Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Work Rights Centre for its briefing and support, and for all its efforts to protect working people from exploitation. I am also grateful to the Kenyan Nurses and Midwives Association UK, the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project, the Cavendish Coalition, and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation for their briefing.

Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that my remarks tonight will be heavily critical of the Government so, before I embark on them—and as I may not have another chance before change comes at the next election —I put on record my personal respect for the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, and my thanks to him for his rapid and humane responses to the immigration issues I have frequently raised with him.

This regret Motion concerns the Government’s Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules on 19 February, which came into effect on 11 March. The Statement implements part of the announcements made by the Home Secretary on 4 December 2023. This includes preventing overseas care workers from bringing their dependants to the UK, and a requirement that care providers in England that wish to sponsor migrant workers are registered with the Care Quality Commission. Regrettably, these changes will do little to combat exploitation in the care sector. Arguably, they will encourage and entrench it.

Before I go into further detail on this point, I express particular regret at the notion that carers arriving in the UK will no longer be able to bring their children with them. This troubles me deeply. We are asking care workers to care for our loved ones, but we are denying them the right to do the same in respect of their own children and partners. The Government have stated that they do not expect a significant reduction in the demand for care roles because of this change. Given the Government’s failure to provide an impact assessment to accompany these changes, a fact highlighted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, neither we nor the Government can know this. Only time will tell, but I will certainly be surprised if the changes do not lead to a fall in the experience and quality of care workers who wish to come to the United Kingdom.

This concern appears validated by the work of two organisations, the Women’s Coalition of Zimbabwe and the Southern Africa Human Rights Defenders Network, which support over 100 women healthcare workers who received their work permits before the changes took place and therefore have a right to have their children join them. However, they are repeatedly being refused visas for their children. The distress and anxiety of leaving a child behind are overwhelming, and many of these women choose to return home rather than continue to be parted from their children. One of these women describes the pain of separation from her teenage son as follows:

“The separation has strained the emotional bond between us. I am not in his life during this critical teenage stage. It’s devastating not to be in the daily life of your child. It is having a negative impact on his future. In truth I am now a depressed caregiver. This in turn affects my work as well. A happy carer makes happy clients”.


These women are exceptional people. Some are graduates and university lecturers, and many have medical qualifications —they are nurses, midwives and senior nurses. They have skills and experience that our country will not benefit from if we enforce the separation of care workers from their children and partners.

However, regardless of whether the number of care workers or the level of their experience falls or stays the same, we should ask ourselves whether this change is morally right. What sort of country are we if we exploit the contribution that care workers make to the well-being of our communities but implement rules that separate them from their communities and their children, across continents and against their will? We need to think carefully about this issue and how we ourselves would feel were such a situation to affect us and our families.

Separating parents from their children is terrible in itself, but there are other consequences that the ban on dependants is likely to have. The Work Rights Centre points out that the ban, which includes a ban on partners, is likely to do two things: first, to force carers into acquiescent exploitative working conditions and, secondly, to make it more likely that carers will be forced into destitution. This is because the income of partners is one of the only lifelines that migrant care workers have to support themselves when exiting an exploitative workplace. It is also often a vital source of income, given the cost of living pressures in the UK.

Turning to the first issue, migrant care workers are vulnerable because their visas rely on employer sponsorship. The latest intelligence report from the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the government agency tasked with tackling exploitation, noted that the most common vulnerability among potential victims of forced and compulsory labour in the UK was the potential victim being tied into a visa sponsorship arrangement with an employer. The report states:

“This on occasions led to workers being forced to work for the employer even if the conditions were unacceptable and the employer using the threat of cancelling the sponsorship if the worker complained”.


If sponsorship is revoked, workers have only 60 days to find another registered sponsor before becoming undocumented. Two months’ time is simply not enough time; not only do workers have to find a new employer who has a sponsor licence in that period but they also have to secure confirmation of a job offer and they need to submit new visa applications for themselves and any family members. To make matters more difficult, there is no central job search portal to match migrant workers in this situation with legitimate employers who have a sponsor licence.

With regard to the second issue, migrant care workers and their partners arriving in the UK depend on the money that they are able to earn while working in the sector; they do not have recourse to public funds and, in social care, they are paid at notoriously low rates. Many migrant workers opt for the additional 20 hours a week that is permitted under the health and care work visa in order to supplement their income, and many often need their partner’s income to meet the cost of living. A central concern here is that, without addressing the vulnerability that underlies work sponsorship or tackling the issues of low pay in the sector, banning migrant care workers from bringing their partners to the UK will do little but increase cost of living pressures and financially disincentivise people from reporting exploitation. That is before we consider whether it is right that those emigrating to the UK to work in our social care sector and make a valuable contribution to our society should be denied the ability to do so with their loved ones by their side.

I come now to the new CQC registration requirement, designed to combat the increasing and disturbing evidence of exploitation of sponsored workers in the care sector. Regrettably, the evidence suggests that these changes are unlikely to achieve this important objective. There have been recent media reports concerning sponsor licences being issued by the Home Office to companies purporting to provide care but with a very limited corporate history or track record of actually doing so. Some of these companies were successfully registered with the CQC before being given sponsor licences, although they had never been subject to CQC inspection. This has resulted in sponsored workers arriving in the UK to find that there is no work and being forced into precarious situations by rogue actors to whom they are often indebted.

These revelations suggest that merely being registered with the CQC is not a sufficient measure to prevent exploitation. Stakeholders have identified a number of loopholes—for example, that care providers can register with the CQC but then make this registration dormant. The provider is not then subject to inspection or other regulation by the CQC, and its dormant status is not listed on the CQC’s website. Stakeholders have expressed concerns that these dormant providers are obtaining sponsor licences.

These loopholes give rise to a number of questions, which I hope the Minister can answer this evening. First, why do the Government not impose a requirement that care providers wishing to sponsor migrant workers should either have been subject to inspection in the recent past or must be inspected before a licence to sponsor is issued? Secondly, have the Government considered imposing a minimum inspection rating as a requirement before care providers are eligible to sponsor? Thirdly, what measures do the Government intend to put in place to assess the impact of these changes so that the Home Office can properly assess whether they are delivering on the objective of ending care worker exploitation?

The truth is that this measure, while it has the veneer of action against exploitation, is without any real teeth to ensure that that exploitation is actually stamped out. The CQC has not been provided with new powers to investigate labour exploitation within the care workforce. Indeed, that is not its responsibility. The CQC is clear that its focus is on the quality of care that is delivered, not on labour exploitation. The CQC obviously has a vital role to play in regulating the social care sector in England, but the Home Office cannot abdicate its responsibility to properly audit employers before and after sponsor licences are given out.

On this note, the report of the former Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration into the immigration system and its role in the care sector is deeply concerning. It highlighted, among other things, the inappropriateness of the sponsor licensing regime for the sector and the mismatch between the Home Office’s meagre complement of compliance officers and the ever-expanding register of licensed sponsors. Senior Home Office staff and managers told the inspector’s team that Home Office guidance is not sufficiently stringent to enable refusals of sponsor licence applications, even where significant concerns exist.

In light of these findings, will the Minister outline what improvements have been made to empower sponsor compliance case workers to refuse the licence applications of abusive employers at the earliest possible stage? If the department cannot instigate a greater number of sponsor inspections, how will it change guidance so that it does not remain flexible and enabling for exploitative sponsors? How is the Home Office protecting migrant workers who, as a result of enforcement action against sponsors, are left destitute and indebted? These are key questions, the answers to which are extremely unclear.

I close by paying heartfelt tribute to all those who come to this country to work in our health and care sectors in difficult circumstances and often on low pay. They make an immeasurable contribution to our country and the well-being of our communities. I hope, therefore, that the Government will reconsider their approach so that we can ensure that they are all protected from exploitation, are able to have a decent standard of living and are afforded the rights to family life that we would expect for ourselves. I beg to move.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Oates has done us all a favour by ensuring that we are able to have this debate today—a debate which, as he has pointed out to us, involves some of the most vulnerable people coming to this country in order to fill a need that we have. It is that need that has brought me here to make a contribution today.

The debate is particularly timely, given that we had the Government earlier today making a Statement in which they seemed incredibly pleased with themselves because there had been a reduction of over 20% in the number of health and social care visas that were issued during the first three months of the year. That reduction with which the Government are so inordinately pleased is an area of significant concern for those of us who worry about the provision of health and social care services.

There are three possible hypotheses for why we saw that reduction. The first is that the need for health and social care workers was only temporary—that we have now filled all the jobs and therefore no longer need those migrant workers. That seems quite a stretch to me. The second is that the reduction represents the fact that some of the fraud and abuse in the system has been squeezed out—those visas were not actually necessary, so now the new processes have squeezed them out. I am sure that that is what the Government hope is happening. The third is that there continue actually to be significant shortages but somehow we have managed to contrive through these changes to change the system such that we are putting people off, for the very good reasons that my noble friend described —for example, there are people who simply will not come now, even though we desperately need them, because they cannot bring their family members with them.

If that latter scenario is true then we are storing up trouble. We can imagine that we will be back here in six months’ time, having to make changes again because our health and social care system is crying out for those workers. That kind of yo-yo effect does a disservice both to the health and social care system and to our reputation. We are perhaps a little imperial in thinking that people out there think of the UK as the only option; they have a lot of options. As long as the UK presents a good option, people from countries will come here. However, if we are yo-yoing—saying that we want them today but not tomorrow, and making it easy today but difficult tomorrow—then people will explore other options. When we issue the call for help because we need it, fewer people will answer. From a health and social care point of view, this is extremely concerning.

I would be interested to hear from the Minister what mix of those scenarios he thinks is correct: that we have put people off who we actually need; that we do not need them any more; or that there was just a lot of fraud in the system, and we have now squeezed that out and therefore everything is fine and at a steady state.

Immigration Update

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I cannot resist a buy one, get one free offer, so I want to come back in on the health and social care workforce, as we have this opportunity, and pick up one of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made around transparency and the impact of the Government’s policies on the workforce. It may be that this is one of those happy occasions where the Government can eat their cake and have it, by both reducing immigration and filling the gaps in the social care workforce, but it may also be that the two are in tension. It is really important and I hope the Minister will at least commit to transparency around that, because I do think the public are grown-up enough to have a conversation around this. They do not just need to hear from the Government that it is all fine on both counts if it is not. So I hope we will get the data that we need to understand and make a grown-up choice. If there is a trade-off between reducing immigration and filling the social care workforce, we should have a public discussion about that.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I completely agree with the noble Lord; of course we should. We have to monitor those statistics to make sure that the sector has what it needs, but also that the system suits the domestic issues that we have been discussing as well.

Care Worker Visa Regime

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The Home Office seemed to bear the brunt of the noble Baroness’s accusations, but this was a cross-government exercise, involving the Department of Health, the Treasury, No. 10, the Cabinet Office and other departments. The fact is that the most recent published statistics, relating to the year ending December 2023, show that we have issued more than 146,000 health and care worker visas. To suggest that we are not supporting the sector would be inaccurate—we are. That includes things such as how to register good applications, explaining the rules around genuine vacancies and addressing the mismatch between the actual job and salary, not things such as anticipated demand. There is a lot of work going on.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, there are accounts of care workers coming to the UK being exploited, as either the jobs do not exist as advertised or they find themselves in hock to middlemen. Does the Minister agree that people who come here and apply for these visas in good faith should be treated with compassion? Can he explain how many people the Home Office has employed to help those people by going after fraudulent sponsors and exploitative agents?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord is right; there has been some abuse of the system, which is readily acknowledged by the sector itself. I noticed that the Skills for Care website points out that this system has been open to abuse in the past, and it provides some helpful links to some of the stories about modern slavery. Of course, the Government will not tolerate illegal activity in the labour market in general. Any accusations of illegal employment practices will be thoroughly investigated, and we strongly condemn offering health and care worker visa-holders employment under false pretences, which partly motivates these changes.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2024

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, this draft order, which was laid before Parliament on 27 November last year, proposes amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to control 15 substances as class A drugs, four substances as class B drugs and one substance as a class C drug. To achieve this, it proposes amendments to Schedule 2 to that Act, which sets out what drugs are controlled and their classification.

Fifteen synthetic opioids, including 14 nitazenes, will be controlled as class A drugs under the 1971 Act. This follows recommendations from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in its report of 18 July 2022 and addenda of 19 December 2022 and 6 October 2023. The Government commissioned the ACMD for its advice following international control of three of the synthetic opioids—at this point, I beg noble Lords’ indulgence because pronouncing some of these names is not easy; they are isotonitazene, metonitazene and brorphine—under Schedule 1 to the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, to which the UK is a signatory.

In addition to reviewing these substances, the ACMD considered the harms of other similar synthetic opioids and concluded that they pose serious acute health risks, reinforced by reports of their involvement in a number of drug-related deaths and near-fatal overdoses. The ACMD determined that their potency and availability present a significant potential threat to public health and therefore recommended the highest level of control as class A drugs under the 1971 Act. This is for all 15 synthetic opioids, including the three controlled internationally.

Additionally, three stimulants—diphenidine, ephenidine and methoxyphenidine—will be controlled as class B drugs under the 1971 Act by this order. This follows international control of diphenidine under Schedule 2 to the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971 in April 2021, after which the Government commissioned the ACMD to review its harms. In its report of 25 May 2023, the ACMD noted the involvement of these substances in a number of drug-related deaths worldwide and recommended that they be controlled as class B drugs under the 1971 Act. This is in line with similar dissociative class B drugs, such as ketamine.

Also to be controlled as a class B drug is Cumyl-PeGaClone, a synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist—SCRA—which, similarly to diphenidine, was added to Schedule 2 to the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971 in April 2021. Many SCRAs are currently controlled as class B drugs under a generic definition in the 1971 Act. However, owing to its structure, Cumyl-PeGaClone falls outside the generic definition. The ACMD report of 25 May 2023 recommended that the Government consult relevant stakeholders on modification to the definition, which the Government have agreed to do. In the meantime, to address the harm it poses and meet our international obligations more quickly, the Government have opted to control Cumyl-PeGaClone individually as a class B drug, in line with other SCRAs. We will consult on modifications to the generic definition in due course.

Finally, remimazolam, a benzodiazepine, will be controlled as a class C drug under the 1971 Act. Remimazolam is the active ingredient in a product given marketing authorisation, otherwise known as a medicines licence, by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in 2021. The ACMD recommended in December 2022 that it should be controlled as a class C drug as its potential harms are commensurate with other benzodiazepine drugs already controlled under class C.

I am grateful to the ACMD for the comprehensive reports it has produced. Those reports have been the foundation of this legislation. According to the ACMD’s advice, all the substances are psychoactive and therefore potentially subject to the offences under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. The 2016 Act contains offences for the production, supply, possession with intent to supply, import or export of a psychoactive substance where a person knows, or is reckless as to whether, it will be consumed for its psychoactive effects. It does not, however, contain an offence for the simple possession of a psychoactive substance, other than in a custodial setting. Medicinal products are exempt from the provisions of the 2016 Act, and medicines based on remimazolam are therefore currently exempt.

The control of these substances under the 1971 Act would make it an offence to possess them and impose higher penalties and enforcement provisions for supply and production offences. Those found in unlawful possession of a class A drug could face up to seven years in prison, an unlimited fine or both. Meanwhile, those who supply or produce a class A drug could face up to life imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both.

One of the substances, remimazolam, has a known medicinal value in the UK as it has been granted a marketing authorisation. To enable its use in healthcare, remimazolam will be placed in part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 by a statutory instrument made under the negative procedure. It is the Government’s intention that it will come into force on the same date as this affirmative order. The other 19 substances will be placed in Schedule 1 to the 2001 regulations by that same negative statutory instrument. This is because they have no known medical or therapeutic value in the UK and will mean that they can ordinarily be accessed only under a Home Office-controlled drug licence. Again, this follows ACMD advice. Cumyl-PeGaClone will also be placed in Schedule 1, in line with other SCRAs already controlled under the 1971 Act and 2001 regulations.

These substances, excluding remimazolam, will therefore be added to part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) (England, Wales and Scotland) Order 2015. Controlled drugs are designated where the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is in the public interest for production, supply and possession of that drug to be wholly unlawful or unlawful except for research or other special purposes, or for medicinal use of the drug to be unlawful except under licence.

Drug misuse ruins lives and adversely affects society as a whole. The Government have a responsibility to protect the public, their safety and their health, and that is why we are proposing this action. As I have set out, these substances cause or have the potential to cause significant harm to both the individual who uses them and the communities in which they live, and must be subject to stricter controls. I commend this order to the Committee.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, in speaking for these Benches I would ordinarily speak from a health perspective. From our point of view, a lot of the drug abuse issues fall within that category. We are obviously dealing with a Home Office statutory instrument today, but I hope that the Minister will indulge me if I put some questions that come from that angle of considering the impact on individuals of the drugs we are due to control.

The first is around how we will monitor, in particular, the prevalence of the synthetic opioids that are to be classified by the instrument we are considering. I think we have all looked in horror at the situation in the United States, where the firewall that exists between heroin and other forms of drugs has broken down, in a sense, through the distribution of synthetic opioids to a much broader demographic who, it seems, feels more comfortable taking them than would feel comfortable taking heroin. But the medical harm is just as severe—in some cases, more severe—so I will be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to monitor the prevalence and usage, particularly across different demographics, of these synthetic opioids, as well as prohibiting them, which is right. It is correct that we are following the advice of the advisory council here, but also really important that we understand the way in which these synthetic opioids are being consumed within the community.

The second issue I want to raise follows on from that, which is to consider how treatment services will deal with people who present because they have an addiction to the drugs we are considering. The numbers are quite stark: in 2021-22, just over 289,000 people presented for treatment services. Nearly half of them presented for opiate addictions and over 70% had mental health problems. It is critical to understand, as we broaden the net on the drugs that we bring into scope, how we will be able to respond to the people who come to the attention of the authorities because they are using these opiates—and get them off those. Just as important as any attempt to ensure that they are prosecuted is to get them out of that drug dependency and back into a normal state. Again, I want to understand what consideration has been given to how treatment services will need to be adapted to cover this broader range of synthetic opiates that we are bringing into scope.

Certificate of Sponsorship: Foreign Health and Care Workers

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I reassure the noble Baroness that migrant workers are able to seek alternative employment in the event that their initial placement is unsatisfactory for the reasons that she outlines, provided that they have a job offer from a Home Office-approved sponsor—which of course stands to reason. They can make a new application for a further visa in those circumstances.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be very helpful to have a long-term national social care workforce plan, so that we can compare the assessed need for care workers from overseas with the number of certificates of sponsorship being issued?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I said, the Home Office works closely with the Department of Health and Social Care in relation to the requirement for those working in the health and social care sectors—and there is a lot in what the noble Lord says.

Healthcare: Controlled Drugs

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, for pressing this issue for some time now, not just in this debate but in previous Questions, because it is frustrating when a policy decision has been taken that will bring benefits to people but its implementation is held up for months or even years for want of a technical change to regulation. It seems entirely misplaced that we have an important policy decision yet, as the noble Lord described very accurately, something quite trivial—drafting an instrument and getting it before us—is holding up that change.

It might be helpful to put this change into the wider health context to understand the weight of that frustration and why it is ringing alarm bells. This specific change to prescribing paramedics is in a context of changes to prescribing rules more generally. There is a recognition among policymakers of all parties and none, and among the health and care professional community, that there is a need for innovation in working practices, especially those practices around prescribing. That is essential if we are to meet the demand for health services, even if we keep putting more resources in. Resources on their own will not provide the answer; it is the kind of innovation where we use a broader group of healthcare and allied professionals to deliver services that will enable us to meet that growing demand. Prescribing is one of the key areas where innovation is happening and cost-benefit analyses are being constructed for potential changes to the prescribing model.

On the benefits side, these accrue to individual patients, who can have easier access to the drugs they need. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, elegantly set out the kind of situations in which an individual patient would certainly benefit from the change being considered—the paramedic being able to prescribe controlled drugs. However, we all will indirectly benefit if healthcare professionals can work in the most efficient way and professional A does not have to ask professional B to take time out to prescribe the drug that professional A could have prescribed themselves. The whole system benefits with that increased efficiency, as well as the individual who is immediately at risk.

There are of course some potential risks to individuals and society from any of these changes. Again, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, set out for us the kind of problems that can occur if drugs are prescribed inappropriately. We need to bear that in mind and that is why, with any of these changes, the analysis should look at those risks and the things that need to be put in place to manage and mitigate them. That is precisely what has happened here, with the report we had as far back as 2019 from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and other work that has taken place. People have looked at the benefits and risks of the change and concluded that the benefits significantly outweigh the risks, and therefore that we should proceed. That process has happened as it should, by looking at things within the full context. Now all we need is that enabling regulation.

I hope the Minister is going to explain to us today, first, why it has taken so long and why we are forced, in a sense, to bring him here to answer rather than it having just appeared on the Order Paper at an earlier date; and, secondly, whether he can point to a resolution in the near future. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, used the word “forthwith”, which was a novel take on this. I have heard that things will happen in due course or shortly. These are all terms of art, rather than precise dates, in government-speak. Forthwith is one that I like, as it conveys even more of a sense of urgency, but the noble Lord was right that better than any of these formulations would be a date. Having “12 October” is better than “shortly” or “soon” or any such formulation. I hope the Minister will be able to offer us a date.

I would also like to raise with the Minister a specific question, which I hope he can touch on in his remarks. Have the Government given any consideration to the impact on healthcare professionals of making nitrous oxide a class C controlled substance, which the Government are doing through a statutory instrument that I think will come before us next Tuesday? Again, it is interesting to note that the Government managed to produce that instrument in double-quick time, even though it goes against the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, while here we have one which is aligned with that council’s advice but has taken much longer. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, may have put his finger on it when he said that if this regulation was owned by DHSC it would have proceeded much faster, because if the change in regulating controlled substances is one the Home Office wants for its own policy agenda, it seems to be able to do that much more quickly than if it is being asked to assist the Department of Health. That is a shame, in what is supposed to be an era of joined- up government.

I have looked at the Explanatory Memorandum for the instrument that will be debated next week. It says that the impact for the public sector of this classification relates only to law enforcement and criminal justice, with no effect on anyone else. I hope that is true and that the Government have done all the work needed to ensure that healthcare professionals and those in allied professions who use nitrous oxide quite widely will not experience any change to their practices, or their ability to use nitrous oxide, post the reclassification. However, the fact that we are debating this today around other class C controlled substances, such as diazepam, suggests to me that there is some complexity. When I read some of the background notes, I understood that there are NICE guidelines and specific exemptions, so it is a very complex world where health service regulation and Home Office regulation come together.

As I say, I hope that the Home Office has done its homework and that when we classify nitrous oxide as a class C controlled substance, the Minister will be able to assure us that no health professional or allied professional needs to worry about that and that there will be no negative implications. If not, and if changes will be required pursuant to that reclassification, I hope he can indicate that those are in hand and nitrous oxide will not suddenly fall into this area, with some professionals being unable to prescribe it as and when they need to, as with the other substances we are talking about. I hope the Minister will have answers to this, as well as that crucial answer of a date when the changes that were already agreed so long ago might come into force.

Corruption

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am unable to answer that question. I will have to write to my noble friend.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

Further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, a key element in fighting corruption is transparency around offshore companies which own property in the UK. Could the Minister supply to the House two figures? What is the number of offshore companies which own property in the UK, and what is the number of those which have failed to register their ownership details with Companies House, as they should have done by the end of January 2023?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Again, I am afraid I am going to have to write on this.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood]

My Lords, I should like to address a few remarks to my noble friend Lord McNally about the general scheme behind the provisions in the Bill on which he has to some extent helpfully elaborated already. In so doing, I shall go on from where the noble Lord, Lord Soley, left off when talking about changes in the digital world. At the start I declare an interest as chairman of the Cumbrian Newspaper Group, but I am not going to talk about any of those interests at all. However, noble Lords may know that I am also chairman of the Communications Committee of this House. I do not want to breach any confidence, but at one o’clock in the morning this coming Wednesday, the committee will publish a report on digital convergence. A substantial part of that report deals with issues around the topic we are discussing today.

I think I am allowed to say in public that one of the things the committee was very interested in is the phenomenon known as television-like material as defined in the European Union audiovisual media services directive. This is material which can be viewed through an internet protocol television set but it is not broadcast and it is not a website. Your Lordships will be aware of this service because my noble friend Lord Dobbs has just had a great hit on Netflix, which is an example of one of these businesses. It is a fast-growing and significant part of the media landscape. In the committee’s view, because of the way that regulation is being proposed for broadcasting, the press and websites, TV-like material falls completely outwith the various definitions and so is not going to be caught. The committee does not think that that is the right way to proceed.

I turn first to the specific provisions of the Crime and Courts Bill and the amendments we are discussing. In addition, looking at the structure of the draft royal charter, it seems that embracing TV-like material of the kind I have described is only going to be possible, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, if the entrenched law can be amended. Is it wise to start off with a big lacuna in the scheme; that is, before the draft charter has even got on to the statute book?

I am not here to make any further point than to draw the attention of the House to what the committee considers to be a potential problem with the overall scheme of regulation in this area. If the provisions as currently drafted go forward, they will leave a hole through which people may be able to drive and coach and six.

[Lord Allan of Hallam]

My Lords, I want to make some similar points to those just made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and in doing so I should like to declare an interest. I work for Facebook, which is a website operator. The points around definition have been made effectively in the scope of the amendments and in the comments of my noble friend Lord Lucas. They exemplify how hard it is to define anything in this area. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and his committee have found in trying to draw out these definitions, the more one goes into it, the more one finds that in many cases it is an imprecise science. It is hard to define precisely what it is one intends to regulate and does not intend to regulate.

The comments of my noble friend Lord McNally were extremely helpful in clarifying the Government’s intention not to include a wide range of services or individual activities within scope and I picked up on two particular phrases that he used. The first was “press-like” and the clear intention to regulate such services, and the second was “future-proof”, in that these provisions should be future-proofed. Subsection (7) of the proposed new clause set out in Amendment 19 refers to the concept of “News-related material”, but nowhere does it talk about the format of that material. Referring to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, it seems on first reading that “TV-like” and “radio-like” services would be covered. The new schedule set out in Amendment 131 provides an exemption for those who are licensed under the Broadcasting Acts, but again what we see increasingly is the ability to launch services over the internet that are TV-like and radio-like, but where no licence is required. If the legislation is to be future-proofed, it is important to understand whether it is the Government’s intention to restrict this to services that we would regard as being press-like today—most people in common parlance would understand that as being primarily the printed word—or if in the future someone launches a video or audio channel that consists primarily of news-related material—the new online TV-type and radio-type services—it is intended that it should be included in the scheme we are debating today. This is an important clarification for the increasing number of businesses and individuals who would like to move into this field of activity and for the increasing number of consumers who would like to receive their news through these new channels rather than the traditional ones.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for participating in this debate, which has echoed a number of occasions on which we have been able to touch on these topics in the context of several Bills over recent months. We have not always stood opposite the noble Lord, Lord McNally, although he has been quite strong, particularly as we saw his cherished Defamation Bill begin to slip away from him. However, I think I see it looming in the background, and the noble Lord has cheered up again, which is nice. We also touched on them in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, where we did a great deal of work with the excellent amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. They were not moved, but they certainly raised the issues that we are considering today. Of course, we now have the Crime and Courts Bill before us, so there is endless flexibility, and long may that last. I should like particularly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who has been tireless in tabling amendments that give effect to the detail of the Leveson recommendations and reinforce the fact that the royal charter and its statutory underpinning have been agreed by all three parties in an historic agreement.

We need to recognise that the debate on Leveson has moved on. The most important thing now is to be clear on what the government amendments intend to do and avoid any unnecessary scaremongering. I shall focus on a number of the amendments before us and, like the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, I should like the Minister to comment on how he intends to respond to them.

My first strand is on exemplary damages, but I have been sufficiently warned off by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, even to go down this route. However, there are a couple of points that I would like the Minister to respond to. I understand that a considerable amount of time was spent in the all-party talks on the question of what happens to damages when it transpires that the facts of a case have changed in that the court has facts which were not available to the regulator. Can the Minister help us on this issue as it has happened in recent months? Can he confirm that this is a matter which will be returned to?

Amendment 11C clarifies that the common law gateway for exemplary damages will not apply. Can the Minister confirm that the “for profit” test is not required if the “outrageous” test is met? Amendment 11D makes it clear that a relevant publisher will be vicariously liable for wrongdoing by an employee or a person contracted to work for a publisher which results in liability for exemplary damages in accordance with the ordinary common law tests. Can the Minister confirm that further work will be done on this question? It is a key issue that is dealt with succinctly in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. Vicarious liability bears on the morality and culture of the press. It is important that the Government should put on the record today that they agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and that they intend to return to this issue in the Commons to the extent that this may be required. The recent history, after all, shows that it matters. We do not want a situation where publishers literally have a get-out-of-jail-free card, and it would be strange if the media were to be in a privileged position in relation to vicarious liability compared with all other interests in this country. Lastly in this group, Amendment 13A is intended to reassure small publishers that, in deciding the amount of exemplary damages, the court will have regard to the means of the defendant. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will return to this issue when it is considered again in the Commons?

The second group of amendments that I would like to look at contains those amendments that are intended to make it clear that to benefit from cost protection the publisher would have to participate in the self-regulator’s arbitral scheme. With regard to Amendment 17E, the Government’s intention is that in order to benefit from cost protection the publisher would not only have to be a member of an approved regulator but would also have to participate in the scheme. There are those who have argued differently. Surely it makes no sense to provide benefits to publishers simply on the basis that they recognise that an arbitration scheme exists. The point here should be that it is the active participation by publishers in the scheme that entitles them to get cost benefits. In any case, as Lord Justice Leveson pointed out, an incentive to join an arbitration scheme is good for all publishers and will help them and the claimants. Can the Minister confirm that this is his understanding of the situation and that the Government stand ready to confirm this position in the other place?

Amendment 17J asks for clarification, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, about the commencement of Sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act 2012, which was taken through the House by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, so he should know his stuff on this. I should be grateful for some confirmation about the issues that arise from that question. Amendment 19B would require that the recognition panel, which approves the self-regulator, is subject to freedom of information. This is an important matter which surely should be brought forward at this stage. After all, it is something that can be dealt with by secondary legislation. No one would surely expect that the recognition body wishes the power to act in secret. This really is important, so will the Minister give us an assurance that the relevant statutory instrument will be brought forward in good time before the regulator starts its work? Amendment 131A concerns relevant publishers which hold broadcasting licences. The drafting here is a little opaque. We seek an assurance from the Minister that a person who holds a broadcasting licence is excluded only in so far as they publish news-related material in the course of their broadcasting activities. Can the Minister confirm that this is not intended to cover the whole publishing activity of such licence-holders but only their broadcasting activity?

My Amendment 131F, which was put down earlier and is part of this group, has, I think, been overtaken by events. I refer to the extensive introduction which the Minister gave to Amendment 131BA, which provides for:

“A person who publishes a small-scale blog”.

I think it is meant to be a peg to allow for further discussion and debate for this event to happen in the House of Commons. On the basis of that understanding, for which I am grateful to the Minister, I will not press that amendment when the time comes.

Finally, there has been some talk about dates and the time that all this comes into effect. I should be grateful if the Minister could be very clear about what he understands the implementation date to be.