Grand Committee
Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]
Thursday 5th March 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020 View all Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 3-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Grand Committee - (4 Mar 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Report on risk of abuse in Interpol Red Notices
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the reliability of Interpol Red Notices as a basis for arrest under this Act.(2) The report must include an assessment of the extent to which there is a risk of abuse by territories issuing notices.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on Interpol Red Notices.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 1 in my name seeks to add a new clause to the Bill that would require the Secretary of State, within 12 months of the Bill becoming law, to lay before Parliament
“an assessment of the reliability of Interpol Red Notices as a basis for arrest”
under the Bill. That assessment must address the extent to which there is a risk of abuse of the red notice system. There are eight different types of Interpol notice, but most of the recent controversy has been over the red notices. My amendment seeks to shed some light on them to ensure that they are used properly; that, where we are complying with a request under a notice, we are more confident that we are working towards getting them to be more accurate; and that the risk of their being politically motivated is drawn out.
We have to recognise that some of Interpol’s member countries do not have as good a human rights record as others. There are allegations of corruption against some and some regimes have been accused of using red notices for political purposes to attempt to capture dissidents and people who oppose them. That is why I want to hear from the Minister how we will ensure that they are not abused.
Amendment 2 in my name, also in this group, is very straightforward. It would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament, again, within 12 months and every 12 months after that, to provide us with a statement that ensures that what happens under the Act complies with Section 4 of the Equality Act 2010. I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively to both amendments, which are simple, straightforward and attempt to address issues of concern by providing information useful to government, policymakers and Parliament. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, red notices are indeed controversial because they are open to abuse by authoritarian regimes seeking the apprehension of dissidents or “criminals” whose crime is dissidence. The House has talked about abuse in the cases of Russia, China, Turkey and a number of other countries. I understand that there are also sometimes queries about red notices from Latin American and Middle Eastern states. Of course there is a risk of political abuse, corruption and malicious notices.
I had forgotten, but recalled when I was preparing for today, the case of the footballer granted refugee status and residence in Australia three years ago, after fleeing Bahrain. He was arrested on his honeymoon in Thailand and held in detention for a while until he got back to Australia. Questions were raised about Interpol’s neutrality. I appreciate that reforms have been introduced over the past five or so years, but controversies do and will continue over red notices and Interpol’s diffusions, which serve as an international alert mechanism.
It is important to have as much transparency and availability of information as possible on how the recipient of the notice treats its subject, which is why the involvement of the judiciary at a later stage has such importance, and on how the NCA or any other designated authority triages the information—we seem to have adopted that term.
The fact that there is a risk of abuse seems no reason not to proceed with the legislation and I acknowledge that the amendment does not propose that. In any event, I understand that the certificate, not the red notice, is the basis for arrest, which is an important distinction.
I wonder whether this is the moment to ask the Minister about the EU’s future relationship with other European countries. The document published last week on the future relationship refers to achieving extradition arrangements with
“appropriate further safeguards for individuals beyond those in the European Arrest Warrant.”
I am sorry that I did not think to warn the Minister that I would ask this, but I imagine that it is pretty much at the top of everybody’s minds. What are the “appropriate further safeguards”? In other words, what are the problems with European arrest warrants that led to that statement in the document?
I am a member of your Lordships’ EU Select Committee. We took evidence on Tuesday about the future relationship. I asked an academic who was giving evidence what he thought this was about. He said that it was probably about human rights concerns. Of course, the noble Baroness will understand that I will not object to human rights safeguards.
On the noble Lord’s second amendment, as I have said, transparency is important. However, I was not aware that there was a major concern about discrimination, which is what is protected—as it were—by the protected characteristics. One would perhaps want to know the situation in other countries. I thank him for raising the issues and giving us the chance to discuss these subjects.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, if I may, I shall raise one small point. We are talking here about the ability to effect an arrest, not an obligation on the person who discovers and identifies somebody who is suspicious and to be arrested. To clarify, if it against public policy for somebody to be extradited, there is no obligation on the person concerned who has been granted this power to carry out the arrest. Is that correct?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I assume that the process of extradition occurs under judicial control after the arrest and after the person arrested is in the custody of the judiciary or under the control of the arrangements made by the judiciary. That is quite important. In most of the speeches made at Second Reading, we distinguished between the Executive and the judiciary. They are two distinct parts of government. It is the Executive’s responsibility to take people before the judiciary, which is then responsible for how they are treated, subject to the Executive sometimes being part of the treatment afterwards. It is important to distinguish between the two. Therefore, it is acceptable that the authority deciding whether this arrest should go ahead is not a judicial authority but the responsible executive authority.
As far as both amendments are concerned, the information sought is reasonable and might be subject to risk, but it would be very easy, particularly if there seemed to be any public concern about the matter, for a parliamentarian to raise this as a Parliamentary Question, rather than have an obligation on the Secretary of State to keep to a time when there might not be much in the way of information to put out. I can see why these arrangements are a subject of public interest, but the Parliamentary Question system is a good way to deal with that as and when they seem important.
Lord Deben (Con)
I support what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay just said. There is a fundamental distinction between the Executive branch and the legal branch. My objection to the Bill is that it includes a country where that division is nothing like as strong as ours. One of the issues is that these mechanisms for extradition are politically motivated in one of the five countries. The distinction between the Executive and the judicial system is crucial in people’s protection. Therefore, I very much support my noble and learned friend making that distinction, which distinguishes us and four of the other countries from the fifth. We ought to underline that very strongly.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have made their points on these amendments and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for moving Amendment 1. To recap, at Second Reading there was considerable cross-party consensus on the Bill’s aims and measures, alongside the robust scrutiny that I expect from the House, and now the Committee. The amendments before us rightly tease out some of those points.
Noble Lords will be interested to know that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill QC, wrote to the new Security Minister on 2 March. His letter, which I will put in the Library following Committee, says:
“Overall, it is the firm view of the CPS that this Bill strikes the right balance between ensuring sufficient human rights safeguards and delivering the capabilities that the police and CPS require in order to safeguard the public … under the current process there remains a risk that UK law enforcement could encounter a potentially dangerous person wanted for a serious crime by a trusted partner, but for whom they would have no power to arrest and detain … The Bill does not make it more or less likely someone will be extradited, but it does increase the chances that persons wanted for serious offences by some of our closest and trusted partners will enter, with all the existing safeguards, the extradition process.”
I know that reporting on the effectiveness of the legislation, and the reliability of Interpol alerts, is a topic of interest. If the Committee will allow it, I will address Amendments 1 and 2 together as both concern reporting on the legislation’s effectiveness.
On the perceived risk of abuse of Interpol notices highlighted in Amendment 1, I reassure the Committee that the immediate power of arrest proposed in the Bill will apply only to requests from specified countries—currently the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. These countries have been specified as we have a high level of confidence in their criminal justice systems and use of Interpol notices. The Government have no intention of specifying countries likely to abuse the system to political ends.
Additionally, the UK is currently working with Interpol to ensure that its rules are robust, effective and complied with. The former chief constable of Essex was recently made the executive director of policing services for Interpol, the most senior operational role in that organisation. A UK government lawyer has also been seconded to the Interpol legal service to work with it to ensure that Interpol rules are properly robust and adhered to by Interpol member states. We will continue to work with Interpol to increase the reliability and trustworthiness of the whole red notice system.
Lord Deben
Did my noble friend notice that the President of the United States has just taken credit for 3,000 judicial appointments and said that he has therefore ensured that those judicial appointments will make decisions in line with his and Republican Party policy? How can one possibly say that this is the same kind of judicial system that we have?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
A judge would take a view on whether something was politically motivated. Something blatantly politically motivated would be rejected.
Lord Deben
I understand that, and we have the protection that the request has to go before a judge but, in this document, the Government give accreditation to the United States, which has no reciprocal arrangements with us, and talk about a “trusted partner” when it is not a partner. It will not do this the other way around and, clearly, it asks for the extradition of people on political or commercial grounds, which would not happen with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Liechtenstein or Switzerland. We are saying something about the United States that surely none of us believes.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think my noble friend is referring to the Extradition Act itself, not the pre-extradition arrest process. I do not know whether he is questioning the Extradition Act’s efficacy, but that is not what we are talking about in the Bill. He also has an amendment down for later in Committee so perhaps we could come back to this at that stage if he wants to make further points.
Lord Deben
I am happy to do that; I merely say to my noble friend that I have tabled the amendment and wish to discuss it because this is our opportunity to do so and we are repeating our view. My noble friend is using phrases that are, I think, unsuitable, given the relationship. We are, after all, extending—perfectly properly, I think—the way the Extradition Act works. It seems reasonable at this point, before we go any further, to question whether one ought to use those phrases in these circumstances.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
We will get on to my noble friend’s point, but we use Parliament to make law rather than to make points. I hope he will respect the point that I make.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, asked about obligation to extradite. He is absolutely right. The Bill creates powers for the police, not obligations to other countries.
Amendment 2 requests the publication of an annual statement on arrests. The NCA already keeps data and publishes statistics around arrest volumes in relation to Part 1 of the Extradition Act. It does it without being required to do so by primary legislation. We have no doubt that it will similarly do so in respect of arrests under this new arrest power, as this is a sensible operational practice. I have sympathy for the amendment, so I have asked officials to look at how we can give the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, some reassurance. I hope he will accept that I will liaise with him between now and Report.
I am not persuaded that the either the Secretary of State or the NCA require a statutory obligation to take these steps. I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Lord not to press his amendments, but we will have further discussions between now and Report.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I am obviously happy to withdraw my amendment for the moment.
I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, has also made some important points, which I know we will come to later.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, mentioned Parliamentary Questions. Sometimes, the Answers we get are not very good, to say the least. That goes across government. I am going to have to start tabling Questions about Parliamentary Answers. I asked one recently of another department. I asked, “What do we here?” and the Answer had no bearing whatever on the Question. I raised that with the Minister concerned and he accepted that. I thought, “Just answer the Question. If you can’t answer it, tell me you can’t answer it.” They had sent back a ridiculous Answer that had no bearing and it is not good enough. Unfortunately, that is a problem across government. Maybe we need a debate in the House about it. I am going to try putting in FoIs and comparing answers between PQs and FoIs. Will the answers be as bad there? We will see. But that is a separate issue. I would love to think that PQs were the answer; unfortunately, in my experience of being here for nearly 10 years, they are not.
Having said that, I am pleased with the Minister’s response, especially to my second amendment. I look forward to further discussions between now and Report. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment precludes the period of imprisonment extending beyond 24 hours before the person is brought before a judge.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I tabled this amendment following the speech of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Clark of Calton, at Second Reading. She raised the issue of the time that a suspect—the person who has been arrested—might spend in custody before coming before the court. Someone arrested on the Friday before a bank holiday weekend might not go before the court until the Tuesday, if one excludes weekends and bank holidays. The impact assessment tells us that the legislation is likely to involve only half a dozen people, so without wanting to impose too much on our judiciary—I accept that it is pretty hard pressed these days—I do not see that it would be too much of an extra strain on them or on the police to deal with these matters over the weekend.
I am grateful to the Minister for calling me just before we started the Committee stage to say that, basically, I had got the drafting wrong. Okay, this is what Committee stages are about: to raise issues and to see how we can deal with them. The schedule provides that in calculating the 24-hour period before a person is brought before a judge, no account is taken of weekends, bank holidays and so on. Reference is made to provision elsewhere. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, will deal with this matter. I look forward to him explaining this to me because I believe the argument is that that would mean that no one could be arrested on a Saturday or a Sunday. I am not quite sure that I follow that, but no doubt he will put that right.
When the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Clark, spoke at Second Reading on 4 February, she asked, at col. 1743, for some statistics on the number of arrests. I thought I should check on whether those have been made available. It may be that the matter was not pursued, the Minister having spoken to her. But as she said then, if there is a problem in relation to extradition to category 2 territories, the solution might be better co-ordination between the police and the judiciary to enable a warrant to be obtained at an early stage, or the involvement of the judiciary in a screening process instead of the designated authority. This is a useful opportunity for us to consider these points and I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I rise briefly to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. If he will now be covering some Home Office matters, we will be spending a lot of time together and will get know each other well, so that will be welcome.
The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is very sensible and I am happy to support it. She set out the issue clearly: someone can be picked up on the Friday before a bank holiday weekend and potentially wait until the Tuesday morning before being brought before a judge. That is a fair point. If people are arrested, they should be brought before a judge quickly, so I look forward to the noble Lord’s response.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I also support this amendment. Would you believe it, there is a judge on duty all weekend, every weekend, and all night? If the period is reduced to 24 hours and this happens over a weekend, it can be treated as urgent business.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their words of welcome. There will, indeed, be plenty to keep us busy on the home affairs front. Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, concerns the period of detention. It seeks to delete the provision that, in calculating the 24-hour period within which an arrested person must be brought before the appropriate judge, no account should be taken of weekends, bank holidays and the like, as she explained.
It might be helpful if I first reassure noble Lords that this provision does not arise from any desire of law enforcement agencies to detain individuals for prolonged periods without judicial oversight. The Government have been very careful to ensure that sufficient safeguards exist against this. Our operational partners have already proved themselves effective at producing wanted persons before courts within strict timeframes. The practical question at the heart of this issue is one of being certain that, when a person is produced at court, an appropriate judge is available to hear their case. The key aspect perhaps is that, rightly, the requirement under the Act is for the person to be brought before the judge, not simply for a judge to consider the case on paper. I hope that addresses the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. If the Bill were to be amended along the lines suggested, it would render the power largely unworkable; in some instances, because of perfectly normal court closure times, if a judge were not available for the wanted person to appear before them—
Lord Judge
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. It is questionable whether the word “brought” requires the physical presence of the judge and the particular person so that they should be facing each other directly. Nowadays we have all sorts of technology that enables people to encounter each other while not in one another’s physical presence.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
To be clear to the noble and learned Lord, it is the statutory intention that the person should be brought before a judge in person. It is an additional safeguard and a better situation for them to be seen in person before a judge. If the Bill were amended along the lines suggested, it would make the power operationally unworkable because, in some instances, normal court closure times would preclude that. As we have discussed, it could mean, practically, that arrests could not be made on a Saturday or on the Sunday before a bank holiday.
Lord Judge
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again. This is his first outing and we are throwing bouncers at him. If that is the problem, we need to amend the legislation to make it clear that “brought before” does not mean that there is a personal, direct, physical confrontation. I would be very willing to talk to him about this at any time but, so far, I am not entirely satisfied with what he has had to say.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
I thank noble Lords for their forbearance on this, my first outing. It is our intention to replicate the existing provisions under the Extradition Act. It may be helpful for me to speak to the noble and learned Lord and others in greater detail about the statutory intention of what the Government propose. We seek to mirror the provisions already there, which are caught up in the usual formulation of “as soon as practicable” that already exists in the Extradition Act. There are precedents for these arrangements for provisional arrest under Part 1, under which a person may be provisionally arrested without warrant and brought before the appropriate judge within 48 hours of their arrest, subject to exactly the same conditions as set out in the schedule under discussion here.
My noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford has already cited the letter sent by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Security Minister earlier this week, which welcomes the way the Bill, as drafted, will avoid unnecessary delay and ensure initial judicial scrutiny as early as possible, before the case proceeds through extradition proceedings in the usual way. It is for that reason that the Government are not persuaded that the amendment is needed. I hope that gives some reassurance to the noble and learned Lord, the noble Baroness and others.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I did not expect it to go in this direction, but I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. I am left a bit thrown and not entirely satisfied. I decided that I would not bring my iPad into Committee to scroll up and down through the 2003 Act; I reckoned it could wait until later, but clearly I should do so.
If this provision is to mirror the 2003 Act, which talks about bringing someone before a court as soon as practicable and in any event within 48 hours, that still does not meet the provisions of new Section 74A(4) because, as I said, if someone is picked up on a Friday afternoon, 48 hours lands them on a Sunday. There is an important point of principle in this: the way it operates—the noble Lord used the term “workability”—in terms of the position of the Executive and the work it has to do with the police and the rights of the individual who is the subject of this. That is why the judiciary is involved: to ensure that that person’s rights are properly protected. It looks as if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, wants to intervene.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I shall wait until the noble Baroness has finished.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I think the position is that, as times have changed and we are more modern than we once were, a judge is now available at all times to deal with this matter. Therefore, it is not necessary to leave out weekends or bank holidays because the reason that was put in was that the judge might not be there. Now, under the rules of the system, the person can have his case before the judge in the holidays because a judge is always there. Therefore, it needs to be changed to take account of that. That is my understanding. I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, agrees with me.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, we have just heard from two very experienced former members of the judiciary. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, would be very wise to agree to take this matter away and try to sort it out.
Baroness Hamwee
As my noble friend Lord Paddick says, this is what Committee is about. He has reminded me that some courts are open on a Saturday to deal with custody cases, which adds another dimension to this. I look forward to discussing this to get the right balance, which is what we always seek. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I am sorry that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, we have been bowling him googlies on his first outing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
(e) it is satisfied that the request is not politically motivated.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe the propriety of requests, and whether paragraph (d) provides adequate protection.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I beg leave to move Amendment 4 and will speak to my Amendments 11, 11A and 11C.
Amendment 4 would insert into the criteria for a certificate under new Section 74B that the designated authority is
“satisfied that the request is not politically motivated.”
This takes us back to our first debate and is intended to probe how the propriety of requests is dealt with. We already have new Section 74B(1)(d), which says that the authority
“is satisfied that the seriousness of the conduct constituting the offence makes it appropriate to issue the certificate.”
I am not sure quite what that paragraph means. What is “appropriate”? It may go only to the offence for which the possible sentence meets the threshold. What is the seriousness of conduct constituting the offence? How does one assess the conduct as distinct from the offence as it is legally defined in the country in question? I am quite prepared for the Minister to tell me that this is in the 2003 Act and that there is case law on it. I will wait and see.
Amendment 11 would amend new Section 74C, which concerns the validity of requests, including from the requesting authority. The designated authority —in our case, the NCA—must believe that the authority in the other state has the function of making these requests. As my explanatory statement says:
“The amendment is to probe whether the designated authority should rely on a request if there is any doubt as to whether the requesting authority has this function,”.
The word “believes” made me hesitate over this provision.
Amendment 11A would provide that, where someone has been discharged, the person should not be arrested again in reliance on the same certificate. There should be a further certificate. I am not sure that we have the amendment in quite the right place. However, it seemed worth raising the issues of concern to the organisation Justice, which has been following—and, in some cases, leading us on—the proceedings on the Bill. It is concerned about it being quite wrong for there to be a new power in respect of the same extradition request should the designated authority issue a fresh certificate. Justice understands that the Government do not intend for fresh certificates to be issued where the first has been produced incorrectly and that this would be a matter for judicial scrutiny. I am again grateful to the Minister for having a word with me about this. I hope she will put on record what I know to be the Government’s position on this.
Amendment 11C would provide for
“the affirmative procedure for regulations to designate the ‘designated authority’.”
We have been told that the designated authority will be the National Crime Agency, although it is not specified in the Bill. Given that reorganisations in the police service are not that unusual, I understand why one might need the opportunity to change the reference. There is clearly concern about ensuring that a future designated authority has the requisite expertise, as there is in the service at the moment. It would therefore be appropriate to use that procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Amendment 5 in this group is in my name. It would simply put “National Crime Agency” into the Bill. Throughout the Bill, there are references to the “designated authority”, but there is no mention of a specific agency. I am sure that the Minister will set out why the Bill is framed in that way and I look forward to that explanation.
Other amendments in this group are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. They are all useful, as they give the Minister the opportunity to explain further the Government’s reasoning in specific areas and to convince the Grand Committee of the protections in the Bill.
On Amendment 4, who will be responsible and accountable if the safeguards fail and we end up complying with a request that is politically motivated? Amendment 11 would take away the uncertainty built into the Bill. I do not like phrases such as “the designated authority believes”. “Believes” is a strange word to have in legislation. I like there to be a bit more certainty than is offered by a word such as “believes”. It seems very loose and open to all sorts of interpretations by all sorts of people.
Amendment 11A raises the circumstance where somebody could be rearrested under a new certificate. I accept that circumstances can change and maybe those powers are needed, but if somebody has been released under one certificate, we need to make clear what would need to change for them to be rearrested under a new one.
Amendment 11C has my full support. In many ways, it is a compromise between what the Bill says and what Amendment 5 says. Doing it through an SI is probably the best way forward, so I fully support Amendment 11C. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their points on these amendments. They have been grouped together as dealing with the functions of the designated authority and the criteria applied by it in certifying requests.
Amendment 4 proposes a new criterion for certification. This would require the designated authority to be satisfied that the request is not politically motivated. Making consideration of political motivation a precondition of certification for the designated authority would reverse the present position for arrests under the Extradition Act 2003. Presently, the courts are required to consider during the substantive extradition hearing whether any of the statutory bars to extradition apply. These statutory bars include whether the request for extradition is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing an individual on account of their political opinions—that comes under Section 81 of the Extradition Act 2003. The Government’s position remains that it is right that the judge considers these points based on all the evidence before him or her during the substantive hearing and not the NCA prior to arrest. It is the judge who is ultimately accountable.
Furthermore, we are all aware that the Extradition Act contains substantial safeguards in respect of requests motivated by reason of the requested person’s political views. These safeguards will continue to apply, and we fully expect the courts to continue to exercise their powers of scrutiny as usual.
Arguments of political motivation are of course not usually simple. It is right that the question of whether an individual extradition request can be described as politically motivated should be assessed by a judge before an open court. It is vital, of course, that the requested person should be able to put their arguments on this basis to a judge, but it is also crucial, in the fulfilment of our obligations under the international arrangements on extradition that give rise to such proceedings, that the requesting authority should be able to respond to such arguments and put their own case as to why the request is not politically motivated. This should be openly and fairly arbitrated, so importing this consideration into the process for determining whether an individual may be arrested would be at odds with existing extradition law. Noble Lords will be aware that judges and justices of the peace are not required to consider such factors when deciding whether to issue an arrest warrant under Section 71 or Section 73 of the 2003 Act.
Were the designated authority to make such a deliberation in effectively, it would need to be able to invite representations on the point from both the requesting authority and the requested person in each case before certification. Not only would this be hugely resource-intensive, it would also advertise to the wanted person that they are wanted. I should note that the designated authority, as a public body, would already be under an obligation to act compatibly with convention rights under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. At the point of certification, this will include consideration of whether an arrest is ECHR-compatible.
I bring the attention of noble Lords to the types of territories proposed as appropriate specified territories. These are democracies whose criminal justice systems are rooted in the rule of law. I am certain Parliament would not accept the addition to the schedule of territories that we believed would send the UK politically motivated arrest requests. I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Baroness that there is no gap in safeguards here and that, consequently, she will be content with withdraw her amendment.
She also asked what is meant by the “seriousness of the conduct”. The language mirrors the test in Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003. As she thought, there is indeed case law on the point. The intention is to capture only conduct sufficiently serious to ensure that the power is used only where proportionate. For example, the minor theft of an item of food from a supermarket or a very small amount of money is unlikely, without exceptional circumstances, to be sufficiently serious. Only when the designated authority decides that the offence satisfies the test will it be able to certify the request.
I turn now to Amendment 5, which seeks to define the designated authority as the National Crime Agency in the Bill. Our approach here mirrors that of the designation of the authority responsible for certification of European arrest warrants under Part 1 of the Act. The Government consider that the designation of the authority responsible for issuing a certificate is an appropriate matter to be left to secondary legislation. A regulation-making power affords the appropriate degree of flexibility to amend the designated authority in light of changing circumstances, including alterations to the functions of law enforcement bodies in the UK. To future-proof the legislation, the Government believe that the current drafting leaves an appropriate amount of flexibility. As I said, the Government’s intention is initially to designate the NCA, which is the UK’s national central bureau for Interpol, as the designated authority. I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that we have got the balance right and that he will be content not to press his amendment.
I turn finally to Amendment 11, on requests made in the “approved way”. My noble friend’s amendment suggests that a request should be considered to have been made in the approved way only if it is made by an authority that has the function of making such requests in the territory concerned, rather than an authority which the designated authority believes to have this function.
Perhaps I may momentarily be a bit philosophical. The amendment attempts to base the assessment of the authority’s function on an objective truth. That is admirable from the point of view of legal certainty, but the designated authority does not have a monopoly on truth. The best it could do in practice, when making the assessment described in the amendment, would be to decide, to the best of its ability, whether the authority in question has the function of making such requests, arriving at what I think we would characterise as being a belief that it does so. Of course, the designated authority, as a public body, must take decisions that are reasonable and rational.
As such, we expect there to be no difference between how the assessment would be made in practice under the amendment and how it would be made under the existing text. The benefit of the text, as we have proposed it, is that it mirrors language elsewhere in the Extradition Act—for example, when the designated authority under Part 1 may issue a certificate in relation to a warrant and when the Secretary of State may issue a certificate under Part 2.
On the perceived risk implicit in Amendment 11A—that an arrested person could be rearrested for the same thing, having been discharged by a court, perhaps because they were not produced at court on time or for some other failing—I reassure the Committee that this is neither the intention nor the effect of the new sections in the Bill. New Section 74A(8) makes clear that an arrested person may
“not be arrested again in reliance of the same certificate”
if they have previously been discharged. The intention of this drafting is to stipulate that an individual may not be arrested again on the basis of the same international arrest request once a judge has discharged them. This mirrors Section 6 of the Extradition Act 2003, which provides for the same thing, where a person provisionally arrested on the basis of a belief relating to a European arrest warrant may not be arrested again on the basis of a belief relating to the same European arrest warrant.
On top of that, new Section 74B(3) requires that a certificate has to have been withdrawn before any arrest takes place to allow a new one to be issued relating to the same request. This again illustrates that a further certificate cannot simply be issued on the basis of the same request once an individual arrested under this power has been discharged by a judge.
Of course, it is vital that a certificate can be issued on the basis of a new request, or on the basis of a wholly different request, so that an individual wanted for another crime is not immune to any further arrest because they were once arrested and discharged for a different crime. Organised transnational offences, such as people trafficking, often involve offences in different countries, on different dates, with different victims, and no individual should be able to avoid answering for more than one serious crime using a legal loophole. The amendment would create that impunity. For that reason, I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Baroness and that she will be happy not to press that amendment.
Amendment 11C would require an affirmative resolution procedure to apply to any statutory instrument that designates an authority as a “designated authority”. Given that the framework and criteria for the issuing of a certificate are provided for in the Bill, we consider that the negative resolution procedure affords an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. We have plainly set out what the designated authority will do and how they must do it. Which particular body exercises that function is not, in our view, a matter that needs to be subject to debate in both Houses. The use of the power to designate an authority is necessary to accommodate any changing circumstances, including alterations to the functions of law enforcement bodies in the UK, and we consider it appropriate that we can respond to this promptly. The application of the negative procedure is also, again, completely consistent with the procedure for designating an authority for the purposes of issuing a certificate in respect of a European arrest warrant under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003.
I am sorry for my long-winded response to these several amendments. I hope the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are happy not to press their amendments.
Baroness Hamwee
I do not think the Minister was long-winded; it is quite a long group of amendments. I am grateful to her for that. I should have brought my iPad so that I could have followed all the references to the 2003 Act. I take all the points that the Minister made—in particular, the point about organised crime. One does not always remember how the nature of crime changes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe the variation of a reference to a territory, as distinct from an addition or removal.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 6; I also have Amendments 7, 9 and 10 in this group. I start with Amendment 9, which I think is the most important. This amendment would restrict additions to Schedule A1 to one territory at a time. Orders are not amendable; one says either yes or no—and it is rarely no—to the whole thing. Let us consider an order seeking to add, say, Turkey and the Netherlands—it might not happen but I am thinking of two very different states—where one might want more protections than are proposed by the Government, but one would not want to reject an order to add the Netherlands. I think that is a sufficiently stark pairing to enable your Lordships to understand why I am concerned about this. I have written myself a note about the delegated powers memorandum. I cannot now find it but I am sure that it said something quite relevant. I might be able to find it by the end of the debate. Anyway, that is my particular concern. I do not think that I need to expand on it any further. I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord for adding their names to this.
Amendment 6 is to probe how a territory can be varied, as distinct to being added or removed. It did not seem to me that one could vary a territory to make it part of a state. If it is about a change of name—some states do change their names—surely legislation here is not necessary. Amendment 7 is to take out the provision in new Section 74B of the Act that regulations can amend new Section 74C consequential on the addition, variation or removal of reference to a territory. New Section 74C is about the validity of requests for an arrest, which have to be made in an approved way; so, again, I am probing. What could be amended other than that the request comes from an authority with the requisite function? I table this because I am uncomfortable that there might be regulations in contemplation that widen the category of authorities entitled to make the request.
Amendment 10 would deal with the basis on which the Secretary of State may add a territory. The Minister at Second Reading said that we would apply the provisions only to
“alerts from countries that do not abuse Interpol systems, that respect the international rules-based system and that have criminal justice systems we trust; and only to alerts relating to sufficiently serious offences.”—[Official Report, 4/2/20; Col. 1727.]
I do not quarrel with a word of that. This amendment seeks to transfer those words into the legislation. I beg to move Amendment 6.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I very much support this Bill. My Amendment 11B relates to the names of territories that were not in the original legislation but are in this Bill. My noble friend perfectly reasonably suggested that I might be objecting to our extradition system in general and that that would not be suitable. I agree with her. However, this Bill has a list of “trusted partner” countries. That is true of all but one of them. All the others have a system of justice that is removed as far as humanly possible from politics. In this country, we are proud of that. That would not matter if one could not show—as I hope to—that the United States, because of its different kind of legal system, is using the extradition arrangements in a way that my noble friend rightly objects to, and why quite a number of other countries are not this list. The problem is that, by putting the United States on this list, we are making a statement about its use of extradition which seems unjustified. I will explain why.
We know that, unlike with the other countries, there is no reciprocal arrangement because the United States has said that it is contrary to its constitutional arrangements to have reciprocity. Our original Act is not reciprocated by the United States. I find that difficult anyway, but we are not discussing that issue here. In the case of the United States, unlike many other countries with which we have had and probably will have reciprocity after negotiation, we accept that it will not extradite people to us in circumstances in which we are extraditing people to it. We are confirming that by saying that we will extend our extradition procedure—perfectly properly in other circumstances, I think—to enable us to arrest people in the circumstances that this Bill makes clear.
We are very fortunate in this country because the whole system is overseen by the judiciary. It would be arguable that it does not matter because the new arrangements will mean that the judiciary will still be able to oversee that. After all, we are not putting every country on the list. We are not saying that the judiciary oversees everybody; we are saying it about these countries and distinguishing them from others.
I will remind your Lordships about two cases that show why I think that this is very real. We have the case of a woman who killed a British boy in Britain, has admitted it and has not been extradited although we have asked for that extradition. Not only has she not been extradited but the United States has refused to reveal what it claims are the special and secret arrangements under which the extradition cannot take place because the person is supposedly covered by diplomatic immunity. However, the United States will not publicly explain the special arrangement. Not only is the lady not extradited, although we have asked for it, but it is on a basis that the United States has refused to reveal. Were this Turkey, Bangladesh or another country, this would be a very good reason for not putting the name on this list.
There is a second reason: the use of the extradition arrangements to pursue a political or commercial end. For the United States it is very often a commercial end. In this I speak of the case of my former constituent Dr Mike Lynch, chairman of one of our most successful companies. He sold his British company to an American company; it was sold under British law in Britain, bought by an American company and operated in Britain. After a bit, the American company had so badly mucked up the running of this business that it wanted an excuse for the sum it had paid, so it called on the British authorities to prosecute Dr Lynch, saying he had misled it. That may or may not be true. It had done very extensive due diligence before, so it is difficult to believe that so great an American company with so much opportunity to look beforehand should have been misled, but that is what it said.
The British authorities investigated and found that there was no case to answer. Therefore, they declined the prosecution. The American company, Hewlett Packard, perfectly rightly—I have no objection to this—went to the civil courts to claim its case. That case has now been heard at great length. It is probably the longest case of this kind ever held in this country. Dr Lynch was cross-examined for many days. The case is over as far as the evidence is concerned, but there has so far not been a judgment, so we do not know whether the civil courts in this country will find my former constituent guilty or innocent. Hewlett Packard is clearly worried about this case. Indeed, to read it one might be worried oneself if one were on that side. But still, we do not know. It is for the judge to decide.
British justice is known internationally as the fairest system in the world. That is why lots of companies that are not here agree with other companies that are not here for their court cases, should they come up, to be decided in British courts; they know that they will get a fair deal. Hewlett Packard has however demanded that Dr Lynch be extradited from Britain to have the case heard not in this country but in the United States. I am quite sure the reason is that it feels a United States court is more likely to make a decision which pleases it—particularly given the geographical position of the court calling for the extradition and its long-standing relationship with Hewlett Packard—and more likely to accept its case than the British one.
We all know that there are many situations in which British companies have found that courts in the United States make decisions that we would find, let us say, commercially political rather than judicially objective. Here we are, saying that this “trusted partner” should be treated in the same way as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, all of which have systems that any of us in this Room would be happy to be tried before, but how many of us would genuinely say that, if we had a commercial disagreement with an American company with power and political punch, we would wish to be charged before an American court? That is a different situation.
I have tabled the amendment not because I seek to undermine the original Act, although I think it was a mistake to allow a non-reciprocal arrangement with the United States. I am merely saying that I do not think that the United States should be one of those countries that benefits from a perfectly proper extension of our laws.
My noble friend said that she would not want to have this kind of arrangement with anyone whose judicial system was subject to political influence. President Trump has pointed out that he has changed the judges in the Ninth Circuit because it was
“a big thorn in our side”.
He has now appointed judges who will not be a big thorn in his side. He has made, I think, 181 judicial appointments and encouraged the majority Republican Senate to change as many as possible while he is there so that they get the judges who will to make the sort of judgments that suit the right-wing Republican that he is.
Lord Judge
My Lords, I support Amendment 9. As I indicated at Second Reading, I support the Bill. There is a great deal to be said for the proposition that there should be reciprocity between countries that respect the rule of law on the administration of criminal justice. However, I strongly support this amendment; I see absolutely no inconsistency between the two propositions.
The reasons why are very simple. We all know that there are countries in the world that do not respect the rule of law. I will not set about trying to give your Lordships a list because the list itself changes. Countries that respected the rule of law no longer do. Weimar Germany did; Hitler’s Germany did not. This is a moveable feast.
My concern is that we are giving the Secretary of State wide powers to add different nations to the list by regulations. At Second Reading I went through the possible reasons, and they are still there: political motivation, getting a good deal on a treaty, the fact that we need a bit of support on this or that, so we put a country on the list. There is a whole series of reasons why, in years to come, since this Act will be in force for many years, Ministers—not, I hasten to assert, either of these Ministers—will think it appropriate to add to the list countries that this House and the other place together think are inappropriate to be added.
We are doing this by way of regulation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out. The consequence is that the Prime Minister of the day or his acolyte—and we are talking about a Prime Minister who would not perhaps respect the rule of law himself, but who knows what could happen—would insist on having a country that we in both Houses would regard as totally inappropriate to be a brother or sister nation on such a list and with whom we would think it quite inappropriate to have any sort of arrangement of this kind simply because it does not respect the rule of law. I have been through that.
What are our processes? They are that such a country could be included in a list of perfectly acceptable countries—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said the Netherlands and Turkey—but can we just cut down a little further into that? It means that when the House considers the regulation, it will have to decide whether to exclude Turkey—to use the country that the noble Baroness used—because it is really rather important and because we greatly respect the Netherlands, or whether to reject Turkey and the Netherlands. Or, to go the other way, we must have the Netherlands, so we must therefore have Turkey. If one or other of these courses is taken—whichever way round it is—if there is any amendment, the whole thing falls to the ground. We will not want the Netherlands to fall to the ground, nor Denmark, France or Germany. There are many countries that we would want to espouse as colleagues in respect for the rule of law.
What is proposed in this amendment is utterly simple. What is the difficulty in doing it one country by another? It might take a little longer; there might a little more typing, a little more printing—we could even have all the countries, except the ones objected to, come through as a job lot. I gave a little cricketing analogy earlier and I am sorry that I bowled bouncers not googlies at the Minister. One of the most famous things ever said at a cricket match was when, in 1902, Hirst came out to bat against the Australians with 15 runs to get on a difficult wicket in the dark; the story goes that Rhodes met Hirst and exchanged the words, “We’ll get them in singles”. Let us get this done in singles.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I cannot match the noble and learned Lord’s eloquence, except I remember that Lord Bingham used to use that phrase to describe how judges should nudge the law forward gently, step by step, rather than sit hitting sixes and fours.
I support this amendment for the reasons that have been explained. There are two features of the issue that are worth bearing in mind. First, the standard that the Government have set, which was described by the Minister, is a relatively high standard and, therefore, we are not talking about large numbers. Indeed, the Schedule itself demonstrates that we are not expected to have a great list, they will come in twos or threes at the worst, preferably ones, as the amendment seeks. Secondly, the issue of a standard is something that we would wish to debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, demonstrated in his contribution. It is a great shame if we are masked, as it were, by having one good country on the list that we would not object to but which is in the kind of pairing that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned, so that we cannot really grapple with the one to which we are objecting because the instrument is not amendable.
With great respect, this seems a very sensible amendment that meets the problem of the non-amendable instrument without at the same time creating an insuperable difficulty for the Government. It enables a debate to take place that would have a real point to it instead of one that really does not have a point because one part of the list—if it is a list—is unobjectionable. I very much support the amendment.
Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I add my general support to the proposition and arguments that have been made. When I had the good fortune to chair the ad hoc committee looking at the workings of this legislation three or four years ago, this was one issue that the committee spent a long time discussing. Our concern throughout was essentially—and, I believe, entirely properly—about injustice. We must have an extradition system that is just at its heart. If there is any risk or probability of people being extradited into circumstances in which their human rights will be abused or ignored, or in which injustice will be meted out to them, we should not be party to it.
I was particularly grateful for the remarks by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. He has touched on a point that I will come to when I move my amendment later on in the proceedings. I will not say that he has stolen my thunder—he has made the point a lot better than I might have.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 6 is a very good probing amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. As I raised on the previous group, the words of the Bill need clarifying. This amendment gives the Minister the opportunity to do that and to explain why the word “vary” is in new Section 74B(7)(a). We have to be very careful with the words that we use in legislation. I can see why we would want to add or remove a territory, but why vary it? Is it to address a name change? I am sure that the Minister will tell us why. Amendment 7 allows the Minister to explain the need for this power. It may be perfectly sensible, but to make that clear would be most welcome.
My Amendment 8 is fairly simple. It seeks to improve the Bill—as do all my amendments—by requiring the Government to report changes before adding, removing or varying a reference to a territory. What is the process for adding a country? How will additions to the list be approved? What would the parliamentary scrutiny be? What is the process for the talks?
I also have my name to Amendment 9, which has been referred to in a number of contributions. The Government would have to add territories one at a time; I very much agree with that. Parliament could reject a specific country or territory, which seems very sensible and proportionate. However, this came out in Second Reading: is this Bill also a back door to some sort of protection from the loss of the European arrest warrant? I know the Government said that it was not, but this would allow them to add the European Union straight away and in one go. That would be an interesting thing for the Government to do. When I thought of that, I was reminded of the interesting PNQ that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, recently asked about the European arrest warrant. I also recalled the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. He asked a question of the Minister:
“My Lords, is it not the case that not all European arrest warrants are the same? A European arrest warrant from France or Germany, with whom we share the same respect for the rule of law, is one thing, but a European arrest warrant from one or two other countries—here I particularly mention Romania—is not the same because often political interference has taken place in the judicial system.”
The Minister replied:
“My noble friend makes a very good point about political interference. In fact, that is one of the safeguards within what we are seeking. He is right to make the point that not all EU states are the same.”—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 398.]
If the Government decide to put in the European Union in the future, that point could not be addressed. It is a valid issue—or, of course, it may not be an issue at all. It would be useful to have a response on that.
Amendment 10 should cause the Government no problem at all; I look forward to the Minister’s response on that. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, makes a valid case in Amendment 11B. “Levelling up” is the new buzzword in the Government. I think that we need a bit of levelling up in our special relationship with our friends across the pond as far as it applies to extraditing suspects who are wanted for crimes committed in this country. They must be very serious crimes which need to be investigated. Questions need to be asked, and potentially the evidence test is made and the matter is put before a court in the UK. The noble Lord cited two cases to illustrate that, which is very important in this respect. We are seeking a bit of reciprocity here, so I strongly support what he said and I hope that the noble Baroness can give a full response to these points because he has made the case very well.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The amendments before us relate to the delegated power to specify any additional territories to which this new power may be extended. As I have said, in the first instance, the powers afforded by the legislation would be granted only to the UK’s closest criminal justice co-operation partners, these being the Five Eyes powers and the EFTA states. These are the countries in whose criminal justice systems and use of Interpol systems we have a high level of confidence. The amendments address the power to add, vary or remove countries from the Bill and a minor consequential amendment to vary what is meant by making an extradition request in the approved way if there is a good justification for doing so in the future.
I shall start with Amendment 9 because the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, began with it and other noble Lords have expressed a great interest in it. It specifies that territories should be added one at a time. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for speaking to me about this and I did slightly warn him ahead of time that we are not going to agree with it. That is not to say that we would want to add territories in multiples, but it is common practice to allow for multiple territories to be specified together for similar legislation. Noble Lords will know that this is the process for adding territories in Part 1 and Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. I hope that the affirmative resolution procedure would give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the Government by voting either for or against a resolution and to express an opinion towards any country being added to the Bill. I expect that if the Government attempted to add a territory which Parliament did not agree with, it would act accordingly. However, I understand the substance of the point that the noble and learned Lord made.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, referred to our debate the other day on the Norway/Iceland issue. The Norway/Iceland surrender agreement operates under Part 1 of the 2003 Extradition Act, so an agreement with the EU based on that precedent would keep EU member states in Part 1 of the Act, where the power of immediate arrest already exists. The Bill is only for specified Part 2 countries where currently there is no power of immediate arrest. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the negotiations, but we may well return to this issue.
I shall reverse engineer, as it were, and go back to Amendment 6. It looks to determine how varying a reference to a territory will be distinct from the addition or removal of a reference. I assure noble Lords that the term “vary” aims to future-proof the legislation and to ensure that technical changes do not place a restriction on the use of the power. An example of such a technical change would be a situation where part of a territory seceded from a specified territory and the Government wished to maintain this power in relation to only the successor state. This is of course not a particularly likely scenario but one for which it is responsible to be prepared.
Amendment 7 proposes to remove the power to vary the meaning of making a request “in the approved way” under new Section 74C. In the current draft, a request is made “in the approved way” if it is
“made by an authority of the category 2 territory which the designated authority believes has the function of making such requests in that territory.”
The power in new Section 74B(7)(b) is included to enable similar provision to be made, where appropriate, to that in Section 70(5) and (6) of the 2003 Act. These subsections set out the variations to the meaning of “the approved way” for extradition requests made from British Overseas Territories and for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. I will set out some examples of how that power might be used.
Where a newly specified territory had a number of different authorities which had the function of making requests, the power in new Section 74B(7)(b) would enable one or more authority to be singled out as the appropriate authority for making valid requests, should that be necessary. A further example might be if the Government sought to specify one or several of the British Overseas Territories. In such a scenario, the Government may wish to provide for requests to be made by the governor-general of the territory rather than the authorities within it. In such circumstances, the regulations might provide for requests to be made in the approved way by or on behalf of a person administering the territory.
Regarding preparing and publishing a report on adding a new territory, as well as any intention to add further territories or negotiations with prospective territories, to the scope of this legislation as specified in Amendment 8, the Government are committed to ensuring that Parliament has the ability to question and decide on whether any new territory could come within scope. Therefore, it is mandated in the Bill that any Government wishing to add a new territory to the scope of this legislation should do so through the affirmative resolution procedure. Any statutory instrument laid before Parliament will of course be accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum, which will set out the legislative context and policy reasons for that instrument.
This procedure will give Parliament opportunity for scrutiny and will allow the House to reject the addition of any new territory to the Bill. Any Minister looking to add a new territory to the Bill would be expected to give Parliament good reason for doing so, therefore negating the need for this amendment. Having said that, I have sympathy with the spirit of the amendment and have asked officials to look into how we can give the noble Lord some reassurance on this. I will continue to liaise with noble Lords ahead of Report.
Amendment 10 would add a specification criterion for new countries to the Bill. This has not already been included to ensure that Parliament is given the full freedom to decide on any new territory. If criteria were to be added, Parliament might be put in the invidious position of having to accept that a particular territory that was not appropriate for specification for other reasons should be added. In this circumstance Parliament would likely want to consider all aspects of the proposal, so adding these criteria would limit Parliament’s discretion. As I have outlined, any Government proposing to add a new territory would also need to give clear reasons for doing so, both in the explanatory documents accompanying any statutory instrument and during any subsequent debate. We would not want to bind the hands of future Governments to decide on the criteria they use to specify a new country.
I think we can all agree that the factors identified by my noble friend will of course be important and relevant considerations that we would expect any Government to take into account when deciding whether it is appropriate to seek to add a new territory. However, we do not consider that they need to be in the Bill. The current drafting ensures that Parliament can assess the merits of each territory which is due to be added to the Bill and scrutinise any addition through the affirmative resolution procedure. I am not persuaded of the need for this amendment.
Amendment 11B aims to remove the United States from the Schedule. The US is a critical partner in fighting terrorism and international organised crime. It is a responsible user of Interpol and has a criminal justice system with extensive checks and balances. We are confident of these points in relation to the US as much as to the other countries that we seek to specify. The new power of arrest, which is designed to protect the public in this country, has nothing to do with whether UK extradition requests to other countries are successful. It is about ensuring, when we have robust and trustworthy information that a person is wanted for a serious offence, that the police can arrest that person. Requests from the US are backed by judicial warrants predicated on probable cause. This is a firm ground on which to bring a person before a judge in the UK to decide on their further detention.
My noble friend talked about the US President’s comments on judicial appointments. Of course, this was raised by the leader of the Opposition in another place. We need to bear in mind the context in which the President might have said that in an election year. The Prime Minister made his views on the US treaty very clear in another place last month. The Government’s long-standing position is that the treaty with the US is fair and balanced in practice.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Not at the moment. If my noble friend could wait until I have finished my comments, I will be happy to take his intervention. It is just that I have a number of points to make; I hope that is okay. The Prime Minister has committed to looking into the questions raised by the leader of the Opposition, so I am sure that my noble friend will look forward to that. This issue should not delay or undermine our efforts to ensure that police in the UK have the right powers in place to get wanted fugitives off British streets.
My noble friend talked about Anne Sacoolas, which is a valid issue; the US refusal to extradite her is a clear denial of justice. The Government and UK law enforcement continue to explore all opportunities to secure justice for Harry Dunn’s family. I bring to my noble friend’s attention the fact that this is the first case that has ever been refused under the UK-US extradition treaty. By contrast, we have refused 19 cases. The Government’s long-standing position is that the treaty is fair and balanced in practice. My noble friend also mentioned Dr Lynch. As we have stated, consideration of the substance of an extradition request includes any statutory bars to extradition such as political motivation. These are properly a matter for a judge at the extradition hearing. I will not comment any further as this is before the courts.
My noble friend also talked about reciprocity. What we are doing in this Bill is creating powers for the UK police, not obligations on the countries concerned. I know that he is concerned about reciprocity, but the Bill will enable UK police officers to protect the public more effectively. It is about ensuring that UK police officers have the power to remove dangerous individuals from our streets before they can abscond or offend, not relying on some sort of reciprocity that may depend on the nature of the regime in the other country. I am happy to take his intervention now if he wishes.
Lord Deben
I thank my noble friend the Minister. I realise what she is saying and acknowledge the care with which she is saying it; I thank her very much for that. I tried to intervene earlier specifically on the issue that President Trump had said what he said. The Minister said that we had to realise that that was an election situation. She then moved on to the Prime Minister. I put this to her: how happy would she be if our Prime Minister got up during an election and said, “I am very pleased that there are 181 judges that I have managed to get appointed, who will make decisions much closer to the Conservative Party’s views than the judges whom they replaced.”? I think that she would be deeply upset and would feel that that struck at the very heart of British justice. I am trying to make the point that the United States makes political decisions about judges, who are very often able to act in support of American business. In fact, this is one of the issues that President Trump has always raised—“America first”. My concern is that there is an actual case where that appears to be what happened. I do not think that it helps us to give the impression that the United States’ legal system is on a par with that of Switzerland, because it is not.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
On the point about taking the countries one by one, and the group that a country is in, as I said, in any secondary legislation that comes before your Lordships’ House there has to be a statement about the rationale for that secondary legislation, which Parliament can reject if it wishes. However, as I said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, I utterly understand where he comes from.
On the point about judicial appointments in the US, putting aside what President Trump said, I think that the US judiciary is very protective of its independence. Certainly, on the issue of arrest warrants, the US has a criminal justice system in which we can justifiably put this level of trust.
I have a note from the Box about favours from the US. This power is, of course, in our interests. It benefits UK police. On that note, I hope noble Lords will feel content not to press their amendments.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I will say a word on Amendment 9. I obviously agree with what has been said by a number of noble Lords about it. The views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, suggest that a Minister putting forward a list would have to be mightily careful that the list was of all good, or at least equally good, countries. If there was a doubtful one it would have to be separate. That lesson should be taken to heart. It is very unwise to have a great big list where we are not sure about two or three countries, because we would just lose the whole lot. I suspect that we may be faced in due course with a fair group about which we have some knowledge already. I do not think that that has anything to do with the Bill, but it might be a consequence of granting this power. I imagine that any Minister contemplating this who wished to be successful would be very careful to leave a country out of a list of very good countries and have it in a separate list if he thought that it would risk the others.
I have my own view on how judges are appointed in the United States and am rather anxious that nothing of the sort should appear here. On the other hand, judges in the United States, although they may be appointed for various reasons, have responsibility as judges. The point about this matter is that extradition to the United States or any other country will be decided by a judge, though ultimately subject to the discretion of the Home Secretary. The judiciary here will be in charge of that and obviously the degree to which the explanation given by the United States carries weight will be quite important.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, this is an interesting group. With regard to the United States and one of the Five Eyes seeing things a bit differently, if this matter comes back on Report, as it may, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the House how the human rights criteria that will be applied at the judicial stage would apply in any given situation without using specific cases. That is part of the whole picture.
On Amendment 6 and my suggestion that the word “vary” be deleted, we are told that this is to future-proof the arrangements in case one part of a territory secedes. I find it difficult to envisage all this and I do not see why the Government would not in that situation just delete the original but add the substituted territory. On Amendment 7, I confess I need to read properly what the Minister said. On the criteria listed in Amendment 10, the Minister said that Parliament would have to reject a territory if the criteria were not met. Actually, that is not the way round the amendment is written. Parliament would not be required to reject it but a reference to a territory could be added “only if”. I think those are different; these are on minima.
However, I see absolutely no down side to agreeing the amendment which at the start I said was the most important of this group with respect to the position of the United States. The justification proposing it is that it is not common practice. That does not mean that it is good practice in every situation. I am absolutely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who said that it is entirely consistent with support for the Bill. I will not follow his cricketing analogies because I will probably get them wrong again. As I said at Second Reading, we should not be in the business of bulk orders, if I may put it that way.
The Minister said that the affirmative resolution procedure gave Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise. Scrutiny means different things to different people, but it does not mean that you go straight from scrutiny to the remedy you are seeking. I do not think that it is an adequate response to an amendment which I really do not think would cause, as has been said, much more than a few more pieces of paper—a little more typing and standing up and sitting down. We will come back to this at the next stage. It ought to be such an easy one for the Government to concede to divert us from other amendments. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 6.
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the provision in the bill that allows regulations to amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by primary legislation.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 13, while Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is also in this group. Amendment 12 would remove the provision allowing
“regulations to amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by primary legislation.”
This is something to which I have a natural aversion. I appreciate that the regulations in question, in paragraph 29(2) of the schedule, are limited by paragraph 29(1) which refers to regulations
“consequential on the amendments made by this Schedule.”
Is paragraph 29(2) necessary? It suggests that the drafters were anxious that they did not have time to prepare the Bill. I have looked at what the 2003 Act says on this point. Section 219 provides for amendments, repeals and revocations but can deal only with one
“contained in an Act passed in a Session after that in which this Act is passed.”
I do not think that alters my central point, which is my natural aversion to regulations amending primary legislation. Amendment 13 deals with the same point. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 14 in this group. I owe the Committee an apology for not adding an explanatory statement, but essentially this is a probing amendment. The reason is that when I tabled it, I was not entirely sure exactly what my anxieties about the proposed legislation might be, but I have spoken to the Minister about my general unhappiness. Interestingly, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just talked about paragraph 29(2). It strikes me as extremely clumsy and I am uneasy about it. As I say, that is why I have tabled this amendment and discussed it with the Minister.
Throughout the passage of the Bill thus far, the Government have emphasised that it is about powers of arrest. Of course, much of the Bill is about those powers, but it is clearly set within the context of the extradition system as a whole. One has not only to look at the Title of the Bill to see that; if you look at its substance, it becomes apparent. In the nicest possible way, I think “the Lady complaineth too much” in talking about the focus of the Bill on powers of arrest. The Bill is essentially about the workings of our extradition system as a whole. As the Committee knows—and does not need me to point out—it is essentially divided into two parts; I oversimplify, of course. There is the bit that relates to the European arrest warrant and the bit that relates to the rest.
Lord Judge
My Lords, let us just look at what we are saying in paragraph 29(2): “Let’s pass this Bill, which is a very good idea, and let’s pass it in such a way that regulations may change the whole thing.” Is that really what we want to do?
Lord Deben
My Lords, I feel very strongly that although we may have disagreed on the subject of the United States, that should not stop us recognising the wider argument to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has referred. Far too much legislation going through both Houses ends up leaving everything to be decided in secondary legislation where it is almost impossible to make changes, and this is another example.
I want to underline what my noble friend Lord Inglewood has said, which is that extradition is far too important a matter to leave basic, material decisions merely to secondary legislation. This is part of the freedom that people in this country rightly feel they have and I do not believe that we should allow the Government to have the powers that this seems to allow. I hope that my noble friend will recognise that this is a matter of real principle, a principle that the party to which we both belong is supposed to believe in above all things—constitutional propriety. This is not constitutional propriety, but sleight of hand.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I do not have many remarks to make on this and I could not think of a quixotic quote. However, I really like Shakespeare because he is connected with the borough I grew up in, so I will remind you of this quote
“haste is needful in this desperate case.”
Some of the points which have been made are very important and should be taken on board. What are we doing here? We support the legislation in principle, but we have asked for reasons why we are doing this and we have gone through some of the wording before.
I look forward in particular to the Minister’s response to Amendment 12 because when you look at the wording it seeks to take out, it is quite worrying that it is in there at all. It may well be that there is a perfectly understandable explanation and I will be able to get up in a moment and say, “I fully support what the Minister intends to do”, but as it reads now, I am worried about what we are passing here. Perhaps she will say that it is fine because it talks about further consequential provisions in the sub-paragraph above and the Government will do nothing. However, there is an issue about the powers we are giving to the Executive and our ability to scrutinise or change them at a later date. That point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, so I want this to be looked at.
Amendment 13 seeks to remove regulations about “saving” or “incidental” provision. What is that about? We could make all sorts of changes by saying that something is a saving. We could get rid of whole swathes of stuff, so what are we agreeing to? We do not want to find ourselves saying months or years ahead that we did not realise when we agreed to this that we were giving those powers to the Executive. I will leave it there and look forward to the Minister’s response, but I may intervene at some point for further clarification.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank noble Lords for the points they have made and I hope to be able to allay any fears around what Amendments 12, 13 and 14 seek to address.
As noble Lords have said, paragraph 29(1) confers a power on the Secretary of State to make further provisions that are consequential on the amendments made by the Schedule to the Bill. This is a standard power which is commonplace in legislation and is naturally constrained. It can be used only to make provisions that are consequential and it is not a power to make substantive policy changes. Rather, it will allow the Government to make small, technical amendments for good housekeeping to ensure that that statute book is consistent and functions well.
As we implement the new arrest power, it is in everyone’s interests to ensure legal continuity for law enforcement partners and those subject to arrest for extradition purposes. While many of the amendments required to other enactments are made by Part 2 of the Schedule to the Bill, it is anticipated that further consequential amendments may be identified as part of the implementation process. That is why the standard power is taken to provide the flexibility to ensure that the new arrest power can operate smoothly and efficiently. Placing a timeframe such as 12 months on the use of the power would unnecessarily frustrate the aim. In any event, as noble Lords will know, the power cannot be used to amend future legislation.
As to the scope of the possible amendments, the Bill is narrowly focused. Its purpose is to provide a power of provisional arrest for specified category 2 territories for extradition purposes. I stress the point that it does not affect or relate to the subsequent extradition process. The purpose of the consequential power is to deal with the consequences of those changes to the statute book. As such, just as wider amendments to the Extradition Act 2003 fall outside the Bill’s ambit, so amendments to effect wider extradition policy would fall outwith the consequential amendments power. The power extends to provisions that amend, repeal or revoke any provision of primary legislation. As I hope I have made clear, this is not unusual or exceptional. It is standard practice to take such a power to provide flexibility for smooth and efficient implementation.
Similarly, the power to make saving or incidental provision by regulations found at paragraph 29(3) of the Schedule is a standard power commonly given in legislation for the purposes of smoothing the introduction of a change to the statute book. Incidental provision would include only amendments that are necessary or expedient to make the Bill’s substantive provisions work. Saving provisions are required where it is necessary to preserve existing law following a change to legislation —for example, to ensure fairness or consistency in court proceedings in progress at the time of a change to legislation. As I have stated, these are standard clauses. Any amendment by regulations that amended, repealed or revoked primary legislation would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure by virtue of paragraph 29(5), as befitting a Henry VIII power of this type. I hope that I have allayed noble Lords’ fears about that.
As a final point to my noble friend Lord Inglewood, the power in this Act would not allow us simply to move countries from Part 1 to Part 2 of the Extradition Act, nor to substantively amend Part 1. Those are not consequential amendments. With those explanations, I hope that noble Lords will feel happy to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the Minister very much for explaining that. I am reassured to a large extent by what she said. Would it be possible to give an example of one of those little technical things that would be changed so that we are clear what we are all talking about? If she cannot now, maybe she could write to us.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I acknowledged that the regulations referred to in paragraph 29(2) must be within paragraph 29(1). I come back to the point that good housekeeping should be done before a Bill is presented to Parliament, not least because it would reduce the amount of time needed on the Bill in Parliament. For many years, I have recognised that it is a great deal easier to sit on this side of the House or Committee and pick holes than it must be to draft this stuff. Nevertheless, it is our job to pick some holes.
I do not apologise for raising this and cannot say that my concerns are wholly allayed: the words “necessary” and “expedient” were used in the delegated powers memorandum, along with “detailed and technical” about the nature of the amendments. I would like to assure myself that the words in the Bill reflect what has been said. I will possibly talk to the noble and learned Lord before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 12.
Lord Inglewood
“( ) Sub-paragraph (1) and any regulations made under this paragraph expire at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day of this Schedule coming into force.”
Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her words and put on record, which I have not yet done this afternoon, that I support the basic principles surrounding the provisions relating to arrest in this context. I heard what she said about the powers in the Bill and the withdrawal of countries from Part 1 of the 2003 Act. I think I read earlier today that the powers to do that by secondary legislation are contained in the 2003 Act itself, so there is a possibility of the whole EAW system, if I can call it that, collapsing. Then something has to be done next, but I will not major on that any more at this point. The Minister said that these were usual provisions; they may be usual provisions in usual times, but we are in slightly unusual times.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the reference to the National Assembly for Wales with a reference to Senedd Cymru, reflecting the change made by the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 (anaw 1) to the name of the Assembly.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Government have laid Amendment 15 to reflect Section 2 of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020, which changes the name of the Welsh legislature to “Senedd Cymru or the Welsh Parliament”. This amendment is a technical consequential amendment. It follows the new practice of using the Welsh name when referring only to the Welsh legislature. I hope noble Lords will be able to join me in voting for this amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am very happy to support this amendment. While looking at it, I was thinking that Members of the Welsh Parliament are called Assembly Members. What will they be called in future? They are in a Parliament and are called AMs—will there be some consequential change there? Maybe someone could clarify that at some point.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will try to do that. It is a technical point to which I do not know the answer.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, it might assist the noble Lord if I point out to him that they are Aelodau Senedd, or AS, in Welsh. It is “Senedd” with a “th” sound, not a “d” sound.
House of Lords
Crown Prosecution Service: Rape Cases
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service in prosecuting cases of rape.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the CPS is a partner in the ongoing cross-government review of the criminal justice response to rape. It has already accepted all recommendations in the recently published HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate’s Rape Inspection 2019 report, and, together with the police, is developing a joint action plan that will address issues raised in the report and, in due course, the findings of the cross-government review.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that rape victims are finding it increasingly difficult to access justice, as the police refer fewer cases to the Crown Prosecution Service and fewer allegations of rape are being prosecuted and convicted, according to new figures? The number of cases referred by the police for charging decisions fell by 32% in the year to September last year, while prosecutions by the CPS fell by 26% and convictions dropped by 21%, which is the lowest level in more than a decade. Does the Minister agree with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill, who said:
“I share the deep public concern over the growing gap between the number of rapes being reported, and the number of criminals being convicted of this sickening offence … There is a clear need for end-to-end action to provide better support for victims of this devastating crime, and to bring more offenders to justice”?
The Minister mentioned the review. Can he say a little more about it, including when the findings will be announced and what action will be taken on it?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we are concerned by the reductions in the number of referrals for charge and in the number of prosecutions. That is why we are concerned to take forward the review, which we hope to complete this year. As regards the figures, I should perhaps point out that the volume of pre-charge receipts from the police fell from 3,375 in 2018 to 2,890 in the year ending September 2019. That is a decrease of just over 14%. There were 2.343 completed prosecutions in the year ending September 2019; again, I acknowledge that that was a fall from the previous year, when there were 3.034.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
My Lords, 35 years ago I published a book called Investigating Rape: A New Approach for Police. That book was based around the theory of rape trauma syndrome, which leads victims to give accounts which are initially contradictory. It appears that the fall in rape prosecutions is because the prosecutors are finding discrepancies in the victims’ accounts. Will the Minister explain to the House whether rape trauma syndrome is taught to prosecutors?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, whatever the terminology may be, RASO prosecutors are trained in all of these matters, and when they come to apply the merits test in relation to such complaints they do so simply on the basis of the merits. Certainly the CPS is clear that victims and witnesses should never be discouraged or prevented from seeking therapy and counselling, whether before or during a trial process, and that the need for such counselling should be taken into account when addressing the evidence placed before the CPS.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, the other day there were more media reports of young girls, raped as children, who cannot get justice because of the one-year time limit to commence proceedings for unlawful sexual intercourse set by the old Sexual Offences Act 1956. When I raised this question with the noble and learned Lord last October, he referred to the review that he has just mentioned to my noble friend. Do we really need a review to bring forward action to close this unjust loophole that is protecting rapists and not giving victims the justice they deserve?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I appreciate the concern that has been expressed in respect of this matter. We are taking forward the review but, in addition, we are also setting up a child sexual abuse stakeholder forum, which consists of survivor groups, key national charities and academics in order to address this issue.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, a recent study highlighted that only 25% of university students who had experienced rape went on to report it to their university or to the police. It is therefore of concern that, since 2016, 300 non-disclosure agreements have been issued by universities in response to student complaints, including assault and harassment reports. The Office for Students and Universities UK are working to improve the handling of harassment and misconduct by universities, but can the Minister advise the House when the Government plan to legislate against the misuse of NDAs by higher education institutions to ensure that students are not discouraged from reporting these assaults?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, there has been widespread concern about the utilisation of non-disclosure agreements, not only in the context of university administration but across the board. It is a matter of concern, but I cannot at this time indicate a time for the introduction of legislation on the matter.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
In its thematic review of rape cases, the CPS concluded that, if 58,657 allegations of rape were made in the year ending March 2019 but only 1,000 successful prosecutions followed, something must be wrong. It is not kidding. The CPS points the finger at underresourcing and additional factors such as the growing evidential importance of digital media. The Minister has referred to the review: does he agree that it needs urgently to be carried out and that the resources, and legislation if necessary, should be provided to create a system fit for purpose and to restore justice for victims of this heinous crime?
Lord Keen of Elie
I concur with the sentiment expressed by the noble Baroness. On digital material, which has increased enormously in recent years, the CPS introduced a guideline in July 2018 which makes it clear that it should not be assumed as a matter of course that such digital material is looked at. However, we have launched a recent consultation on the revised disclosure guidelines. That will run until 22 April and I hope that those who have an interest in this matter will direct their comments to the Office of the Attorney General in that respect. With the recent increase in funds to the CPS, we have taken steps to increase the number of prosecutors by about 20% in order that we can be more effective in pursuing RASO prosecutions.
Health: Lesbian, Bisexual and Trans Women
Baroness Barker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve health outcomes for lesbian, bisexual and trans women.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this timely Question ahead of the national LBT Women’s Health Week. The Government remain committed to providing comprehensive healthcare for all, irrespective of gender or sexual orientation. Throughout the LGBT action plan, we are taking steps to ensure that the needs of LGBT people are placed at the heart of our services. While we have made significant progress, we are not complacent. We recognise that more must be done to continue improving access to and the provision of health services.
Baroness Barker (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Despite a legal duty to be inclusive, there is growing evidence that LGBT women’s health is neglected. Across all cancers, we have a higher incidence than our heterosexual counterparts. Will the Department of Health and Social Care work with NHS England to change commissioning standards and to monitor services and outputs for LGBT women?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. The national LBGT survey and the recent GP patient survey indicate that health outcomes for LBT women are lower than average, and this causes concern. We are interested in finding ways of commissioning services so that that can be rectified. It is not just in cancer services but in smear tests and other areas of clinical provision.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister’s Answer gives me great optimism because it seems from the report by the Women and Equalities Select Committee in the Commons that there is an LGBT action plan on which the Government Equalities Office has the lead and which covers LGBT-inclusive healthcare, but it is separate from and not included in the NHS long-term plan. I think the Minister would agree with me that this is unhelpful. It seems to imply that the responsibility for LGBT-inclusive healthcare lies with the Government Equalities Office rather than with health and social care institutions. Will the Minister look into this and perhaps write to me about whether it is a good idea that this is the case, and perhaps suggest a solution to it?
Lord Bethell
I assure the noble Baroness that the LGBT action plan, which is, as she described, a detailed programme to address these issues, is delivered by Dr Michael Brady, the national LGBT health adviser, who works very closely with the NHS. LGBT issues are at the centre of the long-term health plan and will remain so.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend please give particular emphasis to the needs of young people with gender dysphoria, to improving the services available for them and, in particular, to funding research into what courses of treatment lead to the best outcomes?
Lord Bethell
My noble friend is entirely right to raise the issue of adult gender dysphoria. Delays in finding the right consultations are of concern to the Government. Those delays have an impact on the mental health of those concerned. It is a focus of the LGBT action plan, and I would be glad to update my noble friend as progress is made.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, last year’s Women and Equalities Committee report, Health and Social Care and LGBT Communities, recommended:
“Training can be the first exposure that students have to LGBT health needs. All registration bodies should ensure that case studies … does not play into stereotypes. Registration bodies should develop these case studies in cooperation with local LGBT organisations.”
Can the Minister tell the House whether organisations are now following this advice?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is entirely right to ask about training, which is at the heart of our LGBT action plan. NHS England has funded the Royal College of Physicians to develop the UK’s first accredited training course on gender medicine and has developed online and video content to help to create the type of training we believe will have an impact. The training of the workforce and its awareness of LBGT needs will be at the heart of improvement in this area. That is why we are focusing our efforts on training.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, the Government funded Dr Michael Brady’s post but he does not actually have any authority to bring about change in the NHS. Does the noble Lord agree that such change will come about only when its leadership and the various medical professional bodies admit the present failings towards women? Women are dying as a result. There needs to be change and that change needs to be urgent.
Lord Bethell
I assure the noble Baroness that there is full recognition and awareness of and concern about this issue. The impact of Dr Michael Brady, whom I spoke to yesterday, is profound. He has a very high profile within the department, and the work he has done is valued and will make an impact.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, is this not an illustration of the problems with the NHS’s current structure? Ministers can proclaim anything they like from the Dispatch Box, but at the moment, they do not control what is happening in the NHS. It is time for Ministers to restore their power of direction over the NHS.
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord makes an interesting point, but it is simply not true that Ministers do not drive change or have an impact on reforms in the NHS. We have a profound and energetic reform agenda, and it is being driven through with energy and determination.
Sub-postmasters: Compensation
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the level of compensation received by sub-postmasters as a result of the Horizon accounting system litigation, as compared to the losses those sub-postmasters incurred due to Post Office Ltd’s policies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, while the Government are pleased that a resolution has been reached on this difficult matter, the Post Office led the mediation and the Government were not party to it. While the financial settlement is a major step toward resolving some of these grievances, there is much more for the Post Office to do, including resetting its relationship with postmasters and addressing historic shortfalls for postmasters who were not part of this group litigation.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Many of your Lordships will have been delighted to hear the Prime Minister say last week in Prime Minister’s Questions that there would be an independent inquiry into what he described as the Post Office Horizon IT system “scandal”. Can my noble friend give us details of that inquiry, in particular of how it will be independent of not only the Post Office but the Government?
Lord Callanan
First, I pay tribute to my noble friend for rightly pursuing these matters with dogged determination. We probably would not be where we are today without his work and that of many others on this issue. The Government recognise the strength of feeling about the negative impact that the court case has had on postmasters. As my honourable friend, Paul Scully MP, announced at BEIS Oral Questions on Tuesday, we are looking into what needs to be done. We will outline the next steps following the Prime Minister’s announcement as soon as possible.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to an independent inquiry into what he described as a “scandal”. We hope that those who did not take legal action will get full and rapid compensation, though I appreciate the Minister’s comments on the set-up. But no compensation can make up for the emotional trauma and loss of reputation, livelihood and health that has cost people dearly. Will the Minister agree, like us, to press for full compensation as well as restoration of moneys lost?
Lord Callanan
The noble Baroness makes an important point. In the near future, a scheme will be announced with the aim of addressing the historic shortfalls for postmasters who are not part of the group litigation. The Government will challenge and monitor the progress of this scheme. There is also the important issue of people convicted of offences: 57 cases have been referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. If a case is referred to the Court of Appeal and a conviction is overturned, there are avenues for people to pursue compensation there as well.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I want to follow up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot. At Prime Minister’s Questions, as has been said, the Prime Minister committed to an independent inquiry on the back of a Question from Kate Osborne about whether he would launch such an inquiry. The Prime Minister said that he would follow up on that but No. 10 communications later said that no decisions had been taken with regard to a specific independent inquiry. I was not clear from the Minister’s earlier answer whether we are going to progress with an independent inquiry to get to the bottom of this matter. We had a very good debate in the Moses Room on it last week, and a lot of information came out. Can the Minister say whether there will be an independent inquiry and, if so, what its timescale will be?
Lord Callanan
We agree that there needs to be a full examination, with due rigour, of what happened and what the next steps will be, but I cannot go further than the answer that I gave earlier to my noble friend—that, as soon as we can, we will announce the next steps following the Prime Minister’s announcement.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it is possibly worth remembering in this case that a major national organisation running a public service has stamped on and destroyed the lives not merely of local innocent people but of local people who are key members of their communities, serving those communities and doing their best to maintain the community spirit. Can this matter be addressed with intense urgency? Otherwise, some very sad personal tragedies will follow.
Lord Callanan
My noble friend is absolutely correct and I agree with what he says. There were a number of tragedies and some people committed suicide as a result. There is no question but that the Post Office management at the time behaved disgracefully but none of them is now in post. It is very important that we get on with these matters as quickly as possible. Some of them are subject to the judicial process, which my noble friend will know I cannot comment on, but I hope that there will be a resolution as soon as possible for these sad, unfortunate individuals.
Lord Hain (Lab)
What lessons have the Government drawn from this? This is a public corporation that has acted in an authoritarian way to trash the reputations of pillars of the community—people who are respected in the local community. There must be some lessons to be drawn by the Government. What are they?
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord is entirely right: a number of lessons need to be drawn. The Post Office is an independent company where the shareholding is owned 100% by the Government, and we appoint an independent director to the board. During the unfolding of this scandal, BEIS officials were clearly misled by the Post Office and the information provided was not correct. We are looking at a new governance framework to address these matters going forward and, again, an announcement on that will be made in due course.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, it has been acknowledged this morning that the PM said a few days ago that we need to get to the bottom of the matter. Does the Minister agree that an inquiry needs to begin sooner rather than later and that its scope should include the possibility of changing the police records and decriminalising those who were falsely accused?
Lord Callanan
I hope that we can get the matter resolved as quickly as possible. The work of the CCRC is important and the Government cannot interfere in it. I understand that decisions on this issue are expected fairly soon and will then have to go back to the Court of Appeal. I think we all wish that the judicial process could be speedier at times but we have to let these matters take their course. However, I take on board my noble friend’s concerns.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, in a previous discussion on this issue, I asked the Minister about the role of the Government’s non-executive director on the board of the Post Office. In reply, he said:
“His role has evolved from a perhaps more passive approach to a much more active one going forward.”—[Official Report, 4/2/20; col. 1711.]
Can my noble friend tell us what this new active approach of the Government’s non-executive director is?
Lord Callanan
My noble friend makes an important point. As I said in response to an earlier question, we are looking at the framework of the decisions. This is not just about the role of the non-executive director; it is about the whole oversight of the organisation by BEIS—how we improve the governance and monitoring of what is, in effect, an independent company. Operational decisions are a matter for the board of the Post Office, but clearly the fact that I am standing here in front of your Lordships answering questions now shows that it is a company owned 100% by the Government. Lessons need to be learned and we need to get to the bottom of this. I have spoken personally to the new chief executive of the Post Office, as have other ministerial colleagues, and we are satisfied that he now has a grip on the situation. The accounting system has been improved and the board is co-operating fully with the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, as indeed it should.
Gambling Commission: Problem Gambling
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to support the Gambling Commission to address problem gambling.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
I thought maybe I was going to get two Questions in one.
My Lords, we are committed to reducing gambling-related harm and we are working closely with the Gambling Commission to do that. We have strengthened many protections in the last year, cutting stakes on FOBTs, tightening online age and identity checks, and announcing a ban on credit card gambling. We are carefully considering the recent recommendations from the National Audit Office and we have committed to review the Gambling Act to make sure that it is fit for the digital age.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I apologise for rushing my Question. The Gambling Commission reports that the number of problem gamblers is now 430,000—an increase of more than 100,000 since 2012—and that the number in danger now exceeds 2.3 million, including 11.5% of those who use machines in bookmakers’ premises: a 50% increase since 2012. In addition to any measures to control the industry, what steps will the Government take to inform and reach out to members of the public, especially those at risk, and to ensure that support, including medical support where relevant, is available to them?
Baroness Barran
There are a number of elements in the noble Lord’s question. On the number of problem gamblers, he is quite right that it has become much easier to gamble and there is a lot of sponsorship and advertising around gamblers. The percentage of problem and at-risk gamblers has actually stayed very stable over the years, but the Government have a manifesto commitment to review the Gambling Act to make sure that it is fit for the digital age. The noble Lord will be aware that significant investment is being made through the NHS in specialist treatment clinics for problem gamblers.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, gambling addicts can accumulate a significant amount of debt and in order to pay it off, they are sometimes taking out personal loans and credit cards. What are the Government doing by way of working with the banks and financial institutions to identify and address the issue and curb this, as it is increasing? I declare an interest as the chairman of the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Baroness Barran
I thank my noble friend for her question. On the risk of problem gambling, all operators will have to join GAMSTOP, the one-stop online self-exclusion scheme that will come into effect at the end of this month. As she will be aware, the Government announced the banning of credit card gambling, which is extremely important because less than 1% of the population are problem gamblers but 22% of credit card gamblers were found to be so. I look forward to talking to my noble friend more about what else we can do in relation to the financial services industry.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, at a time when the NHS is facing such unbelievable pressures from the coronavirus, it is also having to set up 14 gambling clinics across the country to try to deal with this situation. The industry has a gross gambling yield of £14 billion a year. Is it not time to bring in a statutory levy, so that the polluter pays for the damage being caused?
Baroness Barran
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his suggestion. There are currently no plans to introduce a statutory levy. As he will be aware, the gambling companies make a major contribution of about £3 billion in tax. The concerns around a statutory levy would be the same for gambling as for tobacco or alcohol, which also carry huge health risks, so there are no current plans to proceed with that.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, the NAO recognises that the Gambling Commission is a small body struggling to keep up with a fast-changing industry, but surely there are some things it could be doing. For example, an increasing amount of gambling is taking place online, which is a growing issue for problem gamblers; yet although we have stakes and prize limits for land-based gambling products, there are none for similar online products. Can the Minister explain why not?
Baroness Barran
I cannot explain why not today, but consideration will be given as to whether that is in scope of the legislative review. As I said, one of our tasks is to ensure that the legislation is completely relevant for the digital age.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, first, I echo what the right reverend Prelate has said about a levy. We must steel ourselves to the outcry from the gambling industry, and just do it. It has to pay for all the costs that have been transferred to the NHS, and that is that. It is time that the Government expressed a degree of urgency on that question. Secondly, last week the National Audit Office report concluded:
“The Gambling Commission is a small regulator in a challenging and dynamic industry”
and is
“constrained by factors outside its control”.
Can the Government strengthen this small regulator and give it teeth and a course of action that will lead to better regulation from within the industry, rather than us tiresomely having to bring these concerns again and again to the attention of the House?
Baroness Barran
I am sorry to repeat myself but clearly, our review of the Act, about which there is great urgency, is a key part of this. We work closely with the commission to ensure that it has the funding it needs in the way that it needs it, in order to fulfil its task. We recognise that its principal focus recently has been on the regulation of online gambling, which is more complicated and resource-intensive. The Government are absolutely open to discussing suggestions from the commission to improve its position.
Sentencing Bill [HL]
Thursday 5th March 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Sentencing Act 2020 View all Sentencing Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text
Business of the House
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Wednesday 11 March to allow the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, on the Motion, will the Chief Whip comment on the story on the front page of the Times today that the House, and indeed Parliament as a whole, might be suspended for six months because of the coronavirus? Is he aware that this would be regarded as a very bad move by almost all Members of the House and would send a terrible signal to the country about the way in which we are treating the crisis that we face? He will be aware that Parliament sat all the way through the war, and indeed through the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918-19. Surely the best advice that we can give ourselves is to keep calm and carry on.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Adonis has just said. From my experience of almost 20 years ago, following the attacks of 11 September 2001, I know that the one thing that we have to avoid is alarming people. I cannot think of anything that would alarm the nation more, and damage both individuals and our economy, than Parliament failing to sit because of the coronavirus. I hope that, united as we appear to be, we can send a message to the other place that we want a sensible, rational and balanced approach, which so far the Government have been achieving.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the debate, as there is lots of information we do not yet have, but there are two issues on which I seek assurance from the noble Lord. First, if any action at all is to be taken in restricting access to Parliament, or in any way restricting our work, it should be taken only on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer and with the approval of Parliament.
Secondly, if at any point the virus leads to any restriction on how Parliament works, the Government will need to put in place plans to ensure that democracy continues. That is the point being made by the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Blunkett. I understand that the No. 10 briefing points out that there could be a quorum of 100 MPs. The quorum is currently 40, so the article does not make much sense, but we should ensure that both Houses of Parliament can operate. I hope the noble Lord gives some information about the plans being drawn up by Downing Street for the worst-case scenarios.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I support the comments from other noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. It is important that Parliament sets an example to the nation. If the coronavirus were to be so devastating that we have to close every organisation that brings several hundred people together, it would devastate the economic and social life of the nation. So far, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that that would be necessary for the rest of the nation. For Parliament to appear almost to be taking the lead in wishing to hide away is a very bad signal to the rest of the country. Can the noble Lord assure us that that approach will not be followed by the Government?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I have advised my noble friend that I would try to raise this and I strongly support what has been said. There may be a case for restricting the number of people who sit in the Galleries—everybody has access to Parliament through the television—but for Parliament itself to abdicate would be entirely wrong. Never has it been more important to hold the Government to account and to hear what they are proposing to do.
In that context, I raise a second point, of which I have again advised my noble friend. I was appalled to see that we are going to have weekly updates of the statistics. We have been having them daily, and we have been told where the outbreaks are. It is very important that we are kept fully informed and that Statements are made regularly in both Houses, so that we can question the Government. I strongly urge my noble friend to say that the daily update will be maintained and that there will be no question whatever of the suspension of Parliament in the foreseeable future.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to answer those questions on this important matter. Although they are not directly connected to the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, I understand that this was an opportunity for noble Lords to raise these important issues. Let me make it clear that there are no plans to close down the House or Parliament, as was reported this morning in the papers. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that Parliament has proved itself to be very resilient over the years and centuries. There is no reason at the moment to think that shutting Parliament would be either necessary or helpful. As the Secretary of State made clear yesterday at the all-Peers briefing, our approach will be guided by the latest scientific and medical advice, which addresses the question the noble Baroness asked. We will take all necessary measures to deal with this outbreak. I believe the Chief Medical Officer said at the Health and Social Care Committee today that he sees no reason why Westminster needs to close, at this point.
I reiterate that, importantly, we will take advice from the Chief Medical Officer for England and from his colleagues in the devolved Administrations; there is, if you like, a college of Chief Medical Officers. Those noble Lords who went to the briefing yesterday will know that he was, first, reassuring and, secondly, able to express the position clearly. We will follow the Chief Medical Officer’s advice, and I assure the House that we are engaging with the parliamentary authorities to emphasise how important it is that any decisions are taken in line with his advice.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response, which I think is as full a one as he is able to give at the moment. Can I press him slightly on this, as these will be political as well as medical decisions? There has been concern following the newspaper articles, because we have seen the unlawful prorogation of Parliament in the past. Can he commit to keeping the usual channels and the House updated on any plans and discussions that take place? I think we are largely reassured by his commitment that Parliament should do everything it can to maintain its role, both for the message that sends and for its important role in holding the Government to account.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I certainly can confirm that we will keep the usual channels and the House updated. Noble Lords will appreciate that in the last two days there has been a Statement, with extra time made available for questions, and yesterday there was an all-Peers briefing from the Secretary of State and the Chief Medical Officer, so up to now we have made efforts to keep the House informed. I understand the point about democracy. As far as I understood it from the Chief Medical Officer yesterday, there are cycles in this virus and we will take account of them in our response. I absolutely take the point that democracy should not be avoided because of this virus.
Business of the House
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the debate on the motion in the name of Lord Young of Norwood Green set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Baroness Morris of Yardley to two and a half hours.
High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Select Committee:
Brabazon of Tara, L, Goddard of Stockport, L, Haselhurst, L, Hope of Craighead, L (Chair), Horam, L, Liddle, L, Snape, L.
That the quorum of the Committee be four;
That the Committee have power to meet outside the Parliamentary Estate;
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes; and
That the Report of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I offer a few words of congratulation to the noble Lords appointed to this committee. With previous Select Committees, the House of Lords has really done very well in listening to petitions and coming up with recommendations. It is particularly important for this phase, which is much shorter than the first one. I hope that noble Lords, when they consider the petitions, will listen not only to the promoters but to the petitioners, because many of the issues are particularly dear to me as a civil engineer. They are to do with ground settlement, how many lorries are needed to move spoil through villages and things such as that. As the committee will know, the Prime Minister, in his Statement two or three weeks ago that set the project in train, was critical of some of the work done by HS2. So my plea to noble Lords on the committee, apart from wishing them well, is to listen to petitioners, give them time and listen to the evidence—I know that they will—rather more than sometimes happens in the Select Committees of the other place, where everybody is in a hurry. Here, I hope that they will listen and read the speeches from two or three days ago from the Members of Parliament who set this project moving again after the election.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, recently I met a lady whose farm will be split in two by the high-speed rail link. I wonder what the remit of the committee is, and whether it is possible within that remit to consider mediation as a form of settling compensation where it is impossible for the parties to agree. I understood from this lady that any potential compensation claim could lead to a court litigation fee of £200,000, which is money she did not have—and obviously, if she lost the case, she would also have to cover the litigation costs of the developers. Could this be covered by expanding the remit of the committee at this stage?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their good wishes to the committee—I am sure that it will accept that with alacrity. Its purpose is to consider petitions against the Bill submitted by those directly and specifically affected by it. When it has finished its work, the Bill will return to the House for further consideration in the normal way. The committee can consider only those issues brought to it by the petitioners.
As noble Lords know, the principle of the Bill was agreed by the House when it gave it a Second Reading on 9 September last year; the House subsequently agreed to its revival on 25 February this year. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, any proposal to make major changes to the route would require an additional provision which committees in the second House do not normally consider. This committee would not be empowered to consider a proposal amounting to an additional provision unless the House instructed it to do so.
Finally, the chairman of the committee is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, with whom I have worked for the past three and a half years. He is rigorous, logical and very courteous, and he ensures that every detail is analysed. We have every confidence in this committee doing its work under his chairmanship.
Flybe
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, with permission, I will now repeat a Statement made in the House of Commons by the Minister for Aviation earlier today. The Statement is as follows:
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the collapse of Flybe. In the early hours of this morning, Flybe ceased trading. This was a commercial decision by the company, and Flybe has filed for insolvency. UK airports handled 9.5 million Flybe passengers in 2018, with 80% of these travelling within the UK. An estimated 15,000 passengers were due to fly today, so our immediate priority is to support passengers travelling home and employees who have lost their jobs. Flybe has had a challenging year in terms of its financial performance, with a decline in bookings and increased competition.
Levelling up connectivity across our regions and nations is a top priority for this Government. We are driving forward HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail, we have announced a £5 billion funding package for bus and cycle links, and we are investing £6.6 billion to improve the condition of local highway networks between 2015 and 2021. We are undertaking a review of regional connectivity to ensure that the UK has the domestic transport connections that local communities rely on, including regional airports. The Treasury is also reviewing air passenger duty—APD—to ensure that regional connectivity is supported while meeting the UK’s climate change commitments to meet net zero by 2050.
These measures featured in conversations with Flybe back in January, and in turn it agreed to continue operating. Since then, we have been working tirelessly to explore multiple options with Flybe’s shareholders to find a solution. Flybe outlined that problems with its business have been compounded by the outbreak of coronavirus, which in the last few days has resulted in a significant impact on demand. The directors therefore decided that it was not viable to keep Flybe operating. Unfortunately, in a competitive market companies do fail. It is not the role of government to prop them up.
Given the time of year, the nature of Flybe’s business and fleet and the routes it flies, sufficient alternative transport arrangements should be available, with other airlines or by road and rail. The number of passengers abroad is small and is further reduced as a result of coronavirus. For those passengers who are abroad, there is sufficient capacity on other commercial airlines to return to the UK. The Civil Aviation Authority and the Secretary of State are encouraging these airlines to offer rescue fares, and this is already happening. I would like to thank those, including easyJet, which has today announced that it will offer Flybe passengers a dedicated rescue fare up to the end of May.
We are working with bus and rail operators to support Flybe passengers in getting to their destination, and I am extremely grateful that the Rail Delivery Group has this morning confirmed that all operators are offering free travel to Flybe staff and passengers for a week, free of charge.
For passengers due to fly with Flybe in the next few days, I would ask that they do not turn up at the airport. They should instead please look at the website set up by the Civil Aviation Authority and talk to their travel agents, travel insurance providers and credit card companies. For those who do arrive at UK airports today, we are making government representatives available to offer support and provide information to passengers affected.
I would like to express my sincere sympathy to those who have lost their jobs as a result of this failure. This will include crew, engineers, technicians, staff at Flybe headquarters in Exeter, and others. We understand that this must be a very worrying time for workers and their families. The Department for Work and Pensions stands ready to support anyone affected by the closure with its rapid response service offer. This will be available to all those affected through local Jobcentre Plus outlets. Additionally, in the event of any redundancies, there are special arrangements for employees who are owed redundancy pay and other payments by their insolvent employer. The redundancy payments service in the Insolvency Service can pay certain amounts owed to the former employees from the National Insurance Fund. I will work with my ministerial colleagues to ensure that any redundancy payments are paid to affected employees as soon as possible.
We recognise the impact that this will have on UK airports, particularly those which have large-scale Flybe operations. Government stands ready to support this sector, and I have full confidence that it will respond as effectively as it always has. We are urgently working with industry to identify opportunities to fill routes and I have spoken to airlines today to emphasise this. Globally, aviation is facing challenges due to the impact of coronavirus. The Government are well prepared for this, and as the wider economic picture becomes clearer, the Chancellor has said that he stands ready to announce further support where needed. I will be chairing a round table with members of the aviation industry next week to discuss the issues presented by coronavirus.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank passengers for their patience and make known my appreciation for the work undertaken by everyone who has again stepped up to ensure that passengers and local communities are supported. We will continue to work across government to ensure that both passengers and staff are able to access the information and services they require at this sad and challenging time.”
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. This collapse could have very serious consequences, not just for those currently stranded here or abroad; not just for employees—the ground staff at airports as well as direct employees—and not even just for the insurance industry. This collapse has longer-term consequences, particularly for our regions, heavily reliant on connectivity for employment, tourism and travel. I need hardly say that with the almost certain economic impact of coronavirus and travel changes after 31 December, the loss of a major transport link could have particularly serious consequences.
Any attempt to blame this collapse on the coronavirus will not wash. Transport experts had been warning about the state of this company well before the first cough, and the Government must explain why a proper plan was not in place before recent events. We have been here before with passengers affected by the collapse of Monarch and Thomas Cook. This case is worse for some, with fewer passengers travelling on packages and therefore not necessarily ATOL-protected. We welcome what is being done in the short term to get passengers home, but there is also the loss of holidays and other associated costs. Can the Minister spell out the plans to assist those passengers beyond mere transport? Also, how does the Government plan to re-establish trust in the industry, which is taking a serious hit? Given that the CAA has sustained funding cuts under this Government, can the Minister confirm whether any additional financial support will be provided to enable it to support passengers following Flybe’s collapse?
The impact of this on the regions and nations of the UK cannot be overestimated: 80% of flights at Belfast City Airport are operated by Flybe, 95% at Southampton, 50% at Humberside and at Wick, and 100% at Anglesey, with 30 other airports affected. Many of these provide critical connectivity, often where there is no realistic alternative to flying. Indeed, some of these smaller airports might now themselves be at risk. The impact on small businesses could be devastating. Can the Minister outline the support that will be made available to communities, and could she confirm that the Government will meet urgently with local authority representatives and airport operators to agree a package of central government help?
Passengers, local economies, and of course 2,000 employees face a difficult time ahead. Can the Minister confirm what engagement the Government have had with Unite and BALPA today and give an undertaking that the Government will play a full role, alongside Unite and BALPA, to help Flybe workers find new jobs?
The talk of HS2, bus and cycle lanes in the Statement sounds woefully misplaced in this context. That will not help Cardiff and the south-west, and they certainly will not help Belfast. The words
“The Government are well prepared”
for the impact sound hollow today, as an airline folds due to a slight downturn in bookings. The impact on consumer confidence, on the likelihood of passengers and businesses continuing to book flights, and on their concerns about cancellations and loss of money must not be underestimated. Will the Government agree to engage with the relevant user and consumer groups, so they can also play their part in in rebuilding consumer trust and ensuring that passengers are treated fairly?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement, which comes at a time of huge concern in the aviation industry. When Flybe first publicly hit problems a couple of months ago, the Government wildly overpromised the help that was on offer, or potentially on offer. It turns out that virtually none of that help was possible, partly because of the concern in the rest of the aviation industry about fair competition but also because the Government, for one reason or another, have not been able to offer money on reasonable terms to the company.
All the grand schemes in the world will not help the people who are losing their jobs today or who are being cut off from the regular routes that they use which are important either to their families or to their businesses. In this Statement the Government repeat some of these grand, long-term promises—but, to be fair, that is actually irrelevant at this time.
On competitive market companies that fail, the Statement is really surprising, given the Government’s response couple of months ago. It says:
“It is not the role of government to prop them up.”
But two months ago, the Government were offering assistance that effectively was promising to do that. Shape shifting will not help the market. What help, if any, did the Government, in the end, provide to Flybe? Was Flybe able to defer the payment of any taxes, or was that not possible?
Beyond the concerns for Flybe employees and the passengers who have paid money for flights, amply outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, there will be a very serious knock-on effect at smaller regional airports in the UK. Some of those airports could also find they cannot continue operating. The Statement says:
“Government stands ready to support this sector.”
Exactly how will the Government offer help to this sector? There is a danger that the Government are offering more help that actually cannot be implemented in the end.
The importance of Flybe has been overwhelmingly in its routes to isolated parts of the UK. Some such routes in the UK have PSO status, but only one is a Flybe route: the Newquay to Gatwick route. France has 22 PSO routes, so, even if we are still working to EU rules on this, I ask the Government to reconsider the number of internal routes that are given PSO status, because that is what will provide long-term certainty and a long-term levelling up for parts of the country that are very isolated.
Coronavirus is undoubtedly a factor in tipping this company over the edge probably slightly earlier than would otherwise have happened, and there will be other cases.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Look at the time. This is a Statement, not a debate.
Baroness Randerson
The two Opposition Front Benches are allowed 10 minutes, and I would like to finish what I am saying. Coronavirus will tip other transport operators into difficulties as well. Especially at this time, when we are expecting a large number of people to need healthcare, I ask the Government what measures they are putting in place to help the transportation of NHS patients from the Isle of Man to hospitals in Liverpool, which is a role that Flybe has undertaken up to now. This is a very specific concern.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank both Front-Benchers for their contributions; a number of very important issues were raised, some of which I can agree with and some of which I probably cannot. I think that all noble Lords will agree that the loss of Flybe is a significant hit to regional connectivity, and we must work with the regions to make sure that people are able to get to where they need to go. I am a little concerned that there seems to be much focus on regional connectivity and just air travel, but there are several ways of travelling from the regions. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned the south-west. The south-west does have trains and does have coaches; there are other ways to travel. The Government are undertaking a review of regional connectivity which will focus on aviation but will cover all modes of transport to understand exactly how the regions can interconnect.
There are two things—this was raised also by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—about connectivity. It is not enough to get connectivity between airports; we must also make sure that there is good access to the airports and the train stations. Of course, this is all top of mind within my department.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned the passengers who have booked flights, and whether they will be able to get their money back. This is a private sector company, and it concerns all of us that some people may not have adequate protection. This will once again highlight, as other failures have in the past, the importance of having insurance. Some passengers will have ATOL cover. Others who have paid by credit card may be able to get their money back under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act. Some passengers may be able to claim a refund by applying for chargeback, if they paid by debit card. Passengers can seek additional information and advice from Citizens Advice or Advice Direct Scotland.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned CAA resources; the CAA outlines the adequacy of its resources every year in its annual report. It is working within its current resource envelope in order to staff the failure of Flybe, and we are not aware that it has any concerns.
The Government are, of course, working very closely with all of the airports. A number of airports were heavily reliant on Flybe flights. We are working very closely; my colleague the Aviation Minister has already called the airlines and the airports this morning, and that engagement will continue. Later today, she will be calling key figures, either metro mayors or local authorities, where appropriate.
In terms of protections for employees, both of Flybe and of the different airports, the DWP does stand ready to offer support. It has been in touch with both BALPA and Unite already today and is working with them.
One of the points from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made me feel that she is very much in favour of aviation. However, Labour wants to include a frequent flyer levy, which would have a significant damaging impact on aviation. Should Labour wish to retain its goal of net zero by 2030, I think it was the GMB that said that that would mean one flight every five years for people. So I am not entirely sure that Labour can be the great champion of aviation; should it ever come to power it would indeed decimate it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned PSOs. Those will be really important going forward and will be one of the key levers in the way we will be able to improve connectivity. We are looking at all options for expanding the scope of PSO policy. As we leave the European Union, the different rules we will be able to put in place will certainly be hugely beneficial to various places. On her specific question on transport from the Isle of Man to Liverpool, I will need to write forthwith.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, there will be plenty of time for Back-Bench questions, and I urge noble Lords to keep them short.
Lord Kilclooney
My Lords, the Minister referred to alternative bus and rail routes. As has already been mentioned, 90% of the flights from Belfast City Airport are by Flybe. Northern Ireland has no bridge or canal link with Britain. Will the Minister bring to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s attention before the Budget the need to abandon air passenger duty on flights from Northern Ireland?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. Air passenger duty is under review by Her Majesty’s Treasury, as indeed are all taxes. The Conservative manifesto set out our commitment to consider the devolution of short-haul APD in Northern Ireland. We will work with the restored Executive to consider any proposals submitted for the devolution of short-haul APD. This builds on our recent call for evidence and our work with a technical working group that we have established to look into the operational and possible legal challenges around the devolution of short-haul APD.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, our deep concern in Northern Ireland is very much Belfast City Airport. The company operates 14 scheduled flights out of Belfast, carrying 80% of all scheduled passengers out of Belfast and 1.6 million passengers from Belfast to destinations across the United Kingdom. This is very serious economically for Belfast City Airport and will be a devastating blow. Do the Government have any plans to engage with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the First Minister or the Economy Minister in the Assembly to try to find alternative operators for the routes that have all now been abandoned?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The Government are working extremely hard to find replacement operators for as many routes as possible. We are confident and have already this morning had proactive responses from various airlines about picking up routes. Returning to the question of the Isle of Man, which is serviced by British Airways and easyJet at the moment, the Isle of Man Department of Infrastructure is looking at contingency plans to replace the medical link previously provided by Flybe.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, several years ago the Government agreed a PSO for the service between Newquay and London, as other noble Lords have said. That means guaranteeing four flights a day, in my book. What will the Government do now to find another operator? How long will that take? It is easy to say that there is a train and a bus—you can even cycle, I suppose—but the Government agreed this PSO because they thought it necessary.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I hear completely what the noble Lord is saying. The route from Newquay to London is clearly incredibly important, which is why it has attracted a PSO, so we are looking at a replacement operator. We hope one will be able to step up. The local authority can select a new provider for seven months, then re-tender.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, having once worked as a pilot flying domestic services out of Southampton, among other places, I am pretty sensitive to what has happened. Can my noble friend say what public funds have so far been made available to Flybe? Will they be recovered?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My noble friend raises an interesting point, because there is a lot of misconception around what happened in January and what public funds were or were not made available. The conversation in January focused on a number of commitments from the Government, which included a review of air passenger duty, the review of regional services and a time-to-pay agreement, which any business can enter into with HMRC to get through a short-term cash-flow difficulty. Not a single penny of taxpayers’ money was given to Flybe. In return for looking at those things, the share- holders put in additional cash to get Flybe through its operational difficulties. It is those same shareholders who have now concluded that Flybe has no long-term future.
Lord Empey
My Lords, if the normal public service obligation process is used, it will take a long time. Will the Minister consider a short-term use of a PSO to keep some of the critical routes open while negotiations to get long-term operators continue? We have a perfect storm whereby all airlines are suffering because of the virus and because this is a very difficult time of year for them. As has been pointed out, in Belfast between 80% and 90% of the flights are Flybe. There are some critical routes, and we have no alternatives. I appeal to the Minister to bring in a special type of PSO in the short term to keep some of these key routes going while negotiations continue, because many of them will profitable. Also, would she be prepared to meet with me and my colleagues as soon as possible to discuss this?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Lord raises an interesting point about PSOs. The Government are looking at all options to restore as many routes as possible. We must also be mindful that wherever we restore routes, we must do so within the law as it stands regarding PSOs.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that 27% of flights from Cardiff Airport are operated by Flybe, and that 340,000 passengers a year use it to fly from Cardiff to European destinations? Will the Government arrange urgent discussions not only with other air operators and all train operators but with the devolved Governments to discuss the short-term crisis facing them and how to achieve a longer-term strategic settlement that addresses the economic implications for regional economies?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. My colleague, the Aviation Minister, will be making calls this afternoon to the devolved Administrations and many other stakeholders to ensure that this is the start of a long-term discussion about the importance of air connectivity to the regions.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, as a regular user of Flybe services from Belfast over many years, I too am deeply saddened by and concerned about today’s announcement. The impact on Northern Ireland could be huge. I welcome the Minister’s reference to the commitment in the Conservative Northern Ireland manifesto to looking at devolving short-haul air passenger duty to the Northern Ireland Executive. In view of today’s sad announcement, and the fact that we now have an Executive up and running, will the Minister commit to taking this forward as a matter of urgency?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank my noble friend for his comment. I believe that this work is already under way.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, how will Flybe’s collapse impact on Skybus and its flights across the Scilly Isles? Does this make it even more important that we push for the ferry that should be running between the island and the mainland?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am not aware of any impact on Skybus, although I am not 100% sure about that. The Isles of Scilly are a very important destination for a number of Members of your Lordships’ House, and a ferry is certainly a very good way of getting there.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, following on from the point made about passenger duty, I am sure that the Minister appreciates that that is a devolved matter so far as Scotland is concerned. Will there be discussions with the Scottish Government on this matter? It is quite important that a solution be found which covers the whole of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble and learned Lord is quite right: the Scottish Government have taken a slightly different approach to passenger duty from the UK Government. Discussions with the devolved Administration will be under way this afternoon, and they will no doubt include the future of air passenger duty, but it is for Scotland to decide how they wish to charge it.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the discussion to date has, necessarily, been a sticking-plaster type of discussion; and noble Lords have raised other airports and operators that may in future require such sticking-plaster announcements. Can the Minister confirm that some sensitivity analysis is under way to identify where problems could arise in future? Does she agree that, in the long run, the way to deal with such issues is to have a proper strategic transport plan across the country?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, the aviation industry is a highly competitive market, and obviously, private companies operate in it. None the less, the noble Lord makes an important point about the Government’s insight into the financial future and sustainability of airlines. I am sure that he will be pleased to hear that the CAA already undertakes that role. Where potential financial issues are on the horizon, the Government are made aware. Therefore, plans can be put in place.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, may I declare an interest, in that my wife and I are due to fly with Flybe to Bergerac for Easter? I am particularly concerned about that. I am grateful for the Minister’s helpful advice on seeking compensation but my question is about the Flybe shareholders. My understanding is that Virgin is a major shareholder and that the plan was for it to operate these services as Virgin Connect. Why has Virgin not been involved? Why is it not ready to take over the services? Our understanding is that Virgin is a major aviation company in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Lord is right. Virgin is a minority shareholder in Flybe, with a 30% stake. My understanding is the same as his—that Flybe was due to be rebranded as Virgin Connect. I think that overnight, the shareholders reached an agreement that there was no long-term future for Flybe as it stood, so they decided to pull the plug and make it insolvent. From now on, therefore, the winding-up process will be in the hands of the insolvency practitioner, using the usual well-established processes of insolvency. On the other point, I am sorry to hear that the noble Lord’s tickets to Bergerac may not be valid, but I am sure that he will receive compensation somehow.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for this timely Statement and for the detail and comfort that she can offer at this time. Can she underline some important information for passengers using Teesside International Airport, who may be concerned about this? The Tees Valley mayor, Ben Houchen, has done a tremendous job in getting that airport up and going. Flybe is a franchise partner of Eastern Airways, but Eastern Airways is independent. It operates its own aircraft and has its own crew, and it is completely unaffected by this announcement. Mayor Ben Houchen put out this statement today:
“Eastern is completely independent of Flybe and as a result passengers using Teesside Airport will not experience any disruption as a result of the anticipated devastating news for Flybe. I want to stress that flights will continue as normal and can continue to be booked through Eastern’s own booking system.”
Will my noble friend underline that important message?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My noble friend is absolutely right. We cannot be clear enough that this affects only Flybe, and that at many airports, Flybe makes up only a small number of the flights. At Teesside, I believe that Flybe passengers account for only 14% of passengers, so that airport remains very much open for business, and there are some excellent airlines operating out of it. Passengers should therefore continue to fly with confidence. For example, at Leeds Bradford, Flybe accounts for just 5% of passengers. Again, passengers should feel confident in booking with other airlines out of Leeds Bradford—and, indeed, many other regional airports.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, Flybe is not the first notable company to go bust in recent times—one thinks of Carillion—but does the Minister agree that the protection of workers in these circumstances is totally inadequate? Will the forthcoming Employment Bill be an opportunity to enhance and protect their rights in relation to prior consultation on circumstances that might lead to the collapse of a company; to place obligations on the company to provide more by way of retraining and assistance with finding alternative employments; and to enhance redundancy pay? One sympathises with the passengers in this case and the customers of other companies, but it is the workers who, I understand, heard of their loss of jobs—their loss of careers in some cases—on the radio, as we did, this morning.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
On the issue of communications with employees, hearing it on the radio is less than ideal. I am sure it is not how any noble Lord would treat any of their employees. It is not acceptable and there are better ways of keeping employees up to date with what is going on. I cannot agree with the noble Lord that all is doom and gloom for employees and that everything must be improved. As I set out in the opening Statement, there are many routes that employees can now take. The Government stand ready to help, working alongside the unions, and the Insolvency Service is able to make payments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
To pursue the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on routes and the fact that Virgin is a major shareholder of Flybe, what will happen to Flybe’s profitable routes? Can my noble friend assure the House that there will be a proper procedure to make sure that they are sold to the highest bidder, so to speak? I raised the question of PSOs in the earlier Statement: will she make sure that this is dealt with as a matter of urgency?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Aviation services are part of the market economy and we would expect the profitable routes to be taken up by other airlines. As I have mentioned, we have had proactive input from a number of airlines looking to service those routes. I can say no more about PSOs. The Government are looking at both the profitable routes and those that may need support, and at all possible options to get them up and running.
Lord Empey
My Lords, the issue of air passenger duty has been raised. I ask the Minister to consult with her Treasury colleagues about it because, in the event of it being devolved to, say, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the difference in revenue created by the reduction in air passenger duty would automatically come out of the Northern Ireland block grant. As the new Executive are at least £600 million short, that would be a huge challenge. Will she consult with her colleagues in the Treasury, pre-Budget, to make that point? It could be a way of opening things up but it would cost the Northern Ireland Executive an awful lot of money that they do not have at their disposal at the present time.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I will certainly make sure that the Treasury sees them.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
Will my noble friend acknowledge the fact that, often, the slots available to airlines are of more value than the trading conditions? Can she confirm that we will not see here a market for slots, from which a number of airlines will benefit without taking the social responsibilities that will be lost as a result of this failure?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My noble friend makes an important point about the tension between the slots, social responsibility and regional connectivity. The Government will be looking at that issue with keen interest as the Flybe assets go through the insolvency process. As my noble friend will know, slots are subject to an independent system of allocation managed by Airport Coordination Limited, which follows international rules. The Government are alive to what my noble friend is saying.
Lord James of Blackheath (Con)
My Lords, in 1987, I was chairman of Dan-Air in identical circumstances. I had to put in a liquidator if we could not find an immediate solution. The night before, I had dinner with John Major and explained to him the dire effect that this would have on the whole of the Gatwick complex; it was likely to close Gatwick completely as we owed it so much money. He had breakfast the next day with Lord King, and by 4 pm Lord King had bought Dan-Air from me for £1. As a result, nearly all the collateral damage we are talking about here was avoided. The bits that were of great merit and worth keeping, British Airways duly kept and unified. The only logical solution here to avoid the calamity that will follow from the complete closure of Flybe is for it to be taken over immediately by one of our surviving airlines. If instead of paying me £1, somebody has to pay it a bit more to do it, it will be a far better job than putting in a liquidator.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank my noble friend for that little piece of history, but this Government’s view is that it is not our role to prop up a company that clearly has no viable long-term future. If it had a long-term future, another airline would have stepped up to purchase it.
BBC and Public Service Broadcasting
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Norwood Green
That this House takes note of the role of the BBC and public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom’s economy and creative culture.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former BBC governor. I had not realised how popular this debate would be, so I ought to apologise to Back-Bench speakers. I can only offer them the advice of the late and dearly lamented Nicholas Parsons and remind them to speak without hesitation, repetition or deviation.
I left home this morning listening to the dulcet northern tones of my noble friend Lord Bragg, who was in mental combat with three professors on quantum mechanics. The podcast of that programme will be listened to by millions of people all over the world, and that will promote British culture and British values. It is another example of soft power, as it is commonly known.
It is also interesting—I had not realised that my timing was so good—that a new Culture Secretary, Oliver Dowden, has been appointed. I looked with interest at his old quotes. He said:
“The BBC needs to be closer to, and understand the perspectives of, the whole of the United Kingdom and avoid providing a narrow urban outlook.”
I suppose that is a matter of opinion. I have never seen the BBC as doing that, given the range of regional broadcasters that it has. He went on:
“By this, I don’t just mean getting authentic and diverse voices on and off the screen—although … this is important … But also making sure there is genuine diversity of thought and experience.”
He went on to suggest that some people think that Sky and CNN are better news providers and prefer them to the BBC. There are bound to be some people who think that; it is a question of taste. He does at least end on a positive note, which I welcome. He said that the BBC has to find its place in the age of streaming and subscription sites, such as YouTube and Netflix, but he also said that,
“the BBC is an institution to be cherished … We would be crazy to throw it away but it must reflect all of our nation, and all perspectives.”
I certainly agree with that, and I refer to our previous Culture Secretary, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, who said:
“We would be much less informed and inspired as a society if we didn’t have a healthy pluralistic and universally available PSB system.”
That puts it in some kind of perspective.
I shall cite one more quote. It is from a briefing I had from BECTU, a broadcast trade union, and addresses value for money for customers:
“The annual cost of the License Fee is £154.50 per household. This funds all BBC TV output, iPlayer, BBC News, BBC Weather, BBC Radio (as well as other public service broadcasters). It is a unique mix of entertainment, news and information. For comparison a standard Netflix subscription cost £108 per year and only includes access to their streaming service. A digital-only subscription to the Times costs £312 per year. It is impossible to argue that the License Fee does not represent value for money in the modern media market.”
It ends on one interesting little line:
“It is also important to note that the Netflix model is based on a long-term debt of over $12 bn.”
That concentrates the mind a bit.
In introducing this debate, I want to focus on the BBC’s contribution to the cultural and creative economy, as the title of the debate states. I am an avid viewer and listener across a range of channels, including Netflix, and I recognise that we live in a global multimedia world. I cannot help reflecting that when public service broadcasting began, Lord Reith, the first director-general, coined what I believe to be one of the best ever mission statements. He said that the role of the BBC was to “inform, educate and entertain”. Those criteria are still relevant to public service broadcasters in today’s multimedia environment.
To put creative industries in context, they contribute some £100.5 billion to the UK economy, and public service broadcasters make an enormous contribution to the industry. The BBC is the biggest single investor in the UK creative industries. It contributes hundreds of millions of pounds to the wider sector. Every £1 spent on the BBC through the licence fee produces £2 in value through jobs, economic opportunities and expenditure. The Impact of a Change in the BBC’s Licence Fee Revenue report, produced by PwC in 2015, found that every £1 increase in licence fee revenue would generate about 60p of extra economic value. Conversely, a 25% decrease in the licence fee over five years would slash GDP by £630 million and lead to 32,000 job losses.
BBC research and development alone delivers significant value to the creative community, the wider industry and the UK economy. Every £1 spent by the BBC on research and development during the last charter delivered a return of at least £5 to £9 to the UK. That equates to a total economic benefit of between £827 million and £1.4 billion in the period 2007 to 2016.
The licence fee underpins not only the BBC but the competitive environment that supports the success of UK broadcasting. When the BBC performs well, commercial broadcasters raise their game to compete for audiences, which challenges the BBC to aim higher. In other words, it is a positive feedback loop, not a zero-sum game.
BBC investment over many decades has helped to develop significant creative economies across the UK. It has major production centres in Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Salford, Bristol, Birmingham and London, so it is not true to say that it is just urban—although those are urban centres. Its range is far and wide, and over 50% of the BBC’s employee and network television spend is outside London. This investment has driven not just BBC creativity but significant hubs of independent production. For example, Bristol has become an international hub for natural history production, following decades of BBC investment in its Natural History Unit, and Wales is home to BBC hits such as “Doctor Who” and “His Dark Materials”.
The BBC has announced further plans to support small and emerging independents across the UK. It already commissions significantly more small producers and out-of-London producers than any other broadcaster, and these new measures will boost the strength of UK production across the country. The measures will include a £1 million small independent fund to support small and emerging companies; bespoke deals such as tailored cash flow terms, shared risk arrangements and help securing third-party funding; and tailored events to build stronger connections between emerging small companies and the BBC. Public service broadcasters employ over 500 trained journalists, and sponsor journalists for local media, and a significant number of apprentices.
On the apprenticeship front, it was interesting to see that the BBC spent over £7 million in 2017, rising to £12.7 million in 2018, on entry-level schemes and apprenticeships. It has also ring-fenced work experience placements for unemployed young people via Jobcentre Plus, and visited over 1,000 schools through the BBC Young Reporter project to help develop media literacy skills and inspire the next generation of journalists, no matter what their background, in order to give everyone with the potential to succeed the opportunity to work in the industry, and not just in the BBC. It has also launched a pre-joiner programme, Get In To Media, developed with support from the Sutton Trust and MyKindaFuture.
The next generation of young journalists, producers and directors will make a vital contribution to the creative economy. Interestingly, the BBC has banned unpaid internships, and all the work experience placements are capped at two weeks, except in rare circumstances. Therefore, a huge contribution to the creative economy environment is made not just by the BBC but by all other public service broadcasters.
In a speech by the chief executive of ITV to the APPG, she said:
“The name will need to change because”
public service broadcasting
“won’t just be about broadcasting in future.”
That is absolutely true. We are moving into an era of streaming as well as broadcasting—in fact, we are not moving into it; we are already there. She continued:
“But the job of making programmes with a public purpose, available to everyone, is essential in the 21st Century. A gold standard of trusted national and local journalism amidst the anarchy of fake news.”
That is a very pertinent comment.
I want to talk about the future. We are now in a post-Brexit environment where our flourishing creative industries will make an even more vital contribution to the UK economy. Public service broadcasters, which are the envy of the world, do much to promote UK culture and values, as I have already said. The current arrangement with the licence fee, and with advertising supporting the other public service broadcast channels, is a delicate balance. As I explored earlier, changing the BBC to a subscription service or making it dependent on advertising will undermine public service broadcasting.
I hope that in replying the Minister will let us know the Government’s intentions. Do they recognise the importance of public service broadcasting to the creative economy? I—and, I think, many others—dispute the idea that changing from the licence fee will be an easily achieved objective. I, along with many others, believe that, no matter what threats might emanate from the Government, there will be a fight to preserve the independence of this vital asset, which is admired by practically every other country around the world as an independent—I stress that word—public service broadcaster, and I believe that everybody in this Chamber will join in that fight to preserve the vital nature of public service broadcasting.
I have tried to restrict my contribution to this debate in the hope that a few more minutes might be available to others, but I end by quoting the words of one of my favourite songwriters, Joni Mitchell, who said that
“you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone”.
I hope that we never see the day when the BBC and public service broadcasting in the way we know it today—independent, wide-ranging and serving the needs of our nation—ever disappears.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Labour Party for using one of its slots for this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Young, for the very constructive way in which he opened it. I am reminded of a phrase that has gone down the ages: “We are the masters now.” The noble Lord, Lord Hennessey, will be able to tell us whether Hartley Shawcross actually said that, but there has always been a kind of opprobrium of a new Government that comes in with a sense of triumphalism and score-settling. I must say, the way that this Government have launched themselves on to the BBC is very worrying indeed. It is worth remembering that the BBC is protected by the royal charter from the day-to-day vindictiveness and intimidation of a Government.
Looking for support in the battle ahead, I am reminded from past debates that the Conservatives have a proud record on public service broadcasting. A Conservative Government established the BBC as a public body, protected and underpinned by the royal charter. A Conservative Government introduced commercial television on a regional basis, giving it regional strengths, which ITV retains today—I still think of myself as coming from “Granada-land”—and the late Lord Whitelaw was the political inspiration behind Channel 4, with its reputation for risk and non-conformity. This record should not be cast aside lightly in abeyance to those who see the BBC as the mortal enemy. The licence fee is probably the least bad way of financing the BBC and should be protected from populist ways to weaken it. It should not be used as a bran tub from which Governments can pluck popular goodies at will.
What is now under way is a fight to preserve the unique benefits of a public service ecology, which was preserved and promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Young. It is a debate that should be conducted sensibly and with due confidence from the public that it is national, not political, ends that are being followed. Our debate would also be better informed if those national newspapers running stories hostile to the BBC or to other public service broadcasters were automatically to spell out for their readers the commercial benefits to their proprietors of any particular course of action.
In his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Young, spelled out the various ways in which the BBC has contributed to our national life for over a century. It has been the source that everybody turns to for the news when there is a crisis. I would like to see the alleged research that shows that people look to Sky or to CNN, good as they are. When the going gets tough, the tough turns to the BBC. Those values that the BBC has embodied for almost a century have been supported by Governments of all parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, warned us so well, once lost, those values brought by the BBC to our national life will never be recovered. If we lose them, Fox News, here we come.
Lord Gilbert of Panteg (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this timely debate and congratulate the Labour Party on securing it and the noble Lord, Lord Young, on opening it so comprehensively. It is also a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whose contribution was typically passionate and informed.
I am privileged to chair your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Select Committee. We recently published a report on the future of PSBs; in the time available, I will highlight only a few of our conclusions. Last year, as chair of the committee, I attended the Royal Television Society Cambridge conference as a guest of ITV and attended a Hyde Park concert as an audience member and guest of the BBC. The noble Lord, Lord Young, is right to highlight the economic as well as the creative role of PSBs and the BBC in particular. Many noble Lords who are speaking today have made notable contributions to our nation’s creative life, and I look forward to hearing from them. I will dwell not on the huge cultural contributions of PSBs but on their critical and economic role.
Our creative industries are huge, growing and world-class. We have all seen the superlatives. They are central to our economy and will provide the jobs of the future. In a post-AI world, creativity in all its forms will drive future job growth and provide satisfying and fulfilling careers for future generations as other professions and skills decline in the age of automation. Right at the heart of our creative sector is the rapidly growing and changing UK film and TV production sector.
When we started taking evidence, I thought that we would produce a report with recommendations on how we might help PSBs simply to survive in this rapidly changing world, in which they would be bound to decline. However, witness after witness, from the SVODs investing so heavily in UK production to independent producers and non-PSB commercial broadcasters, highlighted that it was the mixed ecology that made the UK such an attractive place for them in which to invest and create jobs. So it seemed that the question was not what we could do to help PSBs to survive but how to help them to thrive and continue to play a critical role at the heart of our creative industries, nurturing talent, taking risks and reflecting Britain in all its diversity. To me, that says that these industries must be at the heart of our future industrial strategy and central to our economic policy. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government take that view.
In our report, we said we would miss the PSBs when they had gone and, as I said, we highlighted what needed to be done to ensure that that did not happen. That is not down to the Government alone. The PSBs, most particularly the BBC, have to change and adapt. I agree with the Secretary of State, who said today that diversity is about more than reaching younger and BAME audiences, critical though that is; it is about having fair and broad on-screen representation across all communities and reflecting the views of people outside London. Genuine impartiality is about having genuine diversity of thought and experience.
I pay tribute to the select committee that I chair. It is typical of your Lordships’ House: expert, experienced and diligent. We produced a comprehensive report and I have had only a moment or two to touch on a few of our recommendations. However, I want to touch on the issue of the future funding of the BBC. We looked at the evidence and took the view that the licence fee continues to be the best way to fund the BBC. We found that the BBC should not have been asked, nor should it have agreed, to take on the funding of over-75 free licences. However, while we were critical of the Government, we were also critical of the BBC, which negotiated that settlement, which came as part of a wider package that it welcomed at the time. We felt strongly that the way in which the BBC is funded needs to be open and transparent on all sides. We called for a funding commission. The Government may not agree with that or think that it is the right way forward, but does the Minister agree with Margot James, the then Minister, who said in evidence to the Committee that there was
“clearly a case for greater transparency”?
Does the Minister agree that the right way to have this debate is to start by asking what we as a society want the BBC to do, work out what that will cost and then, and only then, look at how that cost can be met? Does she agree that, while the BBC faces huge challenges and most certainly makes mistakes, it has a vital role in our human lives and our future economy, and that our task is to help it to meet those challenges and to thrive?
Lastly, does the Minister agree that finding someone to fill the inestimable boots of the noble Lord, Lord Hall, whom I thank warmly for his services as director-general, is going to be one tough task, and one that is for the BBC alone?
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, has tabled an important and timely debate. I start with a quote from a recent Radio 4 interview with the media analyst Claire Enders, who said:
“The BBC … has a civic purpose. Netflix does not”.
This is the primary distinguishing characteristic of the BBC, implicit in its original mission statement. The BBC provides a public space for public debate through informing, through education, through the arts and entertainment. Other public broadcasters and the more commercial channels do some of this, but those who believe there should be a more level playing field misunderstand the nature of the relationship between the BBC and other services, including the video-on-demand services. As a purely non-commercial service, the BBC keeps the others honest and has done so for many decades, through being able to focus entirely on the notion of quality and now, globally, on areas other than world news. This is less a marketplace and more a richly productive ecosystem. The Government should not forget the considerable soft power that accrues from the BBC’s place in this ecosystem.
Mistakes are made. I point to a recent one: the Government have taken a leaf straight out of the Trump playbook in effectively no-platforming the public broadcasters, including the “Today” programme. They would rather continue to campaign to stay in power through social media, including Twitter, than debate the issues of the day through broadcasters. This is deeply insulting to the public. In my view, “Today” should have responded immediately by interviewing shadow Secretaries of State and effectively empty-chairing the relevant Ministers. The Government would have changed their tune fairly quickly, but this is a minor quibble in the scheme of things. “Today” will now have Times Radio on its tail, although I am sure that the BBC will rise to this challenge boldly.
“Core values” as a term applied to the BBC makes me uneasy, since it suggests that you can strip back to the core. A diminished BBC would be a blander BBC and make us a considerably poorer country. The BBC echoes the wider values of society because, at its best, it speaks to and for everyone by virtue of it being a public platform. This is true even if it is left to individuals to pay for the licence fee, rather than everyone doing so through their taxes. The BBC’s ethos informs all parts of its output. There is immense value still in a commercial-free zone, including for young children. It is a choice that viewers and listeners ought to have the right to.
I am not certain that the public are properly aware of what the licence fee continues to provide, although I am sure we will hear much of this today. It should be food for thought: a nexus of broadcasting; original programming—although this should be proportionately more, in my view; creative development; events and festivals; orchestras and choirs; and much more. These are aspects of a unique culture which most people will access or be a part of, even if, at a particular time in their lives, they are not always tuning in. A recent poll shows that 79% of the public would like the Government to continue to pay for the over-75s but, if we lost the licence fee or—more to the point—the moneys that the licence fee brings, we would not have this unique and extraordinary service, which continues to be a huge creative force and a force for good in not only this country, but the world.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury
My Lords, the timing of this debate could hardly be better. I also want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his introduction. The Media and Telecoms 2020 & Beyond conference and the Culture Secretary’s contribution to it inevitably inform a lot of what is to be said. I also wondered whether I need to declare an interest, having been the vicar of St Martin-in-the-Fields for 16 years, given that the first religious service ever broadcast came from there, by the BBC, in January 1924. The link continues. I never made much income from it, but it is a significant relationship with considerable affection for the BBC built into it.
The debate has focused on public service and the contribution of the BBC to the economy and creative culture of the country. Other noble Lords can speak much better than I can about the economic and creative culture contribution but, given the Government’s commitment to levelling up, you would think that the contribution of the BBC through Salford and all its local and regional outputs would be a significant part of what is to be considered.
I am sorry this is a bit like a sermon, but I will focus on three words to make my points: “British”, “Broadcasting” and “Corporation”. The Minister is right that the BBC must do more to reflect the country’s
“genuine diversity of thought and experience”,
but the BBC also shapes British identity; it does not just reflect it. It is a really subtle relationship, which goes both ways. In terms of the importance of public service in a country that has grown more secular, as well as more plural, the level of religious illiteracy and the lack of religious grammar is very significant for public service broadcasting.
“Nation shall speak peace unto nation.”
That, of course, is an adaptation of the prophet Micah, and that is where the roots of this lie. You cannot just cut off the institution from the roots that have informed it. We are grateful for the religious broadcasting that takes place, particularly on local radio and Radios 2 and 4 on Sunday mornings, reaching audiences who otherwise would not be reached. This helps to build relationships between faith communities. It is not just a Christian monopoly, because religious broadcasting has developed.
That was about British identity and how Britain has grown and developed. There is also a sense in which broadcasting continues to be significant. It is not just narrowcasting, which happens so much through social media and can be deeply influenced, in ways unseen, from outside. This is in parentheses, for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury to comment on: why do we not have that report on Russian interference in our previous election and referendum processes? That is of huge significance in terms of how easy it is to influence narrowcasting through social media. The BBC does a really good job of broadcasting critical debate that is robust and helps to establish, over time, an element of truth otherwise not there.
Corporations need cherishing. This is about the body, an institution. In our time, we are not good at cherishing institutions and we need to do it in a way that upholds the body of the institution for the sake of the country. This is not one of those bodies that needs to be dealt with by disruption and discontinuity. It needs to be cherished, and the Government need to know that we want the BBC to be safe in their hands.
Lord Puttnam (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for making possible this incredibly timely debate—albeit the Roger Bannister version, as I view it. In the short time available, I hope to remind your Lordships that the current project to undermine public service broadcasting is not new. It is simply the most recent iteration of a decades-long campaign of salami-slicing and intimidation by, I am sad to say, successive Conservative Governments, many of whom have sought to take the wind out of the BBC’s sails and erode the trust it enjoys among the public. It is the now-familiar Putin playbook: promote fear and distrust, and allow the consequences to multiply.
As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has already suggested, there is something rather ironic in the determination shown by Conservative leaders to dismantle an institution of which the party itself should be rightly proud. Perhaps the Prime Minister has forgotten that it was under the leadership of his hero, Winston Churchill, that a Conservative Government passed the Television Act 1954—legislation that protected the position of the BBC while, at the same time, introducing a brilliantly conceived system of regulated competition through a new Independent Television Authority. This system established a nationwide ecology—there is that word again—of public service broadcasting that allowed all aspects of the media to thrive. Crucially, while there was competition for audiences, the BBC/ITV duopoly did not compete for revenue.
The one-nation vision that lay at the heart of policy-making 60 years ago would appear to have evaporated and turned into something rather more sinister. There is no lack of vision in this Government’s policy towards the BBC. The vision is there; it was laid out with paint- by-numbers clarity by the Prime Minister’s principal adviser, Dominic Cummings, in 2004. Writing that year, he called for a campaign to undermine the corporation’s credibility, suggesting that:
“The BBC is a determined propagandist with a coherent ideology.”
To combat this, he argued for the creation of a British version of Fox News. He believed this could be achieved through a
“campaign to end the licence fee”.
Here was a vision that represented a massive departure from Conservatism, certainly as most Members of this House would understand it. Its genesis was that of Trumpian populism, an ideology that treats contempt for institutions as a form of political weaponry and is a long way from the wisdom of Edmund Burke, who once said:
“Rage and frenzy will pull down more in half an hour than prudence, deliberation, and foresight can build up in a hundred years.”
For the past few months I have spent a great deal of my life in the Committee Corridor, chairing a Select Committee looking at the impact of digital technology on democracy. One thing has already emerged with quite frightening clarity: confusion over where to seek verifiable fact. However, thanks largely to the vision of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who I am delighted is in his place, and as recently confirmed by Ofcom, the BBC has emerged as the digital gold standard in the provision of trusted information in an era of fake news. Surely, as we stand on the brink of a global pandemic, that gold standard of trust is more crucial than it has ever been.
This can no longer be about the wilful vengeance of politicians; it is about the very real possibility of saving lives. To paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, speaking in this House just two months ago, trust is the scarcest and most precious political metal we have. Sad to say, I am far from reassured by the Secretary of State’s well-trailed retreat from earlier briefings. I can only repeat my belief that we are watching a well-rehearsed process of intimidation and destabilisation. Hopefully, when she comes to respond to the debate the Minister will unequivocally assure me that I am wrong, because we cannot allow an unremitting vendetta to rob us of the most valuable asset that democracy has at its disposal.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young, on introducing this debate. I must declare an interest: throughout his working life, my father worked for the BBC in a humble administrative capacity, so I was brought up with a filial affection for the corporation—unfortunately, one not reciprocated by it.
My affection persists but does not blind me to the BBC’s faults. Nor do those faults, which I shall discuss, make me want to end the licence fee, either to punish it or to try to remedy those faults, which I do not think it would not do—although I fear that the licence fee may be eroded by technology. The aims of the BBC, as has been said, are to inform, educate and entertain. At its best, it does all those superbly. In the current coronavirus situation, the information role of the BBC has been invaluable. On education, “In Our Time”, presented by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, is always superb; we heard this morning about Paul Dirac. To me, as a physicist, that was wonderful to hear. On entertainment, it produces some unmatched comedies and dramas.
Sadly, however, we should admit—although I think I will be the only person in this debate to do so—that people in the BBC have a certain groupthink on some key issues, notably immigration, climate change and Europe. Instead of informing on those issues, it censors; instead of educating, it seeks to indoctrinate; and instead of entertaining, it seeks to preach. I will give concrete examples from my own experience, not because that experience is important but because I can be sure that the examples are factual rather than vague allegations.
People in the BBC, typical of the metropolitan elites, see migration as a key issue for virtue signalling, as well as it being in their own economic interest to oppose any controls on migration. Invariably, they cite the need for nurses, because insufficient people in this country want to train as nurses, so we have to import them from abroad. That has been sustained by the BBC, but it is untrue. When I appeared on the BBC three years ago and pointed out that 40,000 applicants that year had been turned away from nursing courses in this country, the BBC expressed scorn and subsequently phoned me up to demand that I prove it—clearly intending to challenge me. I was able to prove it in 10 minutes with figures from the Royal College of Nursing and UCAS, but the BBC has never used that information since. As a result, I doubt whether there is a Member in this House who knows that last year, 24,000 applicants for nursing courses in this country were turned away because those courses are still rationed.
The second issue is climate change. I was asked by Quentin Letts to appear on a witty programme, “What’s the Point Of…?”, about the Met Office. They invited the only two members of the Climate Change Committee in the other place who had been scientifically trained, of whom I was one. I explained that, while obviously I believe in the science of global warming—I studied physics at Cambridge—the sensitivity of the climate to a given amount of CO2 is likely to be at the lower end of the spectrum spelled out by the IPCC, rather than the higher end which the Met Office always assumed. To illustrate my point, I pointed out that the Met Office produced a glossy pamphlet in 2004 saying that with its new computer, it could forecast accurately the future warming of the planet and that over the next decade—by 2014—it would have increased by 0.3 degrees. But 2014 had passed and we knew that it had in fact increased by between nothing and a tiny proportion of that amount.
Following this, there was an eruption from all the eco-fascists and within the BBC. The BBC referred itself to the BBC Trust for, in its words, “Giving voice to people like Peter Lilley”. This is the organisation that was proud to give voice to the IRA—but it was anxious not to give voice to me. It then removed the whole programme from the website and published an apology for ever having allowed me to utter this simple truth: the Met Office had got its long-term forecast wrong.
I am sorry if I am overrunning, but I am the only spokesman for the opposition in this debate and it is normal to give the opposition a little more space. The third issue I want to raise is the EU. The debate over the last three years has focused on attempts by remainers to keep the UK in the customs union, rather than just a free-trade association.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but the time limit is four minutes and I am afraid that applies to him.
Lord Lilley
Censorship persists, even in this House—but of course I give way to my noble friend. I shall put my views online. Those who are interested in fact rather than its suppression may read them there.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young for initiating this debate, which is clearly extremely timely. I agree with the many things said from these Benches about the importance of the BBC. However, limited by time I wish to address a single subject, one hinted at by my noble friend Lord Puttnam: the influence of Dominic Cummings on government policy towards the BBC.
In January 2004, with the Tory party languishing in opposition, as director of the think tank the New Frontiers Foundation, Cummings wrote that until the Conservative Party
“realises that … the BBC is a mortal enemy … then it will continue on its current course.”
Six months later, he wrote:
“It is a mistake in general for a Conservative leader to appear on the Today programme unless he is announcing a major new positive proposal … Effort should be diverted from Today to programmes that affect the public … more. Today itself needs to be audited by a proper media monitoring”
enterprise. The following month, he wrote:
“The privileged closed world of the BBC needs to be turned upside down and its very existence should be the subject of a very intense and well-funded campaign that involves bringing out whistleblowers armed with internal memos and taped conversations of meetings.”
Subsequently, after a programme referring to a complaint about the “Today” programme’s coverage of Iraq, he wrote:
“Another reason why the Right should be aiming for the end of the BBC in its current form and the legalisation of TV political advertising.”
In the autumn of that year, again:
“There are three structural things that the Right needs to happen in terms of communications ... the undermining of the BBC’s credibility … the creation of a Fox News equivalent”
and talk shows
“to shift the centre of gravity”
and
“the end of the ban on TV political advertising”.
Later that year—this is still 2004—he wrote that,
“one thing that can be done between now and the election is fire missile after missile at the BBC every time it engages in this sort of reporting”,
and that the right,
“can only prosper in the long-term by undermining the BBC’s reputation for impartiality … and by changing the law on political advertising.”
Since then, a number of anonymously sourced and funded anti-BBC websites and YouTube channels have been set up over the past decade.
Dominic Cummings went on to run the Vote Leave campaign in the 2016 referendum. Since the 2019 election, he has been chief adviser to Prime Minister Boris Johnson in No. 10 Downing Street. Given that the Government have already implemented his recommended policy of refusing to engage with the BBC’s “Today” programme, will the Minister please confirm whether his ongoing agenda for undermining the BBC is now government policy?
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a series producer at Raw TV making content for CNN.
PSBs in the UK are under threat as never before.
“The power of British television has essentially moved”
to Los Angeles. Those were the words of Andy Harries, CEO of the makers of “The Crown”, when he gave evidence to the Communications and Digital Committee, of which I am proud to be a member. It is a series made by Netflix, one of the winners in the new world of subscription giants. American broadcasting channels and platforms are pouring money into UK-made content. It is a boom time for the creative industry in this country, but if we want public service broadcasters that reflect the UK back to itself and concentrate on UK news and current affairs, and defy the labour market by moving creative jobs from London to the regions and nations, we have to fight hard to protect them.
They have all been under attack—especially the BBC—from all sides of the political divide for biased programming and reporting. The Culture Secretary said today that the BBC has a “narrow urban outlook” and is “slow to pick up” on recent trends, implicitly questioning its impartiality. Public service broadcasters are empowered by their impartiality. In a digital world in which almost everything is editorialised and social media creates filter bubbles of content to reinforce users’ political view of the world, we need to emphasise the value of mandated impartiality. It means that public service broadcasters are regulated to be transparent and accountable, a powerful bulwark against the continued polarisation subsuming our political discourse.
I too was very glad that Mr Dowden today said that
“the BBC is an institution to be cherished”.
Yet it has been lambasted by the Government. Its financial security is questioned by significant sources threatening to turn it, or at least parts of it, into a subscription service. PSBs have the new BritBox as a small subscription service for archive and there is even talk in the press of them coming together to create a non-subscription UK PSB platform as a one-stop shop for digital audiences, which would be a very good idea. However, for the PSBs to launch themselves against what will soon be 12 US subscription services in the UK at least will be financial and cultural folly. These US-based giants are global, mostly supported by either massive deficit funding or very generous parent companies that can outspend any home-grown rival.
However, the Government are right to question the BBC’s universal licence fee. It has served the corporation well, but it is decreasingly able to fund the organisation properly. Some 37,000 fewer licences were purchased last year and the forecast is for the reduction to continue. As we approach the licence fee interim settlement talks in 2022, it is a good time to start discussing alternative funding models. I am in favour of a progressive household tax, as there is in Germany. It reflects the differing wealth of households and maintains the universality of the BBC’s funding, which is so crucial in allowing it to commission programmes for underserved audiences. Will this model be considered by the Government in their funding talks with the BBC?
The Government are right to recognise that the future of PSBs is online, but it is becoming ever more difficult for online viewers to discover PSB content on digital platforms. Ofcom, in its recent report on PSB prominence, said that changing viewer behaviour in this new era means that without new regulatory safeguards to maintain the prominence of these channels online, audiences will be lost. This will happen quickly and will be costly to reverse. The Government have said they are committed to these recommendations. The fast- changing market means that it is a matter of urgency that this new legislation is brought before Parliament soon, so when might this happen?
I ask the Minister to fully support UK PSBs. Without them, our world-class broadcasting services will be subsumed by the inexorable growth and world march of US streaming giants.
Lord Bragg (Lab)
My Lords, first I thank my noble friend Lord Young for calling this important debate, and for speaking so well and covering so much ground. It is a starting shot in what will be a long and, regrettably, corrosive ideological battle. I declare an interest: I work as a freelancer for BBC Radio 4.
My greater interest is that, as far back as I can remember, the BBC, one way or another, has entertained, educated and informed me and millions of others through radio and television—and it still does. For almost 100 years, it has been in the grain of our lives—and it still is. The BBC is the sum of its programmes. Its range is incomparable—from the cosmic to the minority to the eccentric—and it is envied globally. Yet it appears that this Government want to thwack—a word straight from the nursery—the BBC. The Tories have had a good record of thwacking over the years. The northern manufacturing industries, which once compared with anything in Germany and France, were thwacked by Mrs Thatcher. How else could an island that began shipbuilding in the time of Alfred the Great have totally lost its shipbuilding traditions? Local government —the proud continuation of ancient and independent regions—has also been thwacked, and on it goes. The BBC needs to be redirected because of the new television armadas storming across from America—aided and cheered on by Dominic Cummings —elegantly eviscerated by my noble friend Lord Puttnam and scorched by my noble friend Lady Bakewell.
The BBC licence fee should be examined, but the best way is to reform, not dismantle, it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the licence fee, so far, is the least bad method of doing that. A means test, one way or another, might work—perhaps there are other ways—so I agree with the noble Lord on that one. The declared policy of sending a wrecking ball through an organisation that has taken almost a hundred years to evolve and is now fine-tuned to every class, age group, creed and niche in this country is childish. The BBC is deeply intermixed and intermeshed with our culture. For many people, it is our culture, so why tear it apart? Is this the best we can do? It is depressing that the Conservatives do not understand the monetisation of the big American networks—with their many billions of dollars of debt—which are very limited in their programme spectrum and, as far as this country is concerned, are a model from hell. We do things differently here. Many Americans believe that they should learn from us, rather than we from them, in the matter of range, reach and depth of broadcasting.
Post Brexit, we have to build a new country. We have strengths in the City, which need to be affirmed, but our three modern strengths—our universities, culture and media—are all accelerating employers, capable of being even bigger earners and deeply influential for this country’s good. The BBC is key to all of these—for instance, almost two million people work in the media. It has grown rapidly since the 1940s and outstrips most of the traditional industries. There is no reason why those two million should not turn into three or four million, providing skilled, niche jobs globally and in demand. The BBC is the core of this development. We could become a media island, rivalling Silicon Valley.
Link this with the strength of our universities. English universities are rated as the top universities in the world—not least the Open University—and their research departments are growing at pace. We then have the widely praised strength of the arts, in which the BBC is a huge player. This trilogy—the media, universities and the arts—could rise post Brexit, but not if we fail to see the profound, interwoven basic structures at work. The BBC is crucial to this.
What sort of country do we want to be? That is the question. The BBC is key to a transformation that will be sorely needed, not only in itself but in what it feeds and drives. Above all, it stands for and tells us who we are. That cohesive self-knowledge is increasingly necessary and energising in what is a fractured time. People in this country will march for the BBC because they know that, since the beginning, it has served them well in a democratic and equal way. For almost 100 years, they have paid for it with very little complaint. It is a public service; it belongs to them and we cannot let them down.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Bragg, who has enormous authority in this area. I hope and expect that this will be the first of many debates when we discuss again the new threats to public broadcasting, which, like my noble friend Lord Bragg and other noble Lords, I regard as one of the central pillars of Britain’s unique cultural life.
In my brief contribution, I will make two points from personal experience. First, I declare an interest, albeit an historical one. In my pretty varied and rather disjointed working life, my longest and most fulfilling employment was with the BBC. For over two decades, I was a broadcast producer and journalist trying to achieve the very high standards that the corporation demanded. Those high standards of factual accuracy, objective assessment of controversial issues and rational analysis have always been bedrock requirements in the corporation. I was also proud to be part of an organisation that has been seen as a flag carrier for Britain, recognised and respected throughout the world.
However, my professional and fundamental belief in public service broadcasting is not simply the loyalty of an ex-employee. Most importantly, it is based in international broadcasting experience, specifically in the various times I have lived and worked in the United States. The vivid contrast between what the audience experiences on this side of the Atlantic compared with the other is certainly not about the respective qualities of the programme-makers. Rather, it is about what I describe as the necessarily “breathless” nature of American programming, driven by the intensely competitive environment of a profit-based system.
I have just returned from spending several weeks in the United States, and can easily illustrate this point with a very current example: the comparative coverage of the alarming coronavirus, which to me encapsulates the advantages of our public broadcasting system. From the start of the Chinese epidemic, the rich American networks poured resources into their coverage, as they always do. Every evening, the nightly news includes correspondents following the story all over the globe. However, no report lasts longer than a hurried 30 seconds before returning to New York and another lengthy commercial break. The medical experts are allowed perhaps a minute to explain a complex issue, and when Vice-President Pence assumed government responsibility for the crisis, he simply appeared in a one-sentence clip from a Washington media conference. None of this has provided consistent, detailed information to help the anxious public. President Trump has merely contributed a Twitter blitz, blaming the Democratic Party for creating health hysteria. At the same time, the President has announced budget proposals to cut funding to the valiant but tiny public broadcast sector there to zero—zero—over the next three years.
In stark contrast, in this country, your Lordships will have seen and heard special programmes on the coronavirus from all the PBS networks. There have been lengthy, informative interviews with health experts and scientists, and Ministers have been accessible and open—even breaking the No. 10 omertà to appear on the “Today” programme.
Once again, at a difficult and potentially dangerous time, the BBC is the primary source for responsible news and critical information. We are experiencing public service broadcasting at its very best. It is hard to imagine any British Government, however ideologically driven, choosing this time to undermine such an extraordinarily valuable asset. Let us hope that the extremists recognise this before it is too late.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Young on securing this debate at such an important time. It is interesting to look around the House to see which Benches are busiest. I suspect that a lot of noble Lords on the other side of the House have not sought to come in because they agree with the position that is adopted by this debate. My noble friend Lord Puttnam made a powerful speech that sums up, more eloquently than I could, my view of where we are in this debate about the BBC. This is a fundamental issue about the nature of British culture and the British people.
I speak as a Scot who once worked for the BBC: I did not last very long, because it was in the days of received pronunciation and, as your Lordships may have noticed, I do not have received pronunciation. However, it was one of the proudest experiences of my life, because I learned that the BBC is the gold standard, admired around the world.
I want to say a little about the World Service, because it is one of this country’s most effective tools of public diplomacy, and it gets into places that no one else can reach. It is always a symbol of how useful it is that dictators the world over try to find ways to block the World Service, or indeed the BBC in general. It has already been cut but it is still very good indeed, and it should be treasured. On the issue of decriminalising the licence fee, which will cost £200 million, I worry that the bean-counters will look again at the BBC World Service.
I will spend a little time on a much more parochial issue, perhaps in your Lordships’ view, although I see it as integral to the culture of the United Kingdom. The Culture Secretary is today talking about the need for diversity in the BBC and the need to be less urban. Perhaps I can politely suggest to him that he needs to get out more. One need only look at some of the broadcasting in Scotland: at BBC Alba, the Gaelic channel, and BBC Radio nan Gàidheal, a Gaelic channel. I suspect that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, is the only Gaelic speaker in the House. Gaelic is spoken by a small number of people but it is a valuable culture. When Gaelic broadcasting took off, the need to make programmes gave a huge boost to the creative industries in Scotland. Programmes were made and people were taught skills, and, as a consequence of that, the creative broadcasting sector has grown. We now have a very useful partnership between BBC Scotland and Screen Scotland to make movies in Scotland; a lot of it is based on the BBC and Channel 4—another public sector broadcaster—having capability in Scotland. Diversity comes in many different forms, and that kind of diversity matters. To someone like me—a Scot who is proud to be British—one of the best examples is the British Broadcasting Corporation.
In various guises in my past, I have complained about bias in the BBC. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, complains about bias in the BBC. The SNP had hundreds of people outside the BBC studios during the referendum campaign, complaining about bias in the BBC. I am sure that the Lib Dems have done it as well at some point. If we are all complaining, it must be getting something right. If we are all unhappy about bias, something must be working. We have a great opportunity to take the BBC into its next century. Let us not be myopic; let us not see Fox News as our ambition; let us be proud of what we have got. We are not good at doing that—this is a chance to do it.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the Members’ register of interests and declare that I am a board member of the BBC and work as a freelancer, mostly in sport. I will extend this debate on creative culture to sport and elite women’s sport, and want to take a short time to describe the impact that sport has had on my life.
Watching the London Marathon in 1981 gave me the opportunity to think that somebody like me could do wheelchair racing. In 1990, when the BBC took a brave decision to put Helen Rollason on “Grandstand”, as its first female presenter, that was a special moment. The public debate was, “How dare they allow a woman to be on television, talking about sport?”—because obviously none of us know anything about it. She was incredible; she changed the dialogue around women’s sport and the Paralympics, pushing hard to move away from the very patronising coverage that we had experienced beforehand. That had a huge impact on my life.
Last year, BBC Sport set out to try to “change the game”. The ambition was pretty simple: to make a huge commitment to women’s sport. While in 2019, it accounted for only 3% of UK TV sports hours, the BBC delivered 33% of sports viewing figures and is the most popular destination for sports fans in the UK across all platforms. It is amazing to think that the continual investment in showing women’s games is changing the conversation. I am glad to say that I do not often have to have the conversation any more about the fact that “Women don’t play football like men”. No, they do not, and that is why it is exciting; it is about giving young women the opportunity to see others.
Having the Women’s FA Cup final, the Women’s Football World Cup final, and the Netball World Cup on the television changes the conversation. In a changing world that is not easy, when sports rights can be expensive and there are funding limitations. Some 45 million people watched, listened or read about Change the Game, and it has 30 million followers on social media; 11 million people watched the TV coverage of the Netball World Cup.
The Women’s Sport Trust did some research during the summer looking at the proportion and prominence of women’s sport stories put out by different media companies. Of the top 10 stories on the BBC Sport homepage each day, 46% featured women’s sports. If we look at the World Cup, 28 million TV viewers tuned in, with 11 million watching the semi-final between England and the USA. I am very proud to say that that made it the most watched sporting event of the year, bigger than the likes of the Rugby World Cup, Wimbledon and the Six Nations. It has been proved, again and again, that people want to watch women’s sport.
The FA has stated that from September onwards, there were more than 850,000 committed participants playing 11-a-side, or small-sided football competitively, with a retention rate of 23% among existing adult female participants. That is a direct impact of being able to see women’s sport on television. There is also more money flowing into the women’s game because of this. Barclays paid £10 million to sponsor the Women’s Super League—I never thought I would see that happen—SSE sponsors the Women’s FA Cup, and Gatorade extended its global sponsorship of Manchester City to cover the women’s team.
We should never underestimate the impact on young women of being able to see other women play sport at elite level.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the initiative of my noble friend Lord Young of Norwood Green in bringing this debate to the House. Now is the time for the many friends and admirers of the BBC to get into campaign mode, not just to save it from the attacks it has been experiencing, but to press for its expansion and development in order to put it on the best possible footing to face the future.
The UK does not have many national institutions that command widespread international regard and respect. The BBC does command that respect and also provides some much-needed glue for the relationships of the four nations of the UK. The concept of Britishness has diminished as Great British-labelled companies have shrunk or disappeared. Even BT and BA prefer to downplay their full names. The BBC and the NHS remain proud and strong flagships of the best of Britain, shaping as well as reflecting the nation. The BBC in particular, as others have said, is regarded as the gold standard, setting a very high bar for the rest, including ITV and Sky. But the BBC has powerful enemies, and they are mobilising. The enemies are not the public, of whom 40 million use the BBC every day; they are not the young audience, 76% of whom support the BBC’s mission; they are not the regions, where 50% of the BBC is now based; and they are not the many who regard the BBC as the most trusted source of news and the enemy of fake news.
The enemies, understandably, include rival media organisations, but they now include many in the Conservative Party and Government, who regard the BBC as being full of metropolitan lefties. This has led them to engage in a campaign against the licence fee and to the childish boycott of the “Today” programme. For the sake of fairness, I must say that the critics include some on the left who regard the BBC as a timid creature of the establishment—witness the unpleasant and disgraceful reception that Laura Kuenssberg has had to endure at times. My admiration for the BBC does not blind me to its weaknesses; the muddle on equal pay has been morale-sapping. More strategically, the competition now comes from deep-pocketed rivals, mainly from the United States, and the trend towards social media use—streaming and watching programmes at convenient times. This is a major challenge. However, the BBC can rise to these challenges. It has risen to previous ones and I am confident it can do so again.
Let us not assume that all is well on the other side of the Atlantic. As has been mentioned, Netflix has a long-term debt of $12 billion. So instead of sniping and weakening the BBC, now is the time to strengthen it and public sector broadcasting in general. For me, this means keeping the licence fee, enforcing its collection and finding an alternative source of funding TV licences for the elderly. Public sector broadcasting is a jewel in the UK’s crown—fight off its enemies and get behind a re-energised and strengthened BBC.
