondly, given the emphasis on low-carbon technologies, what measures are being taken to ensure that infrastructure is in place to integrate these technologies into the grid without compromising system reliability?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Offord, for his general support for what is proposed in these regulations and for his specific questions in relation to the implications for long-term energy security and whether there is a risk of stagnating the market. He also asked whether we are going to keep this under regular review.
I should start by saying that the capacity market has been operating since 2014 and has worked pretty well. I acknowledge that. We see no reason why we cannot continue with it. In a sense, the permanent nature of the system that the noble Lord referred to is a perfectly reasonable response to the fact that the system is tried and tested. I should also say that it has supported investment in just under 19 gigawatts of new-build flexible capacity, including low-carbon technologies, since its introduction. That is solid evidence to suggest that the system can deliver the capacity needed to meet future peak demand and respond to the kind of challenge that he raised about introducing low-carbon technology into the frame as older capacity starts to be replaced.
I take the noble Lord’s point about keeping this under review. We absolutely are going to keep this under regular review. We have to do so. That is so important. We are committed to ensuring that the right policy tools are in place for delivering the secure and affordable energy system we need. I can confirm to the noble Lord that we regularly assess the performance of the capacity market and explore improvements to the scheme. We do not hesitate to bring to your Lordships’ House and the other place further changes in relation to further statutory instruments.
This is all intended to improve security of supply. We believe that accelerating investment in low-carbon technologies can increase the role they play in the capacity market. Our evidence since 2014 suggests that the mechanism that we have put in place is going to work. I am quite confident that we are right to say that this should be a permanent feature. Having said that, I thank the noble Lord for his constructive response to this SI.
Gambling Levy Regulations 2025
Baroness Twycross
That the Grand Committee do consider the Gambling Levy Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024. Both sets of regulations were laid before the House in draft on 12 and 10 December 2024 respectively.
Two decades have passed since the Gambling Act 2005 was introduced. Leading gambling firms operating in this country are now some of the world’s most successful companies. With cutting-edge technological capabilities and deep insight into customer behaviour, the gambling industry and gambling behaviours have undergone monumental change, from the smartphone to the huge increase in online gambling. Our manifesto set out a commitment to
“reducing gambling-related harm … strengthening protections”
for those at risk. We know that harmful gambling can have massive financial, emotional and mental health impacts on individuals, families and communities across our country.
The 2023 gambling White Paper laid the foundations for what is before us today as we introduce draft regulations for stake limits on online slots and a statutory gambling levy to fund research, prevention and treatment. The Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 introduce statutory maximum stake limits on online slots games of £5 per game cycle for adults aged 25 and over, and £2 per game cycle for young adults aged 18 to 24.
Online slots are the highest-risk gambling product. They have the highest rate of binge play and the highest average losses of any online product, and are associated with long playing sessions and high levels of use by people experiencing gambling harm. Online slots are also the fastest-growing gambling product. In the past five years, this yield has grown by 61% and growth is not slowing down. However, there are currently no statutory stake limits for online slot games, unlike their land-based counterparts. As the popularity of slots grows, so does the risk for vulnerable people. Now is the time to act and stem the growing tide of unaffordable losses for people most at risk of gambling harm.
We have designed these stake limits to target those most at risk of harm while ensuring that the impact on operators is proportionate. The lower staking limit for younger adults is an important intervention, as our research showed that younger people may be at an elevated risk of gambling harm. The industry’s trade body, the Betting and Gaming Council, welcomed the decision to introduce stake limits. If these regulations are agreed, there will be a transitional period to ensure that gambling operators have sufficient time to implement the changes.
Today, we are also proposing draft regulations for a statutory gambling levy. From April, all licensed operators will be required to pay an annual levy to the Gambling Commission. The rates at which licensed operators pay the levy are set down in the legislation and licensees are at risk of losing their licence if they do not pay. The levy represents a watershed moment: a significant uplift in the investment dedicated to this area; greater government oversight; and a renewed commitment to further understanding, tackling and treating gambling harms.
The significant contributions that the gambling industry has made to support research, prevention and treatment since the introduction of the Gambling Act 2005 have been crucial. This has allowed an expansion of the support and treatment options available for those in need. I am clear that the third sector will continue to play a key role in the future of research, prevention and treatment, but we now need a sustainable and equitable funding system so that all licensed gambling operators are paying their fair share. The levy provides us with an opportunity and the resources to put in place the right projects and services, clear objectives and robust governance.
To create a world-leading funding and commissioning system, we are mobilising existing expertise and infra- structure. Working with UK Research and Innovation, NHS England, appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales, the Gambling Commission and the third sector, we are transforming the current system to deliver better access, outcomes and services for people across our country. To ensure that there is sufficient trust, expertise and authority in the use of the levy funding for prevention, I confirmed to the House this morning that we will appoint the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities in the Department of Health and Social Care to take on the role as lead commissioning body in this area for England, alongside appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales.
Prevention remains a crucial part of the government’s efforts to tackle gambling-related harm. An effective prevention plan seeks to identify the right mix of interventions to be applied at both the population and individual level. That is why the Government are increasing dedicated investment, allocating 30% of levy funding to the prevention stream, alongside the significant funding allocated for research and treatment. Ring-fenced investment in this area will help to encourage innovation and support a strengthened, integrated and co-ordinated approach to prevention in Britain. Working closely with appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales, OHID will develop a comprehensive approach to prevention and early intervention, supporting improvement across the respective nations.
I want to recognise the leading role that GambleAware has played. Its work to raise awareness of gambling harm and provide support for those in need has been invaluable. We want to build on the successes of the current system while improving and expanding the system to better serve those at risk. Until now, financial contributions from operators have been the only source of funding for the sector. This funding has established the National Gambling Support Network, overseen by GambleAware, which has helped people in need across the country. However, the levy will mean that there is sustainable, ring-fenced and trusted funding for the first time. This will be used across Great Britain for vital treatment, better understanding of the causes of harm and early intervention to support greater awareness and reduce stigma.
My decision on prevention is about building the future system on the strongest foundations. Through the levy, we are investing £100 million of public money to tackle gambling harm and it is right that key commissioning decisions on research, prevention and treatment are made by statutory bodies to ensure that funding is spent appropriately. This is why we are appointing OHID alongside UKRI and NHS England.
Robust government oversight will ensure that levy funding is getting to where it is needed most. The Government will set clear objectives for the system to maximise value for money. We will establish a levy board as the mechanism for the Government to closely monitor spending and the overall effectiveness of the levy. We want to be led by the evidence of what works across the system and so, alongside the levy board, we will organise an advisory group.
We are confident that we have designed the levy in an effective and proportionate way. It has been a priority to strike the right balance between managing impacts on licensees and ensuring that operators are paying their fair share. I recognise that some gambling businesses are facing a tough fiscal environment. These regulations reduce levy rates for a number of licensees compared with the rates proposed in the previous Government’s consultation. Both the Tote and on-course bookmakers will also pay the levy at rates much lower than other land-based operators such as casinos and bookmakers. Online operators will be required to pay significantly more.
These regulations represent the beginning of a new phase for gambling harm reduction, one where people in our country are better protected and aware of the risks of harmful gambling. The levy is a crucial first step to delivering this and I look forward to discussing it further in the debate today. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, first, I confirm that I have not been promoted and nor am I even a Whip who is able to take over in certain circumstances. I am not sure whether a colleague of mine will be here to answer this debate from the opposition point of view.
I would just like to say a few words because I know others wish to speak who are far more up to date in many ways than I am. I was the Minister in the Home Office responsible for gambling—or controlling gambling, I should say, perhaps—back in the mid-1990s. I welcome in general anything that improves the services available to those who have addiction or who are likely to be vulnerable to gambling, but I always took the view when I was Minister that we could develop these matters in a simple, one-by-one regulation way rather than in a great way. I was therefore very disappointed when the Labour Government came in in 1997 to see that they took a very strong and comprehensive approach towards gambling, which I never thought was appropriate.
I have worried ever since about its effect. I spoke in the House on an Oral Question earlier this week and said how disturbed I was at the level of gambling in front of all of us, particularly young people, today, both in television advertising, which I would not accept was sensible or proper, and, as we all know, in the burgeoning amount of advertising in sport, such as at sports grounds and in sponsorship. There has been a dramatic increase in the amount of gambling in this country, which has been deleterious and unacceptable. Therefore, I welcome anything that is going to help. I want to ask a couple of questions, if I may, on this.
First, the use of the levy—directional and focused—seems to be correct, but we need a little more flesh on the bones regarding the delivery of support. We have talked about organisations. A number of organisations, some known to the Government and some in the charity sector and so on, are there to look after people who have fallen for gambling in the wrong way and are looking after their addictions and so on. Will the dispensation of the money raised on this levy be wide enough and comprehensive enough to cover all the areas in which people are vulnerable and suffering? I am not sure that that is the case, so I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurances. I must say that I am not happy with that element.
Secondly, is the administering of the levy sufficiently watertight, or are there ways in which it can be avoided? The list of specifics where the levy will be applicable is fairly comprehensive, but I still feel that we need to be clear that this is an obligatory levy that cannot be avoided by various means that might be used.
Finally, am I wrong to assume that the Government will not be doing much else about gambling advertising? I would like to know because, as I have pointed out and as other people have raised with me on many occasions, this level of advertising is unacceptable, but we never seem to deal with it—indeed, it burgeons even more.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
May I ask the noble Lord to go a little further than saying it is “unacceptable”? There is very clear evidence—more in this country than in any country in the world—that gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship is causing considerable gambling harm.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
The noble Lord is right. I do not think I can go much further because I am just making my views clear. I have certainly had direct contact with a number of organisations, in the charity field and other fields, which think that the matter is out of hand. I said it was “out of hand” in the Chamber earlier this week. It is out of hand. Consequently, while I welcome these provisions, I am pleading with the Government to get greater control of this, because it is unacceptable. Of course, online gambling is another area where it has burgeoned completely, and that seems to be in greater need. I know there is reference to that in the second of these two statutory instruments. It is completely out of control as well.
I am sorry to be so negative about this. I welcome the levy, at least, and, notwithstanding my questions about dispensation, I support the Government in what they are trying to do.
Lord Watts (Lab)
I very much welcome this legislation, which is overdue. I was a member of the Select Committee that looked at gambling, and we were very concerned about the lack of action, so I am pleased to see that the Government are taking action and have brought this forward.
I have two questions, the first of which is about the distribution of resources. We found that there were a number of organisations which were sometimes in conflict with each other. There needs to be co-ordination to make sure that we get effective spend and that spending results in the things that we want to see. Secondly, I am concerned about the growth of offshore gambling. It grew by a sizeable amount last year and is growing very fast. It is unregulated and will not be touched by this legislation. Will the Minister say something about that? It is of concern to the industry as well as to the public.
Overall, this strikes the right balance. I disagree with the previous point that there is plenty of evidence; there is not plenty of evidence that we can scrutinise. There needs to be proper scrutiny and accountability.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Would the noble Lord acknowledge that, in this country, there are 597 registered documents demonstrating a clear link between gambling advertising and gambling harm? That is more than in many European countries put together which, based on less evidence, have chosen to massively limit gambling advertising.
Lord Watts (Lab)
I agree that there is a lot of information out there, but I would like to see it scrutinised more professionally. Part of the problem we heard in the committee was that access to data made it difficult for the academic studies that were carried out to find the evidence needed. I hope that the instrument will allow academics to look at issues with gambling and the prevention of gambling addiction, and that it will be an effective measure to help people to avoid this trap.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of Peers for Gambling Reform. I congratulate the Minister on today’s announcement, which is very welcome as this is a major health issue. It is worth reminding your Lordships, a number of whom were on the Select Committee, of the shocking statistics and why we are having this debate. More than 60,000 teenagers and a third of a million adults are formally diagnosed with some sort of gambling addiction. It affects the lives of around 2 million adults. It is a debateable figure, but possibly more than 400 people take their lives over this serious issue every year, so I congratulate the Government on taking this seriously.
I will not say too much, because my colleagues will speak on this more, but I wonder if we could be told the rationale behind the £5 maximum stake. My understanding of the research is that it needs to be much lower, so it would be very helpful to understand how His Majesty’s Government got to that figure.
The introduction of this levy is hugely helpful. For many years, operators made extensive profits—we have used that phrase in the House time and again—by privatising the profits and nationalising the costs. There are 14 gambling clinics paid for by us, via the NHS, with our taxes. The polluter clearly needs to pay for this pollution. Those gambling operators have hardly contributed even 0.1% of their GGY to support the treatment of gambling harms, so the regulations are good news. They send a signal about the seriousness with which His Majesty’s Government are taking this.
Just last week, a High Court ruling found that Sky Betting & Gaming unlawfully bombarded a problem gambler with more than 1,300 marketing emails over a two-year period, because he was identified as a high-value customer. Sadly, these sorts of people then hugely suffer.
My other concern is that, with the level of harm that is going on, we need to review the amounts for treatment before waiting for five years—which is how I understand it. I urge the Government to consider annual funding reviews, so that we can ensure that money gets to treatment quickly to support all those who are suffering.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure about declaring interests, because I have never understood how on earth I got involved in this issue. It is in an incredibly difficult arena where so many people have experienced trauma. I have never laid a bet or bought a lottery ticket. I grew up in a household that did not even have a pack of cards. None of us was exposed to anything around gambling, and nothing in my life has led me anywhere near it.
The reason that I became interested in gambling was gambling harm and what that does to people, particularly those with complex needs. I have been involved in that area of work over many years, particularly with regard to women. Those who were on the Select Committee will remember that I used to rabbit on about women when no one knew that that was an issue. Even that short time ago, we really did not address it in the Select Committee. It is very clearly an important issue, particularly around online gambling, as they are being used exploitatively in ways that we are only just becoming aware of, which I am very worried about. However, that is not what we are concerned with today.
I will not talk about the restriction on the amount that you can put into a slot machine, as that is not really my area of expertise, but I do want to talk about the compulsory levy and the move from where we are now to where we need to be. It is not very long to 1 April. With the amount of time that there is for transition, we need to make sure that there is a straightforward way ahead for those who are working on these issues, either in treatment or in prevention—and it is not as clear a division as we sometimes talk about it being. We are still a long way from knowing the amount of money that can be spent, who will spend it and how that is understood.
I congratulate my noble friend on getting the decision out today. She knows that I have some anxiety. I am not as convinced as colleagues in Peers for Gambling Reform that OHID is the right vehicle. First, OHID, virtually does not exist at the moment. It has been denuded since the change from Public Health England during Covid, and there are only three people in the Department of Health who now work for OHID. They are not in a position even to be thinking about what commissioning in this area means at the moment. There will have to be a big recruitment, very fast learning and a really clear understanding.
I love the National Health Service—my husband is back working for the NHS at the moment, even though he is 76—but, historically, it has not been good at enabling people themselves to take decisions in the journey through the change that they need to get out of their problems. Too often, it has told people what the answer is, what the treatment should be and what they need to do. My experience is that, until we get neighbourhood health organisations—I know that that is one issues being worked on in the 10-year plan—we are in danger of the NHS trying to tell people with lived experience and people running charities how they should behave, rather than seeing them as essential partners in the journey from very early prevention, when somebody first understands that they or somebody in their family might have a problem, through to when the heavy end of treatment is needed.
As an example of how it is really complicated to understand this, the previous Government said that the online help service, which is run by GamCare at the moment, is part of treatment and not prevention, when in fact, a lot of people ringing up are just asking, “Do I have a problem? Is there somebody I can talk to who might be helpful?” They are not ready for treatment or therapy as such; they want someone to help them understand the problems they are getting into and their alternative ways forward.
For me, it is a continuum between prevention and treatment. We have to make sure that funding does not totally separate those two, because then you will lose the strength of some of those voluntary organisations, particularly those that are run by people with lived experience, in how they help people through the different stages. Some are just treatment centres; if you think about the residential people or the NHS clinics, they are both into treatment. My concern as well is that, given the pressures that I know there are in the NHS, if the money goes through the NHS without any checks, there may be a push to spend it all on treatment clinics. That cannot happen, because that will mean that millions will lose that ability to engage before it becomes a big NHS issue.
On women, my experience is that they really do not want to let anybody in the state who has control over the future of their children know when they are getting into problems, because they are terrified that they will lose their children. So we have to handle this very carefully.
I know that the Minister is aware of these things, and I hope that OHID, as it grows and develops, will use people who are currently working in the commissioning area and who understand this, so that they are able to help negotiate the way forward.
On GambleAware, I thank the Minister for saying what she did. I was a trustee of GambleAware and used to get a bit annoyed by everybody out there saying, “Oh, GambleAware takes its money from the industry and it’s run by the industry”. I have never met anybody from the industry since 2005, I think. For me to be told that I was controlled by the industry was a bit of an insult, to put it mildly, when I know that that is not the case. However, I accept that too many people built this up into a great issue and so GambleAware could not continue it, but it has the expertise and the brand. It is contacted through its website about tackling gambling harm more than any other organisation in the world.
It has had incredible, really powerful campaigns in the last couple of years—for example, on stigma. It has also commissioned research: I encourage my noble friend sitting in front of me to look at the research from Bristol University, which has been peer reviewed very strictly, on the effect of harm from gambling advertising. It demonstrates that you can remove a lot of gambling advertising without affecting the main work of the gambling industry. It affects mostly those people who are on the edge of harm and who then get into it. It annoys me as a football supporter that I have to sit among all the advertising, but it does not push me into doing it.
So there are many things here. I know the Minister is aware of the issue of timing. There is much to be done to ensure that the network of providers in the voluntary sector does not end up being tipped over, because there is no certainty about its future. GambleAware is a charity and, because the trustees have responsibilities in its charitable role, it will need a deadline cut-off when it can reassure the people who use the network that there will be a future and that their money for the next year will be there.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, while I welcome the Government’s intention to implement a statutory levy, as provided for in the 2005 Act, I am concerned that the levy set out in the draft regulations has not gone far enough, because it has been fixed at such a low level that it will make little difference to the lives of those who find themselves in gambling harm. The money raised will not allow adequate treatment or be sufficient to ensure that proper prevention and education measures are put in place.
Recent data from the Gambling Commission is concerning. For a number of years, it was suggested that gambling harm in the United Kingdom affected around 0.5% of the population. Now we have discovered that the problem is significantly greater than we previously thought. The latest data shows that gambling harm in the UK directly affects 2.5% of the adult population. This means that over 1.5 million adults in the UK struggle with the public health effects of gambling addiction.
The economic cost of gambling harm, according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, is approximately £1.4 billion annually, but this was based on the much lower figure of under 0.5% of the UK population and the costs are certainly much higher now when based on new data. Indeed, the costs may well be almost £5 billion. This figure encompasses increased healthcare expenditure, higher welfare support, criminal justice costs and homelessness services for those affected. Individuals experiencing problem gambling are nine times more likely to require hospital treatment and four times more likely to need homelessness support, which of course dramatically increases healthcare risks and the need for additional treatment. While the economic cost of gambling is significant, the cost to families and individuals caught in gambling harm is incalculable. Almost 500 people across the UK take their own lives each year due to gambling harm.
I believe that this levy is insufficient to deal with the costs of gambling harm. Clause 4 of the draft regulations sets out the level of the levy for each type of gambling operator. It is clearly right that those gambling licences, such as remote online gambling operators, which cause the most harm and pose the greatest risk are levied at the highest level. I welcome this graduated levy from low to high risk, but again underscore that the percentage rate or gross gambling yield set by the regulations is too low to have a meaningful impact.
The proposed tiered structure in Clause 4 aims to raise between £90 million and £100 million annually when fully implemented. Again, this falls way short of what is needed. Back in 2019, in evidence given to the Select Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry by Dr Anna van der Gaag, it was estimated that treating a person in gambling harm costs around £600 per annum. Uplifting that figure by a modest 10% over the last six years would give a figure of £660 per annum needed to treat every person in gambling harm. This means that we need about £1 billion every year just to treat every person currently in gambling harm, and this would require a levy of £1 billion just to stand still. The levy proposed by the draft regulations will raise a mere one-tenth of what is needed for treatment. That leaves no money in the pot for research and prevention and is likely to leave nine-tenths of those with gambling harm not helped at all.
The gambling industry generates over £15 billion in profits annually. These draft regulations will levy approximately 0.67% of industry profits. This seems disproportionately low relative to the scale of the issue. I urge the Minister to think again about the levels set in the draft regulations and at the very least consider raising the levy for the most harmful remote gambling licences to at least 5%.
Finally, while these regulations will apply only to Great Britain, I want to raise a very specific issue in respect of Northern Ireland. It is not right to say that gambling is fully devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. By virtue of Section 5 of the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014, it is an offence to advertise and thereby operate remote gambling in Northern Ireland without holding a GB remote gambling licence. People in Northern Ireland, which has a much more significant gambling harm problem than the rest of the United Kingdom, are targeted by companies holding GB remote gambling operator licences. Remote gambling, the most harmful type of gambling, is therefore not devolved.
Every remote gambling company that targets adverts to people in Northern Ireland and thereby causes harm in Northern Ireland, does so because of their GB licence issued by the Gambling Commission. While the Northern Ireland Assembly must move forward swiftly and introduce a levy for terrestrial gambling, it is certainly morally if not legally arguable that these regulations, in respect of the remote elements of the levy, should apply to Northern Ireland. I urge the Minister to consider how Northern Ireland could be included in these regulations as regards remote gambling, which is, at least in part, no longer devolved, as I have said.
In conclusion, the current funding uncertainty is detrimental to the treatment and support pathways for many hundreds of people who are registering each day with many different charities, such as GAMSTOP. I call for clarity on the levy and for the legislation to be tightened as soon as possible.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I shall be very brief. I want to make a few comments regarding the stake limits set by the Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024. I am unsure of the rationale set out in the regulations for setting a limit of £5 for over-25s. Given that terrestrial gambling is limited to an average of £2 across all gaming machines, and given the higher risk of gambling harm from online gaming, it seems difficult to understand what the Government’s rationale is in setting a limit of £5 for remote operators in these regulations.
It seems almost too obvious to point out, but most terrestrial gambling operators close, while online casinos are open 24 hours a day. How can a higher limit be appropriate for a more harmful product that cannot be switched off? A holder of a remote licence, given the continuous operation and the much lower level of fixed costs, such as premises and staffing costs, is much more profitable than its land-based equivalent. Remote licence holders have a gross gambling yield that is almost twice that of their terrestrial equivalent. Given that the harm is greater online and they accrue more revenue, it is difficult to understand why the limit has been set at such a high level.
The Gambling Commission, as part of its risks algorithms data study found that 52% of gamblers placing stakes of above £2 and up to £5 were most at risk of gambling harm. Given the increased risk, it seems difficult to understand why the limit has been set in such a way that those most at risk of gambling harm are not protected from that risk. It is my view that even a £2 limit on remote stakes is too high. Even when spinning at a very low stake size of between £1 and £2, evidence from the Gambling Commission survey in 2021 highlights that more than one in five gamblers suffer high or medium levels of harm. Additionally, online slots are associated with binge gambling and long gambling sessions, accounting for over 70% of single-product gambling sessions that last over three hours. Clearly, remote gambling is highly addictive and a sustained harm that people find difficult to escape from.
If £2 is too high a maximum for over-25s, it is clearly much too high a level for those aged 18 to 25. Given the difficulty faced by young people, the risk is much higher and the stake limits should be much lower. I am concerned that the evidence does not support a limit of £5 for over-25s and £2 for 18 to 25 year-olds. The clear evidence is that these limits should be lower. I urge the Government to think again and ensure that these regulations properly protect those who find themselves at risk of harm.
I am concerned that, if these draft regulations are passed, the risks of remote gambling will not be reduced and they will have a limited or no impact on reducing gambling harm and protecting those who are most vulnerable. Unlike other noble Lords, I am not convinced that these regulations go far enough and do what needs to be done. We all know that addictive gambling creates major problems not only for the individuals involved but for the families who suffer in all this. The Government could go much further and look again at the issue and the regulations before us.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform and as a vice-chair of the APPG on Gambling Reform. I assure the Minister that, today, I will say nothing further on advertising, but I will be back on that subject later.
I begin with a very strong welcome for these two statutory instruments. Many of us have campaigned for many years to achieve what they bring. However, having said that, it is clear that we need to get them absolutely right.
I start with the SI on stake limits. Noble Lords are aware that, with the mass adoption of smartphones, the evidence grew that online slots—accounting for more than half of gambling revenues online—were causing a great deal of harm. So the campaign began to try to get the same £2 stake limit for online gambling as had been achieved by the successful, although lengthy, campaign to get a £2 maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals, which was introduced in 2019.
We welcome the £2 limit for younger players announced in the statutory instrument, but Peers for Gambling Reform, the APPG, the noble Lords behind me and the right reverend Prelate have all rightly expressed real concern about the £5 limit for other players. We fail to understand why the Government went for it. Unfortunately, I can provide a possible answer: I think it is based on the Government’s ill-judged desire to grow the gambling sector.
As the Minister knows, I have been very concerned. For instance, at the GambleAware conference at the end of last year, she said,
“I believe it is possible to have an industry that is growing and that is safer for consumers”.
Frankly, I find it hard to understand how a Government who acknowledge that gambling should be treated as a public health issue can also claim to want to help the gambling industry grow. Reducing gambling harm simply is not compatible with growing the size of the gambling industry, as was made clear in the recent report by the Lancet public health commission on gambling.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Is the noble Lord trying to suggest that all forms of gambling are addictive? There are millions of people who regularly enjoy a bet. It is possible to grow a business and still not increase the number of people who have an addiction. Most people do not have an addiction; is that not correct?
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
No, I do not accept that basic premise. Indeed, I suspect that the Minister supports these statutory instruments. The instrument concerning the levy makes clear that there are different levels of contribution for various parts of the gambling sector, which is based on an assessment of the risk. The noble Lord and I would both accept that bingo, for example, does not create a great deal of harm, but the research clearly indicates that it creates harm, nevertheless, and that is why it is included in the levy. I entirely accept that the size of the harm varies.
The noble Lord asked me whether I was prepared to accept that the vast majority of gambling does not create harm. The answer is no, I will not accept that —I shall not accept it when 2.5 million people in this country are suffering from gambling harm. I will not accept it when more than one gambling-related suicide per day takes place in this country. I will not accept it when the evidence shows that anybody, regardless of age or background, can suffer gambling harm. So, no, I will not accept the noble Lord’s premise.
I was trying to explain that the £5 limit is due to the bizarre desire on the part of the Government in believing that they can reduce gambling harm yet increase the size of the sector. The fact that they want to do that, and the complication that it causes, was made very clear when this instrument was debated in the other place. The Minister, Stephanie Peacock, said—and it is so revealing—that
“we know that those who do reach that higher limit are at higher risk. This statutory instrument”
aims
“to balance tackling gambling harms with supporting industry”.—[Official Report, Commons, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 29/1/25; col. 7.]
Those are the Minister’s very words; she admits that the £5 limit means that there will be a greater amount of harm, yet she is prepared to tolerate it because the Government want to expand the industry. That is despite the Gambling Commission data from 2023 showing that 52% of gamblers staking over £2 and up to £5 are flagged by the commission as at risk. Despite that, the Government have bowed to the industry in the way that I have just described.
That is in marked contrast to what the previous Conservative Government did when they introduced a £2 stake for fixed-odds betting terminals. They came under exactly the same pressure from the industry, which did not want that stake limit. The then Secretary of State, Matt Hancock, said:
“When faced with the choice of halfway measures or doing everything we can to protect vulnerable people, we have chosen to take a stand. These machines are a social blight and prey on some of the most vulnerable in society, and we are determined to put a stop to it and build a fairer society for all”.
They took a stand against the pressure from the gambling industry and, while I welcome the £2 limit, I am disappointed that we have the £5 limit going forward. I hope that the Minister will at least assure us that the SI provides sufficient flexibility for the Government to change that limit if they realise and accept the error of their ways.
I turn to the other statutory instrument and the introduction of the statutory levy to fund research, prevention and treatment. The Minister knows full well how delighted I am that this is now being introduced. I am absolutely delighted, as others have said, that the announcement has been made, even today, about the introduction of OHID and similar bodies in Scotland and Wales to be the prevention commissioner. I am well aware of the enormous amount of work that has gone on to get us to this position, and I pay tribute to the Minister, her predecessors and the very large number of civil servants who have worked so hard to get us where we are today.
However, the Minister knows that the work is not over; a great deal has to be done. For example, we have heard already from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, the right reverend Prelate and others that there is real concern that the amount of money that will come in will be insufficient. After all, the £100 million that will come in from the levy, approximately, is more or less comparable with the amount of money that we are already getting in through current voluntary contributions. As others have said, all the research evidence clearly shows that the cost to the country of gambling harm is at least £1 billion, and some estimates are very much higher.
As my friend the right reverend Prelate pointed out, on the polluter pays principle, many would argue—and I would be one of them—that the level should be very much higher than in the current instrument, but it is a welcome start. I hope that the Minister can confirm that nothing will prevent the Government, should they come to a different view about the appropriate level, being able to change it, even, if necessary, on an annual basis, since the levy is an annual one—although there is a nine-month period for the first one.
In a recent letter, for which I thank her, the Minister said:
“We are pursuing this landmark reform to put the independence of the future system beyond absolute doubt”.
I welcome that, but does she acknowledge that some gambling companies may still choose to make voluntary contributions? If we want to ensure that independence, we need transparency about that. Does she accept that it will be important that those voluntary donations are clearly identified and recorded, and we know to whom the payments are made? She will be aware that the Gambling Commission has just announced that it is no longer going to require that evidence to be collected. I hope she might be willing to persuade the commission that, for the sake of the transparency that she talks about and for the clarity of independence, it might think again about it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, is 100% right to say that the key issue now, having got to where we are, is how we deal with the interim period between where we are now and the full introduction of the levy. A safe transition is vital to ensuring that there is no system degradation, prevention work continues and people at risk or experiencing gambling harm can access the support they need. That means two things: continuity of income to pay for the services and urgent decisions on the allocation of such funds. On the first, even though we may disagree about what level it should be at, can the Minister confirm that the Government have received categorical assurances that the industry will continue to make appropriate voluntary payments until the first statutory payments kick in? Can she also tell us to whom those payments are to be made? On the second, the fund allocation, the Government have consistently and rightly said that the role of the third sector will continue to be vital in this new research, prevention and treatment system. I fully support that. I accept that over time, the new commissioners may choose to commission different things and from different providers. But assurances are needed that, albeit over time in a modified form, the vital third sector experience and expertise, and the important contribution from the wider lived-experience community, will be sustained in the new system. Will the Minister confirm that?
In the immediate term, urgent decisions are needed. Many organisations need to know, in some cases within just a few weeks, whether their service is expected to continue at least over the next couple of years. Gordon Moody, for example, provides a range of gambling treatment services, including residential therapy, which means that it has significant fixed costs, but the reserves are sufficient to support it for only three months. Clearly, that service and others involved in the National Gambling Support Network need urgently to know what funding, if any, they will receive.
I am sure that the Minister and her officials are well aware of this challenge, but it would be reassuring to have her confirmation of that and some indication of how the Government plan to proceed. While there is still much to be done, these two statutory instruments are important and welcome landmarks on the road to tackling gambling harm. I welcome them.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an important and interesting debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords for their insightful contributions and for their work over many years. It is clear from today’s discussion that we all share the commitment to protecting the British public from gambling-related harm. The Government want to do that while ensuring that those who want to gamble can continue to do so as safely as possible.
I am determined to get this regime right. As outlined, the online slots stake limits are an important and proportionate intervention aimed at people most at risk of gambling-related harm. This is a timely regulation, as online slots games continue, as mentioned earlier, to grow in popularity and gross gambling yield. These limits will bolster existing safer game design requirements to ensure that online slots games are safer to play. Online slots stake limits should serve as a maximum stake that customers should choose to stake up to, rather than as a new default that operators drive customers towards. Operators currently offer stakes from as little as one penny per spin, and we would expect a range of staking options far below the maximum available.
To reassure noble Lords, the Secretary of State will review the limits within five years. The statutory levy will be charged to all licensed gambling operators, replacing and building on the current system based on voluntary donations.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Regarding the other part of my question, can the Minister confirm that it would, however, be possible to make a change within a one-year period?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I can confirm that. I have lots of inserts in my brief, so I will get to other points later in my response.
The levy will be charged in a way that recognises the higher levels of harm associated with some online products, which a number of noble Lords noted, and the higher operating costs in the land-based sector. This will guarantee that all operators pay their fair share, while ensuring that any impacts are proportionate.
Working in partnership with the appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales, and the third sector, we are entering a new phase in the Government’s efforts to tackle and treat gambling harms. We will closely monitor the impact our approach is having on the ground, with a DCMS-led levy board maintaining clear oversight of the system. We will also conduct a formal review within five years and take action as needed. I am happy to set up a briefing meeting with interested noble Lords to go through the more technical aspects of the levy process and how the Government’s oversight of it will work in practice.
I turn now to the wide range of questions and points raised in what was an interesting debate, starting with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, that the £100 million that will be raised by the new statutory levy will not be enough. I note that we are nearly doubling the level of funding in the system. We will monitor the impacts of the levy and formally review the system within five years, including levy rates. Any change would be subject to full consultation, and we would need to be led by the evidence.
Although it has been welcome that operators have voluntarily contributed to the current levy, it is no longer fit for purpose and the Government’s priority is to ensure sufficient long-term funding for research, prevention and treatment to tackle gambling harm, in line with our manifesto commitment. This is part of a suite of protections that we and the Gambling Commission are introducing to prevent harm before it occurs.
On the Government’s timing of the levy, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, mentioned the need for charities to have some certainty over funding. I am grateful for the significant uplift in funding of research, prevention and treatment that the industry has provided in recent years. Without this support, it is unlikely that the expansion of treatment services would have been possible up to the point of getting the statutory levy. We have received a commitment from the Betting and Gaming Council that its financial contributions will continue until the levy is in force. Operators should make their final contributions to charities as soon as possible to maximise the time ahead of their first levy payments. We have received reassurances on that point.
I strongly agree with my noble friend Lady Armstrong that the work carried out by GambleAware, not least on stigma, is hugely valuable. My officials and I met GambleAware yesterday, and we will support it through a safe and smooth transition. It is a real priority for me that the right services in the current system are maintained for the future; we do not want to see a cliff edge where, with good intentions, we cause unintended harm. I will write to Minister Dalton, as she starts her new role, to set out my priorities to see a smooth transition for OHID and to engage with all key stakeholders. We are keen to make sure that operators maintain their level of contributions to networks such as the National Gambling Support Network to ensure that they have the funding they need. As I mentioned, we have received reassurances from the industry that funding for services will be maintained in the transition.
Points on stake limits were raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hay of Ballyore and Lord Foster, among others. I appreciate that there are concerns that the £5 stake limit is higher than the £2 fixed-odds betting terminal limit, but a £5 limit brings online slot machines in line with their closest land-based machine counterparts. We believe that a higher limit is justified online by the extra protections afforded by account-based online play, such as monitoring data for signs of harm, safer game design and checks for financial risk.
The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lords, Lord Hay and Lord Foster, asked how we decided where the stake limit should be set—why £5? In our view, a £5 stake limit will protect those most vulnerable to serious harm while balancing the impact that this measure will have on the industry. Primarily, we considered consultation responses, expert evidence and harms data related to each of the staking levels and determined that the £5 limit targets those customers most at risk of harm. I note that the average stake on online slots is 60p.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, quoted Minister Peacock in the debate in the other place. The evidence shows that people staking high amounts are more likely to experience gambling harm. The £5 stake limit is a targeted intervention to protect those most at risk. These stake limits build on other rules introduced by the Gambling Commission in 2021 that make online slots safer to play. Those requirements slowed the speed of play to a minimum of 2.5 seconds per spin. A raft of rules will reduce play intensity, including a ban on autoplay features, as well as features which speed up the display of results or which can give the illusion of control, such as turbo or slam stops. The evidence shows that these features increase the risk of harm to customers.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, asked about R&D funding from the levy. Research, prevention and treatment are the key areas where we think investment is most needed to reduce gambling harms. We will monitor the impact that levy funding is having on the ground and will step in as needed. As I mentioned previously, we will formally review the levy within five years.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, mentioned gambling-related suicide. I am aware of the truly devastating impact that harmful gambling can have, including contributing to suicide. I have visited the National Gambling Clinic and seen at first hand the excellent work the service provides for those in acute need. We are committed to working cross-government on this issue, including with the Department of Health and Social Care on its suicide prevention strategy. Statistics around things as complex as suicide should be used carefully, and we will continue to work with the Gambling Commission to develop the evidence base on gambling-related suicide, which will be important going forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, referenced the statistics in the Gambling Survey for Great Britain. Although the harm statistics seen in the gambling survey are higher than previous statistics from health surveys, this does not necessarily represent an increase in problem gambling, as the two surveys have different methodologies and the results cannot be compared like for like. The Government are committed to ensuring that the potential harm that can ensue from gambling is limited, and we are strengthening protections for those at risk. However, we need to make sure that when we are comparing statistics, we use them carefully, and I am keen that as part of the investment in research, we have a really strong evidence base going forward.
On advertising, which the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Foster, and the right reverend Prelate raised, the Gambling Commission is introducing new requirements for operators to allow customers to have greater control over the direct marketing they receive and has consulted on measures to ensure that incentives such as free bets are constructed in a safety-responsible manner. There is work ongoing with the DHSE and the Gambling Commission to develop a new evidence-based model for independently developed messages to increase awareness of gambling harms, replacing industry ownership of safer gambling messaging.
However, I am clear that standards can be raised and, as I set out at the GambleAware conference on 4 December last year, more needs to be done to improve the protections. We have set the gambling industry a clear task to further raise standards to ensure that the levels of gambling advertising and sponsorship do not exacerbate harm, and that work will be monitored closely.
My noble friend Lord Watts asked about offshore or illegal gambling. The Gambling Commission is committed to preventing illegal gambling in all its forms. Its latest corporate strategy commits to increasing investment and resources to tackle illegal gambling.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked about Northern Ireland. We recognise our shared interest in a commitment to the reduction of gambling harm. Gambling regulation is, as the noble Lord noted, devolved in Northern Ireland, where it falls under separate legislation. Unlike Great Britain, Northern Ireland does not have an independent gambling regulator, and we stand ready to support the Northern Ireland Executive in plans to reform regulation in this space.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and a number of other noble Lords asked when we would review the levy. We recognise that the levy represents a significant change for the sector. We will monitor the levy system closely to ensure its effectiveness and to ensure that it delivers on our objectives. Although we will formally review the levy within five years, we will closely consider any necessary changes earlier, including revised regulations to change levy rates.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, queried how the Government can see this as part of growth alongside the commitment to tackle gambling harm. I appreciate that the noble Lord is unlikely to agree with me on this point but I believe it is possible to have an industry that is both growing and becoming safer for consumers. I want to see a safer, more responsible gambling industry and a sector we can be proud of—which offers good jobs, brings social value and which people enjoy—alongside making sure that we do whatever we can to reduce gambling harm in all its forms, both for people experiencing gambling harm themselves and their families and the wider community.
In conclusion, I am really grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed today. I am always happy to meet—I know that I owe the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans a meeting—but I have spoken to a number of noble Lords present today about this issue. I am grateful to noble Lords for everything they are doing to raise issues in this area, and I beg to move.
Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Baroness Twycross
That the Grand Committee do consider the Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Economic Growth: Public Spending
(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect on economic growth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s comments before the Budget on the “public spending inheritance” and of the consequent rise in employer National Insurance contributions.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, it was this Government’s duty in the Budget last year to fix the foundations of the economy and repair the £22 billion black hole in the public finances. We have always been clear that there are costs to responsibility; the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions will have consequences for businesses and beyond, but the costs of irresponsibility for the economy and working people would have been far greater. We are, of course, not satisfied with the growth rate. That is why we are going further and faster on economic growth, including through the measures announced in the Chancellor’s recent growth speech.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, it seems the Government have no real idea of the damage the Chancellor has caused to the economy with her negativity and the ideological jobs tax. Perhaps they will listen to the CBI, which reports that expectations in the private sector are now the lowest in over two years, and private sector activity fell again in the three months to January. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation survey points to the most widespread weakening in demand for staff since the height of Covid in August 2020. The CEO said, somewhat damningly, that government actions are acting as “brakes on progress”. When will the Minister acknowledge that the Budget for growth and stability has produced the diametrically opposite result? If the Government are ideologically driven to extract cash from the private sector, there are much more business-efficient and tax-friendly ways of so doing.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question, but his contention seems to be that we were wrong to be honest about the challenges in the public finances, and should instead have maintained the previous Government’s cover-up. He seems to be saying that we were wrong to deal with those challenges, and should instead have maintained the £22 billion black hole in the public finances. Let me be clear: those are exactly the two ingredients—hiding from scrutiny and hiding from reality—at the heart of the Liz Truss mini-Budget, and we saw how that ended. If that is the noble Lord’s recommendation, I fundamentally disagree with him. We were right to restore honesty and transparency to the public finances, and we were right to repair them, which is why we took the difficult decisions that we did.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the last Tory Government left £22 billion to be paid by somebody? We heard no suggestion just now of how you bridge the gap between what the country can afford and that £22 billion.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I completely agree with my noble friend. He is absolutely right that the previous Government left a £22 billion black hole; they had no idea how to fund that. We have still heard absolutely no alternative put forward by the Conservative Party: no alternative for dealing with the challenges that we face, no alternative for restoring economic stability and therefore no plan for driving economic growth.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that growth will be very limited unless we fix the NHS, but that the NHS cannot be fixed until we significantly strengthen and expand both community health and social care services? So why are the Government levying increased employers’ NICs on GPs, dentists, pharmacies, hospices and care services so that they are now planning significant cuts? How does this make any sense? By the way, our proposals were costed and funded.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. With the greatest respect, she wants the investment in the National Health Service but is opposing the national insurance contributions increases that fund this increased investment. I am afraid that you cannot have one without the other.
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is part of democracy that there is a universal call for politicians to tell the truth but that, when they do, they attract criticism, like that from the noble Lord opposite? Last year our right honourable friend the Chancellor told the truth about what she described as the black hole, and which I described as: “Nothing bloody worked”. Is it not a fact that to repair the damage done in 14 years will take time and patience? The Government are showing the right way with fresh capital investment and a total commitment to stimulating growth in the private and public sectors of our economy.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I completely agree with my noble friend, and I am grateful to him for what he says. It is absolutely no approach to say that we should continue a previous Government’s cover-up and not be honest about the difficulties in the public finances. It is also completely wrong to say that we were wrong to deal with those challenges and should instead have maintained what my noble friend describes as a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. We were absolutely right to do what we did. We know that there are costs to responsibility, but the cost to irresponsibility would have been far greater—we saw that in the Liz Truss mini-Budget. Repeating the failures of the last 14 years is exactly not what the British economy needs.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, taking together the impact of national insurance contribution increases and the 6.7% hike in the national minimum wage, can the Minister explain how raising the cost of employment by an average of £2,400 per employee is consistent with boosting economic growth?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am sorry that the noble Lord is not able to support the increases in the national minimum wage; that is a shame to hear. I do not know whether he was able to read the monetary policy report that was published alongside the growth forecast last week, but the Bank of England said that the combined effects of the measures in the Autumn Budget are expected to boost the level of GDP by around 0.75%.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
The biggest mistake the Government made was during the general election, which they were obviously going to win, when they promised not to raise the basic taxes—income tax, VAT, national insurance for employees and so on—which are the normal toolbox of a Chancellor, so that when they inherited a fiscal crisis, they raised quite the worst possible tax on employers and employees. At the same time, they borrowed billions of pounds more, saying it was not more spending but investment. After this disaster, will the Minister now agree that the new Government have made a financial crisis even worse than it was when they were elected? Will they turn the March Statement into a mini-Budget to try to begin to repair the damage they have done?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I completely disagree with what he says. His contention is that we should have taxed working people after a cost of living crisis, and after the previous Government froze income tax thresholds and raised taxes on working people by £30 billion. I completely disagree; if that is his contention, I think he is wrong. He also says we were wrong to increase investment in the economy. The IMF has said that the lack of public investment in the economy was one of the major constraints to economic growth, and we have rectified that—so, on that point too, I think he is wrong.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, there is great concern in the charitable sector about these increases. Can the Minister tell us whether His Majesty’s Government are monitoring the effect on the charitable sector?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
We of course monitor the effect of all our policies on all sectors of the economy. We have increased the amount of money going to charities, and we will stand by that increased investment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the fact is that people across the UK are deeply concerned about the rise in employers’ NICs, as we will discuss on Report on the NICs Bill on 25 February. This is the wrong tax raid, and the OBR has reported that next year it will raise £10 billion less than the Treasury forecasts. Last week we heard, as we feared, the Bank of England halving its growth forecast for the UK. Will the Minister accept that the threat of the Chancellor’s jobs tax has crashed business confidence and the economy?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
No, I will not. The noble Baroness says it was the wrong tax rise; she has said that several times. She has never said what the right tax rise is, so I am not sure how she plans to fill the £22 billion black hole. She talks about growth forecasts; I notice that she did not mention that the Bank of England upgraded its growth forecast for the next year and the year after. She did not mention that the IMF now forecasts us to be the fastest-growing major European economy. She did not mention that the UK is now the second most attractive country in the world for inward investment—the first time we have been so for 28 years. We have still heard no alternative at all put forward by the Conservative Party: no alternative for dealing with the challenges that we face, no alternative for restoring economic stability and therefore no plan for driving economic growth.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that attracting capital investment is a way forward, in which we can get growth and have some optimism instead of all the pessimism that we keep hearing? Will he review the possibility that we should explore and bring in more private-public partnerships that will bring capital in from across the world, maybe even America? We might have PPPs attached to the NHS and find ways to do a trade deal with the Americans.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I completely agree with what my noble friend says about business sentiment—increasing positive sentiment in the economy—and I agree with him about increasing investment in the economy. It would be nice to hear a bit more positive sentiment from the party opposite. I will read what Rain Newton-Smith from the CBI said in the aftermath of the Chancellor’s growth speech last week: businesses will welcome the Chancellor
“grasping decisions that have sat on the desk of government for too long”,
showing that we are serious about growth and prepared to take the tough decisions that are necessary.
Solar Panels
(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Future Homes and Building Standards consultation, setting out proposals for new energy efficiency standards, was published at the end of 2023. It included proposals for fitting new, non-domestic premises with solar panels. The consultation received over 2,000 responses. We have carefully considered the feedback received and, while I do not want to pre-judge our detailed policy announcement, I can say that this Government recognise the vital role of rooftop solar in contributing to the clean energy mission and that we are therefore keen to see solar panels deployed on all buildings where it is appropriate and practical. We intend to publish the government response in the coming months.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply; I know how passionately she feels about this issue. Is she aware that only a ridiculously small number of industrial and commercial premises are fitted with solar panels? There has been just too little urgency for many years to change that outrageous state of affairs. I live near what is called the largest logistics park in Europe and have been informed that there are no solar panels on any of the vast number of buildings that make up the park. Can the Government ensure that this national scandal is treated as a matter of urgency?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his comments. Of course, it is vital that we get on now and get this moving as quickly as possible. The future buildings standards consultation outlined a number of proposals for new non-domestic buildings and we need to expand that to existing non-domestic buildings. We are ambitious and believe that the standards we set are technically achievable and affordable across all sites. We are working very closely with colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to confirm the technical detail of these standards. As soon as we can, we will make sure that we do what is necessary to get this out to as many non-domestic buildings as possible. Your Lordships have my personal commitment to that, as the noble Lord kindly said.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. Can the Government look also at all government buildings, because there are a lot of savings we can make? I am pleased to say that Leicester City Council has started to look at how it can issue tenders for solar on its properties in the city.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness and congratulate Leicester on the work it is doing in this space. It is important to say that current standards, introduced in December 2021, already encourage the use of solar panels in non-domestic buildings, and they are expected to produce around 27% lower carbon emissions compared with those built to the previous standards. To meet the 2021 standards, they are expected to be built with very high fabric standards and improved building services, including heat pumps and solar panels. When we make our announcement, we will encourage as many non-domestic building owners as possible to take that on board and to use every technique they can to improve the standards they work to, including on government buildings.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Peers for the Planet. The Minister’s remarks about the consultation and its results were extremely encouraging and I am grateful to her for them. She spoke about the role of solar panels in the Government’s clean energy mission, but does she agree with me that, particularly for industrial buildings, the fitting of solar panels makes economic and financial sense and gives the people working in those businesses and buildings both energy sufficiency and lower bills?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that the fitting of more efficient energy methods contributes to both the energy security of our country and the efficiency of those buildings. It is very important that we focus on that as much as we can and we will do all we can to encourage that with non-domestic buildings. Some technical issues came up as part of the consultation responses—we had 2,000 responses, including some on the fitting of solar panels to roofs and other efficiency measures—and it is important that we look at them before we issue our statement.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, one of the big challenges in encouraging more solar panels on large industrial premises is the lack of ability to connect to the national grid. I am sure that the Government are aware of that challenge, but what are they going to do about it?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a very important question for all the growth that we are predicting for our country. My colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are working very closely with the national grid to improve grid capacity; it will be essential to have that going forward. We need to make sure that that is the case, both to drive the growth that we want to see, because energy is vital to that, and to keep our energy security for the country the way we want it as we grow the economy.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, there is currently a potential conflict between the Government’s desire to ensure all rental homes have a minimum EPC energy efficiency rating of C and planning restrictions for buildings that are either listed or in a conservation zone. This is forcing many housing associations to look at selling many affected but much-needed affordable homes. What will the Government do to address this issue?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We have had issues around energy efficiency improvements to heritage and listed buildings. It is important to get the balance here right, though. Of course, we want to drive energy efficiency and we will be working with all the conservation associations, including Historic England, to look at what more we can do to drive energy efficiency as effectively as possible while still preserving the very important heritage aspects of the buildings in this country.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, could the Government consider making it a legal requirement? Even the terrible Government of the past 14 years tried to encourage people. But that does not work. You need to make it a legal requirement. And it is popular. I do not understand why this Government do not go for a popular policy for a change.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We have a whole range of popular policies, which, I suggest, is why we are here and the other side are not. We are considering measures. We put extra measures into the national planning policy framework and we will continue to do what we can. I like to encourage people where possible. If that does not work, we may have to look again. It is very important that we do everything we can to sell the benefits of having solar panels and other energy-efficient methods of generating heat and other forms of energy and we will continue to do that.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, it is frequently quoted that ground-mounted solar installations take over 0.1% of UK land, which will increase to 0.3% when our net zero ambitions are met. However, I have figures that suggest that 0.44% of UK land is already committed for ground- mounted installations, with the geographical distribution concentrated in the breadbasket of south and east England. This means that Nottinghamshire, for example, is likely to have 4% of its ground area covered with solar panels. The use of land, as well, is disproportionate; important grade 2 and grade 3 agricultural land is being used. Is this consistent with His Majesty’s Government’s commitment to food security?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are being quite clear on this: while we support ground solar installations, premium grade agricultural land should not be used for that purpose. We are very clear on that point and we continue to strive for the right balance right between ground-based solar and roof solar.
Lord Sharma (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House when the Government intend to publish their much-anticipated solar road map and whether that road map will contain a detailed plan to support investment in domestic UK solar supply chains and manufacturing?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point. I am very interested in supply chains. Some fantastic, innovative technology is being developed in this country that I think will take us a long way ahead. There are significant issues about developing our manufacturing capability here, but we are working very closely with our colleagues in DBT and DSIT to do what we can to promote that. I cannot give the noble Lord an exact date for the solar road map, but I will come back to him in writing on that.
NHS: Electronic Patient Record Systems
(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have made to complete the rollout of electronic patient record systems to NHS trusts which have not yet implemented them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, NHS England has supported over 160 trusts with digital transformation, including the implementation of electronic patient records. Currently, 91% rollout of electronic patient records has been achieved, with work under way to provide tailored support to the remaining 19 trusts that do not yet have an electronic patient record.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the Minister for that informative Answer. As she will know, the rollout of electronic patient records is just the first step towards full digital maturity, which will allow systems to share data across the system, not only for patient care but for research data that can help with preventive care. Can the Minister tell us more about what specific, targeted assistance those trusts that have not yet reached digital maturity are being given to ensure that they are digitally mature, whether they have the technology but are not yet using it to full capability or they need better technology to achieve full EPRs?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I first acknowledge the role that the noble Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, played when they were Health Ministers. They both drove this agenda forward. I am grateful for that. The tailored support includes a number of activities to install, upgrade and optimise electronic patient records to meet the standard that the noble Lord is aware that we need to meet. I am sure that he is aware of the What Good Looks Like digital framework. That is an assessment of how digitally mature a system is. It gives guidance but also highlights where intervention must take place to bring it up to the right standard, which we would all want to see.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
What progress is being made to improve the flow of patient information between trusts, which at the moment is poor, contributing to NHS inefficiency and hampering the timely treatment of patients?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord is right. Your Lordships’ House will be aware that, of the three main shifts that will be amplified in the 10-year plan, this plays very well into not only analogue to digital but the move from hospital to community, and sickness to prevention. The noble and gallant Lord is right that we need digital capability across aspects of not just the NHS but social care. We are developing various aspects, including the federated data platform and single patient records. We are engaging with the public and stakeholders to understand their views about the use of health data so that we can get it absolutely right.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, Oracle Cerner and Epic, the two electronic patient record systems that the NHS is purchasing, running to billions of pounds, were designed primarily for the US healthcare system and have not been significantly customised for the NHS. This is leading to a serious lack of alignment with the requirements of the British healthcare model. What assessment have the Government made of this issue and how confident are they that value for money and improved outcomes can be achieved, given that these systems have not been tailored specifically for the NHS?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
There are huge gains to be made in digitisation, which I know that the noble Lord shares my view on. It is crucial that we get it right. I assure him that procurement processes are carried out as we would always expect them to be and that we are satisfied that the right provision can be made.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any reluctance to share records or data is very rarely on the part of the patients but instead is usually on the part of the systems and the professionals? Patients are always astonished that the records are not shared between their GP and the hospital, and less still with social care.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is quite correct. The report of the committee that my noble friend chaired said that one of carers’ greatest frustrations was repeatedly repeating information to all the various aspects. The point about ensuring that there is digital maturity, and that various parts of the NHS and social care can get up to that and beyond, is crucial. This is the way that we are going and it will produce far better outcomes, not just for patients but for those who care for them.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, patient flow through a hospital is a critical factor in avoiding delayed discharges, which is a major issue. We know that electronic bed management systems can play a major part in helping to reduce bed-blocking. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that more hospitals have that technology and that timescales are set for achieving full rollout?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right about the benefits. The electronic patient records programme provides a 4.5% reduction in length of stay, as well as a 13% lower cost in admitted patient spells, so there are great benefits as well as better productivity and outcomes for patients. Electronic patient record coverage is forecast to be at 96% of trusts by March 2026, and the remaining 4% of NHS trusts will be advanced in their plans for an electronic patient record. I emphasise that we are proactive in actively supporting hospitals and trusts to get to the right place.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interests. Patients who are managed in research-active environments frequently have better clinical outcomes. For an environment, be it in the community or in the hospital, to be research active, it must be able to collect patient data; electronic records are therefore essential. Beyond that, there is a necessity to curate those data and present them in such a fashion that they can be used meaningfully and rapidly to drive our nation’s research effort and benefit all citizens. What plans do His Majesty’s Government have, as they move forward with the 10-year plan, to ensure that that area of development is properly funded?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Research and data are absolutely key to the 10-year plan and the shifts that I referred to earlier. I also draw the noble Lord’s attention to the data security and protection toolkit. It is an online assessment tool that allows organisations to measure their performance against the National Data Guardian’s 10 data security standards. I know there is a question among some members of the public about this, but perhaps I could, overall, reassure the noble Lord that we see data as key to research. I certainly agree with his comments about outcomes for patients being better.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, if the Minister is looking for a current successful case history, I recommend Bedford Hospital. I was referred to the external clinic on the 20th and tested for X, Y and Z. A bed was found for me at 2 am. I had four nights in Bedford Hospital, since when I have had three different departments, all of which had full details from my GP and the other departments involved. Not only that but I happened to go to the Moorfields clinic which is attached to it—it is external—which had them as well. So, there is a good case history.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is an exemplar when he describes the quality of care and the joined-up approach of the data and information relating to him. I am delighted to hear that Bedford Hospital was so good to him. I am sure it will appreciate him sharing that with your Lordships’ House, and I add my thanks too.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, as part of the tailored support that the Minister spoke about earlier, can she explain about the cybersecurity provisions? The ransomware attack on Synnovis last June meant patients’ blood groups were unable to be matched, so there was a call-out for O-negative blood. Patients transfer between the devolved nations of the UK, between Wales and England, and across the border, to a lesser extent, between Scotland and England. Is she having discussions about United Kingdom-tailored cybersecurity support for these rollout systems?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We regularly liaise and work closely with the devolved Governments. More than £338 million has been invested in cyber resilience to date. In March 2023, the department published the cybersecurity strategy for health and social care, which runs until 2030. This is an area of huge importance, as the noble Baroness identifies, and one we continue to press.
Health Research
(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications for health research in the United Kingdom of the funding cuts to the National Institutes of Health announced by the government of the United States of America.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, the United Kingdom’s world-class health research ecosystem makes us a natural partner for the United States’ research and life sciences communities. When UK health researchers collaborate internationally, it is most commonly with researchers in the United States. While it is too soon to make a full assessment of the impact of any changes in National Institutes of Health funding on health research in the UK, we continue to monitor and remain committed to strategic UK-US health research collaboration.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her reply. It is part of the Government’s policy to emphasise health research to improve the health service and to power economic growth, which is why the announcements of arbitrary and material cuts to research in the US have potentially bad effects, given the extent of international collaboration in research and joint funding. Will the Minister give a clear commitment to do whatever it takes to protect health services research in this country from the madness being perpetrated in Washington?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I note my noble friend’s observation. I certainly can give the assurance that the United Kingdom will continue to support and promote its research capability at home and, where we can, internationally. It might be helpful if I tell your Lordships’ House that, on 10 February, a United States district judge temporarily blocked the Administration’s cuts following a lawsuit which was led by attorneys from 22 US states. There is a further hearing scheduled for 21 February, so it is wait and see, and we continue to keep a close eye.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, NIH is the world’s largest supporter of biomedical research. A long time ago, I was a part beneficiary of its funding. It is renowned for developing many technologies for medical care, the two latest being CRISPR technology for treating disease and messenger RNA for developing vaccines. The UK is the first country in the world to license using CRISPR technology to treat sickle cell anaemia and thalassemia. In view of the cuts in NIH funding, we have an opportunity to increase our recruitment process for talented scientists who will be now be looking for a new home. As the country with the second-largest research profile in biomedical research, we may be able to benefit from it, so I hope the Government will refocus their efforts in the life science strategy and remove the impediments to the recruitment of talented scientists.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. Decisions made by other countries, including the United States, are a matter for them. As the noble Lord said, if this goes ahead—I have made comments on a lawsuit, so I am limited in what I can say—while the US is indeed one of the UK’s closest partners in this area, we will seek every opportunity internationally and continue our commitment to see research at the heart of our NHS into the future.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, as my ally the noble Lord, Lord Patel, rightly says, uncertainties in the United States with health funding presents an opportunity for the United Kingdom. The research funded by the MRC alone led to spin-out companies which created value of more than £6.1 billion, 3,800 jobs and £10.2 billion of external investment. Will the Minister and her department commit to campaigning for ongoing research and investment through what will be an uncertain and difficult SR for health and medical research?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As we move towards the 10-year plan, it will be key. Research, the contribution of life sciences and innovation will help us deliver an NHS that is fit for the future. I agree with the noble Baroness about the major contribution that is made to the UK economy. This is not just about healthcare, important though that is; it is also about growth. There are some 6,800 businesses generating more than £100 billion in turnover. Life sciences is one of the most dynamic and significant sectors. It drives economic growth, but it also provides a future in terms of the quality, availability and efficiency of the healthcare that we can provide in this country.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the House will understand me when I say that I deeply regret the fact that my noble friend has had to ask this Question in the first place. The cuts to which it refers have been described as an apocalypse for American science, but that is a matter for them. What do the Government think the consequences might be of the United States’ withdrawal from the World Health Organization? And does the Minister not agree that, in the event of an emerging global health threat, we will be less well placed to deal with it, to contain it and to understand what may be done without the United States in the World Health Organization? Are the Government already beginning to plan for this very sad eventuality?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend has made the point which I would emphasise: withdrawal from the World Health Organization is a matter for the United States to decide. The UK, however, will continue to work with all international partners and the WHO. It is a key factor in ensuring we have a healthier and safer world because disease does not respect borders. The UK Health Security Agency is carefully considering the impact of proposed changes in the United States, including its proposed withdrawal from the World Health Organization.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the head of the UNAIDS agency has warned that global HIV infection could increase 600% by 2029 if the US continues its suspension of the UN HIV/AIDS programme. This means higher infection rates here in the UK, as communicable diseases do not recognise national borders. What specific steps will the Government take to support the UN and other nations in ensuring this programme’s effectiveness and efficiency?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Our commitment in this country to supporting humanitarian aid and development across the world, including in this area, remains steadfast. It will not be affected by any external decisions. With respect to the US decision to pause foreign aid funding for three months pending a review, as I have said previously, this is a matter for the United States. We note that decision, but the experience of the Covid pandemic is writ large and shows us that disease respects no borders, so it is in the interest of all of us to do the kind of work the UK did, for example in developing vaccines at that time.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Can I take this opportunity to ask a question about the UK’s wider health research ecosystem? The Government have talked a lot about moving towards prevention. How is this translated across to the health research environment? And while it is right that we look at cures and get better cures, given that testing and diagnosis are an important part of prevention, have the Government thought how we could focus our research on ensuring that simple tests such as blood tests or breath tests can detect more conditions and diseases earlier—for example, cancers including less survivable cancers?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Yes, very much so, because it is by doing so that we will improve prevention and make the move from sickness to prevention. I can tell your Lordships’ House that the Government are continuing to support commercial clinical research delivery, including through new NIHR commercial research delivery centres that work with industry and other research infrastructure. I was pleased to visit one of them in Leicester, meet patients and hear how they were very engaged in doing exactly what the noble Lord is referring to.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
Let us hear from the noble Baroness.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, will the Minister join me in acknowledging and applauding the work of charities in health research, particularly those such as Wellbeing of Women, Teenage Cancer Trust, many of the cancer research charities and Alzheimer’s Research UK? I declare my interest, but these are such a cost saver to the NHS.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly associate myself with the noble Baroness’s generous comments about the role of charities. Much of the work that we do in research and innovation is in partnership, including with the third sector, and I thank all those charities for the role that they play.
Citizenship Applications
(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blunkett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Home Office guidance on citizenship applications from persons who arrived in the UK via unauthorised routes.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, we have strengthened measures to ensure that anyone who entered the UK illegally faces having British citizenship refused. We take our international obligations very seriously, and the good character policy is compliant with those obligations. The Government will continue to consider positive factors such as the contribution that a person has made to society, as well as negative factors such as breaches of immigration law. The policy provides for applications to be granted where mitigating circumstances mean that it would be appropriate to do so.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that nuanced Answer. I assure him of my absolute support for the actions of this Government in tackling people smugglers and organised criminal gangs and the securing of our borders. However, he may remember that I was responsible for the reshaping of, preparation for and granting of citizenship back in 2003—the tests, the ceremonies and the expected commitment to our country and our values. Will he ask the Home Secretary to reflect on the societal and cohesion aspects of this policy, the impact on children and their right to UK citizenship, and the statelessness that would arise for individuals if their birth country refused to renew or retain their nationality? Surely this Parliament should have a say in such a big change.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for the work he did on citizenship when he was Home Secretary some years ago. He will know that the proposals today are about illegal entry to the United Kingdom and do not affect rightful citizenship applications for people who are entering legally. On those who are stateless and at risk of losing citizenship, there is a stateless leave provision for people who qualify, and they can apply for that; children will be considered sympathetically under existing legislation.
My noble friend mentioned community cohesion. The central premise of government policy is to ensure that we have a society that respects and has cohesion. He highlighted the importance of the Government’s proposals to tackle small boat crossings and illegal migration. The Bill introduced in the House of Commons on Monday, which will reach this House in due course, provides for a new border force. It will tackle criminal gangs and make sure that we use the security services to gather and share data, and that we stop this pernicious trade, which is benefiting only those who wish to make money out of misery.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I am sure the Minister will acknowledge that the people in question would have been accepted as refugees. By definition, over a number of years, most of them would have been seeking to contribute to British society and focusing on integration. How will they take it when they find that, in the “good character” criterion, they are bracketed with criminals and terrorists? On a factual point, there must now be a lot of very distressed and anxious would-be citizens. Can the Minister confirm that the guidance will not apply to people who have arrived here before 10 February?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The guidance applies to individuals from 10 February of this year. The noble Baroness made a number of points about what is happening to asylum status. None of the proposals in the guidance mean that individuals cannot apply for asylum status. None of the proposals mean that individuals cannot have asylum status approved. None of the proposals mean that individuals cannot apply for citizenship. The basic test is that there is a presumption that those who enter the UK illegally will not have citizenship approved unless there are specific criteria in the guidance to make a case for their particular circumstances. The designed effect of that is to ensure that we reduce the amount of illegal migration and ensure that people enter the United Kingdom, or apply for asylum, through legal, strict routes and means.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, what proportion of people who have come into the country illegally since the Government took office have applied for asylum status?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I can give some figures, but not off the top of my head. I will certainly write to her about that.
The key question is illegal migration. The guidance we are talking about is on revising procedures for those who have entered the United Kingdom illegally and currently could apply for British citizenship after a period of 10 years. We have lifted that 10-year procedure, so no one can have British citizenship approved, as a presumption, if they have entered the country illegally. They can still apply for British citizenship and have mitigating circumstances brought forward, should they so wish. A range of measures has been issued in the guidance published this week.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Can the Minister assure those of us who stood shoulder to shoulder with the Labour Party in opposing the previous Government’s completely discredited Rwanda proposals that people who come within asylum criteria are not affected by the announcement made today?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
People entering the United Kingdom or applying for asylum using a viable and legal route are not affected. Individuals who come here through illegal routes will be subject to the criteria in the guidance, which are that they can apply for British citizenship, but the presumption is that it will be refused unless they bring forward mitigating circumstances, which can be considered.
The noble Lord will know that the Bill introduced in another place on Monday repeals the Rwanda Act, on which we have already spent a wasteful £700 million. We will come to this House in due course to say that it was not a deterrent for illegal migration, and we should be looking at legal, safe routes, which I know the noble Lord supports.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, earlier today the leader of the Opposition in the other place asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will appeal a decision to allow a family from Gaza to stay in the UK, after applying through the Ukraine refugee system. The Prime Minister declined to answer. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will indeed appeal this decision?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Like the Prime Minister, I am not going to discuss individual cases over the Dispatch Box. The noble Lord will know that there are general principles, which we apply, for the provision of asylum. If those principles are broken or if the courts uphold a decision that the Government do not support, they will self-evidently appeal that decision. Today’s Private Notice Question from my noble friend Lord Blunkett is about the specific guidance issued on Monday, which is available to this House. In answer to a point from the noble Lord which I did not cover, it is guidance which does not require legal back-up or consultation. Self-evidently, he and my noble friend can make representations to the Government at any time, as can any Member of this House, about the implementation of that guidance.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, of course we all support the Government in taking tough action against the people traffickers as vile individuals, but can the Minister explain what the purpose of all this is? Is it meant to deter a young man in Calais who is hoping to get to this country? Will that young man look at the debate and say, “If I can’t get British citizenship, I’m not coming to the UK”? Of course not. Given the terrible circumstances that people have fled from, finding safety is surely much more important to them than the technicality of a passport, worthy as a passport is.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend has a long history of interest in and support for refugees and asylum seekers, and I respect and understand his position. The Government are trying to set down some basic red lines on a range of issues. The first red line is that people trafficking is a crime and will be pursued vigorously. The second is that the Rwanda scheme was ineffectual, and the third is that British citizenship is not a right but a privilege. That privilege will come to citizens if they enter this country under legal asylum routes or apply for citizenship through legal routes, but not if they have entered the country through an illegal route.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, it is important to support in general this approach by the Government, but I fear that there is some uncertainty. First, in relation to those who come here to claim asylum, under international law—we have had these debates on many occasions in the House—there is an argument that that in itself does not create illegality. It may be irregular but it may not be illegal. It is therefore important that the Government get their ducks in a row on this, because I think all of us would otherwise support the Government in saying that those who come here in blatant, illegal ways should not be granted the benefit of citizenship.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government believe, and I know that the noble Lord will share this belief, that the proposals in the guidance are compliant with our international obligations. It is an essential matter of government policy that we meet our international obligations. We believe that the Article 31 obligations are met by the proposals announced by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on Monday of this week.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, having been a Minister in the Home Office responsible for law enforcement, I have a great deal of sympathy with and support for the Minister. However, law enforcement means enforcing international law. I have in front of me Article 34 of the convention, which we have signed. It is very clear that:
“The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate”—
I emphasise the term “facilitate”—
“the assimilation and naturalization of refugees”.
How is what the Minister proposes, and what this rule change implements, consistent with the term facilitation? If it is not, are we now going to withdraw from all or any part of the convention?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government are not going to withdraw from the convention. The Government support the convention and believe that the proposals referred to in this Private Notice Question are compliant with it. Nothing in the proposals today stops any individual applying for British citizenship, however they have arrived in the United Kingdom. But the presumption is that those who have arrived illegally will find their application turned down, unless they can provide a range of circumstances which are exceptional, compelling and mitigating, and where the Secretary of State may therefore choose to apply discretion to grant citizenship on an exceptional basis. I believe, as does my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, that that is compliant with our international obligations and, at the same time, examines what is an illegal route to the United Kingdom.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, is not this Labour proposal almost worse than the shocking Tory legislation that we spent three years opposing, in that people are going to be lulled into a false sense of security? The Tories tried to stop people getting refugee status; Labour is going to allow them to get refugee status and, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, start to contribute to and integrate into British society, and then, down the line, they will be told, “Oh no, we don’t want you as a citizen”. How can such a fundamental change be made through Home Office guidance rather than through primary legislation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The guidance is there and the ability of the Government to change that guidance is there. We have made a Statement to the House of Commons in relation to that guidance being changed.
There are many individuals who reside in the United Kingdom who live, work and enjoy the benefits of living in the United Kingdom and who are not British citizens. The right of citizenship is a different issue. As I said to my noble friend Lord Boateng, individuals can apply for citizenship, but the presumption is that they will be refused if they have entered illegally, unless there are compelling, mitigating circumstances. That is our position. That it is not worse than the Rwanda scheme—we are repealing the Rwanda scheme. We are changing the immigration scheme through the immigration Bill, which will come before this House in due course. The noble Baroness will know that there are major steps in that Bill to end the pernicious trade of people trafficking, to stop the wasteful Rwanda scheme, and to ensure that we place immigration and migration on a proper footing. Further, there will be an immigration White Paper later this year, which will cover a range of issues, including the needs of society and the need for immigration for the British economy and growth.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
The more that we listen to this, the more a number of us conclude that this is a major change that deserves much more substantial consideration and scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force. Does the Minister accept that for refugees who have come here by whatever means, and who have become stateless and remain here indefinitely, under this measure, unless they are subject to what the Minister described a moment ago as citizenship on an exceptional basis, they are going to find themselves second-class citizens?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I accept that there will be individuals who either arrive here as stateless or subsequently find themselves stateless through loss of documents. There is a stateless route for application for leave to remain, and that remains in place. The Home Office has had to examine the question of British citizenship. In doing so, this guidance has been published. It is subject to—as it is today—discussion, comment and representation from Members of this House and the House of Commons.
Commissioner for Standards
Baroness Manningham-Buller
That this House approves the appointment of Margaret Obi as a House of Lords Commissioner for Standards for a period of five years.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, the Motion invites the House to approve the appointment of Margaret Obi as a Commissioner for Standards for a non-renewable term of five years. Ms Obi will work alongside the existing commissioner, Martin Jelley, whose term will end in July 2026.
I remind the House that the office of the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards was created in 2009. The House decided in 2021 to appoint two commissioners, to divide the role between them. In the view of the committee, the last four years have demonstrated that having two commissioners has built greater capacity and resilience into our system.
A vacancy arose because the previous commissioner, Akbar Khan, stood down in September 2024 on his appointment as a judge of the Upper Tribunal of the immigration and asylum chamber. I would like to thank him for his work as commissioner.
As chair of the Conduct Committee, I chaired the panel for this recruitment. I was supported by two noble Lord, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, from the Government Benches, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, from the Opposition, and by two external members of the Conduct Committee, Cindy Butts and Andrea Coomber. We were very much helped by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven; although he could not be involved with the interviews, he was involved in the whole process.
After an open process, we unanimously agreed that Ms Obi would bring the experience and skill that the role needed and should be appointed. A short biography giving further details of her experience in a range of judicial, regulatory and investigatory roles is available in the Printed Paper Office and on the parliamentary website. I beg to move.
Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Leong
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 December 2024 be approved.
Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 3 February.
Space Industry (Licence Exemption for Military Activities of Allies) Regulations 2025
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 December 2024 be approved.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 February.
Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 December 2024 and 6 January be approved.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 February.
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Lord Leong
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 April 2024 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 February.
Clonoe Inquest
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, on 16 February 1992, known IRA terrorists armed with a heavy machine gun and AKM rifles fired 30 rounds at Coalisland RUC station before driving to Clonoe, where they were engaged by soldiers, who shot dead four of them. Given that the terrorists were clearly on a mission to murder that night, does the Minister understand why so many people have reacted with anger to the coroner’s court finding that the use of lethal force was “unjustified”? The Secretary of State has said that the MoD is considering that finding. Could the Minister say what options are open to the Government and does she accept that the Government’s decision to restore coronial inquests in legacy cases will lead to yet more veterans being dragged before the courts?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. We owe a huge debt to our Armed Forces, the vast majority of whom served in Northern Ireland with distinction and many of whom made the ultimate sacrifice in doing so. The findings of the independent coroner are being considered by the Ministry of Defence, including next steps that I cannot comment on. The matters that happened last week are clearly very important and require very careful reflection. Having said that, we do appreciate the anger and hurt that is being felt by many in Northern Ireland, especially this week of all weeks, given the anniversaries which we are currently reflecting upon.
However, with regard to the reinstatement of inquests, I will be very clear with the noble Lord: I believe that the people of Northern Ireland deserve exactly the same rights as the people of Great Britian. Reinstating civil cases and inquests for the people of Northern Ireland so that they have the same rights as you and me is what we are delivering, and we are making sure that we do so in a lawful way.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, the violence carried out by the IRA was utterly abhorrent and inflicted deep suffering on communities across Northern Ireland. In dealing with the legacy of the past, it is vital to have trust and transparency in the process. Does the Minister acknowledge that the continuing lack of legal certainty regarding the repeal of the legacy Act is currently adding to a lack of trust in the process? Will she commit to bringing forward the legislation to revoke the legacy Act by Easter?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Baroness’s comments, especially with regard to the appalling actions that we saw in the terrorist atrocities that happened during the Troubles. Over 3,000 people were killed by terrorists. This week, we mark far too many anniversaries of those who were brutally and outrageously murdered.
We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland and all those affected by the Troubles to ensure that they have a legacy programme that is legal and compliant, and gives them what they need in terms of next steps, answers and a level of justice, whatever that looks like for them. We need to make sure that we do this with as much support as possible—which, candidly, the previous Government failed to do. Therefore, there is a balance here to ensure that we have the appropriate engagement so that the legislation will work and has support. We are currently undertaking the engagement exercise. The remedial order to ensure that the parts of the legislation that are not legally compatible is being dealt with, and we will all be debating it on 26 February. On the primary legislation, as many of us who were here until 1 am this morning know, time is challenging in this place. We will bring forward the legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I represented this area for 14 years in the other place. On 16 February 1992, four IRA terrorists in a lorry with a mounted heavy machine gun and three other AKM rifles attacked the Coalisland police station, like a scene from the Wild West. After doing so, they intended to return to their masters to report and gloat over their evil activity. But, that night, they met a professional Army, which engaged them and finally neutralised them. However, in my opinion, a perverse ruling by a coroner over 30 years later has left these brave soldiers vilified and denigrated, when they ought to have been decorated for their gallantry in the face of cold-blooded terrorism. Can the noble Baroness tell me how this Government will effectively protect our security forces, many in the latter years of their life, from vexatious criminal proceedings? How can they stop republicans rewriting their brutal history of murder and mayhem during our years of trouble?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his service as a politician in Northern Ireland during the Troubles and for what he continues to do in support of delivering justice for those who were touched by the Troubles, and of protecting service personnel. The noble Lord knows that I am an honorary captain in the Royal Navy and consider myself part of the military family. I definitely do not support a rewriting of the past and neither do this Government. I will always stand with our Armed Forces. The MoD is currently reflecting on the coroner’s verdict and it will come forward in due course.
On protecting veterans, they are a core part of the stakeholder community that we are engaging with in delivering the primary legislation, which should be forthcoming. I am part of that engagement process and was in Northern Ireland last week to engage. We will endeavour to do everything, working with them and the new Northern Ireland Armed Forces commissioner, to make sure that they have the appropriate support where needed.
Lord Robathan (Con)
I think we have just had one of them.
The current situation is that soldiers will not be willing to serve. Does the Minister understand that? We must get protection from the Government for soldiers—who are sent out by this place, this Parliament, to detect what is going on—unless they have done something appallingly wrong, which they have not on this occasion.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, we are very clear about the retention and recruitment challenges that the Armed Forces have had. We saw that during the previous Administration, and the noble Lord and I have sat in many debates discussing it. Our Armed Forces run towards bombs. That is what they did in the Troubles: they put themselves between terrorists and civilians and we will be forever grateful for their service. We will work with veterans’ communities to ensure that the primary legislation, when we bring it forward, reflects their needs as well as those of every other part of the community.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I alert the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, is a DUP Peer.
I speak as a victim of the IRA and condemn unequivocally every atrocity that happened everywhere. As the Minister will agree, the security forces had a well-planned, intelligence-led operation here. The evidence is that 20 minutes after the attack by these IRA men, they returned to the car park where the Army was waiting for them. The coroner says that the Army unleashed 570 bullets. No bullets were fired by these IRA men. I do not in any way condone what they did, but two of them were running away as they were shot in the back and they were then shot in the face by the soldiers as they lay injured. Does the Minister agree that it is fundamentally important that, wherever they are in the world, our Armed Forces behave within the rule of law and that, if we are to build a safe and stable future for Northern Ireland, it must be on the basis of the rule of law?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I stand in awe of everything that the many people in this Chamber who have been affected by terrorism, like her, continue to do to build peace.
On our Armed Forces operating within the rule of law, I am very proud of how they operate. That is not to say that there are not occasions, and the specific findings of this coroner have raised concerns on both sides of the community. The MoD is considering what they mean.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness share my astonishment that Mr Justice Humphreys, the coroner, said:
“The soldiers did not have an honest and genuinely held belief that the use of force was necessary to defend themselves or others”?
Surely, guessing what the soldiers were thinking goes way beyond a coroner’s role and powers. Will the Government stand full-square behind our brave soldiers and condemn the rewriting of history by not just republicans but some in the justice system?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I have spoken about the specific findings. I assure the noble Baroness that the MoD is carefully considering them, and we are providing welfare and legal support.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, many right-thinking people in Northern Ireland and across the UK see this judgment as perverse, irrational and wholly unreasonable. Will the Minister communicate that to the Ministry of Defence and urge it to judicially review this decision?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I talked about the victims of the Troubles; I appreciate that she has also had an anniversary in recent days. I will make sure that the appropriate officials and Ministers in the MoD reflect on the words spoken in this Chamber.
English Devolution and Local Government
(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s announcement on local government restructuring is a hugely significant upheaval for local democracy. We support the principles of devolution, but we do not support the Government’s method of achieving it. No council should be bullied or blackmailed into top-down restructuring. This was not in the Labour Party manifesto, and the Labour Government have massively rushed this whole exercise.
The Conservative Party has a proud record of supporting devolution. While we were in government, we empowered residents and their councils. We gave councils more control over local planning, improved accountability through elected mayors and police and crime commissioners, and decentralised power to the people by letting parents create free schools and giving residents power over neighbourhood planning.
In December 2024 we set out five tests for the Government that we believed any form of devolution should satisfy. Is this a genuine choice for local councils? In two-tier areas, do both district and county councils agree with restructuring? Will local government be more accountable to local residents? Will the overall changes help keep council tax down? Finally, will restructuring avoid disruption of social care?
We already know that the Government have failed each of these tests. Restructuring is compulsory. There has been no attempt to gather consensus within two-tier areas. Residents have not been consulted, and there has been no time for proper communication with local people about the plans that local councils are putting in place. The Government are incentivising council tax rises across the board—no, worse: punishing councils that keep council tax down. I have not been reassured by the Government that they understand the needs of adult and children’s social care, and the impact that this could have on it, compounded by Labour’s national insurance hikes. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if the Minister could address these five points in turn, and explain what consideration the Government have given each of them.
The shadow Secretary of State in the other place, Kevin Hollinrake, asked a number of questions of the Secretary of State, Angela Rayner, that went unanswered. Now the Government have had more time to consider these serious and reasonable questions, I ask the Minister to answer some of them, but this time with substance and not politics.
First, how exactly will this restructuring put more money into people’s pockets? How is it compatible with Labour’s changes to the local government funding formula that punish councils that keep their council tax low? Do the Government accept that these changes, which will mean that every single council employee in two-tier areas has to reapply for their job, will have an impact on local services, including planning delays? How will this impact on the Government’s plans to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament? Finally, what support will the Government give to authorities—such as Woking and Thurrock—facing significant levels of debt? Will this debt be written off or passed on to the new unitary authorities?
We support stronger local accountability, but there are different ways to do this, and there should have been proper, full and open consultation. Local government must remain local and accountable to its residents. The whole process should be considered more slowly, to ensure that the people understand their future representation and have their say on it.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I remind the House that I have relevant interests as a councillor and as a vice- president of the Local Government Association. This is a wide-ranging Statement about the future of local government. There are three different elements within the Statement, and I want to address each separately.
First, I want to think about the creation of the so-called strategic authorities. The Government, in the headline to their Statement, described it as “devolution”. It is not devolution; it is delegation of powers from the centre in Westminster. True devolution will occur only when funding is raised locally and decisions are made locally, without the iron grip of Whitehall being exerted. This is a bit of a challenge for the Minister: if they are to have devolution, can she describe the route to the place where there is freedom for local government to make and fund its decisions, without the diktat from above?
The next challenge I have for the Minister—I am sorry, there are one or two here—is that of the democratic deficit that is being deliberately created. We are, apparently, going to have mayors for these so-called strategic authorities. If the evidence from the past in the election of mayors is to continue, mayors are elected—when they are stand-alone elections—by less than 20% of the electorate, which is hardly a resounding vote of confidence in that system. Those of us who care about local democracy are rightly concerned about increasing powers. For example, the mayors of the strategic authorities will have the power to create policy on housing and on strategic planning, which really affect the lives of residents. How will those decisions be respected when the mayors have been elected by such a low number of electors?
One small step that the Government could take to help reverse this democratic deficit is to return to the voting system that prevailed in the election of mayors until the previous Government, in their last throes, decided to remove the additional vote system and return to first past the post. I guess they thought it would help their cause; it did not. At least having an additional vote—albeit that is not what would I want—means that more people help to support the person who is elected.
The next element of the Statement is the abolition of district councils. I serve on a metropolitan council, so district councils are not anything I have experienced, but we know that they are very efficient in running very local services and are very close to the residents they serve. Systems always need reform, so if there is going to be reform of this two-tier system, why do we not think of change rather than abolition? Is it because the county councils are running out of money, and they need the district council reserves to prop them up?
In the new era of unitary authorities, the Government are talking about the average size of these unitary authorities being a population of 500,000. That is very much like the metropolitan area that I serve in. I can tell the House that this means that the wards that councillors will be elected to serve in will be large, and in rural areas they will be geographically large. I suspect that the Government are considering a ratio of councillor to electors of about 1:5,000. That is a very large number of people, and it would take local democracy away from people.
The last item I want to raise is the cancelling of elections. I do not think that, in a democracy, we should ever cancel elections. I know that the previous Government cancelled elections, so there is a bit of a precedent, but I do not think that it is one that should be repeated. People have a right to have their say in electing people to represent them. The difficulty that cancelling these elections creates is that the existing councillors who were elected four years ago will be the ones who determine the set-up for the new unitary councils in their area. If you do that you need the electoral mandate to do it, which they will not have.
I am very disappointed that the Government have decided that democracy is not worthy of the name, and that we are moving local government further and further away from local people. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions and put some life back in local democracy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank both noble Baronesses for their questions. The number one mission of our Government is to unlock growth in our regions. It is to this end that we are working very hard to start this generational opportunity to devolve powers and funding from Whitehall and Westminster to our local areas, where local leaders have skin in the game in making things happen for their communities. It is a very important part of our mission. With the measures we announced last Wednesday, over 44 million people will see the benefits of devolution. That is close to 80% of the county—more progress in a short amount of time than any Government in Britain’s history.
It is very important that we get on with this. This issue has been hanging around for most of my local government career, which is longer that I care to admit to. I have been involved in at least four long-term proposals for devolution in my time, and it is time that we got on with the job.
We have heard from councils that unitarisation or council mergers can help strengthen local leadership, improve local services, save taxpayers money and improve local accountability. That is why we invited formal unitary proposals from all the councils in two-tier areas and their neighbouring small unitaries.
We acknowledge that, for some areas, the timing of election affects their planning for devolution, particularly alongside reorganisation. To help manage these demands, we have considered requests to postpone elections from May 2025 to May 2026. We have been very clear that we would consider these requests only where it would help the area to deliver reorganisation and devolution to the most ambitious timeframe. That is a very high bar, and rightly so. Of these requests, the Government agree that for Norfolk and Suffolk, Essex and Thurrock, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and East Sussex and West Sussex, postponement is essential for the delivery of the devolution priority programme and complementary reorganisation. The Government have also agreed to postpone elections in Surrey, where reorganisation is essential to locking devolution options. We had a much larger number of proposals than that but, as I say, it was a very high bar.
I will address the questions posed by the noble Baronesses. I completely disagree with the characterisation from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that local authorities are being bullied and blackmailed, and that this is a top-down reorganisation. That is completely wrong. We asked local authorities to put proposals forward, and the fact that we were oversubscribed, with the number of local authorities that did so, shows the enthusiasm for this. I met with a large number of local authorities over the course of the consultation, and they are all very enthusiastic and positive about this proposal. We have driven local authorities to the edge of this then marched them back down the hill so many times. It is time that we just got on with the job.
On the noble Baroness’s points about consultation, we are undertaking extensive consultation in all the areas that I outlined just now. The Government will be starting that next week. We have asked for the local authorities to help us contact their stakeholders—whether they are community stakeholders, business groups or other channels—so that consultation is as wide as possible. We will continue to use consultation as the basis for the plans we take forward.
On council tax, I remind the party opposite that the failure properly to fund local government over many years was the worst thing that happened to social care and children’s services in my time in local government. We need to take steps now to restructure local government to make it sustainable for the future, and to make sure that it works properly to deliver the services that we need now, not the services that were needed 30 years ago.
On how restructuring will put more money in people’s pockets, I note that people will get better services from their local councils. The addition of a strategic level will make sure that every region in this country will benefit from the growth that we hope to see going forward, and every region will contribute to it. I am afraid that the levelling-up mission of the previous Government did not reach out to many areas of our country, so it is now time we did that.
We are of course aware of the issues with council staff, and we will work very closely with the Local Government Association and council colleagues on that.
On the impact on housing delivery, I genuinely believe that having mayors in a strategic role in our local areas, driving forward both housing and growth—in a way that makes sense for their area, which is the important part of this procedure—will be critical to seeing the housing delivery and growth that we want to see.
On the significant levels of debt that the noble Baroness mentioned, it is the responsibility of councils to manage their debts, and it is standard for councils to borrow and hold debt. We will work with local leaders to explore how best to support local government reorganisation where there has been failure, and we will continue to work with best value commissioners to support councils’ financial recovery.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised a number of issues, some of which I have already answered. The devolution of powers from Westminster down to local areas is a critical, once-in-a-generation step that we want to see. I am afraid that I disagree with her point that that is not devolution; I genuinely believe that it is. It will then be for the councils to facilitate further devolution out to the people in their local areas.
The noble Baroness mentioned the democratic deficit. If you look at what mayors have been able to achieve in their areas in improving skills, transport and many other things, you will see that there is no democratic deficit. In fact, the people in the areas that already have elected mayors are really benefiting from that. We have decided at this stage not to return to an alternative voting system, and we will stick with first past the post for these elections.
On district councils, the two tiers make for a complex picture. I was in a two-tier area for all my local government career. Many people do not understand which council does which services. Now is the time to address that issue once and for all, to make sure that there is only one council delivering for the people it serves. It will be for the Local Government Boundary Commission to decide the size of the wards and their representation. As I explained, cancelling elections will give local authorities the space to manage the process in order to get their new structures in place in time for mayoral elections in 2026.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement. This Government are acting with decisiveness to sort out the mess of local government, in a way that previous Governments have neglected. I was a councillor for 20 years, and my Cumbria County Council 2021 re-election campaign was cancelled because of a Conservative Government decision about reorganisation, so I do not think this is a party-political point the Opposition can honestly make.
What Labour is trying to do here is to create a reasonably uniform system of local government in this country, with elected mayors playing a crucial role. Is this not a foundational step—I ask this in response to the noble Baroness, Lady, Pinnock, whom I greatly respect —towards greater devolution of powers and money from Whitehall to the newly created, much more efficient local authorities?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that genuine advocacy of local government; I share his faith in local government delivering for the people it serves. The White Paper sets out this ambitious new framework for English devolution, moving power out of Westminster to those who take decisions for and with their communities. We want to see all of England access devolved power by establishing the strategic authorities, and a number of councils working together over areas that people recognise—that is the important point, because this is coming from local areas—and that can make the key decisions to drive economic growth.
My noble friend is quite right that elections being postponed to drive forward such programmes is not unique to our Government. Following these decisions, of the 33 council elections originally scheduled for May 2025, 24 will take place, with nine being delayed to May 2026. Previous Governments have taken similar decisions that it was necessary to postpone elections to give councils the space to do the work necessary.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord referred to consistency between authorities. The average number of electors in a London borough is 173,000, and in a small unitary it is 237,000, but the Government plan to have new councils consisting of half a million people. That is inconsistent with democracy, and with what the noble Lord said.
Yesterday, I asked the noble Baroness what we are going to do about electoral equality, and she answered that the Boundary Commission will work to ensure consistency within authorities. But the thrust of my question is: what about consistency between them? I have the fourth-oldest outstanding Written Question on the Order Paper, on page 16, which asks about the capacity of the Boundary Commission to undertake this work. When does the noble Baroness intend to answer my Question—or would she like to accompany me to the Tolpuddle Martyrs Museum in Dorset on a day trip, where she can understand how the fundamental principles of equality of representation across all electoral areas can be ensured?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his offer to visit the Tolpuddle Martyrs Museum. I have already been there. However, I did pick up his point about the need to enhance and promote visits to that museum; it is a very worthwhile visit.
I answered a number of questions yesterday about the electoral reviews in the areas concerned. It is very important that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England is allowed to do its job properly. The department has, of course, been talking to the commission throughout this process about the work it will need to do as a result of the changes we are making to local government. It is ready to help both with boundary reviews, where necessary, and with the boundaries for the new authorities and the boundaries within those authorities. I explained yesterday the criteria that the commission uses to do that. It has very strict criteria, and I am sure it will keep to those, as it has done during all the time it has been operating.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the White Paper seems to have a dreadful confusion between local and regional running throughout it. Does the Minister share my concern about the low level of public trust in democratic politics throughout England? I live in a city where wards average 15,000 people each, and local councillors find it very difficult to keep in touch with all the communities in their ward. The problem in our cities is that we are in danger of having a structure that is so distant from the local communities that people lose trust in and contact with democratic politics. Participation falls, and mistrust in our political system grows.
My second question is on accountability. We are told that mayors are going to be held strongly accountable, but as I read the White Paper, they are going to be accountable mainly to the Secretary of State, not to local councillors as such. That seems to me another way in which this is a false devolution and a real delegation. Can the Minister address those two questions?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
First, I share the noble Lord’s concern about mistrust in politics, but local government is the most trusted part of the political system, far more trusted than national politicians. I make that point to him. Of course it is right that the sizes of ward boundaries or divisional boundaries are appropriate for councillors to fulfil their need, but it is also important that those sizes are appropriate for the area that they represent. I am sure that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England will be taking great account of whether areas are majorly urban or rural and all the issues that it normally takes into account.
On mayoral accountability, it is not the case that the mayors will just be accountable to the Government. The White Paper sets out very clearly that there will be local public accounts committees in place and that the constituent parts of the combined authorities—the unitary authorities that sit within them—will have all the usual accountability mechanisms for those local authorities. They will have scrutiny and overview committees, they will explore the decisions of the Executive and the mayor will have a similar process at their level. So accountability will sit at the heart of the system. We will also mend the very broken audit system that has been left as a legacy from the previous Government and which has not worked for a number of years. The Government intend to address that and that is set out in the White Paper as well.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we know, because it is spelled out in the second sentence of the Statement, that the number 1 mission of this Government is to unlock growth in our regions and put money in the pockets of working people. Does the Minister not agree that the first way to take that forward is to stop sucking money out of the regions and then, secondly, provide additional resources and launch initiatives to catalyse growth-creating activities on the ground? I declare that I too am a resident and council tax payer in Cumbria.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Well, it very much seems that Cumbria is our happy place this afternoon.
I worked very closely with the politicians in Cumbria to get to where we are and am very pleased to see what they are doing. The noble Lord is quite right about local people taking decisions. The Government set an overall framework around these things, but this is absolutely right. Economies are different in every area and their needs, in terms of skills and training and infrastructure to support those economies, are different across the country. Therefore, it is very important that those decisions about strategic growth are taken locally. I agree that it is time that we got those powers, and the funding to enable that, out to the areas where they can do the best job.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the noble Baroness who speaks on behalf of the Conservative Party has a short memory? It was the last Conservative Government who held a gun to the heads of local councils, withholding funding unless they had a devolution deal. On finance, they not only cut the budgets in local government by 30% but fixed the system to move money from poor areas to rich areas—confirmed by Rishi Sunak in his leadership bid. Debt was encouraged by the Government at the time; getting into speculative development to plug the hole in local government finance. Does the Minister also agree that there are success stories in unitary councils, one being Durham County Council, which came into being in 2009? It abolished seven inefficiently led local district councils which, if they had still been in existence, would have gone by the by because of austerity.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I very well remember that speech from the former Prime Minister. We have already taken some steps during this year’s spending round to switch the funding formula back to where the need is most in our country for local government. We have put additional money into key areas such as special educational needs and adult care services. We made a further announcement yesterday about more funding for affordable housing, particularly to improve the quality of temporary and emergency accommodation.
In the spending review in the spring, we will do more to shift the balance back so that the spending review for local government will follow the needs in local areas. As we do that from one side, we also have mayors and unitary councils and strategic approaches; as each part of the country begins to grow, everybody will benefit.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my registered interest in relation to Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. Those are two counties that will have county elections this May, yet they have received letters from the ministry saying that they must present initial plans on 21 March, which I assume is the day before purdah for those elections. Does it make any sense at all for those initial plans to be sent before the elections and before any administration that has been elected can come into place and put forward initial plans? Will the Minister delay that request from 21 March to the latter part of May at the very earliest?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I can give the noble Lord a very straightforward answer to that. No, we will not delay it, because we have a number of partners in local government coming to us who want to take part in this process. The proposal put forward on 21 March is an outline proposal; where there are new Administrations elected in May, there will be several months until the final proposal is due, which is at the end of November, where they can continue engagement with the Government and other partners, including the districts, to develop those final proposals.
If a new administration is elected in May, it is of course within their gift to depart from the interim plans set out by a previous administration, but we will continue working with all partners until we get to the 28 November deadline, when we expect final proposals to come in.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, as police and crime commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland for five years, I very much enjoyed working with two unitary authorities in Leicester and Rutland, Leicestershire County Council and seven districts. It was hard work. I do not think we have yet heard enough—maybe it will take time to develop—about what the, hopefully, advanced role will be for parish councils and town councils once the districts disappear in areas in counties. It is a vital role. It may well be that the Government are thinking of increasing their powers to a limited extent—obviously that would require funding as well. If the districts are to disappear, there should be an advanced and improved role for town councils and parish councils.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very good point. I have been working with the parish and town councils and their organising bodies: NALC and the society of town council treasurers. We started on a process of working out their role in this new model. I think it is a very interesting opportunity for them. I know my honourable friend in the other place is very keen on developing the role of community councils, so they definitely have a role to play in this new system.
The other exciting opportunity is for community councillors in this new picture, because they will have exciting opportunities in their local area to drive forward local issues. They will be working with one council, instead of having the split responsibilities that I have experienced during my council life in a two-tier area. So there are great opportunities for both town and parish councils and community councillors.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to the iron grip of Whitehall. What we have here is a plan for not devolution but concentration of power, and the Statement says as much:
“the Government will have the tools to ensure delivery. We will create strong accountability measures … to ensure that mayors deliver the housing, transport and infrastructure that their residents need”.
This is explicitly a Statement making mayors the agents of the priorities of central government. If a Green Party mayor was elected with the priorities of improving the health and well-being of the population, focusing on a healthy local food supply, looking after green spaces and biodiversity, tackling poverty and inequality, particularly affecting children and pensioners, and improving local economies built around small independent businesses rather than exploitive multinational companies, would the Government then impose their priorities against those of the local people?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry, but I think the noble Baroness has misunderstood the wording that she just read out. The point is that the Government will set the growth agenda and say that we want every area of the country to grow, and it will be for mayors to determine how that works in their local area. She is shaking her head, but that is the idea behind the policy. The whole drive of it is that each local area will be driven by people who know it and its economy, people and communities well, and they will take forward the right proposals for growth for their area. If, for example, we look at what has happened in Manchester in terms of its transport schemes and at some of the other mayoral authorities which have developed skills programmes that are relevant to the needs of the local area, I think it is clear that those people acting at local level will best drive forward the growth of this country.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
In Cornwall, we joined Durham about 15 years ago and became unitary. It was very popular because Cornwall is long and thin, and it needs a lot of different organisations and centres of districts to make it work. It has worked because there are local people in local offices as well as in the county council, but the most important thing is that, even for that to work, the Tory Administration last year decided that the leader of the council should become a mayor. We could not really work out why it was a good thing for her to become a mayor, apart from the fact that she would earn a great deal more money, but, of course, that was not very popular with the people of Cornwall. It is important that the criteria for electing mayors and the members of these new organisations are clear and concise. We can make it work, but we just have to have a few tweaks.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for being the champion of Cornwall and the south-west, which we are used to him doing. Cornwall does indeed have a unitary authority. It has not come forward in this round for any changes, but I know that, right across the south-west, active discussions are going on about what should happen there, and I look forward to working with them to deliver it.
I know the devolution journey is not always comfortable for politicians in Whitehall; it is not supposed to be. We are undergoing a generational power shift from Whitehall to our town halls. We have seen a huge amount of good will from Secretaries of State willing to give up newly won powers for the sake of our towns and cities. We are taking a step closer to taking back control and rebuilding our country from the ground up. I look forward to working on it.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Wednesday 12th February 2025
(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberTerrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 53-IV(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (11 Feb 2025)
Baroness Hamwee
“Civil liabilityNothing in this Act or regulations made under it affects any right of action in civil proceedings.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is to clarify the right to civil proceedings under the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 37A is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. Clause 31 of the Bill provides that,
“Except so far as this Part or regulations under this Part provide, nothing … confers a right of action in any civil proceedings in respect of a contravention of a requirement imposed by … this Part”.
It then goes on to say that that subsection
“does not affect any right of action which exists apart from the provisions of this Part”.
I was quite confused by that clause, and relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, also sought clarity. Our amendment would provide that:
“Nothing in this Act or regulations made under it affects any right of action in civil proceedings”.
If we have interpreted the provision correctly, that is a rather more straightforward way of saying it.
When the point was raised at Second Reading, the Minister said that the lack of time meant that we did not have the opportunity then to discuss the clause in detail. He said there would be opportunities in due course, so I am taking this opportunity. My question is, quite straightforwardly: does the amendment express what the Government are seeking to say, particularly with regard to breach of statutory duty? If it is not as the amendment sets out, why not? I beg to move.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to act as junior counsel to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I listened carefully to some comments that the Minister made on Monday, which alluded to this clause, and I thought about them carefully, but they were brief and I, too, wish to test what is really intended by the Government. My feeling is that the Government have made an inadvertent mistake in Clause 31 which they can easily rectify.
This Bill is designed to protect citizens by imposing clear statutory duties. When clear statutory duties are imposed and there is a breach of those duties, it is very common for a citizen who is a victim of that breach to be able to bring a civil action. The purpose of the civil action is often to recover damages, though it may involve other declaratory judgments too.
I want to give a few examples, because I think we are going to have one substantive debate on this clause and then a decision will be reached. I am going to mention a number of instances in which breach of statutory duty gives rise to a civil action to obtain judgments of the kind I mentioned. First, driving a vehicle in an unsafe condition gives rise to a statutory duty which can result in a judgment for damages. In this Bill we are talking about something much bigger in scale than driving a vehicle in an unsafe condition, but it may have exactly the same consequences.
There are other examples. If there are unsafe systems or means of work in any workspace, there can be an action for breach of statutory duty without it being necessary to prove negligence, nuisance or any other tort —civil wrong—that requires specific proof of certain aspects. Allowing a vehicle to be driven by an uninsured person allows a claim for breach of statutory duty. The failure to arrange compulsory insurance for employees allows such a claim. If a landlord fails to provide habitable standards, equally, there can be such a claim. If a company fails to disclose required financial information to investors, there can be such a claim for breach of statutory duty.
If a shop sells faulty electrical equipment whereby a fire is caused in the home for which it has been bought, for example, one does not have to prove negligence. One may have an action under the Sale of Goods Acts or their equivalent, but there is an opportunity to obtain damages for breach of statutory duty. At a construction site, the failure to provide safety barriers gives rise to such an action. If we go to a restaurant and suffer food poisoning because it has failed to reach the statutory hygiene standards, we can make a claim for damages for breach of statutory duty. If one fails as an employer to provide proper training to employees on handling hazardous chemicals, that too gives rise to a potential claim for breach of statutory duty. I have chosen just a few examples—and there are others—where one does not have to prove negligence and the components of negligence.
Such provisions are all designed to secure protection for individuals without the need to prove those other elements of common-law civil wrongs. I do not understand why those rights are removed by Clause 31(1). I invite the Government to reflect on what is, as I have suggested, probably an inadvertent failure.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I beg to differ with the noble Lord, but not because I do not want deserving people to recover compensation. My reading of the Bill as it stands is to the effect that, as drafted, Clause 31 achieves two things. First, it puts beyond doubt any question whether the breaches of requirements under the Bill can of themselves be a ground for a civil claim. It says plainly that such breaches will not in themselves be a ground. However, it is important to be aware that the fact that a breach of duty under the Bill or regulations has occurred will still be evidence that will be admissible in a civil claim which alleges negligence or other breach of common-law duty. The important point is that there may have been a breach that was without negligence.
If there has been a breach then it will be strong evidence that something has gone wrong that should be compensated for, but it may be capable of explanation and justification in the civil courts, which does not excuse criminal liability. Put simply, the Bill as drafted makes plain that a breach of statutory duty will not of itself alone give rise to an actionable breach of duty sounding in damages.
Secondly, as it stands, the Bill makes it clear that what is said in Clause 31(1) does not affect—that is, detract from—any right of action that exists in common law. In other words, a claim of negligence, in particular, or any other common-law right will remain; so this provision takes nothing away. Where, in a civil action, the claim establishes that as a matter of fact there has been a breach of such statutory duty, that will be evidence in the case and it is likely to be strong evidence. It will be a matter for the court to determine whether it is evidence of negligence or other evidence that might give rise to a justifiable claim for damages, and what weight to give it. I hope that is clear.
The amendment proffered to us would delete the whole of the existing clause, and would simply say:
“Nothing … affects any right of action”.
With respect, I suggest that that would be less clear and less helpful to the courts, because it will leave open a possible argument that breaches of statutory duty are themselves grounds for action, even where no want of care has been established. That would be getting closer, in effect, to strict liability for civil damages, however blameless the body or person concerned. That is why it is a step too far. It is unnecessary and potentially damaging, when we look at the vast range of bodies and people who will be affected.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, who I respect very much as a lawyer. To say that this applies strict liability is, with respect, completely wrong, is it not? All strict liability requires is proof that damage has taken place. Breach of statutory duty involves at least a failure to act on the part of the person sued. To elide this into strict liability is just not correct.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
There have always been instances in which some Acts have given rise to immediate civil liability. In others, you had to plead that the breaches of regulations and so on were evidence of negligence. That was so under the old Factories Act and, I think, under the health and safety Act—I cannot remember, but it was a common pleading which I used to do 30 years ago.
It is for the Government to make it absolutely plain whether they want this to be a strict liability—in the sense that the moment that a breach occurs, however blameless, but nonetheless in breach, the party is, damages should follow. My understanding is that the Bill as drafted had that in mind, although it may be difficult. Think of a terrorist act: there may have been a relatively minor breach of regulations. Is that to give rise to millions of pounds-worth of damages, where it has no or very little causal connection, but just enough?
I understand where those moving the amendment are coming from, but this is a matter of policy for those behind it as to the parties likely to be affected and whether the change is necessary. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what the philosophy is behind the drafting.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I will speak to Amendment 37A to Clause 31, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. This amendment proposes to remove Clause 31 and replace it with a new provision, stating that:
“Nothing in this Act or regulations made under it affects any right of action in civil proceedings”.
The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill represents a critical step in strengthening the security framework for public venues and premises across the country. The increasing sophistication and unpredictability of terrorist threats demand that we establish robust and effective measures to protect the public. By setting out clear responsibilities for operators of certain premises, the Bill aims to ensure that the tragic events that we have seen in the past are less likely to be repeated in the future.
As we consider Amendment 37A, it is essential to examine whether the proposed changes will support or potentially undermine the Bill’s objectives. At its core, this amendment seeks to clarify that the Bill will not interfere with the right to pursue civil claims. Such a provision could be seen as a safeguard, ensuring that individuals and organisations maintain access to legal redress if they believe that negligence or a breach of duty has contributed to harm caused by a terrorist incident.
This is a significant consideration. Civil liability serves as an important mechanism for accountability and justice in our legal system. It encourages responsible behaviour, provides a pathway for compensation and often plays a complementary role in reinforcing public safety. Ensuring that individuals retain this right can provide reassurance that public security measures do not come at the expense of fundamental legal principles. However, there are important questions that we must address.
First, is this amendment necessary? It is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that civil liability is not displaced unless explicitly stated in the legislation. Therefore, some may argue that this amendment is redundant and risks introducing ambiguity into the Bill’s interpretation. If the existing legal framework already protects the right to bring civil claims, we must carefully consider whether including an explicit provision could inadvertently complicate matters rather than clarify them.
Another practical consideration is the potential impact on compliance with the Bill’s requirements. Premises operators, many of whom are already facing financial and operational pressures, may view the introduction of this provision as increasing their exposure to litigation. This could have the unintended consequence of discouraging proactive security measures if operators become overly concerned about the risk of legal action. It is essential that the Bill strikes a balance between imposing reasonable obligations and supporting those who are making good-faith efforts to comply.
Furthermore, we must assess whether this amendment could lead to increased litigation that detracts from the primary purpose of the Bill. Legal disputes can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, diverting attention from the urgent task of implementing effective security measures. We should be mindful of the potential for unintended consequences that may hinder the Bill’s objectives. It is also worth considering the impact on the insurance market. If the inclusion of this provision is perceived as creating greater uncertainty or exposure to liability, it could lead to increased insurance premiums for premises operators. This may place an additional financial burden on businesses and organisations that are already navigating a challenging economic environment.
That said, the Government must also be mindful of the importance of maintaining public trust and confidence in counterterrorism measures. Ensuring that individuals have access to justice when they have been wronged is fundamental to our legal system and to public confidence in the rule of law. If stakeholders, legal experts or civil society organisations believe that this amendment is necessary to provide clarity and reassurance, their concerns should be carefully considered. Ultimately, the key question is whether the amendment strengthens the Bill by providing clarity or whether it introduces unnecessary complexity that could hinder its implementation. I look forward to hearing the Government’s view on this matter and the perspectives of other noble Lords.
As we deliberate on this amendment, let us remember the importance of striking the right balance: ensuring robust security measures that protect the public, while safeguarding access to justice and upholding the legal rights that are fundamental to our democracy. We must strive to create a framework that achieves both security and fairness in the face of evolving security threats.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling this amendment, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. We have had discussions outside this Committee to examine these issues. I am genuinely sorry that I was not able to allay the concerns expressed in our discussions, but I hope to be able to do so today, formally and on the record. I am grateful for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, which I think were supportive, and those from the Opposition Front Bench made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.
The purpose of the Bill, as we have discussed, is to mitigate the effects of physical harm arising from acts of terrorism. My starting point, which I know will be shared by everybody in this Committee today, is that the people responsible for such heinous acts that might be inflicted as a result of terrorist activity are the terrorists themselves. The purpose of this potential Act, if it is approved downstream, is to ensure that there are requirements on the duty holders under it which make a real difference to the physical harm caused by potential acts of terrorism. For this reason, there is both a set of conditions to put in place, under Clauses 5 and 6, and robust regulatory and enforcement provision in the Bill.
However, the duties should not impose an actionable right for someone who has suffered loss or injury to bring a claim for a breach of statutory duty. I will try to explain why I think that is the case in due course. I may or may not convince the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, but I will attempt to do so.
Clause 31(1) puts this principle beyond doubt and provides valuable reassurance for responsible persons who, fearing they may face civil proceedings, could otherwise feel pressured to overcomply with the Bill’s requirements. These points were made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. They might, as the Liberal Democrats have previously spoken about, drive people who have those statutory responsibilities to start to engage expensive consultants to overworry about the provisions or to make alterations to their premises that are disproportionate to the risks they face.
Throughout the Bill, the Government have tried to make the provisions as simple and clear as possible and to not put concerns that would lead to potential costly litigation on the face of the Bill. Clause 31(2) makes it clear that it does not affect any right of action which exists, apart from the provisions of Part 1 of the Bill. I know the noble Lord is aware of this because we have discussed it but, for example, a claim for negligence could still be made under the provisions of Clause 31(2). That provision is precisely in line with existing legislation, such as the health and safety legislation in 2013, which ensured that no civil right of action was available for breach of statutory duty unless provided for specifically under the Bill.
It is right that the Bill makes it clear that existing rights of action, such as negligence claims, are not affected, while providing what I hope—again, this is for noble Lords to assess—is clear reassurance to all that a civil claim for breach of statutory duty may not be brought. Therefore, I hope it helps the true purpose of the Bill: to require reasonable, simple and effective steps to mitigate the harm that could be caused by an act of terrorism, for which the terrorist is solely responsible. It should be achieved appropriately, proportionately and without overcompliance flowing from a fear of costly litigation.
I may not have succeeded, but I hope I am finding the balance point between the concerns expressed by Members of the Opposition, and the genuine concerns put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I hope that balance point is achieved by what the Government say. I will listen again if the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, wishes to make any further points based on what I have said. That is —not with my legal training but the legal mind of the Home Office lawyers behind me—the position I put before the Committee in response to the amendments.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate. I do not know whether noble Lords listening are any clearer as to where we are going on this. I make it clear to the Committee that my first objective is to achieve something that is readily understandable to anybody reading this legislation. The Member’s explanatory statement refers to clarity. I was seeking to address this to, first, get clarity and then debate the substance.
I was also concerned that it is important to get discussions on the record. This is not an accusation, but I was not involved in any discussions outside this House. It occurs to me listening to the discussion that it will also be important that guidance or explanations about how this new regime is to work are written in kindergarten language and available to the public.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Perhaps I might again reassure the noble Baroness. What I have said, from this Dispatch Box, is that guidance from both the Home Office and downstream will be put out once the Security Industry Authority is established, and that it will be subject to discussion in this House. I hope that will achieve the noble Baroness’s objective.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I hope that anything that is put out does not need that much discussion in terms of clarity and whether the plain English campaign is satisfied and so on. I am not going to seek to take this further today, but I come back to it as one of the central political points about legislation being clear to those who have to operate it and who are affected by it. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“Right to protest(1) Nothing in this Act is to be construed as infringing upon the right to protest, as protected under Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.(2) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to protests or demonstrations, provided that such protests or demonstrations do not directly incite violence, threaten public safety, or disrupt essential services, and are conducted peacefully and lawfully in accordance with existing legal frameworks governing public gatherings.(3) This Act shall not be used to impede, restrict, or unlawfully interfere with the right of individuals to express dissent through peaceful means, whether in public or private spaces, so long as such activities are in compliance with the principles of non-violence, respect for others’ rights, and public order. (4) Any action taken under this Act that affects an individual or group’s ability to protest or assemble shall be subject to review to ensure that it does not unduly restrict fundamental freedoms.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the compatibility of the Bill with provisions on protest under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, in an earlier day of Committee, the Committee heard an exchange between my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower and the Minister. It was pointed out that political gatherings of more than 200 people quite frequently happen in Members of Parliament’s constituencies. Quite often there is a local issue, or indeed a national issue, that encourages public engagement. One of the features of this Bill is that it is striking that there has been no discussion about the impact of the measures in the Bill on the right to protest. That is an ancient right under common law but it is now found also, in part, in Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act.
One of the Bill documents produced by the Home Office—quite rightly—when this Bill was produced was the human rights memorandum prepared for the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member. That document does not appear to engage with the question of whether this Bill will infringe or curtail any person’s Article 10 or 11 rights to protest. It is noticeable, given that omission from the human rights memorandum, that the Minister and his equivalent in the Commons certified on the front of the Bill that, in their view, it was compliant with the convention. I am afraid that I beg to differ with that analysis—at least to the extent of the amendment proposed on the Marshalled List today.
We will look at what the amendment does in a second. By way of background, it is important to point out that on 6 February this year, the Court of Appeal, presided over by the Lady Chief Justice, produced a judgment in the case of Sarti, Hall and Plummer against the Crown: 2025 EWCA Crim 61. The Court of Appeal considered, as part of the Just Stop Oil protests, appeals brought by individuals who had been protesting by closing Earl’s Court Road. The Court of Appeal, reversing or revising earlier decisions of the courts, determined that it was not necessary for a criminal court hearing a charge of this type to go through the elaborate proportionality tests required in the earlier Shvidler case, and therefore it was for the court to implement Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023.
Noble Lords will be asking, “Why is all this relevant?” It is relevant for this reason: Section 11 in Part 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 imposes an obligation to notify the police in advance of the date, time and proposed route of any public procession or protest which is intended
“to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person or body of persons”,
or to
“publicise a cause or campaign”.
That obligation to notify the police is not addressed in any way in the provisions of Clause 3 of our Bill, which defines “qualifying events”, and it is not inconceivable to see that there may well be a situation where a public protest falls within the definition of Clause 3.
The Bill is silent about who may be considered the responsible person and who may be liable to regulation by the SIA. In fact, the whole thing is simply inapposite. But it is not inconceivable that, unless an amendment of the type that I propose in the Marshalled List is inserted, there is a risk—albeit, as I am sure the Minister will tell me, it is a small risk—that these measures might be used to curtail protest, or have the unintentional consequence of curtailing the democratic right to protest.
For those reasons, I draw the attention of the Committee to the provisions of my amendment. Clearly, the first proposed new subsection simply ensures, as a matter of construction, that nothing in the Bill should be viewed as curtailing those Article 10 and 11 rights. Similarly, it makes clear, in proposed new subsections (2) and (3):
“The provisions of this Act shall not apply to protests or demonstrations, provided that such protests or demonstrations do not directly incite violence, threaten public safety”,
et cetera. The third provision is:
“This Act shall not be used to impede, restrict, or unlawfully interfere with the right of individuals to express dissent”
or to protest. So, in that way, this measure will simply ensure that the Bill could not be misread by any future Government, or indeed by anyone. I can see no reason why His Majesty’s Government would not accept this amendment or something similar. I look forward to hearing some good news from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 37B, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. The amendment seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 31 to safeguard the right to protest, as protected under Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998. The amendment makes it clear that nothing in the Bill should be construed as infringing on the right to protest, provided that such protests are conducted peacefully and lawfully, do not incite violence and do not threaten public safety or disrupt essential services. Furthermore, it proposes that any action taken under the Bill that impacts the ability to protest or assemble should be subject to review to ensure that fundamental freedoms are not unduly restricted.
The right to protest is a cornerstone of any democratic society and one of the primary means through which individuals and groups can express their views, voice grievances and influence public discourse. Throughout history, peaceful protests have played a transformative role in shaping our society, strengthening democratic governance and securing fundamental rights and freedoms. From the suffragette movement, which fought for women’s right to vote, to more recent demonstrations calling for climate action and social justice, the ability to gather, express dissent and campaign for change has been essential to our democratic values. Indeed, the richness and resilience of British democracy have often been reinforced by the willingness of citizens to stand up and speak out when they see injustice or seek reform.
However, the context in which we now consider this amendment is one of heightened security concerns. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill rightly seeks to enhance public safety by imposing new security obligations on certain premises to protect against the ever-evolving threat of terrorism. As noble Lords will agree, this is a pressing and legitimate concern, and our duty to protect citizens from harm is paramount.
Yet, as we pursue this noble objective, we must be vigilant in ensuring that necessary security measures do not inadvertently erode the civil liberties that define us as a free and democratic society. The fight against terrorism must never become an excuse to undermine the very freedoms we seek to protect. Ensuring compatibility with human rights principles is not merely a legal obligation—it is a moral imperative.
This amendment provides much-needed clarity. It recognises that, although security is of the utmost importance, it must be balanced with the protection of democratic rights. The conditions it outlines are both reasonable and proportionate. They would ensure that protests remain peaceful, lawful and respectful of public order while preventing unnecessary or heavy-handed restrictions that could stifle legitimate dissent. The provision for review is particularly important. It would ensure accountability and create a safeguard against potential overreach by authorities. This is essential in preserving public trust, especially in the sensitive area of counterterrorism measures. If people perceive that security measures are being used to suppress dissent rather than to protect them, we risk undermining the very co-operation and solidarity needed to combat threats effectively.
Critics may argue that the amendment is unnecessary because existing legal frameworks already protect the right to protest. However, clarity within the legislation is crucial to avoid legal ambiguities or unintended consequences. By explicitly affirming the compatibility of this Bill with the right to protest, we would send a strong message that we value security and civil liberties equally and make it clear that security and freedom are not mutually exclusive but must coexist in a healthy democracy.
In practical terms, this amendment would also support public co-operation with counterterrorism efforts. When people see that their rights are respected and protected, they are more likely to trust and engage with security measures. Public trust is a critical component of effective counterterrorism strategies. A society that respects the right to peaceful assembly is one where people are more inclined to work with, rather than against, the authorities.
To be clear, this amendment would not weaken the Bill’s security provisions, or shield unlawful, violent or disruptive activities. Rather, it reinforces the principle that peaceful and lawful protest should not be treated as a threat to public safety or security. It provides assurance that this important legislation will not inadvertently target the exercise of democratic freedoms.
Moreover, we must consider the international dimension. The United Kingdom has long been regarded as a bastion of democracy and human rights. By enshrining protections for the right to protest in this Bill, we would reaffirm our commitment to those values on the global stage and demonstrate that it is possible to confront terrorism without compromising the fundamental freedoms that are the hallmark of a democratic society.
This amendment would strengthen the Bill by ensuring that it aligns with the fundamental principles of democracy and human rights. It would send a clear and important message that we can protect our citizens from terrorism without sacrificing the freedoms that define our society. Security measures that respect civil liberties are not only more just but more effective in fostering a cohesive and resilient society. I therefore urge the Government and noble Lords to support it. Let us demonstrate that we are committed to both safeguarding our citizens and upholding the principles that make this nation great. By doing so, we can ensure that our response to terrorism remains not only strong but principled, just and democratic.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, sometimes the world goes a bit topsy-turvy and mad. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has given an inspiring rendition of the importance of the right to protest. I kept thinking that I was sure that I made many a speech like that—not as well or with such wonderful rhetoric—saying that the right to protest should never be compromised when that side was in government. There are times when you wonder what is going on. However, I concede that I have thought that there could be problems in this Bill around the right to protest, so I am glad that it has been raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, made a very lawyerly speech. I did not understand all of it, but it is worth probing this. The other day, I talked about farmer protestors meeting in a barn and wondered whether this would apply, who would be the responsible person and so on. There is something in this. It is also what I had in mind when I supported the amendments about the Henry VIII powers, because there is no doubt that those powers give the Secretary of State the right to interpret public safety and security in such a way that our civil liberties could well be compromised in the name of public safety. In that sense, at least some reassurance from Minister would be very welcome.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and other contributors to this debate that I have been on a few demos myself. I have quite enjoyed them; they are part of the democratic right to oppose certain things. Although my demo days have gone for the moment, because, as a Government Minister, I support government policy, there may be occasions in the future when I want to go on further demonstrations. I do not anticipate this Bill or any other legislation—apart, perhaps, from the legislation put in place by the previous Government—curtailing that democratic right to protest.
I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that none of the Bill’s provisions are intended to interfere with people’s rights, which are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act, including the right to protest. To be clear, the Bill aims to protect the public, not to infringe their rights. The noble Lord will note that something that I never expected to happen to me again happened with this Bill. On the front of it are the words:
“Lord Hanson of Flint has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998”,
and, for the benefit of the House, I will repeat what it says:
“In my view the provisions of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”,
of which the right to protest is at the heart.
The noble Lord referred to a number of points around the undergrowth of the legislation and some of the clauses and schedules that he has concerns about. However, the front of the Bill says—and I put my name to it—that it is compatible with the convention of human rights. In my view, the measures are carefully developed to ensure it appropriately and proportionately captures the places and requirements of qualifying premises and events. In the development of the Bill, we have been mindful of its application to protests and demonstrations.
The expectation is that most demonstrations and protests will not fall within the Bill’s scope at all. They will not constitute “qualifying premises” under Clause 2, as they are not qualifying activities under Schedule 1. Even if they were, it would be unlikely that the premises would be wholly or mainly used for those purposes.
Some large demonstrations and protests may be qualifying events. However, many will not have to put in place the specific measure to check entry and, as a result, will not satisfy the criteria to be a qualifying event under Clause 3. An open access event, which is how I would term some of the demonstrations that I have been on, might have more than 800 attendees at a time—that number would be a good demonstration—and will not be within the scope of the Bill. Where demonstrations or events are within the scope of the Bill, it is right that the relevant provisions will apply. In some cases, large numbers of people will be gathered in a location where the organiser must have adequate control to consider and take forward appropriate security measures and procedures, so far as is reasonably practical.
I hope to reassure the noble Lord, His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that, within the Bill’s scope, we are required to act compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. I can say from this Dispatch Box that nothing in the legislation interferes with that.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for teasing out the discussion. I look forward to perhaps joining him on a demonstration, if we ever find shared common ground. But, for the moment, his pressing is valuable as it gives me the opportunity to say that he can undertake protests without worry about the Bill’s provisions—unless, of course, his protest falls within the scope of the Bill, in which case it is treated no differently from any other aspect of life that falls within the scope. I hope he will reflect on that and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the Minister. Obviously, the Section 19 declaration on the front of the Bill is a statement that, in the Minister’s view, it is compatible with the Act. As one of the very small number of Ministers who has signed a Section 19(1)(b) statement, which is to be signed in different circumstances, where you are not so confident, I can assure the Minister that such a statement of opinion is not conclusive. The courts regularly find that measures in Acts of Parliament—for example, in the recent litigation about the Northern Ireland legacy Act—are in fact incompatible, notwithstanding statements or declarations of compatibility on the front of the Bill.
Be that as it may, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I obviously agree with much of it, but I still wonder whether he might go back to the department and consider whether it is appropriate to put in just a short clause along the lines I suggested, to make crystal clear that the right to protest is not to be interfered with indirectly and unintentionally by the measures in the Bill. For now, of course, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“Tax relief incentives for security investments(1) The Secretary of State, in consultation with HM Treasury, must establish a tax relief scheme for qualifying investments made by businesses to reduce the vulnerability of premises to acts of terrorism at premises covered by this Act.(2) Qualifying investments include but are not limited to—(a) surveillance and monitoring equipment,(b) physical barriers and access control systems,(c) staff training on counter-terrorism measures, and(d) cyber-security infrastructure for venue security.(3) The scheme may provide tax deductions of up to twenty-five per cent for eligible security expenditures.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment incentivises businesses to voluntarily strengthen their security infrastructure to reduce the vulnerability of premises to acts of terrorism by offsetting the financial burden through tax deductions. It encourages innovation and investment in counter-terrorism technologies while reducing reliance on public funding.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, with some trepidation, I find myself leading the next group as well; I hope not to try the patience of the Committee. The Committee discussed similar suites of amendments in earlier groups. Amendment 40 is designed to seek to defray some of the costs of implementing measures made necessary by the effect of the Bill. As the Committee will have noted, it requires the Secretary of State to set up a tax relief scheme for qualifying investments. Those investments are set out at subsection (2), including
“surveillance … equipment … physical barriers and access control systems … staff training on counter-terrorism measures”,
and
“cyber-security infrastructure for venue security”.
We know that the costs of the measures in the Bill are estimated in the impact assessment at somewhere between £4.8 billion and £500 million, with the best estimate being £1.7 billion. If a measure similar to this were brought in, it would make cost-neutral to businesses the implementation of the measures in the Bill. Of course, there would be a cost to the Government, but this is, after all, a government policy.
My Amendment 45 seeks to do the same sort of thing but without the creation of a tax incentive. It would require the Secretary of State to provide grants or funding schemes for voluntary and community organisations. This amendment goes to my earlier group of amendments, seeking to mitigate the impact on voluntary and community organisations. This is quite similar to the debate about general funding that the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie, spoke to on the last day of Committee. I will not expound at length on that now, but I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what consideration was given to providing financial support to voluntary and community organisations, whether the Home Office considered the Bill’s impact on volunteering and people wanting voluntarily to run village halls and community centres, the Home Office’s estimate of any impact on recruitment—or whether the issue was not considered at all. If the Minister does not have the answer to hand in his bundle, I would be very grateful if he wrote to me. I would also like the Minister to outline what discussions have been had, if any, with the Treasury on creating a tax scheme of the type I advocate in Amendment 40. I beg to move.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, I apologise in advance. The Minister will tick me off for this being a Second Reading intervention, and I should have been here on Monday to say it, but I would like briefly to give a small plug for an organisation that has not been mentioned at all at this stage: the National Protective Security Authority. This is an arm of MI5 which gives free advice on personnel security, physical security and other forms of security. It is informed by a knowledge of terrorist and state threats. It is based not only on the understanding of those threats but on commissioned research from universities. It will give advice for free—paid for by the taxpayer—to all sizes and shapes of organisation. When we are talking about the costs of this, and in the earlier stages about the so-called cowboys giving advice, I recommend that whoever is affected by this legislation looks at this website and seeks this free advice as their first step. I am sorry for the commercial plug and apologise for intervening at this stage.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, in this group. As the Bishop of Manchester, I have got something like 400 churches and church halls in my diocese, but these amendments go rather wider than that. For places of worship, there are already some grant schemes for protecting against terrorism, given the particular threat that places of worship, especially Muslim and Jewish places of worship, have traditionally faced.
Back in my days as a vicar—25 years or more ago now—I seem to recall that, when I was trying to do good things to improve disabled access in my church, it was possible to do the work and then reclaim the VAT, which would not have been possible on other works. The principle that the Government fund by way of tax relief works that are important to the well-being of the community, to enable people to participate safely in events and activities, is well established in law. If small venues, particularly village halls, have to do physical work to premises, I urge that we find ways to defray not all but part of the cost, recognising that that shows this is something that is strongly supported by the state.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 41, as I believe it is very important that we get some clarity. This amendment seeks to make sure that there can be no ambiguity in what is to be expected of local authorities, the SIA and other relevant bodies if the Bill becomes law.
We know that licensing and enforcement teams in most local authorities are already overstretched and underresourced. Through this amendment, I seek some reassurance that councils will be supported and financially compensated for the work they will have to do to provide oversight and enforcement, and around their ability to co-ordinate with the SIA effectively. The provision of advice and guidance that businesses will seek from councils will be significant, and it will be a cost. We cannot place additional burdens on our councils at this time unless they are funded fully. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Government have a duty and a mechanism by which they can fund and resource councils in overseeing compliance with the Bill’s security requirements.
I should also add that, as this is new legislation, the Government have already committed that they will finance local authorities for any additional costs that they incur, although that is not clear from this Bill.
While I am on my feet, I will also speak to Amendment 42. I have already spoken, as other noble Lords have, about the worry this Bill is causing venues, particularly smaller premises. If left unamended, I have no doubt at all that the financial burden of implementing these requirements would force a number of our smaller venues, and perhaps even a few larger ones, to close. While we must do everything we can to protect the public from terrorism, we cannot allow the threat of terrorism and associated countermeasures to be a causation for permanent business closure as, if this is to be the case, then we are allowing terror to alter our way of life and, of course, providing a victory for the terrorists.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 40, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. This amendment proposes the insertion of a new clause after Clause 34 to establish tax relief incentives for security investments by businesses covered under this Act. The purpose of this amendment is to encourage businesses to strengthen their security infrastructure voluntarily by offering tax deductions of up to 25% for qualifying security expenditures. These investments would include, but are not limited to,
“surveillance and monitoring equipment, … physical barriers and access control systems, … staff training on counter-terrorism measures, and … cyber-security infrastructure for venue security”.
The security landscape we face today is increasingly complex. The threat of terrorism has evolved, targeting not only traditional public spaces but also a wide variety of venues where people gather for work, entertainment, and everyday life. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill rightly places obligations on certain premises to implement security measures to protect the public. However, it is essential that we consider the financial burden this may place on businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, which form the backbone of our economy.
This amendment offers a constructive and forward-thinking solution by incentivising security investments through tax relief. Such an approach would have several key benefits. First, by offering financial incentives, we encourage businesses to take proactive steps to enhance their security infrastructure. Many businesses want to do the right thing but are constrained by budgetary limitations. Tax relief would help alleviate these financial pressures and empower them to invest in modern, effective security measures that reduce the vulnerability of their premises to acts of terrorism.
Secondly, the amendment recognises the importance of innovation in counterterrorism technologies. By incentivising investments in advanced surveillance systems, access control solutions and cybersecurity infrastructure, we create a market environment that encourages the development and adoption of cutting-edge security technologies. This not only benefits individual businesses but strengthens the broader security landscape of our nation.
Thirdly, security is a shared responsibility. While the Government have a duty to protect its citizens, the private sector also plays a critical role in safeguarding public spaces. By incentivising private investment, this amendment helps reduce reliance on public funding for security infrastructure, ensuring that taxpayer resources can be allocated more efficiently. Fourthly, providing a financial incentive makes it more likely that businesses will not only comply with the requirements of this Bill but go above and beyond to implement comprehensive security measures. This contributes to a safer environment for the public and demonstrates a collaborative approach to counterterrorism efforts.
Critics may argue that offering tax relief for security investments could reduce government revenue. However, this must be weighed against the potential costs of a terrorist attack, including the loss of lives, economic disruption and the subsequent expenditure on emergency response and recovery. Investments in security are not merely costs; they are investments in resilience and stability. Additionally, by incentivising security investments, we send a strong signal that the Government recognise the challenges businesses face and are willing to support them in meeting their obligations under this Bill. This builds good will and fosters a sense of partnership between the public and private sectors in the collective effort to protect our society from terrorism. Furthermore, the scope of this amendment is deliberately broad, allowing the scheme to cover various types of security investments. This flexibility ensures that businesses can tailor their security measures to their specific needs and circumstances, rather than being forced into a one-size-fits-all approach.
The amendment strikes the right balance between enhancing security and supporting economic growth. It encourages businesses to invest in vital security measures while reducing the financial burden they face. By incentivising innovation and collaboration, we create a more secure and resilient society, so I urge the Government and noble Lords to support this amendment. It is a pragmatic, forward-thinking proposal that strengthens the Bill, promotes public safety and supports businesses in playing their part in counterterrorism efforts. Security and prosperity are not mutually exclusive; they can and must go hand in hand. This amendment embodies that principle and deserves the full support of this Committee.
I now speak in support of Amendment 41, tabled by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. This amendment proposes the insertion of a new clause after Clause 34 to ensure that local authorities are adequately supported and properly co-ordinated in their role under the Bill. The amendment has two key components. First, it calls on the Secretary of State to provide funding and resources to local authorities to support their expanded role in overseeing compliance with the security requirements outlined in this legislation. Secondly, it requires the Government to issue clear guidelines for local authority co-ordination with the Security Industry Authority. The importance of this amendment cannot be overstated. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill rightly seeks to enhance security measures at public venues and premises across the country. However, it is clear that local authorities will play a critical role in ensuring the effective implementation and enforcement of these measures. If we are to succeed in making public spaces safer, local authorities must be properly equipped to carry out their responsibilities.
Local councils are already under significant financial and operational strain. Many are grappling with stretched budgets, increased service demands and a shortage of skilled personnel. Adding the responsibility of overseeing complex security compliance requirements without additional support would place an unsustainable burden on them. This amendment recognises that reality and ensures that councils are provided with the funding and resources necessary to carry out their new duties effectively. By investing in local authorities, we not only empower them to fulfil their role under the Bill but enhance the overall security infrastructure of our communities.
The Security Industry Authority has a vital role in regulating private security services and ensuring high standards across the sector. However, effective security co-ordination requires seamless co-operation between local authorities and the SIA. This amendment addresses the need for clear and consistent guidelines on how such co-ordination should be conducted.
Providing clarity on roles and responsibilities will prevent a duplication of effort and reduce the risk of confusion or gaps in enforcement. It will foster stronger partnerships between local authorities, the SIA and other stakeholders, creating a more cohesive and effective security framework.
Terrorist threats are complex and multifaceted, requiring a co-ordinated and collaborative response at all levels of government. Local authorities are often best placed to understand the specific security challenges within their communities and to engage with businesses, venue operators and the public in implementing tailored security measures. However, this localised approach can be effective only if councils have the necessary resources and clear guidance from central government; without this, we risk creating a fragmented and inconsistent security landscape that leaves communities vulnerable.
Some may argue that councils already have extensive responsibilities, and that security should remain the domain of specialised agencies. However, the evolving nature of security threats requires a whole-of-society approach. Local authorities are on the front lines of public service delivery and community engagement; they are uniquely positioned to play a key role in implementing the security measures under this Bill, provided they are given the tools and support to do so. It is worth noting that investment in local authority capacity will have broader benefits beyond security: strengthening council capabilities can enhance their ability to deliver other services more effectively, creating more resilient and well-managed communities.
This amendment represents a practical and necessary step to ensure the successful implementation of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. It acknowledges the vital role of local authorities and provides the support they need to fulfil that role effectively. By ensuring proper funding, resources and clear co-ordination with the SIA, we can create a security framework that is both robust and locally responsive. I urge the Government and noble Lords to support this amendment; it strengthens the Bill, supports our councils and, ultimately, contributes to a safer and more secure United Kingdom.
Amendment 42 calls on the Secretary of State to establish a financial support scheme to assist businesses with the cost of implementing the security measures required under this legislation. The proposed scheme would include low-interest loans, grants or tax relief for businesses facing costs ranging between £3,000 and £52,000. While we all recognise the necessity of strengthening security measures to protect the public from the ever-present threat of terrorism, we must acknowledge the financial burden these requirements may place on businesses—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises—many of which are already grappling with rising costs, from energy bills to supply chain disruptions.
For a small business, an unexpected £3,000 security expenditure can be a significant financial strain, let alone costs in the tens of thousands. Without support, some may face difficult decisions, including delaying essential security upgrades or, in extreme cases, closing their operations altogether. This would not only harm local economies but could inadvertently weaken the overall security framework that the Bill seeks to strengthen. A financial support scheme, as outlined in this amendment, offers a practical solution. By providing low-interest loans, grants and tax relief, we can alleviate the financial pressures on businesses, while encouraging compliance with those security requirements. This is a prudent investment in the safety and resilience of our commercial sector and the communities it serves.
Finally, Amendment 45 addresses the equally important issue of financial support for voluntary and community organisations, including village halls, which are often at the heart of rural and suburban communities. It calls on the Secretary of State to provide grants or funding schemes to cover the costs associated with compliance under the future Act. Voluntary and community organisations face unique challenges; they often operate on shoestring budgets, relying heavily on donations, grants and volunteer support. These organisations provide essential services and spaces for social engagement, education and cultural activities. Village halls, in particular, are vital hubs for community life, hosting everything from children’s playgroups to senior citizen gatherings.
The imposition of costly security measures, while understandable from a public safety perspective, could deter community engagement and even lead to the closure of some of these cherished institutions. That is a price that we cannot afford to pay. By providing targeted financial support, we ensure that voluntary and community organisations can continue to thrive while meeting their security obligations. This amendment is not just about compliance; it is about preserving the social fabric of our communities and recognising the invaluable role that these organisations play in society.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments, and I hope that I will be able to respond to them fully.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for her plug for the service she mentioned; I take it in good heart. She will know that the purpose of the Bill is to give the Security Industry Authority the power to give advice and for the Home Office to enable that. I will take away her suggestion and feed it to officials. If it can be done, we will look at how it can be examined by the Security Industry Authority to be a helpful contribution to resilience for local groups and organisations. I thank her for that.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who spoke, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for reminding us of the existence of that part of the security service. It could provide very useful assistance to the SIA, which, as we know from other groups in this Committee, is not really ready for the role that this legislation is going to thrust upon it. I have no doubt that that body at MI5 will be very helpful.
I am also grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for supporting these amendments, and I share his sentiment that a large number of faith-based institutions that operate on a shoestring budget are going to struggle to implement the measures in the Bill. On the same theme, I wholly endorse the amendments from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, particularly in respect of small arts venues and theatres and, more generally, in terms of meeting the additional expenditure to be imposed on local authorities. As ever, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, who always speaks great sense.
The Minister makes many fair points. The Bill did pass through the Home Office when I was there, but I was the Minister for Migration and Borders. I know the Bill was the subject of considerable comment and constructive criticism by the Home Affairs Select Committee. The Home Office responded to the consultation and the Bill was reconsidered. There was a consultation paper and the decision taken to increase the threshold was done in light of the consultation that was launched by the last Government. I suspect that, had we been there, we would have made that sensible decision too. As I said in my earlier speech, I commend the Government for raising that threshold to 200.
That having been said, I do think the Government should ensure some sort of short-order post-legislative scrutiny to ensure that the burdens imposed by this legislation are not very damaging to our micro-businesses and small communities. I know there is always a measure of post-legislative scrutiny, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could write to me just to confirm what arrangements are in place in relation to this Bill—and, ideally, before Report, so we can consider how best to see whether there is an impact, as I fear there may be and, if there is, what measures we can take to ameliorate it. With that, I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Udny-Lister
“Counter-terrorism measures in planning law(1) The Secretary of State must consult with local authorities on integrating counter-terrorism measures into the planning and design of new buildings which are likely to be designated “qualifying premises” for the purposes of this Act.(2) Following that consultation, the Secretary of State must introduce measures to ensure the incorporation of anti-terrorism design principles in new building projects, particularly those in high-risk areas, where the buildings in question are likely to be designated “qualifying premises” for the purposes of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment encourages the integration of counter-terrorism measures into architectural design, promoting safer urban environments from the outset.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief in moving this amendment. As I said at Second Reading, there is a clear opportunity within this legislation to design out terrorism by ensuring that anti-terrorism design principles are incorporated into new building projects that fall within the definition and scope of the qualifying premises. It is important that we take every opportunity to do this as we proceed with various bits of legislation that do have an effect on security.
Legislation, where possible, should always be forward-looking and include provisions that seek to prevent, rather than just address. I am therefore hopeful that noble Lords will see the benefits of mandating the need for the Secretary of State to work with local authorities on integrating the counterterrorism measures into planning and design policies, so that we can promote safer premises from the outset of their design. It is a sad reality that the threat of terrorism will not go away in the short term. We therefore have a duty to ensure that the venues of tomorrow are designed in ways that protect the public and prevent terrorism. I am confident that this amendment will achieve that, while further alleviating the financial burden of altering premises at a later date to ensure compliance with the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, and although it is towards the end of the Bill and it is a small addition, I think that, without this change, the Bill becomes less effective, because the thing we know works best in preventing crime—or terrorism, in this case—is design. The problem we have at the moment with car theft is that the thieves know how to steal them and are pretty effective at it. Car stealing has gone through the roof over the last few years. For 20 years, it went down. So we can design things better to make the terrorists less likely to be effective, or so that, if they do get through, they do less damage.
Prevention is critical to the Bill. At Second Reading, the Minister said that they could not consider it in this Bill, and that it had to be considered elsewhere. As much as I love and respect him, I am not sure that I agree. The danger is that the Home Office forgets, and it gets buried somewhere else. This is the best place to do it. There is an equivalent: the Section 104 agreements on new buildings, which are about crime—keeping new buildings safe by being designed to prevent crime. Car parks are designed in order to make it less likely that cars are stolen.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I associate myself the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about counterterrorism security advisers. They are part of this defence mechanism; they certainly need to be better resourced and could do a great deal as a consequence.
The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, are extremely important and have great value; they reflect the comments that I made in my two reports on prevention of terrorism in London. A great deal can be done to design out different sorts of crime, or, as in this case, to make it more difficult for terrorists to act, or to make it easier to respond to a terrorist incident. I do not wish to prolong the discussion, because there is an issue as to whether this is the right legislation. Clearly, it needs to be considered in the context of the planning system, but I also take the point about that perhaps taking an inordinate amount of time, rather than trying to move this forward at this stage.
If I may inject a slightly partisan point at this stage, I do recall, at a lower level, the issues around designing out crime. At one stage, a whole series of recommendations were in the building regulations to make crime more difficult—for example, making it more difficult for burglars to kick in doors. The previous Government dismantled all that, which was extremely unfortunate.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. I wonder whether the Minister and the advisers have been to Northern Ireland, where, for a long time, buildings have been designed for the exact threats he is talking about. I am not sure of the system, but I do not think that those designs originated from planning control or building control; they were brought on by the organisations themselves in order to provide protection. There must be lessons to be learned there on how best to stop these sorts of attacks; after all, although I hesitate to say it, we were under them for 40 years.
On the subject of the various organisations, including the SIA, we can point people in the right direction and get advice to them, but resources will have to be put into the communications between people and those organisations. The advice may be there but currently, there is not the manpower to communicate to the extent that will ward off terrorist attacks.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I do not want to pour cold water on the proposal as it seems to be getting a lot of support, and I support the principle of it. I am very taken with some of the simple measures that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, outlined. However, they are not all simple measures. I have been on local authorities and seen how planners can get carried away with some of their proposals. All of a sudden, we are into not simple proposals such as those we have heard about today, but much more elaborate ones that would be impossible for the business or the community centre to implement.
We need to be careful about the proposal. I am happy with the principle, but the outworking could be much more difficult. I say in response to my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, let us not forget that a lot of the buildings in Northern Ireland that were protected against terrorist attacks were public buildings. That money was coming from central funds, not community organisations, churches, local football clubs or sports clubs.
I support the principle of this proposal, but I urge some caution as well.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, I think that this amendment has a lot of merit. It certainly raises some very important issues. Ahead of this Bill, I met with people from the insurance industry. They very much made the point that time and money could be saved by incorporating some of these security provisions at the design phase of public buildings.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made a very powerful case for why this amendment would make sense. Clearly, retrospectively trying to put in measures for effective and safe evacuations and invacuations is frequently going to be harder and less cost-effective than building them in at the planning and architectural design stage for new public buildings. As others have hinted, this amendment is perhaps not for this Bill but for a future planning Bill, but it raises a common-sense and important set of issues. I look forward to Minister’s reply.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, my two colleagues mentioned the situation in Northern Ireland. The Minister will be very familiar, from his service there, with a lot of this. A lot of the protections that were put in place were against blast. Terrorist tactics have changed and will continue to change. You cannot simply look at what the threat might have been 30 or 40 years ago: look at the threat that we face today, but in 10 years or 20 years, it may be very different.
The trick will be to have flexible thinking going into the actual design, so although the nature of the threat will change over time there will at least be a bit of future-proofing—that is the language we would need to use. All those lessons should be learned. I served on the Northern Ireland Police Authority, which had to deal with the threats to buildings in those circumstances and to other Civil Service facilities. The Minister will be very familiar with all that. The key is for those who design or adapt buildings—because more buildings are going to be adapted than built from scratch—to show a bit of flexibility in those processes and put a little thought into what might be coming down the road. Our buildings were largely protected against blast, which would not necessarily be the only thing that is at risk.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 43, tabled by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. This has been a very interesting debate. The amendment seeks to introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to
“consult with local authorities on integrating counter-terrorism measures into the planning and design of new buildings which are likely to be designated ‘qualifying premises’ for the purposes of this Act”.
It further calls for the introduction of measures to ensure that anti-terrorism design principles are incorporated into building projects, particularly those in high-risk areas.
The importance of designing safer urban environments from the outset cannot be overstated. In an era where the threat of terrorism continues to evolve, our approach to public safety must also adapt. The integration of counterterrorism measures into the planning and design of buildings offers a forward-thinking solution that enhances security while reducing the need for costly and disruptive retrofits. By embedding security principles into architectural design, we can create spaces that are both functional and secure. Measures such as blast-resistant materials, secure perimeters, control access points and natural surveillance through open and well-lit layouts can significantly reduce the vulnerability of public spaces.
Many countries have already embraced the concept of designing out terrorism. For example, in the United States and parts of Europe, urban planners and architects routinely incorporate security features into the design of transport hubs, commercial centres and public venues. The United Kingdom should not lag behind in adopting similar best practices. This amendment encourages a collaborative approach between the Government, local authorities and the construction industry to ensure that new developments are designed with security in mind. Local authorities are uniquely positioned to provide insights into the specific risks and needs of their areas, making their involvement in this process essential.
Incorporating counterterrorism measures at the planning stage is not only more effective but more cost-efficient. Retrofitting existing buildings to meet new security requirements can be expensive and disruptive, often requiring extensive modifications that compromise the original design and functionality. By contrast, proactive design reduces long-term costs and creates environments that seamlessly balance aesthetics, functionality and security.
I must stress that this amendment does not seek to turn our urban landscapes into fortresses. Good design can enhance both security and public experience without compromising the openness and accessibility that define vibrant communities. By working closely with architects, planners and local authorities, we can ensure that security features are thoughtfully integrated and do not detract from the usability and beauty of public spaces. I fully associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on this issue.
The amendment rightly prioritises high-risk areas where the likelihood of terrorism incidents is higher due to factors such as foot traffic, symbolic importance or previous threats. By taking a proactive approach in these areas, we would not only protect lives but bolster public confidence in the safety of shared spaces. In conclusion, the amendment would strengthen the Bill by embedding security into the very fabric of our built environment. It demonstrates a pragmatic and forward-looking approach to counterterrorism that balances safety, efficiency and community needs. I urge the Government and noble Lords to support this amendment as it represents a vital step forward, creating a safer, more resilient United Kingdom.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for raising the important issue of how new buildings—his amendment mentions “new buildings”—and development should consider security in their design where it is appropriate to do so.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lords, Lord Elliott and Lord Empey, for bringing to the Committee their experience of Northern Ireland—with which I have a small element of familiarity but not as much experience as they do.
I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and particularly his invitation for CT advisers to be incorporated into an advice mechanism, whatever that might be. I will give him the same answer I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. I reassure him that we want to have this simple advice, focused via the Security Industry Association, and I hope that I can at least refer his helpful suggestion and see how it can be incorporated into the advice given. I thank my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey for his contribution, and the Liberal Democrat and Opposition Front Benches for their comments.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
I thank everybody who supported this amendment and took part in this short but important debate. I think it would be a missed opportunity if this Bill is not used as a mechanism to remind local authorities and the Home Office to get the message out again and for the SIA to use it to get new buildings designed with security and terrorism in mind. I think that that would be beneficial, but having heard the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Review of the impact on the night-time economy(1) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report reviewing the impact of the provisions in this Act on the night-time economy, jobs and growth.(2) The report must include an assessment of the impact of this Act on—(a) public houses,(b) nightclubs,(c) bars,(d) restaurants,(e) cinemas, and(f) any other late-opening venues that the Secretary of State considers to be part of the night-time economy.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to require the Secretary of State to produce a report reviewing the impact this Act on the night-time economy, jobs and growth.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 46 and in support of Amendment 47 tabled by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. These amendments address two crucial concerns regarding the implementation and potential impact of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill: the effect on the night-time economy and the importance of proper consultation and guidance for businesses.
The first amendment, Amendment 46, would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within 18 months of the Act’s passage reviewing its impact on the night-time economy, jobs and growth. Specifically, it would assess the effects on public houses, nightclubs, bars, restaurants, cinemas and other late-opening venues. The night-time economy is a vital part of our nation’s cultural and economic life. It provides employment for thousands of people, contributes billions of pounds to the economy and plays a central role in fostering vibrant communities. However, it is also an industry that has faced significant challenges in recent years, first with the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and now with rising operational costs and economic uncertainty.
While the security measures outlined in this Bill are essential to protect the public from the threat of terrorism, it is vital that we do not inadvertently place an unsustainable burden on businesses in the night-time economy. Venues that already operate on tight profit margins may struggle to absorb the costs associated with implementing new security requirements, such as enhanced surveillance, access control systems and staff training. By requiring a formal review of the Act’s impact on this sector, Amendment 46 would provide an essential mechanism for accountability and evidence-based policy-making. It would ensure that Parliament remains informed about any unintended consequences and allows for adjustments to be made if necessary. Crucially, this review would help strike the right balance between public safety and economic vitality.
The second amendment, Amendment 47, seeks to delay the commencement of Parts 1 and 2 until draft guidance has been issued to businesses and a proper consultation has taken place. This is a sensible and pragmatic approach that prioritises clarity and fairness for businesses. It is one thing to pass legislation, but it is another to implement it effectively and responsibly. For businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, sudden and unclear regulatory changes can be disruptive and costly. Without proper guidance, there is a real risk that businesses may struggle to understand their obligations under the Act, leading to confusion, non-compliance and potentially adverse outcomes for security and commerce.
By ensuring that draft guidance is published and consultations are conducted before the Act’s provisions come into force, Amendment 47 would promote a smoother and more co-operative transition. It would allow businesses to prepare adequately, understand the requirements and implement the necessary measures in a way that is both effective and economically viable. Moreover, consultation with businesses is essential to ensuring that the measures introduced are practical and proportionate. Those who operate public venues have valuable insights into the challenges and realities of implementing security measures, and their input can help shape more effective and workable solutions.
Amendments 48 and 49 are probing amendments on the timescale for implementation of the Act. We discussed implementation timescales briefly on the first day in Committee, and the Minister confirmed that the Government think that the Bill will take a two-year period to implement. I have tabled these amendments to understand better how that period will work. Can the Minister confirm which parts of the Bill are likely to be implemented before that two-year period has elapsed? Can he give us an indication of whether the Government are firmly committed to implementing the Bill in full by the end of the two years? We feel very strongly that it would be helpful for organisations and events that would be affected by the Bill’s measures to have as much information as possible as soon as possible. Can the Government confirm how they will keep those organisations and events updated on progress so that they can plan appropriately?
In conclusion, these amendments do not seek to weaken the Bill or undermine its vital security objectives. On the contrary, they would strengthen it by ensuring that its implementation is thoughtful, measured and responsive to the needs of businesses and communities. Amendment 46 would provide a mechanism for accountability and assessment, ensuring that the impact on the night-time economy is carefully monitored. Amendment 47 would prioritise proper consultation and guidance, fostering co-operation and compliance among businesses. I urge the Government and noble Lords to support these amendments as a means of enhancing the effectiveness and fairness of this important legislation. Together, they represent a balanced and pragmatic approach that upholds public safety and economic resilience. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly support Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst, and I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I wanted to put my name on this group, but I missed the deadline. I think it is a crucial group and I hope that the Government will be very positive about it, because the night-time economy is very worried that its venues are going to be badly affected by this, and I think it would be very constructive for the Government to adopt this amendment as some kind of reassurance.
I was inspired, indirectly at least, to get involved in supporting Amendment 46 by the Prime Minister. Yesterday, on the front page of the Daily Mirror, Keir Starmer was saying that he backed the fight to save the great British pub:
“there's nothing any of us like better than going to the local for a pint, myself included”.
He said:
“They are the places where friends, family, community come together around something which is very British – the pub. It’s a place of warmth, of opportunity, to have a nice time with friends, family and for people to have the friendship and engagement that is so important to their wellbeing”.
The Prime Minister was supporting a campaign to save pubs precisely because pubs are struggling. Data from the Valuation Office Agency in December showed that the number of pubs in England and Wales fell by 402 last year. That was a net figure that took into account new pubs opening but did not include premises standing empty that are still classified as pubs. As pub numbers have plunged by more than 2,000 since the start of 2020, and with industry experts such as AlixPartners warning that 3,000 more pubs, bars, restaurants and clubs are at risk of closing in 2025, I want the Government to note that this Bill represents another burden and that we should at least keep our eye on, monitor and be accountable about whether unintended consequences will damage the sector.
Publicans and experts blame a cocktail of supply and staffing costs, rising energy bills, and those controversial, crippling national insurance contributions, but stakeholders raise all the time regulatory demands and the costs in terms of licensing. There is a certain dread of what this legislation will mean, especially because pubs are trying to make more of themselves as venues—for example, for quiz nights and community choirs. In Neil Davenport’s “Letter on Liberty”, Pubs: Defending the Free House, there is a discussion about a mini boom post-lockdown of pubs as new live-music venues. That thrill of face-to-face live events and the public square as a place of freedom is lucrative as well, so we need to be careful that this Bill does not unintentionally end up killing that off.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I speak to Amendments 46 to 49. I adopt everything that my noble friend Lord Davies has already said, so I can be short.
Amendment 46, which is a probing amendment, is very simple. We all know we cannot let the terrorist indulge in preventable acts of terror. I emphasise “preventable”. Equally, we cannot allow the threat of terror to close down society and normal life as we now understand it to be. Also, it must be plain that once the Act has been enforced for 18 months, people will have a better idea of what may and may not work, so a review at that stage will be helpful to everyone. It is a shakedown period and it will cut both ways.
As to Amendment 47 and the six-month delay of commencement, that is simply to impose a minimum period—it can be longer if appropriate—before regulations and other actions can be taken by requiring draft guidance to have been issued and consulted on first. This will simply ensure that businesses and other bodies are properly consulted before guidance is finalised. It will ensure that the consultation on the guidance has preceded the laying of regulations. We are moving into new territory. A wide range of powers is being exercised over disparate bodies and a wide range of organisations in respect of matters which have not previously been subject to such detailed supervision. It is obviously right that those affected should be consulted. That will apply to the potential enforcers—the SIA and local authorities—as well as to those on the receiving end who are running the establishments and organisations where these regulations will apply.
Finally, Amendments 48 and 49 are simply probing amendments on the timescale. We have heard that it may take two years to come into force. We tabled these amendments, as my noble friend has said, to test how that period will work.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling the amendments today. I hope I can respond to them in a positive and reassuring manner.
First, I will look at Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst. All through this debate, at Second Reading, in Committee, and in discussions that we have had outside of this Chamber, we have been keen to reassure noble Lords that we are trying to strike the right balance between public protection and burdens on premises and events. In fact, I prefer the word “standards” to “burdens”; a burden is something that is difficult. What we are trying to put in place is a number of basic standards which it is important for businesses and organisations to meet.
I have said throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee and at Second Reading that, following Royal Assent, we expect that there will be a period of at least 24 months to give us the time to ensure that those responsible for premises and the events in scope understand the new obligations, that they have time to plan and prepare, and—to go back to previous discussions —any training required of volunteers or staff is undertaken.
The proposed timetable in Amendment 46 of 18 months would, with respect, be before any detailed action has been taken under the provisions of the Act. It would assess the preparations generally, as opposed to the actual impact and implementation downstream. Ministers, including myself and my right honourable friend Dan Jarvis will keep legislation under review, including its effectiveness, impact and implementation. Should unintended consequences be identified, the Bill provides powers, which have been subject to debate, to adjust the regime as appropriate. I hope the noble Lord will reflect on Amendment 46 and, when the time comes, withdraw the amendment.
On Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, there will be a 24-month implementation period before the Act is commenced. The Government intend to issue guidance under Clause 27, published before commencement. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord seeks to put some timeframes on that. I think it is best to leave that to judgment, both in the guidance and in the consultation on that guidance with key partners.
Again, the 24-month period covers Amendments 48 and 49, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Sandhurst. The implementation period will allow those in scope to prepare for and comply with the new obligations. It is important that the SIA, particularly, is operating as soon as is practical. The Government must be certain that it is ready for its new role. We anticipate that this will take at least 24 months—it might take slightly longer—in the light of previous timeframes for other regulators introduced under previous legislation.
I do not anticipate any delays in commencement, but I want to keep the flexibility and appropriate ability for the Government to pick an appropriate commencement date when the Government assess that the SIA has fulfilled its duties, as we anticipate them under the Act, and that the organisations impacted by the Act at that stage are fully prepared and cognisant and are able to implement. Again, I gently suggest to the noble Lord that it would not be sensible for the Secretary of State to be driven by a tied provision in the Act, as opposed to the judgment that, as I have said to the Committee, will look in due course at whether or not we put those provisions in place.
Generally, in relation to Amendments 48 and 49, the 24-month period is what I would hope to be a realistic time to establish the set-up of the regulator and for those in scope of the Bill to prepare. If the Bill achieves Royal Assent, which I hope it will, the noble Lord, this House, the House of Commons and the court of public opinion—that is, the people in businesses and pubs and others who will be impacted by this legislation—have the opportunity to feed into both the Government for their guidance and the SIA for its guidance, as well as into the debate generally about implementation, about how they think the Act is going and what measures are being put in place. A formal consultation or review, as outlined and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, would inhibit that process and set formal timescales that would not be helpful. This House remains the first port of call for any concern or points that noble Lords may want to raise about the implementation downstream. I hope that reassurance means that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken, including the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—who talked about the unintended consequences of the Bill, which are a worry—and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I thank the Minister for his response, particularly about striking the right balance. I am pleased to hear that he will keep its effectiveness under review and revisit it. On the issue of 24 months, the Minister assures me that he does not anticipate delays, and I will keep his words in mind. For the time being, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields
(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, on many occasions in this House the Minister has made it clear that he recognises the importance of oil and gas to our energy transition. In fact, net zero 2050 envisages that up to 25% of our energy will still be coming from our own clean hydrocarbon fields, and that figure includes Rosebank and Jackdaw. I ask the Minister plainly: what is plan B if these critical fields are not granted a future licence?
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, I am not going to speculate on individual projects. The noble Lord will understand that I cannot say anything that would prejudice future regulatory decision-making. What I can say is what the Government are doing. The noble Lord knows that on 29 January the Court of Session published its judgment in relation to the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields, setting out that previous consents granted to those two fields were unlawful as they failed to take into account the emissions from burning the fuel produced.
If developers wish to proceed with these projects, they will have to reapply for consents, this time considering scope 3 emissions, as required by the Supreme Court judgment last year. The judgment itself is of course a matter for the courts, but we took action in October, in light of the original Finch judgment, to consult on revised environmental guidance. The consultation closed on 8 January, and we are working towards publication of finalised guidance as soon as we possibly can. Once that is in place, the Government will resume making decisions with respect to environmental impact assessments for offshore oil and gas developments, and the court confirmed it is in the interests of good administration for that consultation and guidance to be treated properly.
That is the situation. I say again that I recognise that, although the UK continental shelf may be a declining asset, it is an important one. We believe we have reached a sensible position of not allowing new licences, but there are a number of applications that have already received licences that need to go through the consent process. The guidance, when published, will set out the parameters on which the applicants can apply. We will then have to see the outcome of that proposal.
In the meantime, I acknowledge the work that has been carried out in the North Sea. The noble Lord knows we are very committed to a just transition for people involved who will be coming out of the industry. I acknowledge the importance of the industry and the role that it has to play for many years to come.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the commitment that this Government aim to deliver a fair, orderly and prosperous transition in the North Sea, a transition in line with our climate and legal obligations. The Liberal Democrats are opposed to new oilfields at Jackdaw and Rosebank. Instead, we call on the Government to increase the amount, scale and pace of investment in our renewable energy future.
Will the Government confirm whether they will treat any further licence requests for the Jackdaw and Rosebank oilfields as existing or new applications? I can see no prejudicial reasons why that question cannot be answered today.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
First, my Lords, we need to draw a distinction between licensing and consenting. Licensing gives rights to search and bore for petroleum in the UK continental shelf, and those are vested in the Crown. The NSTA is a non-departmental public body, sponsored by my department, that is responsible for maximising the economic recovery of oil from the North Sea. Blocks of the North Sea are allocated to operators in that way. The operators can then explore for oil and gas under the licence. At that point, there is often a five-year gap between licensing and consenting. What we have said is that we will not consent to any new licenses, and we will shortly be consulting on that.
I am sorry, but I am not going to comment more in relation to individual projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw. I have to be very careful as a Minister in the department in relation to future processes that will be gone through in which we exercise decision-making. I am sorry, but I really cannot go any further than that.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
Perhaps I might make it a bit wider, to avoid putting the Minister in a difficult situation. We have heard that there are a number of projects that have previously been approved to a certain stage and—at the risk of a pun—are in the pipeline. Have the Government made any estimate of the impact that schemes in this sort of pipeline will have on the UK being able to meet its net-zero targets?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, there clearly are a number of projects that have gone through the licensing process but have yet to come through to the end. We are confident that at the end of the road —or the end of the pipeline, as the right reverend Prelate put it—we will have a situation where, because of no new licences, we will have a thriving asset in the North Sea. The production will reduce, as it is doing at the moment. This will fit in with our overall strategy towards net zero. Clearly, this needs sensitive management. I cannot say it is an art rather than a science, but it is difficult to be more precise than that.
I also refer the right reverend Prelate to the work of NESO, which has made some points on the role of unabated gas. It is also worth reflecting that much of the oil and gas coming from the UK continental shelf is exported. This is another feature of this very interesting subject.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I understand the Minister’s desire not to comment on any individual projects. So, I will ask a general question. A report published this week by the Grantham Institute on Climate Change, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Stern, from these parts, looked at the current geopolitical situation. It argued that any further advance toward drilling or exploration in the UK would signal to other fossil fuel producers—particularly the US and Russia— that we support a “business as usual” approach to the oil and gas industry. That is the geopolitical context. Will the Government consider that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have always thought that Aberdeen’s influence in the oil and gas sector is something we should treasure. Whether actions we take here will be influential internationally is a matter we will have to see follow. We think it right that developers who have gone through the licensing process must be allowed to finish that. We believe that our calculations embrace that. We have reached the right decision: we will continue to support the North Sea and recognise the contribution it makes, but we will not agree to any new licences. We have reached a balanced approach there. I am of course very interested in the report the noble Baroness mentioned.
Biomass Generation
(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I begin by welcoming a more limited role for Drax in our energy power system. However, we must acknowledge that because of the Government’s ideological energy policy—which prioritises naturally unreliable renewable technologies —more biomass subsidies are required. This would not be the case if the Government focused their attention on flexible and reliable baseload power. We must look for a more pragmatic approach: one which prioritises cheap, stable and reliable energy. It goes without saying that Drax’s biomass plant is not clean nor is it cheap. In fact, according to non-profit think tank Ember, burning wood at Drax produces a staggering four times the emissions of our last coal power plant. It is the UK’s biggest polluter, producing double the emissions of our largest gas station, operated by RWE at Pembroke.
As a result, the Government have to make difficult decisions which result in high levels of subsidy, burdening the taxpayer further. Will the Minister confirm what estimates have been made as to how much CO2 will be released by burning trees at Drax for another four years, and how that compares to using gas to generate the same power?
Ultimately, we must consider the cost of the new agreement. At £160 per megawatt hour in today’s money, the new deal for Drax is 15% higher than its existing agreement of £138 per megawatt hour. Indeed, Baringa’s analysis has shown that bill payers will continue to pay over £450 million a year in subsidies to burn trees. Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to carry out an independent analysis of how much the increased strike price will cost the British taxpayer? Will he give his word that Drax will not be allowed to burn wood from primary forests during its generation? Finally, while we welcome the new sustainability criteria, will he explain what steps will be taken to make this enforceable in practice?
Earl Russell (LD)
I thank the Government for their Statement on short-term support for large-scale biomass generation as part of the UK’s energy generation mix. The Government inherited from the Conservatives a system where large-scale state subsidies are provided for the burning of biomass. This form of energy generation currently plays an important role in our energy system, providing some 5% of our national energy needs. These subsidies are worth some £2 million a day. Over time, Drax has received billions of pounds in government subsidies and from bill payers because wood pellets are classed as a source of renewable energy. Lucrative government subsidies are due to come to an end in 2027, hence the Statement before us today. The new agreement reached with Drax will run from 2027 to 2031 and will see the power station used only as a back-up to cheaper renewable sources of power such as wind and solar.
We can have lots of arguments about the sustainability calculations used to justify Drax. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, speaking on the Great British Energy Bill on Report last night, and I am not a scientist and do not have the exact answers. What I will say is that shipping wood across the Atlantic has a carbon footprint. Repeated incidence of old-growth forest being felled and burned undermines credibility and must stop.
Finally, the very fact that the Government are looking at carbon capture and storage to prolong the life of Drax is telling. Labour’s new plan will allow for four more years of unabated wood burning, which produces 18% more CO2 than burning coal, according to the IPCC data. It takes nearly 100 years for this carbon to be pulled back from the atmosphere. Climate change driven by CO2 emissions is clearly the greatest threat to humanity’s survival. Even a 100-year, long-term carbon-neutral Drax is hardly beneficial to anything we need to achieve to effect any real change in the race for humanity’s survival.
The Liberal Democrats see biomass as a fundamentally inefficient method of producing electricity, and we strongly believe that it should not qualify as a form of renewable energy. The Government’s plan to continue to subsidise the Drax power plant causes environmental harm and is not beneficial compared to investment in renewable energy. It does not provide good value for money for our bill payers. We are concerned that, although this plan would cut the amount of wood Drax is burning by 50%, the price is still lucrative—indeed, I see in the news that Drax’s share price has risen by 11% this week.
We are deeply concerned about the destruction of primary forests. The new agreement states that the wood must be 100% sustainably sourced. How will the Government verify that this is the case, when it has not been in the past? Further, I ask the Minister to publish the 2022 KPMG report into Drax’s record on claiming subsidies on a false basis. Are the Government prepared to publish that report?
The new proposals will see a halving in the use of Drax and a saving on subsidies of £147 million. Will those savings be redirected into other renewable projects? Under this proposal, Drax can step in to increase energy generation and provide flexibility where it is needed. Is this not just an energy marriage of convenience? Will the Government consider reclassifying Drax as being not a renewable source? It is time to stop calling it such; if the Government need that power generation for flexibility, clearer labels should be given.
The Liberal Democrats are clear that we would ensure that 90% of the UK’s electricity is generated from renewables by 2030—and that would not include biomass. When will the statutory instrument be published? I am pleased that the Government have halved the subsidies for Drax, but I hope that further progress is possible.
Finally, I wish to challenge the Minister. This Government should agree to ask NESO to write an independent report, to be produced relatively quickly, examining: the impacts of ending all subsidies to Drax; how those funds could be replaced and used for alternative renewables technologies; and what the resulting impact would be on our energy security and journey to net zero.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Earl for their comments. I understand, of course, that this is a sensitive area and that there are concerns, as noble Lords across the House have expressed. Equally, we have taken advice from the National Energy System Operator. It has advised us that Drax will play an important role in delivering security of supply between 2027 and 2031. It is true that we could seek to replace Drax, but that would probably be with new gas-fired power stations. We believe that there would be significant risks in relying on that approach, and that what has been taken is a pragmatic decision.
I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Offord, said. I would point out, though, that it was the then Secretary of State for DESNZ who, under the Conservative Government, put their name on the planning approval for Drax’s plans for BECCS at the Selby site. The decision letter stated that the project would
“support the transition to Net Zero by 2050”.
I will respond to some of the points that noble Lords have made. The important thing is that the agreement reached ensures that Drax plays a much more limited role in the system, providing low-carbon dispatchable power only when that is really needed. Drax currently runs around two-thirds of the time; that means it provides power, even when other renewable sources are abundant. Under the new arrangement, Drax is being supported to operate only at a maximum load factor of just 27%, operating less than half as often as it currently does. This will be guaranteed by the design of the dispatchable contract for difference that has been agreed. What that means is that when renewable power is abundant, Drax will not generate and consumers will benefit from cheaper wind and solar instead.
On cost, the new deal halves the subsidies for Drax compared with existing support. That is the equivalent of a saving of nearly £6 per household per year. Our analysis shows that this will save consumers £170 million in subsidy in each year of the agreement, compared with the alternative of procuring gas in the capacity market.
Your Lordships’ House has expressed a lot of concern about the obviously important questions on the measurement of sustainability over the past few months. I too was interested in the analysis by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—this was some time last night—as the chair of the challenge group that exists at Drax. We will increase the proportion of woody biomass that must come from sustainable sources from 70% to 100%. We will significantly cut the allowable supply chain emissions to a level in line with the stricter regulations currently operating in the rest of Europe, as some noble Lords here have asked for, and exclude material sourced from primary forest and old-growth forest from receiving support payments. There are substantial penalties if these criteria are not met.
I know that there is concern about the regulatory system, but Ofgem has shown that it is prepared to act, and has acted. We will continue to make sure that our independent regulator has the support it needs to do what is necessary. We should have some faith in Ofgem’s ability to monitor and police this.
On the future of Drax, this new arrangement takes us from 2027 to 2031. We have not made any decisions post 2031, but we want to have proper options. We are setting up an independent review to consider how options for greenhouse gas removal, including large-scale power BECCS and DACS, can assist the UK in meeting our net-zero targets.
On the KPMG reports, Ofgem considered those as part of its detailed investigation into Drax. These are internal reports that the company commissioned and I cannot make a commitment on that, but I will take it away to see what I can do.
Overall, it seems to me that this is a—what is the word?—pragmatic response to a challenging question. The fact is that Drax makes an important contribution to our generating capacity. Equally, noble Lords will know that the Government have taken note of their concern about the general issue of sustainability by increasing the requirements. This is a four-year agreement and, clearly, we will come back to this important issue in the next few years.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I want to following on from the Minister’s response about oversight of the source of the biomass going into Drax. He said he has confidence in the independent regulator, Ofgem. He alluded to the fact that, last year, Drax agreed to pay £25 million after Ofgem found that it had submitted inaccurate data on the sourcing of wood pellets. Does the Minister acknowledge that the problem there is that it is after the event? The trees have already been cut down and burned, and then, some years later, we get a fine. But the trees are no longer there and the carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere. There was a fine of £25 million, but the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to what is happening with Drax’s share price. Is there not a risk that Drax just regards this as part of the cost of doing business?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that Ministers do not comment on share prices at the Dispatch Box, for very good reasons.
We need to be clear that Ofgem’s investigation was thorough and rigorous. I have a great deal of trust in the work of Ofgem. The noble Baroness will know that there was no suggestion that Drax was awarded subsidies incorrectly under the existing renewables obligation or contracts for difference arrangements. It was more to with the documentation. The investigation found no evidence to suggest that Drax had been issued with subsidies incorrectly, and Ofgem was confident in its conclusions. Drax made a redress payment because there is a scheme within Ofgem for companies to do that. I must say that £25 million is substantial; I think it was a good indication to Drax that it needs to get its documents in order—and I very much hope that it has done so.
Of course, we will be looking to Ofgem to ensure that that happens, that everything is proper and that, under the new arrangements, we are satisfied that Drax can meet the criteria. This has not been an easy decision. In our debate yesterday, I was interested in the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who essentially said that she welcomed the progress; she was not overwhelmed with the decision, but there was an acknowledgement that we are making progress and understand the sensitivities.
One has to come back to the issue of biomass and its sustainability. The UK’s Committee on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recognise that bioenergy can play a significant role in decarbonising economies. We support the use of sustainable biomass generators only if it meets our sustainability criteria. I have said we are going to toughen that up. At the end of the day, it is a difficult question. I think we have come to a sensible arrangement, which, after all, is a short-term arrangement in the lifetime of the generators of four years from 2027 to 2031.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I would like to ask the Minister which issues will be taken into account for the decision after 2031. I welcome this as a first step towards reducing and hopefully eliminating our reliance on biomass as a sustainable fuel. I recognise that it is difficult at the moment to commit to what will happen in 2031. However, it might be useful to know from the Minister exactly what criteria will surround the decision about 2031, because it will take some time to make that decision. We will probably use up quite a lot of the time between now and then arguing about what the decision is going to be.
In particular, I would like some clarification on the Government’s position and expectation on the Drax carbon capture, utilisation and storage programme. Is that going to continue under the current arrangement, or will it be subject to a separate negotiation? Will it involve additional payments to Drax to fund that programme? How material will the outcome of that programme be on reaching a decision on what happens after 2031?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot say very much more about how we will review post 2031, but I am very happy to talk to my noble friend about her views. I am not unaware of her views about the continuation of the subsidy, as she spoke to me a few months ago.
We probably have to go back to the analysis of NESO and the advice we received on the impact on our electricity system covering the period 2027 to 2031 if support for Drax was withdrawn in 2027. It said that
“having large-scale biomass available in this period could have a significant impact in mitigating potential risks to electricity security of supply and could also support the delivery of clean power by 2030. The analysis showed that without large-scale biomass, security of supply would not be ensured in scenarios with additional supply losses. While alternative options could deliver the same outcomes, these options have greater delivery risks”.
That is clearly one of the factors that would have to be considered in any long-term review, and there will be other factors as well.
Having reached this agreement, I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that I do not know yet when the statutory instrument will be coming. Work has to be done on that. We also normally have to consult on a draft SI. I think it will probably be some months before we get to debate it, but I understand the importance of that debate.
We have made no decision about the deployment of large scale BECCS. I think I said earlier that we are going to have an independent review, looking at options for greenhouse gas removal, including how large-scale power BECCS and DACCS can assist us. Again, I cannot answer that question, but it is clearly something that we are giving very earnest consideration to at the moment. The noble Baroness speaks with great authority. If she and other noble Lords want to feed in ideas to the department about the long-term review, I would be very happy to take them.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am very grateful for the direction of travel indicated in the Statement. Perhaps I could just ask a couple of questions.
First, I was struck by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, yesterday—as the Minister and other Members were—on the subtlety around whether biomass is making a negative or a positive contribution. At the moment it seems that, as long as it comes from the right sort of forest, it is almost always treated as being naturally positive. I wonder whether His Majesty’s Government will consider a more subtle understanding, based on the insights of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others, of what should be counted as helping us towards a net zero and what is actually putting more carbon into the atmosphere.
On carbon capture and storage, I remember vividly going to a lecture for alumni at my old college in Cambridge. I am a mathematician and one of my former lecturers was at the cutting edge of carbon capture and storage technology. He was telling us about the work that he was doing with government and others and said that it was just about five or six years around the corner. I think it was probably about 25 years ago that I went to that lecture. It seems that carbon capture and storage is like cold nuclear fusion; it is always just around the corner but never actually comes. Could the Minister give any assessment of how much we can really take note of carbon capture and storage, or is it just another Cinderella that is never really going to happen?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
It is a very interesting question. If the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, were here, she would say that fusion is just around the corner. We have this STEP programme. We have global leadership here and my officials and people in the industry are very excited about the potential. When I was doing this job 14 or 16 years agreement, people were telling me it would be 20 years away. I emphasise to the right reverend Prelate that there is real optimism that we are seriously going to be able to make advances. It is the same with carbon capture, usage and storage. Again, we have been talking about this for years, but the Government are putting in some serious investment. We know the technology can work and we think it has great potential.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, since we have time, I would like to go back to Drax. We have spoken about where the biomass comes from, in terms of the source of the trees and whether they are whole trees or trimmings. But have the Government given any consideration to what happens in wood pellet facilities, where the material is processed into pellets in the United States? There is evidence of a huge amount of harmful air pollution, including dust, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds and, particularly, toxic or hazardous pollutants such as acrolein and methanol. These can cause problems such as asthma and respiratory illnesses in nearby communities. It is worth noting that many of these facilities are located near communities of colour, who already suffer serious economic disadvantages and health problems.
We know that regulation of environmental factors and environmental health in the US has always been poor. We are seeing every indication from the new US regime that it intends to make it much poorer still. Is this something the Government have considered, are considering or will talk to Drax about and put pressure on it? I come back to a phrase we became very familiar with during the Covid pandemic: no one is safe until everyone is safe. A terrible state of public health in the US—think about what is happening with the H5N1 virus—is of concern to all of us. Are the conditions under which these pellets are produced something the Government think about?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Yes, it is. We do rely on regulators, both here and in other countries, but the science underpinning biomass sustainability does continue to evolve. The Government have listened to feedback from the noble Baroness, and other parliamentarians and stakeholder groups, about ways in which we can strengthen the sustainability criteria. We are going to consult separately on developing a common sustainability framework, where we plan to gather views and evidence on strengthening wider aspects of biomass sustainability. The points the noble Baroness has raised could very much be embraced within that, and I will make sure that they are.
Copyright and Performances (Application to Other Countries) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024
(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
That this House regrets that the Copyright and Performances (Application to Other Countries) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024, laid before the House on 13 November 2024 (SI 2024/1124), did not involve consultation on Option 0A, which will result in inequitable treatment of performers on sound recordings based on their nationality.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will start by saying that I am delighted that the Minister is treating this as one of her first engagements back in the House; how flattering to have her here at this time of day for a regret Motion. I also want to put on record my thanks to the Minister, Feryal Clark, who has taken the trouble to engage. Time will tell whether that engagement bears fruit, as we will see.
We on these Benches agree with Equity—the actors’ union—and the Musicians’ Union that this statutory instrument should be withdrawn due to several significant concerns regarding its fairness, its consultation process and its potential impact on performers, particularly those from the United States. The key arguments against the statutory instrument revolve around the implementation of option 0A, which maintains the status quo for producers of sound recordings while extending public performance rights to foreign performers only if their producer is a UK national or based in a country that is a signatory to the Rome convention, thereby excluding performers from countries that are not signatories, such as the United States. This option was not explicitly consulted on, and it creates an inequitable system of remuneration for performers.
The consultation presented four options, numbered 0 to 3, but option 0A emerged after the consultation. The Government have acknowledged that option 0A is a new option. However, the Government’s claim that they carefully considered all views is wrong, as a key policy option was developed and implemented without input from key stakeholders. Impacted organisations were not given an opportunity to formally submit their views on option 0A. As such, this lack of consultation raises concerns about the transparency and fairness of the decision-making process, and in fact undermines it.
As I have mentioned, option 0A creates a system where some foreign performers receive public performance rights based on national treatment, while others, specifically US performers, are denied those rights, based on the principle of material reciprocity. This means that US performers will not receive equitable remuneration for their work in the UK, even though their recordings are being used. US producers will continue to enjoy protection and equitable remuneration in the UK, while US performers on the same recordings are denied these rights. This disparity is difficult to justify and is clearly discriminatory.
It will also extend public performance rights to some additional foreign performers who will qualify through their producer, regardless of whether their nation offers material reciprocity to UK performers. The situation is further complicated by the fact that performers from countries such as Australia and New Zealand, which also do not offer material reciprocity to UK performers, will still receive public performance rights in the UK. This inconsistency makes the policy arbitrary and unjust. The Government’s approach effectively singles out US performers for less favourable treatment.
The Government further justifies their position by arguing that expanding performers’ rights would negatively impact the UK music sector. The Government’s decision to not expand performers’ eligibility is partly based on the argument that UK affiliates of overseas record labels retain a significant proportion of the revenues attributable to foreign rights holders. Specifically, the British Phonographic Industry, BPI, claimed that UK labels retain 30% of the revenues collected in the UK on behalf of foreign affiliates, and that any reduction in revenues for US record labels would mean less money for the UK music sector.
Little evidence for this claim has been made and the Musicians’ Union disputes it, arguing that this paints an “exaggerated, bleak picture”, that the UK and US operations remain financially separate in practice, and that it cannot find any workings in the BPI’s redacted submission to the consultation. This suggests that the Government’s financial justification is based on flawed information, not solid evidence. Smaller independent record companies have, by contrast, expressed that the current situation is unfair and supported option 1, which would expand performers’ eligibility for remuneration.
The Government also claim that denying US performers public performance rights is intended to encourage the US to adopt material reciprocity. However, the revised economic impact assessment acknowledges that this is unlikely to influence US policy. In the view of Equity, a more effective strategy would be to offer US performers rights for a limited term, such as 10 years, and then use that as leverage to negotiate material reciprocity with the US Government. This approach would provide US performers with fair compensation while creating an incentive for the US to reciprocate. The current strategy effectively withholds remuneration from performers as a negotiating tactic, while a more effective strategy will still guarantee that performers get paid for their work.
The Government’s policy is intended to ensure that UK law meets its international obligations under the Rome convention and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. However, the implementation of option 0A undermines the spirit of these treaties by creating a system of unequal treatment for performers based on their nationality. Equity believes that all foreign performers in countries that qualify for public protection rights should benefit from the same level of protection. It considers the current approach to be unethical, and we agree. As a matter of principle, performers should be remunerated for their work. This option leaves some performers benefiting from national treatment, ignoring lack of material reciprocity, while US performers are denied remuneration on the basis of material reciprocity.
The Government have stated that the current statutory instrument corresponds closely to option 0, which was the status quo option. However, the Intellectual Property Office itself stated in its revised impact assessment that
“Parliament has passed the CPTPP Act. The CPTPP Act contains measures that will, when it comes into force (expected in December 2024), expand eligibility for performers’ rights generally, in a way that approximates the effects of Option 1. Doing nothing therefore now means allowing the law to change in a way similar to that set out in Option 1, rather than maintaining the effect of existing law”.
Therefore, the Government’s claim that they are maintaining the status quo is actually incorrect, because the status quo is already changing due to the CPTPP Act, which has now come into effect. The Government are claiming to maintain the status quo, but that status quo is already changing due to that legislation.
Equity, SAG-AFTRA, the Musicians’ Union and PPL have all raised concerns regarding the Government’s proposed course of action. This statutory instrument should be withdrawn due to a flawed consultation, the unfair treatment of US performers, the disputed financial claims, its ineffective approach to achieving material reciprocity, the ethical concerns and the contradictions with existing legislation. The Government should reconsider their approach, consult on both option 0A and option 1 and implement a system that provides equitable remuneration for all performers. I beg to move.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on this regret Motion. I will be brief, not least because the noble Lord has covered the ground so well. I too thank the Minister, Feryal Clark at DSIT, for our meeting with her on Monday on this issue. I also thank Equity for its briefing on this and for alerting us to this concern. I very much welcome the Minister back to her place.
Ultimately, this is about fairness and consistency—or, perhaps more to the point, unfairness and inconsistency —and about mutual benefits, which this Government should strive toward in every area of our dealings with others, not least in the case of the arts and creative industries. I have become a great believer in the word “mutual”. I prefer it now over “reciprocal”, which the public grasp less, I think—they find it too abstract. But we all understand, or have a better chance of understanding, what “mutual benefits” means. For example—forgive me if I digress slightly—a new poll finds that over 80% of the public are in favour of mutual free movement in Europe, because that becomes something that is immediately understandable, while of course some of us have been banging the drum for reciprocity for years and not getting very far. The language we use to describe these things is hugely important.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I rise in support of the regret Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. One of the great joys of being British is that we hold high standards and pride ourselves on fair play. We have always traditionally upheld strong intellectual property protections and advocated for fair treatment of performers.
The order should focus on fair compensation for performers and the principle of reciprocity in international copyright law. By removing or limiting payments to certain foreign performers, we risk looking like we are undermining global standards of fair pay for artists and damaging our reputation as a champion of creators’ rights, because the order limits the rights of certain foreign performers to receive equitable remuneration for the public performance and broadcasting of their work in the United Kingdom. This is particularly unfair to artists from countries that are not party, as people have said, to the Rome convention or the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty—WPPT—as they will not have a legal right to remuneration and will now receive little or no payment for their work being commercially exploited in the United Kingdom, whereas other performers will.
I am sure—and I very much hope and expect—that the Government have read Equity’s cogent arguments on this issue, and I hope and trust that they will listen and act on the issues raised. As Equity pointed out, it is also unfair because this option was not consulted on properly, despite the Government’s protestation, and the Government should withdraw the SI and consult again properly on the new option. This order could even provoke retaliatory measures from affected countries. To be frank, given that the United States is now led by a heavyweight—that is the politest term I could muster—who shoots from the hip, this is even more dangerous and could lead to UK performers facing similar restrictions from abroad, and to British performers losing their right to equitable remuneration in key international markets, reducing their global earnings.
This order creates a two-tier system whereby some foreign performers continue receiving payments while others do not, even if their work is commercially successful in the United Kingdom. It undermines the principle that all artists should be fairly compensated for their work, regardless of nationality. As an addendum, if fewer performers are entitled to equitable remuneration, UK collecting societies may collect less overall, which might impact their ability to distribute royalties efficiently and affect the broader musical and entertainment industries.
In conclusion, this order undermines fair pay for performers and risks harming UK artists abroad, and it could even lead to unnecessary international disputes. So, instead of limiting performers’ rights, the UK should lead by example and ensure that all performers are treated equitably, regardless of their nationality.
Lord Markham (Con)
I too welcome the Minister back. As the House will know, there is a long tradition in the creative industries that, before someone has a performance, you wish them the best by saying, “Break a leg”. I feel that that might not be opportune in this case, but I am very pleased to have the Minister back. I will keep my contribution brief, because the points have been well made.
As a former director of ITV and director of a TV production company—none other than that of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, funnily enough—I understand the importance of the creative industry. Of course, it is a massive industry in the UK, contributing some $124 billion a year. I know from personal experience that fundamental to a successful creative industry is a copyright regime that has the confidence of the people, that is seen as fair, that is trusted and that is transparent. I see this almost like four legs of a chair, and the problem is that, if you wobble any of those legs, you undermine all of it.
This is a complex area—I think we all appreciate that—and I appreciate that option 0A came out of an earlier consultation, with people and the civil servants being creative in order to come up with a solution. But my concern is that, by not consulting on option 0A in such a complex area, we can get into unintended consequences. It is only when you really talk to the people at the sharp end that you understand what the true industry impact might be. As the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, rightly said, with this having a detrimental impact particularly on US rights owners, we are all aware of the unintended consequences it could have in what is, given all the sanctions, a very volatile situation. So we need to tread very carefully and, given that, it seems eminently sensible for us to consult the industry.
I appreciate that at this stage, regret Motions are normally seen as a bit of a slap on the wrist—I say that as a Minister myself not that long ago—but I ask the Minister to go back to the department and seriously explore whether we can do anything to take on board the view of the experts in this space. Their input is vital, and I hope that we can find a way through this.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their warm welcome back. I am sorry that I missed some important debates while I was away, but I assure noble Lords that I watched them vigorously on television—it was absolutely riveting. I am pleased to be back and to hear that noble Lords had a constructive meeting with my colleague Minister Clark on these issues. I too welcome this debate and the opportunity it provides to reassure noble Lords, I hope, about the process that led to the order and the policy it implements. As the noble Lord, Lord Markham, rightly said, this is a complex area, but one in which we have sought to find a fair solution. That has always been the overriding aim of this consultation and of others in the past.
Noble Lords have referred to the background of the consultation process that preceded this legislation, but it is important that I set it out clearly on record. UK copyright law gives performers such as musicians and copyright owners such as record labels the rights to be paid equitable remuneration when their sound recordings are broadcast or played in public. These public performance rights are an important source of revenue for the UK recorded music sector. According to data from the BPI, the UK trade body for record labels, UK recorded music revenue from these sources was £154.5 million in 2023, which equates to more than 10% of total revenues for the recorded music sector.
However, as noble Lords have said, not every country provides equivalent protections for this copyright law. In some countries, performers and record labels—including British performers and British record labels—are not paid when their music is broadcast on the radio or played in public. Whether UK law should provide public performance rights to performers and producers from such countries was the focus of the public consultation run by the Intellectual Property Office in early 2024. A range of evidence and views were submitted in response to that consultation by creators, collective licensing societies, record labels, broadcasters and academics. I stress that the Government carefully considered the views and evidence submitted to the consultation before deciding on a way forward, and that we received a range of views.
The approach implemented by this order largely preserves the effect of the former law—option 0 in the consultation—except for some limited changes. This means that more foreign performers qualify for the right than previously—a change that was made to allow the UK to fulfil its international commitments. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked whether we were in effect maintaining the status quo. This SI largely preserves the effect of the law as it formerly applied at the point that the SI took effect. The SI took effect simultaneously with the changes in the CPTPP Act. The consultation also explicitly noted that the effects of that Act may be modified by this SI.
To come back to the main point, under the law as amended by this order, some foreign performers enjoy these public performance rights only where and to the extent that British performers enjoy equivalent protection under the other country’s law. The Government adopted this approach in light of the evidence submitted at consultation, which indicated that the other options under consideration would have meant substantial costs and disruption to the UK’s creative industries. I am not sure that noble Lords gave enough credence to that argument. For example, granting rights to all foreign performers, regardless of whether the other country provides reciprocal protection to British performers, would mean additional costs to the UK recorded music sector—estimated at £5.9 million per year—with no benefit to UK creators, copyright owners or the public. This could undermine continued investment in new British artists and their music.
I have listened to what people say and I appreciate that some consider it unfair to provide different treatment to performers based on their nationality. However, as I have said, this is a reflection of the treatment accorded to British performers by other countries. If they were to change their law and provide equivalent protection to British performers, then performers from these countries would automatically enjoy these rights under UK law. The Government would be pleased to see all other countries adopt similarly high standards of protection to the UK in this area, to the mutual benefit of performers from the UK and other countries. We continue to pursue that objective where and when we can. I assure noble Lords that these measures were not targeted at the US or any other country in particular. The SI implements the general principles that deliver the best outcome for the UK’s creative industries. I hope we can agree that that ought to be a priority.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I hope they are in some ways reassured about the Government’s process in making this order, which we believe delivers the best outcome for the UK’s creative industries. I hope noble Lords will reflect on it and that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be content to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I do not doubt her motives at all; it is just the outcome that we are not happy with. I thank those who have spoken in favour of this regret Motion. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, talked about US session musicians, who are an important aspect of this. Clearly, they are being discriminated against if they are working with musicians from countries that are reciprocating and paying our musicians. This seems to be unfairly singling out those session musicians in those circumstances.
My noble friend Lady Featherstone talked about fair play and the risk of US retaliation. The Government may have the right motives, but I do not think they have quite come to terms with what a US Administration might do in this regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Markham, rightly said that any system needs to have the confidence of those who are supposed to benefit from it. I thought that his injunction to tread carefully in these circumstances was very important.
I do not propose to put this Motion to a vote; the SI has already gone through on the negative procedure. However, we are not wholly reassured. I very much hope that the Government will initiative a dialogue with Equity. When I raised with Minister Clark whether they had actually met Equity to discuss this SI, it was interesting that they had not. There are other issues that Equity would, I am sure, very much want to talk about, such as synthesisation of performances, in relation to AI—that is probably another area. It seemed rather extraordinary that a Labour Government had not properly engaged with Equity in the last six months. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to take that back to the department and reinforce the desire to meet with Equity and the Musicians’ Union.
The Government have been unduly influenced by the figures from the BPI. I do not recognise the figures that the Minister maintained about the income which would be forgone if another option had been taken. As I said when I introduced the Motion, those figures are very much disputed by the MU. We have not seen any real workings that prove that that would be the loss of income, but we can argue the toss on that.
I very much hope that the Government will at least take back from this regret Motion that in producing an option at the last minute, however creative it may be—I would not deny that creativity is a useful thing to have in the department—you can be slightly overly creative if you are not consulting on a particular option. I thought it was a neat piece of speechwriting but not necessarily to be desired. It is the kind of thing that would go to judicial review if a commercial organisation was involved in this SI. If this was BT, or another major telecom company, disputing an SI in which an option had not been consulted on, they would take this kind of thing to court. As it happens, this is about artists and unions, so they are not going to do that; they are going to go through the political process. I welcome that, but it nevertheless shows the fragility of the decision that has been taken in this case. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.