Minister for Disabled People

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government why the status of the Minister for disabled people was downgraded from that of Minister of State to that of Parliamentary Under Secretary of State.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

All Ministers speak with the authority of the Government, and it is for the Prime Minister to decide how responsibility is allocated. The role of Minister for Disabled People has been undertaken at both Minister of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State level in the past. The new Minister has been at the Department for Work and Pensions since 2019 and has the ability to get things done and extensive experience of the issues that disabled people face.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, disabled people are horrified by the Prime Minister’s decision. DWP estimates that 16 million people have a disability— that is one in four—and they face multiple barriers in their lives beyond DWP. It is harder to get a job— 29 percentage points less—their financial position is much worse, they have to spend much more on energy, and other barriers remain for health, education and transport. The former role of the Minister of State for Disabled People could focus on influencing change but the new PUS is covering a large portfolio including housing benefit, the military covenant and youth. Why have this Government once again downgraded support for disabled people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not see it as a downgrade at all. The previous Minister was also the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work. To the extent that portfolios are changed, when Ministers are experienced—I know this myself—you can sometimes improve how the work is done through these other areas. There is a big example here in the back to work package announced in the Autumn Statement. We really need that multibillion-pound package pushed through with vigour and energy, which I am sure the new Minister for the Disabled will deliver.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, not only have the Government downgraded the role of Minister for Disabled People but a recent report of the Women and Equalities Committee concluded that:

“The National Disability Strategy does not resemble a strategy”,


and that engagement with disabled people in its formulation was poor to say the least. What steps are the Government taking to try to restore—or perhaps I should say build—the confidence of disabled people and the organisations that represent them?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The Government are doing just that. The noble Baroness will know that the national disability strategy promised in the 2019 manifesto was held up in the courts. That is now behind us because the courts found in favour of the Government. We are also developing a disability action plan for the next 12 months. These are immediate actions to help people. The consultation on the action plan closed in October, and we will carry that forward very soon.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, when the definitive Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was passed, not only was there a senior Minister of State in charge but the then Prime Minister, John Major, took a direct personal interest in that matter. Does the present Prime Minister take any personal interest?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The present Prime Minister does take an interest. I re-emphasise that the Budget had a major package for the disabled. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions represents the disabled at Cabinet. Even more importantly, we all have a duty in relation to the disabled. I work to try to get the disabled into public appointments; we debated One Login in the Moses Room and talked about its accessibility. The whole point about the strategy is that it is cross-cutting, and it helps us to move forward and help the disabled into life, because they can make such a great contribution.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, so important is the title “Minister for Disabled People” that I managed to persuade Mrs Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, to change the name to that from its original name, Minister for the Disabled, because disabled people do not like being called “the disabled”. At first the Prime Minister objected, saying, “They’ll want to change all the notepaper”. I said, “Yes, they will, but make them use up all the old notepaper first”. Using this economic principle, could we not find some way of doing what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, suggested and restoring the name, even though the pay may not be restored to what it should be?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Mims Davies is the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, but I do not think we should spend all our time focusing on titles. I do not want to tread on my noble friend Lord Younger’s toes but, having studied this subject in preparation, I was trying to talk a little about what we will actually do for the disabled. Of course we need to respect them and talk about them in an appropriate way but, as noble Lords will know, it is important to have action and get things done.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, words matter, but action matters even more. Are my back-of-an-envelope sums right—is Mims Davies now the 13th Minister for Disabled People since the Government came to power in 2010? If so, does the Minister think that all this moving around is damaging things? For example, it is introducing massive delays to the Access to Work scheme, which left one autistic woman waiting 13 months to get a job. We need some action now, do we not?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Baroness may be right: perhaps Ministers do move around more than is ideal on occasions. I was delighted to discover that I was not moving in the last reshuffle and can continue. The key thing is to focus on the work in hand, and I believe Mims Davies will do that, with support from across the Cabinet.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, was not one of the greatest Ministers for the Disabled the late Alf Morris, and was he not a Parliamentary Under-Secretary?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. I also mention my noble friend Lord Hague, who in the 1990s took through Parliament some ground-breaking legislation on the disabled that has changed the infrastructure of the UK. Those of us who were in business found it quite challenging at the time—I see noble Lords around the House nodding—but it has had a beneficial effect across the UK economy.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, even with a Minister of State in place, we have repeatedly seen regulations and legislation over recent years ignore the needs and concerns of disabled people. You can point to Covid regulations, the aborted social care cap and, most recently, the Online Safety Act, which was silent on the needs of adults with learning disabilities. Given that, how will this Government take a more holistic look at legislation and ensure that the varied needs of the varied communities of people with disabilities are addressed in regulations and legislation going forward?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I mentioned the convening work done across departments, which is important in relation to legislation, as the noble Baroness says. Obviously, the Covid inquiry is looking at what happened during Covid, and these are the sorts of issues that I hope it will tackle. On individual Bills, I know from those I have done that we often debate disability—perhaps sometimes in response to amendments from the noble Baroness and others. That is very useful because it gives departments an opportunity to explain what they are doing. We have duties to the disabled and other groups, and we need to make sure that we take them seriously.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, given the cross-cutting work that the Minister has described and feels so confident about, can she tell the House when the Government are next due to report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? What are the challenges from the last reporting cycle that the Government will be keen to address in that report?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

This not being my area, I am not able to answer the question fully, but officials are due to represent the UK and attend the meeting of the UN in March to discuss these issues. I am certainly happy to take away any particular concerns that the noble Baroness would like me to pass on.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords, many people, including everybody in this and the other House, want to help disabled people. We have talked in this House about their having work. Does the Minister agree that hundreds of thousands of small companies would be prepared, if approached, to give disabled people what they would really like: the opportunity to work—if they can—and be part of society in the normal way?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

That is a great point, and noble Lords will know that I am very concerned about small businesses and how we can help them. This point needs to be taken into account in the work we are doing, following the Autumn Statement, to help millions more disabled people into work. I came from Tesco, and we employed a lot of disabled people who made a very valuable contribution to the business over many years. Some noble Lords will have met the leading official on the Procurement Act in the Cabinet Office, who was a blind senior civil servant. It just goes to show what a contribution they can make in both small and big business.

Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2023

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2023.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, the regulations are known as the check-off regulations and stem from Section 15 of the Trade Union Act 2016. This is the last secondary legislation to be brought into force as part of that Act; each aimed at modernising industrial relations in the UK. I am pleased to take this final piece of legislation through, as I had the honour of taking the Act through the House some years ago.

The regulations define a relevant public sector employer for the purposes of Section 15 of the Trade Union Act. That provision requires relevant public sector employers, which allow employees to pay union subscriptions directly through payroll, to charge trade unions a cost substantially equivalent to the cost that they incur for providing the service. In addition, public sector employers must be satisfied that there is an alternative way of union members paying their subscriptions aside from check-off, such as through direct debit.

Should employers not be able to secure payment substantially equivalent to the costs of providing check-off, or should there not be an alternative payment available to employees, employers must cease to provide check-off. The Government believe that this will ensure that check-off services are provided by public sector employers only where there is no cost burden to the taxpayer and to guarantee members have choices about subscription payment methods.

The regulations will not come into force until a reasonable transition period has taken place to allow everyone adequate time to make arrangements to comply with the regulations. To this end, they will come into force on 9 May 2024, six months after laying. This is a generous transition period, considering that the regulations were previously due to be laid in 2017. Therefore, employers have had a significant awareness of the impending changes.

The Government have also provided to the House the Explanatory Memorandum and a full impact assessment, and we will publish guidance on GOV.UK to be issued to public sector employers to help them to familiarise themselves and comply with the regulations.

I will remind noble Lords why the Act’s reforms to check-off in the public sector are significant. The Government are committed to the responsible and transparent use of taxpayers’ money and so believe that the administration of payment of union subscriptions for public sector workers should not be carried out at the expense of the taxpayer.

During the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016, the House debated the original drafting of Section 15 at length. It suggested that check-off services should not be provided by public sector organisations on behalf of their unions, owing to the cost burden on the taxpayer. However, through the legislative scrutiny and amendments made in this House, Section 15 of the Act was revised to no longer require public sector employers to remove check-off services, but rather that the costs associated with doing so should be recharged to trade unions and alternative options should be available to trade union members. The Government were grateful for the scrutiny of the House in refining the provision and continue to believe that this strikes a fair and appropriate balance between providing value for money and fostering good and modern industrial relations in the UK.

The regulations will apply across the public sector to those bodies listed in the Schedule. There was significant engagement in this House on the organisations in scope, resulting in the Government considering the ONS definition of “public authority” too broad. As a result, the Government decided to use the list of bodies from the Freedom of Information Act and its Scottish equivalent as the starting point to define the scope of the regulations, making it clear that the intention was to include only organisations that are funded wholly or mainly from public funds.

Of that list, the Government have removed organisations that do not routinely employ staff, are an advisory body or expert panel, are funded by a levy on a finite or discrete group, or are predominantly commercially focused, to ensure that the scope is proportionate to the aims of the regulations.

The Cabinet Office has also engaged each Secretary of State on the proposed scope, seeking their confirmation that the regulations capture all bodies necessary to deliver the policy aim. In addition, a two-week consultation was undertaken with the Scottish Government to ensure that Scottish bodies were appropriately captured.

The check-off regulations will deliver benefits to the taxpayer. The impact assessment has identified that the intervention will equate to a present benefit saving of approximately £1.5 million per year and just over £12 million over the next 10 years. These benefits arise as the regulations seek to alleviate the burden for public sector employers that offer check-off services but do not yet charge trade unions for the cost of administering them.

I wish to be clear that the regulations we are considering stem from the Trade Union Act 2016, which was introduced, as noble Lords will remember, as a 2015 manifesto commitment. Despite delays owing to other government priorities relevant to the UK’s exit from the European Union and the coronavirus pandemic, this has been a long-term ambition of the Government in our aim to modernise industrial relations in the UK.

The purpose of these regulations is to deliver value for money for the taxpayer and choice for individuals in a balanced way that reflects the discussion in this Committee. They do just that, and I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I have seen many Chekhov plays; this is not half as enjoyable an “Enterprise”.

This SI comes here under an Act of 1992, as amended in 2016. The House of Commons briefing on it reminds me that the Conservatives tried it on in 2014 but were blocked by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition. So they brought it back later and it is to come into force in May, a maximum of six months before the next election in the dying days of this dying Government.

The instrument is extraordinary in the sense that it goes through a list of more than 200 bodies, some of which are in any sense autonomous public bodies. I used to work for several universities and I note that they are caught up in the scheme—but, then, so are the Crofting Commission, the Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Gaelic Media Service, Historic Environment Scotland and even the Scottish Road Works Commissioner. I assume that this must all be compatible with the conventions of the devolution settlement. I note also that, in terms of local government in England, Together for Children—it is based in Sunderland—Slough Children First and the Sandwell Children’s Trust are brought under this umbrella as well. The total amount of public money that this careful enumeration of all these subordinate bodies will save is estimated to be £1.5 million a year.

As I read this SI over the weekend, I thought of the principles that are at stake here: limited government; government that should be as local as possible in order to be as close to the people as possible; and that government should have respect for the importance of autonomous institutions in civil society. These are principles that Liberals and Conservatives used to share, when Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister and Conservatives still read Edmund Burke rather than Ayn Rand and Friedrich von Hayek. This statutory instrument is illiberal and unconservative. Such a degree of detailed centralisation and interference in civil society used to be called socialism. Edmund Burke used to talk about the importance of local communities, little platoons and self-government. This instrument is much more in the style of authoritarian populism, like those right-wing Republicans in the United States who believe that the free market is all that matters rather than a free society.

One of the things that horrified me most as I read the Explanatory Memorandum and the impact assessment were the 40 or 50 references to the TaxPayers’ Alliance as a prime source of evidence for the arguments made. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the TaxPayers’ Alliance. It was founded by Matthew Elliott after a period in Washington attached to Americans for Tax Reform; that was founded by Grover Norquist, who once famously said:

“I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub”—


tax cuts at all costs and to hell with the public sector.

The undue influence of American Republicans on the Conservative Party, the flow of funds to right-wing think tanks, in particular those based in 55 Tufton Street such as the TaxPayers’ Alliance, and the links with hard-right think tanks here are part of what seems to many of us to be going wrong with the Conservative Party. I rather suspect that the Minister, whom I offer the compliment of thinking of as a one-nation Conservative, probably quietly shares a view.

The impact assessment does say that the savings to His Majesty’s Government will be at £1.5 million a year, and it estimates the cost to the trade unions at about £13 million a year, thus enforcing significant increases in membership fees. It also says:

“Costs to public sector employers may include some loss of goodwill with employees and trade unions”.


Well, that is much less important, is it not? It seems to me that that matters. After all, the Government’s relationship with civil servants and public sector workers has deteriorated steadily over recent years. We have seen that in the recent strikes and in the loss of a number of first-class civil servants; I know that some of those with whom I most enjoyed working when I was in Government have now left or taken leave. That raises problems about the quality of how we are governed.

The impact assessment also says:

“The policy will engender taxpayer faith that the Government is spending their money responsibly”.


Well, taxpayers’ faith in the Government spending their money responsibly is currently having to cope with the Government’s failures to deal with the Covid effort and to enquire into that, and with the revelation yesterday that the noble Baroness, Lady Mone, admits to having made £60 million in profit from Covid contracts, rather larger than the £1.5 million we have spent here. I suggest this will not engender much additional taxpayer faith.

The Minister herself said that the Government are committed to the transparency of public expenditure. I hope that is true, and that we will see, as we go further into the question of how much government waste there was on Covid contracts, that the Government are actually committed to transparency rather than to a continuing cover-up.

The Minister will note that there have been changes in the nature of trade unions over the last 40 years. There are fewer manual workers and more professionals—public service professionals above all. The majority of trade union members now have degrees. They are civil servants, doctors, nurses, researchers and teachers. They used to be part of the core vote of the Conservative Party, and I suggest to the Minister that they are an important part of that vote, which the Conservatives have lost and will not regain unless they alter their attitude to the public sector.

The bias against public service and the public sector as such, which we have seen on the right wing of the Conservative Party, is one of the most unattractive dimensions of this dying Government, holding down their salaries and wages while allowing private sector pay to soar. Ministerial treatment of civil servants as if they were servants, and the well-evidenced examples of bullying of civil servants by Ministers, have been a problem in which civil servants need unions to defend them and look after their interests. The public sector does need unions to protect them and good civil servants are vital to the quality of British government.

I find very little to like in this SI; if Labour had wished to move a regret Motion, the Liberal Democrats would certainly have supported it. The only good thing to be said for it is that it will take effect only in the last months of this Government, and I suspect that any Government that come in afterwards will quietly stop its implementation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, for their contributions to the debate and the good questions that they have asked. I should perhaps start with the noble Lord’s description of the wide-ranging nature of the list. I agree that it is wide-ranging, and that is necessary. However, I am sorry that in a sense he criticised the impact assessment. I was pleased that there was an impact assessment. He and I and other Members of the House have been proponents of the use of impact assessments because they allow the sort of questions that we are asking today, and they are not always used. Obviously, I point out in relation to the costs of check-off that direct debit is an alternative.

The noble Lord asked a number of technical questions on the estimates, as did the noble Baroness. The easiest thing for me to do is to look at them in Hansard and write to them in answer, but I will make two points. First, I understand that the guidance should be online from tomorrow. I am sorry that it is not available today. The normal course of events—the Commons starting on this first and then us getting it—has perhaps meant that we have not had the benefit of the guidance, but I will write and send the link to it because that would be helpful. I also agree with him about the changing nature of trade union membership. He will remember very well that I worked at Tesco, a trade-unionised company, and spent a lot of time working with the union in growing the company. Personally, I work very well with civil servants and their unions. We need to minimise costs, however, which is one reason behind the changes that we are discussing today.

Perhaps I should pick up the noble Baroness’s point about consultation. As she said, the regulations stem from the 2016 Act, which was consulted on as a whole. During the debates on the then Bill, the current policy position on the check-off regulations was set out, which was to charge trade unions a reasonable cost and to ensure that there was access to an alternative method of paying union subscriptions. That was an agreed compromise instead of requiring public sector employers to remove check-off altogether. It is important to repeat that background.

The Government have upheld the commitments that they made to engage, rather than consult, with affected bodies. That has included four consultations with government departments and the Scottish Government on the schedule of scope. The Cabinet Office has also engaged trade unions’ workforce policy leads and some employers on the impact assessment and for views on the guidance. There is no single source of information of cost of check-off to the taxpayer. That is one reason why the TaxPayers’ Alliance report was used, but we have supplemented it with more recent data from the BEIS management and well-being practices survey. We also conducted consultation with employers in each of the public sector workforces, including the NHS, local government, police forces, maintained schools and academies and the Civil Service. I acknowledge that a lot of this is anecdotal, but it has provided some more recent data as a comparison and means of testing the assumptions made in the two reports. However, as I promised, I will look at the points that the noble Lord made.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

Just to add, the disgust with which we saw the depth of dependence on the TaxPayers’ Alliance relates to the position of this body, which received an E—the bottom range—from Who Funds You? for the opaqueness of its funding. It is clear that some of its funding comes from very right-wing bodies in the United States; it has held public, open conferences with, I believe, the Heritage Foundation. It seems deeply improper for the Government to depend so heavily on such a very partisan think tank. The Tufton Street group in particular is doing its best to pull the Conservative Party very much to the right, against its former traditional conservatism.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I cannot just accept that, I have to say; I believe that views from all different directions can be valuable in debate, and that includes the TaxPayers’ Alliance. I explained why it had done some work in this area. It was used in these estimates—entirely transparently—and we have also taken data from other sources. I nevertheless thank the noble Lord for his comments.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The point is that the TaxPayers’ Alliance is a campaigning organisation. Our concern is not that it is included at all; the Minister is quite right in what she said about a range of sources and perspectives. But given that there is a lack of data, which the Minister has acknowledged, it seems a little odd that it is relied upon quite as much as it is. You do not need to make any assertions about some of the estimates that the TaxPayers’ Alliance is making to pursue the policy. It seems a bit strange that it is included.

My attention was drawn to this by what is on page 23 of the impact assessment. There is a little table that lists probable estimates of savings to the public sector. It just seems strange that—to take the Civil Service, as the first example—the high estimate of savings is £149,000, the low estimate is £1,500, and the most probable estimate is £11,500. Then, however, there are local authorities, for example, with a high estimate of £161,500, a low estimate of £91,000 and a most probable estimate of £161,500. It just is not clear how some of these figures have been reached. Are the Government treating the TaxPayers’ Alliance evidence with equal weight to a survey conducted by the LGA, for example? That would seem a strange thing to do without further inquiry or more critical analysis. Maybe this is a point to make to officials behind the Minister rather than the Minister herself, but it is not really what we would expect in this kind of document.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I commend officials for producing a detailed impact assessment and I will not renege on that. I also think that the TaxPayers’ Alliance is a perfectly respectable source. Obviously, every think tank has different people working for it; some people are excellent at estimates and some are not. I have already said to the noble Baroness that I will go away and look in a little more detail at the estimates. This impact assessment was not written by me personally, of course, but I will take it away and have a look. I commend the use of different sources of data and data standards. The noble Baroness probably knows that that is what I would want, but I will of course take a look.

Perhaps I can move on and just try to answer one or two of the questions about devolution. Matters of industrial relations are clearly reserved and there is no obligation for the UK Government to consult with the devolved Administrations. However, the Scottish Government were consulted on the scope of the regulations to ensure that they capture all public bodies that are wholly or mainly funded by the taxpayer. Wales is not in scope as a result of the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017. The Government will take action to bring Wales into scope at the earliest possible opportunity.

I should mention that the TUC has been engaging with us on, and had input into, the guidance. I noticed its flash new logo on its writing paper. This also included engagement with employers in the public sector, so I hope that that provides some reassurance.

In conclusion, I am confident that the regulations provide a fair and appropriate intervention and capture an appropriate scope to meet the policy aim. They allow check-off to continue, as was agreed during the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016. They represent a reasonable direction of travel and continue to support productive industrial relations in the UK—which, Members may recall, was my experience during my past career at Tesco. To return to the point that the noble Lord made, of course the trade unions have a role to play in our society, so I am delighted to have this opportunity to be at the Dispatch Box today to put to bed the last of the regulations relating to that Act. I hope that colleagues will join me in agreeing the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

AI-generated Public Services

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure citizens are not excluded from accessing AI-generated public services.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point, because the shift online and the use of AI are irreversible. They offer substantial opportunities, but problems could arise for some disadvantaged groups. That is why departments are required, by the Government’s service standard, to provide support via alternative channels for all their online services. Our road map for digital and data, updated on 29 November, focuses on enabling the confident and responsible use of AI to improve efficiency and services.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that, but the latest Ofcom study of internet use in the UK showed that 7% of people have no access at all and 18% have access solely via their smartphone. That is fine for most tasks, but less helpful when filling out complex forms or seeking support. The ambition of providing better public services through a digital revolution is a good one; however, what works for most people will not work for everybody, so what is being done to ensure that this small but important group, who are being left behind when attempting to access essential public services, can access them in the future? If they cannot, we will not have a universal service.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

This of course is why the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has affordable access to public services, whether online or offline. Departments are required, by the service standard, to provide support via alternative channels for all their online services to all users, including the disabled. That can be by phone, through face-to-face meetings, by letter or via web chat, which is important for the unsighted. The system of assessments is co-ordinated by the CDDO in the Cabinet Office, and these requirements cannot go on to GOV.UK without assurance secured.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my technology interests, as set out in the register. Does my noble friend agree that, wherever AI is used in public services, it should be labelled as such, so that everybody is aware of that fact? Similarly, wherever public citizen data is used, we should decide whether that is through opt-in or opt-out means. Further, public trust is essential to all deployments of new technology, including AI. Does my noble friend agree that one of the best ways to deliver public trust is to ensure that services are accessible and inclusive by design?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I very much agree that, to ensure public trust, you want services that are accessible by design. Coming from the retail sector, I have a slightly less rosy view of labelling. Like earlier data changes, AI is part of a continuum of technological change. The key thing is to have proper arrangements, such as, for example, the AI Safety Institute, which we have now set up following the Prime Minister’s AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park with international partners. This is to make sure that we are aware of what is happening, because there are opportunities as well as risks to AI. I have a whole list of opportunities, which we can go through, but I would like to hear some more questions.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I will follow up the Minister’s previous answer. The public sector can benefit from many kinds of artificial intelligence that are a long way from the image of a killer robot threat to mankind, which often features heavily in the public debate. AI can improve hospital bed management, care worker rostering, public procurement and many other dull but very valuable tasks. Does the Minister share my concern that the killer robot narrative may overshadow the adoption of these much less controversial AI systems? What are the Government doing to encourage and accelerate their deployment?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not think that list is dull. I have other examples, such as the world-leading child abuse image database, which the Home Office is working on. My son, as a detective in the Met, thinks it will be a marvellous opportunity to make the police’s job easier and less awful. The noble Lord is right that the robot vision has to be moderated by an understanding of the usefulness of AI on many things, such as conversational front ends to public services on GOV.UK. These things will make life easier and more accessible, which is why it is good that we are debating them and can reassure people. Of course there are fears, which is one of the reasons why we are working on guidance on frontier AI—that is in the pipeline.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, we know from the Post Office Horizon scandal that the Post Office itself, the prosecuting authorities, the courts and God knows how many hundreds of lawyers were, for years, unable to identify failure, including in the computer system. What confidence can we have that the Department for Work and Pensions has people able to tell if the data that informed AI had a bias in it which caused it constantly to be making mistakes? Do we have people trained to do that? I am not confident that they even exist. I am just picking this example out of the sky.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree that the Post Office scandal was one of the most awful. It is good that we now have a proper process for moving forward on it, even if it is far too late. To deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, I can say that we are setting up the AI Safety Institute and a hub in the Cabinet Office, bringing in experts from outside. The idea is that they can help across the board with these issues. Some of the uses of AI, such as with fraud at Companies House and the DWP, can be very useful. The noble Lord is right in that we need to look at the dangers as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Allan, rightly said, we have to make sure that we look at the opportunities. We think that, as regards public sector productivity, costs could be reduced by about £5 billion a year through the sensible use of AI on the kinds of things that we have been debating.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I too am optimistic about AI, but I am also concerned about leaving people behind. I refer my noble friend to the report about digital exclusion published earlier this year by the Communications and Digital Select Committee, which I chair. It painted quite a stark picture. It showed how much more complex this challenge is becoming because of the way in which technology is developing at pace. I am sad to report that we found that the Government’s strategy for dealing with exclusion was not good enough. Will my noble friend revisit that report? Will she also explore one way forward—by looking at a joint venture with the banking sector? It has long promised to have banking hubs in towns. These could also become digital hubs where people could go to learn, and for assistance and advice as to how to get on to digital services in the way in which we need them to do.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for her report, which I have just picked up for my Christmas reading. It has been rather influential within the system. I do not know if my noble friend is aware of the cross-Whitehall ministerial group chaired by the new Minister for Technology, Saqib Bhatti MP. It will certainly look at how the digitally excluded can be helped in hubs in different ways. The library network already exists. I have always thought that this is very useful in communities. I have collaborated with bank expertise on fraud—which is my area of responsibility. I am grateful for the work of her committee. I will certainly take her point away.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, was the noble Baroness briefed on a question which I asked on the last occasion when this topic came up? I asked if the Government were looking at developments with Paradot. The Minister who was answering did not know anything about it. Paradot is an online buddy. I have a therapist friend who believes he will be out of business in five years’ time because of the way in which this is developing. If this kind of change takes place, it will have a massive impact on what will happen in the public service.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. The honest truth is that I was not aware of his intervention. Perhaps I can go away and get back to him on another occasion. This sounds a very interesting point and issue.

House of Lords Appointments Commission

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to review the functions of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, the House of Lords Appointments Commission recommends individuals for appointment as non-party political life Peers. It also vets nominations for life Peers, including those nominated by the UK political parties, to ensure the highest standards of propriety. The Government are grateful for the important work it does but have no plans to review its function. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and to welcome the new chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, the House of Lords Commission vets candidates for life Peer positions, but it does not vet at all candidates in hereditary Peers by-elections, which the House may know that I am opposed to. Does the Minister agree that this should be a level playing field and that hereditary Peers candidates should be treated and vetted in exactly the same way as life Peers candidates?

Secondly, on the composition of the Lords, which has changed substantially in recent years, I put it to the Minister that there are now nearly 100 more Conservative Peers than Labour Peers in this House. This is by far the largest Government majority over the Official Opposition since the 1999 Act. Should not the Lords Commission publish an annual report on changes in composition during the year, so as to shed some light on the appointments process, which clearly has been abused in recent years?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

First, on the question of hereditaries—a subject on which I know the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is a great expert, with his various Bills—the truth is that the hereditary arrangements involve a by-election process that was established as part of the deal on House of Lords reform in the 1990s. It would clash with the by-election process to introduce a vetting system for hereditaries—but in any event I see that as part of House of Lords reform and we have made it clear that there are no plans for piecemeal reform.

On the issue of numbers, I have more sympathy. It is true, however, that although the Conservatives now have a lot more Peers than Labour, we still do not win all our votes and we still only have 34% of Peers, partly because of the number of Cross-Bench Peers that we now have. I think the numbers are well known and well understood; of course, if the House of Lords Commission wants to publish them, that is very much up to it. But I do have some sympathy on the point in relation to numbers.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

Could the Minister consider changing the status of the House of Lords Commission? There has been a range of reports from think tanks and committees in the other place which have suggested that what we need to do to these bodies, which are in effect constitutional guardians—the Committee on Standards in Public Life, ACOBA, the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests and others—is to put them in statutory form so they are able to stand up to Prime Ministers who do not wish to observe the conventions of public life, as Boris Johnson so clearly did not. Is this part of the Government’s agenda?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not see it that way. We are very glad we have a new chair of HOLAC, but we should be wary of giving even greater powers to bodies, however great and good, which are not necessarily democratically elected. That is why Prime Ministers and leaders of both parties put forward candidates.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, if the Government truly believe that this is a self-regulating House, which we all take great pride in, why do they not allow a free vote on the subject of a statutory appointments commission —a commission that will consider every Prime Ministerial nomination but will be able to pronounce on its totality?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As I think I have already made clear, the Government have no plans to change the status of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. It is an independent, non-departmental public body, and the Government always consider its advice very carefully. But, as I said, the Prime Minister is democratically accountable, and in our view appointments should not be determined by an unelected body.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, when I listen to the noble Baroness, I always have a smile on my face—but I do not think that is the reaction she intends me to have. When she talks about not wanting piecemeal reform, what she is really saying is that she will do absolutely nothing. This House welcomes new Members, even when they are overwhelmingly Conservative, but I want to bring her back to the numbers. After 13 years of a Labour Government, we had 24 more Peers than the Conservative Party. After 13 years of a Conservative Government there are 100 more Conservative Peers than Labour Peers.

The central point about HOLAC is that all Members of this House are treated equally, except when it comes to the vetting process. I do not in any way want to take away the Prime Minister’s authority to appoint, but I hope that he would have some respect for this House as well. Would it not be just a minor tweak to suggest that HOLAC also look at the suitability of candidates for this House, to ensure that they are willing to come here and play a full role in the work of your Lordships’ House, as everybody here does?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

One further statistic is that the Conservatives won 56% of the seats at the last election and we still have only 34% of the seats in this House. As to the noble Baroness’s point about suitability, constitutionally and legally it is for the Prime Minister to make recommendations to the sovereign on new Peers. He is head of an elected Government, not a member of an arm’s-length body. Of course, he places great weight on the advice of HOLAC, but he remains of the view that it should remain focused on vetting for propriety. It is for him, and for future Prime Ministers, to think about suitability and bring the right mixture of Lords on to these Benches, so that the conduct of business, which is a mixture of public life and politics, continues well.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, speaking for myself—although I suspect many other hereditaries would agree—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on this, at least: we have nothing to fear from a HOLAC vetting process and I think it entirely appropriate that we should all go through it.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Hereditaries are subject to a good deal of questioning during the by-election process, which is laid down by the Standing Orders of the House, and we have no plans to change the vetting of hereditary Peers. Of course, they play a very important part in this House, on the Front Benches and right across it, bringing different aspects to our work in the public interest.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, this House regards itself as, and is proud to be, an expert House. Will the noble Baroness tell us how many professional scientists and doctors have been appointed to it in the last two years?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think that will require me to write the noble Lord a letter. Obviously, this is important; the sense of his comment is that we do have a wide range of expertise. Indeed, in the modern world, as we have made clear right across the public sector, it is important to have more experts and more scientists to assist in the public interest.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, looking at these Benches, does my noble friend not think it is extraordinarily ironic for the Liberals to complain about appointments to this House, given their numbers here and the numbers they achieved at the general election?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

On this occasion I am very glad to agree with my noble friend.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the situation of hereditary Peers is sexually discriminatory? Titles still go first to a son, and if there is no son they go to a collateral branch. That is in itself sexually discriminatory and I cannot see how she can possibly argue against that.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I return to the point that the hereditary element, which plays a great part in this House—we should not decry that—has a by-election process that was part of a House of Lords reform package. There will no doubt be reform in the future, and the nature of hereditary Peers may or may not be considered. We had one Private Member’s Bill last Session on this very issue, but I see it as a slightly separate point from the work of HOLAC.

Living in a COVID World: A Long-term Approach to Resilience and Wellbeing (COVID-19 Committee Report)

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I join all those who congratulated the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, on her speech and on the work that she did in chairing this committee. She brings a thoughtfulness and a knowledge of digital way beyond most of us, which has made this report a very special piece of work and has allowed her to pioneer new methods of data-gathering, which I think will be used elsewhere. I thank all noble Lords for their interesting contributions today, despite the rival attraction. It is good to see so many noble Lords here, including the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who was right to emphasise cost-benefit and the speed of change. My noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie was here earlier.

Of course, two years have elapsed since the report was printed, but the good news is that that means that we can take advantage of what has been achieved since then and celebrate the fact, as we should, that we are no longer tied down by Covid and, in my case at least, that NHS vaccinations for the most vulnerable and elderly groups continue to help in protecting so many of us, especially in this House.

The COVID-19 Committee’s insightful piece of work in its Living in a COVID World: A Long-term Approach to Resilience and Wellbeing report rightly highlights the importance of building resilience to ensure that we are equipped for future crises. That is where I would like to start, not least since it fits in with my responsibilities at the Cabinet Office. We have made substantial progress on resilience. Earlier this year, we debated the UK Government’s new resilience framework which sets out the Government’s plan to strengthen the systems that underpin our response to a range of risks. The Resilience Directorate, in the Cabinet Office, works across government to ensure that the UK is better placed to prepare for, respond to and recover from risks and hazards—extreme weather, terrorism, pandemics and so on. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for her kind words about Mary Jones. We will be publishing an update on resilience shortly—we stand by that promise—and look forward to debating this matter further with the noble Baroness and with other colleagues, such as the expert, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who I was pleased to see in his place earlier.

As part of the commitments made in the resilience framework, we are establishing new ways of identifying and assessing chronic risks to the UK, the continuous challenges facing the UK, generally over a longer timeframe. This complements the national security risk assessment and sets out the most serious acute risks to the UK. The Government’s national risk register, the external version of the classified risk assessment, was published in August. It is specifically aimed at risk professionals and practitioners across society who benefit from having more information about risks. It is the most transparent version yet, which I am pleased about, and it helps to develop a shared understanding of preparedness for risks facing the UK. Our whole-of-society approach, which picks out what several noble Lords have said this evening, is important to building the resilient society that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London emphasised very rightly.

Chapter 2 of the committee’s report outlines the challenges we face, such as the digital and tech revolution, demography and the response to climate change, although it perhaps underplays the economic problems we all face as a result of the enormous cost of seeing Britain through the pandemic. A prosperous economy makes it easier to cope with Covid legacies in health, education and the other areas identified today. Alongside the longer-term forward thinking of the Resilience Directorate, we remain committed to learning from the Covid-19 pandemic, building on the reset mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. Today’s debate has been very helpful.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, was right to commend the work of local communities during the pandemic and their role in resilience. I remember what a brilliant job my local village volunteers did during the pandemic. They delivered drugs and donated food to some of the poorest in our area and prioritising deliveries to those with a safeguarding risk. We must build on that joint endeavour. Although the UK Government have a central role in assessing and planning for risks, the local level is the foundation of the UK’s resilience. The many local resilience forums in England, Scotland and Wales, as well as the emergency preparedness groups in Northern Ireland, play a critical role in bringing together local responders, such as the emergency services, to plan for risks.

It was interesting to be taken back by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, to all the exchanges on testing, the location of testing sites and the local endeavour that included faith groups. We have learned from those experiences in our planning and the way that we will approach things going forward.

The right reverend Prelate also highlighted the importance of local faith leaders in lots of different ways. The Government recognise the importance of such figures. Indeed, we worked closely with them during the pandemic in developing guidance, using places of work safely and working with a diverse and dispersed network of community champions. Community champions were found to strengthen regional capacities to deal with Covid-19, while the community vaccine champions programme found that religious minority groups aware of CVC-funded activities were significantly more likely to have booster vaccinations.

The pandemic was an unprecedented event that I hope will not be repeated. Everyone had to do their best and often make difficult decisions where there was no blueprint. I was on the Back Benches at the time, but I think the degree of uncertainty in such crises may have faded from memory. All such crises have unexpected features. For example, it was not unreasonable to prepare for a flu epidemic like the one which killed so many, particularly young people, in the 20th century. It is not possible to have a plan for everything, as is rather suggested in the report with the call for a “just in case” model. This would be very expensive and we would be unlikely to get it right, but I agree that we must focus more on prevention and take a more whole- of-society approach to risk management. To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, there has to be some surge capacity. That happened during Covid in many different areas of government. We have to be careful not always to focus on the negative.

Looking back, there will be decisions that we got right but also important lessons to be learned for the future, and that is why we set up the Covid-19 inquiry. My noble friend Lord Robathan questioned the Government’s decision to lock down. The inquiry was commissioned to consider decisions such as that and it will report its conclusions, which we will consider in due course. We need to learn the lessons of Covid in a spirit of transparency and candour, and there are many conflicting views.

Progress on the inquiry is well under way—as we all hear on the radio all the time—and much of the focus is on issues identified in the committee’s report that we are discussing today. Public hearings for module 1 are focused on pandemic preparedness and resilience. Module 2 hearings, going on at the moment, are focused on core decision-making and will conclude on 14 December. Future modules will focus on healthcare systems, vaccines and therapeutics, and government procurement—I note the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan. Our new Procurement Act has of course made many changes in the light of the difficulties of Covid, including strengthening the existing legal duties in respect of conflicts of interest and introducing greater transparency requirements, which I think we all welcome.

On levelling up, many of the committee’s recommendations focus on how the Government can and should deliver their commitments to levelling up. Our White Paper published in February 2022 recognised that not every person in every part of the UK shares in the UK’s success, which is why the White Paper outlined 12 ambitious missions to level up the UK, some of which we have touched on today. A number of the recommendations relate to transforming our approach to devolution and giving more power to local government. The White Paper set an objective that every part of England seeking a devolution deal should get one by 2030. In December 2022, we announced five new deals, which will bring devolution to over 51% of the English population. A further four new devolution deals were announced in the Autumn Statement.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, emphasised the significance of well-being. Well-being is an important consideration for the Government when making spending and policy decisions. She raised the issue of funding for well-being; I understand that departments across government have worked with and provided funding to the What Works Centre for Wellbeing and others to date. We will continue to explore how best to measure well-being and deliver improvements across the UK. The Treasury’s Green Book sets out how to appraise policies, programmes and projects and requires all social, economic and environmental benefits and costs to be considered in appraisal. Further, the noble Baroness will be aware of the ONS well-being index and the national well-being dashboard. This intelligent use of data measures well-being across the country in a number of areas and can be a useful tool for practitioners.

Perhaps even more important in this area, however, is the Government’s progress on reducing inflation and promoting growth through measures announced in the Autumn Statement, as this is the best way to support the sustainability of public spending in areas such as well-being. In this year’s local government finance settlement, the most deprived areas will receive 17% more per dwelling than the least deprived areas.

I have not gone through the local government issues; they were dealt with but nobody has raised them today. However, I am happy to talk to people if they want me to. Noble Lords will know that I am always very keen to make sure that local government contributions are appreciated and funded.

On health, the pandemic placed an unprecedented level of demand on NHS services. The NHS has since been provided with record levels of staffing and funding to tackle waiting lists. NHS England achieved its target of virtually eliminating waiting times of two years or more for elective procedures in July 2022, and waits of 18 months have been reduced by over 90% in the last two years. Additionally, as part of the first-ever long-term workforce plan, record numbers of doctors, nurses, dentists and other healthcare staff will be trained in England, backed by over £2.4 billion of funding for additional education and training places.

On increasing access to healthcare services, the NHS app—which noble Lords mentioned approvingly—and the NHS website are delivering a proactive, personalised digital NHS experience for patients and their carers. This has come on a lot since the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and I worked together on this in the Cabinet Office. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, pointed out, this is not an easy area. As he said, the public are generally supportive of these measures but less happy when technology comes between them and the clinicians. Like him, I believe that online consultations, although useful, can be overdone.

Of course, GP practices are individual businesses with partners. Many are outstanding and some face more challenges. I have certainly seen how the appointments system has been digitalised in recent years. That has freed up GP surgeries. The report today in the Telegraph examined 95 cases; of course, any serious incident of the kind referred to is one too many. However, NHS guidance and clinical training incorporate red-flag symptoms that would prompt a GP or practice staff to move to a face-to-face appointment. Even more importantly, patients also have a right to request a face-to-face appointment whenever they deem it necessary and practices should comply with that, unless there are good reasons to the contrary such as a particularly infectious disease.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London rightly set out the importance of tackling health inequalities. This is one of the 12 missions set out in the levelling-up White Paper. The major conditions strategy, which the Government intend to publish in early 2024, will explore how we can tackle the key drivers of ill health in England to improve healthy life expectancy, as well as reduce pressure on the NHS and reduce ill health and related labour market inactivity. We are also tackling health disparities through interventions such as the NHS’s Core20PLUS5 programme, which focuses on improving physical and mental health outcomes in the poorest 20% of the population.

We know the pandemic has had and will continue to have an impact on mental health and the well-being of many people. That is why we are investing £2.3 billion of additional funding per year by March 2024 compared with 2018. This funding will expand mental health services in England so that 2 million more people can receive NHS-funded mental health support. We are also continuing to roll out mental health support teams in schools and colleges across England.

Probably the most worrying effect of the pandemic has been on schoolchildren and infants. There is a question as to whether we got school closures right. We acted swiftly in helping our children recover from the impact of the pandemic and have made available almost £5 billion for ambitious multiyear programmes to support education recovery. We are training more early years staff in the latest teaching for communication and language, maths and personal and social development. A number of other important interventions were touched on in the report, such as the Nuffield early language intervention programme, which has played an important role in improving reception-age children’s language and communication skills following Covid-19.

Finally, let me turn to digital transformation. The Covid-19 pandemic had one advantage. It ushered in a revolution in digital ways of working for all of us, which would otherwise have taken decades. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, gave us some telling examples—notably changing decades of practice by the late Queen. Schools and public services rose to the challenge remarkably. However, the pandemic brought into stark reality the need to make digital innovation accessible to all.

As the committee found, the nature of digital inclusion is cross-cutting and the onus sits on every government department to support its service users to tackle digital exclusion. We now have a new department, DSIT, focusing more strongly on such matters and much going on elsewhere. Across government, the Cabinet Office is playing its part with the Central Digital and Data Office and our new AI directorate, which is driving the adoption of new technologies in the public sector, making services more accessible and improving productivity and value for money. This is a very important part of the revolution.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, was right to raise the importance of long-term thinking. The Government have clearly made long-term decisions for a brighter future, such as setting up the Covid inquiry to learn lessons from the pandemic, the levelling-up White Paper and the long-term plan laid out by Rishi Sunak in October. Of course, we welcome the recommendations of committees.

I particularly identify the Select Committee on Risk Assessment and Risk Planning, chaired by my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot, which encouraged the Government to think ahead, particularly on resilience. It is a very good example of the influence of critical thinking in this House, as is the report that we are discussing today. Long-term thinking implemented by a cross-departmental approach is also important. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, was saying that. That is why I volunteered, somewhat reluctantly, to take part in this debate, and why her experience in the department is important to the debate. Being able to look right across the board has been a very good aspect of this report and this debate.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for her arresting and wide-ranging speech on the importance of language skills and interpretation in health inequalities and injustice. I completely agree on the importance of languages in schools. It is not an area of mine, but I echo everything that she said. I would add that primary care providers should ensure that patients have access to translation and British Sign Language services as required to support consent, mental capacity and clinical assessments. Primary care providers can request support for reasonable additional costs from their local commissioner, which will assess whether claims for such costs are reasonable and represent value for money. That is an example of where we are thinking about the point that she was making, although her speech was wide-ranging, and I look forward to reviewing it again.

I have tried to answer where I can. Clearly, I do not deal with some of these issues on a daily basis. In particular, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on the issue of the immunocompromised. I say in concluding that we share many of the sentiments of the committee’s report. We agree that the Government and the country must learn lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic. I hope that I have shown that progress is being made on many of the difficult issues that were highlighted by the report. My special thanks to the chair and the committee and to those who gave evidence—many people in very difficult circumstances—as well as to the clerk and to his or her team and noble Lords who took part in the debate today.

Veterans Welfare Services

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I have the pleasure of repeating a Statement made in the other place. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to update the House on the work that the Government are doing to ensure that our welfare services for veterans are fit for the future.

Under this Prime Minister, what it feels like to be a veteran has fundamentally transformed, with the introduction of defined pathways for veterans to access support, including with housing and healthcare, backed by record amounts of government funding. As we continue to pave the way forward, we knew the time was right to look back and consider carefully the efficiency and effectiveness of pre-existing services, including some services under the banner of Veterans UK. That is why in March this year my right honourable friend the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families and I informed the House that we had commissioned an independent review into a total of seven bodies, including the Veterans Welfare Service, Defence Transition Services and Veterans’ Gateway, which I was pleased to publish in full in July.

The welfare services review contained recommendations to improve and simplify welfare provision for veterans across a variety of channels, and it marked the first time that those services had been considered in the round, looking at their role, scope and breadth. The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families and I welcomed the review’s findings as an important step in making the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran.

The Government have already committed to responding formally to the review by the end of the year, but Members of the House and their constituents rightly expect an update from me on what progress we have made so far. I am therefore delighted to announce that the Government accept the principles behind the vast majority of the review’s 35 strategic and operational recommendations. Thanks to close collaboration between the Ministry of Defence and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, I am pleased to update the House on how this Government are taking decisive steps to deliver a number of the review’s recommendations.

First, the Veterans UK branding will be retired in 2024, with the Government announcing a replacement in due course. Indeed, as the review acknowledged, staff involved in delivering welfare services for veterans sincerely care about their work, but sometimes analogue processes have historically hampered the level of service provided. With initiatives such as the government digitalisation programme, backed by £40 million of government funding, we are confident that the experience of service users will be genuinely transformed. The retirement of the Veterans UK branding marks a clean break from the past, and represents a vital step forward in regaining trust between the service and its users.

Secondly, the word ‘Veterans’ will be removed from the title of the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families. The title will be renamed ‘Minister for Defence People and Families’. We agree with the review’s recommendation that this will provide clarity about the responsibility for co-ordinating veterans policy across government. Indeed, although the MoD will continue to provide support, including on pensions and compensation, on transition from service for veterans and their families, and beyond transition on issues resulting from service, the change to the ministerial title further clarifies that the primary duty for co-ordinating veterans policy across government sits with the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, at the heart of government, in the Cabinet Office, and with me as the Minister for Veterans Affairs reporting directly to the Prime Minister in Cabinet.

Thirdly, I can announce that the OVA is currently exploring options for transforming Veterans’ Gateway, which has already had more than 1 million visits to its online guides. The House will be pleased to know that we have recently launched a refresh project for the gateway and are in the process of bringing the service into central government, within the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, ensuring that the gateway delivers streamlined access to the plethora of support available to veterans. Tied into that work, the Ministry of Defence and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs will jointly assess the relationship between the Veterans’ Gateway and Veterans UK helplines. We will be mindful throughout of the need to simplify how veterans access support and ensure that veterans who are unable to access services online, or who have more complex needs, are still supported.

Finally, the welfare services review will, alongside the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Act 2023, contribute to clarifying the future role of the VAPCs in a way that supports the Government’s vision for veterans’ welfare services. Today puts us yet another step closer to delivering on this Government’s ambition to make the UK the best country in the world to be a veteran. I pay particular tribute to the review team, the independent veterans adviser and all 150 contributors to this review for the considerable amount of work that went into producing the report in a relatively short space of time. I look forward to publishing the Government’s full response to the review later in the year, and to ensuring that our welfare services for veterans and their families, service leavers and the bereaved community are as efficient and effective as possible.

This country has an unwavering duty to those who put their life on the line for our freedom. As today’s Statement demonstrates, this Government are committed and determined to discharge that duty with the honour and respect that our courageous ex-service personnel deserve, and I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, I pay huge tribute to all our Armed Forces for their work and to all our veterans and their families. We have 1.8 million veterans in England and Wales, according to the 2021 census. I welcome the ambition of the welfare services independent review to improve and simplify welfare provision, with its 35 recommendations mostly supported by the Government. We will see more of the detail in the next few weeks.

I also welcome the fact that the Minister is giving us an update—even though there is not much detail in it —so we know that the next step, when we get the formal response in a few weeks’ time, is the one that is going to matter.

It is good that responsibility for veterans policy across government will lie clearly with the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. It is at the heart of government, in the Cabinet Office, and not isolated in the Ministry of Defence. Help for Heroes has wanted a single port of call for veterans, and it is clearly going to help that the Government are planning to do this.

When I had the privilege of leading Newcastle City Council, I was pleased that several housing associations in our city took action to assist veterans in need of specific help with housing and personal support, offering supported housing with personal advice on site about jobs, training, the development of life skills, form filling and so on. As so much is provided inside the Armed Forces, some veterans can struggle with managing for themselves when they are outside. The work of the voluntary and third sector organisations in support of them is of increasing importance. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, the numbers claiming universal credit are rising. Veterans and their families are twice as likely to be unpaid carers or in receipt of sickness or disability benefits.

There was a sentence in today’s Autumn Statement in which the Chancellor said:

“I will extend National Insurance relief for employers of eligible veterans for a further year”—


that is welcome—

“and provide £10m to support the Veterans’ Places, Pathways and People programme”.

I think that this is a new £10 million—I see the Minister is nodding, so it is new. I am not entirely sure why it is a figure of 10 million and not something higher since, clearly, the work done particularly in relation to mental health is very important. One might have thought that a higher sum of money could be spent, so anything the Minister can tell us about that would be helpful.

There are issues around the availability and affordability of supported housing and helping those veterans who are at risk of homelessness. My noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham asked a question a few weeks ago about whether the Ministry of Defence was willing for empty MoD houses to be used in bad weather by veterans who are homeless. I hope the Government will continue to look at the possibility of doing that.

The Minister mentioned the digitalisation programme, backed by some £40 million of government money. I hope it will be accessible to all veterans in need of advice. What help will be given to those who will find difficulty with the Veterans’ Gateway? The Government have said:

“We will be mindful throughout of the need to simplify how veterans access support, and ensure that veterans who are unable to access services online, or who have more complex needs, are still supported”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/23; col. 215.]


That is very important indeed and anything the Minister can tell us, now or later in writing, about what is going to be done to assist those not able to access services online would be helpful.

The Minister cited the Government’s desire for the UK to be the best place in the world to be a veteran. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, pointed out, it would help to be clearer about exactly what benefits they will have that will make it the best place in the world. Finally, I wonder why the Government do not place themselves under a duty with the Armed Forces covenant to be the best in the world, rather than simply anticipating the possibility that they might become so?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I should first say that it is good that we all agree on how deeply proud we are of our veterans, and on the importance of doing the right thing by them.

I will start by talking about why we made the Statement yesterday. We wanted to provide an opportunity for the Government to welcome the review’s findings, to say that we were accepting the vast majority of its recommendations in principle, and to demonstrate progress against some of them. Some are obviously complicated and need a bit more time. I confirm that we will address the full range of strategic and tactical recommendations made in the review in our full written response, which will be published later this year. By making the Statement we are demonstrating where we have got to after decades of too little being done, and the difference we now have with a Minister devoted full time to veterans’ matters sitting in Cabinet meetings and reporting to the Prime Minister. That has made a great deal of difference. Of course, the change to the title is meant to show that clearly and will help externally, making the priority clear and making clear who is doing what. It is a break from the past, as is the rebranding of Veterans UK. There have been some issues of trust and confusion as to what Veterans UK stands for, and that will help us to move ahead.

Both the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about housing. As they will know, we are working towards ending rough sleeping and homelessness via Operation Fortitude, which is a new referral scheme to provide a single central point to support veterans into stable housing. The reducing veteran homelessness programme has provided over £7.2 million of funding for specialist help. I note the question about MoD accommodation; I will come back to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on that, if I may.

Compensation was mentioned. Of course, the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme provides compensation for injury or illness caused or made worse by service, or where death is caused by service in the UK Armed Forces, after April 2005. The quinquennial review by the MoD ensures that as time passes, the scheme is scrutinised and remains fit for purpose. We will respond to the veterans’ welfare report by the end of the year, and the MoD will also be responding to the quinquennial review, so we have these various things coming together at that time. The noble Baroness mentioned the Etherton review on LGBT veterans, so I should perhaps add that we are also hoping to respond to that by the end of the year. So these things are coming together well.

ID cards were mentioned, and they are very much regarded as a good thing by veterans. They help to make sure that they have eligibility for lots of different things. Of course, the first ones were issued by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs at Gosport in September. The team is working very hard to ensure we meet the users’ needs on that. Some 10,000 are due to be made available in January. We are moving forward on that and look forward to people finding it easier to identify themselves.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, rightly raised the issue that it is all very well having a much better system online—which we will have, and are spending £40 million on digitalising—but we also need to think about those who cannot access things online. We debate these issues quite a lot, and I think we all feel that this is important. Making sure that people who are not able to access our improved encyclopaedia of support are helped in other ways is certainly part of our plans. I take that point very well and I am glad that he made it.

I was obviously delighted to hear, unexpectedly, the Chancellor’s announcement on veterans today. He announced an extension to the national insurance relief scheme for companies that hire veterans in their first civilian job. That is the sort of thing that makes a difference. Noble Lords will know that I am a retailer, and we used to try to take on veterans. This kind of thing helps to spread a willingness to do just that, so I am so glad to see it extended.

I am also delighted to see the £10 million additional support for mental health. It is in addition to the work under Operation Courage, and it is over and above the NHS’s charitable support, which is brilliant in this area. That is good news, and I am delighted to be able to confirm it from the Dispatch Box.

The noble Lord also mentioned the Armed Forces covenant, which is very important. When I answer questions for my right honourable friend Mr Mercer on veterans, I cannot help but feel how important veterans are and how we have relied on them when all else has failed, not only in war but often in disasters, too. The Armed Forces Act 2021 introduced a new legal duty on specified persons and bodies to give due regard to the covenant when exercising functions such as healthcare and housing. That was very important.

I am grateful for noble Lords’ comments and look forward to coming back around the end of the year, after we have been able to take forward one or two of the slightly knottier problems.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, it has been useful to hear of the Government’s very firm commitment to improving the services provided to our veterans, to whom we are all in such debt, to know that progress is being made, and to look forward to fuller news by the end of the year. I will follow comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, on the extremely important report published in July by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. LGBT veterans are waiting anxiously to hear news of the Government’s implementation of the recommendations in that report. I was delighted to hear from my noble friend the Minister that LGBT veterans will be hearing definite news by the end of this year. I point out that the relevant webpage on GOV.UK, which exists to provide news of the Government’s work and response following the noble and learned Lord’s review, has not been updated since 31 July.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his comments. I have already said that we hope to say something about the Etherton report by the turn of the year. I note what he said about the website; we will certainly pass that on.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I join the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and my noble friend Lady Chapman, and note the work done by my noble friend Lord Cashman. The report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, deals with a stain on our country. The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is right to press the Minister to say that everyone has accepted that the way that LGBT people were hounded out of our Armed Forces simply because of their sexuality was a complete disgrace. There is no debate now about that, and the noble and learned Lord’s brilliant report brought that to the fore, with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and my noble friend Lord Cashman, so it is incumbent on the Minister to ensure that this is put right. People will have heard her commitment at the Dispatch Box that this will be done by the end of the year, and I hope that she will do all she can to ensure that this is made a reality, because it is of such desperate importance to us all.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lady Chapman said that the Government defeated the amendment put down to apply the Armed Forces covenant to government bodies. The point that many would make is that the covenant is great, but why is not applied to government bodies?

My final point is on the military medical discharge scheme. The Minister is right to point to a couple of the things that were said in the Statement today, but there are real problems about those who are medically discharged and how they are then supported and looked after by the NHS. That is a consistent problem that has been raised, so I urge the Minister to look at how veterans are supported by the NHS when they have been medically discharged from our Armed Forces.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am so grateful to the noble Lord for taking part in this debate and for making those points. Of course, a lot of them extend beyond my brief to the Ministry of Defence. However, one of the points I have been making today is on how we work together, so I will certainly take those points back. On the Etherton report, again, I will be talking to the Ministry of Defence about that. Of course, my noble friend Lord Lexden and the noble Lord are right to emphasise the awful history there.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Just to come back to the Minister on that, of course the really important point is that Johnny Mercer MP is the veterans champion—as indeed is the noble Baroness. So it is incumbent upon the noble Baroness to go to the MoD—that is the point of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs being in the Cabinet Office—and say, “This is what you should be doing” and bang heads together, being the voice of the MoD as someone external to it, not defending it as an institution. So, with respect to the Minister, I would say that I know she did not mean her first remarks about how a lot of these things are to do with the MoD. That is the whole point of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs: to say to the MoD, “Get it sorted out” with respect to LGBT and medical discharge. So be the champion, be the voice and tell the MoD to get some of this sorted out, and quicker than it is doing.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think the noble Lord was trying to reverse what I was saying, which was that the experience is that we are working better with the MoD as a result of this work—we are moving forward on these items. I am coming to tell noble Lords that we are making progress and it is entirely appropriate of me to refer to other departments because the work is collaborative. However, as the noble Lord knows, when I get involved in things in the Cabinet Office—and this applies even more to Minister Mercer, who has been such an enthusiast for veterans—we try to knock heads together and make progress. A lot of this progress is now coming through and making life better for veterans.

Although I do not spend a lot of time on this, I have spent time in America, where veterans are really part of the fabric, and we really need to move things forward here. I am sorry this is a three-quarters empty House this evening, because this is really important and I am glad that we have had an opportunity to update your Lordships and I look forward to the next instalment of this very important work.

House adjourned at 7.48 pm.

Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Identity Verification Services) Regulations 2023

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Identity Verification Services) Regulations 2023

Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2022-23.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and others, and I echo what he said about our constructive discussions in 2014-16. I am also pleased to see my noble friend Lord Camrose championing intellectual property, as we try to do, and to see him accompanied by my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow in his new position as Cabinet Office Whip.

The Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Identity Verification Services) Regulations 2023 are an important part of this Government’s commitment to strengthen the use of data and information across the public sector. We are bringing these forward so we can deliver better and more joined-up services and, in turn, improve outcomes for our citizens.

The regulations aim to allow information sharing between named bodies for the specific purpose of supporting cross-government identity checking when it is needed. Verifying a user’s identity—ensuring that a person is who they say they are—is a key part of delivering many government services. The draft regulations enable this by establishing a new data-sharing objective under Section 35 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 and by setting out which public bodies may use the new objective. This will create a legislative gateway, enabling us to use existing data sets, which public bodies already hold, to help as many people as possible to access the government services that they need online. It is therefore central to the development of more inclusive and accessible systems.

Specifically, the proposed objective would unlock the full benefits of the new cross-government digital system known as GOV.UK One Login. This is now live; users are able to set up an account, log in and prove their identity in order to access an initial set of 24 government services, with more being added all the time. However, at the moment, users must have photographic documentation, such as a passport or driving licence. This will change following the introduction of the new objective, as it will unlock new ways for people without photo ID to prove who they are, opening up the system to more users.

The delivery of One Login is a step change in simple joined-up access to government services online. This, in turn, delivers substantial cost and time savings for the Government and users by reducing duplication and providing enhanced capability to identify and stop fraudsters. In summary, the proposed objective will, first, enable checks against existing government-held information, such as PAYE and benefits data, to build confidence in the user’s identity, which will be particularly key where service users do not have a passport or driving licence. Secondly, it will provide a specific legal framework for checks against documents currently used in identity verification, such as driving licences. Thirdly, it will enable the sharing of the results of identity checks performed by one named body with another, so that users need to prove their identity only once.

The draft regulations set out which of the bodies already listed in Schedule 4 to the Digital Economy Act can use the new identity-verification data-sharing power, such as HM Revenue & Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions. They also add four new public bodies to the schedule that will be able to use the power: the Cabinet Office, the Department for Transport, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Disclosure and Barring Service.

The public bodies listed in the regulations are either bodies that hold information that could be used in support of proving that someone is whom they say they are or those that own and manage services that people need to access, which they therefore need to receive the results of identity checks. Of course, some public bodies do both.

The territorial extent of the draft regulations is England, Wales and Scotland. The Information Commissioner’s Office and the devolved Administrations support the draft regulations, and indeed the Scottish and Welsh Administrations have requested that certain Scottish and Welsh bodies be included in the draft regulations to enable them to use the new data-sharing power—so it is devolved friendly.

I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to know that these draft regulations have been subject to the standard rigorous processes of internal and external review. In the first instance, the objective has been subject to scrutiny by the Public Service Delivery Review Board, as set out in the underpinning code of practice on public service delivery, debt and fraud of the Digital Economy Act 2017. The board recommended that Ministers take forward these draft regulations since they meet the required criteria of supporting the improvement, or targeting, of public services to individuals in order to enhance their well-being.

Furthermore, the objective has been subject to a public consultation, which received more than 66,000 responses. Some respondents recognised the benefits to individuals of improved and more inclusive services. Some mistakenly expressed concern that this was a back-door route to identity cards. Therefore, in response to the consultation, the Government confirmed that they have no plans to introduce mandatory digital ID or identity cards. We also published additional information on how GOV.UK One Login will operate within these regulations and within the overall data protection framework. We extended the time between the regulations being approved and coming into force, and we amended some of the wording to reflect that of the Act. Of course, the Government understand that people want to protect their personal information and this is central to our approach. The draft regulations relate to using data only for the purpose of identity verification.

Part 5 of the 2017 Act gives the Government powers to share personal information across organisational boundaries to improve public services. It lays down what data can be shared and for which purposes. Data sharing must also have regard to the accompanying statutory code of practice on public service delivery, debt and fraud, which sets out how the power must be operated, including how any data shared must be processed lawfully, securely and proportionately in compliance with data protection legislation and UK GDPR.

The Digital Economy Act statutory code of practice on public service delivery, debt and fraud also requires information-sharing agreements to be listed on a public register of information-sharing activity under the powers. The framework for data sharing under the DEA provides a supportive background to help organisations to share data in ways that benefit the public, as confirmed by the Information Commissioner’s Office in its recent review. It includes robust safeguards that ensure that organisations share data responsibly and in alignment with data protection principles, while also safeguarding people’s rights.

I think these regulations are relatively straightforward and important, and I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting them.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is good to see the Minister move seamlessly from intellectual property to digital and data, but both can sometimes create their own questions. Since this is the first time we have debated One Login in the Lords, I hope that the Minister will not mind if she gets a large number of questions about the scheme. As I understand it, the goal of the One Login programme is to create a log-in database owned by the Government and containing the verified names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers and email addresses of everyone who uses—eventually—all Government-owned digital services, which is likely to be everyone in the country.

Perhaps unfairly, I have always thought of One Login with some scepticism, as the son or daughter of Verify, and not in a good way. The cost of the failed Verify scheme was over £200 million. It would be very useful as part of this debate to hear the cost of OneLogin so far and how much more is budgeted to be spent on its rollout. It does seem strange that the Government are having another crack at a single verification system, given the many other trustworthy existing systems that could be adopted.

First, I think it worth mentioning what the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said in its 55th report in October. I think it was rather baffled and scathing at the same time:

“This is a classic example of an Explanatory Memorandum … with too narrow a focus”.


I think it felt it was being bounced to some extent, without the context in which One Login was going to be designed to work. It said:

“We therefore request that the Cabinet Office revises its”


Explanatory Memorandum

“to include sufficient background information to enable any reader to understand the legislation’s practical effects”.

I suppose I am lucky in that I followed the gory progress of Verify through to One Login and the current date. I have some idea of the purpose behind One Login. As I understand it, the principal effect of these regulations is to allow the Government to share data for the purposes of identification. The SI does not restrict those flows of data; data can flow into the Cabinet Office as envisaged but identity data can also flow from the Cabinet Office to any other listed department. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that.

Will the Government allow population databases to be copied, whether openly or not? The revised Explanatory Memorandum is silent on this, and it is unclear if this assurance from the Government’s consultation response will be delivered. The response said:

“In particular, information will set out which departmental services are using identity verification services to support delivery and which will provide data to help departments establish who a person is”.


Will that actually happen? Will there be that level of transparency? There are apparently no safeguards on sharing bulk data if the Government want to share for this purpose across government. What transparency will there be if and when this takes place?

There is then the question of for whose benefit One Login really is. Is this a “better login to government” project, which many people might applaud, or is it a “one identity to government” project? The answer at the moment appears to be the latter. I say this because medConfidential, which I thank for its briefing, reports that a

“meeting held during the consultation was told that the Government’s intent is to actively prevent individuals from having multiple login accounts. A person may be able to have multiple email addresses— indeed, they may already do—but Government would attach them to a single ‘identity’. This regulation allows that database to be shared in bulk”.

Not to put too fine a point on it, that turns One Login into a tool of a centralising state—with implications for the privacy of the citizen—which the Government have previously assured us many times they were not building. I would therefore be extremely grateful if the Minister described the reality of One Login, as well as its purpose and operation.

At a roundtable on the consultation, the Government Digital Service apparently said that the regulation’s “first use is One Login”, which suggests there will be a second use. It is unclear to us to what extent the DWP will embrace One Login for government, for universal credit, for HMRC’s services, or indeed for the MoJ’s digital courts. What commitment from government departments and agencies is there? I can see that they are all listed, but Verify fell down precisely because of the lack of commitment from many government departments. What about the identities, too, of public servants? Will they be able to have multiple identities as both citizen and employee? What is the reality of that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her helpful introductory remarks. This regulation concerns the sharing of information between public authorities to ensure that any information sharing under Section 35 is justified and proportionate. It permits public authorities to share information only for purposes consistent with tightly constrained objectives which are set out in regulations. This measure adds a new objective relating to identity verification.

In future, individuals will be able to create a reusable digital identity, which the Government say would be secure, convenient and efficient. Instinctively, we would be very supportive of this, but it would be helpful, certainly to me, if the Minister could perhaps explain with a practical example exactly how this will work from a citizen’s perspective, imagining perhaps that she is applying for universal credit. What will she be able to do that she cannot do now? How would her interaction with the service provider be enhanced by this new objective? Will there be a benefit to those who do not have a passport or a driving licence and who, on occasions, find it difficult to prove their identity? What future use does the Minister anticipate?

There are some future uses. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, quite rightly highlighted some of the potential problems with this, but there are potential benefits that I can see. For instance, could digital verification, in time, be helpful at polling stations in enabling individuals without passports or driving licences to vote, without having to obtain a certificate in advance? I do not know if noble Lords have ever seen one of these certificates that people have to get at the moment, but the one I saw recently was just a blurry picture on a piece of A4 paper. These things are meant to last for years. Perhaps the Minister could make inquiries as to whether digital verification at polling stations might be more convenient, perhaps even allowing real-time voter registration. It does matter, and it is vital that digital transformation benefits and enhances citizens’ experience and access to services, as well as making public services more efficient.

A number of respondents to the consultation were concerned—and I think everyone will have anticipated this—about the security of their information, and whether or not this could be the thin end of the wedge as they see it. We are pleased that this amendment would make things, I think, more convenient for individuals. To anticipate what the Minister may say, this is because they will no longer have to prove their identity multiple times, and should have a more seamless experience when accessing public services online.

However, there is concern from some that digital verification may become in some sense compulsory. It is rather like the banks, which have a strong high street presence—then online banking becomes very popular, and suddenly the more traditional methods of accessing the service become less viable and therefore less available, which arguably excludes some individuals. It is important that individuals are able to decline to access services digitally, if they wish, for whatever reason, and are not coerced or nudged into accessing services, which goes against their preference over time. With this in mind, it is important that individuals are provided with the right amount of information, so that they can understand what data is being shared, with whom, and what the benefits to them are in consenting to the data sharing. Can the Minister tell us more about how exactly this will be done and how consent will be obtained?

Having in mind the NAO’s report on digital transformation of government services from earlier this year, there are a number of potential issues that the Minister might also wish to comment on. The NAO found that departments are finding that in current market conditions, they cannot acquire sufficient digital skills and expertise in their teams. Can the Minister tell us what the Cabinet Office are doing to make sure that departments have the skills needed to safely progress with this change and future digital transformation across Government?

Also, what oversight are the Government planning? This is vital in establishing public confidence. What will the complaints process be? How are the Government planning to monitor the departmental use of this new objective and assess any inequalities created or made worse by its introduction? Will the Government check whether, in time, the less well off, older people, or people with certain disabilities or certain language issues, for example, are being disadvantaged by the preference of service providers to move to digital access? I look forward to the Minister’s responses to those questions.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Committee—thin though we are—for its time and excellent questions in scrutinising the draft regulations. I think it is right to say that we have learned from Verify. One of the key things is always to learn from errors and learn how to improve things. This is a very different proposition.

The regulations will enable us to harness data more effectively, ensuring that as many people as possible can access the government services that they need online. This is particularly important where citizens and residents lack access to a passport or a driving licence, compelling them to resort to slower and costlier offline alternatives; the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, made that point. Approving the new objective allows us to construct more inclusive and accessible identity verification systems, namely GOV.UK One Login, which will deliver substantial user benefits and savings by minimising duplication and fraud risks.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked many questions, mostly on the GOV.UK One Login programme, of course. This legislation is relatively narrow and is not about the programme as a whole, but I will try to answer some of his questions. I am sure that we can talk about things on another occasion, because I detect a lot of support for the principle of making it easier for people, particularly more vulnerable people, to access government services.

On the PCAG principle, GOV.UK One Login is being delivered in line with existing privacy principles. GDS has been working closely with members of its advisory groups to ensure this. The principles are a framework that GDS works within; they have never been official government policy. However, the data protection regime certainly gives me quite a lot of reassurance about how this will work. I tried to bring that out in my opening remarks.

On the question of population data, the purpose of GOV.UK One Login is to allow citizens who choose to use the service to prove their identity safely and securely in order to access government services online. It is not new that users need to prove who they are to access certain government services, nor that departments have to store information as a result. Let me assure noble Lords that users can delete their accounts at any time. The service standard requires services to provide a joined-up experience across all channels, so doing so would not lock a user out of all government services.

In response to the questions about benefits to individuals, let me say that the objective on data sharing would enable public bodies to share a wider range of specified data than is currently possible. This will allow GOV.UK One Login to draw on a broader range of government-held data sources when users need to verify their identity. This will benefit individuals and households by improving digital inclusion as people without photographic documentation, such as a passport, will still be able to provide their identity online and access government services by answering questions based on additional datasets. They will not have to provide the same data again and again. This will underpin users’ ability to reuse their verified identity across all government services without needing repeatedly to re-enter the same information each and every time they interact with a new service. Of course, that also brings savings to individuals and to government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

It is data sharing for the purposes of digital identity. Ultimately, by April 2025, we hope to have approximately 145 central government services that can be accessed via One Login. It is a mistake to think that this is somehow going to be used in the bulk way that the noble Lord describes. It is about identity checking, not collecting huge amounts of data for use in a Big Brother sort of way; the noble Lord may have misunderstood this. Users can delete their account at any time. I think that the noble Lord’s concern is perhaps misplaced.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

That is exactly the assurance that I am seeking.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

While I am on the subject of benefits to the individual, there is an example that I would like to share with the committee; it reflects a question that I asked. Sometimes, married women have two different names. I am in that lucky, or unfortunate, position. We understand that some users will need or want to use multiple accounts, so users can already set up multiple accounts on One Login using different email addresses that can relate to different names. From next year, we plan to allow users to link accounts under the same verified identity. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, asked us to look through the eyes of the individual. This is one of the things we have been trying to do in this programme, learning from the past.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am on my third surname as I have had two marriages, but that is not really where I was going. I was looking at it from the perspective of somebody trying to access a service. I cannot imagine that many people would be that interested in how you could link your different accounts, although I can see that it might be important at certain stages in someone’s life. In accessing a service, what will I be asked for or not asked for? It is about the practicality of it. If I am turning up at the benefits office, what is the difference?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The difference is that, at the moment, you tend to have to provide a passport. It is difficult to log in to some of these services without a passport or a driving licence. In future, as I made clear in my introductory remarks, it will be possible to use different sorts of identity data and to have a system within government that allows us to do that. That will have the effect of making it easier for more people who are finding establishing their identity difficult without encouraging a lot of identity fraud, which is obviously another concern that one has to take account of in putting these systems together.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I entirely appreciate the Minister taking the trouble to talk us through this. The question is: for whose benefit is this? Is this so that government departments can identify somebody right across the board, so that you can have only one identity in government and so that the Home Office will share data with universal credit and every other department that interfaces with an individual? Is that the idea of this One Login? Or is it possible to have more than one digital identity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As I said, it will be possible. You are not confined to one. It is very much coming at the problem from the user, not simply from the government department, which I think was one of the problems with Verify.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am still not quite sure that I get this. Let us say that I am going to the benefits office; I do not have a passport or a driving licence, and I am asked for other information instead to verify who I am. How will this benefit me in the future, assuming I have never had a driving licence or a passport? What difference will I experience? I am not trying to pick at this; I just want to see the benefit.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

One obvious benefit is that more and more government departments are using digital. The technology is transforming our lives, after all. Once you have this single digital identity, you will then be able to use it to access services and opportunities from other government departments as well. That is the point: the digital identity will be used across the board. That is helpful to individuals. I should add that a document is published on GOV.UK outlining what data is being used by One Login. I think it is worth noble Lords looking at that.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, rightly asked a question about cost—something we always used to ask about in our previous debates. The One Login programme’s total budget for 2022-23 to 2024-25 is £305.4 million. Of this, the programme forecasts expenditure of £132.7 million on the development and rollout of the system by the end of the current financial year.

The noble Lord mentioned the Explanatory Memorandum. We did indeed make some changes, as he acknowledged, to the Explanatory Memorandum, which was made available to the SLSC, to provide a clearer explanation of which part of the law the instrument is changing and why. He mentioned that the revised Explanatory Memorandum was laid on 2 November, and provided more contextual information. In particular, it explained that the SI provides the statutory basis for specified public bodies to share data in order to verify an individual’s identity in a safe and secure way so that they can access public services online, and that duplicative systems are being replaced with a single account. This is an obvious benefit.

The SI will also enable the GOV.UK One Login to draw on a broader range of government-held data sources when users need to verify their identity. That is an important point, because it is difficult for people who do not have a passport or a driving licence under the current system.

We are committed to being open and transparent by making information about data shared under the Digital Economy Act easily available for all to find and understand in the public register of data-sharing agreements. That was one of the safeguards laid down in that Act, so we have obviously taken that on board. That is an important point of transparency.

This is also underpinned by a robust code of practice—I have read it—which was created by Section 43 of the DEA. That sets out how the power must be operated, and includes setting out how any data shared under this power must be processed lawfully, securely and proportionately, in line with data protection legislation. We therefore have the DEA and data protection legislation coming together to allow us to implement this, hopefully life-changing, bit of technology in a way that protects the citizen. Obviously, the Cabinet Office is responsible for maintaining that register, and the Public Service Delivery Review Board is overseeing strategic consistency.

We have not seen that many regulations made under this Act—I think there was one on social care before—but we can see the value of the Act and the safeguards that Parliament added to it coming through.

On voter registration, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, raised a very good point, to my mind. I will have to follow up in writing. Fundamentally, as she said, these regulations will enhance the user experience. Despite many improvements over the last few years, today’s experience of interacting with government is too fragmented. We have multiple logins, and we are repeatedly asked the same information, which sometimes one has recorded on the phone—and sometimes recorded wrongly, as I know from my own experience. This is the same for everyone trying to access government. One Login will replace this with one system; we are used to this on our phones and so on, and there is a lot to be said for this new arrangement. We will have better data sharing to help those people without traditional forms of ID to access the services online that they need.

I hope noble Lords, having heard the benefits of the regulation—

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister as she comes to the final furlong, but the question of oversight raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and by me, and the standards that will apply to this system, are extremely important.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Given the time, I will take that away, along with the voting point, if I may. I drew attention to the code of practice and the parent Act; we have every intention of following the principles, but the point about review and oversight is well made by the noble Lord, as always. I will come back to him on that point.

I am sorry that I have not been able to answer every question on the login area. I can introduce noble Lords to my honourable friend in the other place, Alex Burghart, who has spent a great deal of time developing these regulations. The point is that these narrow regulations before us today are a necessary enabler for this major change for the citizen. I hope that noble Lords, having heard the benefits, will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102B in lieu of Commons Amendment 102, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 102C.

102C: Because it is unnecessary to have a specific discretionary exclusion ground for involvement in forced organ harvesting in light of the ground for professional misconduct and the lack of evidence that any supplier to the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, the other place has now been clear, for the second time, that it is firm in its position on this amendment. Noble Lords asked the Commons to reconsider, and it has reached the same decision.

The Bill creates new rules for suppliers and contracting authorities that will stay on the statute book for the foreseeable future. We therefore need to be measured and prudent in our approach and avoid imposing further unnecessary bureaucracy on UK businesses that duplicates both the existing provisions in the Bill and the steps being taken outside the legislation.

I commend the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for the debates he has led on organ harvesting. We share a unanimous view that organ harvesting is an abhorrent practice that has no place in our supply chains. Accordingly, if a supplier or one of its connected persons fails to comply with the established ethical or professional standards within its respective industry, including relating to the removal, storage and use of human tissue, the supplier could face exclusion on the grounds of professional misconduct. However, as far as I am aware, no supplier to the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting. Given that the exclusion grounds in the Bill have been selected based on the areas of greatest risk to public procurement, it is not necessary to single out organ harvesting in this Bill.

The Government are already actively addressing this awful practice. For example, it is an offence to travel outside the UK to purchase an organ, by virtue of new offences introduced by the Health and Care Act 2022. In addition, the Government continue to monitor and review evidence relating to reports of forced organ harvesting and maintain a dialogue with leading non-governmental organisations and international partners on this very important issue.

I make one further remark concerning an issue which, while out of scope of today’s debate, is of significant importance to this Bill and the country’s security. It relates to concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, following recent press coverage regarding surveillance equipment, which I look forward to discussing with him in person tomorrow. On 24 November 2022, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a Statement in the other place instructing government departments to cease deployment on their sensitive sites of surveillance equipment produced by companies subject to the National Intelligence Law of the People’s Republic of China.

During our last debate in this House, I set out the definition of “sensitive sites” to which our commitment would apply and which I am happy to reiterate today. As I said on 11 September, our commitment will apply to government departments and cover their sensitive sites, which are any building or complex that routinely holds secret material or above, any location that hosts a significant proportion of officials holding developed vetting clearance, any location routinely used by Ministers, and any government location covered under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. I went on to reiterate that our commitment does not extend to the wider public sector. However, in no way is this an endorsement of the use of such surveillance equipment by these organisations or by organisations in the private sector. Indeed, these organisations may instead choose to mirror our action. I believe that some of them already have, including the police.

I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the explanation behind the Motion. She kindly referred to the amendments I tabled on Report following our debate in Committee, which focused on the appalling practice of forced organ harvesting, principally in China, which involves the removal of organs from living prisoners of conscience for the purpose of transplantation, killing the victim in the process. It is state sanctioned, widespread throughout China and has become a multi-billion-pound commercial operation.

We know that the victims are mainly Falun Gong practitioners, but more recently, evidence has indicated that Uighur Muslims are also being targeted on a massive scale. Further to that, there are several pieces of evidence suggesting that Tibetans and house Christians are as likely to be the victims of forced organ harvesting. As the noble Baroness said, my amendment was passed by your Lordships’ House on Report and went to the Commons, where it was rejected. We had another go in September and again, I am afraid, the Commons has reinserted the original provisions in the Bill.

I regret that this has happened for three reasons, the first being the scale of the atrocities being carried out in China and specifically in Xinjiang province. Secondly, Ministers are wrong to dismiss the need for the amendment. Above all else, its passage would have been a powerful signal in the UK and globally of our abhorrence of these awful practices. Thirdly, you cannot consider my amendment on forced organ harvesting without setting it in the context of the Government’s approach to China more generally. The Prime Minister has talked quite tough in recent weeks on the Government’s approach to China. However, the overall approach, to put it at its kindest, is clouded in inconsistency, ambiguity and sometimes downright confusion. That has been reflected in any number of Select Committee reports over the last year or two.

However, I recognise that this has gone as far as I could expect it to go. I am grateful to all those who supported me, particularly my Front Bench, the Lib Dems and many noble Lords around the House. I particularly pay tribute to Lord Bernie Ribeiro, who retired from the House on Monday. He has been a tower of support to me on this very worrying issue over many years. I wish him all the best in his retirement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for continuing to press the issue of the terrible practice of organ harvesting and to raise awareness of it. I do not think that there was sufficient awareness of what was happening in China until my noble friend tabled his amendments, and I hope that he continues to work on this in the future. So we are also very disappointed that the Government chose not to accept his amendment, but we are where we are.

As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, ethical procurement has to be right at the centre of how we continue to do business. Hikvision was debated during the progress of the Bill and there is more work to do on some of these issues.

Having said that, I thank very much the Minister and her team for her comments today and for her constructive approach to improving the Bill, following a fairly sticky start in Committee. It has been a pleasure to work with a Minister, department and noble Lords across the House who genuinely wanted to make a better Bill. I know that there were an enormous number of government amendments—perhaps the Bill should have been better drafted in the first place—but they were very important. We are in a much better place than where we started, so I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who helped to bring us here.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for their insightful contributions in this brief debate—not least on the threat from China and on ethical procurement. It has been a pleasure to work with them all and to set the slightly troublesome record of tabling a very large amendments in this House.

I of course acknowledge the importance of tackling the abhorrent practice of organ harvesting, but this amendment is duplicative, unduly burdensome and not appropriately suited to its intended purpose, which is why the Bill has been returned to our House in this form. For these reasons, I do not think that the amendment is necessary and I reiterate the many commitments we have made in this House and in the other place.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned the NHS. The Bill applies to NHS bodies and their procurement of goods and services, which are not classed as healthcare services under the provider selection regime. I am pleased to tell the noble Lord, as I hope he knows, that the underpinning regulations were laid by the Department of Health and Social Care on 19 October, which puts a line under that and ensures a consistent approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, remarked on the definition of sensitive sites. Both our Written Ministerial Statement from November last year, which was trailblazing to some extent, and the definition of sensitive sites that I set out only last month make our position on the issue clear to all concerned. We will be sharing annual reports on the removal of surveillance equipment, as I promised the House when we last debated this on 11 September.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that comment, but that was not my point. It was actually that the language that the Government have used about non-sensitive sites is being used by Hikvision as a marketing tool to placate potential customers and say that it is okay. If the Minister has not seen that wording, I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will provide it; otherwise, I would be happy to. The Government need to reflect to Hikvision that they are not endorsing its technology for non-sensitive sites, which is what the company seeks to communicate.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his clarification. That is why I chose to reiterate what I have said. I will talk to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, tomorrow, but I reiterate that we are keeping an eye on this. The reports on the withdrawal of the surveillance equipment will be important. Public bodies outside government and some private bodies have already decided to withdraw these cameras, so I think the message is clear.

I thanked noble Lords across the House for their valuable contributions to the scrutiny of the Bill when it left for the other place on 13 December. I reiterate everything I said then. I add my thanks to our Whip, my noble friend Lord Mott, and my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lord Moylan, Lord Lansley and Lord Maude, who I did not mention last time. I much look forward to Royal Assent and the legacy that I believe will stem from the collective efforts of both Houses, which are all represented here this evening.

Motion A agreed.

UK-EU Relationship (European Affairs Committee Report)

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 20th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I particularly thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and all noble Lords on the European Affairs Committee for their wide-ranging report. I take this opportunity on behalf of the Government—and, I believe, the whole House—to thank the noble Earl for his skilled chairing of the committee since 2019 and the collaborative approach he has taken to engaging with the Government. He has deservedly gone on to become Convenor of the Cross Benches, and we will all benefit from his calm, wise and intelligent leadership. I am sorry that the new chair, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, is absent today, but delighted that he is in Paris to celebrate His Majesty the King’s first official visit to France.

I am also extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate for their insightful contributions, which are a tribute to the report and its authors. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford was right to emphasise how much the EU has changed and the changing context in which it operates. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough pointed out that there will be a new College of Commissioners next year and elections in various places.

We are committed to a mature, constructive relationship with all our international partners. That, of course, includes the European Union. As we stated in our response to the report in June, we intend to realise fully the potential of the trade and co-operation agreement, including in a range of crucial areas such as energy, trade, security and AI.

I cannot agree with view of Brexit expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury. Brexit has brought us an independent trade policy, the growth of our green and digital industries, the introduction of sanctions legislation, early approval of the Covid vaccine, and a points-based immigration system.

To return to the report, relations have improved, and continue to do so, under this Government. In particular, I am pleased to say that the UK and EU already enjoy close collaboration and co-operation in their support for Ukraine and over the imposition of sanctions against Russia. I was particularly pleased that, on 7 September, the UK and the EU announced agreement for UK association to Horizon Europe and Copernicus. UK scientists will now have access to the world’s largest research collaboration programme. This will help to ensure that we are on track to deliver on our ambition to grow the economy and make the UK a science and technology superpower. It has indeed taken time because, as some have said, the Prime Minister was rightly determined to ensure that the deal was in the UK’s national interest, strengthening UK science and delivering value for money for UK taxpayers. We are looking forward to working closely with European and international partners to maximise collaboration under these excellent programmes. We have the same approach as on the Windsor Framework—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that this was a major step forward—of getting into the detail and doing what is right for Britain, resisting pressure to accept a boilerplate deal no matter what the terms, and delivering terms that work for us.

As we highlighted in our correspondence with the committee, tackling illegal immigration is a top priority for the Government. We continue to seek EU co-operation in tackling illegal migration—a common challenge, of course, as we can see the boats crossing both the Mediterranean and the channel. The UK-FRONTEX working arrangement, which is currently under negotiation, is an example of joint working on what is clearly a pan-European issue that requires a joined-up effort.

I have dealt with the EU all my working life. I started in the rather powerful cereals management committee as a civil servant in 1974, and eventually was the UK Minister in the Competitiveness Council for three years, where my French opposite number was a certain Emmanuel Macron. I then served with great pleasure with some noble Lords who are here this evening on the EU Committee. I therefore understand the value of engaging the EU while being clear about our interests. Accordingly, I agree with the committee and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on the importance of maintaining a regular dialogue. We will continue to do so under the formal treaty framework—for example, the Partnership Council, which the Foreign Secretary attended in March —or in the technical committees, which oversee implementation, and through other avenues, such as the dialogue established by the memorandum of understanding on financial services. I should say in passing that I noted my noble friend Lady Lawlor’s concerns that we should retain our own legal traditions in financial services.

On the importance of dialogue, the Prime Minister also engages at leader level with our EU and European partners on a regular basis at multilateral fora, the G7, the G20 and more recently with the European Political Community, which brings together the whole European continent. Indeed, the UK will host the fourth EPC summit in 2024, as my noble friend Lord Balfe pointed out.

However, I am not convinced that we should seek extra meetings, as proposed by the committee. As the Foreign Secretary said in his letter to the committee, the frequency of meetings should not be seen as a measure of success. What matters is outcomes. Noble Lords must remember that like other third countries, albeit we are special because of our mutual history, we must focus our demands on what really matters to our people and our businesses.

The TCA has now underpinned our trade and wider relationship with the EU for more than two years. Its committees meet regularly—more than 40 times since the beginning of 2021, with 15 more planned over the next few months. There is also extensive engagement with the EU and with individual member states outside the TCA structures. For example, the Deputy Prime Minister, Oliver Dowden, was in Italy last week and spoke on security and AI at the Pontignano conference. To pick up a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, we work hard to make engagement warm and trusting where appropriate. As my noble friend Lord Lamont said, improving our relationship with the EU is not betraying Brexit. I think there was agreement on that point.

The committee’s report rightly focused on our foreign, security and defence relationship with the EU. As our integrated review refresh makes clear, although we have left the European Union, the UK retains a significant role and stake in the future of our home region. It is essential that we work together to respond to common geopolitical threats and in support of our shared values of freedom and democracy.

In response to points made by a number of noble Lords—including my noble friend Lord Lamont, the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—let me say that we do not currently consider that bringing co-operation on these matters into a formalised structure would lead to more effective co-ordination. We are focused on the substance of our co-operation and what we want to achieve together where our interests align, rather than the form. Close co-operation is vital in, for example, developing military mobility, crisis response, resilience and countering disinformation and hybrid threats where NATO and the EU have complementary strengths and tools.

The UK’s focus is strongly on strengthening our foreign and security policy relationship with the EU on Ukraine. As my noble friend Lord Tugendhat said, that is very important and likely to be important well into the future. The UK-hosted Ukraine Recovery Conference was a shining example of what can be achieved. We must remain steadfast in our support.

I say this in response to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire: our approach is essentially practical. Our co-ordination with the EU demonstrates our shared commitment to European security. We are working closely not only on PESCO, where the UK is negotiating terms to better enable us to shape the rules on cross-border military transport, but on providing Ukraine with military training, equipment, cyber resilience, humanitarian and economic support, sanctions, energy resilience and countering Russian disinformation.

On the question from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the formalisation of sanctions co-operation, it is our view that our existing arrangements for co-ordinating sanctions with the EU are working well. However, I wish to pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. The UK, along with our international partners, has the largest, most rigorous package of sanctions ever imposed on a major economy. I think it is fair to say that we surprised Russia with the scale and level of international unity on sanctions. We will continue our efforts to combat circumvention.

Our officials are in regular contact with EU institutions and member states. We co-operate on all elements of sanctions policy, from design to implementation. Although we constantly keep our processes under review, we do not assess that a more formal arrangement would improve co-ordination. Furthermore, the enhanced partnership between the US Office of Foreign Assets Control and the UK Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation reflects the closely corresponding function of those organisations within our respective systems. That is the answer: this structural similarity is not present in the case of the EU, which has no equivalent.

More broadly, we look forward to establishing dialogues on the important areas of cybersecurity and counter- terrorism.

Close co-operation on energy security between the UK and the EU is crucial as Europe decouples from Russian hydrocarbons. We expect to continue proactively engaging on planning for next winter and beyond, ensuring stable energy supplies while reaching our respective decarbonisation goals. We are also pleased to have resumed participation in the North Seas Energy Cooperation with both the EU and other friends. Exploiting the huge renewable potential of the region will boost European energy production, enhance our energy security and support the transition to net zero.

I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. Today, the Prime Minister reiterated our commitment to net zero by 2050 and set out a path for achieving it in a fair, proportionate way. Our new approach is pragmatic, proportionate and realistic because the key is maintaining the British people’s consent on reaching net zero by 2050. I think people will come to understand that.

The Government are committed to working with partners such as the EU to find international solutions to carbon leakage, an issue that was raised by the committee. We are following developments on the CBAM closely ahead of the transitional reporting phase, which will launch on 1 October, and engaging with the Commission to discuss technical considerations relevant to UK manufacturers. The UK raised the CBAM at the Trade Specialised Committee on Goods in 2021 and 2022 and is currently in discussion with the EU on the agenda for this autumn’s committees. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will be glad to know that the Government have consulted on measures to combat carbon leakage, will consider the responses carefully and will issue a response in due course.

The UK has ambitious carbon pricing through our emissions trading scheme and carbon price support mechanism. The TCA commits the UK to co-operating on carbon pricing; discussions on this issue would be covered by the Trade Specialised Committee on Level Playing Field for Open and Fair Competition and Sustainable Development. We remain open to the possibility of linking the UK ETS internationally and continue to work collaboratively with a range of like-minded nations to tackle our shared climate challenges. We will update noble Lords in due course. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on the subject of energy flows but I think she is probably aware of the interconnector arrangements that we have.

The issue of mobility is an important part of our relationship with the EU. The withdrawal agreement provided for the protection of the rights of more than 5 million EU citizens to remain indefinitely in the UK, as well as to work and access public services as they did before the UK left the EU. Since leaving, the Government have focused the immigration system towards securing the skilled labour that businesses need to stay competitive and innovative.

The Government agree on the value of cultural and educational exchanges between the UK and other nations and will continue to support opportunities for young people, which have featured in the comments of several noble Lords this evening. We are exploring new bilateral youth mobility schemes with international partners, including our European neighbours. In response to the request from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for an update on discussions with the EU and member states, he will understand that I cannot go into detail but there are live discussions and I can confirm that Parliament will be updated as appropriate; I hope that will also be welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. We already have 10 youth mobility scheme agreements with other international partners, including Canada, New Zealand and Japan. We recently agreed arrangements with Andorra and Uruguay. The majority of EU member states have working holiday agreements with third countries so we continue to explore the possibilities.

We also recognise the enormous contribution of the UK’s creative and cultural industries. Since we left the EU, we have engaged with EU member states on entry requirements and the difficult issue of touring artists, which we used to discuss when I was on the committee. Now, only three member states—Portugal, Malta, and Cyprus—do not offer any visa or work permit-free routes.

Noble Lords have talked about Erasmus+. The Government chose not to participate in Erasmus+ for the 2021-27 programme, deciding instead to introduce a global scheme and provide more opportunities for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Turing scheme now funds 40,000 placements in 160 destinations across the world. The Government believe that it is right to prioritise funding outbound mobilities under the scheme at the present time. As the report made clear, there have been considerable benefits for that, including for disadvantaged students.

As my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising said, Brexit has allowed the UK to carve out its own trade policy. As an independent trading nation, we now have 70 trade agreements in place, including new deals with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, with Australia, with New Zealand and through the new Singapore partnership, which was mentioned during the debate. The freedom to strike such deals opens up many new opportunities in goods as well as services, our exports of which reached record highs in 2022 under current prices. We should of course celebrate the facts that the TCA is the world’s biggest zero-tariff, zero-quota FTA and that the EU collectively remains our largest trading partner.

A number of noble Lords mentioned our border target operating model, which was published in August. It set out our new approach to how security and SPS controls would be risk based and benefit from our new ambitious single trade window, which is designed to simplify and digitalise border trade in goods, and help smaller businesses. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, referred to it. We continue to work with stakeholders to prepare and we updated the House in a definitive Written Statement at the beginning of September.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, raised some questions and concerns about small businesses. There has been a small delay to help businesses to adapt, which will also minimise the inflationary impact. I confirm that we did discuss these matters with the EU and member state veterinarians and there were extensive discussions with trade bodies.

The committee recommended that the Government should seek an agreement with the EU on SPS controls. The Government are open to this and, with the advent of the BTOM, there is more incentive for a deal. However, it must be based on equivalence and not on alignment to EU rules.

As several noble Lords said, the leader of the Opposition recently called for a much closer trading relationship with the EU. This is puzzling and, my experience would suggest, naive. It also risks returning us to the divisions of the past seven years after the referendum instead of focusing, as we should, on our national priorities. The Government’s approach, building incrementally on what we have already achieved, is much more likely to bear fruit.

We have heard a range of opinions in this place. Many—I think most—think that leaving the European Union was a mistake and that we should be binding ourselves closer to the EU. Others favour divergence. The Government are taking a pragmatic approach. We believe in a mature relationship with the EU— maximising the TCA, tackling shared geostrategic challenges such as Russian aggression against Ukraine, which has brought the defenders of democracy together, and respectfully disagreeing on areas where we have different views. That is the best approach for the UK.

I am grateful to noble Lords for this debate. The House will be glad to know that the Foreign Secretary will be addressing members of the European Affairs Committee in an evidence session in October.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, I clearly cannot speak for Portugal, but I understand that it is looking for reciprocal arrangements in the matters to which the noble Baroness referred.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Viscount for that information. Perhaps we could have a word on the detail.

Afghan Resettlement

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

With the permission of the House, I will repeat a Statement made today by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs:

“Mr Speaker, since June 2021, around 24,600 people from Afghanistan have been safely relocated to the United Kingdom. We owe them a debt of gratitude— and, in return, our offer has been generous. The UK Government have granted all Afghans relocated through safe and legal routes indefinite leave to remain, including the immediate right to work, alongside access to the benefits system and vital health, education, and employment support. Given the unprecedented speed and scale of the 2021 evacuation, we warmly welcomed our Afghan friends into temporary hotel accommodation until settled accommodation could be found. However, bridging hotels are not—and were never designed to be—a permanent solution.

Indeed, in a Statement to this House in March, I made it clear that it was unjustifiable for around a third of those relocated from Afghanistan to still be living in costly bridging accommodation up to 18 months after arriving to safety in the United Kingdom. Long-term residency in hotels prevented some families from properly putting down roots and was costing UK taxpayers £1 million a day. This was not sustainable. That is why, at the end of April, we began issuing notices to quit to the 8,000 individuals who remained in bridging accommodation, making clear that access to costly hotels would end following a minimum three-month notice period, and encouraging moves into settled accommodation.

I am pleased to confirm that, as of 31 August, the Government have successfully ended the use of bridging hotels for legally resettled Afghans. We estimate that over 85 per cent of those who were in bridging accommodation at the end of March 2023 have been helped into homes or pre-matched into settled accommodation. Ending the provision of bridging accommodation was the right thing to do for our Afghan friends, who can now get on with rebuilding their lives, and represents a fairer deal for the British taxpayer. Indeed, it was not right to continue to ask taxpayers to foot the bill for costly bridging hotels when—as we have demonstrated—settled accommodation could be found for the overwhelming majority of guests. This required a considerable national effort and represents a significant national achievement. I therefore want to extend my thanks to colleagues across central government, as well as to local authorities and third sector partners, who have all played a part. Without dedicated caseworking teams and councils, in addition to the £285 million funding package I announced in March, this mammoth task would not have been possible.

Not only are we on track to deliver 1,200 homes for Afghans through the local authority housing fund, which will help to build a sustainable stock of affordable accommodation for the future, but we have mobilised the generosity of the Great British public by creating an innovative new Afghan housing portal, which enabled conscientious landlords to offer their rental properties directly to families. Furthermore, each local authority that receives an Afghan family can access £20,500 per person over three years to provide wraparound integration support, as well as additional funding for English language classes. I urge local authorities to continue taking advantage of this generous funding offer that the Government have put in place.

As I told the House in July, the Government have made time-limited interim accommodation available to a minority of families. This is available only to those for whom a move would disrupt ongoing medical treatment at a specific hospital, and those who have been pre-matched to a property that will be available before the end of December. As of 31 August, over 80% of those in time-limited interim accommodation were already matched to a property. We have already seen over 200 people move out of interim accommodation and into settled accommodation since, with more leaving every week.

As I have set out, the overwhelming majority of Afghans have now moved into settled accommodation or been pre-matched to a property. This is a testament to the significant central government support that has been put in place. Despite this support, however, some families have moved into temporary accommodation under local authority homelessness provision. This is less than 5% of the 24,600 people who have relocated from Afghanistan, and of those families in temporary accommodation around a quarter have a property to move into over the coming weeks.

Others in temporary accommodation have, regrettably, turned down suitable offers of accommodation, and I have been clear and honest from the outset that, where this happens, another government offer will not be forthcoming. At a time when there are many pressures on the taxpayer and on the housing market, it is not right that people can reject perfectly suitable offers of accommodation and expect to remain in taxpayer-funded hotels. However, in recognition of the pressures that councils may face as a result of housing Afghans in temporary accommodation, an additional £9,150 per household has been made available to councils by central government. This is in addition to the wider £2 billion available over three years to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping.

Let me be clear: we have not left Afghan families without a roof over their heads. I continue to work closely with central and local government partners to help the small minority of families in local authority-provided temporary accommodation to find settled accommodation across the UK. But we must all continue to play our part in delivering a helping hand to our Afghan friends, to whom we owe so much. I encourage those who can to offer private rented accommodation, or to speak to their local council, or list their property on the Government’s Afghan housing portal, which remains operational.

We also take seriously our commitment to resettling Afghans yet to arrive in the UK, including those eligible for our schemes who are still in Afghanistan. But our efforts to move people out of hotels has shown how vital it is that they are moved directly into long-term, settled accommodation, where they can put down roots in the community. That is why we are taking forward plans to source suitable accommodation ahead of facilitating new arrivals.

Welcoming people who come to the UK through safe and legal routes has always been, and will always be, a vital way in which our country helps those in need. In this spirit, I look forward to welcoming more of those who loyally served alongside the UK’s Armed Forces in Afghanistan, as well as those who stood up for British values, often at great personal risk, in the months ahead. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I agree wholeheartedly with many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, about the debt we owe to the Afghans who served with us, which is noted in the Statement that the Minister just repeated. We need to reiterate that, because the Statement in many ways is almost like a Home Office document: “Right, we’ve got this issue, we’ve relocated people. Maybe this is the end”.

In the other place, the Statement was given by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Johnny Mercer, so there was a very clear link to veterans. That is important, because the people we are talking about and their families are people who served alongside the British Army. We still owe them a debt. Operation Pitting was fantastic, but we left so many people behind.

I pay tribute to the Government for relocating 24,600 people, but that has to be the start. While it is clearly right that we are not using bridging accommodation for anything other than very temporary care, what accommodation will be available for those many people who are in Pakistan awaiting moves to the United Kingdom—a safe and legal route, in the Government’s language? What is being done to support those people who are still in Afghanistan?

The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, mentioned a case that was talked about in the other place this afternoon. There are still many Afghans living in fear of their lives. They have not become more secure since 2021; they have become less secure. They have been in so-called safe houses and moved from one safe house to another. In the final paragraph of this welcome Statement—well, parts of it are welcome—there is a commitment still to welcome those eligible to come under ARAP. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to help people get out of Afghanistan? Some of those people who are eligible for ARAP—or would have been eligible had the terms not changed—are now being told they can be considered under the ACRS. Here I am talking very much about the British Council teachers and contractors. What is being done to help them?

If they get out—if they find people who will smuggle them out of Afghanistan—will His Majesty’s Government actually give them indefinite leave to remain and all the benefits that entails if they make it to the United Kingdom, or are they going to be told, “Sorry, you would have been eligible if only you had risked your life a little bit longer in Afghanistan, but now you’ve come here illegally and unsafely you’re no longer eligible”? That is what very many people fear.

In terms of accommodation, clearly it is right to move families into permanent accommodation. But there are cases of young people who have been out of school. Part of the pledge to our Afghan friends is that there will be education. Can the Minister tell us how many Afghans under the age of 19 are out of school and how far the relocation from temporary accommodation to permanent accommodation in other parts of the country is impacting on the education of young people, particularly young women?

I would also like to know whether those Afghans who have allegedly rejected “suitable” accommodation have really understood that the accommodation is suitable. Is it affordable? Does the Government’s offer really enable them to take up those offers? It goes back to one of the questions that my noble friend Lady Falkner asked in the Statement on the Post Office: does everybody understand the bureaucracy? Are people giving up suitable accommodation because they have not really understood what is available?

It is good that we have rehoused 24,600 people. It would be better if we had a clear road map for others who would be ARAP-eligible. My final question is: can the Minister tell us how many Afghans are homeless in the United Kingdom and how many of those are vulnerable and on the streets today?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses opposite for their comments. We are united in our vision here and a lot of the things we are discussing today have very wide support. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, I watched some of the debate in the other place and I was struck not only by the individual cases but also the support given for the work by local authorities, by the Government for the funding that has been put in and, of course, by the total commitment of the brave Afghans who worked alongside us so well.

I turn to the specific points that have been raised. Perhaps I can first tackle new arrivals, including those in third countries. We have been clear, as I said in the Statement, that we need to solve the problem here, so that those from overseas can go straight into settled accommodation, with all its advantages. We will be making further announcements in due course about this, but I emphasise that our policy is to house Afghans in settled accommodation so they can work—they have the right to work—so they can integrate into communities, so they can send their children to local schools and embed them, and so they can become rooted in their new homes and communities.

In relation to homelessness, our promise was to ensure that no Afghans were sleeping rough, and as a result of our efforts the vast majority are now settled in permanent accommodation, with fewer than 5% of families receiving homelessness support. The noble Baroness asked for a specific figure. It is 188 households; I do not have a breakdown by adults and children. The homelessness system also acts as a safety net and no family will be left without a roof over their heads. There is funding of £9,150 per family available to support councils with homelessness costs, as well as £28 per person per day for up to six months if they are placed in temporary accommodation. Of course, that is on top of the £2 billion towards dealing with homelessness and rough sleeping, which is not the subject of this Statement but is a very important priority as well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made a number of points which I very much agreed with, and she mentioned the education issue, which is incredibly important—and what a horror the contrast is between the attitude to the education of women in Afghanistan and our approach here.

Although I do not have the numbers of underage Afghan children out of school, I can tell the noble Baroness that the system we have initiated had a special focus at a time when children could move into new schools in the new autumn term, which I thought was very good. There is also an educational rule that local area school places have to be found within 20 days. So we are aware of the needs of education. I should also say that in every hotel there has been help from the DWP, the Home Office and so on because we understand the importance of these issues.

Funding is also important. The Statement made clear that we have tried to be generous and to help local authorities. In addition to the £250 million expansion of the local authority housing fund, which I think is a game-changer, we have also found £32.5 million—that is £7,100 per person—for the flexible housing fund. That is both capital and revenue, which is important because it means that there may be money available for families to have a deposit on a rented house or for capital to be used to flex a house—for example, when there is a large family. The work that has been done by DLUHC and others has been innovative. There has been money for voluntary and community sector caseworkers, which I have already mentioned. That is in addition to the resettlement allowances that come from the Home Office: there is £20,520 per person integration tariff funding for resettlement, and other money is available for things like English language training, which—to go back to the point of about education—is incredibly important. We know that these brave people will be able to integrate well if their children are in school and they can move forward.

The point about bureaucracy was close to my heart. I want to make the point that pamphlets have been made in English, Pashto and Dari, so there has been a real effort to explain people’s needs. The availability of officials in hotels has also been good for that. That is something of a model, although there is of course more to do and we need to go further.

I am so grateful for the support from third countries. It has been mentioned that some people under the ARAP and ACRS schemes are still principally in Pakistan, but we are grateful to the third countries concerned for that. By moving through the existing families and getting them into permanent accommodation, it is going to be a great deal easier to get those schemes up and running properly again.

House adjourned at 8.09 pm.