Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Peru) Order 2025
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic)) Order 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Peru) Order 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025, the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025 and the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic) Order 2025.
Dan Tomlinson
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you as Chair, Mr Swayne.
The orders before the Committee give effect to the double taxation conventions, or DTCs, with Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. Like all DTCs, these agreements will provide tax certainty to businesses and investors by removing double taxation and, importantly, without creating opportunities for the avoidance of tax. In doing so, they will remove barriers to cross-border trade and investment, support growth, and provide a clear and fair framework for taxing businesses that invest and trade across borders. That will benefit businesses and the economies of both the UK and our respective treaty partners.
The DTCs are based mainly on the OECD model tax convention, which contains a set of internationally agreed principles and standards that make them easier for businesses to understand and tax administrations to apply. Those standards ensure that DTCs are not used to avoid or evade tax. They include a statement to that effect in the preamble, and are clear that it is not a purpose of a DTC to create opportunities for tax evasion and avoidance.
The DTCs include a principal purpose test that denies treaty benefits in case of abuse. They also allow for the exchange of information between the UK and its treaty partners to facilitate tax transparency. Other anti-avoidance rules in the new treaties include a tie-breaker provision for determining corporate residence based on agreement between the competent authorities of the treaty partners. The orders include dispute resolution provisions, which provide that where a taxpayer considers that the DTC has not been applied correctly, they can present their case to either tax authority, allowing both countries to work together to resolve the issue.
Together, those features strengthen our collective defences against tax avoidance and evasion while supporting cross-border trade, investment and mutual growth. I commend all the orders to the Committee.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always, Sir Desmond. It is also a pleasure to serve on this Committee on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition and to see the Minister in his place for the first time in a Delegated Legislation Committee. I wish him luck for this one and the many more to come—Ministers spend a lot of time in DLCs, as he will come to realise.
As the Minister pointed out, the orders before the Committee give effect to the double taxation conventions negotiated and updated with Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. DTCs prevent the double taxation—as the Minister was saying—of income or gains from cross-border activity, combat tax avoidance through the concealing of assets offshore, and promote trade and investment between the signatories.
I understand that these agreements are based on OECD and G20 recommended standards on base erosion and profit shifting to create international rules to protect against tax avoidance. Negotiating and updating such agreements are fairly routine; the previous Government negotiated literally dozens of new DTCs between 2010 and 2024. It is one of the regular ongoing duties of the Government and Treasury Ministers, and I am therefore pleased to see these agreements come into force today.
These orders give effect to new agreements with Andorra and Peru, as well as updating and replacing existing agreements with Romania and Portugal from 1977 and 1969, respectively. These agreements cover double taxation with regard to capital gains tax, corporation tax and income tax, as well as those taxes of a similar nature in Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania.
Historically, these agreements have passed through the House with little disagreement. The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not be breaking precedent today. However, I have two little questions for him, which I am sure he will find incredibly straightforward—and if not, the answer will be in his pack. First, can the Minister provide an estimate of the net impact to the Exchequer in terms of tax revenue as a result of these measures directly?
As they say in Peru, it takes two to tango. Therefore can he update the House on the ratification process of these orders in the Parliaments of Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania? It is a pretty straightforward question because obviously we need both Parliaments to enact these measures. Can the Minister clarify what the process is, and whether the ratification process in those countries is running in conjunction with the passage of the draft orders in this House?
Lincoln Jopp
I have just been checking my notes, and I think that the Minister may have inadvertently referred to you, Sir Desmond, as “Mr Swayne”. I thought it might be good to offer him the opportunity to correct the record, and show that he did not mean any disrespect to the Chair.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for giving me the chance to correct the record that we have a Sir in the Chair today—Sir Desmond Swayne. I am very grateful for your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
On the impact of these different DTCs, trade with Andorra is only £93 million a year, so the impact will be relatively small for some of these measures. The impact will be larger with both Portugal and Romania as they are already very significant trading partners and we trade a similar amount with both.
On the hon. Gentleman’s second question, Romania has ratified this already and Peru, Andorra and Portugal are expected to do so by the end of the year.
Is this the moment where I conclude, or do I sit down now?
Dan Tomlinson
In closing, Sir Chair, the orders before the Committee implement DTCs between the United Kingdom, Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. The conventions will ensure that we have a modern DTC in place with all four of these countries, which will provide a stable foundation for trade and investment to grow, while at the same time making it harder to avoid taxes here in the United Kingdom. I am grateful to all hon. Members—Sirs and non-Sirs—for their contributions to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic) Order 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic) Order 2025.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Peru) Order 2025
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic) Order 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Peru) Order 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025, the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025 and the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic) Order 2025.
Dan Tomlinson
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you as Chair, Mr Swayne.
The orders before the Committee give effect to the double taxation conventions, or DTCs, with Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. Like all DTCs, these agreements will provide tax certainty to businesses and investors by removing double taxation and, importantly, without creating opportunities for the avoidance of tax. In doing so, they will remove barriers to cross-border trade and investment, support growth, and provide a clear and fair framework for taxing businesses that invest and trade across borders. That will benefit businesses and the economies of both the UK and our respective treaty partners.
The DTCs are based mainly on the OECD model tax convention, which contains a set of internationally agreed principles and standards that make them easier for businesses to understand and tax administrations to apply. Those standards ensure that DTCs are not used to avoid or evade tax. They include a statement to that effect in the preamble, and are clear that it is not a purpose of a DTC to create opportunities for tax evasion and avoidance.
The DTCs include a principal purpose test that denies treaty benefits in case of abuse. They also allow for the exchange of information between the UK and its treaty partners to facilitate tax transparency. Other anti-avoidance rules in the new treaties include a tie-breaker provision for determining corporate residence based on agreement between the competent authorities of the treaty partners. The orders include dispute resolution provisions, which provide that where a taxpayer considers that the DTC has not been applied correctly, they can present their case to either tax authority, allowing both countries to work together to resolve the issue.
Together, those features strengthen our collective defences against tax avoidance and evasion while supporting cross-border trade, investment and mutual growth. I commend all the orders to the Committee.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always, Sir Desmond. It is also a pleasure to serve on this Committee on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition and to see the Minister in his place for the first time in a Delegated Legislation Committee. I wish him luck for this one and the many more to come—Ministers spend a lot of time in DLCs, as he will come to realise.
As the Minister pointed out, the orders before the Committee give effect to the double taxation conventions negotiated and updated with Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. DTCs prevent the double taxation—as the Minister was saying—of income or gains from cross-border activity, combat tax avoidance through the concealing of assets offshore, and promote trade and investment between the signatories.
I understand that these agreements are based on OECD and G20 recommended standards on base erosion and profit shifting to create international rules to protect against tax avoidance. Negotiating and updating such agreements are fairly routine; the previous Government negotiated literally dozens of new DTCs between 2010 and 2024. It is one of the regular ongoing duties of the Government and Treasury Ministers, and I am therefore pleased to see these agreements come into force today.
These orders give effect to new agreements with Andorra and Peru, as well as updating and replacing existing agreements with Romania and Portugal from 1977 and 1969, respectively. These agreements cover double taxation with regard to capital gains tax, corporation tax and income tax, as well as those taxes of a similar nature in Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania.
Historically, these agreements have passed through the House with little disagreement. The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not be breaking precedent today. However, I have two little questions for him, which I am sure he will find incredibly straightforward—and if not, the answer will be in his pack. First, can the Minister provide an estimate of the net impact to the Exchequer in terms of tax revenue as a result of these measures directly?
As they say in Peru, it takes two to tango. Therefore can he update the House on the ratification process of these orders in the Parliaments of Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania? It is a pretty straightforward question because obviously we need both Parliaments to enact these measures. Can the Minister clarify what the process is, and whether the ratification process in those countries is running in conjunction with the passage of the draft orders in this House?
Lincoln Jopp
I have just been checking my notes, and I think that the Minister may have inadvertently referred to you, Sir Desmond, as “Mr Swayne”. I thought it might be good to offer him the opportunity to correct the record, and show that he did not mean any disrespect to the Chair.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for giving me the chance to correct the record that we have a Sir in the Chair today—Sir Desmond Swayne. I am very grateful for your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
On the impact of these different DTCs, trade with Andorra is only £93 million a year, so the impact will be relatively small for some of these measures. The impact will be larger with both Portugal and Romania as they are already very significant trading partners and we trade a similar amount with both.
On the hon. Gentleman’s second question, Romania has ratified this already and Peru, Andorra and Portugal are expected to do so by the end of the year.
Is this the moment where I conclude, or do I sit down now?
Dan Tomlinson
In closing, Sir Chair, the orders before the Committee implement DTCs between the United Kingdom, Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. The conventions will ensure that we have a modern DTC in place with all four of these countries, which will provide a stable foundation for trade and investment to grow, while at the same time making it harder to avoid taxes here in the United Kingdom. I am grateful to all hon. Members—Sirs and non-Sirs—for their contributions to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic) Order 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic) Order 2025.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Draft Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John.
The draft statutory instrument amends the Judicial Appointments Commission Regulations 2013, which outline the composition of the Judicial Appointments Commission’s board of commissioners and the eligibility criteria for the commissioners. I will refer to the Judicial Appointments Commission as the JAC.
The 2013 regulations are being updated to strengthen the JAC’s capacity and to ensure its continued effectiveness in judicial recruitment. The amendments in this draft statutory instrument will change the total number of JAC commissioners from 15 to 16 by increasing the number of persons practising or employed as lawyers, referred to as professional commissioners, from two to three. It also expands the eligibility criteria for the senior tribunal commissioner by including a wider range of senior salaried tribunal officers.
As the draft statutory instrument relates to the composition of the JAC board, it may be helpful to outline briefly the role of the JAC and its board. The JAC is the independent body established under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to select candidates for judicial office in England and Wales, and for some tribunals with UK-wide powers.
The JAC is governed by an independent board of commissioners appointed by His Majesty the King on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. There are currently 15 commissioners, including the lay chairman; the other 14 are drawn from the judiciary, the legal professions, non-legally qualified judicial office holders and the public. Twelve are recruited and appointed through open competition, while three senior judicial members, including the senior tribunal commissioner, are selected by the Judges’ Council or the Tribunals Judges’ Council.
A key objective of the board is to ensure that the JAC is upholding its statutory functions and duties, which include ensuring that judicial appointments are made solely on merit, through fair and open competition, and with regard to diversity and good character. Commissioners oversee the selection processes, review recruitment strategies, and make final recommendations for judicial appointments to the appointing authority.
The proposed amendments relate to the number of commissioners and the eligibility criteria for the senior tribunal commissioner. I will address each in turn. On the number of commissioners, as noted, under the existing statutory provisions there are 15 commissioners, including the lay chair. That includes two professional commissioners, who must hold different qualifications, being a barrister, a solicitor or a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives or CILEX. Currently, as only two of the legal professions can be represented at any one time, there is a barrister commissioner and a solicitor commissioner. The draft instrument increases the number of commissioners to 16 by adding a third professional commissioner and retaining the requirement that they be from different professions.
The purpose of that is twofold. First, it will strengthen the JAC’s capacity to efficiently manage high levels of judicial recruitment. Secondly, it will ensure all three main legal professions—barrister, solicitor and CILEX fellow—are represented simultaneously on the board. Creating a more certain route for the appointment of a CILEX fellow will support the JAC in its duty to promote diversity in judicial appointments. The approach will bring an additional sector perspective to the board and a commissioner to lead on outreach in the field. That is important because CILEX membership is generally more diverse on two characteristics than the other legal professions: 78% of CILEX fellows are women; and, as CILEX provides a non-graduate route to become a lawyer, its members are from more diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
Under the statutory provisions for eligibility to be the senior tribunal commissioner, this role is open to upper tribunal judges, chamber presidents of the first-tier tribunal, chamber presidents of the upper tribunal, and presidents of employment tribunals for England and Wales, and Scotland. That means that not all senior salaried members within the unified tribunal structure are eligible. To address the inconsistency, an amendment expands eligibility to include all salaried members of the upper tribunal, certain judges of the employment appeal tribunal and deputy chamber presidents of the first-tier tribunal and deputy chamber presidents of the upper tribunal. The extent of this statutory instrument is UK-wide, as is its territorial application.
I will turn now to the consultation that we have undertaken on these amendments. The 2013 regulations were the result of public consultation completed in 2012. A further public consultation for these amendments was not considered necessary, given that the changes increase the number of commissioners, strengthening the JAC’s capacity for judicial recruitment, and address anomalies in the senior tribunal commissioner eligibility criteria. We formally consulted the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales, the JAC chair, the Bar Council, the Law Society, CILEX, the Legal Services Board, the Senior President of Tribunals, the Lady Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and the Lord President of Scotland. All were supportive of the changes.
I assure the Committee that the amendments set out in this statutory instrument are necessary to strengthen the JAC’s capacity, provider greater equality of opportunity for those applying to be commissioners, and support the JAC’s commitment to encouraging judicial diversity.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. As the Minister outlined, these regulations make modest and technical changes to the Judicial Appointments Commission—an additional professional commissioner and some tidying up of the eligibility for the senior tribunal commissioner.
Even technical changes, however, sit within a wider landscape. We now have a judicial system in which unelected bodies have accumulated significant power, but without the accountability to Parliament or to the public that should accompany it. We saw that clearly with the recent controversy of the Sentencing Council’s two-tier sentencing guidelines, which would have meant different punishments for the same crime depending on ethnicity, faith background or immigration status. That represents a profound departure from the basic Conservative principle of equality before the law, and is every bit as much a departure from what the public instinctively and rightly expect: that sentencing should be based on the offence committed, not the personal characteristics of the offender.
Although the Government now claim to oppose two tier-justice, they continue to defend and even expand the structures created under the last Labour Government —the very architecture that allowed these distortions to emerge in the first place. The JAC is one such body. It was created in the Blair era as a part of a constitutional re-engineering that removed power from elected Ministers and transferred it into arm’s length structures. What was marketed as modernising the constitution has instead weakened accountability, fractured responsibility and left Ministers able to duck the consequences of poor appointments or failing standards.
That is why we set out our intention to replace the JAC with a judicial vetting committee within the Lord Chancellor’s office, bringing real transparency and accountability back into judicial appointments, while maintaining judicial independence in the courtroom. We do not believe that layering more commissioners on top of an outdated structure will restore public trust, nor do we believe that expanding the body responsible for judicial appointments without addressing the structural weaknesses that I have outlined will deliver the fairness and impartiality that people expect. We want a system where the Lord Chancellor, answerable to Parliament and the public, has proper responsibility for judicial appointments, supported by a transparent judicial vetting committee to ensure that appointments are made on merit but with clear accountability. That is how we restore trust—not by expanding arm’s length bodies, but by ensuring clear democratic lines of accountability. The public want a justice system that is more accountable, and we will continue in the months and years ahead to make the case for that.
Sarah Sackman
I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. He will know that the JAC was created under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to be an independent body to ensure that judicial appointments are made solely on merit, thereby preserving the judiciary’s quality, impartiality and, crucially, independence from political influence. It is disappointing to hear the shadow Minister talk about two-tier justice and the sort of model that would lead to the politicisation of our judiciary, which I do not think anyone on the Committee would want to see. We can see where that would lead.
It is ironic, perhaps, to talk about how we restore public trust in what is actually one of the prides of this country—an independent judiciary that makes its judgments without fear or favour. It is one of the reasons why our legal services industry is so successful, because people can count on the independence of our judiciary and courts, whether in commercial, family, crime or civil law. Indeed, to try to inject political influence into that process would be inimical to the rule of law. Unfortunately, the Conservative party cares little about that, and is quite prepared not just to lambast judges but to undermine their reputation and the confidence that the public can have in them. That is regrettable. We stand by the independence of the JAC. We stand by an independent body that ensures that appointments are made solely on merit and free from political influence. It is unsurprising, therefore, that these modest but important changes have the support of our independent judiciary. I think that tells us everything we need to know about them. With that, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure 2025 (HC 1454)
Abuse Redress Measure 2025 (HC 1455)
The Chair
I call the Second Church Estates Commissioner to move the first motion and to speak to both Measures. At the end of the debate, I will put the question on the first motion, and then ask the Commissioner to move the second motion formally.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure (HC 1454).
Marsha De Cordova
In one sense, the Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure is just tidying up a small area of ecclesiastical law—which we are all, obviously, very well versed in. But in a wider and more important way, it is enabling and supportive of the essential work carried out by chaplains to His Majesty’s armed forces.
For more than a century, armed forces chaplains have been issued with licences by the Archbishop of Canterbury, giving them the ecclesiastical authority to exercise ministry in that role. However, recent work by the provincial registrars has identified a gap in the relevant statutory provision in this area: without this Measure, each armed forces chaplain would also need to obtain a licence or permission to officiate from the bishop of each diocese in which the chaplain was to exercise ministry. Not only would that give rise to a significant burden on bishops and their offices; it would also cause problems for the armed forces themselves—not least because chaplains need to be able to move with, and minister to, military personnel wherever they are currently serving. It is impractical for them to obtain a further authority to exercise ministry each time the servicemen and women they minister to move to a different part of the country.
This Measure, in a straightforward way, addresses the issue by inserting a new section, headed “Armed Forces chaplains”, into the Extra-Parochial Ministry Measure 1967, which already covers ministry exercised outside the parish context, such as in hospitals, prisons, universities and schools. This Measure will provide a new statutory power enabling the Archbishop of Canterbury to license armed forces chaplains to exercise ministry in that capacity.
When exercising ministry under the Archbishop’s licence, an armed forces chaplain does not need any further authority, either from the bishop of the diocese or from the minister of the parish in which the chaplain’s ministry is exercised. That applies only where he or she is acting in the capacity of an armed forces chaplain. Any other ministry that an individual chaplain might exercise, such as preaching at a parish church, remains subject to the usual rules about authority and permissions to exercise ministry in the diocese and parish.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a real privilege to respond, Mr Mundell. As shadow Defence Secretary, this is my chance to pay tribute to our armed forces chaplains. I will not detain colleagues for long, but the chaplains are very important. I understand that there are 332 in total, of whom 195 are Anglican.
This year, lots of tributes have been paid in the House during the debates on the 80th anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day. Some 275 chaplains lost their lives in the two world wars: 96 in world war two and 179 in the first world war. I could find no figures for other conflicts, but there will no doubt have been some losses in those, too. I am sure that we all pay tribute to forces chaplains and the work that they do; the extra pastoral care that they provide is very important.
When I was Minister for Defence Procurement, I did not have any particular interaction with armed forces chaplains. However, the thing one learns about the defence estate is the importance of being able to move personnel around all the time, and the hon. Lady has just described the inflexibility that is being addressed. In fact, the Right Reverend Hugh Nelson, the Bishop to the armed forces, explained it very well in front of the Ecclesiastical Committee. The Measure would be described on our side as a deregulatory move to remove onerous paperwork—something we are always in favour of. It makes total sense, especially when we consider the nature of deployment and the continuous movement of personnel—and therefore their chaplains. It is eminently sensible; it had 100% support in the Synod and the Opposition are supportive too.
Marsha De Cordova
Thank you, Mr Mundell. We now move on to the Abuse Redress Measure and the associated draft rules, which lay the groundwork for the Church of England to deliver a redress scheme and confer the necessary legislative powers on the Archbishops’ Council to delegate decision-making to a third party.
I add my thanks and pay tribute to those victims and survivors who have continued to give their time and energy to the process of developing the Measure, despite the harm that the Church has caused them. The Church recognises its lamentable failings, which have made it possible for some people to abuse others, while some in the Church of England have been reluctant to face up to unpalatable truths and have avoided confronting difficult and painful situations openly and candidly. I believe that the Measure and draft rules before us contain important elements that try to right those wrongs.
In saying that, however, the Church must recognise that for many survivors the wait for redress has been too long in coming. Since the start of the scheme’s development in 2021, the Church has sought to work through some complex questions, wishing to give careful consideration to the views of victims and survivors. The Church has intentionally adopted a person-centred approach that enshrines dignity, respect and compassion at its heart. Crucially, the approach has been designed to look and feel different from mitigation. The scheme is not designed to mirror a court of law or to require a decision maker to resolve triable issues for which the scheme’s arrangements do not incorporate all of the features.
The Church has reflected carefully on eligibility and conditions, and has sought to find the right balance: one that provides that the scheme responds when a failure within the Church has been the effective cause of abuse, but not otherwise. The Church has sought to be clear about the nature of abuse that is in scope, while allowing for flexibility to respond appropriately in particular cases, taking into account the experiences of victim and survivor. The scheme provides that applications should have available independent legal and financial advice, if they wish to receive it, but not at a level that allows legal fees to consume disproportionately the amount of redress funds to the detriment of those victims and survivors. The Church has provided for a review of the operation of the Measure, giving the Church’s General Synod the ability to hold the Archbishops’ Council accountable for the scheme’s operation. That allows the Synod to extend the lifetime of the scheme if it appears necessary to do so.
I recognise that the Measure does not meet every person’s hopes, but I ask the Committee to recognise that there are many victims and survivors who want the Church to earnestly and finally meet its commitment to get on with providing this redress Measure.
James Cartlidge
I will not detain the Committee long, but I echo the Commissioner’s tribute to the victims and survivors of abuse who have participated in the process of drawing up the new Measure. I will not delve into the history but I note that, while not at 100%, the support in the Synod for this Measure was overwhelming.
I have a question relating to Kennedys, which is clearly an important point in the Ecclesiastical Committee’s discussion about the Measure. Unfortunately, we live in an age of leaks and data leaks—the Ministry of Defence is no exception to that, it has to be said. Data is becoming ever more important to our lives as we become ever more digitally plugged in, and it was concerning to hear that some victims were worried about the fact that the firm had its contract renewed. I understand that there will be a contract variation to ensure that there is no repeat of what happened and that, were Kennedys not to be rehired, there would be an estimated 18-month delay.
My question is simple: Kennedys runs a customer service-facing business, so what assurances are there that the process has changed and that what happened will not be repeated? Those participating will want to have their faith in the process underlined by the knowledge that those problems will be dealt with. That is our main concern. Otherwise, we support the Measure.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
May I ask the Second Church Estates Commissioner whether there is something in place to allow for the Archbishops’ Council to report, perhaps on an annual basis, to her on progress with the scheme?
Marsha De Cordova
The Church is fully aware of its responsibilities in relation to this redress Measure. The hon. Member for South Suffolk is right to raise the point about Kennedys. The data breach that took place was serious. Kennedys has fully owned that breach and put in place the necessary measures to ensure that something like that does not happen again. Kennedys also remains accountable to the Archbishops’ Council in that respect. There will be an oversight body to oversee how the Measure is being implemented and how the arm’s length body is operating the redress scheme.
Tessa Munt
On a point of order, Mr Mundell. I asked a question—I wonder if I might have the courtesy of a reply.
Marsha De Cordova
I think I mentioned that there is oversight. There will be an oversight body. I believe I mentioned that in my final remarks just now.
Tessa Munt
My question was whether the hon. Lady, as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, will receive a progress report herself from the Archbishops’ Council, perhaps on an annual basis. Can I have clarity on that, please?
Marsha De Cordova
I will certainly ask for that, but it is not part of the Measure.
Tessa Munt
It would be incredibly relevant, bearing in mind that I and any number of others have constituents who have waited decades and decades for this. It is not beyond the Church to defer and to delay. It is important that the hon. Lady is fully aware of the impact of this Measure and that the Church reports to her.
Marsha De Cordova
I am fully aware. If the hon. Member has followed the work that I have done in this space, she will understand how seriously I take the issue of safeguarding and the redress Measure. Now that we have the Measure in place, the key is to ensure that we get it implemented so that the victims and survivors can begin to receive their redress. I have also said that the Measure does not set out that I will receive a report, but I will certainly ask for an update on how it is being implemented.
The hon. Lady should make use of Church Commissioner questions, where I am responsible for answering on behalf of the national Church institutions. I suggest that she uses that mechanism to continue to hold the Church to account.
The Chair
Thank you, Commissioner, for responding to that point of order. [Interruption.] Sir Bernard, are you raising another point of order?
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Does it have to be a point of order?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
On a point of order, Mr Mundell. I would just point out that systems are set up in good faith to redress problems that have arisen, but unless those systems are overseen and scrutinised, they very often fall into disrepute themselves and fail to deliver what the legislators intended. I am appealing to you, Mr Mundell, to make sure that we have the opportunity to make these points in order.
The Chair
Indeed you have, because that will now be on the record, as will Ms Munt’s points of order and the Commissioner’s generous response.
Question put and agreed to.
ABUSE REDRESS MEASURE
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Abuse Redress Measure (HC 1455).—(Marsha De Cordova.)