Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025

Lord Winston Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord accept that proper animal research goes on well beyond laboratories, in fields and many other places? He underestimates the issue in considering laboratories; it is far wider than that.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord, but I think I will stick to my line of argument. I do not think we discussed laboratories. Hansard shows that we did not.

It is important to remember that the demonstrator outside the factory or laboratory is already covered by the Act because he is obstructing the road. He is probably already covered by the Public Order Act 1986, but he is certainly covered by the 2023 Act. Road transport infrastructure is right at the top of the list of “key national infrastructure”. This statutory instrument will add the laboratory or the factory itself, not access to it, and deem it national infrastructure that is key to the nation. That is quite a stretch. If the pharmaceutical industry is key national infrastructure, what about food production or distribution, the NHS or radio and television transmitters? All three cases seem more plausible than a life sciences factory or laboratory.

I agree with the noble Baroness that this statutory instrument would set a dangerous precedent. It is in the spirit of Igor Judge, whom we miss so much, that I register my unease. Unlike Igor, I cannot add an apposite reference to Thomas Cromwell, but he always warned that the temptation for the Executive is always to push the legislative boundaries. I have worked in the Executive; I know that he was right. This instrument pushes the boundaries too far, and we should push back.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as having been in this House a little longer than the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I have great respect for many of the things that she has said, and we have worked together on other Bills. Over 50 years, I have continued to do animal research and held a licence under the Home Office. My laboratory, where I still have some work going on, uses animals and will have to continue to do so for the research it is doing. We have to consider that.

It is important that animal research is seen as a respectable endeavour and is properly policed, which, on the whole, the Home Office does exceptionally well. I am grateful to the Minister, who has given a very good speech explaining how this has been done in this House and that the Government need to try to reduce the number of animals in research, as we are doing and with which I totally agree.

With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I have some problem with his comment, because it would not protect me. I have had, in the years I have been doing research, until quite recently, repeated death threats. I have had Special Branch at my house, with my 94-year-old mother hiding in the kitchen because we thought there was a bomb on the doorstep. We have had a whole range of issues. My friends who worked in the same laboratories have had fires in their houses. We have to understand that this is a very real threat to research. Some people give up research because they get so concerned, not necessarily about the value of the research they are doing but about the reputational risk they run due to the understanding of the work they are doing. We need to make it much clearer why such work is necessary. I suggest to the noble Baroness, with respect, that she is not entirely correct in the reason she gives for it being given up.

There are numerous examples I might suggest to some noble Lords in the Chamber. I have counted that, in the House of Lords and the House of Commons, over my time, there must have been at least 100 families who have benefited from the technique of in vitro fertilisation. That was made possible only by experimenting on animals, to make sure that we were not producing embryos in the human that would be abnormal, distorted or deformed, or that would die after birth or later on. That is one example. Equally, in perinatology, there has been clear evidence that animal research was definitely necessary for understanding the breathing of an animal to learn how we can actually prevent damage to infants. Indeed, years ago, I did some of that research, in a very small way, with mice, along with a man called Jonathan Wigglesworth, who was a very famous scientist —much more famous and a much better scientist than I was. There are numerous examples.

The idea that we can use tissues or embryoids is far from the mark. One of the issues is that, in culture, in any kind of artificial situation which is not an intact animal, there are changes to the cells that we cannot control. That is a really important issue in science, and we have to understand that that is a critical question. It is true, too, in DNA technology—we still sometimes have to have the testing of that. Think of the number of people in this House who have had treatments for cancer that used animal research. Of course it needs to be reduced, but we must understand that the cells we are modifying and then putting back into a man or a woman still need extremal validation.

To some extent, the noble Baroness is, with respect, being a little inconsistent. Some three years ago, she and I worked on the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, which looked at the risks of modifying animals and modifying plants. There was a huge amount of misinformation around that, but eventually it did go through. I never saw then the noble Baroness make the points she now makes about animal research. The moral issues of animal research that she is talking about now certainly did not come up in that Bill. It was much more about making sure that, if we did produce animals in this way, we would not produce abnormal animals that would be poisonous or dangerous or deformed in some way. That is something that we have to consider. This is certainly an issue where she has been, in a sense, on the other side.

That Bill went to Third Reading and got Royal Assent without anybody really complaining about it. If the noble Baroness has complained about it, I certainly have not heard about it. Of course, at this very moment, the Government are considering, as they should, whether it should be implemented. If we do try to modify and improve animal farming and so on in the way that has been proposed, that would affect animal breeding. It is a Bill that I found difficult, but it certainly does not suggest we should not use animals carefully and with great moral care. Therefore, I have to say to the noble Baroness that her amendment is, in my view, unquestionably wrong, and I will certainly want to vote against it.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, there is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, expresses lots of practical and ethical opinions that we might agree with, but that does not change the fact that this statutory instrument is an outrageous abuse of secondary legislation powers. As the Minister knows, a fatal amendment in this House almost never succeeds—but if ever a statutory instrument deserved a fatal amendment, this is it. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on bringing it forward. If the Government had any conscience, they would, even at this stage, acknowledge the abuse and withdraw it.

When the Public Order Bill was debated and agreed in both Houses, the meaning of “major infrastructure” was debated, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said. My noble friend Lord Beith, who is in his place, spotted the danger at that time. At Second Reading of that Bill, he said:

“I question the provision of Clause 7(7) which allows the Secretary of State to add to the list of key national infrastructure by statutory instruments. This could create an enormously wide area of scope for the powers in the Bill”.—[Official Report, 1/11/22; col. 152.]


That is exactly what has happened. How right he was to be so concerned. Indeed, in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, raised the same concerns with her Amendment 38. But now, under a different Government, those fears have been exactly realised. Can the Minister say how wide the statutory instrument casts the net? He talked of some 350,000 employees, which suggests an awful lot of sites and facilities.

This statutory instrument, I maintain, is the clearest abuse of legislative powers that I can remember in my 27 years here. If Parliament passed legislation to quell or curtail protests on major roads and railways, that at least is within the legislation, but this Government are now planning to extend this so extensively that pretty much everything can become national infrastructure. This is another effort by Labour to quell, chill and kill protest.

The Minister will know well that the Crime and Policing Bill is in Committee in your Lordships’ House. That too contains clauses that widen the scope of the criminalisation of protest considerably. The noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, said that the provisions of that Bill will be reviewed by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, in a review that the Government commissioned. However, in Committee, my noble friend Lord Marks queried why, having put all that quelling of protest into statute, we would then have a review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. By that time, it will be too late to change it, because it will all be there, and so the review will not count for much. My noble friend Lord Marks fears as I do that, once these draconian laws are on the statute books, they will stay there. If the Government are serious about seeing what the report recommends, they would not rush through this statutory instrument in advance of the report.

When this statutory instrument was debated in Committee in the other place, the Minister’s colleagues were very sceptical about it. Kerry McCarthy, whom the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned, said:

“I do not accept, however, that what we are talking about today constitutes ‘key national infrastructure’. I do not think that the country will grind to a halt if MBR Acres is occasionally obstructed from supplying beagles to laboratories for testing”.


Kerry McCarthy has it right there.

Indeed, there were several Labour Members who were very doubtful about this. John McDonnell said:

“I reiterate the concerns that have been raised across the Committee: this warrants a debate on the Floor of the House. It is very rare that this number of Back Benchers turn up, so there is obviously interest across the House in having it properly debated”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 17/12/25; cols. 7-12.].


But it was not properly debated; that is what we in this House have to do, to make sure that we return it for further consideration.

Justification Decision (Scientific Age Imaging) Regulations 2023

Lord Winston Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I know the convention of the House is that I should say it is a pleasure to follow two such brilliant speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Lister, but it is not actually a pleasure—it is intimidating; one fears the contrast. Mine will be an amateur contribution after those of two professionals.

I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its report, particularly because it draws our attention to the evidence the Home Office gave in answer to its questions. The answers from the Home Office struck me as a little unsatisfactory and, in one or two cases, astonishing. With your Lordships’ permission, I will give just one example, on the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the absence of the impact assessment. Here was the Home Office’s answer:

“The Home Office has not produced”


an impact assessment

“due to the uncertainties regarding wider implementation”

of scientific age assessment

“within the end-to-end age assessment model”.

If you can understand that, you are smarter than me. But it gets better:

“It is the Home Office’s view to wait until we have an appropriate level of detail to better reassure and inform the public of our plans, especially given the controversial nature of the policy. As policy and operational development continues, the Home Office will take a view as to when it is appropriate to produce an impact assessment”.


Well, that is nice of them. If you are buying a house, it is quite a good idea to have the survey done before completion of the deal. If one is buying shares, it is quite nice to see the prospectus for the sale of the shares before one makes the investment. And the purpose of an impact assessment is to accompany the legislative proposal and inform the legislator.

It is, of course, very important that the Home Office should monitor how these age assessments work out, but that is a completely different question from the need to provide an assessment ab initio of what the impact is expected to be. For the Home Office to say that it is better

“to wait until we have an appropriate level of detail to better reassure and inform the public of our plans, especially given the controversial nature of the policy”,

is frankly absurd.

I have four questions for the Minister. The first is really a question from the Children’s Commissioner in the evidence we have seen: can a child truly consent to a procedure if they know they may be punished if they do not consent? The Children's Commissioner thinks not. The young refugee, threatened with X-rays, might be bewildered, traumatised, frightened, and may not understand English; he may not understand the questions put to him or anything of what is going on. The Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee advised in January that

“no automatic assumptions or consequences should result from refusal to consent”.

Why have the Government ignored what the committee said?

My second question is: how safe is the procedure? The committee is clearly uneasy. It says:

“The use of ionising radiation must be limited, with the ultimate aim of eradicating it”.


That is the position of the Government’s official advisers. The Council of Europe says that that the use of radiation for age assessment is

“in conflict with medical ethics and potentially unlawful”.

My third question is: how reliable is the procedure? As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has mentioned, the British Dental Association does not like it at all. It believes that assessment using X-rays is inaccurate and unethical, and, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the BMA and the BASW all share that concern. As the noble Baroness also said, the Government themselves are aware, and admit, that the science is inaccurate. In their evidence to the committee explaining why they are not using the draconian automaticity procedures in Section 58 of this year’s Illegal Migration Act but are instead using the provisions in last year’s Bill, with the negative inference provision, they say that the procedure is not sufficiently accurate to permit using the 2023 Act. If that is so, how can it be accurate enough for using the 2022 Act, with the negative inference result detrimental to the interest of the refugee?

My last question is: who is to be responsible for carrying out this procedure? Last week, there was some alarm among local authorities when the Minister for Immigration seemed to suggest that the responsibility would fall to them. Who is to be in charge and if it is the Department of Health and the NHS, are they relaxed about the extra workload coming their way? An impact assessment might have looked into that.

The Government should shelve the regulations until they can: tell us how they are to work; conduct a proper public consultation; provide a normal impact assessment in advance; and answer our questions. I should have said at the outset that I used to be a trustee of the Refugee Council but I mention that now. Of course, I strongly support the regret amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, in strong support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the others who have already spoken in this debate, I would argue that this is primarily a matter of science. On the idea that this is a scientific assessment, it is not. We are using instruments developed by science but the assessment is certainly not a scientific one. I have six questions for the Minister.

First, with regard to bone age and the assessment, can the Minister give us the range for any particular ages? What assessment has been made of the confidence limits and the error bars in this? Without those statistics, you cannot possibly have such a test. I do not believe that these have been published but perhaps I am wrong and he can tell us otherwise.

Secondly, can the Minister tell us what the preceding situations are with those immigrant children? For example, what diet were they on before they came in? Did they have normal calcium in their diet or were they deficient in it? Did they have other issues which might have changed their bone age? That is quite possible.

Thirdly, what is their hormonal status? As we know, some children have pituitary tumours which will change their bone age and these would not be discovered by an X-ray of the wrist or, necessarily, of the lower part of the skull and the jaw. There would be no reason for that child to have symptoms, so that would have to be dealt with as well. There are many reasons why age changes, not least because of mitochondrial activity. Is the noble Lord aware—he might have realised this—that about a year and a half ago we had a Select Committee inquiry on ageing? The ageing process starts very early in life and among the things we had were the hallmarks of ageing. Horvath’s clock, which includes mitochondrial age, for example, has 353 different points which give rise to ageing, yet we still cannot determine somebody’s age accurately within about five years on any of these bases. Of course, it is better with X-rays but certainly not something which we should really be considering in this situation. The diet of that child is most important.

I also suggest to the noble Lord that we have used an assessment in pregnancy which is now regarded as fallible. For a long time, we looked at bone age of babies in utero; for example, by looking at the length of the femur. We now know that all those publications, which resulted in us again and again delivering babies at a certain time, are totally flawed and those assessments are no longer used. It is a great pity that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who has great experience in this area, is not here but he and I absolutely agree on that. Again, we say that we have to be very much aware of bone assessment.

There are two other issues which have not come up in this debate. I am going to be quick. The risk of ionising age radiation is serious. How do we know that a child might not need another X-ray later on for a medical condition, in which case there will be an accumulative risk, or perhaps has had ionising radiation before getting to the United Kingdom or on their way here? That is one of the issues.

Lastly, the issue of informed consent has not been fully described here and we need to discuss it. The autonomy of the child, or the parent on behalf of the child, is critical here. What does the noble Lord suggest is done if, for example, they X-ray the baby or child’s wrist and find a tumour in the bone? Do they then proceed to undertake some form of medical treatment? Suppose that that tumour is totally benign and could be living there indefinitely, without any harm to the child, but the child then has surgery which would not actually be necessary. That is not just a pretend risk. We really have to consider the risk of scanning people without clear medical evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister has not risen, I first declare my interest as the chair of the General Dental Council. I want to make two very brief points, which I do not think have been addressed by the discussion so far. First, the question has to be answered on who is going to carry this out. Are they going to be registered professionals? I should say, incidentally, that in the definition of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I am on the amateur breadth of this, so I am not speaking as a professional. If they are a dentist, they should be registered by the General Dental Council. If they are a radiographer, they should be registered under the HCPC.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

Radiologists.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

Radiologists should be properly registered. Will that be carried out by people who are professionally registered? If they are professionally registered, are they carrying this out as part of their profession or as an agent of the Home Office? If they are carrying it out on behalf of somebody else, how does that square with their professional obligations and requirements? Again, that has not been clarified. Can the noble Lord clarify that point, and if it is not going to be carried out by a regulated professional, is it legal for it to be carried out by somebody else? It is not legal for somebody to carry out something which purports to be dentistry if they are not a registered dentist, and the same will be true for radiographers. These issues which should be clarified.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I take the noble Lord’s point; obviously, I will take it back to the Home Office and make sure that it is well understood.

On the use of X-rays, I remind the House that the Ministry of Justice has determined the practice is justified under the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004. The Ministry of Justice made this decision to justify the practice independently from the Home Office, as they are functionally separate on the policy of age assessment as required by the 2004 regulations.

Your Lordships will know that X-ray scans are commonly used in the UK for medical purposes by doctors and dentists. Although age assessment is for non-medical purposes, images will be taken by qualified professionals who are trained to minimise exposure to ionising radiation and any other potential risks. We expect all professionals to abide by their own professional guidelines, as well as any set out in Home Office guidance, but medical professionals are required by the relevant legislation for ionising radiation.

The Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee suggests that any risk associated with this low level of exposure to ionising radiation is minimal when compared to the benefits of swifter, more informed age assessment in terms of both safeguarding and well-being.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

The word “benefits” applies to the subject who is being X-rayed, does it not? Can the Minister tell us what the benefits to that subject are because it does not apply otherwise?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am coming on to some more of the noble Lord’s more detailed questions; I will endeavour to answer that question in a second.

The Ministry of Justice has undertaken a detailed consideration process to ensure that the use of X-rays is proportionate and justified. The noble Lord asked how we will ensure that the use of these scientific methods is ethical and not harmful to children. We have a statutory commitment to safeguard the welfare of children. One of the reasons for introducing scientific age assessment is to better protect against adults being treated as children in order to ensure that vulnerable children can swiftly access the support that they need. The use of ionising radiation is, for instance, highly regulated by the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004, which require demonstration that the individual or societal benefits of their use outweigh any health detriments. For the methods that the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee proposes, the ionisation risks are extremely low.

The Home Office will ensure that any methods used comply with all regulatory requirements and standards. AESAC suggests that radiation exposure is minimal when compared to the benefits of a more informed age assessment. For the purposes of the methods that the committee proposes, the ionisation risks are extremely low, as I have said. They are typically less than 0.001 of a millisievert for an extremity X-ray, such as the wrist, or 0.2 of a millisievert for a dental—I will not be able to pronounce this—X-ray. Those radiation risks relate to something like less than two hours on an international flight, I believe.

I turn to the AESAC advice and the automatic assumption. On the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s concern that the application of negative inference is contrary to advice provided by the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee, let me assure the House that this is not the case. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I should also say that the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Patrick Vallance, and the Chief Medical Office, Chris Whitty, have supported this. The scientific advisory committee recommended that no automatic assumption or consequence should result from a refusal to consent. Taking a negative inference does not result in an automatic consequence; rather, the negative inference is taken into account as part of the overall decision.

I forgot to address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, about various protected characteristics: environmental factors, race, diet and so on. We are conscious, of course, that methods to assess age such as bone development are affected by factors such as ethnicity, body mass, sex, puberty and so on. We are seeking scientific advice to explore this issue further and any steps we can take to mitigate these impacts. The Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee’s advice suggests that, although skeletal maturation may differ slightly depending on ethnicity, there is also some evidence to suggest that differences in nutritional status, disease and social status may have more influence on maturation timings. In addition, dental development is less affected by such socio-economic factors; that is one of the reasons why the AESAC recommends using multiple biological areas of interest, which the Home Office is proposing to do.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee for its report because, as I have set out, the science and analysis is being used as per the committee’s recommendations. The Home Office will not use the scientific methods to determine an exact age or age range; rather, it will use the science to establish whether the claimed age of the age-disputed person is possible. It is key that methods used for age assessment have a known margin of error. Combining assessment of dental and skeletal development of multiple body areas is important as it increases the accuracy of the approach. The Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee advocates for a likelihood ratio method, which offers a logical and consistent summary of the evidence and permits greater confidence in the assessment of whether the claimed age is possible. The likelihood ratio is widely recognised as the appropriate way to summarise evidence, and this approach offers the best way forward for the introduction to scientific age assessments to strengthen our system.

The noble Lady Baroness, Lady Lister, asked who we have consulted. The Ministry of Justice consulted all the statutory consultees listed under the regulations, including the UK Health Security Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. The full list can be found in our decision document. In the review of the consultees, the Health and Safety Executive, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Natural Resources Wales and the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) have confirmed that this application falls outside their regulatory interests. However, the UK Health Security Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and the Food Standards Agency advise the following:

“The decision to use X-ray imaging appears well considered and appropriate to minimise any individual’s radiation exposure”.


All exposures to ionising radiation will fall under the remit of the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations, which place many responsibilities on those carrying out exposures. There should be careful consideration to ensure that the contracted parties carrying out the exposures conform to these regulations and that the predicted doses for both dental and wrist X-rays are appropriate estimates.

I have probably spoken for long enough—I have definitely spoken for long enough. I owe the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, an answer to his question about children pretending to be or behaving as adults. I will come back to him on that; I do not have the detail to hand, as your Lordships can imagine. I think I have addressed the majority of the issues that were brought up. As I said earlier, I am grateful for noble Lords’ constructive and helpful suggestions and questions. I trust that noble Lords will now recognise the need for this instrument; I assure them that the Government are fully committed to working towards a better-informed and more consistent age-assessment process. This instrument is essential to that aim; I therefore commend it to the House.

Asylum Seekers: Channel Crossings

Lord Winston Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

They arrive usually on visas, such as student or work visas, or they overstay on other types of visas.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

The Minister used the phrase that their journey was “dangerous, illegal and unnecessary”. I wonder if he would be kind enough to consider retracting the word “unnecessary”, because it suggests some prejudice as to what we do not know about why people are coming in these waters under such danger, and under great hardship.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The journeys are unnecessary, and I stand by that. If they are leaving from France or Belgium, they are in a safe country—a signatory of the refugee convention. They can make their refugee asylum claims in those countries. The journey across the channel is dangerous and illegal and they should not do it; it is unnecessary.

UK: Violence Against Women and Girls

Lord Winston Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, with respect to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, I am not a noble sister, but I hope I can add to this debate as a male.

Let me tell the story of Marie—a completely true story which I heard recently, perhaps a month or two ago. She had visited a famous, large IVF clinic as a private patient to get an MOT to test for fertility. She was offered an AMH, which is a blood test, and a scan. According to the people who manufacture the AMH test, it does not in fact predict your fertility. None the less, this was sold to her, together with the scan. When her results were handed to her after the tests were done, the female doctor said: “You see these results? These are shit. You have no chance of getting pregnant”. This was said to a woman of roughly 40, acutely concerned about her fertility for lots of reasons, as many women are, who suddenly found this violent language in front of her. It is not uncommon; it happens a lot. I have heard so many stories like this one. As a result of my website, trying to sort out the issue of egg freezing, I get letters of this sort once a week and sometimes daily. Marie was then told that, if she paid £20,000 straight away, she could book three cycles of IVF to have her eggs frozen, and that the chances of her getting pregnant would be very high indeed—probably greater than 50%.

It so happens that, as a kind of hobby, I regularly submit a Written Question—about every three years—to find out the results of egg freezing in the United Kingdom compared to those internationally. According to the latest results from the five years up to the pandemic, 75,958 eggs were subjected to thawing after freezing. Of these—I will round up the figures for speed—13,000 thawed, 11,400 were fertilised, 7,257 produced an embryo, 1,695 were considered suitable for an embryo transfer, 288 of the women got pregnant after transfer, 205 gave birth, and 80 pregnancies were lost as a result of miscarriage. In spite of the HFEA saying on its website that the effects are improving, when you look at these figures in detail you see that they are not.

Only last week, on BBC radio, a well-known individual who was a senior member of the HFEA said that the success rate of egg freezing is 18%. It is nothing like that. In fact, according to the figures I have just given the House, less than 0.2% of eggs that are subjected to thawing result in a live birth, and only 1.7% of eggs that are fertilised become a baby. Women do not want miscarriages, and if there is any violence that you can talk about, having a miscarriage is certainly one of them. It is really quite shocking that this goes on and that this kind of information is bandied around in this way. It is not acceptable, and it needs to be done much more carefully by the Government, because the Government are responsible for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. It needs to make certain that the website says what the success rate is. It does not say what the success rate is; it just says it is improving.

Moreover, the website says that egg freezing is completely safe. How can we say that? It has been going for only 20 years, and it will be a long time before these children can be followed up as adults. It probably is safe but we do not know that. The high miscarriage rate is one certain concern that I have. Clinics are telling patients—I hear this again and again—that if you come to the clinic you have a 60% chance of having your eggs frozen, with a successful baby afterwards. This is a scandal, and it needs to be halted and taken under control.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Winston Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th June 2023 Lords Chamber

As I have said, the UK has a proud history of providing protection to those who need it, but we cannot help everyone. I ask the proponents of Amendment 131 whether they would place a limit on the numbers to be admitted through these schemes. Further to this, what would be the cost of providing the necessary accommodation and support services for those admitted to this scheme? The Government have been pressed to publish an impact assessment for the Bill, and we are committed to doing so in due course, but this works both ways. The Committee deserves to be told what the cost of this amendment would be. What discussions have the noble Baroness and the noble Lord had with local authorities and other service providers about the provision of the necessary support services? If there is to be no limit, the costs would mirror this, and the result of Amendment 131 would be tens of thousands more asylum seekers being accommodated in hotels across the country.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

Does the Minister think that the cost should also be measured in terms of the reputation of the United Kingdom, the country as it is and the way it feels about itself? It is not just money.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I clearly recognise the points the noble Lord makes—that it is believed that not providing a visa route of the type described in the amendment will damage our international reputation—but no countries that I am aware of currently have a visa route of the type suggested. I am afraid that this is a consideration to be weighed in the balance. It would seem irresponsible not to consider the potential extreme cost of the proposal.

Public Order Bill

Lord Winston Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that there seems to have been a change in this House. No one really is pushing for Clause 9 just to stay as it was. I very much welcome that. I will speak in support of Amendment 44 from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and say a few words on what I thought was a wonderful speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, on her amendments. I will support those when and if they are called, as well as Amendment 44.

Surely the role of this House must be to help enact laws that are necessary and proportionate, according to evidence. I have not seen the evidence to say that it is necessary to enact this whole area around abortion clinics when, as has been pointed out by other noble Lords, we already have legislation covering many—indeed all—of the activities that we would all find abhorrent. The importance of a review is that we can test whether, for example, the public space protection orders are working. It seemed that they were working when the lady who was silently praying was arrested. Have we looked in detail at what is working and what is not? Why do we need something else when these orders are in place? As a minimum, the House—and the Government—should be reviewing the PSPO regime to see whether it is working as intended. Good evidence makes good law, and the opposite is also unfortunately true.

Clearly, there is an appetite in the other place to “do something”. That is what politicians always call for. Something needs to be done, and they want to do it quickly; there is an appetite to act now. That being so, should Amendment 44 not be adopted, the House would do well to adopt a reasonable model based on a tried and tested approach. For that reason, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I want to make the point that perhaps I am the only Member of this Chamber who has had that evidence. I have had it for years. It started with in vitro fertilisation—which was regarded as abortion then—when my patients were repeatedly harassed and made ill as a result of what was happening to them in the street outside Hammersmith Hospital and in other clinics, not only in mine. There is plenty of evidence to show that women were deeply distressed, and this created a very difficult issue for their care afterwards.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I am sure the noble Lord is absolutely right in what he says; of course women would be distressed by that kind of behaviour. What I am asking is whether it is necessary to take this draconian approach. For me, the real problem with the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, is the word “influencing”. The noble Baroness has said that it has been seen as perfectly okay, but I believe it goes much further than is necessary to achieve the law’s stated aims. I genuinely believe that it has grave implications for freedom of speech in the country; it is a drip-drip approach and a slippery slope to other ways in which freedom of speech will be attacked.

I reiterate what has been said by a number of other noble Lords: the UK Supreme Court ruling on Northern Ireland’s law cannot be interpreted as a judicial mandate to endorse Amendment 45, which is in many ways very different from Northern Ireland’s law; it is much more draconian. The Australian model, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, is reasonable, effective and clear. The Australian courts have interpreted what the communication prohibition means, and the requirement that

“communication must be reasonably likely to cause distress or anxiety”

suggests, I believe, that the law is tailored more properly to its objectives. It avoids overcriminalisation and it is responsive to the distinctions on the types of activities that Clause 9 should capture, as made in Committee by noble Lords on both sides of this debate.

I urge noble Lords to agree to a reasonable approach, the most reasonable of which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. If not, and if others decide that we need to do more, I hope that we will be able to support Amendments 41 to 43, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, ensuring that we protect women without completely disregarding civil liberties.

Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda

Lord Winston Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, the judiciary has come to a considered view not once, not twice, but three times, and none considered the policy unlawful. My noble friend is correct in what he says about the ECHR and its ruling at 10 pm last night. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will reflect on that judgment.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, this disgraceful Statement is made more disgusting by the crocodile tears which are shed by the person who is making the Statement and the pseudo call on a kind of democratic decision. Does the Minister not recall that this is reminiscent of another decision made by the British Government? I speak as a British subject, loyal to the Crown, and as a British Jew. I remember very clearly that boats that went to Palestine in the 1940s were turned back under the most cruel circumstances, with the inevitable death of those migrants who were seen to be illegal by the Government. This is a disgraceful example of continuing policy, and it seems to me that the Front Bench should not be sitting there but should be hanging their heads in shame.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Winston Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment and will speak very briefly, not least because I have the privilege of being one of the Deputy Speakers of this House. I would just remind noble Lords that we are at Report, and at Report we are not meant to give either Second Reading or Committee speeches—it is a discourtesy to the House to be discursive. That is all that needs to be said on that.

Some noble Lords may be familiar with a newspaper that is normally far too left-wing for me, the Daily Telegraph. There is an article in today’s paper by a gentleman called Charles Hymas, which says—and I have no reason to believe it is not true, since I understand that there are fairly close links between the aforementioned organ and the party in government—that there are quite a few quite senior Back-Benchers in another place who are very keen to use this amendment, assuming your Lordships pass it, to enable them to have a proper discussion in another place about this issue and to decide then, as our elected representatives, whether this case has sufficient merit to be put into law and in what manner and form that should happen. I suggest that they are rather better qualified to do that than we are.

Having said that, my Lords, I will support this amendment. I think we should send it back to another place for them to have another look. The other place is also a better place to have what can be an extremely contorted and overimaginative debate about gender and the relative merits of sex and gender.

As others have said, I am not sure that generationally we are the best-equipped assembly to opine on these subjects. That does not mean that we are not able to have a point of view, and I am aware that some noble Lords and noble Baronesses have a very strong point of view. I simply point out that, however strongly they may feel, there are a great many others of a younger generation, and down the other end, who feel differently. I support this amendment, because I think your Lordships should give the other place a chance to decide for itself.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord does not think I am being discourteous to the House by making a short intervention in this important debate. We have to be very careful about legal definitions of sex and gender. Primarily, the definitions are not legal but are in fact biological, as I have said in this Chamber before. That is a problem. That is one of the reasons why I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, just said. For example, we have to understand that there are situations in which there might well be problems with—whatever you call it—misogyny or hate. Take a transgender woman who was originally assigned as a male and still has the genes of a male, and possibly some of the hormonal function of a male, who competes in a sporting event. That is a difficult issue that has not yet been properly dealt with. Clearly, it is quite likely that from time to time those sorts of situations will cause considerable anger, hostility and all sorts of effects that might be an offence under the Bill. We at least need to record that and decide how we deal with it.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment, and I want to deal with one or two things that have come up in this discussion. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested that the evidence base is very thin. The evidence base of women receiving threatening and abusive behaviour and sometimes assault, accompanied by expressions that make it very clear that it is directed at them as women, is substantial. I have just been receiving evidence for a working party in Scotland, and over this past year it has been shocking to see the extent to which this is a serious problem for girls and women. It should not be underestimated, and of course it is accelerated by social media, which is encouraging the kind of verbal assault that is so disgusting and disgraceful that it is hard to imagine women and girls having to deal with it in their daily lives. It really is endemic, so I do not think that what we are trying to do here can be minimised.

As for suggesting that we introduce a complicated debate about the comparatively very few women who are trans women and might be included in this, that seems just extraordinary to me. It is a diversion from the fact that women, who make up more than 50% of the population and are not a minority, are experiencing this on a daily basis. Let us get real about it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has pointedly made something part of her amendment. She says that the focus of this is on the perpetrator. How does it come about that an aggravation is used? It is because there is evidence, in addition to the evidence of a regular crime, that it has been motivated by antagonism and hatred towards women.

Of course, misogyny is wider than simple, old-fashioned hating. It is about a sense of entitlement, usually by young men, towards women and their bodies. The ways in which women have to experience verbal nastiness of a high level undermine their self-confidence and self-expression, so this is really damaging in our society. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, says it is a nonsense to suggest that this leads on to more grievous crime. I am afraid that it is not a nonsense, because we know that it normalises certain kinds of behaviours that then go undetected by the police.

I really want us to think seriously about how we stop this happening. When women say this has to stop, what is the answer? A misogynistic aggravation is not the answer; it will not solve all the problems, but it is a starting point to let women know that misogyny is taken seriously by the legislature. That is why I support this amendment to the Bill.

E-scooters

Lord Winston Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think the trials will help towards this end. They are here to stay—nobody is denying that—but it is a question of not in any way endangering the safety of others and being ridden in a way that is safe to other motorists and cyclists on the road.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister is to be congratulated on riding a Brompton bike and not contributing to climate change, but I am afraid her answers are rather disappointing. Some three and a half years ago in this House, I broached the issue of accidents with bicycles on pavements, as she may remember, and there was a huge amount of press coverage about it afterwards. Can she not say why the Government do not ensure that people driving any kind of powered vehicle, be it a scooter or a bike with a battery, are not identified and capable of being identified, with proper identification, that regulations are enforced—because there is no point in having them otherwise—and that insurance is insisted on? At the moment, accidents are happening.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

This comes back to the privately owned scooter versus the rental scooter. Rental scooters have identity tags on them and are insured. The thing is that it is not legal to drive the privately owned ones on roads or pavements. I fully take the noble Lord’s point and hope that the trials will go some way to addressing this.

Forensic Science and the Criminal Justice System (S&T Committee Report)

Lord Winston Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Winston (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is to be warmly thanked for chairing the Science and Technology Select Committee so ably and for finally getting this Motion tabled. I declare that I was not a member of the committee when it produced its report, but I am now.

Forensic science in criminal justice is an extremely important topic and the recommendations of the committee are of grave concern. In this respect, it is regrettable that it has taken two years to debate this report. I suppose that one can at least say that not much has changed. We pride ourselves as a civilised society, at the heart of which is a stable democracy and a justice system which has rightly been internationally respected as a model. But it is obvious that major deficiencies have left some cruel results and great distress—or even worse—for a number of people, often entirely innocent citizens. The delay in doing something more about this is an underlying problem and it reflects extremely badly, in my view, on the Government.

I am going to address some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Mair, has already addressed, so I will illustrate my remarks in a slightly different way. I declare an interest as a member of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. Last week, the conviction of Josephine Hamilton and others was quashed on appeal. This litigation involved evidence depending on an antiquated computer system and out-of-date software. Earlier, Mr Justice Fraser, in his written judgment, which extended to 313 pages, quashed the conviction of 39 sub-postmasters on the grounds that the commercial IT system, which was sold by Horizon and Fujitsu, was unfit for purpose, in spite of the Post Office’s assertions to the contrary.

The software was based on a long-unsupported version of Windows NT4, first launched in 1996. In computer parlance that is not merely equivalent to the description of Chancery and Jarndyce in Bleak House by Dickens; it is closer to the Middle English of The Friars Tale by Geoffrey Chaucer. The software was, in spite of denial by the Post Office, subject to bugs, errors and defects. To compound the seriousness, Mr Justice Fraser pointed out:

“To see a concern expressed … that, if a software bug in Horizon were to become widely known about, it might have a potential impact upon ‘ongoing legal cases’ where the integrity of Horizon Data was a central issue is a very concerning entry to read in a contemporaneous document”—


and I agree; it shows one of the problems with these commercial interests.

There is another problem apart from the commercial interests. Most reasonably educated people think of forensic evidence with the precision and scientific certainty often given in the media—in “Line of Duty”, “Broadchurch”, “The Fall”, “True Detective”; even “The Night Of” and “Silent Witness”. This has encouraged many people, including jurors, to consider some evidence not as circumstantial but as certain. This is certainly true of much biological evidence—for example DNA, to which I will return in a moment—and even to the gait of a person, the shape of a skull, the cause of a fire or the use of a partial fingerprint. In a sense, the importance of data and its analysis, as the noble Lord, Lord Mair, said, has now become increasingly central to the criminal justice system.

The increasing difficulty raised by the analysis of extensive data in criminal justice is well illustrated in the case of the Crown v Michael Richards, Robert Gold, Rodney Whiston-Dew and others. This commercial fraud involved over £200 million and had been initiated some 10 years earlier. It involved setting up projects promoting sham attempts at carbon sequestration overseas, a complex network of many wealthy investors, tax relief claims, offshore banking and extensive fraud involving the Inland Revenue.

During an earlier appeal heard by Sir Vivian Ramsey in 2013, the prosecution was stayed on the grounds of an abuse of process—partly because the prosecution had failed to comply with the duty of disclosure. There was a major difficulty. It is unnecessary to go into detail here, but the investigation and subsequent prosecution had required the seizure of 7 terabytes of information, 85 digital instruments and additional non-digital material, which took some years to analyse. After the devices were returned to the respondents, HMRC kept digital information on file and the respondents were then in a position to recreate the nature of their involvement.

Eventually it became clear to HMRC that the proprietary software needed to analyse all the digital information it had taken was served by FTW version 1.7 and it did not permit full optical character recognition. There were in all some 312,500 files, which were reviewed by people scrolling through thumbnail images. Subsequently, the information was migrated to a later version of FTW, version 3.4. This was equally unsatisfactory, because it required a lengthy process and there were continuing software problems. These deficiencies included, for example, the misplacement of attachments to emails.

In a subsequent hearing in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division chaired by Sir Brian Leveson in 2015, the earlier ruling was overturned. In some 33 pages, a very clearly expressed judgment was made by three judges. The appeal by the prosecution was allowed and the earlier stay was lifted. The case finally went to trial two years later, more than 10 years after HMRC had started its investigation. The key defendants were given lengthy prison sentences. The trial before Mr Justice Edis with the presentation of those data took 10 months, and it is notable that early in the trial one juror found that she was pregnant. She was finally delivered of a baby girl, Evie, before the trial finished.

Now, how much did this process cost? How much of the defrauded money was recovered? Perhaps the Minister might inform the Committee after this debate or perhaps write to me separately. With the increase in litigation involving commercial crime, as the noble Lord, Lord Mair, said, and organised crime, such as trafficking or illegal use of the internet, serious investment in digital technology and constant refurbishment of hardware and software are crucial, and the need for effective machine learning and artificial intelligence, as he has maintained very clearly, is essential.

I am just a doctor; I am not a lawyer—as my imperfect description of that last case will confirm. But I did promise to return to biology and DNA before I conclude. The excellent report from the Select Committee has detailed the inadequate provision for properly set up forensic laboratories, the questionable qualifications and training of many technical staff, and the expense and problems arising when commercial companies tender for contracts with the police. One example of problems that may arise is well illustrated by the Randox débacle.

Randox Testing Services advertises on the web, as I checked this afternoon, for workplace testing, medical-legal testing and Covid-19 antibodies and PCR. I have not yet been able to find out how much it charges for this, but its website claims that it has undertaken 17% of the Government’s national Covid testing. Apparently, the police used to outsource most of their toxicology testing to it, and it is claimed that some dishonest employees in its laboratories fabricated evidence of alcohol usage and 10,500 cases, mainly involving drink-driving, are being reanalysed. The cost and delays involved in this are considerable, and this investigation is still going on two years later. Retesting is apparently taking a long time because, we are told, there is a chronic shortage of scientific expertise and accredited laboratories, leading to delays in providing toxicology analysis in unrelated cases of sexual offence and rape. This is just one example of the Select Committee’s concern about outsourced laboratory testing in inadequately supervised commercial laboratories.

I conclude on the subject of DNA. In 1988, my own lab was refining PCR, the polymerase chain reaction, then an entirely new process, to test human embryos for possible sex-linked diseases and for any one of a number of 6,000 genetic diseases that cause serious or usually fatal disease in children and young people. It required exquisite care in dealing with the DNA from just one or two human cells. Indeed, many colleagues told me that this would be quite impossible; it is now used worldwide. All DNA of that kind, whether medical or forensic, requires—[Inaudible]—months if not years in our methods and redesign of at least one laboratory.

The problem of contamination is serious; it is also true of advanced spectroscopy, for example, when one is looking at chemical analysis of toxicological samples. With DNA, a tiny tube about 1 centimetre high can be contaminated by somebody touching apparatus nearby or coughing 30 metres away from the tube. We do not know how long DNA—a stable molecule, apparently—will survive on a given surface or how long it may be contaminated on a swab. DNA analysis has now become sophisticated and automated, but mistakes are still possible, particularly in untrained hands and in inadequate laboratories. Even in well-equipped premises that can happen. Many years ago, in a totally different experiment, a colleague and I voluntarily withdrew a paper that had already been accepted by the international journal Nature because we felt unsure that we could replicate our results after lengthy storage of the DNA on which we had run gels.

It is clear from this report that forensic science, yet another area in which the UK has led, is in dire straits, due to underfunding, poor regulation, inadequate training, limited university courses, which are seen as a cash cow, and scanty meaningful research. There are too few properly qualified individuals and a very wide range of forensic specialities. This report is commendable because it clearly outlines many of the key issues. As Sir Brian Leveson, who gave evidence to this inquiry, pointed out, inadequate or flawed forensics seriously undermine the system of British justice and the trust of the public.